Agricultural Innovations for Climate
Change Adaptation and Food Security
in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and
The Gambia
African Technology Policy Studies Network

RESEARCH PAPER | No. 11
Gordon Akon-Yamga
Paul Boadu
Beatrice Darko Obiri
Joyce Amoako
Fatou Janha Mboob

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change
Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The
Cases of Ghana and The Gambia

Gordon Akon-Yamga
Paul Boadu

Beatrice Darko Obiri
Joyce Amoako

Fatou Janha Mboob

The African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS) is a multidisciplinary network of researchers, private sector actors andpolicy makers promoting the generation, dissemination, use andmastery of science, technology and innovation (ST&I) for African
development, environmental sustainability and global inclusion.
ATPS intends to achieve its mandate through research, capacity
building and training, science communication/dissemination andsensitization, participatory multi-stakeholder dialogue,knowledge brokerage, and policy advocacy.
Published by the African Technology Policy Studies Network
P O Box 10081, 00100 GPO Nairobi Kenya
2011

Published by the African Technology Policy Studies Network

ISBN: 978-9966-030-11-5

Table of Contents
Acknowledgement

4

Executive Summary

5

List of Acronyms & Abbreviations

9

1.

Introduction

10

2.

Literature Review

13

3.

Study Area

19

4.

Methodology

21

5.

Results

25

6.

Conclusions & Recommendations

52

Bibliography

53

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia | 3

Acknowledgement
This paper was produced as part of the implementation of the African Technology Policy Studies
Network (ATPS) Phase VI Strategic Plan, 2008 – 2012 funded by ATPS Donors including the
Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken (DGIS) the Netherlands, Rockefeller Foundation, amongst
others. The authors hereby thank the ATPS for the financial and technical support during theimplementation of the program. The Authors specially thank the ATPS Climate Sense Program
Director, Dr. Kevin Urama (ATPS); and the Program Coordinators including Prof. Michael Madukwe(ATPS Nigeria); Dr. Musa Dube (ATPS Swaziland), Prof. Bob Orskov (ATPS, UK), Dr. Nicholas Ozor
(ATPS), and Ms. Wairimu Mwangi (ATPS) for their technical support during the research process.

4 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia

Executive Summary
Introduction
Reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest that agricultural yields
will suffer negative consequences of climate change if no serious intervention is carried out (IPCC,
2007). Studies have shown that Ghana's climatic conditions have changed in the past four decades(Agyeman-Bonsu et. al, 2008). In The Gambia, the Government (2003) used forty years (19511990). It is projected that by 2075, average mean temperature of The Gambia will increase by amargin of between 3°C to 4.5°C depending on the model used. On the impact of such change onfood availability, The Government of Gambia (2003) predicts that all crop growth parameters (kgdm/ha) for the maize crop would undergo significant reductions under climate change.
The main objective of the study is to support the ATPS Agricultural Innovations Programme on
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa by achieving
the following specific objectives: Identify and document indigenous innovations and goodpractices by climate change vulnerable communities for improved food security in Ghana and The
Gambia; provide information on agricultural practices and activities of farmers towards foodsecurity and climate change adaptation in Ghana and Gambia; identify and document emerging
innovations suitable for climate change adaptation in Ghana and The Gambia; promote someselected agricultural innovations through targeted training and field demonstrations with selected
agriculture extension officers and farmers in Ghana and The Gambia; establish collaborative
network involving researchers, ministry of food and agriculture or its equivalent and farmers toenhance agricultural innovations for increased productivity in the face of climate change; and toprovide baseline information to support agricultural innovation programmes and theimplementation of the NEPAD CAADEP programme in the West Africa region throughpopularization and policy advocacy.
The concept of innovation system provides many opportunities for learning about how a country's
agricultural sector can make optimum use of new knowledge and to design new interventions that
go beyond research and investments (World Bank, 2007). Innovation is an interactive process
involving various critical actors working in a given socio-economic and cultural system to bringabout improvements or advances in the production of goods and services.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) defines climate change as “aAgricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia | 5change in the state of the climate that can be identified (for example, by using statistical tests) bychanges in the mean and/or variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period,
typically decades or longer”. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external
influences, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or landuse. On the other hand, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
defines climate change as “change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to humanactivity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural
climate variability observed over comparable time periods” (UN 1992).
The IPCC defines adaptation as “adjustments in ecological, social or economic systems in
response to actual or expected stimuli and their effects or impacts. This term refers to changes inprocesses, practices and structures to moderate potential damages or to benefit from
opportunities associated with climate change” (IPCC 2001).
Study Area and Method
The study was carried out in Ghana and The Gambia. Ghana lies on the south-central coast of West
Africa between latitudes 4°5'N and 11°5'N and longitude 3°5'W and 1°3'E. The Gambia is thesmallest of the two countries (approximately11,000 km²), lying between latitude 13° and 14° North,and 17° and 12° West. It consists of a narrow strip of land some 400 km long and 30 km wide on bothsides of The Gambia River.
Two methods were employed for this study. These were field survey and desk research. Thesemethods yielded both primary and secondary data. To allocate the number of household heads forthe field survey between Ghana and the Gambia the ratio of the populations of the two countries
was used. Therefore relying on the ratio of the population of Ghana (23,350,9271) to the Gambia(1,660,2002) as the basis for allocating the number of households to be selected from each country,
747 households were allocated to Ghana and 53 households were allocated to the Gambia tocomplete the proposed overall sample size of 800. However it was realized 53 households was too
low a sample and therefore during the survey 100 households were selected from the Gambia and746 from Ghana.
Results
The survey in Ghana covered 77.5% male farmer-respondents against 22.5% female farmerrespondents. In the Gambia, the respondents were dominated by male farmers represented by
91.9% whiles female respondents were 8.1%. The survey results from Ghana showed that majorityof the respondents (64.7%) had some level of formal education. The results from the Gambia showthat all the respondents had some level of formal education.
Majority of the farmers interviewed were mainly engaged in crop cultivation. The survey results
show majority of the famers in Ghana finance their agricultural activities from their own pockets. All
the finances that go into farming the activities of respondents in the Gambia were self-generated.
The results from Ghana show that 54% of respondents had never benefit from the services of
1

World Bank Data, 2008
World Bank Data, 20082

6 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia

agricultural extension agents whereas 46% of respondents said they have had some interaction with
agricultural extension agents In the Gambia however, 95% of the respondents reported that they hadreceive visits from Agricultural Extension Agents whereas 5% reported they do not receive any visit
from extension officers.
The term climate change was translated into the local dialect before asking farmers. The results from
Ghana show that many of the farmers interviewed (60%) knew and were able to describe climatechange, albeit many times they were describing the changing rainfall season. In the Gambia ofclimate change issues was very encouraging. About 91% of the farmers interviewed said they were
aware of climate change. Farmers perceived the loss of forest resources as the major impact ofclimate change in their localities. The results further indicate that the trend of forest loss has
consistently increased between 2005 and 2009; additionally the results show that flooding, long
period of the dry season, soil infertility, drying of rivers, long period of rains, decrease in farm yields
and delays in the onset of rainfall during the rainy season were some perceived impacts of climatechange.
As an indicator of household food security in the study area in Ghana, famers were asked about thefrequency with which they had problems meeting their household feeding. The results from Ghanashow that majority of the respondents (45.3%) said they sometimes experienced problems withfeeding in their households. Furthermore, 6.3% said they often faced problem with household
feeding, 5.4% said they always faced problems, whiles 14.6% said they seldom encounteredproblems. Therefore overall 72.6% of the respondents have in some form experienced problems
with meeting household feeding. In the Gambia, majority of the farmers (75%) sometimes find it
difficult meeting the food needs of their family. Very few of the farmers (11%) never faced any
challenge in meeting the food needs of their households. Respondents who seldom faced
problems of meeting their household food needs accounted for 10%. However those who regularly
faced the problem of meeting food needs was not noticeable as that accounted for only 1%.
Farmers' adaptive responses to erratic rainfall patterns were examined. The relative majority of theframers interviewed during the survey in Ghana (29.8%) said they did nothing in seasons where they
had little rainfall. Other farmers said they regularly weeded their farms (22.7%); applied fertilizer(10.2%); irrigated their farms (8.7%); early cultivation; spraying with agro-chemicals (2.1%); and theapplication of manure (1.8%).The situation was no different in the Gambia as majority of the
respondents there (33%) also did nothing. About 17% of them said they provide water to theirlivestock whereas 7% consult with the agricultural extension officers and 4% pray to God for relief.
When it comes to farmers' response to excessive rainfall, the results show a similar trend in bothcountries.
The results from Ghana show that not many farmers had introduced innovations on their farms.
Indeed about 79% of the respondents said they have not introduced any innovations whereas about
22% of the respondents said they had. Similarly, in the Gambia, 72% of the respondents said they
have not introduced any innovations whereas 28% said they had introduced some innovations in thefarming activities.
With respect to institutions, about 109 technologies and innovations were identified among 13
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia | 7

research institutions in Ghana. Most of the technologies were crop production related
technologies/innovations. In the Gambia, five institutions were covered. The institutions were
mostly engaged in the extension or information dissemination activities, production, and researchand development of agricultural innovations and technologies. Other activities undertaken by theinstitutions in include teaching, policy advocacy and quality assurance of technologies

8 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia

List of Acronyms & Abbreviations
AAEAs

Agricultural Extension Agents

ARI

Animal Research Institute

ASD

Animal Science Department

ATPS

African technology Policy Studies Network

CAADEP

Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Programme

CRI

Crop Research Institute

CSD

Crop Science Department

CSIR

Council for Scientific and Industrial Research

FAO

Food and Agriculture Organisation

FORIG

Forestry Research Institute of Ghana

FRI

Food Research Institute

GHGs

Greenhouse Gases

IFPRI

International Food Policy Research Institute

IIR

Institute of Industrial Research

IPCC

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

KNUST

Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology

MAT

Mean Air Temperatures

ND

Nutrition Department

NEPAD

New Partnership for Africa's Development

OPRI

Oil Palm Research Institute

PGRI

Plant Genetic Research Institute

R&D

Research and Development

SARI

Savannah Agricultural Research Institute

SRI

Soil Research Institute

SSA

Sub-Saharan Africa

SST

Sea Surface Temperatures

STEPRI

Science and Technology Policy Research Institute

SWAC

Sahel and West Africa Club

TAR

Third Assessment Report

UDS

University for Development Studies

UNFCCC

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

WMO

World Meteorological Organisation

WRI

Water Research Institute

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia | 9

1. Introduction
1.1.
BackgroundThe critical role of science and technology in promoting agricultural growth, food security, poverty
reduction and particularly improvement in the livelihood of farmers in the developing world isdocumented and universally acknowledged. With the ever decreasing per capita land and water,
productivity gains have become the main source of growth in agriculture and the primary means tosatisfy increasing demand for food and agricultural products. Fast population growth and ill-effects
of climate change call for sustainable agricultural systems in which food security is of paramountconcern. Projected consequences of climate change means that sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) would
be drier, and rainfall patterns unreliable. However, most of the best lands are already undercultivation, meaning that expansion in the food production would require agricultural technologies
such as high yielding disease tolerant seed, irrigation technology, better agronomic practices,
biotechnology, etc. to withstand harsh ecological conditions. Increasing population, competing
demand for and reducing per capita land, among others, require intensification of use of researchtechnologies in agricultural production systems.
Many efforts to achieve food security in totality continue to be a great challenge not only fordeveloping countries but the developed countries as well. The difference lies in the magnitude of
the problem in terms of its severity and proportion of the population affected. In developed nations
the problem is alleviated by providing targeted food security interventions, including food aid in theform of direct food relief, food stamps, or indirectly through subsidized food production. These
efforts have significantly reduced food insecurity in these regions. Similar approaches are
employed in developing countries but with less success. The difference in the results may be due toinsufficient resource base, shorter duration of intervention, or different systems most of which are
inherently heterogeneous among other factors. Through the process of research anddevelopment, the last four decades have seen a remarkable growth in agricultural production withper capita world food production growing. Modern agricultural methods have brought spectacularincrease in productivity. They have resulted in more cereals and animals per hectare, more meatand milk per animal, and more food output per person employed. Farmers with access to sufficient
inputs, knowledge and skills produce large amount of food. However, the majority of the chronic
hungry are small farmers in developing countries who produce much of what they eat and often lackaccess to inputs, productive markets, and especially lack of storage facilities.

10 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia

1.2.
Research problem statement
Reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest that agricultural yields
will suffer negative consequences if no serious intervention is carried out (IPCC, 2007). Therefore
the impacts of climate change and variability will outweigh economic and population growth
factors, yet these factors may intensify the impacts. Studies have shown that Ghana's climaticconditions have changed in the past four decades (Agyeman-Bonsu et. al, 2008). Analysis byAgyeman-Bonsu et. al. (2008) showed that both maximum and minimum air temperatures
increased by 2.5 and 2.2°C respectively between 1961 and 2001. Thus maximum, minimum andmean air temperatures (MAT) on land also increased by 0.9°C, and a positive autocorrelation with asignificant lag of one year was observed. The highest MAT was recorded in 1998 (27.8°C) and thelowest in 1975 (26.3°C). Apart from the marked decreases between 1972 and 1975, variability was
generally low. The sea surface temperatures (SST) showed a higher variability with more frequentand greater inter-annual changes than the MAT. Cooling periods seemed to alternate with warm
periods at an average cycle of 2-4 years but the most significant inter-annual change occurred
between 1983-84 and 1986-87.
On the impact of climate change and food security in Ghana, the impact of climate change on cereal
production in Ghana was assessed using the CERES model. CERES MAIZE and CERES MILLET
models were used to generate growth and yield of maize and millet, respectively. The model output
showed that there was a consistent decrease in the yield of maize in the Transition Zone due to anincrease in temperature and solar radiation and a decrease in rainfall. However, the decreases in the
projected yields were not significantly different from the baseline yields. The percentage decreasein the projected maize yield ranged from 0.5 percent in the year 2000 to 6.9 percent in the year 2020.
With respect to millet, however, the changes in the climatic variables did not effect any change in the
projected yield of millet. This could be ascribed to the drought tolerant nature of millet (Governmentof Ghana, 2003).
In The Gambia, the Government (2003) used forty years (1951-1990) of current climate data todevelop the baseline climate scenarios with the analysis showing that in the 1951-1990 period, thebehaviour of the climate of the country showed almost equal distribution of wet/cool and dry/warm
years. Thus, the 1951-1980 period was wetter and relatively warmer while the 1961-1990 period was
drier and cooler. However between the two periods, the rainfall for the months of July and
September significantly decreased. Furthermore, it is projected that by 2075, average mean
temperature of The Gambia will increase by a margin of between 3°C to 4.5°C depending the model
used, and by 2100 a decrease of 59% (HCGG), 17% (HCGS) and 15% (GFDL equilibrium model),and an increase of about 15% (GFDL01) and 29% (CCCM) about the 1951-1990 average rainfall
amount are projected in The Gambia (The Government of Gambia, 2003). On the impact of suchchange on food availability, The Government of Gambia (2003) predicts that all crop growthparameters (kg dm/ha) for the maize crop would undergo significant reductions under climatechange. Furthermore, grain weight is estimated reduce lower than current climate values; leaf andstem weights are also expected to be lower than current climate values by amounts ranging from 18– 35% and 17 – 34%, respectively; and the nutritional value of the biomass products from maize will
also be decreased due to decrease in nitrogen content, a situation that is similar for millet.
The impact of such changes and outcomes on society has often been seen as normal and part ofAgricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia | 11

life. This is because livelihood options have turned into adaptation strategies, where there is no clear
transition, adaptation to extreme events are considered as part of livelihoods. The riots and protest
due to food shortage and prices in 2007-2008 point to some of the signs of increasing foodinsecurity in many countries in sub-Sahara Africa, yet there exist innovations that can be used tostem the tide of food insecurity. A recent study conducted by CSIR-STEPRI of Ghana (ObirihOpareh et al., 2008) shows that there exists numerous agricultural innovations that have not beenused and yet they hold potential for improving food production in Ghana and Africa. However it is
not known which of these innovations are most suitable for climate change adaptation. It is in thislight that this research is founded; to document indigenous and emerging innovations and goodpractices for climate change adaptation and food security in Ghana and the Gambia.
1.3.
Objective of the Study
The main objective of the study is to support the ATPS Agricultural Innovations Programme on
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa by achieving thefollowing specific objectives:
>
>
>
>

>

>

Identify and document indigenous innovations and good practices by climate change
vulnerable communities for improved food security in Ghana and The Gambia;
Provide information on agricultural practices and activities of farmers towards food security andclimate change adaptation in Ghana and Gambia;
Identify and document emerging innovations suitable for climate change adaptation in Ghana
and The Gambia;
Promote some selected agricultural innovations through targeted training and fielddemonstrations with selected agriculture extension officers and farmers in Ghana and The
Gambia;Establish collaborative network involving researchers, ministry of food and agriculture or its
equivalent and farmers to enhance agricultural innovations for increased productivity in theface of climate change; andTo provide baseline information to support agricultural innovation programmes and theimplementation of the NEPAD CAADEP programme in the West Africa region throughpopularization and policy advocacy.

12 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia

2. Literature Review
2.1.
Innovation System
The concept of innovation system provides many opportunities for learning about how a country's
agricultural sector can make optimum use of new knowledge and to design new interventions that
go beyond research and investments (World Bank, 2007). Therefore agricultural innovation system
can be seen as the best approach to ensure food security in Africa. Innovation system thinking
represents a significant change from the conventional linear approach to research anddevelopment. It provides analytical framework that explore complex relationships among
heterogeneous agents, social and economic institutions, and endogenously determined
technological and institutional opportunities. It demonstrates the importance of studying innovation
as a process in which knowledge is accumulated and applied by heterogeneous agents, throughcomplex interactions that are conditioned by social and economic institutions (Agwu et. al., 2008).
Innovation is an interactive process involving various critical actors working in a given socioeconomic and cultural system to bring about improvements or advances in the production of goods
and services. It is a dynamic process and it implies specific behaviours and performances, withobvious implications for outcomes. The concept of Innovation System has become an importantframework for understanding technology development and diffusion in recent times (Nelson, 1993;
Mytelka, 2000; World Bank, 2007). The framework stresses that innovation is neither research nor
science and technology, but rather the application of knowledge (of all types) in production toachieve desired social or economic outcomes. This knowledge might be acquired throughlearning, research or experience, but until applied it cannot be considered innovation. While thisknowledge can be brand new innovation often involves the reworking of the existing stock ofknowledge, making new combinations or new uses (Edquist, 1997).
The origin of this framework is the concept of a national system of innovation (Freeman1988, andLundval 1991). It emerged as a response to the limited explanatory power of conventional
economic models that view innovation as a linear process driven by the supply of research anddevelopment (R&D). Instead the innovation systems framework conceptualised innovation in more
systemic, interactive and evolutionary terms whereby networks of organisations, together with theinstitutions and policies that affect their innovative behaviour and performance, bring new products,
new processes and new forms of organization into economic use (Nelson and Winter 1982,
Freeman 1988, Lundval 1992; Edquist 1997).
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia | 13

Different approaches to promoting agricultural innovation have emerged since the 1980s. The
period before the mid-1980s emphasised the creation of National Agricultural Research Systems tostrengthen research at the national level and to encourage technology transfer and invention. In the
1990s, this approach changed to the pluralistic agricultural knowledge and information systems
which emphasised greater client participation and financing, technology adoption and adaptation,and knowledge exchange mechanisms. More recently, the agricultural innovation systemapproach incorporates major agents such as universities, firms and other organisations that can
tap into the growing stock of global knowledge to local needs, and create new technology andproducts. Within the changing agricultural context, agricultural innovation system emphasises
technology and knowledge generation and adoption rather than strengthening research systems
and their outputs (Kim et. al., 2007).
The innovation concept has been used by SWAC (2005) in a broad sense, integrating institutional,
policy and organisational innovations. It includes:
i. Physical innovation (example: crop varieties, animal breeds, etc.);
ii. Institutional, social, organisational innovations (example: setting up producers' networks,
better organisation of input distribution networks, etc.);
iii. Innovations in terms of information and practices (example: cultural practices).
For each type of innovation, endogenous innovations (farmer innovations) can be distinguishedfrom exogenous innovations (innovations derived from research, extension, private companies,
and agribusiness, etc.).
2.2.
Climate Change
Climate change in recent times has assumed the top list of major public issues, especially since2006 because the evidence of its manifestation is very overwhelming. However, there arerecognised uncertainties in the science. There is debate and recognition of limits to knowledge
about the times and ways in which the risk will manifest itself. At the same time, progress inunderstanding how climate is changing in space and time has been gained through improvements
and extensions of numerous datasets and data analyses, broader geographical coverage, better
understanding of uncertainties and a wider variety of measurements.
The climate is a system involving highly complex interactions between the atmosphere, the oceans,the water cycle, ice, snow and frozen ground, the land surface and living organisms. This systemchanges over time in response to internal dynamics and variations in external influences such as
volcanic eruptions and solar radiation.
The atmospheric component is the most unstable and rapidly changing part of the climate system.
The atmosphere is divided into five layers with different temperature characteristics. The lower
two—the troposphere and the stratosphere—have the most influence on the climate system. The
troposphere extends from the surface of the earth to an altitude of between 10 and 16 km. Clouds
and weather phenomena occur in the troposphere, and greenhouse gases absorb heat radiatedfrom the earth. The stratosphere, which extends from the boundary of the troposphere to an altitude
of around 50 km, is the second layer of the atmosphere. The stratosphere holds a natural layer ofhigh ozone concentrations, which absorb ultraviolet radiation from the sun. The balance of energy
14 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia

between the layers of the atmosphere is a major driver of atmospheric and ocean circulation, whichleads to weather and climate patterns (IPCC 2007).
The Earth's climate has always changed and evolved. Some of these changes have been due tonatural causes but others can be attributed to human activities such as deforestation and toatmospheric emissions, from, for example, industry and transport, which have led to gases andaerosols being stored in the atmosphere. These gases are known as greenhouse gases (GHGs)
because they trap heat and raise air temperatures near the ground, acting like a greenhouse on thesurface of the planet.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) defines climate change as “achange in the state of the climate that can be identified (for example, by using statistical tests) bychanges in the mean and/or variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period,
typically decades or longer”. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external
influences, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or landuse. On the other hand, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
defines climate change as “change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to humanactivity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural
climate variability observed over comparable time periods” (UN 1992).
It is important to distinguish between climate change and climate variability. According to the World
Meteorological organisation (WMO, 2010) climate variability refers to “variations in the mean stateand other statistics (such as standard deviations, the occurrence of extremes, etc.) of the climate on
all temporal and spatial scales beyond that of individual weather events. Variability may be due tonatural internal processes within the climate system (internal variability), or to variations in natural or
anthropogenic external forcing (external variability)”. The UNFCCC makes a distinction between"climate change” which is attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition,and "climate variability" attributable to natural internal climate system process. However, in thecontext of this study there is no distinction between the two. Making a distinction between climatechange and variability will entail careful comparison between observed changes and those that are
expected to result from external forcing. These expectations are based on physical understandingof the climate system, which is based on physical principles. This understanding can take the formof conceptual models or it might be quantified with climate models (IPCCC, 2007), but the
respondents we envisaged to talk to mostly do not have such understanding and therefore it would
be difficult to them to make such a distinction.
The warming of the climate system evident in the last half century is a result of the cumulative effectof all the natural and human drivers that influence the amount of warming or cooling in the system.
The dominant influence since 1750 has been an increase in concentrations of carbon dioxide.
Aerosols have had a net cooling influence, although this effect is poorly understood. Naturalvariability in solar radiation has had a small warming influence, but there is a high level of uncertainty
in the magnitude of the effect (IPCC 2007).
According to the IPCC (2007), Observational evidence from all continents and most oceans showsthat many natural systems are being affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia | 15

increases. It accordingly states that a global assessment of data since 1970 has shown it is likelythat anthropogenic warming has had a discernible influence on many physical and biologicalsystems.
There are many forecasts and indeed recorded cases of dire consequences or impacts of climatechange. These, amongst many include:> A general reduction in potential crop yields in most tropical and sub-tropical regions – for mostprojected increases in temperature;> A general reduction in potential crop yields in most regions in mid-latitudes, with somevariations, for increases in annual average temperatures of more than a few degrees Celsius;> Less water in many water-scarce regions, particularly in the sub-tropics;> Greater exposure to heat stress, vector-borne diseases such as malaria and water-borne
diseases such as cholera;> Increased risk of flooding of human settlements because of heavy precipitation and sea-level
rises – tens of millions of people will be affected;> Increased demand for energy for space cooling because of higher summer temperatures.
> Increased demand for energy for space heating during sever winters.
2.3.
Adaptation to Climate Change
Two main responses have been identified by which societies can respond to climate change. These
are adapting to its impacts and reducing the green house gas (GHG) emissions (mitigation), thus
reducing the rate and magnitude of change. However, there is tension between these twoadaptation and mitigation (Henson, 2008). While mitigation seeks to limit climate change by
reducing the emissions of GHG and by enhancing 'sink' opportunities, adaptation aims to alleviate
the adverse impacts through a wide-range of system-specific actions (Fussel and Klein, 2002).
The IPCC defines adaptation as “adjustments in ecological, social or economic systems in
response to actual or expected stimuli and their effects or impacts. This term refers to changes inprocesses, practices and structures to moderate potential damages or to benefit from
opportunities associated with climate change” (IPCC 2001). Albeit both mitigation and adaptation
measures must be pursued to tackle the climate change problem and to create an effective andinclusive international climate change regime, more attention has been devoted to mitigation in thepast, both in scientific research and policy debate. Sensitivity to the issue of adaptation has grownover the last couple of years, particularly after the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR). Adaptation
has now emerged as an urgent policy priority, prompting action both within and outside the climatechange negotiations (Parry et al. 2005). According to Cohen et. al. (1998), one plausible reason for
the focus on adaptation could be that climate change emerged as a problem related to the longterm disturbance of the global geo-biochemical cycles and associated effects on the climate
system.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) provides that all Parties
must formulate and implement national or regional programmes containing measures to facilitate
adequate adaptation to climate change (Art. 4.1. b). It lists specific domains in particular need ofadaptation, namely coastal zones, water resources, agriculture, and areas affected by drought anddesertification, as well as floods.
16 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia

2.4.
Food security
Given that it has been projected and in some cases observed impacts of climate change in thegeneral reduction in potential crop yields in most tropical and sub-tropical regions, there is clear
indication that food security will be adversely affected by climate change. Indeed the IPCC (2007)
projects that by 2020, some countries in Africa could experience up to 50% reduction in rain-fed
agriculture. The report further adds that productivity of some important crops is projected todecrease and livestock productivity to decline, with adverse consequences for food security.
Climate change is likely to affect food production for the following reasons:> Increased temperatures could reduce crop yields by shortening growing seasons andaccelerating grain sterility in crops.
> Marine ecosystems could experience major migratory changes in fish stocks and mortality
events in response to rising temperatures. Fish is the primary source of protein for more than
one billion people in Asia.
> Shifts in rainfall patterns could disrupt flows in rivers used for irrigation, accelerate erosion anddesertification and reduce crop and livestock yields.
> Rising sea levels could inundate and make unusable fertile coastal land.
> An increase in the intensity or frequency of severe weather events could disrupt agriculture.
Food security has been defined by Cook and Frank (2008) as “Access by all people at all times toenough food for an active, healthy life. Food security includes at a minimum:(I) The ready availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods, and(ii) An assured ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways (e.g., without
resorting to emergency food supplies, scavenging, stealing, or other coping strategies)”.
The World Food Summit Plan of Action defines food security in the following terms: “Food security
exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe andnutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life” (FAO,
1996). Food security comprises four dimensions:(i)Adequacy of food availability;(ii) Stability of supply;(iii) Physical and economic accessibility of food; and(iv) Quality and safety of food.
The standard definition of food security according to the World Bank (1986) is “access by all
peoples at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life”. Statistics of food security are usually
computed for individual nation states. These may be aggregated for the world's major regions todemonstrate interregional disparities at global scales. National food security is a derivative of abalance sheet in which the population nutritional requirements are balanced by supply either fromproduction or through international trade. Computed in per capita terms, national food security,
usually assumes equitable sharing of available food stock between regions, between social
classes, and between members of the same household.
A food secured world cannot be adequately represented at either the regional or the national level.
The security envisaged should be at all levels of human organization, including the individual, theAgricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia | 17

household and the community. At the individual household level, appropriate and sufficient food
could be secured with income available for food purchases, from farmland harvests, or from a
combination of these and other sources. Therefore basically, food security is a function ofagricultural production, which may be constrained by physical, biological and economic factors.
However, a total failure of agricultural production to provide the required food will not automaticallyresult in food insecurity provided the household can earn enough from employment and otherengagements to purchase from the market.
FAO's methodology for evaluating the number of undernourished persons, which takes into
account the amount of food available per person in a given country and the extent of inequality ofaccess to food. This approach is reinforced by the emerging consensus that food insecurity in SSA
is a product of both limited food availability and restricted access to food (FAO, 2006). Therefore, inthis study food security was analysed mostly from the point of view of availability and accessibility.

18 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia

3. Study Area
The study was carried out in Ghana and The Gambia. Ghana lies on the south-central coast of West
Africa between latitudes 4°5'N and 11°5'N and longitude 3°5'W and 1°3'E. It shares a common
border with the Republic of Togo on the east, Burkina Faso on the north and la Cote d'Ivoire on thewest. Ghana covers an average area of 238,539 square kilometers. In 2008 the population was
estimated to at 23,350,927 (World Bank, 2008. In Ghana, the respondents were spread across ten
districts distributed among the ten administrative regions of the country and among six agroecological zones (see Figure 1).
Ghana is divided into six agro-ecological zones, namely Sudan, Guinea and Coastal Savannahzones, the Forest-Savannah Transitional zone, the Semi-deciduous Forest and the High Rainforest
Zones. The Sudan Savannah covers an estimated area of 1,900 km² and consists of short drought
and fire resistant deciduous trees interspersed with open Savannah grassland. Grass cover is very
sparse and in most areas the land is bare and severely eroded. The Guinea Savannah covers
almost the northern two-thirds of the country with an area of 147,900 km². The vegetation consists
typically of a ground cover of grasses of varying heights interspersed with fire resistant, deciduous,
broad-leaved trees at the forest margins. This grades into a more open grassland with widely
spaced shorter trees towards the north. The Coastal Savannah covers an estimated area of 4500
km². It consists of mainly grassland interspersed with dense thickets often less than 5m high with a
few trees. Short and medium grasses are the dominant species. The Forest-Savannah Transitional
Zone (Derived Savannah) covers about 8,300 km². Most of the trees species, similar to those in theforest zone, occur in association with tall to medium tall grasses (EPA, 2003).
The Gambia is the smallest of the two countries (approximately11,000 km²), lying between latitude
13° and 14° North, and 17° and 12° West. It consists of a narrow strip of land some 400 km long and
30 km wide on both sides of The Gambia River. The population is estimated at 1,660,200 (World
Bank, 2008). The study in the Gambia was conducted in the Central Baddibou District in Northern
Bank Region and Jara West in the Lower River Regions (see Figures 2).
The climate of The Gambia is typically “Sudano Sahelian” characterized by a short monomodal
rainy season (June to October) followed by a long-dry season (November to May) characterized by
the harmattan wind (Ceesay, 2008). However agricultural production systems in The Gambia follow
three types of agro-ecological zones existent in the country (Ceesay, 2006): The Sudano-Sahelian
Zone or Riverine Zone which covers a great part of the country (Central River Region-South), Upper
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia | 19

River Region, North Bank Region and Lower River Region) and has moderate to high rainfall of
approximately 900-1000mm per annum; the Sahel-Savanna Zone or Semi-Arid Zone covers mainly
the Central River Region-North and has relatively low rainfall, below 900mm; and the GuineaSavannah Zone or Humid zone is located around the coastline (i.e. Western Region and North Bank
Region). It has high and moderately reliable rainfall (1000mm and above).

Source: Agyeman Bonsu et. al. (2008)

Figure 1: The Ecological Zones of Ghana

Source: Adapted from Government of the Gambia, 2003

Figure 2: Study area in the Gambia

20 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia

4. Methodology
Two methods were employed for this study. These were field survey and desk research. Thesemethods yielded both primary and secondary data.
4.1.
Desk Study
The desk study was undertaken to review the literature and examine reports, papers, official
documents that exist prior to the commencement of our study. It was also done with the intention to
discover data that already exist, which could be used as background for our study. The documents
were mainly obtained from ministries, departments and agencies in Ghana and the Gambia. The
World Wide Web was relied on as a source of secondary data to complement what was obtained.
4.2.
Field Survey
The field survey entailed the administration of questionnaires to heads of farming households ortheir representatives on one hand and the administration of questionnaires to heads of institutions
conducting agricultural research. The administration of questionnaires at the household level wascomplemented by focus group discussions organized at the district level with farmers.
4.2.1. Survey of Households
The survey covered farmer-household heads or their representative, in their absence. The purpose
was to interview farmers about their experiences and perceptions of climate change and theiradaptation practices. In view of this it is important to describe the process through which the
respondents were picked.
4.2.1.1.Sample Frame
The unit of analysis was the household and therefore the sample frame comprised households inthe six ecological zones in Ghana. For The Gambia, the sampling frame was households in the four
ecological zones of the country. A sample of 846 household heads was selected from Ghana andGambia in order to achieve the purpose of this survey. This means that the study exceeded the 800
households stipulated in the proposal.
4.2.1.2.Sample Selection
To allocate the number of household heads to interview between Ghana and the Gambia the ratio of
the populations of the two countries was used. Therefore relying on the ratio of the population ofAgricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia | 21

Ghana (23,350,927) to the Gambia (1,660,200) as the basis for allocating the number ofhouseholds to be selected from each country, 747 households were allocated to Ghana and 53
households were allocated to the Gambia to complete the proposed overall sample size of 800.
However it was realized 53 households was too low a sample and therefore during the survey 100
households were selected from the Gambia and 746 from Ghana. Table 1 shows the distribution of
the sample between Ghana and the Gambia, and across district and ecological zones.
In order to increase precision and reliability of the data and results of the survey, stratification was
employed. This was done by taking into consideration the geographical distribution, ecologicalzones and population distribution as the main control. In both countries, districts were grouped
according to their administrative regions. In Ghana, one district was selected within each region
using the simple random sampling technique. In the Gambia, however, two regions were randomly
selected initially and within these two regions, one district each was selected using the simple
random sampling.
Once a district was selected, within the selected districts a list of five major food producing
communities was obtained from the state ministry or department responsible for agriculture. From
this list some communities were randomly selected. The number of communities selected per
ecological zone or district depended on the total population per community and the total sample
per ecological zone. Within each of the identified communities, the survey team entered and met
with the leader/head of the community to introduce themselves, explain their mission to theleadership of the community, seek the permission of the community to carry out the survey, and torequest for the assistance of someone who knows the community very well.
At the community level, an enlistment of the households was conducted with the assistance of amember of the community who knows it very well. This provided the sampling frame of households
at the community level from which the households interviewed were randomly selected.

3World Bank Data, 2008
World Bank Data, 2008

4

22 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia

Table 1: Distribution of sample per ecological zone and district in Ghana andGambiaEcological Zone

Sample proportion (%)
of total sample

SampleDistrict

Sudan Savannah

8.1

60

Bongo

Guinea Savannah

10.1

75

West Gonja and Wa East

Transitional zone

9.9

74

Tano North

Deciduous forest

37.6

280

Amansie Central, South Dayi
and Yilo Krobo

Rain forest

1075

JomoroCoastal Savannah

24.4

182

Ewutu-Efutu and Ga SouthSub -Total

100

746

Sudan Sahelian Savannah

100

100

Sub -Total

100

100

GAMBIA

Grand Total

Jara West and Central Baddibou

846

4.2.1.3 Household Questionnaire Administration
At the household, the whereabouts of the head as sought after exchanges of pleasantries. In theabsence of the head, the next most responsible person in the household who must also be a farmer
was selected and the questionnaire administered to him or her. The questionnaire covered thedemographic characteristics of the respondent, agricultural activities of the household, farmers'
level of awareness of climate change, the household's access to food, the adaptation measurestaken by farmers, the innovations of farmers and the extent to which they network with others.
4.2.2. Focus Group Discussions
In each of the districts selected, one focus group discussion was organized. Members of the groups
were made up of farmers selected from the communities in the districts and each group did notexceed 12 in number. The groups were composed of mixed gender; male and female, young andthe elderly. The discussions were facilitated by the field team leader who led discussions on issues
such as agricultural practices of the farmers, how these practices have contributed to foodproduction, reasons why some practices are no longer in use, communities' responses toenvironmental disasters, and the identification of beliefs that are inimical to women's participation indecision making in their communities.

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia | 23

4.2.3 Survey of Research Institutions
A survey of heads of institutions was conducted with institutions engaged in agricultural research in
Ghana and The Gambia. The research institutions and or departments in the universities in Ghana
and the Gambia were identified and sent copies of the questionnaire to respond to.
The questionnaire was designed to capture primary data bordering demographic characteristics ofthe head of institution, the type of institution it is, i.e. whether international or national/government
or non-governmental, etc…. The questionnaire also sought to capture the main area of focus of theinstitutions, their human resource base, source of funding and the institutions' activities withrespect to networking and collaborations.
However, the responses from Ghana were not encouraging. The explanation is that there appear tohave been a somewhat survey-fatigue among the institutions especially bordering on innovations
since within the same year of the survey, CSIR-STEPRI had conducted a survey of agricultural
innovations. Therefore in the case of Ghana the analysis relied on secondary data comprising
CSIR-STEPRI's previous survey. In the case of the Gambia, five institutions responded.

24 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia

5. Results
5.1.
Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
The demographic characteristics of respondents in surveys are vital in analyzing and interpretingthe complete data collected about the respondents. It is in this light that the demographic
characteristics such as the sex, age and educational level of the respondents were obtained. Theseare presented as follows.
5.1.1. Gender of respondents
The survey in Ghana covered 77.5% male farmer-respondents against 22.5% female farmerrespondents. The distribution of the respondents among the ecological zones shows that majorityof the respondents were from the Deciduous Forest ecological zone (40.5%) followed by the Coastal
Savannah ecological zone(23.2%), the Sudan Savannah zone (11.0%), the Guinea Savannah(9.4%), the Transition zone (9.0%), the Rain Forest ecological zone had the least representation with
7.0% of the respondents. Table 2 gives the gender distribution of the respondents according toecological zones by country. It is evident that the Coastal Savannah and Deciduous Forest
ecological zones recorded higher numbers of female respondents than the other ecological zones,
nonetheless, no ecological zone recorded more female respondents than male. It is important tonote that inference from the gender distribution must be done with proper caveat.

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia | 25

Table 2: Gender distribution by country
Male
Ecological Zone

FemaleTotal

No.

Percent

No.

Percent

No.

Percent

Coastal Savannah

108

18.8

65

38.0

173

23.2

Deciduous forest

244

42.4

58

33.9

302

40.5

Guinea Savannah

55

9.6

15

8.8

70

9.4

Rain forest

38

6.6

14

8.2

52

7.0

Sudan Savannah

71

12.4

11

6.4

82

11.0

Transition Zone

59

10.3

8

4.7

67

9.0

Total

575

100

171

100

746

100

Lower River

43

46.7

7

87.5

50

50

North Bank

49

53.3

1

12.5

50

50

Total

92

100

8

100

100

100

Ghana

The Gambia

Source: ATPS Survey, 2010

IIn the Gambia, the respondents were dominated by male farmers represented by 92% whiles
female respondents were 8%. Table 2 shows that 46.7% of the male respondents were from theLower River Region whilst 53.3% were from the North Bank Region of the Gambia. On the other
hand, 87.5% of the female respondents were from Lower River Region whereas 12.5% were from
North Bank.
5.1.2 Age of Respondents
The age of distribution of the respondents in Ghana was skewed towards the youthful population as
about 63% of the respondents were less than 50 years old, however a sizeable percentage of the
respondents (37%) were over 50 years old. Furthermore, the survey showed that a relative majorityof the respondents (29.8%) belonged to the 40-49 age group, followed by the 30-39 age group(23%), 50-59 age group (20.2%), above 60 age group (16.9%), 20-29 age group (9.8%) and below
20 years (0.1%).

26 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia

Table 3 shows the age distribution of the respondents according by country. The results from theGambia indicate that farmers in the study area were not in the active labour force group. This isbecause only about 16% of the respondents were in the age group below 40 years (which can beconsidered as the active labour force group) whereas 84% of them were in the age groups above 40
years. The daunting part of it is the fact that 37% of the respondents are above age 60. The
implication for the agricultural sector in the Gambia is that the country is not realising its potential in
agricultural productivity as the active age groups may not be engaged in agriculture.
Age distribution of respondents by country
5.1.3.

Age distribution of respondents by country

Table 3: Age of respondents
The Gambia

Ghana

No.

Percent

No.

Percent

No.

Percent

<20

1

1.0

2

0.3

3

0.4

20 -29

5

5.0

74

10.0

79

9.4

30 -39

10

10.0

174

23.6

184

22.0

40 -49

22

22.0

221

30.0

243

29.0

50 -59

25

25.0

144

19.5

169

20.2

60+

37

37.0

122

16.6

159

19.0

All

100

100

737

100

837

100

Age GroupAll

Source: ATPS Survey, 2010

5.1.4 Educational Level of Respondents
The survey results from Ghana show that majority of the respondents (61.5%) had some level offormal education. Table 4 shows that many of them (34.3%) said they had attempted primary school
followed by those who have secondary level of education (13.0%), Junior secondary school (9.5%),
diplomas (3.1%), certificates course (112%). and bachelor degrees (0.3%). On the other hand,
38.5% of the respondents had no formal education whiles 0.3% said they had attempted “other”
form of education, mainly the Arabic.
The results from the Gambia show that all the respondents had some level of formal education.
About 30.0% of the respondents had primary level education; 7.0% had up to secondary level
education; none of them were certificate and diploma holders. The category of education thatrecorded the highest was Arabic (62%), however, one of the respondents had a bachelor degree.
Therefore the most of the farmers interviewed in the Gambia were more educated than their
Ghanaian counterparts.

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia | 27

Table 4: Educational level by country
The Gambia
Educational level

Ghana

All

No.

Percent

No.

Percent

No.

Percent

Primary School

30

30

256

34.3

286

33.81

Secondary School

7

7

97

13 .0

104

12.29

Certificate Course

-

-

8

1. 1

8

0.95

Diploma

-

-

23

3. 1

23

2.72

B.Sc./Degree

-

-

2

0. 3

2

0.24

None

-

-

287

38. 5

349

41.25

Other(Arabic, Dara)

62

62

2

0.3

2

0.24

JSS/MSLC

1

1

71

9.5

72

8.51

Total

100

100

746

100

846

100

Source: ATPS Survey, 2010

In addition to the acquisition of formal education, farmers were asked whether they had participatedin any form of training on climate change adaptation and or food security issues. The responses
from Ghana show that an overwhelming majority of farmers (97.4%) said they have neverparticipated in any form of training whereas 2.6% responded that they have the opportunity toparticipate in such training, which was mainly provided by non-governmental organizations.
Similarly, the responses from the Gambia show that only 4% of the farming household heads werereported to have attended some training on climate change adaptation and/or food security issues
whilst the remaining 96% have never had.
5.2
Farm Characteristics
Majority of the farmers interviewed in Ghana were mainly engaged in crop cultivation. Indeed 99.9%of the respondents were into crops cultivation as their main farming activity, whiles 0.1% was
engaged mainly in livestock rearing. It should, however, be added that many of those engaged incrop production as their main farming activity were also engaged in subsistence livestock farming.
Table 5 shows that most of the farms (81.5%) were small farms; being less than five hectares undercultivation. On the other hand about a quarter of the farmers cultivated medium sized farms of
between five and twenty hectares, and only 0.4% of the respondents cultivated farms categorized
as large, that is of size more than 20 hectares. There were no large scale farmers among the
respondents from the Gambia. About 49% of the respondents had small-scaled farm lands (lessthan 5ha) whereas 51% had medium-scaled farm lands (5-20ha). In terms ownership of the farms,
many of the respondents (99.1%) worked on their own farms although this number includes farms
that belong to families. About 0.7% of the respondents in Ghana said the ownership of their farms
was joint ownership whiles 0.3% of the respondents said their farms had foreign ownership (Table
6).

28 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia

The main areas of farming focus of respondents in the Gambia were crops and livestock. About 54%of the respondents were engaged in the cultivation of various crops whereas 46% of them were in
livestock. Farm lands used for agricultural purposes by respondents in the Gambia were allfamily/privately owned.
Table 5: Farm size by country
The Gambia

Ghana

No.

Percent

No.

Percent

No.

Percent

Small -size < 5ha

49

49.0

608

81.5

657

77.7

Medium -sized 5 -20ha

51

51.0

135

18.1

186

22.0

3

0.4

3

0.4

746

100

846

100

Farm size

Large -size >20ha
Total

100

100

All

Source: ATPS Survey, 2010

Table 6: Farm ownership structure by country
Farm ownership

The Gambia

Ghana

No.

Percent

No.

Percent

No.

Percent

100

100

737

98. 8

837

98.9

Foreign owned

2

0. 3

2

0.2

Joint venture

7

0.9

7

0.8

746

100

846

100

Family/privately owned

Total

100

100

All

Source: ATPS Survey, 2010

5.3
Source of Finance for Agricultural Activities
The survey results show majority of the famers in Ghana finance their agricultural activities from theirown pockets (98.4%) whiles 1.1% of the respondents relied on loans from family members andfriends to finance their farming activities. Furthermore, 0.3% of the respondents said they have hadsome state support to finance their agricultural activities; and 0.3% also added that they had
obtained funding from 'other' sources for their agricultural activities (see Table 7).

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia | 29

Table 7: Sources of finance for agriculture by country
The Gambia

Ghana

No.

Percent

No.

Percent

No.

Percent

Self generated

100

100

734

98. 4

834

98. 6

Government Subsidies

-

-

2

0.3

2

0.2

Private Sector (loans )

-

-

8

1.1

8

1.0

Other (venture capita )

-

-

2

0.3

2

0.2

All

100

100

746

100

846

100

SourcesAll

Source: ATPS Survey, 2010

All finances that go into farming activities of respondents in the Gambia were self-generated andnone got support from anywhere else. By implication, farmers support their own farming activities
without relying on any financial institution or government to provide incentives or subsidies.
Therefore if farmers rely mostly on their personal funds to operate their farms, it should be expectedthat the farms sizes will be small.
5.4.
Farmers Interaction with Agricultural Extension AgentsThe role of agricultural extension agents in providing farmers with information on best farming
practices and introducing farmers to new technologies and innovations is very important.
Knowledge of the extent to which farmers interact with agricultural extension agents is therefore
very important to this survey. The results from Ghana show that 39.1% of respondents had never
benefit from the services of agricultural extension agents whereas 60.9% of respondents said they
have had some interaction with agricultural extension agents. In terms of ecological distribution, theresponses, as illustrated in Table 8 show that farmers in the Decidious forest zone had moreinteractions with Agricultural Extension Agents (AEAs) than all the other ecological zones. On theother hand, farmers in the Rain Forest Ecological Zone seem to have little interaction with AEAs.
In the Gambia, however, 95% of the respondents reported that they had receive visits from
Agricultural Extension Agents whereas 5% reported they do not receive any visit from extension
officers. These were farmers from the North Bank region (Table 8).

30 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia

Table 8: Visit of agricultural Extension agents by country.
Yes
Responses

No.

All

No.

Percent

No.

Percent

No.

Percent

Coastal Savannah

89

19.6

84

28.8

173

23.2

Deciduous forest

195

43.0

107

36.6

302

40.5

Guinea Savannah

60

13.2

10

3.4

70

9.4

Rain forest

21

4.6

31

10.6

52

7.0

Sudan Savannah

63

13.9

19

6.5

82

11.0

Transition Zone

26

5.7

41

14.0

67

9.0

Total

454

100

292

100

746

100

Lower River

50

52.6

-

-

50

50

North Bank

45

52.6

5

100

50

50

Total

95

100

297

100

846

100

Ghana

The Gambia

Source: ATPS Survey, 2010

For respondents who have had the benefits of visits from agricultural extension agents, Table 9shows the type of activity that AEAs pursued with them as far as climate change and food security isconcerned. The table shows that many of the farmers who had interacted with AEAs received advice
on ways of managing their farms to reduce the impact of climate change followed bydemonstrations on the use of adaptive measures to cushion the effects of climate change.
Additionally the table shows that the least activity that AEAs undertook with farmers was visiting
sites showing varying climate situations.

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia| 31

Table 9: Activities of extension agents in Ghana in relation to climate change
and food security
Activity

The Gambia

Ghana

All

No.

No.

Percent

No.

Percent

55

105

14.08

160

18.91

Percent

Deminstration/training on the use of adoptive measures
Yes

55

No

45

45

641

85.92

686

81.09

All

100

100

746

100

846

100

Visiting sites that are undergoing change due to climate change
Yes

33

33

92

12.33

125

14.78

No

67

67

654

87.67

721

85.22

All

100

100

746

100

846

100

Advisory services on how to manage farm to reduce the effect of climate change
Yes

24

24

124

16.62

148

17.49

No

76

76

622

83.38

698

82.51

All

100

100

746

100

846

100

Awareness creation on the effect of climate change
Yes

71

71

97

13

168

19.86

No

29

29

649

87

678

80.14

All

100

100

746

100

846

100

4

4

49

6.57

53

6.26

Organizing public shows on climate change
Yes
No

96

96

697

93.43

793

93.74

All

100

100

746

100

846

100

Yes

32

32

18

2.41

50

5.91

No

68

68

728

97.59

796

94.09

All

100

100

746

100

846

100

Excursing showing varying climate situations

Field days where discussion on the effect of climate change is done
Yes

49

49

50

6.7

99

11.7

No

51

51

696

93.3

747

88.3

All

100

100

746

100

846

100

60

8.04

60

7.09

No

100

100

686

91.96

786

92.91

All

100

100

746

100

846

100

Other activities organized by extension agents
Yes

Source: ATPS Survey, 201032 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia

In the Gambia, the major activities that have been undertaken by extension agents on climatechange and food security issues include awareness creation on the issue, discussions on theeffects of climate change with the farmers during field days and training on the use of adaptive
measures. However, there are other activities which they undertook as listed in the table above butwere not recognized by many of the farmers or perhaps very few of them benefit. About 71% of the
farmers reported that extension officers have been creating awareness about the effects of climatechange. Training on the use of adaptive measures by extension officers covered about 55% of the
farmers whilst field days where discussions are done on climate change were 49% of the farmers.
One important area that is not usually covered by extension officers is that of advisory services on
how to manage the farms. Only about 24% of the farmers reported they received such service fromthe officers (Table 9).
5.5.
Farmers’ Level of Awareness of Climate Change
The survey sought to gauge the level of knowledge of the climate change phenomenon among
famers and the experiences of farmers with respect to the manifestation of climate change.
5.5.1. Farmers’ Perception of Climate Change
Farmers were asked whether they knew what climate change was. The term climate change wastranslated into the local dialect before asking farmers. The results from Ghana show that many of the
farmers interviewed (60%) knew and were able to describe climate change. However, 40% of the
respondents did not know anything about climate change. The level of awareness of climatechange issues among farmers in the Gambia was very encouraging. About 91% of the farmers
interviewed revealed that they were aware of climate change whilst only 9% of them reported theyknow nothing about the issue. Farmers were further asked whether in their view the current state of
the climate would change for a ‘better’ one than they knew some years back. To this, 74% of the
respondents in Ghana said yes, 11.4% said no and 14.6% said they do not know. For the Gambia, agreater number (74%) of farmers believed there was the possibility for the climate change to reversein the near future. On the other hand, 25% of them were uncertain about changes in the situation any
time soon.
Additionally farmers were asked about their experiences with the onset of the last rainy season
preceding the survey. About 57% of the respondents indicated that it did not rain at the right time at
the last planting season to enable them farm. On the other hand, about 43% responded that therains came at the right time in the last planting season. Table 10 shows the disaggregation of the
responses according to the ecological zones in Ghana. It shows that farmers in the Deciduous
Forest and Coastal Savannah zones mostly reported that the rains did not fall at the right time forthem to start planting with 65% each answering “No”. These ecological zones were followed byTransitional zones (12.9%), Guinea Savannah with (9.2%), Sudan Savannah (8.9%), and the Rainforest Zone(6.7%) responding that the rains did not fall at the right time of the planting season
preceding the period of the survey (see Table 10). Majority (74%) of the farmers in the Gambia
revealed that the rains occurred at the right time in the last planting season before the survey year.
On the other hand, 26% of them, however, reported otherwise.

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia | 33

Table 10: Onset of rains during the planting season by ecological zone
Yes
Responses

No

All

No.

Percent

No.

Percent

No.

Percent

Coastal Savannah

63

18.42

110

27.23

173

23.19

Deciduous forest

160

46.78

142

35.15

302

40.48

Guinea Savannah

33

9.65

37

9.16

70

9.38

Rain forest

25

7.31

27

6.68

52

6.97

Sudan Savannah

46

13.45

36

8.91

82

10.99

Transition Zone

15

4.39

52

12.87

67

8.98

All

342

100

404

100

746

100

Lower River

32

59.26

18

39.13

50

50

North Bank

22

40.74

28

60.87

50

50

All

54

100

46

100

100

100

Ghana

The Gambia

Source: ATPS Survey, 2010

In addition to the farmers' perception about climate change, especially using rainfall andtemperature as proxy indicators, farmers were asked if they have noticed other changes in theirenvironment. The results indicate that losses of vegetation cover and wildlife dominated the
responses from both Ghana and the Gambia. In Ghana, 78.7% mentioned loss of vegetation cover
and wildlife whiles 4.8% responded that they have observed an increase in vegetation cover andwildlife. Farmers also responded that they have noticed an increase in the number of pests anddiseases (1.7%), whiles some responded that they have noticed a decrease in the number ofextreme weather events (1.2%)(See Table 11).
In the Gambia, some noticeable environmental changes that farmers have observed over the past
years have been decrease in vegetation cover and wildlife and also decrease in the frequency of
extreme weather conditions. On the contrary some farmers (14.4%) held it that there has been an
increase in vegetation cover and wildlife numbers. Farmers who hold that vegetation cover andwildlife amount has been decreasing were 84.4% of the total number of respondents (Table 11).

34 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia

Table 11: Other observed environmental changes by country
The Gambia

Ghana

No.

Percent

No.

Percent No.

Percent

Vegetation cover and wildlife amount is decreasing

76

76

587

78.7

663

78.4

Vegetation cover and wildlife amount is increasing

13

13

36

4.8

49

5.8

Decrease in frequency of extreme weather events

1

1

9

1.2

10

1.2

Increase in the number of some pest/diseases

-

-

13

1.7

13

1.5

Other

10

10

101

13.5

111

13.1

All

100

100

746

100

846

100

Observations

All

Source: ATPS Survey, 2010

5.5.2 Perceived Causes of Climate Change
Table 12 shows that farmers in Ghana seem to strongly agree that cutting trees was a contributory
factor to the incidence of climate change. However they strongly disagree that gas flaring can be acontributory factor. The farmers disagree that overgrazing can be a contributory factor to theincidence of climate change. Furthermore, majority of the farmers agree that high temperature dueto the depletion of ozone layer can contribute to climate change (Table 12). In the opinion of farmers
in the Gambia, the changing pattern of rainfall can be attributed to a number of factors. These
include loss of vegetation cover (63%), drought (12%), and changes in weather (15%). A handful offarmers attributed the changes in rainfall pattern and amount to desertification (1%), bush burning(2%), greenhouse gas emission (1%) and natural cause (1%)( See Table 12).

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia | 35

Table 12: Farmers perception about the causes of climate change (percentage)

CausesThe
Ghana
GambiaThe
Ghana
GambiaThe
GambiaAgree

Strongly Agree

Disagree

Ghana

The
GambiaGhana

Strongly disagree

Burning of fossil fuel byindustries
Use of generator to generate
electricity for household use
Gas flaring from oil companies

11.11

8.99

0

7.73

5.88

4.65

7.14

6.67

11.11

13.76

0

3.18

0

3.26

14.29

11.11

18.52

4.23

0

7.73

0

6.05

0

4.44

Burning of firewood for cooking

0

3.7

4

5

11.76

10.23

14.29

4.44

Bush burning

0

2.65

20

16.82

0

1.86

0

0

Burning of fossil fuel fromvehicles,machines(motorcycles)
High use of irrigation whichchanges the amount of water
going into and out o a given
location
Cutting down of trees

11.11

8.99

4

4.09

0

2.79

7.14

4.44

14.81

13.23

0

2.73

5.88

2.79

0

8.89

0

0

20

18.18

0

2.33

0

0

Over grazing of farm bylivestockGases released from industries

7.41

5.82

0

1.36

17.65

10.7

0

2.22

7.41

7.94

8

5.91

0

4.19

0

0

High temperature due todepletion of Ozone layer
Use of excess chemicals in
farmlands
Emission of green house gases

3.7

5.29

16

10

5.88

2.79

0

2.22

3.7

5.82

0

1.36

23.53

9.77

7.14

15.56

7.41

7.94

16

6.82

0

3.72

0

4.44

Swamp reclamation

0

3.17

0

0

11.76

13.95

28.57

15.56

Swamp rice production

3.7

2.65

0

1.36

5.88

14.42

21.43

15.56

Crude oil spillage

0

5.82

12

7.73

11.76

6.51

0

4.44

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

Total
Source: ATPS Survey, 2010

5.5.3 Perceived Impact of Climate Change
Figure 3 shows that farmers in Ghana perceived the eractic rainfall pattern and long period of dry
harmattan with its acssociated loss of forest resources as the major impact of climate change in theirlocalities. They indicated that the trend of forest loss has consistently increased between 2005 and2009. Furthermore, the figure shows that flooding, long period of the dry season, soil infertility,
drying of rivers, long period of rains, decrease in farm yields and delays in the onset of rainfall during
the rainy season.

36 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia

Source: ATPS Survey, 2010

Figure 3: Farmers' perception of the impact of climate change in The Gambia

Source, ATPS Survey, 2010

Figure 4: Farmers' perception of the impact of climate change in Ghana
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia | 37

5.6
Farmers' Source of Information on the Climate
Farmers were asked if they get information about the weather and climate or not. About 63% of the
respondents from Ghana said they received climatic information whereas 37% responded in thenegative. In terms of the specific type of information, most of the respondents said they received
weather forecasts (59.5%), whiles some said they received information on causes of climatechange (1.7%) and good agronomic practices (1.5%), see Table 13.
In the Gambia, 62% of the farmers reported that they have ever received weather information whiles
38% of them were of a contrary opinion. In terms of the specific type of information they received,
farmers mentioned weather forecast (56.0%); the effects of bush burning (2.0%); climate change(2.0%); forest protection and land degradation (1%), see Table 13
Table 13: Type of information received by farmers in relations to climate change

The Gambia

Ghana

Information type

All

No.

Percent

No.

Percent

No.

Percent

Agronomic practice; food security

-

-

11

1.5

11

1.3

Causes of climate change

-

-

13

1.7

13

1.5

Weather forecast

56

56.0

444

59.5

500

59.1

Effects of bush burning

2

2.0

-

-

2

0.2

Land degradation

1

1.0

-

-

1

0.1

On forest protection

1

1.0

-

-

1

0.1

Climate change

2

2.0

-

-

2

0.2

No response

38

38.0

278

37.3

316

37.4

All

100

100

746

100

846

100.0

Source: ATPS Survey, 2010

The radio was a major source of information to famers interviewed in Ghana. Indeed 50.4% of the
respondents said the radio was their main source of climatic and agricultural information. The next
source was Agricultural Extension Officers (AEAs) who accounted for 5.4% of the respondents.
Other sources included their colleague farmers, the television, farmers' own personal observations
and private companies (Table 14).

38 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia

Table 14: Sources of information on climate change phenomena
The Gambia

Ghana

No.

Percent

No.

Percent

No.

Percent

Agric Extension Officers

31

31

40

5.4

71

8.4

Agric extension office, farmers and radio

-

-

1

0.1

1

0.1

Agric extension officers and radio

-

-

2

0.3

2

0.2

Millennium Development Authority

-

-

2

0.3

2

0.2

9

1.2

9

1.1

Sources

Other farmers

All

Personal observations

-

-

8

1.1

8

0.9

Print media

19

19

1

0.1

20

2.4

Radio

12

12

376

50.4

388

45.9

Radio and newspaper

-

-

2

0.3

2

0.2

Radio and other farmers

-

-

8

1.1

8

0.9

Radio and personal observation

-

-

1

0.1

1

0.1

Radio and television

-

-

10

1.3

10

1.2

Radio and farmer organization

-

-

1

0.1

1

0.1

Television

-

-

5

0.7

5

0.6

WIENCO

-

-

1

0.1

1

0.1

Forestry commi ssion

-

-

1

0.1

1

0.1

No response

38

38

278

37.3

316

37.4

Total

100

100

746

100

846

100

Source, ATPS Survey, 2010

Gambian farmers' major source of information on the weather and climate was AEAs (31 %.). This
goes to confirm the invaluable nature of the services from Agricultural Extension Officers. Farmers
trust the agricultural extension officers since they are the closest to them and probably the mostreliable in terms of information. The next most important source of information to farmers in theGambia was through the print media (19%) and the radio (12%)( See Table 14).
5.7
Farmers' Household Access to Food
As an indicator of household food security in the study areas in Ghana, famers were asked about
the frequency with which they had problems meeting their household feeding. Figure 4 shows thatmajority of the respondents (45.3%) said they sometimes experienced problems with feeding intheir households. Furthermore, 6.3% said they often faced problem with household feeding, 5.4%
said they always faced problems, whiles 14.6% said they seldom encountered problems. Therefore
overall, this means that 72.6% of the respondents have in some form experienced problems withmeeting household feeding. In The Gambia, however, about 78% or the respondents sometimes
experience household food shortages, but the much less percentage of farmers always experience
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia | 39

household food shortage as compared to the their Ghanaian countapart. Very few of the farmers(11%) never faced any challenge in meeting the food needs of their households. Respondents who
seldom faced problems of meeting their household food needs accounted for 10%. However those
who regularly faced the problem of meeting their food needs accounted for only 1% (Figure 5).

Source, ATPS Survey, 2010

Figure 5: Frequency of household feeding challenges within the years preceding
the survey
When considered along ecological zones, the indication is that the problem of meeting household
feeding is more pronounced in the Coastal Savannah Ecological Zone where only 16% of the
respondents said they have never experienced problems with meeting their household food needs,
followed by the Rain Forest Zone with 22.4%; the Sudan Savannah Zone with 32.4%; the Guinea
Savannah Zone 32.7%; Deciduous Forest Zone with 33.5%; and the Transition Zone with 45% of the
respondents saying they have never experienced problems meeting their household feeding
requirements (see Table 15).

40 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia

Table 15: Frequency of household feeding by ecological zones within the year
preceding the survey(percent)Ecological Zone

Never

SeldomSometimes

Often

Always

Total

Coastal Savannah

17.3

13.9

59.0

5.8

4.1

100

Deciduous forest

32.1

16.6

38.1

5.6

7.6

100

Guinea Savannah

32.9

7.1

45.7

7.1

7.1

100

Rain Forest

19.2

3.9

65.4

5.8

5.8

100

Sudan Savann ah

26.8

13.4

45.1

13.4

1.2

100

Transition Zone

44.8

25.4

28.4

1.5

0.0

100

Total

28.4

14.6

45.4

6.3

5.2

100

Lower River

20

18

60

2

0

100

North Bank

2

2

94

0

2

100

Total

11

10

77

1

1

100

Ghana

The Gambia

In terms of the severity of the problem with meeting household feeding requirements, respondents
in the Deciduous Forest Zone recorded the highest responses for those who always faced
problems with meeting household feeding, followed by the Guinea Savannah, Forest and theSudan Savannah Ecological Zones (see Table 15). In The Gambia, however, farmers in the North
Bank Region experience food shortages in their tousehold as 94% of them sometimes experiencefood shotage as compared with their 60% of their counterpart in the Lower Rover Region.

Figure 6: Farmers' comparison of current food situation of household to previous
year
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia | 41

Notwithstanding the status of food availability in the household of the respondents, a relative
majority (43%) of the famers indicated that the household food situation at the time of the survey
was a little worse than the previous year; 21% responded that the situation has not changed forthem; 19% said the situation has improved a little for them; 15% said the situation is much worse;
10% said the situation is much better; and 1% said they cannot tell whether their household foodsituation has changed between the two periods (see Figure 6).
Gambian farmers’ food situation in the year the survey was conducted was generally much better
than the year before the survey. This is asserted by the number of farmers (64%) who responded
positively to the fact that their food situation in the year of the survey was much better than that of theprevious year. About 27% of the farmers agreed that their food situation currently is a little better
than the previous year. Therefore, 91% of the respondents in the Gambia say their food situation
currently has improved over the previous year. On the other hand, only 4% of the respondents gave
indication that their food needs have become worse (Figure 6).
5.8.

Famers Adaptive Responses to Climate Change

5.8.1. Farmers’ Adaptive Responses to Erratic Rainfall Pattern
Farmers’ adaptive responses to erratic rainfall patterns were examined. Table 15, it is illustrates thatthe relative majority of the framers interviewed during the survey in Ghana (29.8%) said they did
nothing in seasons where they had little rainfall. Other farmers said they regularly weeded theirfarms (22.7%); applied fertilizer (10.2%); irrigated their farms (8.7%); early cultivation; spraying withagro-chemicals (2.1%); and the application of manure (1.8%). It is interesting to note that the use of
irrigation as an adaptive response to low rainfall has not caught on with farmer respondents in
Ghana.
The situation was no different in the Gambia as majority of the respondents there (33%) also did
nothing. About 17% of them said they provide water to their livestock whereas 7% consult with theagricultural extension agents and 4% pray to God for relief (Table 16).

42 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia

Table 16: Farmers' adaptive response to low/little rainfall

Adaptive measure

The Gambia
No.
Percent

Ghana
No.

Percent

All
No.

Percent

No response

36

36

99

13.3

135

16.0

Application of fertilizer

-

-

76

10.2

76

9.0

Application of manure

-

-

14

1.8

14

1.7

Create mounds

-

-

2

0.3

2

0.2

Cultivate drought resistant varieties

-

-

2

0.3

2

0.2

Early cultivation

-

-

41

5.5

41

4.8

Early harvesting

-

-

1

0.1

1

0.1

Good spacing

-

-

3

4

3

0.4

Inter cropping

-

-

2

0.3

2

0.2

Irrigation

-

-

65

8.7

65

7.7

Mulching

-

-

12

1.6

12

1.4

Nothing

33

33

222

29.8

255

30.1

Planting in rows

-

-

2

0.3

2

0.2

Pray for God's intervention

4

4

2

0.3

6

0.7

Provide water for livestock

20

20

6

0.8

26

3.1

Pruning

-

-

1

0.1

1

0.1

Regular weeding

-

-

169

22.7

169

20.0

Replanting

-

-

7

0.9

7

0.8

3

0.4

3

0.4

Spraying of agro chemicals

7

7

16

2.1

23

2.7

Treating seeds before planting

-

-

1

0.1

1

0.1

Total

100

100

746

100

846

100

Shifting cultivation

Source, ATPS Survey, 2010

When it comes to farmers' response to excessive rainfall, the results show the same trend in bothcountries. In Ghana most the respondents (49.9%) said they did nothing when their farms andlivestock come under excessive rainfall; followed by 18.1 who said they usually construct trenches
and drains on their farms for the excess water to flow away. Other responses of Ghanaian
respondents included frequent weeding of the farms (4.7%), early harvesting (1.6%) and replantingof drowned crops (1.3%). On the other, 21.3% of the respondents said they do not experience heavy
rains (Table 17).
For the Gambia, most of the respondents did not answer this question, whiles 32% of them said theyreport to the Veterinary Officers; an indication that during such occasions the livestock frequently
get sick. Additionally, 23% said they usually do nothing about the excess rainfall (Table 17).
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia | 43

Table 17: Farmers' adaptive response to excessive rainfall
The Gambia

Ghana

No.

Percent

No.

Percent

No.

Percent

Apply cow dung

-

-

2

0.3

2

0.2

Construct trenches

5

5

135

18.1

140

16.5

Early harvesting

-

-

12

1.6

12

1.4

Feed animals

-

-

2

0.3

2

0.2

Frequent weeding

-

-

35

4.7

35

4.1

Green belt

-

-

1

0.1

1

0.1

House livestock

5

5

7

0.9

12

1.4

Mulching

-

-

2

0.3

2

0.2

Nothing

23

23

372

49.9

395

46.7

Pruning

-

-

3

0.4

3

0.4

Relocate

-

-

1

0.1

1

0.1

Replanting

-

-

10

1.3

10

1.2

Set fire to provide warmth

-

-

1

0.1

1

0.1

Invoke the spirit of our ancestors

-

-

2

0.3

2

0.2

Creates terrace on

-

-

2

0.3

2

0.2

Expand farm area

1

1

1

0.1

Never experienced such events

-

-

159

21.3

159

18.8

Consult veterinary officers

32

32

-

-

32

3.8

No response

34

34

-

-

34

4.0

Total

100

100

746

100

846

100

Adaptive measure

the field

All

Source, ATPS Survey, 2010

5.8.2 Farmers' Adaptive Responses to Diseases and Pests Attacks
Table 18 shows the responses of farmers to the attack of diseases and pests on their farms andlivestock in Ghana and the Gambia respectively. In Ghana, most of the farmers reported that theyusually spray their crops with agrochemicals (60.2%) whiles 15.8% said they did nothing when theirfarms are infested with diseases and pests. Other adaptive responses alluded to by the
respondents included pruning the crops (7.2%), and reporting to agriculture extension agents(5.6%) see Table 18.

44 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia

Table 18: Farmers' adaptive response to diseases and pest attack
The Gambia

Ghana

Adaptive measures

No.

Percent

No.

Percent

No.

Percent

Application of agrochemicals

48

48

449

60.2

497

58.7

Burn old vehicl e tyre to drive away pest

4

4

-

-

4

0.5

Applies crop residue like cassava and

-

-

1

0.1

1

0.1

Burn cow dang to drive insect away

1

1

-

-

1

0.1

Manually remove pests

1

1

1

0.1

Apply mixture of ash and water on effected parts

-

-

1

0.1

1

0.1

Nothing

-

-

118

15.8

118

13.9

Prune affected parts

-

-

54

7.2

54

6.4

Report to the agric officers

39

39

42

5.6

81

9.6

4

0.5

4

0.5

-

-

1

0.1

77

10.3

77

9.1

6

0.7

846

100

Spray with neem tree extract
Use power from the back of mahogany tree

1

1

Never Experience such events
No response

6

6

Total

100

100

746

All

100

Source, ATPS Survey, 2010

5.8.3 Farmers' Expenditure on Climate Change
In terms of the proportion of farmers' expenditure that is directed towards addressing climatechange, the survey results indicate that 15.2% of the respondents allocate some of theirexpenditure for addressing problems created by climate change, whiles 82.8% of the respondents
said their expenditures on agricultural activities have never covered addressing problems ofclimate change (see Table 19).

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia | 45

Table 19: Proportion of farmers' budget directed towards solving problems
caused by climater change
The Gambia

Ghana

No.

Percent

No.

Percent

No.

Percent

None (0%)

50

50

618

82.8

668

79.0

Less than 15%

22

22

87

11.7

109

12.9

Between 16 and 30%

17

17

22

3

39

4.6

Between 31 and 45%

6

6

3

0.4

9

1.1

Between 46 and 60%

5

5

1

0.1

6

0.7

15

2

15

1.8

746

100

849

100

Responses

Don't Know
Total

100

100

All

Source, ATPS Survey, 2010

In the case of the Gambia, 50% of the respondents do not channel any portion of their farm budget
to respond to solving climate change related problems. The remaining percentage spends at least
some portion of their budget to solving problems caused by climate change. Those who spend lessthan 15% of their budget on climate change related problems were 22%; those who spend between
16-30%, 31- 45% and 46-60% of their budget were 17%, 6% and 5% respectively (Table 19).
5.9.

Agricultural Innovation

5.9.1. Famers’ Innovations
The results from Ghana show that not many farmers had introduced innovations on their farms as a
response to climate change. Indeed about 79% of the respondents said they have not introduced
any innovations whereas about 21% of the respondents said they had. Table 15 a shows thatmajority of the those who introduced innovations got some new improved crop varieties and or
livestock breeds. Other innovations included new information about agricultural activities andintroduced improved farm tools and practices (Table 20).
Similarly, in the Gambia, 72% of the respondents said they have not introduced any innovations
whereas 28% said they had introduced some innovations in their farming activities. Table 20 shows
the specific types of innovations they have introduced over the past three to five years. The tableshows that the most introduced innovations have been on improved crops and livestock breeds,
improved farm tools or practices and new information on agricultural activities.

46 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia

.Table 20: Farmers' innovation in products and services within the past three tofive years in relation to climate change
Innovations

The Gambia

Ghana

No

Yes

No

Yes

New or improved crop/livestock breed

87

13

44.8

55.2

New or improved farm tool/practice

24

76

18.2

81.8

New Information

24

76

18.6

81.4

New mark et products

2

98

12.5

87.5

Upgraded machinery or equipment on yourfarm within the past years

4

96

11.8

88.2

Source, ATPS Survey, 2010

5.9.2 Research Institutions' Innovations
The results for Ghana were drawn mainly from a survey that was conducted by STEPRI and IFPRI on
agricultural technologies and innovations in Ghana. The survey covered a total of 109 agricultural
technologies and innovations developed by the agricultural research systems in Ghana (see Figure
7).

Source: IFPRI-STEPRI survey, 2010. Where: CRI-Crop Research Institute; SRI-Soil Research Institute;
FORIG- Forestry Research Institute of Ghana; FRI-Food Research Institute; OPRI-Oil Palm ResearchInstitute; SARI-Savannah Agricultural Research Institute; IIR-Institute of Industrial Research; ARIAnimal Research Institute; WRI-Water Research Institute; ASD-Animal Science Department; PGRIPlant Genetic Research Institute; CSD- Crop Science Department; ND-Nutrition Department

Figure 7: Number of technologies developed by research insitutes in Ghana
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia | 47

Figure 7 provides details on the departments that generated the various agricultural technologies in
Ghana. As illustrated in the figure, out of 109 technologies identified, the Savannah Agriculture
Research Institute (SARI) produced the highest number of technologies of 25.7%. This number isfollowed closely by the Crop Research Institute (CRI), with 22.0% of the technologies. Two stationsof the Animal Research Institute (ARI) Accra and Nyankpala combined effort and produced 11.9%of the technologies. Food Research Institute (FRI), Oil Palm Research Institute (OPRI), Soil
Research Institute (SRI) had 8.3%, 7.3%, and 6.4% of the technologies respectively to their credits.
The Forest Research Institute of Ghana (FORIG) and Institute of Industrial Research (IIR) generated
four 3.7% of the technologies, each. Five (5) of the technologies were generated at the University of
Ghana (Legon); 1.8% from the Crop Science Department and 2.8% from the Nutrition Department.
The Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST) produced 1.8%; bothtechnologies came from the Animal Science Department. The University for Development Studies(UDS) generated two technologies; each of the technologies came from the Animal Science andCrop Departments, respectively. One technology, representing about 0.9 percent each came fromthe Water Research Institute, Plant Genetic Research Institute and the Crop Science Department of
the University College of Education, Mampong Campus. Figure 8 provides the distribution of thetechnologies by commodities applicable.

Source: IFPRI-STEPRI survey, 2010.

Figure 8: Technologies by type of commodity
As shown in Figure 8, about 76% of the technologies were crop production related technologies,
this represents about three-quarters of the agricultural technologies that were gathered. About 16% were technologies applicable to livestock and poultry production. While about 4 percent of thetechnologies applicable to fisheries, the same percentage of technologies were “other” such as
sediment filter technology, development of mushroom seedlings, and Geo-spatial modeling for
agro-ecological assessment.

48 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia

Source: IFPRI-STEPRI survey, 2010

Figure 9: Crop-related technologies by type of research area/theme
Figure 9 shows that about 48% of the technologies were varieties introduced to improve yield andresist to pest and diseases. About 17% of the technologies were in the area of improving soil fertility
and land management practices. About 16% of the technologies were pest management practices
to guard against the invasion of pest, diseases and weed. Technologies on farmer fieldmanagement practices constituted about 9% of the technologies covered under this study. Whileplant breeding constituted about 6%, intercropping took 4 % of the technologies.
In the Gambia, the study covered five institutions that were engaged in agricultural research or had
programmes relating to climate change and/or food security. This section presents the results
obtained from the analysis of the interviews of the heads of these organizations. Table 21 shows thetype of organizations that were interviewed. Two of them were civil society organizations, and one
each was from government, research and development, and the private sector.
Table 21: Type of organization of respondents
Responses

Frequency

Percentage

Government Ministry1

20

Research & Development

1

20

Civil Society Organization (NGO, CBO, FBO)

2

40Enterprise (eg. Input suppliers, processing)

1

20

Total

5

100

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia | 49

Table 22 shows that the organisations in the Gambia were mostly engaged in the extension or
information dissemination activities, production, and research and development of agricultural
innovations and technologies. Other activities engaged in include teaching, policy advocacy andquality assurance of technologies. The National Agricultural Research Institute of the Gambia was
one organization that was engaged in several activities relating to agricultural innovations andtechnologies. The Institute was engaged in research and development, teaching, technology
production, policy advocacy, quality control, consultancy, and extension, outreach and information
dissemination. The National Women Farmers Association was also engaged in a number ofactivities including training, technology production, policy advocacy, commercialization, outreachand women empowerment.
Table 22: Main focus area of organizations in the Gambia
Organisations
Main Focus Area

National
Agricultural
Research

National Women Animal Health
PROGEBACTIONAID

Institute (NAR)I Gambia

11

Farmers

and Production

Association

Services

Research and development
Teaching/training

1

1

Production

1

Policy advocacy

1
1

1

1

1

1

Quality assurance/control-standard
setting

1

Consultancy

1

1

Added value/Commercialization
1
Extension/Outreach, information
dissemination
Fighting poverty and injustice
Women empowerment

1

1

1

1

1
1

Source: ATPS Survey, 2010

In terms of the specific areas of that these organizations work in, Figure 9 shows that they were
mostly in general agricultural activities (22.7%), i.e. crops and animal husbandry. About 14% was
engaged in natural resources management and 9.1% each was in plant and animal health,marketing, standard setting and monitoring, and policy advocacy. Climate change was not among
the top thematic areas that the organisations were working. Indeed the percentage response was
the same for biotechnology, post harvest processing, financing, and investment with 4.6% each
(Figure 10).
50 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia

Source, ATPS Survey, 2010

Figure 10: Thematic areas of the organisations

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia | 51

6Conclusion & Recommendations

From the foregoing, it can be concluded that farmers in Ghana and the Gambia have perceived thatthe climate is changing; manifested in the form of erratic rainfall patterns and rising temperatures. In
addition, farmers have identified other symptoms such as loss of vegetation cover and wildlife intheir communities although it may difficult to ascribe these to the effects of climate change rather
than the impact of unsustainable use of forest resources, urbanisation and other factors.
Furthermore, although farmers reckon the impacts of climate change on their farming activities,
many of them did nothing to respond when their farms receive little rainfall, excessive rainfall, or
when their crops and livestock are attacked by diseases and pests. Even for many of those farmers
who did something, they have many times reported to the Agriculture Extension Agents or bought
and applied fertilizer and agrochemicals.
The Study has shown that farmers do not see the impact of climate change as a threat that will
prevail for a long time and thus may be the reason for them doing nothing when they are affected but
hoping that the situation will change for the better.

52 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia

Bibiography
AAgwu, A. E., Dimelu, M. U. and Madukwe, M. C. 2008. Innovation system approach to agriculturaldevelopment: Policy implications for agricultural extension delivery in Nigeria. African Journal of
Biotechnology. 7(11): 1604-1611.
Agyeman Bonsu, W. , Minia, Z., Dontwi, J., Dontwi, I.K., Buabeng, S.N., Baffoe-Bonnie, B., Yeboah,
F.A., Ofori, E., Gyasi, E.A., Karikari, O., Dugan, E., Nelson, W., Agbey, S.N.D., Sagoe, R., Damptey,P., Mensah, A.T., Anim-Kwapong, D.J. and Frimpong, E.B. 2008. Ghana Climate Change Impacts,
Vulnerability and Adaptation Assessments. Allotey, J. and Mensah, L. (Eds). Environmental
Protection Agency, Accra, Ghana.
Edquist, C. 1997. Systems of Innovation Technologies, Institutions and Organizations. London.
IPCC 2001. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
IPCC 2007b. Climate Change 2007: The Synthesis Report. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press
Nelson, R., and S. Winter. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge: Belknap
Press Nelson.
Mytelka, L.K. 2000. Local Systems of Innovation in a Globalised World Economy. Industry andInnovation 7(1): 15-32
Obirih-Opareh, N., Tetteh E.K., Akon-Yamga, G., Sulley K.M., Omari, R., Essegbey, G.O., Ampadu,
R., and Frempong, G. 2008. Agricultural Innovations: Technological inputs for Enhancing
Agricultural Production in Ghana. Obirih-Opareh, N., Essegbey, G.O. and Frempong,G. (eds).
Accra: Science and Technology Policy Research Institute (STEPRI), Council for Scientific andIndustrial Research (CSIR).
SWAC 2005. The family economy and agricultural innovation in West Africa: Towards New
Partnerships. SWAC.
UN 1992. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, available at<unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1349.php>.
World Bank 1986. Poverty and Hunger: Issues and options for Food Security in Developing
Countries. Washington DC: The World Bank,World Bank 2007. Enhancing Agricultural Innovation. Washington D.C: The World Bank.

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Africa: The Cases of Ghana and The Gambia | 53

The African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS) is a multidisciplinary network of researchers, private sector actors andpolicy makers promoting the generation, dissemination, use andmastery of science, technology and innovation (ST&I) for African
development, environmental sustainability and global inclusion.
ATPS intends to achieve its mandate through research, capacity
building and training, science communication/dissemination andsensitization, participatory multi-stakeholder dialogue,knowledge brokerage, and policy advocacy.

African Technology
Policy Studies Network
Contact the Executive Director at
The Chancery, 3rd Floor, Valley Rd.
P O Box 10081, 00100-Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: (254 020) 2714092, 2714168,
2714498, 2723800
Fax: (254 020) 2714028
http://www.atpsnet.org

Science, Technology and Innovation
for African Development

ISBN: 978-9966-030-11-5