Linking research, capacity building, and policy dialogue in support of informal irrigation in urban West Africa

IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE

Irrig. and Drain. 57: 268–278 (2008)

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/ird.430

LINKING RESEARCH, CAPACITY BUILDING, AND POLICY DIALOGUE INSUPPORT OF INFORMAL IRRIGATION IN URBAN WEST AFRICAy

PAY DRECHSEL1, OLUFUNKE O. COFIE,1,2*, RENE VAN VEENHUIZEN2,3 AND THEOPHILUS O. LARBI1,2

1International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Africa Office, Accra, Ghana2RUAF Foundation (International Network of Resource Centres on Urban Agriculture and Food Security), c/o ETC, Leusden, The Netherlands

3ETC Foundation, Leusden, The Netherlands

ABSTRACT

Informal irrigation is receiving increasing attention in West Africa. In particular, irrigated urban and peri-urban

agriculture (UPA) is thriving with significant benefits for farmers and the urban populations, though it is often

handicapped by water pollution which threatens public health and prevents authorities from appreciating its

advantages. To integrate UPA in sustainable urban development, a multi-stakeholder (MS) process has been

implemented since 2005 in a stepwise approach in six West African cities. Accra, Ghana, was the first Anglophone

city where the MS process tried to facilitate strategic partnerships for an improved research-policy dialogue. The

process was supported by capacity building of local stakeholders, e.g. in participatory processes management,

action planning and research, and monitoring and evaluation. These activities facilitated the official recognition of

the role and benefits of UPA in Ghana in various ways. An internal lesson learnt was that there are many reasons

why local partners might not give every project the expected priority and that related capacity-building efforts

might consequently not provide the expected incentive for partner commitment. Moreover, flexibility is required to

link research, capacity building and policy dialogue through an MS process as its dynamic can vary from city to city

and thus cannot follow set theoretical standards. Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

key words: multi-stakeholder processes; informal irrigation; urban agriculture; policy formulation; capacity building; Ghana

Received 8 March 2008; Revised 15 March 2008; Accepted 15 March 2008

RESUME

L’irrigation informelle recoit une attention croissante en Afrique de l’Ouest. En particulier l’agriculture irriguee

urbaine et periurbaine (UPA) est en plein essor avec des avantages considerables pour les agriculteurs et les

populations urbaines, mais elle est souvent handicapee par la pollution de l’eau qui menace la sante publique et

empeche les autorites d’apprecier ses avantages. Pour integrer l’UPA dans le developpement urbain durable, un

processus participatif multi-acteur est mis en œuvre depuis 2005 dans une approche par etapes dans six villes

d’Afrique de l’Ouest. Accra au Ghana a ete la premiere ville anglophone ou le processus a essaye de faciliter des

partenariats strategiques en vue d’un meilleur dialogue entre recherche et politiques publiques. Le processus a ete

soutenu par la formation des acteurs locaux notamment en gestion des processus participatifs, planification et

recherche, ainsi que suivi et evaluation. Ces activites ont facilite la reconnaissance officielle du role et des avantages

de l’UPA au Ghana de diverses facons. On a compris qu’il existe de nombreuses raisons pour lesquelles les

partenaires locaux pourraient ne pas donner a chaque projet la priorite attendue et que les efforts de renforcement

des capacites peuvent donc ne pas fournir les incitations attendues a l’engagement des partenaires. En outre la

* Correspondence to: Dr. Olufunke O. Cofie, International Water Management Institute, PMB CT 112, Accra 0000, Ghana.E-mail: [email protected] la recherche, le renforcement des capacites et le dialogue sur les politiques en appui de l’irrigation informelle dans les zones urbainesAfrique de l’Ouest.

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

LINKING RESEARCH, CAPACITY BUILDING AND POLICY DIALOGUE 269

souplesse est necessaire pour lier la recherche, le renforcement des capacites et le dialogue politique a travers un

processus multi-acteur, car sa dynamique peut varier d’une ville a l’autre et ainsi ne pas suivre les normes

theoriques etablies. Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

mots cles: processus multi-acteurs, irrigation informelle; agriculture urbaine; formulation de politiques; renforcement des capacites; Ghana

INTRODUCTION

In West Africa, rapid urbanization is changing diets and challenging food supply and traditional farming systems

(Drechsel et al., 2006). The production of vegetables on open lands near urban water sources is one of the responses

to this development. Taking advantage of urban markets and the lack of cool transport and storage, this informal

irrigation sector complements rural agriculture in feeding the cities with perishable vegetables. In some countries

this sector covers an area larger than formal irrigated land in the whole country. Thus, informal irrigation1 has

received increasing scientific and policy attention in recent times (Payen and Gillet, 2007; Drechsel et al., 2006;

International Water Management Institute (IWMI), 2007). In most African countries, however, a comprehensive

assessment of the informal irrigation sector at large is still lacking, while first assessments of its significance and

positive impact in urban and peri-urban areas are emerging (Drechsel et al., 2006).

In city vicinities, irrigated vegetable production is one expression of urban and peri-urban agriculture (UPA).

Due to poor sanitation most urban and peri-urban surface water sources are heavily polluted and irrigated UPA

might constitute a public health hazard (Cisse et al., 2005; Obuobie et al., 2006). Often, this prevents official

recognition of or support for UPA in general. Thus, in most countries of sub-Saharan Africa, urban agriculture or

informal irrigation-related policies are lacking and by-laws are more restrictive than supportive (Obosu-Mensah,

1999). In municipal planning, farming is usually marginalized (Cisse et al., 2005) and it can happen that one

authority is arresting farmers while another is supporting them. Without any legal framework, the different actors

related to urban agriculture often work in isolation, with no formal relations among them. It is therefore important

to apply a multi-stakeholder (MS) participatory approach to enhance a mutual development of this sector. Due to

the limited attention paid to the informal sector in the past, institutional capacities have also to be strengthened to

address its needs and opportunities. Both tasks were taken up by the global network of Resource Centres on Urban

Agriculture and Food Security (RUAF).2 In West Africa, RUAF has two focal points facilitating MS processes in

six cities, the Institut Africain de Gestion Urbaine (IAGU) for Francophone West Africa, and the International

Water Management Institute (IWMI) for Anglophone West Africa.

This paper describes the capacity development and MS processes initiated in Anglophone West Africa, their

lessons and successes with special reference to Ghana, where research had already produced a favourable

knowledge base on UPA in general and irrigated urban farming in particular (Obuobie et al., 2006).

TOWARDS A MULTI-STAKEHOLDER PROCESS

A major institutional challenge not common in rural farming is the large variety of authorities with a stake in urban

agriculture. These are authorities in land use planning, environmental management, local governance, agriculture,

economic development, public health, water supply and sanitation, social and community development, and

management of parks and gardens. To address this large number of governmental stakeholders with often

conflicting priorities and regulations, an initiative was required which supports advocacy, multi-stakeholder

dialogue, joint action planning and policy change. All this was part of the so-called ‘‘Multi-stakeholder Policy

formulation and Action Planning (MPAP)’’ approach adopted by RUAF across all countries. The MPAP aims to

jointly analyse and formulate problems and opportunities, action plans, which contain projects and activities,

co-financing and other financial resources, and policies are formulated in close collaboration with, and in open

interaction between, local government and all other relevant entities that have a ‘‘stake’’ in UPA. Thus the MPAP

process involves stakeholder dialogue throughout the project cycle and at various levels, from task forces to

municipal fora supported by a large number of capacity development activities. Besides the authorities, key

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 57: 268–278 (2008)

DOI: 10.1002/ird

270 P. DRECHSEL ET AL.

stakeholders are the farmers and traders, but also the community based organizations (CBOs), NGOs, training and

research institutions, credit institutions as well as private enterprises.

The MPAP process has the following advantages (Dubbeling and de Zeeuw, 2006; Hemmati, 2002):

� it

Copyr

contributes to participatory governance, public–private partnerships and helps bridge the gap/overcome

distrust between citizen groups and the government;

� it
allows for sound situation analysis and quality decision making (through a better understanding of priority
issues and the needs of different stakeholders involved and a better linking of different sources of knowledge,

information and expertise);

� it
improves the likelihood of success and sustainability of implementation (through enhanced acceptance and
ownership of the policy formulated, improved mechanisms and processes for coordination, and mobilizing

and pooling of scarce human, technical and financial resources);

� it
supports improvement of the problem-solving capacities of the participating institutions.
From 2005, the MPAP process in West Africa went through the following phases:

(
a) p
igh

reparatory activities, formation of a local facilitating team;

(
b) c apacity building of local facilitators (RUAF team and partners) and of stakeholders involved in the process;
(
c) s ituation analysis: review of secondary data, UPA mapping, stakeholder analysis, participatory analysis of
UPA problems and potentials and a critical review of existing policies, norms and regulations;

(
d) l aunching of a local MS forum on UPA to verify the situation analysis and develop recommendations for
policy makers;

(
e) f ormulation of a City Strategic Agenda for UPA and setting up of an institutional framework for multi-actor
policy formulation and action planning;

(
f) o perationalization: participatory design, budgeting and planning of pilot projects, setting up of interinstitutional
working groups, integration of UPA in institutional programmes and budgets, and work at the policy level.

CAPACITY BUILDING, THE CORNERSTONE OF MS PROCESSES

The development of the capacities of stakeholders (municipal departments, farmer organizations, NGOs, research

institutes, governmental organizations) was needed to enable them to successfully engage in multi-stakeholder

policy formulation and action planning and implementation on irrigated urban agriculture. This was achieved

through organization and implementation of a number of training activities targeting the identified needs of

different types of stakeholders: policy awareness seminars, MPAP training courses, study visits, and follow-up

training, as identified in the Training Needs Analysis. It was also necessary to strengthen the learning

processes through participatory monitoring and evaluation and appropriate knowledge sharing during partner

backstopping.

The MPAP training was the core capacity-building activity for the majority of the stakeholders. Prior to MPAP

training a group of selected regional facilitators and trainers were trained in the topic.

Training of trainers

Selected regional facilitators and trainers in the subregion were trained in two stages:

� a
first international training of the RUAF partners (regional resource centres) in MPAP: Three members of the
regional coordinating team, and two city stakeholder representatives were equipped to facilitate the process in

their region and city, respectively;

t # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 57: 268–278 (2008)

DOI: 10.1002/ird


� s

Copyr

ubsequently, at regional or city level training of trainers was organized by targeting adult learning principles

applied to MS processes and platforms. In total ten (10) resource persons were selected and trained in

Anglophone West Africa.

MPAP training

The underlying principle of MPAP training was to enhance changes in the knowledge, attitudes and skills (KAS)

of the stakeholders that will play an important role in MS and policy dialogue. Hence just changing their knowledge

is not enough. The MPAP training aimed at a change in professional attitudes and the development of practical

skills, such as analytical, problem-solving, technical and social skills, needed in the day-to-day work. It was

anticipated that the training would help to develop commitment and a positive attitude towards the issues taught. As

factors such as organizational mandates and sociocultural conditions, etc. might hinder the application of learning

outcomes from the training programmes, the training was designed to prepare the participant in how to deal with

constraints in their work environment.

In this regard, the training emphasis was on how to diagnose the likely source of constraint and how to select

the appropriate management strategy. Using the methods of brainstorming and real life examples, case studies

were analysed for practical lessons. Learning (outcome) journals (Earl et al., 2001) were used to monitor

progress.

The training in West Africa involved senior and mid-level staff (27 institutional representatives in Accra,

25 in Ibadan, 23 in Freetown) of the various stakeholder institutions that are involved in the implementation

of the MS process in each city. The training emphasis was on understanding the dynamics and linkages in

UPA, including the use of wastewater for irrigated agriculture (Table I), the methodologies and tools for

participatory situation analysis, the concept of MS processes for action planning and policy formulation and

participatory monitoring of the results of these activities. Thus it aimed at participatory planning, technology

uptake regarding safe reuse of wastewater as well as policy change through advocacy, policy analysis and

formulation.

Aside the default MPAP training, the training needs assessment identified particular local needs (see below).

Also at the different training events, the need for further training was analysed.

OTHER CAPACITY BUILDING

Several key partners in Accra received additional training in form of backstopping during day-to-day activities.

Also the meetings of the subregional MPAP coordinators from Accra, Ibadan and Freetown, and the coordinators of

the commissioned six city pilot projects contained formal training, e.g. in project management.

Other capacity-building activities were an inter-city study visit of key partners between Accra and Kampala

(Uganda) and a research-policy seminar with key policy makers including ministers, commissioners, directors of

local government institutions, heads of departments, representatives of NGOs, research institutions and farmers’

organizations to advocate policy change on UPA that will enhance its integration into development plans. The

seminar informed policy makers about ongoing research on options for public health protection through safer

wastewater irrigation.

Monitoring and evaluation of capacity building activities

Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) took place at three levels from output to impact. For this purpose, training

sessions and participants were monitored with a follow-up on institutional changes:

� p
rocess monitoring during training focusing on trainees’ receptivity, mood and behavioural changes;
� e
nd of training evaluation of KAS changes and expected learning outcomes;
� a
fter six months post-evaluation of the impacts of training on trainees and their work environment.
ight # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 57: 268–278 (2008)

DOI: 10.1002/ird

Table I. Example of a session plan on wastewater use for UPA during the MPAP training in Accra

Module wastewater use in UPA

Time Half daySession/topic 1. Definitions and concepts of wastewater

2. Wastewater use in the Ghanaian context3. Group work and plenary discussion

Learning outcome (concrete competences Participants are able to analyse:participants are supposed to acquire atthe end of the session) Training content

� the key (policy) issues concerning wastewateruse for UPA

� intervention strategies in relation to the use ofwastewater in UPA

� options to mitigate associated environmental/health risks� introduction� the ‘‘dilemma’’ (conflict) of safeguarding public

health vs supporting irrigated urban farming� participants’ reaction to required interventions� the way forward – with framework of entry points

for risk reduction

Training technique/method to use Power point presentation, group work and discussion:Introduction with an ice breaker and/or Recycling Reality VideoThe Ghanaian ‘‘dilemma’’:� refer to the importance of UPA (general – only reference to what

has been said before) – e.g. source of livelihood,food security etc.;

� why use wastewater: only 40% of residents inAccra have access to piped water, high costof piped water, unreliable and irregular supply,no wastewater treatment infrastructure,general surface water pollution, etc.;

� wastewater risk vs other risk factors or sources of pathogens:1. Irrigation water quality in the city2. Pesticide, types used, when applied, quantities used,

pathogen residue levels3. Manure application (including human excreta use)4. Handling and human exposure5. Mosquitoes and malaria (what is a breeding site)

� Break participants into groups

Group work: Participants are divided into 2–3 groups.Each group is asked to identify interventions at differententry points. Each group assigned to a different entrypoint (farm, market, household). Each group representativepresents results followed by discussionsWrap up: Trainer concludes with framework of entrypoints (WHO multiple barrier approach) for risk reductionand participants asked to list and discuss the various entry points

Training materials/aids needed Flip charts, whiteboard, markers for group/trainer presentationBeamer for projection on large screen/white wall(check facilities in main room for this purpose)Handouts/overview schedule of the dayBackground literature on Ghana case for distribution:Obuobie et al. (2006); IWMI (2006)

Responsibility Moderator


DOI: 10.1002/ird


Figure 1. Stakeholder perceived changes in their ability to analyse policy issues on wastewater use for agriculture in Accra, Ghana, before andafter the training received


If the M&E suggested follow-up capacity-building activities, these were subsequently organized for the MPAP

members as far as resources allowed. The Accra group in this way had the benefit of additional training in team

building, conflict management, project cycling management and networking, all not part of the default MPAP training.

RESULTS AND LESSONS LEARNT

The capacity-building activities of the project received very positive feedback, but also faced challenges and

resulted in a learning experience for all sides.

To assess semi-quantitatively whether the participants felt any positive change from the training, a pre- versus

post-training assessment accompanied each event (Asante-Mensah et al., 1998). The self-reflection of the

participants in Accra, Ibadan and Freetown indicated improvements in knowledge, attitudes and skills through the

training provided in the areas of wastewater use for agriculture, establishing an MS forum, and policy formulation

and advocacy. In Accra for example, trainees were asked about changes in their knowledge and skills as a result of

training delivered. Among other training topics, they were asked to indicate their ability to analyse key (policy)

issues and intervention strategies related to waste water reuse in urban agriculture. Figure 1 shows the perceived

changes as reported by 27 training participants. About 80% of respondents had very poor to fair knowledge before

the training while approximately 90% had fair to very good knowledge after.

In Ibadan, Nigeria, more than 60% of the training participants claimed that their original knowledge on

establishment and functioning of an MS forum was significantly improved through the training provided, and about

90% now have good to very good knowledge of policy formulation and advocacy for policy change. Similar

observations were made in Freetown, Sierra Leone. Selected outcome stories and statements reported by

stakeholders in Freetown six months after their training are shown in Table II. All these were attributed to the RUAF

project and its capacity development activities.

The significant investments in staff capacities were also perceived as an instrument to support partner

commitment to the project and its objectives. Some possible challenges were expected; for example, that more

participation and MS involvement in policy formulation and action planning could be considered as incompatible

with traditional forms of (more top-down) policy formulation. However, participating institutions in general


DOI: 10.1002/ird

Table II. Outcome stories and statements delivered six months after training (Freetown) (International Water ManagementInstitute (IWMI) and RUAF Foundation 2007)

Specific follow-up activities implemented by trainees after the training:1. Establishment or strengthening of networks by applying the MS approach2. Individual concepts of the MPAP process and training were transferred and applied in other projects or tasks:3. Awareness creation and wider sharing of MPAP concept elements:4. Concrete steps towards institutionalization of urban agriculture, like:

- backyard farms were established in every City Council school (by Freetown City Council);- urban agriculture and its environmental implications recognized by the National Commission on Environment and

Forestry;- Njala University has incorporated urban farming in some of its crop production courses

Application of learning outcomes by trainees:� Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security (MAFS):

- policy makers including the Hon. Minister, Director General, and other Directors showed responsiveness about UPA andsignalled mainstreaming of UPA into the ministry’s next medium- term plan with a specialfocus on promoting UPA as a food security and poverty reduction mechanism;

- contacts were made with other stakeholders such as line ministries, producers, and marketers of UPAproducts and they are beginning to appreciate their stakes in the system, including roles and responsibilitiesmore clearly;

� National Council for Environment and Forestry:� established new linkage with government department, NGOs and the Freetown City Council as partners

in environmental management and natural resources use;� intention to develop project and programmes using the MS approach;

� Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security (MAFS):- Ministry now practices gender mainstreaming, placed female agricultural district director in Western Area;- MPAP is being applied by the Planning, Evaluation, Monitoring and Statistical Division of MAFS;

� Freetown City Council (FCC):- trainee selected as resource person to draw up an action plan for its M&E unit as learnt in MPAP;- the FCC has started distributing seeds and fruits to farmers in the UPA;- agriculture and marine resources committee in collaboration with the environment have decided to provide

more farming spaces to farmers;� Farmers and Farmers’ Associations:

- farmers are increasingly collaborating also with others stakeholders and feel more backing to lobby,e.g. for farming inputs

� Njala University:- incorporation of UPA and MPAP aspects in the agriculture curriculum of the university;- after MPAP training, related materials on UPA were distributed among students to carry out research in specific areas.


reacted positively to the approach and the problem did not arise. Another anticipated challenge was the negative

public perception of UPA through the unsafe use of drain water for irrigation. The key steps to manage this situation

were (a) awareness raising on the advantages of UPA for the city, and (b) serious efforts to provide strategies

addressing the concerns expressed. The ongoing studies under the CGIAR Challenge Programme for Water and

Food in Ghana were very helpful here as they addressed exactly this topic through on-farm research on best

irrigation practices.

The less anticipated problems and how they translate into further capacity-building needs were of a more generic

nature, and probably apply to many other projects in low-income countries where authorities face many challenges

and have to focus their limited resources on key topics or crucial bottlenecks. In Ghana, the suggested MS process

on UPA might not have been one of those key topics, even in institutions like the Municipal Directorate for Urban

Agriculture, although the initiative was highly appreciated. The directorate is indeed struggling with more basic

problems, from lack of electricity in its offices to significant cash flow problems resulting in salary arrears and

partially low motivation. Any attempt to introduce new ideas, especially time and input demanding ones, has to be

viewed in this context.

Without doubt, the MPAP implementation process is demanding, as the complex range of capacity development

activities shows. It requires fully motivated staff, a functional inter-institutional team with sufficient time allocation


DOI: 10.1002/ird

Table III. Key challenges of the MS process and options on how they were or will be addressed

Problems encountered Action required fromcoordinating project team

Capacitydevelopment needs

Coordinatingfocal point

Nationalpartners

Low commitment of localteam members despite awarenessraising, training and jointaction planning

Monitor individual projectperceptions, constraintsand opportunities (besidesthe institutional analysis).

Training in perceptionanalysis, institutionalSWOT analysis;

Visioningexercise

Base choice of key partnerson both analyses and discusswith institutional experts

More critical outcomemapping for M&Eper boundary partner

Team buildingexercise

Project only of medium priorityfor partners

Problem ranking tounderstand local prioritysetting and the relevanceof the topic.

Training in problemanalysis and participatoryproject development(without bias to own agenda)

Analysis of annual work plansof partners to identify linkagesand win–win situations orleverage for partner

Local project implementationunder pressure by globalwork plan

Feedback mechanism should bestrengthened. More flexibilityin global milestones anddeadlines.Joint action planning andidentification of co-fundingand other donor support

Monitoring andevaluation;Periodic work planadjustments;Project definition anddonor sourcing

Monitoring andevaluation

Cumbersome bureaucracy,limited infrastructure and poorcommunication facilities of localpartner institutions

Seed fund budget allocationfor institutional capacitydevelopment

Team building to openinformal communicationchannels (e.g. SMS)

Local partnersrequire seed fundsto (re)build andmaintain a minimaloperational capacity.

Workload remained with RUAFfocal point resulting in low

Adjust workplanto partner’s capacity;

Delegation and partnerempowerment

Time and projectmanagement.

prospects of project sustainability Sharing of responsibilities needsbesides training also sharing ofresources: Spread incentives(like paid staff time) moreequally; Placement of staff inpartner institutions to build theirin-house capacity and tounderstand their constraints

Topic attracts negativeperceptions (example:wastewater irrigation)

Establish research linkages toexplore viable managementoptions addressing constraints

Training in research-policy dialogue;Networking and

Awareness creation onmanagement optionsto address perceived

Include the verification ofoption and awareness creationin joint action plan(City Strategic Agenda)

information access tobecome a knowledgecentre

constraints


DOI: 10.1002/ird



and good communication and reporting channels (also) to manage the local and subregional work plan while

meeting [global] project deadlines. Therefore, it requires careful pre-implementation visits, discussions with

various (leaders of) institutions and organizations, and assessment of their roles, constraints and opportunities. In

the actual case, local bureaucratic procedures were underestimated and often cumbersome, Internet facilities

limited, and team members were often burdened with other responsibilities, and thus were unable to show full

commitment. Much personal motivation was required. The discussion on incentives, however, met the request from

project administration that national partners are actually supposed to co-fund the project. Indeed, as RUAF operates

globally, the overall project tried to apply the same work plan and principles in Asia, Africa and Latin America,

requesting partners under a joint vision to follow a common work plan and to take over responsibilities including

co-funding of identified activities, as agreed in the City Strategic Agenda, and joint donor sourcing. In Latin

America, Southern Africa and China this was quite successful, but it appeared a difficult task in Accra where

governmental institutions were asked to take over the coordination. As a result, the Ghana-based MPAP engine and

workload remained with the RUAF focal point at IWMI, which resulted in remarkable progress while missing out

on the ‘‘sustainability’’ objective to catalyse an independently functioning process based on commitment by the

participating local institutions. In other words, it was difficult to change from a project focus to the development of a

joint city strategic agenda. This process will evolve (or not) according to specific city situations, and in the case of

Accra might need more time than was foreseen originally. The situation is already different in Freetown where the

coordinating governmental body is backstopped by the university, and very promising in Ibadan, where an NGO

with high capacity and capability accepted the local coordination.

The analysis of the process resulted in a re-evaluation of the capacity development component of the project as

outlined in Table III.

To increase and better understand local commitment Obuobie et al. (2006) recommended to analyse beforehand (a)

institutional and individual priorities, constraints and capacities of potential partners, and (b) how UPA links to the

partners’ annual work plan and how it could benefit from the MS process and UPA. In this way it might be possible to

avoid the impression that something ‘‘external’’ will be added to an already full work plan (Obuobie et al., 2006). In

other words, the theoretical advantages like the UPA’s contribution to the food supply, livelihoods and urban greening

or training in a new subject need to be made explicit and clearly linked to existing opportunities or ongoing projects

and potential funding. A direct benefit for the annual institutional work plan is required. It will be crucial to highlight,

for each partner, the actual and possible added value of – for example – irrigated urban farming to urban flood control,

buffer zone management, environmental protection, biodiversity or wastewater treatment.

Another recommendation is to undertake more comprehensively joint funding sourcing based on the agreed

action plan and as a back-up provide additional seed funds for partners, allowing them to become more operational.

However, the support of national partners and their commitment to certain projects and agendas should not become

a competition of incentives between different projects.

CONCLUSION

In Ghana, major steps and successes towards acknowledging of the importance of UPA and informal irrigation have

been achieved, supported by capacity development, MS processes and the strategic contribution of applied research

addressing the concerns of the stakeholders. Overall in the subregion, the evaluation of the capacity-building

activities showed that they were a driving force of change. The following overview highlights some of the direct and

indirect achievements in Ghana between 2005 and 2007:

� th

Copyr

e first national policy seminar on UPA organized in Accra at the end of 2005 resulted in a Vision Statement

on UPA endorsed by the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (Obuobie et al., 2006, p. 114);

� in
2006, the category of Ghana’s ‘‘national best urban and peri-urban farmer’’ was created and awarded during
the annual ‘‘Farmers’ Day’’ celebrations. This followed a promise by the Deputy Minister of Food and

Agriculture during the RUAF policy seminar;

� f
ollowing intensive capacity building in policy formulation, Accra’s Metropolitan Assembly (AMA) adopted
UPA as an important sector for development intervention. A policy document is currently being prepared to


DOI: 10.1002/ird

Copyr


support the design/planning of projects prioritized in AMA’s Strategic UPA Agenda. Working groups have

started to support the revision or development of new norms, by-laws and regulations on urban and peri-urban

agriculture. This development was supported by an exchange visit with Kampala where this process is already

further developed;

� i
n 2007, RUAF facilitated a series of dialogues between UPA researchers and the MoFA extension service
(Women in Agricultural Development) to ensure that the messages of the research on food safety will be

packaged according to the needs of the extension service;

� l
obbying for UPA was also successful at the national level in view of the second edition of Ghana’s Food and
Agricultural Sector Development Policy (FASDEP) and through IWMI in view of the designated National

Irrigation Policy. The irrigation policy, if approved, will be the first national policy in Africa recognizing the

informal irrigation sector including irrigated urban and peri-urban agriculture. In May 2007, its final draft was

handed over to the government for cabinet approval (Daily Graphic, Ghana, 3 May 2007).

Also in Freetown, Sierra Leone, where the MPAP process started only in 2006, a first success is the promise of an

office dedicated to urban agriculture in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security and the opportunity to

provide input into the nation’s agricultural policy. Further progress has been reported from Ibadan, Pikine-Dakar,

Bobo-Dioulasso and Porto Novo in West Africa, as well in the other cities where RUAF partners operate

(www.ruaf.org).

The MS process needs time, especially in an urban environment or a capital city, where stakeholders are many

and authorities operate at different administrative levels. The MPAP approach illustrated here offers an opportunity

for different actors to collaborate in harmony under the same vision. Limitations as well as opportunities, specific to

each different city, steer the dynamics of the process. This is being evaluated as a positive development, as long as

the process is internalized and there is progress. In this case, it is in the very nature of MPAP that the city teams

become creative and develop their own priorities and action areas, in an agreed City Strategic Agenda. However,

where the process remains mostly externally driven, reflections on the relevance of the overall topic and individual

and institutional commitments to the process demand a serious analysis. This should go along with the exchange of

experiences across the regions and cities with regard to process constraints and options for capacity development.

The global RUAF network with the same MPAP approach in 20 cities of 17 countries has a unique opportunity to do

so, which will be of crucial value to those city teams which have just started the MPAP process but also many other

institutions planning to support MS platforms.3 In RUAF, the initial capacity building and set-up of MS platforms in

the project countries is being supported till at least 2010. This gives sufficient time to re-evaluate and support the

institutionalization process.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We acknowledge the support of the RUAF project by the Directorate-General for International Cooperation

(DGIS-TMF), The Netherlands, and the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Canada. For more

information on the project see www.iwmi.cgiar.org/africa/west/projects/ruafii-cff.htm.

NOTES

1By ‘‘informal irrigation’’ we refer to those parts of the smallholder or community-based irrigation sector, which

established themselves without public funding or official support, i.e. in the shadow of governmental initiated

‘‘formal irrigation’’ schemes (International Water Management Institute (IWMI), 2007).2For more information see www.ruaf.org3In addition to training courses at national and city levels, the RUAF network is supporting from 2008 on distance

learning (http://www.ryerson.ca/ce/foodsecurity/).


DOI: 10.1002/ird


REFERENCES

Asante-Mensah S, Drechsel P, Gyiele L. 1998. K.A.S.A. changes – an example for participatory impact assessment at farmers’ and NARS level.

In On-Farm Research on Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa: Approaches, Experiences, and Lessons, Drechsel P, Gyiele L

(eds). IBSRAM proceedings, vol. 19, Bangkok; 215–221.

Cisse O, Gueye NFD, Sy M. 2005. Institutional and legal aspects in urban agriculture in French-speaking West Africa: from marginalization to

legitimization. Environment & Urbanization 17(2): 143–154.

Drechsel P, Graefe S, Sonou M, Cofie OO. 2006. Informal Irrigation in UrbanWest Africa: An Overview. Research Report 102. IWMI: Colombo

www.iwmi.cgiar.org/Publications/IWMI_Research_Reports/PDF/pub102/RR102.pdf.

Dubbeling M, de Zeeuw H. 2006. Interactive policy formulation for sustainable urban agriculture development. Urban Agriculture Magazine 16:

20–26.

Earl S, Carden F, Smutylo T. 2001. Outcome Mapping: Building Learning and Reflection into Development Programs. IDRC: Ottawa, Canada;

120 pp.

Hemmati M. 2002. Multi-Stakeholder Processes for Governance and Sustainability: Beyond Deadlock and Conflict. Earthscan: London, UK;

327 pp.

International Water Management Institute (IWMI). 2006. Recycling Realities: Managing Health Risks to Make Wastewater an Asset. Water

Policy Briefing 17. IWMI and GWP: Colombo, Sri Lanka www.iwmi.cgiar.org/Publications/Water_Policy_Briefs/PDF/wpb17.pdf

International Water Management Institute (IWMI). 2007. Recognizing Informal Irrigation in Urban and Peri-Urban West Africa. Water Policy

Briefing 26. IWMI: Colombo, Sri Lanka www.iwmi.cgiar.org/Publications/Water_Policy_Briefs/PDF/WPB26.pdf

International Water Management Institute (IWMI) and RUAF Foundation. 2007. Six months after-training evaluation report. Internal document,

Colombo, Sri Lanka.

Obosu-Mensah K. 1999. Food Production in Urban Areas. A. Study of Urban Agriculture in Accra, Ghana. Ashgate Publishing: Aldershot, UK;

227 pp.

Obuobie E, Keraita B, Danso G, Amoah P, Cofie OO, Raschid-Sally L, Drechsel P. 2006. Irrigated Urban Vegetable Production in Ghana:

Characteristics, Benefits and Risks. IWMI-RUAF-CPWF: Accra, Ghana; 150 pp www.cityfarmer.org/GhanaIrrigateVegis.html

Payen J, Gillet V. 2007. L’Irrigation informelle en Afrique de l’Ouest. Une solution ou un probleme? IPTRID Issue Paper 6. FAO: Rome; 49 pp

www.fao.org/landandwater/iptrid/docs/issuepaper6.pdf


DOI: 10.1002/ird

Documents

Linking research, capacity building, and policy dialogue in support of informal irrigation in urban West Africa