A chain of missing links : integrating smallholder farmers into the Ghanaian cocoa sector

(1)

A Chain of Missing Links

Integrating Smallholder Farmers into the

Ghanaian Cocoa Sector

Michael Lawrenson;

MSc International Development

Supervisor: Dr. Yves van Leynseele Second Reader: Dr. Mirjam Ros-Tonen

(2)

Abstract

Value chain collaboration (VCC) has been promoted as an effective inclusive development strategy, with the potential to benefit smallholder farmers through enhanced market integration. There has been increasing consensus amongst development scholars and practitioners in regard to VCC, that the traditional technology-transfer agricultural extension model is ineffective and that extension approaches should instead be directed towards more facilitative, demand-driven mechanisms. Farmer-led development, has been promoted as a model conducive to these recommendations, with proponents arguing that this approach enhances relational inclusion and equitability within value chain processes; however, this bottom-up strategy relies on a comprehensive understanding of farmer agency and the informal support networks that facilitate livelihood development, a focus which has been lacking in previous VCC analyses. The main aim of this research, therefore, is to address this knowledge gap by exploring these informal collaborations, to discern how they compare to formal support structures and how this comparison informs bottom-up agricultural learning strategies. This will be established by firstly, contextualising VVC, outlining the key actors and agencies in the Ghanaian cocoa sector that provide formal support structures for farmers; secondly, by assessing the different knowledge systems that operate in the formal sphere; thirdly, by considering the factors that marginalise particular groups from integrating into agricultural learning systems; and finally, by exploring informal support networks, to determine the most effective means of enhancing bottom up innovation. This research has utilised a qualitative research approach, through the use of semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Bottom-line findings reflect a nexus of informal collaborations that are highly influential in the livelihood development of smallholder farmers. The findings also display a plethora of diversity amongst smallholder farmers, which has major implications in terms of access to formal support structures. Comparing both formal and informal spheres, has exhibited farmers’ preference for practically orientated agricultural learning strategies that demonstrate a tangible impact. Future systems of knowledge transfer should thus recognise the major influence and potential of informal networks and farmers’ preference for practically orientated learning models. This research concludes that bottom-up innovation can be enhanced through the inclusion of informal networks in future VCC analyses, thus facilitating more effective agricultural learning strategies in development strategies.

(3)

Acknowledgements

This thesis was made possible by a number of people to whom I am eternally grateful. Firstly, my supervisor, Dr. Yves van Leynseele, who’s patience and expertise enabled me to cope with the demands of writing a master’s thesis whilst simultaneously undertaking an internship. Secondly, Dr. Mirjam Ros-Tonen, who’s academic contributions have been a major inspiration for this research process. Thirdly, to my field supervisor, Dr. Mercy Derkyi, who’s expertise and hospitality whilst I was in the field was greatly appreciated. Fourthly, to my research assistant Jesse Sarbeng, who’s assistance in the field was invaluable fifthly, to my interviewees, who cooperation in the research process was admirable. Finally, I’d like to thank my Mother and Father, who’s ongoing support I am forever grateful for.

(4)

List of Figures:

(7)

Figure 2 Conceptual Scheme Depicting Major Concepts 24 Figure 3: Framework for Assessing Agricultural Learning Systems 35 Figure 4: A Schematic Overview of the Current Cocoa Network in Ghana 39 Figure 5: Graphical Representations of Farmer-CHED Interactions in Achina and

Tanokrom Communities

41

Figure 6: Graphical Representation of how Farmer Concerns and Government Feedback are (Formally) Communicated Up and Down the Supply Chain

43

Figure 7: Graphical Representations of Farmer-MoFA Interactions in Achina and Tanokrom Communities

47

Figure 8: LBC Share of Cocoa Purchases in Ashanti, Brong-Ahafo and Western Regions (1999/00-2005/06)

48

Figure 9: Graphical Representations of Farmer-Lead Farmer Interactions and Prominent Farmer-PC Interactions in Achina and Tanokrom Communities

50

Figure 10: Graphical Representation of Farmer-PC Interactions is Tanokrom Community

52

Figure 11: Graphical Representation of the Social Networks of Mrs. A14 (Achina); Mrs. A24 (Achina;) and Mr. B26 (Achina), Exhibiting their Interactions with PCs.

53

Figure 12: Graphical Representation of Basic and Advanced VCC 54

Figure 14: Assessment of the CHED Learning Model 58

Figure 15: Assessment of the AGL Learning Model 67

Figure 16: Assessment of the Care International Learning Model 71

Figure 17: Farmer Innovation Pathway 75

Figure 18: Framework to Inform Future Policy Regarding Collaborative Agricultural Learning

97

Figure 19: Framework to Inform Future Policy Regarding Collaborative Agricultural Learning.

(8)

List of Tables:

Table 1: Operationalisation of Major Concepts 26

Table 2: Research Design 29

Table 3: Classification of Learning System Processes 33

Table 4: Classification of Learning System Outcomes 34

Table 5: Tenurial arrangements in Achina and Tanokrom Communities 78

List of Picture Sets:

Picture Set 1: Research Location 28

Picture Set 2: Semi-Structured Interviews with Farmers and Focus Groups in Achina and Tanokrom Community

30

Picture Set 3: Achina and Tanokrom Communities 32

Picture Set 4: Network Mapping of Achina and Tanokrom Communities using Kumu.io Software.

33

List of Abbreviations

§ AGL-Armajaro Ghana Limited

(9)

§ CMC-Cocoa Marketing Company § COCOBOD- The Ghana Cocoa Board § CRIG-Cocoa Research Institute Ghana § CSO-Civil Society Organisation § FTF- Farmer Trainer Approach § KKL-Kuapa Kokoo Limited § LBC-Licensed buying company

§ MoFA- Ministry of Food and Agriculture § NPA-No potential for acquisition

§ PBC-Produce Buying Company § PC-Purchasing Clerk

§ SPU-Seed Production Unit § ToT- Trainer of trainer

§ QCC-Quality Control Company

Chapter I: Introduction

1.1 Background

The term ‘Inclusive Development’ has been increasingly popularised within the field of international development and reflects attempts by development practitioners to counter the

(10)

hegemony of the neoliberal capitalist agenda (Gupta, Pouw, Ros-Tonen, 2015: 533). Whilst this departure from traditional models of development amounts to a paradigm shift within the development debate, scholars have emphasised that “Inclusive development will only be brought about through genuine interactive governance that provides the instruments and creates the conditions for adaptive learning and the empowerment of marginalised people” (Gupta et al. 2015: 533). Bottom up development has been promoted as an effective means of empowering marginalised groups, who are increasingly put at risk by the liberalisation of international markets which constantly poses new challenges of exclusion and marginalisation (ibid). Value chain analysis has been a focal point of this approach, specifically how to increase collaboration within these chains to enhance inclusion and equitability. The concept of a value chain can be understood as a multi-faceted production network whereby all the actors involved in the process of economic development are considered, either directly, or indirectly. Helmsing and Vellema (2011) highlight how within the context of development, value chains are widely considered as an instrumental means for achieving desired outcomes within the field. Value chain collaboration (VCC) refers to cooperation between different actors in a chain, including (but not limited to) knowledge sharing and technology transfer, enabling synergy amongst the chain’s constituent parts (Helmsing and Vellema, 2011).

The Ghanaian cocoa industry provides an opportune focal point for analysing inclusive value chain development strategies, due to their centrality within the context of the Ghanaian economy and the major role value chains play in the livelihoods smallholder farmers. Ghana’s cocoa industry exhibits both basic VCC, whereby Licensed Buying Companies (LBC’s) meet the minimum standards of the Ghana Cocoa Board (Cocobod), in addition to complex VCC, in which LBC’s implement additional cocoa production standards, establishing more direct relationships with farmers (Deans, 2015). The relatively homogenous environment of the Ghanaian Cocoa industry, ensured through state-controlled regulations implemented through COCOBOD, exhibits further justification for choosing the Ghanaian coca industry as a focus for value chain analysis (ibid). After the Ivory Coast, Ghana is the second largest producer of cocoa beans, with the sector providing income for approximately 800, 000 farmers in addition to those involved in the trading, transporting and processing of cocoa (World Bank, 2013). As one of the country’s main exports, cocoa dominates Ghana’s agricultural sector and plays a vital role in providing rural employment, facilitating economic development and acting as a focal point for poverty alleviation strategies (World Bank, 2013; Vigneri, Kolavalli, 2017).

(11)

1.2 Rationale: Theoretical and Practical Contribution

The concept of inclusive value chain development is a pro-poor initiative that attempts to mitigate entry barriers for poor producers and input and service providers and is increasingly recognised as an effective poverty alleviation strategy (UNIDO, 2011). Despite these attempts, UNIDO (2011) analysis highlights that, although value chain development initiatives may facilitate improvements in production and processing, this does not necessarily benefit poor and marginalised groups. The instrumentalist view, advocated by the World Bank, argues that this disparity can be overcome through further market integration in regards to smallholders, however, these have been critiqued on the grounds that such efforts are led by an implicit normative assumption that integration is inherently good (Ros-Tonen et al. 2015; Hickey and du Toit, 2007; Khan, Combaz, Fraser, 2015). Hickey and du Toit (2007) emphasise the need to consider what type of relationship exists, as inclusion may result in economic dynamics characterised by inequity or disempowerment which they term “adverse incorporation”. Multi-level, multi-actor, value chain collaboration (VCC) has been promoted as mechanism through which value chain inclusion, based upon equitable terms, can establish productive relationships with the capacity to benefit smallholders (Bitzer, van Wijk, Helmsing, van der Linden, 2009). However, as highlighted by Ros Tonen, (2015), equitable participation in VCC for the most marginalised, may be impeded by entry barriers that require trade-offs and a loss of autonomy. These trade-offs have become increasingly apparent after the global recession, with the prioritisation of growth and employment within the arena of global politics, at the expense of the environment and inclusiveness (Gupta et al. 2015). Smallholder farmers are defined as farmers that “produce goods and services for both markets and subsistence, based mainly on family labour and limited access to land” (Chamberlin 2008; Cousins, 2011; cited from Ros-Tonen et al. 2015: 524). Ensuring equitable terms for this level of the agricultural sector is particularly significant as smallholders produce “80% of all the food grown in Africa and Asia but are among the most marginalised and food-insecure components of rural society” (IFAD 2013a cited from Ros-Tonen et al. 2015: 524). Marginalisation stems from smallholders facing institutional constraints and a lack of formal support structures, which include “A lack of information on prices and technologies, lacking connections to market actors, underdeveloped financial markets and scale diseconomies make it difficult for smallholders to reach out to international or new domestic markets.” (Bitzer et al. 2009: 1). Ensuring equitable

(12)

participation, is thus dependent on establishing new collaborative institutional arrangements, with the capacity to benefit smallholders (ibid).

Ros-Tonen, Van Leynseele, Laven and Sunderland. (2015) argue that despite the extensive literature on value chains, there is a distinct lack of critical approaches towards integration and collaboration regarding bottom up innovation and as a consequence, existing literature lacks the sufficient depth to address smallholder agency. The purpose of this research, therefore, is an attempt to address this knowledge gap, through an exploratory analysis of how smallholder farmers learn within the context of the Ghanaian cocoa sector. As emphasized by Gupta et al. (2015), creating the conditions for adaptive learning is a requisite for inclusive development strategies, due to the need to respond to “new risks of exclusion and marginalization” (Gupta et al. 2015: 546). The rationale for focusing on agricultural learning, therefore, is to access whether existing learning strategies are consistent with this definition. In doing so, this research seeks to provide a critical approach in regard to how bottom up innovation is facilitated through smallholder collaboration and integration, to enable a more comprehensive understanding of smallholder agency.

The notion of bottom up innovation will be addressed through comparing how knowledge is transferred in formal and informal settings and assessing whether current collaborations are conducive to fostering a culture of innovation. The problem statement this research seeks to address, therefore, is to compare how smallholder-orientated agricultural learning strategies differ across formal and informal network collaborations, through the lens of inclusive development. This will not only enable the discernment of how smallholders collaborate, but in addition, this focus allows for the identification of the barriers which prevent smallholder integration within these settings. The societal relevance of this approach, is that a comprehensive understanding of how farmers integrate and collaborate, will enable more informed policy in future when formulating smallholder-orientated agricultural learning strategies. This research understands the formal sphere as consisting of formal institutions and the informal sphere consisting of farmer associations.

(13)

2.1 Introduction

This chapter will outline the theoretical framework that has guided this analysis through outlining the following concepts; firstly, a focus on VCC will be utilised as a means of providing historical context to current collaborations, in addition to identifying the key programs, actors and agencies that influence smallholder development; secondly, after establishing this broad context, the analysis will focus on specific learning models inherent to these programs, to assess how agricultural learning and knowledge is disseminated in the formal sphere; thirdly, the analysis will move onto the impediments that prevent farmers from engaging in collaborative agricultural learning; and finally, the analysis will consider farmer to farmer learning through informal collaborations and what the implications of this are for farmer-led innovation.

2.2 Value Chain Collaboration

2.2.1 Extension typologies

To effectively determine the adaptive learning capacity of existing formal network collaborations, one must first establish the wider context of VCC, through the identification of the formal support structures available to smallholder farmers in the Ghanaian cocoa industry. Situating these networks within the context of their respective value chain processes, enables the discernment of how farmers are included in current formal configurations. In addition, focusing on wider value chain collaborations allows for the identification of the key actors and agencies responsible for smallholder development and the key programs they provide. Formal extension services can be classified into three typologies:

1. Technology transfer- The traditional model of transfer of advice, knowledge and information in a linear manner;

2. Advisory- The use by farmers of a cadre of experts as a source of advice in relation to specific problems faced by them;

3. Facilitation- The aim of this model is to help farmers to define their own problems and develop their own solutions.

(14)

Warner (2008) argues that traditional approaches to agricultural extension have been characterised by the top-down transfer of technology, based upon maximising efficiency through a best practices approach. However, such approaches tend to focus on maximising productivity in terms of the vertical commodity chain, without necessarily benefiting smallholders (Akinnagbe and Ajayi, 2010; Pelum Uganda, 2010). There have been a number of experimental approaches in the past twenty years to mitigate the negative consequences of the transfer of technology model; such strategies have emphasised the need to include farmer knowledge, through the establishment of inclusive multi-stakeholder partnerships that foster capacity building and local innovation (Faysse, Sraïri, and Errahj, 2012; Hall, 2009). However, as highlighted by Faysse et al. (2012), these approaches have been unable to resolve two challenges: firstly, the lack of empowering outcomes regarding the involvement of famers in innovation processes (Scoones and Thompson, 2009); and secondly, the need to foster peer-to-peer communication for farmer learning, though the use of farmers social networks and local social structures (Matuschke, 2008; Hoang, Castella, Novosad: 2016).

2.2.1 Looking ‘beyond the chain’

Ros-Tonen et al. (2015), attribute the limitations of previous approaches to the assumption that horizontal, or ‘beyond the chain’, factors outside of the value chain have little to no effect on processes and outcomes. Ros-Tonen et al. (2015) identify the three most common forms of ‘beyond the chain’ VCC; firstly, Public private partnerships (PPPs), characterised by multiparty collaboration which may include the state, private sector, parastatal bodies and NGOs; secondly, creating shared value (CSV) arrangements, which have emerged in response to growing consumer consciousness and are based upon the belief that failure to address socioeconomic problems at the producer end of the supply chain, may accrue internal costs; and finally, innovation platforms, primarily initiated by action research programmes as a means of mitigating institutional constraints faced by farmers (Ros-Tonen et al. 2015). The emergence of such collaborations has major implications for the Ghanaian cocoa sector which has seen increasing diversification in terms of the extension services available to farmers. As highlighted by Deans (2015), the cocoa value chains in Ghana reflect both basic and complex VCCs, which dictates the nature of the programs provided. This increased diversification has also rendered the debate between top-down vs bottom-up too simplistic to adequately address current realities. Although, an important considering in terms of how knowledge is transferred,

(15)

the top-down vs bottom up debate must be considered in conjunction with beyond the chain influences, to account for the increasing diversification of extension strategies. Ros-Tonen et al. (2015) thus promote the need to position “vertical [value chain collaboration] in its geographical, social and political-cultural contexts” (Ros-Tonen et al 2015: 533). Contextualising value chains allows for a more comprehensive understanding of the structural impediments that inhibit development strategies concerning smallholder famers (Gupta et al. 2015; Ros -Tonen et al. 2015; Bolwig, Ponte, du Toit, Riisgard and Halberg: 2010; Bowen, 2010, Helmsing and Vellema, 2011).

2.2.2 Social Embeddedness

The need to consider ‘beyond the chain factors’ is consistent with the concept of social embeddedness, which recognizes that all economic relations are embedded within the social context in which the activity takes place (Granovetter, 1985). Social networking theory provides an opportune analytical framework through which social embeddedness can be considered, as it “takes into account the web of relationships in which actors are embedded that both constrain and provide opportunities” (Borgatti and Ofem, 2010: 18). Social networking theory also enables the identification of key actors and agencies responsible for “knowledge creation, diffusion and utilisation” (Dunn, 1983: 453) who are defined as “brokers” (Kadushin, 2004). Knowledge brokers are identified as those with the greatest degree of social capital and the greatest ability to utilise resources within a specific network (Kadushin, 2004). Identifying primary brokers, in addition to the other key actors and agencies within a farmer’s social network, will enable the discernment those with the greatest influence over smallholder-orientated development. This is a requisite for establishing how farmers interact with existing formal configurations and identifying the key institutions, actors and their respective policies that effectuate change

2.3 Agricultural Learning and Knowledge Dissemination in the Formal Sphere 2.3.1 Systems of Knowledge

After situating farmers within the wider context of value chain collaborations, the analysis will then focus on the specific learning systems inherent to these programs, to assess how agricultural learning and knowledge is disseminated in the formal sphere. However, before

(16)

assessing the learning systems through which knowledge is disseminated in the formal sphere, one must first consider knowledge typologies and the implications this has for the foundations of agricultural learning models. Karner et al. (2011) distinguish between tactic knowledge and explicit knowledge. Tactic knowledge refers to knowledge that “is largely experience based, and it is often context dependent – including cultural beliefs, values, attitudes, mental models, etc. as well as skills, capabilities and expertise” (Botha et al. 2008 cited from Karner et al. 2011: 8); explicit knowledge, by contrast, “is formalised and codified and fairly easy to be

identified and stored in a mechanical or technological way” (Karner et al. 2011: 8). This

distinction provides a useful grounding for understanding the difference between indigenous knowledge, which draws parallels to tactic knowledge and knowledge provided by formal extension agents, which can be aligned to explicit knowledge.

2.3.2 Assessment Framework for Formal Knowledge Systems

To enable a categorisation of both the processes and outcomes of the learning systems inherent to formal extension services, this analysis will adapt the relational approach set out by Jones et al. (2014), concerning participatory development approaches. The importance of considering both processes and outcomes is outlined by Sen (1999: 27), who distinguishes between “culmination outcomes”, which do not consider the processes involved in reaching outcomes and “comprehensive outcomes”, that do take note the processes involved. Sen (ibid) argues that, comprehensive outcomes, enable a broader understanding of the degree to which processes enhance an individual’s capacity, something which cannot be fully understood based upon outcomes alone. This analysis, therefore, utilises the comprehensive outcome approach, to enable an in-depth understanding of how farmers interact with formal learning systems/ .

et al. (2014) propose a framework which argues that value chain processes can be characterised by either consultative, collaborative or collegial participation. Consultative participation, as defined by Jones et al. (2014) aligns with the top-down transfer model outlined by Beyon, et al. (1998, cited from Agriculture for Impact, 2019), and amounts meeting functional goals, in terms of increasing productivity, rather than a source of empowerment. Collaborative and collegial participation, by contrast, tend to produce empowering outcomes as they facilitate multi-stakeholder participation (Jones et al. 2014). Collaborative participation can be defined as “A mutually beneficial relationship between two or more parties to achieve

(17)

common goals by sharing responsibility, authority and accountability for achieving results” (Chrislip and Larson, 1994: 5 cited from Bowen). Applying this definition to the context of VCC, collaborative participation would be in line with advisory extension service typology outlined by Beyon, et al. (1998, cited from Agriculture for Impact 2019) in that it reflects a bidirectional relationship between farmers and stakeholders, working towards the goals that are mutually beneficial.

For the third process typology, this theoretical framework proposes modifying collegial participation, to facilitative participation, to enable a clearer distinction for categorising process typologies. Facilitation can be defined as “the act of helping other people to deal with a process or reach an agreement or solution without getting directly involved in the process” (Cambridge dictionary, 2019) Therefore, within the context of VCC, this analysis understands facilitative participation as processes which are more conducive to farmer-driven approaches and is thus in line with the facilitation extension service typology outlined by Beyon, et al. (1998, cited from Agriculture for Impact 2019). Typical classifications would include strategies that are directed towards farmers owning extension services themselves rather than relying on collaborations with actors further up the chain; this typology is intended to reflect a facilitative, demand-driven extension service paradigm. Demand-driven extension, contrasts to bi-directional collaborative extension, in that farmers have a greater degree of autonomy over the extension process.

In terms of outcomes of value chain participation, Jones et al. (2014) argue that results can be manipulative, instrumental or empowering. Manipulative outcomes are defined as one-sided processes that are characterised by inequitable processes driven by manipulative intent (ibid). Manipulation can be defined as “power exercised deceptively and against the punitive will of its objects” (Godin 1980: 8, cited by Dryzek 1994: 84). Within the context of VCC, manipulative processes will be categorised by comparing the rhetoric of actors further up the chain, to the accounts of smallholder farmers to discern the true reality. If there is evidence of more powerful value chain actors misleading farmers, or facilitating processes that have adverse effects on farmers, these processes will be identified as manipulative. Instrumental outcomes are defined as those which are strategically functional, that are “without concern for the values associated with the means or ends” (Jones et al. 2014: 93). Instrumental outcomes will thus be categorised as those resulting from processes that have no empowering agenda

(18)

Empowerment is defined as “gaining mastery over one’s affairs” (Rappaport 1987: 122, cited from Gupta et al. 2015). Empowering outcomes, are defined as instances whereby there is a relational shift in the power dynamics of innovation processes; these shifts often result in increased individual engagement in learning-innovation processes which are more conducive to farmer contributions (Mosse, 2001; Jones et al. 2014; Okali, Sumberg, and Farringdon, 1994; Gonsalves, Becker, Braun, et al, 2005). This is emphasised by Pelum (2010) who argue that “When farmers are fully engaged in a process, they own it” (Pelum Uganda, 2010: 14). This analysis thus situates the empowering outcomes as those that are transformative of local relationships, in the sense that they redefine how community members interact with one another. Empowering outcomes thus amount to institutional innovation in the sense that it initiates “changes in the behavioural patterns of people, rules of the game, and changes in routine practices, new community consensus, changes in value systems etc – (Assefa, 2006: 3). A comprehensive outcome approach will therefore enable the discernment of what typology charcaterises learning system processes (consultative, collaborative, or facilitative), in addition to outcome typology (Manipulative, Instrumental, or empowering).

2.3 Impediments to Farmer Integration in Agricultural Learning Systems 2.3.1 Smallholder Heterogeneity in Cocoa Communities

After assessing the learning systems inherent to formal extension services, the analysis will then consider the impediments farmers face in terms of marginalisation and exclusion to accessing formal support. This proposal seeks to build on the aforementioned ‘beyond the chain’ considerations identified by Ros-Tonen et al. (2015) to discern the factors that have the potential to affect farmer participation, in addition to the limitations of a ‘one-size fits all’ extension approach that looks for quick fixes. Such approaches are limited by their failure to take into account the diversity found in rural areas (FAO, 2012). As emphasised by Van der Ploeg (2008), smallholders reflect a great deal of heterogeneity in regard to what he terms ‘the peasant condition’, characterised by a “struggle for autonomy that takes place in a context characterised by dependency relations, marginalisation and deprivation.” (Van der Ploeg, 2008: 23). Therefore, assuming that smallholders face the same degree of marginalisation and deprivation would not reflect the true reality and fundamentally limit analysis of peasant agency and the consequent policy frameworks. Although there are many factors that affect the degree to which smallholders face marginalisation and deprivation, due to time and space

(19)

constraints, this analysis will focus on the following factors ,which will be briefly outlined below; firstly, how the significance of land scarcity in cocoa communities and how this issue affects conditions for smallholder engaging in tenurial agreements; secondly, the degree to which young farmers are marginalised and the affect these issue have on youth engagement in agricultural learning; and finally, women in cocoa communities and how their experiences affect engagement in agricultural learning systems.

2.3.2 Tenurial Arrangements in Cocoa Communities

Firstly, tenurial arrangements; land scarcity is Ghana is becoming increasingly prevalent, with land access expected to become even more difficult in conjunction with population growth (Bymolt, Laven,, Tyszler, 2018). Land tenure is, therefore, a focal point of diversity amongst smallholders, with arrangements having a major influence on livelihoods. In Ghana, the most common form of land tenure is engagement in a sharecropping arrangement, defined by either abusa (arrangement between landowner and farmer whereby one party is entitled to 1/3rd_of proceeds and the other is entitled to 2/3rds_{), or abunu (proceeds split equally between landowner} and farmer) arrangements (Quaye, Ampadu, and Onumah, 2014: V). Although there are other forms of land tenure, including rental or lease; purchasing the land outright, gifts; inheritance; or common property (ibid), this analysis will predominantly focus on abusa and abunu sharecropping systems due to their ubiquity across Ghana. The prevalence of land scarcity in cocoa communities, indicates that aspiring cocoa farmers will face increasing risks of marginalisation and exploitation vis-a-vis land access.

2.3.3 Youth in Cocoa Communities

Considering the difficulties aspiring farmers may face in terms of land access, youth in cocoa communities face inevitable challenges in terms of prospective engagement in the cocoa sector. Land scarcity, therefore, represents a major threat to their future livelihoods in terms of owning their own farms (Kidido, Bugri, Kasanga, 2017). A perceived lack of opportunity in rural areas has led to influx of youth migration from rural areas to the cities (Edwin, Glover, 2016), which has major implications for the future of cocoa. This also has major implications for youth engagement in agricultural learning systems, as they will inevitably not engage in training directed towards a profession in which they see no future.

(20)

2.3.4 Women in Cocoa Communities

Women in cocoa communities represent another demographic with the potential to face marginalisation. Meinzen-Dick, Quisumbing, Behrman, et al. (2011), outline that there has been extensive evidence concerning the difficulties women face in terms of accessing extension services. Women not only face a struggle for autonomy, in terms of the acquisition of land independent from their husband, but also face the challenge of balancing cocoa faming with domestic responsibilities (ibid). This considered, it is, an analytical focus on female farmers as a potential area of marginalisation, in both formal and informal settings is vital

2.4 Farmer to Farmer Learning through Informal Collaborations

2.4. Smallholder Innovation

The final focus of this theoretical framework is the concept of farmer to farmer learning through informal collaborations. Through the discernment of how farmers learn from each other in informal settings, one is able to establish the form of learning most conducive to a collaborative learning environment. In addition, by comparing informal settings to formal settings, one is able to determine the learning system most conducive to agricultural innovation, particularly those specific to local contexts. The conception of local innovation is defined by Hoffecker:

“While “local innovation” can, and often does, involve some non-local inputs into the innovation process (such as knowledge, inspiration, materials, or capital from non-local sources), it refers to situations in which people from a specific place take initiative to develop creative and effective ways of responding to challenges and opportunities that they face in the environments they encounter in their daily life.” (Hoffecker, 2018: 4)

Here, Hoffecker alludes to how local innovation can enable the adaptation of external inputs to local needs, to facilitate more contextually specific development strategies. Farmer-led innovation, therefore, can be understood as the adaptation of agricultural practices to local contexts. This is corroborated by Assefa (2006) who defines farmer innovation as acting on “[indigenous knowledge] and/or outsiders’ knowledge - through conducting informal experiments - and making the knowledge more usable or better fitting to their own realities.” (Assefa, 2006: 2). His conception of farmer innovation is exhibited in the figure below:

(21)

Figure 3 Farmer Innovation Pathway (Assefa, 2006: 3)

Here, Assefa (2006) postulates how farmer innovation is grounded in farmer wisdom and is initiated through informal experimentation, inspired by scientific knowledge gained through extension and/or indigenous knowledge. The value addition deriving from a farmer’s innovation depends on its potential for wider applicability, ranging from a single farm to innovating technological and livelihood management strategies in general (Assefa. 2006).

Van der Ploeg (2008) argues that smallholder innovation has the potential to reduce dependency on exploitative market arrangements through autonomy enhancement, enabled through the strengthening of one’s resource base. Agricultural innovations that enable ‘co-production’, have the potential to enhance smallholder’s ecological capital, thus reinforcing the sustainability of their practices (Van der Ploeg, 2008; Ros-Tonen et al. 2015). Examples of co-production include the diversification of crops and the further refinement of agricultural products (ibid). Van der Ploeg (2008) also highlights the potential of smallholders to engage in non-agrarian strategies which can further strengthen the “survival and development of one’s own resource base” (Van der Ploeg, 2008: 23). Such an approach has the potential to facilitate a ‘multifunctional’ system of farming, which can enable a process of ‘repeasantisation’, emboldening smallholder self-reliance and increasing sustainability of agricultural practices (ibid). This is consistent with the notion of ‘pluriactivity’, which reflects livelihood approach whereby smallholders engage in non-agricultural income generating activities to increase autonomy (Chawiche 2015; van de Ploeg, 2008).

(22)

Diversification of income-generating activities is further testament to the diversity that exists within cocoa communities, as engaging in alternative livelihood approaches presents new institutional linkages. Ros-Tonen et al. argue that “this dialectic process of engaging with and distancing from the market is key to understanding smallholders’ inclusion in and – partially deliberate – exclusion from value-chain relations.” (Ros-Tonen et al. 2015: 529). Therefore, the reworking such of such marketing relationships, offer new opportunities in which smallholder rights and autonomy can be contested (Ros-Tonen et al. 2015). The significance of this to farmer to farmer learning, is that these interrelations can be strengthened through “patterns of cooperation” between farmers (Van der Ploeg 2008: 23) and can, thus, enhance a culture of innovation exchange in informal settings.

2.5 Synthesis

This theoretical framework has outlined the following concepts which will guide the subsequent analysis; firstly, VCC, which highlighted agricultural extension typologies, examples of VCC ‘beyond the chain’ and the concept of social embeddedness; secondly, agricultural learning and knowledge dissemination in the formal sphere, which outlined systems of knowledge and the assessment framework that will be used to asses formal knowledge systems; thirdly, impediments to farmer integration in agricultural learning systems, which touched upon smallholder heterogeneity, tenurial arrangements, youth in cocoa and women in cocoa; and finally, the framework considered farmer to farmer learning through informal collaboration, which considered farmer innovation..

(23)

Figure 4: Conceptual Scheme Depicting Major Concepts

This conception scheme, inspired by the innovation pathway of Assefa (2006), provides a visual representation of how the concepts outlined in the theoretical framework are connected. Agricultural learning acts as the focal point of the analysis, considering influences from both informal associations and formal extension services, to enable a comparison of how learning strategies differ in each setting. Barriers to farmer integration are also considered, which is represented by the dotted red line. Finally, the implications of the comparison between formal and informal learning settings will inform how to facilitate maximum value addition through agricultural innovation.

Chapter III: Research Methodology and Methods

The purpose of this chapter is to outline the research methodology and methods utilised during this research. It is structured in the following way; firstly, the research question is outlined; secondly, the research question is broken into four sub questions; thirdly the sub questions are operationalised in conjunction with their corresponding concepts, fourthly, the research location will be briefly described, and finally, the methods used will be outlined.

(24)

3.1 Research Question

How do smallholder-orientated agricultural learning strategies compare across formal and informal network collaborations in the Ghanaian cocoa sector and what are the implications through the lens of inclusive development theory?

3.2 Sub Questions

1. Who are the key formal actors and agencies which provide support structures for smallholder farmers in VCC and what is the nature of this support?

2. How do formal knowledge systems compare in the formal sphere in regard to agricultural learning and knowledge dissemination?

3. How does marginalisation affect smallholder integration into agricultural learning systems? 4. What is the nature of farmer to farmer learning through informal collaborations?

sphere?

3.3 Operationalisation of Main Concepts

Concept Dimensions Variables Question

1. Value Chain Collaboration § Formal collaboration networks § Type of VCC § Formal collaboration networks: o Key actors o Key agencies o Key programs § Type of VCC: o Basic

§ Who are the key formal actors and agencies which provide support structures for smallholder farmers in VCC

(25)

o Advanced and what is the nature of this support?? 2.Agricultural learning § Source of knowledge § Formal organisations • Assessment of Learning systems § Source of knowledge: o Indigenous o Scientific § Formal organisations o State o LBC o CSO § Assessment of Learning systems: o Processes: § Consultative § Collaborativ e § Facilitative o Outcomes: § Manipulative § Instrumental § Empowering § How do formal knowledge systems compare in the formal sphere in regard to agricultural learning and knowledge dissemination? 3.Marginalised Groups § Factors influencing smallholder integration in agricultural learning systems § Factors influencing exclusion and marginalisation: o Tenurial arrangement o Age o Gender § How does marginalisation affect smallholder integration into agricultural learning systems?

(26)

4.Farmer to farmer learning § Informal (farmer) collaboration § Informal associations § Learning systems § Farmer innovation § What is the nature of farmer to farmer learning through informal collaborations?

Table 1: Operationalisation of Major Concepts

3.4 Research location

In terms of research location, Ghana was an obvious choice as one of the main global exporters of cocoa. In addition, as highlighted by Deans (2015) the Ghanaian cocoa industry is only partially liberalised due to government controls through Cocobod; this government control ensures a relatively homogenous industry for analysing value chains. The Tepa Learning Platform is tied to the project of Ros-Tonen et al. (2015), “Inclusive value chain collaboration in Ghana and South Africa” (Inclusive value chain collaboration in Ghana and South Africa, Food and Business Knowledge Platform) which concerns how to make value chains more equitable and inclusive. The platforms’ focus on farmer to farmer learning and farmer-led innovation, in addition to the abundance of cocoa farmers in Tepa district, makes it the ideal location for researching smallholder-orientated agricultural learning strategies. Tepa is a small rural town in between Kumasi and Sunyani and is the capital of Ahafo Ano North, a district situated in the Ashanti Region of Ghana; the local dialect is Twi and although English was spoken, a translator was required for conducting interviews.

(27)

Picture Set 1: Research location

3.5 Research Methodology

3.5.1 Epistemological and Ontological Stance

This research has employed a critical realist ontological and epistemological perspective. Critical realism not only recognises a distinction between the reality and terms through which it is expressed, but also acknowledges that the categories utilised to describe these terms are provisional (Bryman, 2012). Such a stance is justified within the context value chain analysis, as the constitutive mechanisms that facilitate value chain relations are dynamic rather than static. There is also the case, that a critical realist perspective recognises that the ‘generative mechanisms’, understood as “the entities and processes that are constitutive of the phenomenon of interest.”, are not directly observable (Bryman 2012: 29). This research recognises therefore, that when considering how farmers learn, the plethora of factors that influence this process will not be fully observable. In line with a critical realist perspective, context will be appreciated to enable the establishment of the conditions that “promote or impede the operation of the causal mechanism”, as it enables the introduction of “changes that can transform the status quo” (ibid). The historical context and wider value chain relations will first be considered, therefore, before delving into the specifics of the factors that influence how farmers learn.

(28)

3.5.2 Research Strategy

This research undertook a qualitative research methodology utilising both semi-structured interviewing and focus group discussions. The benefit of using in-depth, semi-structured interviews is that “the open-ended, discursive nature of the interviews permitted an iterative process of refinement, whereby lines of thought identified by earlier interviewees could be taken up and presented to later interviewees.” (Beardsworth and Keil 1992, cited from Bryman, 2012: 472). This style of interviewing is vital for establishing context and the diverse range of viewpoints that exist within it (Greene 1994, 2000; Bryman, 2012).Then benefit of using focus groups, is that the researcher is able to observe how individuals interact in a group dynamic (Bryman, 2012); in addition, it provides an opportunity to validate previous interview, by gaining clarity over competing testimonies.

Stage Process Outcome

1. Pilot interview § Semi-structured Interview

§ Interview recording § Transcript

2. Key informant data collection (Qualitative). § 10 semi-structured interviews. § Interview recordings § Transcripts § Field notes 3. Farmer data collection, community 1 (Qualitative) § 20 semi-structured interviews; 10 male farmers, 10 female. § 1 mixed focus group; 10 participants. § Interview recordings § Transcripts § Field notes § Network mapping 4. Farmer data collection, community 2 (Qualitative) § 20 semi-structured interviews; 10 male farmers, 10 female. § 1 mixed focus group; 10 participants. § Interview recordings § Transcripts § Field notes § Network mapping 5. Qualitative data analysis.

§ Open and axial coding using Atlas-ti § Social networking analysis using Kumu

§ Codes and themes § Network analysis § Discussion § Implications

(29)

Table 2: Research design

The strategy of this research is as follows; in the first stage, a pilot interview was conducted to test the soundness of the interview guide and to gain valuable interview experience (Bryman, 2012); in the second stage, semi-structured interviews with key informants were utilised to establish the formal collaboration networks that farmers interact and the key actors, agencies and programs present in existing VCC. These in-depth interviews also enabled the establishment of the historical context that led to the emergence of different VCC typologies, in addition to the identification of the learning systems inherent to these VCCs. The third and fourth stage, entailed farmer data collection, whereby a range of factors were documented across both communities; these included farmer experiences of extension services, how farmers learn in formal and informal settings and the impediments that prevent farmer integration into learning systems. The fifth and final stage, was the qualitative data analysis which will be outlined in the next section.

Picture Set 2: Semi-Structured Interviews with Farmers and Focus Groups in Achina and Tanokrom Community.

(30)

3.6 Methods

3.6.1 Units of Analysis

The units of analysis in this research are smallholder farmers, defined as defined as farmers that “produce goods and services for both markets and subsistence, based mainly on family labour and limited access to land” (Chamberlin 2008; Cousins, 2011; cited from Ros-Tonen et al. 2015: 524).

3.6.2 Units of Observation

The unit of observation in this proposed research is analysing how farmers learn in both formal and informal settings and what the implications of this are vis-a-vis integration, collaboration and marginalisation.

3.6.3 Sampling Method

In terms of selecting the district and the communities, this research employed a purposive sampling strategy, defined by Bryman as the selection of “cases/participants in a strategic way, so that those sampled are relevant to the research questions that are being posed.” (Bryman, 2012: 418). Two communities in the Tepa district were selected based upon their level of interaction with the Tepa Learning Platform identified by Ros-Tonen et al. (2015). This research purposively selected Achina and Tanokrom Community, as they included participants from the Tepa Learning platform. These communities were also selected based upon areas which had been researched the least, to avoid research fatigue. Ten key informants were purposively sampled, based upon how directly they interact with farmers; however, since accessibility was an issue for some of the intended interviewees, convenience sampling was also utilised. Selecting farmers will be based upon purposive sampling, in an attempt to ensure gender balance and wide-ranging age group in the sample. This will, however, be based upon farmer accessibility, so purposive sampling will be utilised in conjunction with convenience sampling. The study duration was decided by the point at which I felt I had achieved data saturation

(31)

Picture Set 3: Achina and Tanokrom Communities

3.6.4 Data analysis

In terms of data analysis, this research employed grounded theory via the software Atlas-ti, utilising open and axial coding. Open coding is defined by Strauss and Corbin (1990) as ‘the process of breaking down, examining, comparing, conceptualizing and categorizing data’ (Strauss and Corbin, 1990: 61); axial coding, is defined by Strauss and Corbin as ‘a set of procedures whereby data are put back together in new ways after open coding, by making connections between categories’ (ibid). These processes enabled a thematic analysis of the qualitative data collected.

Social networking theory was utilised to establish the formal and informal networks farmers draw upon for obtaining agricultural knowledge and exchanging ideas. Farmer networks were established through semi-structured interviews, by asking farmers to list the actors and agencies they interact with and commenting on their relationships to each. Social network analysis was conducted through the use of the software Kumu.io. Key actors and agencies were established based upon the number of network links; therefore, if a node was characterised by a greater number of network links, this reflected a greater degree of influence on smallholder farmers.

(32)

Picture Set 4: Network Mapping of Achina and Tanokrom Communities using Kumu.io Software.

Actors and agencies were categorised and analysed based upon the following groupings: Farmer, Licensed Buying Company, Informal Collaboration, Civil society Organisations and Government Agencies which are displayed in the legend.

In regard to assessing agricultural knowledge systems, the data was analysed using the following analytical framework adapted from Jones et al. (2014). Firstly processes:

(33)

Processes Classification

Consultative Collaborative Facilitative

Perception Criteria Technology transfer (top-down) extension Advisory (Bi-directional collaboration) extension Facilitative (bottom-up) extension

Table 3: Classification of Learning System Processes

If farmer experiences of VCCs predominantly reflects a top-down, one-directional transfer, that doesn’t allow farmer the opportunity to give their input, processes are classified as consultative. If processes reflected a bi-directional collaboration between farmers and extension services, providing a space for farmers to deliberate and contribute their own ideas, they are classified as collaborative. If extension services reflect a demand-driven extension service that is directed towards farmers owning extension processes and becoming more self-reliant, processes will be classified as facilitative.

Outcome Classification

Manipulative Instrumental Empowering

Perception Criteria Adverse effects for farmer Positive effect on yield without major capacity enhancement Locally transformative

Table 4: Classification of Learning System Outcomes

In terms of outcomes, if farmer experiences of extension services are characterised by processes that do not benefit them in any way, or even leave them worse off, they are classified as manipulative. If farmer experiences of extension services reflects positive effects on yield

(34)

but do not lead to any major capacity enhancement, they are classified as instrumental. If farmer experiences of outcomes reflect major capacity enhancement to the point at which they feel empowered, outcomes will be classified as empowering. It must be made clear that both processes and outcomes are not mutually exclusive, farmer experiences could reflect more than one classification, however, classification is still useful as an effective means of assessment through the “categorizing the dynamic process and varied outcomes of participatory projects” (Jones et al. 2014: 94). Categorisations of the processes and outcomes will then be plotted on the graph below:

Figure 3: Framework for Assessing Agricultural Learning Systems (Adapted from Jones et al. 2014: 94)

3.6.5 Ethical Considerations and Research Limitations

During the research process, I committed to constant reflexivity so that I was aware of my own positionality. Previous fieldwork has taught me the importance of taking into account cultural norms and practices, as this is the foundation for building rapport and producing genuine research data. Aside from cultural considerations, I reflected upon my position as a white, middle-class male from the West and whether I had the capacity to truly reflect an emic analysis

(35)

of bottom up development. I also reflected upon my position as a researcher and the type of relationship I had with my research subjects and whether the researchees provided genuine answers. Although my driving passion is to enhance bottom up development and truly make a difference to the capacity building of smallholders, I am concerned that this relationship may be extractive if this research does not succeed in effectuating a degree of change. My previous education has also been a consideration throughout the research process; my worldview may have been altered by undertaking a bachelor’s degree in Political Science and International Relations, from an institution with a Marxist bias; I have, therefore, attempted to consider the biases that I may have developed. These things considered, I felt that reflexivity was the most effective ethical strategy to guarantee my constant evaluation of the research and my own positionality. To further mitigate the prospect of an extractive relationship, I also ensured that I had the verbal or written consent (depending of literacy skills) of those interviewed, in addition to making the transcripts available to the interviewee’s for review.

In terms of research limitations, I have concerns regarding the impact this research. I have my doubts as to whether a single MSc thesis has the potential to drastically improve farmer livelihoods. I am particularly concerned, that the theoretical nature of this research makes it inaccessible to farmers and reduces it impact potential as a result. I fear that this style of research may only contribute to an echo-chamber between academics, thus limiting the potential for practical solutions on the ground that make a tangible difference to farmers. Nevertheless, I feel that a heavy focus on these concerns leads to a defeatist attitude in regard to development, leading to the assumption that researchers’ efforts are futile. I do believe that making a difference to farmers livelihoods is possible, but this relies on recommending practical solutions based upon my findings, rather than solely producing a critique. Additional research limitations may be financing the research, completing the data collection within the timeframe and accessibility of respondents. The anonymity of the farmers has been ensured through changing their names to codes. The same was not necessary for key informants who wanted their names mentioned.

(36)

This section has outlined research methodology and methods to ensure maximum transparency in this research. This process was also conducted in the hope that it can provide a framework for future research design. This paper will now present the empirical findings, with the discussion integrated throughout. The first chapter provides a predominantly contextual chapter, outlining existing VCC in the Ghanaian cocoa sector to provide a foundation for the subsequent empirical chapters. The focus will then be refined to the learning systems inherent to formal support structures, by focusing on the role of support networks in agricultural learning and knowledge dissemination. Once this has been established, the analysis will then consider the factors that impede engagement in collaborative agricultural learning. The final chapter will consider farmer to farmer learning through informal collaborations and what the implications of this are for bottom up innovation. Finally, the concluding chapter will provide a comparison between formal and informal spheres, considering the implications the findings have through the lens of inclusive development.

Chapter IV: Value Chain Collaboration in the Ghanaian Cocoa Sector

4.1 Introduction

The following chapter will address the first sub question: Who are the key formal actors and agencies which provide support structures for smallholder farmers in VCC and what is the nature of this support? This chapter will provide a contextual foundation for the remaining empirical chapters, in addition to outlining the formal support structures concerned with smallholder-orientated development in the Ghanaian cocoa industry. The structure of this section is as follows: after briefly outlining the historical developments that have influenced the current constitution of the Ghanaian cocoa network, the roles and programs offered by the key actors and agencies that provide support for farmers will be established, firstly, through a focus on the Cocoa Health and Extension Division (CHED); the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA); third, prominent Licensed Buying Companies (LBCs); and finally, Civil Society Organisations (CSOs).

(37)

In establishing the structure and characteristics of value chain processes in the Ghanaian cocoa industry, one must first briefly consider the (modern) historical developments that have influenced contemporary market arrangements. As highlighted by Vigneri and Santos (2009), Ghana’s cocoa sector reflects a unique marketing framework, in that it synthesizes elements of privatization, with strong governmental influence. Contrary to the tenets of the Washington Consensus of the 1980’s which opposed quasi-governmental marketing agencies, the Ghanaian government initiated an Economic Reform Program in 1983, committing to increasing the producer share of cocoa export prices (Kolavalli & Vigneri, 2017). The justification for a regulated cocoa market and the empowerment of cocoa producers included, government accountability for the sectors performance, the ability of the Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD) to raise funds globally for the sector, the maintenance of Ghana’s reputation as a high-quality cocoa supplier and the prevention of cocoa smuggling into neighboring countries by ensuring that producer prices were relatively more favorable (ibid). The full regulatory control that COCOBOD exercised over global cocoa exports and domestic purchases ended in 1992; this was the result of a structural adjustment program of partial regulatory liberalisation, intended to reduce marketing costs, thus enabling licensed buying companies (LBCs) to purchase farmers’ cocoa in conjunction with COCOBOD’s Produce Buying Company (PBC) (Gilbert & Varangis, 2004; Vigneri & Santos, 2009). However, despite partially unlocking Ghana’s cocoa market, COCOBOD still retain a major regulatory influence, which is reflective of the centrality of cocoa within the context of the Ghanaian economy (ibid). These historical developments account for the contemporary state-private dynamic of the cocoa supply chain, in addition to accounting for the multiplicity of actors and agencies that constitute current networks as shown in Figure 4. The key institutions, actors and their respective policies that effectuate change will now be outline in more detail.

(38)

Figure 4: A schematic overview of the current cocoa network in Ghana (Adapted from Glin, Oosterveer, & Mol, 2014: 49)

Key:

§ COCOBOD: Ghana Cocoa Board § CRIG: Ghana Cocoa Research Institute § CHED: Cocoa Health and Extension

Division

§ MoFA: Ministry of Food and Agriculture § SPU: Seed Production Unit

(39)

4.3 The Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD)

Divisions and subsidiaries

The Ghana Cocoa Board was established in 1947, with a focus on the “production, research, extension, internal and external marketing and quality control [of cocoa]” (COCOBOD, 2019). As displayed by figure 4, the institutional framework of COCOBOD is split into five agencies: firstly, the Cocoa Research Institute of Ghana (CRIG), established with the objective of providing farmers “with a package of husbandry practices/technology realizing optimal yields and high economic returns under environmentally friendly condition[s].”; secondly, the Seed Production Division (SPD), with a responsibility to “multiply and distribute high quality cocoa and coffee planting materials in the most efficient and cost effective manner in adequate quantities to farmers.”; thirdly, the Cocoa Health and Extension Division (CHED), which is responsible “for the control of cocoa swollen shoot virus disease, rehabilitation of old and unproductive cocoa farms and extension services.”; fourthly, the Quality Control Company (QCC), “responsible for inspection, grading and sealing of cocoa, coffee and shea nut for the local and international markets and also responsible for fumigation and disinfestation of produce.”; and lastly, the Cocoa Marketing Company (CMC) which focuses on “Purchasing, transportation, storage and marketing of cocoa, both internally and externally” (ibid). The subsidiaries and divisions outlined above, are reflective of the many aspects of production that COCOBOD focus on and exhibit the extent of their influence over the sector.

4.3.1 Key Actors

In attempting to address the knowledge gap identified by Ros-Tonen et al. (2015), in regard to a lack of critical approaches that address smallholder agency, this paper will focus on the key institutions and actors that directly interact with farmers. Based upon the accounts of the farmers interviewed, CHED consistently stood out as the COCOBOD division that farmers frequently interacted with. This is largely the result of the provision of agricultural extension services by CHED, which relies on direct engagement with farming communities. As outlined by Mr. Osman, CHED Assistant Director:

A chain of missing links : integrating smallholder farmers into the Ghanaian cocoa sector