III. Study Findings

1. PPP Group Sustainability
2. Institutionalization and Replication of the PPP development approach
3. Benefits to PPP-Ghana Participants

1. PPP Group Sustainability

PPP-Ghana encountered little difficulty achieving its numerical objectives for group formation. With respect to its more important goal of promoting group self-reliance and sustainability, however, the project consistently fell short of its set objectives. Although numerous factors contributed to the project's failure in this respect, the most important include the project's savings and credit component, the inappropriateness and lack of group income-generating activities, and internal group structure. PPP-Ghana's limited success developing group self-reliance and sustainability appears to be typical of similar development projects in Ghana and elsewhere.

1.1 Sustainability of PPP Groups as of the Summer of 1993

Because of very limited information available on Phase I PPP groups in both AAs, it was impossible to determine the sustainability of each of these groups. An evaluation of the sustainability of all Phase I groups, however, could be made by determining the number that continued into Phase II. Information on the sustainability of Phase II groups was obtained through group discussions, GP and PC interviews, and project documents. Combining these sources, all of the Phase II PPP groups were classified as either active or failed as of the summer of 1993 using the following criteria.

Failed groups:	Active groups:
· no regular meetings; and	· regular group meetings; and
· no current group activity.	· a current group activity.

While classifying groups into the two broad categories of “failed” or “active” oversimplifies many of the important variations among PPP groups, there are a number of reasons why these categories are accurate and useful. First, since this study is primarily concerned with group sustainability, it is accurate to describe groups that have not been able to sustain their group meetings and activities as having failed. Second, although it is possible that some of these failed groups could become active again in the future, in most cases, this will not be possible without outside intervention. Applying terms such as “dormant” to these groups implies that they will awake on their own, which is an inaccurate description of most of these PPP groups. Third, while the classification of “active” includes a broad range of groups including very active as well as semi-active groups, insufficient data collected by the project and limited field research made developing more differentiated categories impossible.

While classifying groups as either active or failed is fairly straight forward, judging their self-reliance is a more difficult and subjective assessment. This is because a group's self-reliance is based on factors such as the motivation of individual members and group dynamics. Nevertheless, the active groups met during the study's field research were assessed for their degree of self-reliance based on the following factors.

Self-reliant groups:

· regular group meetings;
· a current group activity;
· reinvestment of profits from their group activity;
· ability to function without project support;
· high degree of group cohesion and cooperative spirit;

The groups formed during Phase II and the Transition Phase of the project, however, proved to be much more sustainable. Table 3 provides information on the sustainability of the Phase I, Phase II, and Transition Phase groups in Begoro. By the summer of 1993, one-third of the Phase II groups could be considered active, while two-thirds had failed.

Table 3. Status of PPP Groups in 1993, Begoro AA..

Phase/Cluster		Total Groups	Failed Groups	Active Groups
Phase I		121	120 (99%)	1 (1%)
Phase II (includes 11 Phase I Groups)		126	85 (67%)	41 (33%)
	Ahomahomasu	20	10 (50%)	10 (50%)
	Obooho	20	12 (60%)	8 (40%)
	Ehiamenkyene	22	18 (82%)	4 (18%)
	Dwenase	20	13 (65%)	7 (35%)
	Apaa	19	17 (89%)	2 (11%)
	Abooso	25	15 (60%)	10 (40%)
Transition Phase (inc. 66 Phase II groups)		67	25 (37%)	42 (62%)
Total of Groups Formed in Begoro AA		237	195 (82%)	42 (18%)

As in Begoro AA, early mistakes in Wenchi AA limited the sustainability of Phase I PPP groups. Unfortunately, while staff in Begoro appear to have been able to overcome some of these early problems, staff in Wenchi could not. Project documents report 111 Phase I groups formed in Wenchi AA. Of these, 26 (23 percent) continued into the second phase. By the summer of 1993, only 2 (less than 2 percent of the Phase I groups) were still active. Phase II and Transition Phase groups proved to be only slightly more sustainable. Table 4 summarizes the status of Phase I. Phase II, and Transition Phase PPP groups in Wenchi AA. By summer of 1993, 97 percent of the Phase II PPP groups had failed, and only 5 groups (3 percent) from the first two phases were still active.

Table 5 presents the status of all the PPP groups formed in both AAs during the first three phases of the project. The data show that the percentage of active groups increases with each successive phase. While only 1 percent of Phase I PPP groups were still active, 18 percent of Phase II groups and 36 percent of Transition Phase groups were active in the summer of 1993. This improvement is primarily due to correcting early problems in the project's implementation. Even for groups of the Transition Phase, however, only a little more than one third were still active less than three years later. Also, when looking at all of the groups formed by the project over its first three phases, less than 11 percent were still active by the summer of 1993.

After group sustainability was determined, PPP group self-reliance was assessed through meetings held with Phase II groups. Of 16 Phase II groups met in Begoro AA, five were inactive. Of the remaining 11 active Phase II groups, 8 (73 percent) would be classified as self-reliant. Extending this ratio to all of the active groups in Begoro AA gives an estimated 30 self-reliant groups as of the summer of 1993.

Table 4. Status of PPP Groups in 1993, Wenchi AA.

Phase/Cluster		Total Groups	Failed Groups	Active Groups
Phase I		111	109 (98%)	2 (2%)
Phase II (includes 26 Phase I Groups)		123	118 (96%)	5 (4%)
	Nchiraa	10	10 (100%)	0 (0%)
	Tromeso	26	26 (100%)	0 (0%)
	Subinso	20	16 (80%)	4 (20%)
	Koase	27	26 (96%)	1 (4%)
	Badu	26	26 (100%)	0 (0%)
	Nsawkaw	14	14 (100%)	0 (0%)
Transition Phase (inc. 68 Phase II Groups)		71	64 (90%)	7 (10%)
Total of Groups Formed in Wenchi AA		211	204 (97%)	7 (3%)

Table 5. Status of PPP Groups in 1993, PPP-Ghana.

Phase/Cluster	Total Groups	Failed Groups	Active Groups
Phase I	232	229 (99%)	3 (1%)
Phase II (includes 37 Phase I Groups)	249	203 (82%)	46 (18%)
Transition Phase (inc. 134 Phase II Groups)	138	89 (64%)	49 (36%)
All Groups formed by the Project	448	399 (89%)	49 (11%)

In Wenchi AA, none of the 7 PPP groups from the first, second, and transition phases that were still active could be classified as self-reliant. In fact, these groups are active only because they continue to receive non-PPP credit mobilized by a former GP on her own initiative. The future status of this source of credit is uncertain, and when it stops, in all likelihood, so will these last seven PPP groups in Wenchi AA.

Therefore, as of the summer of 1993, the best estimate of the number of self-reliant PPP groups in both action areas is 30. This figure represents almost 22 percent of the Transition Phase groups but less than 7 percent of all groups formed during the first three phases of the project. This is the number of PPP groups expected to be sustainable in the long run.

1.2 Barriers to Group Sustainability

While PPP-Ghana eventually improved its ability to develop sustainable groups in Begoro AA, the project faced persistent barriers to group sustainability. Some of these barriers were outside the control of FAO or project staff, such as the difficult economic conditions of the early 1980s. Many other barriers, however, were created by the project itself. These include its credit component, the lack and inappropriateness of group income-generating activities, and internal group structure. All of these combined to create the low level of PPP group sustainability encountered in the summer of 1993.

a. PPP Group Credit

When the first generation of PPP groups was forming in the early 1980s, there were almost no agricultural inputs or credit available to small-scale farmers. Inevitably, when group promoters entered a village to announce the project and explain the PPP development approach, villagers focused almost exclusively on the input and credit supply component of the project. While input and credit supply answered a felt need of most villagers in the short-run, this early emphasis on credit and inputs weakened long-term PPP group self-reliance and sustainability.

In addition, initial GP training was insufficient and gave many GPs the impression that PPP-Ghana was principally a credit and input supply project. Early in the project, GPs were also expected to form a particular number of groups during each reporting period. GPs quickly realized that the easiest way to form new groups was to explain to community members that if they formed a group of 8 to 15 members, the project would supply them with credit and inputs.

PPP-Ghana's final report states that “during the Phase I and the initial period of Phase II, a number of groups were formed for the sole purpose of obtaining credit for group members.” Discussions with group members confirmed this statement. When asked what was their motivation for forming or joining a PPP group, most group members responded “sika sem,” the Tri equivalent for “money matters.”

By the beginning of the second phase, project staff realized that PPP groups were focusing almost exclusively on credit. Therefore, during the second and transition phases, project staff tried to encourage PPP groups to diversify the purpose of their groups by promoting group income-generating activities and group savings. Unfortunately, group savings and group IGAs were often presented by GPs as new requirements for PPP groups to receive additional loans. In this way, these attempts to diversify the purpose of PPP groups were again linked to the credit component.

When asked why their groups had collapsed, most PPP group members again responded “sika sem.” Even when groups had a viable group IGA, the end of project credit often led to group collapse and abandoning of its IGA. Many PPP group members remarked that since PPP-Ghana failed to meet its commitment to continue supplying credit, they did not feel obligated to continue the activities required to receive that credit, namely group meetings, savings and IGAs.

PPP group history 1: The contribution of the credit component to group failure. Tainso Group I, in the Badu cluster of Wenchi AA, was formed in 1984 by 13 men and 2 women. Over its four-year history, the group received three loans and planted a group farm of yams for three consecutive years. Each year, the produce of the group farm was sold and the proceeds saved in the group account at the Ghana Commercial Bank. Over this period, the group was able to save 109,624 cedis, considered by both group members and project staff to be a very large amount of money. When the group's chairman attended a workshop in Wenchi town, he was told that his group had not repaid its last loan. In discussions during the study's field research, the chairman stated “we knew we had paid everything (to the GP), but the records showed we still owed.” In addition, he stated that the GP promised to pay the GCB later but that they were afraid that if they continued in the group, somebody would come and ask them for the loan repayment. The group therefore collapsed, ending a profitable IGA and causing the withdrawal and distribution of the group's savings.

Other aspects of the project's credit and savings component contributed to group failure as well. Group promoters were forced to devote large amounts of their time to loan delivery and recovery, estimated between 75 and 90 percent of GP work time in some years. This meant that other aspects of the project, such as training and group IGAs, received limited attention. Also, by focusing their efforts on loan recovery, GPs often undermined their attempts to diversify the purpose of PPP groups.

In addition, the manner in which loans were delivered created problems. Typically, almost any group of individuals that called themselves a PPP group received a loan from the project. Further, loans were often delivered too late and in sums too small to be productively invested. Finally, misappropriation of loan funds, by a limited number of GPs and bank officials, reduced the confidence group members had in the project (see PPP group history 1). These and other external factors contributed to a high rate of loan default that caused many PPP groups to fail.

Ultimately, the project's credit component was the single largest cause of group collapse. Various project staff commented that if they were to design their own PPP project, they would either eliminate the credit supply component or delay its introduction until after groups had been functioning on their own for over two years. Appendix VII provides greater detail on the project's savings and credit component.

b. PPP group income-generating activities

Group income-generating activities, not credit, were intended to be the basis upon which PPP groups were formed and serve as the focus for subsequent action. Developing successful group income-generating activities was an important step toward PPP group sustainability. PPP-Ghana, however, encountered difficulties in promoting group IGAs early in the project. Dr. John Dadson, who researched and wrote the Phase I terminal evaluation of Begoro AA, reported that at the end of Phase I, while discussions concerning group IGAs had begun, very few groups had actually started group IGAs. Group IGAs were reported to be limited in Wenchi AA during Phase I as well. From these and other reports, it can be conservatively estimated that less than one fifth of all Phase I PPP groups had any kind of group IGA.

During Phase II, the project became more successful at promoting group IGAs. Table 6 classifies the Phase II PPP groups in Wenchi and Begoro AAs according to their group IGAs. PPP groups classified as “Group Farm IGA” had planted and harvested a group farm at least once during their existence. “Non-farm IGA” groups were those groups whose only IGA was an activity other than a group farm. PPP groups classified as “Farm and Non-farm IGA” typically began with a group farm and then moved on to other IGAs (usually investing the proceeds from their group farm in another activity). Finally, “No Group IGA” PPP groups never had a group IGA. These were typically groups exclusively interested in the credit component of the project.

Table 6. Phase II Group IGAs in Wenchi and Begoro AA.

Project/AA/Cluster		Total Groups	Group Farm IGA	Non-farm IGA	Farm and Non-farm IGAs	No Group IGA
PPP-Ghana		249	112 (45%)	13 (5%)	25 (10%)	99 (40%)
Begoro AA		126	60 (47%)	5 (4%)	21 (17%)	40 (32%)
	Obooho	20	7 (35%)	2 (10%)	4 (20%)	7 (35%)
	Ahomahomasu	20	8 (40%)	0 (0%)	8 (40%)	4 (20%)
	Ehiamenkyene	22	4 (18%)	3 (14%)	5 (23%)	10 (45%)
	Dwenase	20	10 (50%)	0 (0%)	1 (5%)	9 (45%)
	Apaa	19	11 (58%)	0 (0%)	2 (10%)	6 (32%)
	Abooso	25	20 (80%)	0 (0%)	1 (4%)	4 (16%)
Wenchi AA		123	52 (42%)	8 (7%)	4 (3%)	59 (48%)
	Nchiraa	10	2 (20%)	1 (10%)	1 (10%)	6 (60%)
	Subinso	20	7 (35%)	2 (10%)	0 (0%)	11 (55%)
	Tromeso	26	14 (54%)	1 (4%)	1 (4%)	10 (38%)
	Koase	27	10 (37%)	2 (7%)	1 (4%)	14 (52%)
	Badu	26	8 (31%)	2 (8%)	0 (0%)	16 (61%)
	Nsawkaw	14	11 (79%)	0 (0%)	1 (7%)	2 (14%)

While 60 percent of the Phase II PPP groups had some kind of group IGA, this figure overestimates the number of PPP groups that were genuinely interested in their group activity as means of generating income. After Phase I, project staff realized that most PPP groups did not have a group IGA and were only interested in the credit component of the project. Therefore, during Phase II and the Transition Phase, having a group income-generating activity became a requirement for further credit.

In these cases (the majority of Phase II PPP groups in Wenchi AA), the group farm was only planted and harvested as long as group members continued to receive credit from the project. This often meant that these group farms functioned for only one season. As soon as the group members realized that there was no more credit, group farms ended. Over two-thirds of the groups that had a group IGA in the second phase abandoned them when project credit ended. During a study interview, Dr. Dadson made the important point that for a group IGA to be sustainable, PPP group members must contribute their own resources and accept responsibility for making the IGA a success. IGAs developed only to receive credit do not meet these criteria.

Additionally, the development of group farms as the typical group IGA did not foster long-term sustainability. The traditional organization of agricultural labor in Ghana is individual, not communal. While individuals have traditionally worked together on each other's farms (under the nnoboa system), individuals still control their own land and harvest. Further, the agricultural production practices currently used by most farmers in the AAs (both traditional and new practices) do not require group action, and group action does not significantly improve their efficiency. For these reasons, small-scale agricultural production in both AAs remains an individual activity, and group farms are not popular or more productive.

For these reasons, group farms did not provide the quick, recognizable benefits necessary to motivate group members to sustain their PPP groups. To the detriment of group sustainability, 75 percent (112 of the 150) of the PPP groups that had some kind of group IGA had only a group farm. Only 9 percent (13 of 150) had exclusively non-farm group IGAs. The predominance of an unpopular and unproductive group income-generating activity, when groups had any activity at all, failed to provide the necessary incentive for groups to continue functioning after the end of project credit.

c. Internal Group Structure

One of the most important aspects of PPP groups was that they were self-formed. Group promoters would enter a village and explain the PPP development approach, but the villagers themselves would decide who would join the PPP group. While most PPP groups were self-formed in this manner, some were formed by the group promoter and this often caused serious problems (see PPP group history 2). For the most part, however, PPP group membership was determined by the project participants themselves.

PPP group history 2: Problems caused by lack of self-formation of PPP groups. Instead of being self-formed like most PPP groups, Mansie 'A' in Wenchi AA was formed in 1984 of 15 villagers selected by the group promoter. The leadership positions in the group, chairman, secretary and treasurer, were also selected by the GP responsible for the cluster. Group members stated that they began to have problems over the first loan they received in 1984. Later, when they tried to start a group income-generating activity selling kerosene in Mansie, the GP brought the kerosene from Wenchi and the executives sold it but did not distribute the profits. According to a former group member, when the GP asked the group to try to organize a group farm, the group members were unable to cooperate because of “individual differences.” After the GP was transferred to a different cluster, the group quickly disintegrated. The secretary of Mansie 'A' helped to form Mansie 'B' in 1986. This group of 15 members was self-formed and chose its own leadership. In its first year of existence, the Mansie 'B' group was “very active” and functioned as a nnoboa group, taking turns working on each other's farms. The group was also able to repay the loan it received in the same year. Unfortunately, when the GP was transferred and Mansie 'A' collapsed from internal pressures, Mansie 'B' also collapsed.

The goal of PPP group self-formation conflicted to a certain extent with another project objective of forming internally homogeneous groups. In addition, when group promoters began the process of group formation, the project had not yet completed its detailed socio-economic base-line surveys. With limited information on who lived in any particular target village, groups often formed with members that owned land in the target village, but lived in a different village (often in the action area head town, Begoro or Wenchi). Further, with no information on the socio-economic position of community members, groups were often a heterogeneous mix of different ethnic groups and the “poorest of the poor” with wealthy villagers. Various FAO officials and documents stated that group heterogeneity was an important factor that limited group sustainability.

In Begoro AA, discussions with project staff to determine why certain groups succeeded and other similar groups failed often led to the conclusion that group leadership played a key role. Typically, groups with dynamic leaders were able to overcome problems that led to the collapse of groups with weak leadership. The PPP process of group self-selection of leadership shortly after group formation, however, proved unable to consistently select dynamic leaders. This was partly caused by the fact that PPP groups selected leaders by formal procedures of nominations and voting, instead of traditional informal methods. Therefore, many PPP group leaders were not the community's informal leaders, diminishing their ability to manage the affairs of their group.

In addition to dynamic leadership, many PPP groups still active in the summer of 1993 stated that their bylaws helped motivate members to attend meetings and group work. A few groups fined group members for not following group bylaws, but no groups reported removing members from their group. In other cases, group bylaws proved insufficient to motivate members to repay their loans or to attend group activities. These groups tended to be weaker groups formed primarily for credit. Overall, it appears that when bylaws worked, they tended to stabilize the functioning of already strong groups. For weak groups, on the other hand, bylaws alone were insufficient to strengthen the group and prevent group collapse. Ultimately, bylaws arose when needed and were not the determining factor whether a group failed or succeed.

As with dynamic leadership selection, PPP-Ghana was unable to develop a functioning system of participatory monitoring and on-going evaluation that would help groups solve problems as they arose. In 1990, the tripartite review mission stated “the participatory monitoring and on-going evaluation (PMOE) system doesn't yet function well in the AAs.” Since 1990, the PMOE system in both AAs has failed to develop and in all likelihood deteriorated throughout the Transition Phase. The lack of effective PMOE has denied PPP groups a potential methodology for problem solving that contributed to group failure.

1.3 Efforts to Overcome the Barriers to Group Sustainability

With the hiring of a new PC in Wenchi in 1986, and the replacement of the project staff in Begoro at the end of Phase I, considerable efforts were made to correct some of the mistakes made earlier in the project. According to the project's final report, “Only during the second part of Phase II was more attention paid by the project to the promotion of group saving activities,” as well as promoting group income-generating activities. The project also made greater efforts to ensure that group members all lived in the same village and to promote group record keeping, training, and leadership development. These efforts were successful to the extent that group sustainability and the percentage of groups with group savings and income-generating activities did increase in Phase II and the Transition Phase.

Unfortunately, the initial missteps would hinder the project's work throughout its lifetime. Community members in both AAs continued to consider PPP-Ghana as primarily a credit and input supply project (see PPP group history 3). Further, group members often viewed group saving and income-generating activities as tied to the credit component of the project. Therefore, although group savings and income-generating activities increased later in the project, many groups collapsed and abandoned their savings and IGAs when project credit ended. Ultimately, PPP-Ghana was only partially successful at overcoming the various barriers to group sustainability.

PPP group history 3: group member's perception of the purpose of PPP-Ghana. The original Dominase Resettlement Groups No. 1 and No. 2 had been formed in 1987 by recent settlers to an area near Lake Volta. The groups received loans in the same year they were formed and most members were able to repay. The GP responsible for the group reported that they were a very active group, with regular meetings and group farms growing cassava, maize, and beans in 1990 and 1991. Unfortunately, a land dispute with the indigenous land owners led to attacks on group members, and eventually most group members left the AA. By 1992, some members had returned and two new groups were formed in the same area. Minutes from the first group meeting record their perception of the purpose of PPP groups. “Pape Obenu Sackiley asked of the importance of such [PPP] groups. Mr. E.O. Asei briefed us into [sic] details. He said that the government gives assistance to only people who form cooperative groups and also it brings unity among people.” Even after considerable effort by GPs during the second and transition phases to emphasize the benefits of group cooperation and group income-generating activities, by 1992 many individuals in both AAs continued to consider PPP-Ghana as primarily a credit-supply project. Nevertheless, as of the summer of 1993, the two new groups in Dominase were meeting every two weeks, each had a group farm of one acre planted with maize, and a third group was being formed in the community.

2. Institutionalization and Replication of the PPP development approach

While promoting PPP group sustainability was a central element of PPP-Ghana, institutionalization and replication of the PPP development approach was also an important objective of this PPP pilot project. In this study, institutionalization is considered the process of adopting and sustaining the PPP development approach in the action areas. The implementing NGOs have primary responsibility for institutionalizing the PPP development approach. Replication, on the other hand, is the process of adopting the PPP development approach and implementing it in other areas. The government of Ghana, various NGOs, and FAO/Accra have been involved, to different degrees, in replicating the PP development approach. As with promoting group sustainability, however, the project encountered various barriers to institutionalization and replication.

The fourth and last phase of PPP-Ghana, called Phase III, represents the most significant example of the institutionalization of the PPP development approach. While there has been no formal replication of the PPP development approach in Ghana, the project has served to increase awareness of participation in development and increase the level of local participation in various government, NGO, and FAO development projects.

2.1 Barriers to Replication and Institutionalization

Various factors impeded the project's ability to institutionalize and replicate the PPP development approach. The single most important factor was its inability to develop sustainable self-help groups. Also, the institutional arrangements of the project often caused confused lines of authority and responsibility and limited the development of a sense of ownership by the implementing NGOs or the government of Ghana. In contrast, FAO remained deeply involved in project funding and decision making throughout the first, second, and transition phases. Additionally, a high rate of staff turnover and insufficient training hindered the institutionalization and replication of the PPP development approach within implementing NGOs and government ministries. Finally, the lack of local Project Implementing Committees as well as an effective means of participatory monitoring and on-going evaluation (PMOE) limited institutionalization at the local community level.

a. Institutional Arrangements

When project activities began in late 1983, a team of group promoters was stationed in each action area, with the national project coordinator and the Task Force (including the original implementing NGOs, FAO, and the government of Ghana) stationed in Accra (see Figure 1). This institutional arrangement, combined with poor transportation and communication, resulted in very limited supervision or support of project staff. It also left a great deal of the responsibility for managing the project in the hands of the NPC and FAO. This left the implementing NGOs and the government of Ghana with unclear roles and subsequently limited involvement in project implementation. This institutional arrangement proved inappropriate for implementing a new and innovative pilot project and in the long-run limited local institutionalization.

In an effort to improve this situation, responsibility for implementing the project was transferred from the original NGOs based in Accra to NGOs that had staff in the action areas (see Figure 2). These were the Catholic Diocese of Sunyani (CDS) in Wenchi and the Presbyterian Church of Ghana (PCG) in Begoro. The transfer of responsibility to the new local NGOs was a gradual process, ending in the signing of a letter of agreement between FAO and the PCG and the CDS at the beginning of Phase II.

Therefore, throughout Phase I, before the PCG and CDS began working with the project, the local institutional involvement in the project was very limited. While the NGOs increased their involvement during the second phase, FAO retained a central role in implementing the project. Because of this, at the end of the Transition Phase, neither NGO considered PPP-Ghana to be their own project. Rather, PPP-Ghana continued to be considered FAO's project. Furthermore, with the new institutional arrangement, the government of Ghana's role in the project was limited to its position on the Project Review Committee (PRC). Since the PRC did not have responsibility for managing the project, the new institutional arrangements severely limited the government of Ghana's role in the project. Finally, high rates of staff turnover within the implementing NGOs and local government ministries further hampered the institutionalization of the PPP development approach within these organizations.

Figure 1. Institutional Arrangements: Phase I.

Figure 2. Institutional Arrangements: Phase II and Transition Phase.

b. Action Area Project Implementing Committees

The Phase I Plan of Operation called for the creation of Project Implementing Committees (PICs) in both action areas. The PICs would be made up of project beneficiaries, GPs, and representatives from local NGOs, financial institutions, and government line agencies. Their functions would include monitoring project performance, facilitating communication between the various individuals and organizations involved in the project, and evaluating PPP group production plans in order to make recommendations regarding project credit and input supply. Ultimately, PICs were also a key element promoting project institutionalization at the local level.

The project's Terminal Reports states that interim PICs had been established in both AAs by mid-1983. The original PIC in Wenchi AA, however, “soon ceased operation due to lack of interest on the part of committee members.” A replacement PIC was never created in the action area. The original PIC in Begoro had also ceased to function by the end of Phase I. A new PIC was constituted in the action area at the beginning of Phase II. Unfortunately, this PIC “functioned largely as an institution that rubber-stamped project activities without being able to provide constructive contributions.” This second PIC collapsed prior to the end of Phase II and the project continued to function without a PIC throughout the Transition Phase.

The lack of action area PICs severely limited the project's ability to take advantage of human and material resources available in the AAs. It also undermined the basic premise for having local NGOs implement the project. Without local PICs, the implementing NGOs were unable to provide local understanding of the social institutions, economies, and resources of the AAs. The lack of PICs also severely limited local institutionalization of the PPP development approach in the action areas.

c. Participatory Monitoring and On-going Evaluation

Since PPP-Ghana was one of the first two PPP pilot projects, effective systems of monitoring and evaluation would be crucial to its success and subsequent replication. Unfortunately, neither FAO/Rome, FAO/Accra, the government of Ghana, nor the local NGOs ever implemented a system of monitoring and evaluation that could successfully identify and solve project problems, let alone one that was participatory. This had the effect of allowing problems to remain unresolved for extended periods of time, reducing participant's confidence in the project, lowering staff moral, and hindering project institutionalization and replication.

Throughout the first, second, and transition phases, FAO/Rome hired expatriate and local consultants to evaluate the progress of various aspects of PPP-Ghana. While these FAO consultants produced an impressive quantity of project documents, their recommendations were only partially put into practice, and in some cases not at all. The inability of FAO/Rome to develop an effective means of technical backstopping seriously limited the project's success and later replication.

Unfortunately, the local NGOs were also unable to identify and solve problems in their action areas. This is partially due to their late involvement in the project, but also due to the absence of an effective mechanism for collecting reliable data on project implementation, identifying problems, and putting solutions into practice. A striking example is that financial misappropriation of project loans in Wenchi AA began with the first set of loans in 1984 and continued through the last loans in 1988. Either FAO and the CDS didn't have the monitoring system in place to identify this problem, didn't have a means of correcting it, or failed to attempt to correct it. In any case, it was a major breakdown in the monitoring and evaluation of the project and seriously reduced the project's effectiveness.

According to project documents, the monitoring and on-going evaluation of the project was meant to be participatory. This was to give PPP group members greater voice in the decision making process of the project. To a great extent, however, this did not take place. A national workshop was held and a manual was developed, but PMOE was never put into practice in any serious manner.

The lack of action area PICs and ineffective PMOE denied PPP group members the ability to influence what was “their” project and develop local institutions to sustain the PPP development approach in the action areas. In addition, the eventual failure of most PPP groups has caused many NGO and government officials to view PPP-Ghana as a relative failure, making replication of the PPP development approach very difficult.

2.2 Local Institutionalization

Phase III represents the extent of formal local institutionalization of the PPP development approach in the action areas. Beyond Phase III, however, little progress has been made to institutionalize PPP at the grassroots level in the local communities. Without further steps toward institutionalization within both the communities of the action areas and the implementing NGOs, the end of Phase III will likely mark the end of institutionalization of the PPP development approach in Ghana.

a. Institutionalization within Phase III

The latest phase of PPP-Ghana, Phase III, began in September 1992 in Begoro AA and in January 1993 in Wenchi AA. In Phase III, PPP-Ghana is effectively two separate projects, managed by the two local NGOs and directly funded by two Dutch donor NGOs. The beginning of Phase III marked the end of official FAO involvement in PPP-Ghana.

In Begoro AA, the four GPs and PC that had worked throughout the second and transition phases have continued into Phase III of project activities. Active Phase II groups continue to receive project support, and numerous new groups have been formed by the project. Table 7 details the Phase III PPP groups in Begoro AA as of the summer of 1993.

Table 7. Phase III PPP groups, Begoro AA, Summer 1993.

AA/Cluster		Transition-phase groups continuing into Phase III	New Phase III groups	Total Phase III groups
Begoro AA		41	39	80
	Obooho	8	9	17
	Ahomahomasu	10	3	13
	Ehiamenkyene	4	7	11
	Dwenase	7	9	16
	Abooso	10	4	14
	Apaa	2	0	0
	Bormase	0	7	7

During Phase III in Begoro AA, project staff is concentrating on developing and providing training for new group IGAs. The most important of these are beekeeping and snail and mushroom production. Many of the old and new groups have started group income-generating activities as well as group saving. Project staff are currently planning to establish a local project advisory committee (PAC), the equivalent of a PIC. Unfortunately, after a year of Phase III project activities, it is yet to be created.

In Wenchi AA, only one GP, one farmers' representative, and the PC from the second phase worked during the Transition Phase. Of these, only the farmers' representative continued into Phase III as a group promoter. Five new GPs and a PC were hired by the Catholic Diocese of Sunyani to begin Phase III project activities in the AA at the beginning of 1993.

Only one of the Phase II and Transition Phase PPP groups has continued into phase III, but project staff have started forming new groups through local Catholic churches. Table 8 shows the Phase III PPP groups in Wenchi AA. Since Phase III group formation did not begin until April 1993, none of the new groups had begun group IGAs by the time of the study's field research. For Phase III, the project has promoted group savings with BACCSOD, the local Catholic credit union. Only a few months after the new groups were formed, 28 (72 percent) had registered with BACCSOD, and 17 (44 percent) had already made deposits. Six months after their initial deposit, groups will be able to take out loans up to twice the value of their savings. Project staff hope that the credit union approach to savings and credit will avoid past problems encountered by the project. By the summer of 1993, GPs had temporarily suspended the group-formation process in order to consolidate existing groups.

Table 8. Phase III PPP groups, Wenchi AA, Summer 1993.

AA/Cluster		Transition-phase groups continuing into Phase III	New Phase III groups	Total Phase III groups
Wenchi AA		1	38	39
	Menji	0	6	6
	Badu	0	8	8
	Tromeso	0	7	7
	Subinso	1	4	5
	Nsawkaw	0	7	7
	Techiman	0	6	6

b. Institutionalization within the Implementing NGOs

Both of the NGOs involved in implementing PPP-Ghana report that their other development projects have become more participatory since working with the project. This represents an important informal institutionalization of the PPP development approach within both the Presbyterian Church of Ghana and the Catholic Diocese of Sunyani.

Neither NGO, however, envisions replicating PPP-Ghana beyond the existing action areas or continuing project activities beyond Phase III without significant external funding. This is caused by a belief within both NGOs that PPP-Ghana has not been fully successful at achieving its objectives and a continuing lack of a sense of ownership of the project. To a great extent, PPP-Ghana remains a separate and external FAO project.

2.3 Replication of the PPP Development Approach

There has been no formal replication of the PPP development approach in Ghana. Many government agencies and NGOs, however, have adopted certain aspects of the PPP development approach for their projects. During the study's field research, many development officials in Ghana noted that PPP had strengthened the role of people's participation in development in Ghana. Therefore, although formal replication of the PPP development approach has not taken place, various governmental ministries, non-governmental organizations, and individuals have benefited from their involvement with PPP-Ghana, and in some cases continue to actively support PPP groups.

a. Replication by Government Agencies

The government of Ghana's lack of formal replication of the PPP development approach can be attributed to its limited role during project implementation, the high turnover of agency officials, and the limited success of the project in developing self-reliant self-help groups. Although there has been no formal replication outside the action areas, local government ministries in Begoro AA continue to work with PPP groups and various government officials in both AAs have been exposed to the PPP development approach.

At the national level, PPP has strengthened various ministries' commitment to participation in development. Officials at the Ministry of Local Government (the ministry represented on the Project Review Committee) report various government projects that support the development of small self-help groups focused on a particular income-generating activity. Two examples are the Strengthening Community Management in the Development and Operation of Facilities and Services Project and the Woman's Fish Smoking Project. Government projects, however, have not explicitly stated that their development methodology is based on the PPP development approach, rather that PPP-Ghana strengthened what was a pre-existing trend toward greater participation in development.

b. Replication by NGOs

The FAO official in Accra responsible for PPP-Ghana reports that numerous Ghanaian NGOs have inquired about PPP-Ghana with the intention of replicating certain aspects of its development approach in their own projects. These include the African Center for Rural Development, the Farmindus Services Project of the Nnoboa Foundation, the Danida project, and various CENCOSAD projects. Therefore, it is likely that PPP-Ghana has played a valuable demonstrative role in promoting people's participation in Ghana. None of these projects, however, have stated that their efforts are a formal replication of the PPP development approach.

c. Replication by the FAO Regional Office for Africa, Accra

As with the NGOs and government agencies, there has been no official replication of PPP-Ghana from within FAO's Regional Office for Africa (FAO/RAFR). FAO/RAFR has continued to provide support to small-farmers' organizations, especially in the Volta region of Ghana. In this region, FAO/RAFR has identified a number of small self-help groups and has supported them through training in the income-generating activities and proposal writing. FAO/RAFR has also designed a training of trainers in participatory development project and is currently looking for funding. PPP-Ghana has also increased participation in FAO/RAFR fishery and forestry projects elsewhere in Africa and in their Freedom from Hunger Campaign (FFHC).

3. Benefits to PPP-Ghana Participants

Although the sustainability of PPP groups and the institutionalization and replication of the PPP development approach has been limited, various individuals and organizations benefited significantly from the project during its first three phases. These benefits include direct benefits (including improved individual activities, group income-generating activities, and community service activities), training, increased women's participation in development, group linkages, and former project staff who continue to work in development and public service. While some of these benefits have been sustained beyond the collapse of most PPP groups and the limited institutionalization of the PPP development approach, many continued only as long as PPP groups and PPP-Ghana still functioned.

3.1 Direct Project Benefits

PPP group members received direct benefits through improved individual activities, group IGAs, and community service projects. Typically, group member interest in these different activities decreased as benefits had to be shared with larger groups. Therefore, members were most interested in individual activities, next in PPP group IGAs, and finally in community service projects.

a. Individual Activities

Most of the small-scale farmers that joined PPP groups were primarily interested in increasing their own agricultural production. For this reason, credit was more often used on individual activities than on group IGAs. Through credit supplied by the project, many members were able to double the quantity of land under cultivation by hiring additional labor or tractor services. Further, the credit and inputs supplied by the project allowed individuals to increase the quantity of agricultural inputs applied to their land. This intensification of agricultural production often increased the yields of their traditional crops by three to four times.

While these are impressive gains, they were not sustainable in the long run. With the end of project credit, acreage under cultivation and yields fell back to their previous levels. Those PPP group members that relied exclusively on the project's credit and input supply to increase their agricultural production enjoyed short-term benefits but experienced no improvement in long-term income.

Through training provided by the project, however, higher agricultural production was sustainable in the long run. Project staff, often with the support of government and NGO agricultural extension officers, provided training to PPP group members on a number of improved agricultural techniques. These included improved plant populations and spacing, methods for using organic and chemical fertilizers, agroforestry techniques, soil conservation, and improved storage and marketing techniques. Of these, improved storage and marketing and improved plant population and spacing appear to be the techniques most extensively put into practice. These techniques allowed farmers to sustainably increase agricultural yields up to two times their traditional yields (see PPP group history 4). With the failure of most PPP groups, the increase in yields in individual agricultural production proved to be one of the most important benefits received by project participants.

PPP group history 4: Yield increases through PPP-Ghana training. The first PPP group formed in the village of Droboso was formed in 1986, the second in 1987. Droboso No. 1 received loans through the project in 1986 and 1987 and had a group farm of 3.5 acres of maize in both years. Droboso No. 2 received a loan in 1988, but never had a group IGA. Both groups collapsed two years after their last loan. With the credit supplied by the project, group members were able to increase the average size of their individual farms from one to two acres by hiring additional labor and buying chemical fertilizers and pesticides. With training provided by the project, farmers increased yields through improved maize plant populations, planting distances, and timing of planting, weeding, and harvesting. Prior to joining the PPP group and employing traditional farming practices, using no chemical inputs and only family labor, farmers' yields of maize averaged three maxi-bags per acre (one maxi-bag is approximately 120 kilograms). With credit to buy chemicals and hire additional labor and using the improved farming techniques, yields increased to 12-15 maxi-bags (over 200 percent greater). When loans were no longer available, farm sizes fell back to the previous one acre per farmer. Farmers continued to use the improved farming techniques, however, and while their yields dropped to 8-10 maxi-bags, this yield was a 100 percent increase over traditional yields. In addition, farmers reported that the other inhabitants of Droboso had seen the benefits of the improved fanning techniques, and now everyone in the village is using them.

In a limited number of cases, PPP groups reported reducing the size of their individual farm because of the amount of work demanded by group IGAs. Most, however, stated that they were able to maintain or increase the size of their individual farms due to credit provided by the project and assistance from other group members. This was especially the case when PPP groups worked as traditional nnoboa groups. Members of nnoboa groups cultivate their individual farms, but they work as a group, rotating through each member's farm.

b. Group Income-generating Activities

Although project staff actively promoted group income-generating activities, the group member's focus on credit and individual activities caused two-fifths of Phase II PPP groups to never start group IGAs. Another two-fifths started group IGAs primarily to be eligible for continued credit. Once project credit ended, however, these group IGAs failed. The last one-fifth of the Phase II PPP groups were able to develop group IGAs profitable enough to make the group sustainable beyond the end of project credit.

Some of these groups in Begoro AA continue to have very dynamic group income-generating activities (see PPP group history 5). These include group farms where a portion of the proceeds from the harvest is saved to reinvest in their next group farm and groups that are very active producing beads from ground glass to make bracelets and necklaces. Other groups that began with a group farm invested part of their profits to buy pigs, sheep, goats, or chickens to start a second group IGA. Many of the remaining PPP groups in the AA are beginning to start beekeeping IGAs. Almost all of these groups report being able to invest part of their profits in their next year's group IGA with enough left over for consumption and saving.

PPP group history 5: Successful group IGAs. The Anidaso group in Ahomahomasu cluster was formed at the beginning of Phase II by 10 men and 5 women. Since 1987, the group has experimented with planting different types of crops on their group farm. These include pepper, maize, ground nut, and onion. From these experiments, the group now checks the weather to decide which crops it will plant on its group farm. The group currently has a group farm of one acre of maize and a half acre of peppers. The group received a loan in 1988, and was able to pay it back in full the following year. Since then, the group has relied on its own savings to finance its group farm. When the produce from the group farm is sold, one third is reinvested in the group farm, one third is saved in their group bank account and one third is divided evenly among the members. The group has plans to petition the local government for a town well and start a reforestation project. When asked, group members were confident they would be able to continue to function as a group without further support from the project.

c. Community Service Projects

Besides individual and group activities that directly benefit only group members, many PPP groups engaged in a variety of community service projects. Such projects included cleaning their community's source of water, clearing paths and roads, maintaining or rehabilitating community buildings such as schools and clinics, and training non-PPP group members in new agricultural techniques (see inter-group association histories 1 and 2). More PPP groups in Begoro AA reported community service activities than in Wenchi AA.

3.2 Training Received by PPP Groups

According to PPP-Ghana's final report, training activities for PPP group members “were a regular and frequent feature of the project, and consisted of group meetings and workshops, addressed by project staff and guest speakers.” Topics included agroforestry, aforestation, soil conservation, improved farming techniques, animal husbandry, marketing, storage, group organization, PMOE, adult literacy, nutrition, child care, and community environmental issues. Project staff and project records in both action areas indicate that training was an on-going part of project activities.

Inter-group association histories 1 and 2: Community service projects. The Maize and Cassava groups in Abodobi village were formed in August of 1987. Each group received loans in 1988 and have had group farms ever since. Part of the profit from the current group farm is saved and part is invested in the following year's group farm. From their example, three other PPP groups were formed in and near the village. The inhabitants of Abodobi faced a serious problem marketing their produce, since the nearest market was a two-hour walk with only a path connected the two villages. The five PPP groups making up the Abodobi inter-group association worked together to build a road that trucks can use and they established a market at Abodobi. Next, the five groups dug a well for Abodobi. Currently, they plan to build a bridge over a stream that crosses the road they built. While group members expressed frustration at the slow pace of improvement because of the lack of project loans, they declared their intention to continue working together with or without project support. The Tromeso inter-group association in Wenchi AA, formed in 1984, also completed impressive community service projects. The Tromeso IA began by developing a system of selling maize to help group members repay their loans. Later, the IA was also able to complete the construction of a clinic in Tromeso, even after the first set of walls collapsed in torrential rains. Unfortunately, the Tromeso IA failed when its member groups collapsed after the termination of project loans.

In Begoro AA, the final report on Phase II states that 827 group leaders and members received training from the project during the phase. Most training was provided through one-day programs in Begoro town or in the village where the PPP groups were located. These programs included training in record keeping (78 beneficiaries), improved methods of farming (480 beneficiaries), rabbit rearing and storage of cereals (54 beneficiaries), and production planning and anti-brush fire campaigns (183 beneficiaries). In addition, a five-day workshop was held at Abetifi for 32 group leaders. Training provided at the workshop included leadership roles, production planning and implementation, simple accounting and costing, and record keeping.

While it is relatively easy to detail the training provided by the project, it is much more difficult to assess what the trainees took away and what they put into practice. For the PPP groups in both AAs, the most successful training appears to be in improved farming techniques and community environmental issues, such as cleaning water sources. Furthermore, PPP group members in many communities shared their training with other members of their community, multiplying the impact of the project's training.

Ultimately, the training provided by the project proved to be one of the most important methods for providing sustainable benefits to project participants. Unfortunately, the domination of the credit component limited to project's ability to focus its efforts on training.

3.3 Women's Participation in PPP Groups

While project documents place a strong emphasis on promoting women's participation in PPP groups, women's participation during the first phase of the project was limited. In Wenchi AA, semi-annual reports show women's membership in PPP groups was less that 11 percent by the end of the first phase. In Begoro AA, by the end of Phase I, women's membership in PPP groups was almost 25 percent.

The terminal evaluation of Phase I of PPP-Ghana recognized the project's limited success in this area. In Begoro AA, “Women's participation in the project is disproportionately low.” The report from Wenchi AA stated that “we do not think that success in this desired direction [woman's participation] is anything to talk much about.” The report recommended that “(a) a campaign to attract women to the project be mounted; (b) a female GP be recruited; (c) more sole women's groups be formed around activities 'reserved' for or preferred by women.”

In Wenchi AA, one woman had worked as a GP since the beginning of the project, but none of the three new GPs or the farmer representatives hired in the second phase were women. In Begoro AA, no women were part of the Phase I project staff, but at the start of Phase II, two of the six new GPs were women. Unfortunately, one woman GP left the project in the middle of Phase II, and her replacement was male. Further, the remaining female GP left the project at the end of Phase II, leaving an all-male staff throughout the Transition Phase.

It appears, however, that PPP-Ghana was successful at increasing women's membership in PPP groups later in the project. By the end of Phase II, women's membership had risen to almost 30 percent in Wenchi AA and to greater than 34 percent in Begoro AA. These figures are still low, however, considering the high percentage of women among the rural poor in both AAs who actively participate in agricultural production, the main activity of most PPP groups in Ghana. Relative to the traditional levels, however, the project was able to significantly increase women's participation in development in the action areas.

While the project was able to increase women's membership in PPP groups to a certain degree, other aspects of women's participation in PPP-Ghana remained limited. A sample of 21 mixed Phase II PPP groups from both AAs showed only 10 (less than 50 percent) with women in leadership positions. While there were 75 leadership positions in these 10 groups, only 10 positions (13 percent) were filled by women. Of the positions held by women, none were chairperson, one was secretary and nine were treasurers. The relatively high number of women treasurers is largely explained by the general belief by Ghanaian men that women are more responsible with money.

Further, PPP-Ghana was less successful at promoting all-women's groups than all-male groups. In Begoro AA, only 2 of the 126 Phase II PPP groups (less than 2 percent) were all women, and neither was still functioning in the summer of 1993. On the other hand, 4 of the 126 Phase II PPP groups in Begoro were all men. In Wenchi AA, 3 of the 123 Phase II groups were all women (less than 3 percent), only 2 of which were still functioning in 1993. Conversely, 10 of the 126 Phase II PPP groups (8 percent) were all-men groups.

Although the number of women holding leadership positions and the number of all women's groups was disproportionately low, many women participated actively in their groups. In meetings during the study's field research, while men dominated discussions, both men and women stated that women participate in PPP group discussions, decision making and activities. While some distinctions were made between male and female jobs within group activities, few differences were declared with regard to group goals or plans. Most groups agreed with one member's statement that “Once we are in the group, we are one, no distinction [between men and women].”

PPP-Ghana's limited success promoting women's participation is rooted in the traditionally male-dominated Ghanaian society. At the group level, this made it difficult for project staff to change traditional patterns of interaction between men and women. At the project level, this pushed the objective of greater women's participation toward the bottom of the project's long list of objectives. Given these barriers, PPP-Ghana partial success at increasing women's participation in development activities in the AAs is a significant achievement. Many other development projects in Ghana, with the same objective of increasing woman's participation, proved unable to match these results.

3.4 PPP Group Linkages

An important feature of the PPP development approach was that individual PPP groups were to be linked to service agencies, other PPP groups, and local authorities. Some success was made in Begoro AA in developing linkages between PPP groups and service agencies and with other PPP groups, but scarcity of time and resources limited the effectiveness of these linkages. In Wenchi AA, with the exception of the linkage between the PPP groups and the Ghana Commercial Bank and formation of the Tromeso IA, few linkages of any kind developed.

a. PPP Group linkages with service agencies

One of the purposes of PPP groups was that they function as receiving mechanisms for services from government line agencies, NGOs and local financial institutions. Undoubtedly, the dominating linkage of this type was with the GCB for loan delivery and associated savings facilities. Linkages for delivery of other services was hampered by the lack of government and NGO agencies providing services in the AAs. This was especially the case in the first phase of the project.

Government line agencies that provided services to the groups in both AAs included the Ministry of Agriculture (especially the departments of agricultural extension and veterinary services), Ministry of Health, Ghana National Fire Service, Ministry of Land and Natural Resources (department of rural forestry) and the Ghana Education Service. NGOs that have provided services to PPP groups are limited, but they include the Subinso Agric Project, operated by the Catholic Diocese of Sunyani in Wenchi and GTZ projects in Begoro.

Many of the active groups in Begoro AA reported regular visits from subdistrict agricultural extension officers. Equally important, most of these groups expressed the confidence to contact these officers if they were faced with an agricultural problem. Contacts between PPP groups and the department of rural forestry regarding allocation of forest land burned by bushfires for short-term agricultural production remain active. While PPP group members may continue to have contacts with other government and NGO agencies, these are most often community-wide contacts, not contacts initiated by PPP groups.

b. Linkages with other PPP groups

Project documents envisioned the development of formal and informal linkages between PPP groups. Of greatest importance would be the formation of inter-group associations (IAs) in order to undertake economic or social activities too large for individual groups. Eventually, “as the groups become more self-propelling, the role of the GPs will gradually be replaced by the groups and their associations (IAs).”

During Phase II of the project, 14 IAs were formed in the Begoro AA, and only one in Wenchi AA. Therefore, most Phase II PPP groups did not belong to an IA. By the time of field research, eight of the Begoro IAs were still functioning, while the Wenchi IA in Tromeso cluster had collapsed.

In Begoro AA, IAs began by linking groups with common group IGAs. This proved ineffective due to long distances between these groups and relatively small levels of production. Later, IAs were formed based on village clusters, ensuring that IA member PPP groups were closer together. Typically, the leadership from member PPP groups, or elected IA representatives, came together to form the executive of the IA. The IA's executive would meet once every two weeks or once every month to discuss improvements in production, purchase of inputs, or plan community service projects. A general meeting of all members of the IA is then called to discuss these proposals and implement them.

Inter-group association history 3: IA activities. The Akrumso IA was formed during Phase II from six groups in the Ehiamenkyene cluster. Deciding that they needed a school for their children, the groups came together to construct a five-classroom school of earth, thatch, and bamboo. With the school built, they conducted a census of school-age children in the area and made a formal petition to the Ghana Education Service for teachers. Three teachers were employed by the service to work in the new school. The Akrumso IA also negotiated with the department of rural forestry to release burned forest land to group members. An initial two and a half hectares were released in 1990 with the understanding that the group members must reforest the land. The IA developed a tree nursery and planted 3,000 seedlings. Since this first allocation of land, group members have continued to acquire land under similar conditions. Since most of these group members are recent settlers with no land rights, this arrangement saves them the 50 percent of their production they would have to give to a land owner in a shareholding arrangement. The Akrumso IA continues to function even though some of the member groups have collapsed. The IA meets regularly and has initiated construction of a well in their community.

During the second phase, these IAs initiated various community projects, including constructing clinics and storage shops for inputs, aforestation projects, promoting environmental protection, constructing and renovating schools, and building a road, a market, and a well (see inter-group association histories 1, 2 and 3). In addition, IAs have undertaken activities such as cassava and gari (processed cassava) production. IAs are also used by the project staff to facilitate training of PPP group leaders and members. As with PPP groups in general, IAs functioned best when they had a specific activity that met the felt needs of the PPP group members. Members of many of the IAs in Begoro AA indicated that their IAs were self-reliant and would be sustainable in the long run.

c. Linkages with local authorities

Another function of PPP groups was to be a voice for the rural poor in dealing with local authorities. While a potentially important part of increasing the rural poor's participation in their own development, this aspect of the project received limited attention of project staff. While most groups reported no contact with local authorities, some had received land from local traditional authorities and others had informed their local authorities of their current activities. On a number of occasions, through these contacts, new PPP groups had been formed. In addition, in both action areas, PPP group members and leaders have become district assemblymen. It is difficult, however, to assess the extent to which this is due to their involvement in PPP groups or to other factors.

3.5 Status of Former PPP Staff

In Wenchi AA, during the first, second and transition phases, PPP-Ghana employed one PC, seven GPs and two farmer representatives. One farmer representative, Mr. S.S. Mumuni, is currently a GP in the third phase of PPP-Ghana in Wenchi AA. The other farmer representative, Mr. A.K. Okyere, owns and operates a taxi in Wenchi town.

Of the seven original GPs, Mr. R. Williams and Mr. K. Yeboah now live and work in Europe, and Mr. W. Ofori-Anuff lives in Nigeria. Mr. J.K. Diawoo operates his own business and Mr. E.O. Kwaitoo is retired. Mr. A.A. Awiah works for the Ministry of Social Welfare in the Upper East region of Ghana. Ms. T. Nyarko-Fofie is currently a Member of Parliament, representing a district in the Brong Ahafo region. Finally, Mr. K. Dacosta-Dapaah, the former action area PC, is now a field assistant for the International Fund for Agriculture and Development's Small Holder Input Marketing Project, managing the project in the Afinso district of Asante region.

In Begoro AA, nine different GPs, two PCs, and one farmer representative, worked on the project during Phases I and II and the Transition Phase. Four GPs, Mr. S.G. Agyakwa, Mr. K. Anno-Oware, Mr. N. Kwaku-Dua and Mr. L. Adjei-Dampare and the Phase II PC, Mr. E. Kissiedu-Ayi continue to work on the third phase of the project. Of the five other GPs, Ms. J. Anno-Oware lives in England, Ms. A.Y. Sunu is a teacher of agriculture at a secondary school in Asante region, Mr. K Osei-Dankwa is a planning officer for the department of country and town planning, Mr. A. Puplampu-Botchway manages his own farm in the Eastern region, and Mr. V. Kwarteng is now retired.

The one farmers' representative, Mr. A. Brako, sells cement in the Begoro area. Finally, Mr. J.A. Annorbah-Sarpei, originally the national project coordinator and later the action area PC for Begoro, returned to direct the organization he founded, the Centre for Community Studies, Action and Development (CENCOSAD). CENCOSAD's organizational profile states that it is a “national, indigenous, non-profit, non-governmental organization... to promote models of sustainable, community determined, self-reliant development.”

In Summary, of the 22 individuals employed by the project during the first, second, and transition phases: 8 (37 percent) continue to work in development, 4 (18 percent) work in the public sector, 4 (18 percent) have their own businesses, 4 (18 percent) have left Ghana, and 2 (9 percent) are retired. Therefore, over half of the staff members of PPP-Ghana have continued to work in development or the public sector. The continued work of former staff in development and public service represents another important contribution of PPP-Ghana.