Content uploaded by Victor Owusu-Nantwi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Victor Owusu-Nantwi on Aug 23, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Ghana School Feeding Program:
Re-Tooling for a Sustainable Future
June 2011
Francisco De Carvalho, Beattie Samuel Dom, Michael Mawuli Fiadzigbey, Sam Filer, Israel Kpekpena,
Christine Lin, Daniel Lombardi, Luis Eduardo Lopez, Victor Owusu-Nantwi, Aditya Ramachandran,
Yosuke Tanaka, Satoru Tanabe
On behalf of Partnership for Child Development and the Ministry of Local Government and Rural
Development, Ghana
2
Acknowledgements
Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development
GSFP Secretariat
Partnership for Child Development
GIMPA
Millennium Villages Project
World Food Programme
SEND Ghana
SNV Ghana
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Rafael Flor
ECASARD
Dick Beahrs
Hans Eenhoorn
George Scharffenberger
3
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................. 2
1.
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 5
2.
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 6
3.
Current GSFP Status ........................................................................................................................ 7
3.1.
GSFP Objectives and Overview ................................................................................................. 7
3.2.
History ...................................................................................................................................... 8
3.3.
Programme Actors and Relationships......................................................................................... 9
3.4.
Financial Review for 2010 ....................................................................................................... 11
3.5.
Crop Variety ............................................................................................................................ 12
3.6.
Food Procurement ................................................................................................................... 12
4.
High Level Comparison.................................................................................................................. 14
4.1.
In-country Programs: Plan Ghana International ........................................................................ 14
4.2.
In-country Programs: Bonsaaso Millennium Villages Project (MVP) ....................................... 17
4.3.
Other Countries’ Programs ...................................................................................................... 20
4.3.1.
India ................................................................................................................................. 20
4.3.2.
Kenya ............................................................................................................................... 24
4.3.3.
Brazil ................................................................................................................................ 27
4.3.4.
Chile ................................................................................................................................. 32
4.4.
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 35
4.5.
Practical Checklist of Best Practices ........................................................................................ 36
5.
Characterization of the Existing GSFP Process ............................................................................... 38
5.1.
Money Network ....................................................................................................................... 38
5.2.
Start-up/Capital Costs .............................................................................................................. 42
5.3.
Recurrent/Operational Costs: ................................................................................................... 45
5.4.
Costing Example ..................................................................................................................... 47
5.5.
Indirect Costs .......................................................................................................................... 49
5.6.
Farmer Level Interventions and Costs ...................................................................................... 51
6.
The Costing Tool and Data ............................................................................................................. 53
7.
A Sustainable Model to Link Farmers and Caterers ........................................................................ 55
7.1.
Overall Challenges in Linking Farmers and Caterers ................................................................ 55
7.1.1.
Farmers............................................................................................................................. 56
7.1.2.
Caterers ............................................................................................................................ 57
7.1.3.
Other Stakeholders (DICs, SICs) ....................................................................................... 60
4
7.2.
Design of a Sustainable Model to Link Farmers and Caterers ................................................... 61
7.2.1.
The Pillars for a New Model ............................................................................................. 62
7.2.2.
The Description of the Model: The GSFP Roundtable ....................................................... 62
7.2.3.
Implementation ................................................................................................................. 64
7.2.4.
Key Performance Indicator ............................................................................................... 65
8.
Design & Implementation Changes to Support a Sustainable Model ............................................... 66
8.1.
Strengthening Communication and Participation ...................................................................... 66
8.2.
Improving Record Keeping for Data Analysis .......................................................................... 70
8.3.
Supporting the Linkage between Farmers and Caterers ............................................................ 71
8.4.
Improving the Payment System ............................................................................................... 72
8.5.
Addition of District Coordinator Role ...................................................................................... 72
8.6.
Summary of New Roles & Responsibilities to Support a Sustainable Model ............................ 74
9.
Monitoring and Evaluation ............................................................................................................. 76
9.1.
Effects on the Budget............................................................................................................... 76
10.
Funding for GSFP ........................................................................................................................ 78
10.1.
Current Funding Requirements ............................................................................................... 78
10.2.
Current Funding Sources ........................................................................................................ 78
10.3.
Future Funding Sources.......................................................................................................... 79
11.
Policy ........................................................................................................................................... 82
11.1.
Integration with National Policy ............................................................................................. 82
11.2.
National Policy: Education and/or Agriculture ........................................................................ 82
11.3.
Case Study: Brazil .................................................................................................................. 83
12.
Institutional Collaboration ............................................................................................................ 84
13.
Conclusion and Next Steps ........................................................................................................... 86
14.
Appendix ..................................................................................................................................... 88
14.1.
Appendix A ........................................................................................................................... 88
14.2.
Appendix B ............................................................................................................................ 89
14.3.
Appendix C ............................................................................................................................ 90
14.4.
Appendix D - Summary of Qualitative Interviews .................................................................. 91
5
1. Executive Summary
This report on school feeding is the result of collaboration between the Haas School of Business,
UC Berkeley and the Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration (GIMPA)
during Spring 2011. With research on existing literature combined with one week of fieldwork
in various regions of Ghana, we were able to take a look at key learnings from other programmes,
form a framework to characterize school feeding, create a costing tool, analyze stakeholder
drivers and constraints, and develop a model to link local agriculture to school feeding.
From the comparison with other countries, we found that successful programmes are tightly
integrated with national policy. Since school feeding requires a broad range of stakeholders, it is
essential to establish a national framework to achieve efficient and effective coordination among
them. The biggest challenge of a decentralized model lies in striking a balance between benefits
for the local communities and for the programme as a whole.
A costing tool was developed to help the GSFP Secretariat calculate the costs involved in
producing and delivering the food to the children. The tool allows the user to configure up to 50
menus and to select one of these menus for each day of the week. A database of prices of each
ingredient per region must be entered and kept updated in order to calculate costs specific to the
region where the school is located and to make comparisons of cost of menus across regions.
While the costing exercise indicates that the cost of ingredients is higher than 40 pesewas for all
menus using any price source, we believe there are some possible explanations for this result due
to the desirability of the caterer position.
In developing a model to link local agriculture to school feeding, we were able to base our
proposal on a few promising districts who are actively pushing forward the promotion of local
agriculture. We also incorporated feedback from the fieldwork into the model and provide
practical suggestions for implementing changes that support the model.
The Ghana School Feeding Programme has been very successful in achieving its goals of
reducing hunger and increasing enrollment among school children. We hope that our work
presented here will help GSFP accomplish its remaining goal of helping local farmers.
6
2. Introduction
After growing rapidly in the past six years, the Ghana School Feeding Programme is now
looking at a total re-design in 2011. One of the main areas that will be addressed is the linkage
between small, local farmers and school feeding; while it has been a goal of the programme to
boost local food production, the farmers have not been connected to the market created by the
programme. The Partnership for Child Development with the support of the Bill and Melinda
Gates Foundation is aiding the re-design process in Ghana and has requested this joint Berkeley-
Haas and GIMPA team to examine the cost trade-offs across different school feeding supply
chains and develop a sustainable model to link local agriculture with the programme. Currently,
there is a lack of understanding of the cost variation and drivers across the different supply
chains throughout Ghana, making it difficult for policy makers to develop accurate budgets and
contain costs. Our work presented here provides a background into what other countries’ school
feeding programmes have done, a framework for analyzing costs, a costing tool for the daily
meals, a model for linking local agriculture with school feeding, and practical suggestions for
sustaining the programme.
7
3. Current GSFP Status
3.1. GSFP Objectives and Overview
The Ghana School Feeding Programme (GSFP) was launched in 2005 with the goals of
contributing to poverty reduction and increased food security in Ghana. The three key objectives
of the program are:
• Reduce hunger and malnutrition by providing all primary and kindergarten students
in beneficiary schools a nutritious meal each school day.
• Increase school enrollment, attendance, and retention.
• Boost domestic food production by sourcing GSFP meals locally, and providing a
sustainable market for food producers in the community.
These objectives align closely with the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)
surrounding hunger, poverty, and primary education. Figure 1 below illustrates the basic concept
of the GSFP.
Figure 1: GSFP objectives & main outputs
Source: Ghana School Feeding Programme Annual Operating Plan 2010
The GSFP covers
all 170 districts
Dev
elopment is the sector ministry
ministries and strategic pa
rtners. The GSFP budget for 2011
3.2. History
The
GSFP’s historical progress is as follows:
•
Late 2005: The GSFP began with 10 pilot schools drawn from each region of the country
•
August 2006: The GSFP e
then 138 districts.
• Decem
ber 2006: The GSFP was in 598 schools with a total population of 234,800
•
March 2007: 975 schools
•
December 2008: 596,501
primary school
students
•
October 2009: The GSFP covered approximat
country,
and approximately 656,624
students)
were fed daily
• December 2010: The
GSFP reached 697,416 students in 1741 schools.
Table 1
below shows the distribution of total number of b
Table 1: GSFP regional distribution of beneficiary schools and pupils
all 170 districts
in Ghana. The
Ministry of Local Gover
elopment is the sector ministry
who implements the GSFP
in collaboration
rtners. The GSFP budget for 2011
is GH¢67
.1M
GSFP’s historical progress is as follows:
Late 2005: The GSFP began with 10 pilot schools drawn from each region of the country
August 2006: The GSFP e
xpanded to 200 schools,
covering 69,000
ber 2006: The GSFP was in 598 schools with a total population of 234,800
March 2007: 975 schools
were
reached by the GSFP, benefiting 408,989
December 2008: 596,501
students
were fed by the GSFP, which
students
benefitting from the feeding programme.
October 2009: The GSFP covered approximat
ely 1698 public schools through
and approximately 656,624
students
(22% of all primary and kindergarten
were fed daily
in all 170 districts.
GSFP reached 697,416 students in 1741 schools.
below shows the distribution of total number of b
eneficiaries as of December 2010
Table 1: GSFP regional distribution of beneficiary schools and pupils
Source: Ghana School Feeding Prog
ramme Annual Operating Plan 2011
8
Ministry of Local Gover
nment and Rural
in collaboration
with other
.1M
(US$43M).
Late 2005: The GSFP began with 10 pilot schools drawn from each region of the country
.
covering 69,000
students in all of the
ber 2006: The GSFP was in 598 schools with a total population of 234,800
.
reached by the GSFP, benefiting 408,989
students.
were fed by the GSFP, which
equates to 20% of all
ely 1698 public schools through
out the
(22% of all primary and kindergarten
GSFP reached 697,416 students in 1741 schools.
eneficiaries as of December 2010
.
ramme Annual Operating Plan 2011
9
3.3. Programme Actors and Relationships
The stakeholders of the GSFP can be divided into three different levels: national, regional/district,
and local/community.
•
National Level:
The Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development and Environment (MLGRD)
is the core of all inter-governmental cooperation and relations and has the role of
overseeing the whole programme. The Program Steering Committee (PSC) was set up in
2008 and partly took over tasks from the Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC), which
facilitated the start of the programme, and the National Technical Committee. The
National Secretariat (NS) is where the programme is coordinated and managed, and
includes experts who advise the other national bodies on all aspects of the program. The
NS is responsible for the execution of procedures on the national level and ensuring
reporting and accountability. This body also supports the District Implementation
Committees (DICs) and School Implementation Committees (SICs). All of the
collaborating ministries have supportive and executing roles depending on their expertise.
•
Regional/District Level:
The Regional Coordination Offices (RCOs) play a key role in reporting and ensuring
accountability to the national level and monitoring at the district level. The Regional
Coordinating Council (RCC) supports the RCOs and is more practically involved in
supporting the District Assemblies (DAs) in the development of their activities. DAs are
the core implementation and managing body of the GSFP. They receive and distribute the
funds for the programme and are responsible for good governance at the lower levels.
Their tasks include setting up functioning DICs and SICs, providing necessary
infrastructure, and mobilizing community support for the schools. District
Implementation Committees are directly involved in overseeing the schools in the district
as the main school-coordinating body, and an important role in the committee is the
District Desk Officer (DDO) who provides feedback and communication to the higher
and lower levels.
•
Local/Community Level:
10
The School Implementation Committees implement, plan, and execute the feeding
activities of the programme. In addition, the committees are tasked with leading
community mobilization and providing direct oversight and supervision of the caterers.
Next to the governmental bodies, there are several strategic partners who play important roles in
the GSFP. Whereas some of them, e.g. the Dutch Government, are solely financial sponsors, the
civil service organizations (CSOs) often provide technical assistance and knowledge about prior
school feeding programmes they have run. Since the strategic partners play various roles in the
programme, the method and level of collaboration of each with the GSFP differs.
The list of GSFP stakeholders includes:
Sector Ministry
•
Ministry of Local Government & Rural Development
Collaborating Ministries
•
Ministry of Education
•
Ministry of Health
•
Ministry of Food and Agriculture
•
Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning
Strategic Partners
•
Embassy of Kingdom of Netherlands (Dutch Embassy)
•
World Food Programme (WFP)
•
Partnership for Child Development (PCD)
•
Netherlands Development Organization (SNV)
•
Social Enterprise Development Organization (SEND Foundation)
•
International Centre for Soil Fertility and Agricultural Development (IFDC)
•
Ghana Agriculture Initiative Network (GAIN)
•
AgroEco
•
Plan International, Ghana
•
School Feeding Initiative Ghana Netherlands (SIGN)
In February 2011, t
he Partnership for Child Development (PCD),
launched a five-
year initiative that employs
action in delivering cost-
effective home grown school feeding (HGSF) programmes in sub
Saharan Africa. The PCD HGSF programme is supported in part by the Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation. Figure 2
below illustrates the relationships of the programme actors.
Figure 2: GSFP
programme actors and relationships
3.4. Financial Review
for 2010
The feeding allowance
per child is GH¢0
December 2010, GH¢
61,747,525
preparation. The total
expenditure for the period under review was GH¢
breakdown of costs is
shown in Table 2
he Partnership for Child Development (PCD),
Imperial College London
year initiative that employs
evidenced-based approaches
to support government
effective home grown school feeding (HGSF) programmes in sub
Saharan Africa. The PCD HGSF programme is supported in part by the Bill & Melinda Gates
below illustrates the relationships of the programme actors.
programme actors and relationships
Source: Ghana School Feeding Programme Annual Operating Plan 2011
for 2010
per child is GH¢0
.40 per day. During the period from
61,747,525
was transferred to the districts for food purchases and
expenditure for the period under review was GH¢
shown in Table 2
:
11
Imperial College London
to support government
effective home grown school feeding (HGSF) programmes in sub
-
Saharan Africa. The PCD HGSF programme is supported in part by the Bill & Melinda Gates
below illustrates the relationships of the programme actors.
Source: Ghana School Feeding Programme Annual Operating Plan 2011
.40 per day. During the period from
January to
was transferred to the districts for food purchases and
meal
expenditure for the period under review was GH¢
62,316,407. The
12
Table 2: GSFP Expenditures for 2010
Jan – Dec 2010 GH¢ % of Total
Personnel Emolument 222,789.68 0.36%
Administration 202,371.87 0.32%
Service:
Feeding Cost 61,604,845.16 98.86%
Other Service Activities 142,680.19 0.23%
Investment 143,720.50 0.23%
Total 62,316,407.40
Source: Ghana School Feeding Programme Annual Operating Plan 2011
3.5. Crop Variety
The domestic economy is predominantly driven by subsistence farming, which employs almost
60% of the workforce and provides a livelihood for the 51% of Ghana’s population that resides
in rural areas. Thus, small-scale farming and its subsequent development form a significant
component of Ghana’s opportunity for poverty alleviation. Table 3 below shows the crop
varieties cultivated by small farmers.
Table 3: Crops produced by small-scale farmers
Source: HGSF Technical Assistance Plan, The Republic of Ghana, PCD, 2011
3.6. Food Procurement
The GSFP’s procurement is highly decentralized and engages with the private sector to a large
degree; it gives contracts to caterers to procure, prepare, and serve food to students in beneficiary
schools. While the model instructs caterers to procure from the schools’ communities, and source
from the district and national levels only when food items are not available, in practice caterers
are sourcing the large majority of food from the market regardless of local availability. Caterers
are advised to procure 80% of foodstuffs from local farmers, but this rule has not been enforced.
13
Payments to the caterers are made from the District Assemblies, under the supervision of the
DICs, based on GH¢0.40 (US$0.26) per child per day. Caterers are not permitted to serve more
than three schools each, and their profit is the savings made after the food has been procured,
prepared, and distributed. The funds are intended to be released to the caterers every 2 weeks,
although in practice payment is highly irregular.
14
4.
High Level Comparison
4.1. In-country Programs: Plan Ghana International
Plan Ghana’s school feeding programme is a community-based initiative targeting kindergartens
and primary schools and operating in five out of the ten regions of Ghana: Eastern, Central,
Greater Accra, Upper West and Volta. It started its intervention in the Upper West region, the
most deprived region in the country. A pilot programme was initiated by the Sissila West district,
where most community institutions (facilitated by Plan Ghana) were already in place for school
feeding implementation. Currently, there are seventeen pilots schools in the program with two (2)
in the Sissila West district. As found within the Ghana School Feeding Programme Log Frame
2007 – 2010, Plan Ghana’s intervention is an integrated approach—this is because it has
programmes in the areas of food production, health, education, income generation, water and
sanitation.
Governance of School Feeding
Each community has a Unit Committee that is set up by the community elders with the
responsibility of awarding cooking contracts to the VSLA Cooking Groups. Most of these
committees have been trained in basic record keeping and on how to manage their communities’
bank accounts. The Community Base School Feeding consists of key committees and
associations:
•
Village Savings and Loans Associations (VSLA)
•
School Management Committees (SMC)
•
Parents’ Teachers Associations (PTA)
•
Water Users Associations (WUA)
There are other sub-committees such as:
•
VSLA Cooking Groups
•
VSLA Foodstuff Contractors
•
VSLA Financial Body
•
WUA Marketing Cooperative
15
Supply Chain, Agricultural Production, and Processing
The supply chain in Plan Ghana’s school feeding programme utilizes existing local institutions.
The production base of the whole feeding programme is vegetable and cereal that is produced
mostly in the eight irrigation dams with an irrigable area of about one hundred hectares and other
distant farms situated in the region. To this end, a special programme is being implemented to
ensure a proper vegetable mix with an emphasis on high vitamin and mineral crops like moringa
and soya bean.
Fish production for cooking is mainly from four dams that have been stocked with 825,000
fingerlings and increasing in population. Meat requirements are from the ruminant population in
the local communities, which are also increasing in numbers as a result of the construction of
water facilities for their drinking year round. Cooking oil is purchased from women who process
it locally from groundnuts and shea nuts, and when needed, extra cooking oil is procured from
the Upper West Agro Processing Company, Sombo, UWR where soya beans are locally
processed. Other cooking ingredients like iodized salt are purchased from markets elsewhere
within the UWR.
Food Procurement and Cooking
There are Water Users Associations in the eight dam communities, each with their own
executives. These executives constitute a marketing cooperative that organizes the production of
vegetables in the needed quantities and in a timely manner. The Village Savings and Loans
Associations (VSLA) within the communities are made up of women associations with an
average membership of twenty-five with total membership of over 1,900. These women
constitute the VSLA Foodstuff Purchasing Firm who organise the food from the dam
communities and elsewhere in the UWR with immediate and short-term financing from the
VSLA. There is also a Local VSLA Food Cooking Group in each community that undertakes the
cooking of the food with supplies purchased from the VSLA Foodstuff Purchasing Firm.
Figure 3: The Plan Ghana School Feeding Model
Local Community Involvement
Apart from the human resource aspect, another important community contribution is firewood.
Some communities have forestation programs that encourage sustainable harvesting. Other
communities that do not have forestation programs have invested in fast growing tree species.
The communities also contribute to the purchasing of cooking utensils used for the program.
Key Learnings from Plan Ghana School Feeding Program
•
The integration of local farmers into the school feeding programme provides a
sustainable model for school feeding.
•
It is community driven from the design to implementation levels, with technical and
financial support received from Plan Ghana and its development partners.
Distribution
to schools
Food
preparation
StudentsStorageTransportation
Wholesale/
Trading
Food
production
VSLA Financial Body
VSLA
Cooking
Groups
Schools
Irrigation
Dams
WUA Marketing Cooperative
Payment
VSLA: Village Savings & Loans Associations
SMC: School Management Committee
PTA: Parents’ Teacher Association
WUA: Water Users Associations
Vegetables & Fish
VSLA Foodstuffs
Contractors
Distant
Farms
Grains
Communities
Other
market
Live stocks
& locally
processed oil
Other
ingredients
Irrigation
Dams
Grain
Ingredients
Community
contribution
Firewood &
Utensil
Unit
Committee
Contracting
Body
District/
Regional
Funding
17
4.2. In-country Programs: Bonsaaso Millennium Villages Project (MVP)
The Millennium Villages Project (MVP) was established as an intervention of the Millennium
Development Goals in eradicating extreme poverty and hunger, achieving universal primary
education, and reducing child mortality. In Ghana, the MVP started operation in March 2006 in
the Bonsaaso Cluster in the Ashanti region. From three schools in 2007, the program was scaled-
up to cover all twenty-two schools in 2009. The MVP is anchored in three interlinked
components:
•
The principle of community participation, leadership, and cost-sharing
•
Appropriate science-based innovations and local knowledge
•
A costed national action plan for the time-bound and targeted objectives of the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)
The model of the MVP is based on community participation and a supply-driven school feeding
programme. By the end of 2009, the processing of fresh palm fruit by the Juabeng Oil Mill
earned farmers GH¢20,071.90. Farmers make direct contributions of farm produce to support the
school meals programme and also assist in the establishment of school gardens to provide fresh
vegetables—gardens are currently present in twenty-two primary schools. The MVP is supported
by the Rural Enterprise Project, Care International, Japan International Development Agency
(JICA), Ghana Government (Energy Commission), District Education Directorate, Ministry of
Health and allied health service providers, Ministry of Food and Agriculture, and others.
Governance of School Feeding
Each community has a Unit Committee that is responsible for administration and execution at the
local level. For the school feeding programme, there is a School Implementation Committee
consisting of the following:
•
Representatives of the Ministries of Education, Health, Agriculture (community level)
•
MVP representative
•
Head teachers of schools
•
Parent Teacher Association (PTA)
18
Cost Per Child Per Day
The school meals programme operates at an average cost of GH¢0.18 (~US$0.13) per meal per
child. The MVP and the participating communities share the cost of the program almost equally.
The MVP bears the cost of the staples and some relatively costly but nutritious ingredients such
as fish and beans while the communities provide water, fuel, wood, and some ingredients for
cooking. Essentially, all the food items such as maize, gari, okro, yams, plantain, and palm oil
are purchased from the community thereby boosting local production. Based on a common
understanding, each community adopts its own strategy for mobilizing funds to meet the
recurring cosst. In most cases parents agree to contribute GH¢0.50 or GH¢0.10 per week per
child.
Cash Transfer Scheme
In pursuit of the development objectives, there was the signing of a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with 4 communities. The MOU enabled these communities to receive the
direct transfer of funds into a community account at a designated local bank. The primary
objective that drove the design of the MOU was to create an opportunity for local communities
to experience the full cycle of project management, especially at the level of fund mobilization
and utilization, and within a culture of transparency and accountability.
Supply Chain, Agricultural Production, Processing, and Marketing
The supply chain in the MVP model is based on the supply driven approach of school feeding
where farmers in the communities push supply to the programme. Although we cannot
generalize the supply chain implemented in the various communities, there were similarities in
the approach adopted by all twenty-two communities. Taking a look at one community in
particular, the Bonsaaso Cluster is made up of six villages with approximately 30,000 residents,
and located in the Amansie West district of the Ashanti region of Ghana. With over 8,434 pupils
and expanding, the community in benefitting tremendously from the MVP.
19
Figure 4: An Example MVP Model
With support from the World Food Programme (WFP) under the auspices of the United Nations
Development Program (UNDP), the two communities of Apenimadi and Watreso are to have oil
palm processing equipment manufactured and installed. Some communities have formed
cooperatives for easy access to microcredit and marketing of their products, including vegetables,
fish, and cocoa.
Local Community Involvement
The MVP believes that the effective administration and implementation of the school feeding
programme is at the Unit Committee level, which is the basic level of administration under the
decentralised local government system. Thus, various training programmes were initiated to
strengthen the leadership role of the Unit Committee in mobilizing support to improve
community-based monitoring and evaluation on all project activities. This has enhanced
community ownership of the projects, and the local population has demanded accountability and
transparency in the execution of community-based facilities under the inspired leadership of the
transformed Unit Committees.
Distribution
to schools
Food
preparation
Schools Storage Transportation
Wholesale/T
rading
Food
production
Bonsaaso MVP School Feeding Program
MVP
Farmers & cooperative farmers
School gardens
• Ministry of Agric.
• Rural Enterprise Project
• Marketing of Products
• NGOs, WFP, UNDP
Amansie/Bonsaaso & MVP
Cooks Students
GHC
0.09/child/day
Payment
for cooks &
equipment
Technical
Support
Communities
Contribution
Parents
GHC
0.09/child/day
GHC
0.10/child/day
Vegetables
produce
20
Key Learnings from MVP School Feeding Programme
•
The school feeding programme under the MVP is supply driven where farmers are the
driving force behind the success of the programme.
•
The improved access of farmers to agricultural inputs is critical, namely seedlings for
maize, cowpea, cocoa and organic fertilizer.
•
The construction of warehouses is critical in reducing post-harvest losses.
•
All 8,434 pupils from the twenty-two primary schools were provided with school meals
at a cost of 18 pesewas (GH¢0.18) per meal.
4.3. Other Countries’ Programs
In order to understand alternative models of school feeding and their pros and cons, we looked at
other countries’ school feeding programmes in the context of the following:
•
Governance of school feeding
•
Cost per child per day
•
Cash transfer scheme
•
Supply chain/procurement mechanism
•
Nutrition standards
•
Involvement of local community
4.3.1.
India
1
Brief Description
A mix of public and private partnerships in implementation, India has both state administered
programmes and those supported by private sector organizations. The Mid-Day Meal (MDM)
Programme, the largest school feeding programme in the world, operates through the Food
Corporation of India (FCI), which procures food domestically and then distributes it to a network
of FCI stores, where it is then transported to individual schools and villages. The program is
largely decentralized by the state, with operations varying throughout the country.
There are no local procurement targets as Home Grown Procurement is less important in India
(as a net exporter of grain). The massive public distribution system based on the procurement of
1
Rethinking School Feeding, Bundy et al, Cardiff India Desk Review, Swaminathan Foundation SFP in India, Kumar A case
study of Mid Day Meal Scheme,
21
vast quantities of grain from farmers at minimum support prices makes the SFP much less
important as a source of demand for grains. However, there is scope for the local procurement of
vegetables and condiments.
Governance of School Feeding
India has a federal system of governance with a central government, twenty-eight state
governments, and seven Union Territories. India attained self-sufficiency in food grains by the
1970s and is now a grain surplus country and a leading exporter of food grains.
The Department of Food and Public Distribution under the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food
and Public Distribution is in charge of managing the food economy of the country. A public
distribution system (PDS) managed by the Food Corporation of India (FCI) operates alongside a
free market. The objectives of the FCI are primarily:
1.
Effective price support operation for safeguarding the interests of the farmers.
2.
Distribution of food grains throughout the country by the Public Distribution System
(PDS).
3.
Maintenance of satisfactory level of operation and buffer stocks of food grains to ensure
National Food Security (Food Corporation of India, 2007).
The FCI procures food (wheat, paddy, rice) through purchase centers at pre-announced
‘procurement prices’ fixed by the Central Government. This food is then sold to State Civil
Supplies Corporations or Food Corporations at an issue price that is also fixed by the
government. The state then distributes the food to the public through fair price shops or ration
shops at ‘ration’ or ‘issue’ prices.
The central government supports the states by providing free food grains (for example, rice or
wheat) to implementing state agencies and reimbursing the cost of transportation to the district
authorities. States pay for any additional food items required and for food preparation, and they
can choose from providing cooked meals at school or dry rations. Efforts have been made since
2001 to improve school infrastructure for the programme, especially regarding the construction
of kitchens, and to tackle challenges related to clean water, appropriate utensils, and eating
facilities. Still, challenges remain in guaranteeing the quality and stability of the programme in
all of the states under a decentralized system.
22
Cost Per Child Per Day
Primary: Rs. 3.30, Upper Primary: Rs. 4.92
Cash Transfer Scheme
There is a great deal of importance assigned to the preparation of the Annual Work Plan &
Budget (AWP&B) by the states and administration. Data collected through participatory
processes at the school level and aggregated at the Block, District, and State levels prove that this
is the case. A comprehensive picture of the implementation of the program is provided,
containing details such as management structure, implementation processes, monitoring systems,
sociological break up of target groups, infrastructure position, findings of evaluation studies,
strategies to tackle problems, community participation, best practices, new initiatives, etc.
Government financial assistance includes:
•
Supply of food grains such as wheat, rice
•
Reimbursement of transportation cost from food storage point to the school
•
Provision of cooking ingredients including vegetables, oil, etc.
•
Assistance in construction of kitchen, store
•
Kitchen utensils, devices
•
Management, Monitoring, and Evaluation (MME) at 2% of total assistance
In addition to its support during the school year, the central government supports a MDM
programme during summer vacation in drought-affected areas. The state governments
supplement the central government support with a minimum of 0.20 (northeastern states) or 0.50
rupees (all other states) for cooking costs including stipends for cooks, and fuel or firewood for
cooking. States are required to contribute in order to receive central government funding.
Supply Chain/Procurement M
Procurement of food grains and ensuring continuous availability of adequate food supply is the
responsibility of the
FCI. The State Government makes arrangements for the transportation of
food grains from the nearest FCI depot to each school (via state appointed transport agencies)
See figure 5 below.
Figure 5
: India’s School Feeding Supply Chain
Nutrition Standards
Nutritional n
orms prescribed under MDMS:
•
Primary: 450 Calories, Protein 12g.
•
Upper Primary: 700 Calories, Protein 20g.
•
Both: Adequate qua
ntities of micronutrients like iron, folic a
Menus vary according to local eating customs
Involvement of Local C
ommunities
The inovlement of local communities has been minimal; there have been
increase participation in s
upervision and contribution.
Key Learnings from India’s C
•
Highly integrated into policy
•
Mix of public-p
rivate partnerships in implementation
•
Food provided and distributed by central and state governments (who keep large stocks to
ensure constant demand and uninterrupted supply)
•
Funds provided for monitoring o
etc.
Supply Chain/Procurement M
echanism
Procurement of food grains and ensuring continuous availability of adequate food supply is the
FCI. The State Government makes arrangements for the transportation of
food grains from the nearest FCI depot to each school (via state appointed transport agencies)
: India’s School Feeding Supply Chain
orms prescribed under MDMS:
Primary: 450 Calories, Protein 12g.
Upper Primary: 700 Calories, Protein 20g.
ntities of micronutrients like iron, folic a
cid
, and v
Menus vary according to local eating customs
.
ommunities
The inovlement of local communities has been minimal; there have been
upervision and contribution.
Key Learnings from India’s C
ase
Highly integrated into policy
rivate partnerships in implementation
Food provided and distributed by central and state governments (who keep large stocks to
ensure constant demand and uninterrupted supply)
Funds provided for monitoring o
f program, kitchen construction/
improvements, ute
23
Procurement of food grains and ensuring continuous availability of adequate food supply is the
FCI. The State Government makes arrangements for the transportation of
food grains from the nearest FCI depot to each school (via state appointed transport agencies)
.
, and v
itamin A.
The inovlement of local communities has been minimal; there have been
recent attempts to
Food provided and distributed by central and state governments (who keep large stocks to
improvements, ute
nsils,
24
•
Summer funding available in drought affected areas
•
Very thorough annual reporting requirements in order to qualify for the scheme
•
Rations based on nutritional requirements (by age)
Challenges in India
•
Children out of school not covered
•
Flow of funds
•
Actual implementation patchy and hard to monitor
•
Indian infrastructure resources not applicable to Ghana
4.3.2.
Kenya
2
Brief Description
The WFP provides meals to 770,000 children in Kenya’s arid and semi-arid lands, with the aim
of increasing enrollment, stabilizing attendance, increasing completion rates, and improving the
government’s capacity to manage the school feeding programme through training. The WFP is
supporting a gradual handover of its SFP to the government’s HGSFP, which targets 538,000 in
semi-arid areas. A targeting exercise identified twenty-eight marginal agricultural districts with
access to markets for the new programme.
There is no official target for the procurement of food, but ‘local’ is defined as (i) from parents
of school children (ii) within the school zone (iii) near school, in community, or (iv) from the
local market. The current proposal includes food produced in the whole of Kenya.
Governance of School Feeding
The SMC and School Feeding Sub-Committee (SFC) directly manage the HGSF program at the
school level. Each school has an SMC that includes the head teacher as the secretary, a
chairperson who is a parent, and other parents who are members. Schools currently have two
separate bank accounts—one is a general-purpose account and the other is for instructional
materials and supplies. A third is required for the school feeding programme. There are three
bank signatories: the head teacher, the chairperson, and the treasurer. Schools have experience
with financial management and procurement, and the MoE is basing their school feeding
2
Rethinking School Feeding (Bundy et al), USDA Assessment of Local Production for School Feeding in Kenya, HGSM
Progress Report and Technical Assistance Plan
25
procurement model upon already existing structures for monitoring and evaluation and
procurement that are used to purchase textbooks and other school supplies.
General responsibilities are:
(i)
Standards and regulations are set by the MoE (nutritional requirements, storage and
handling guidelines, etc.), as well as fundraising, advocacy, and coordination and
implementation at the national level.
(ii)
Supervision, reporting, M&E, and technical assistance (trainings and advice in nutrition,
storage, preparation, bookkeeping, etc.) occur at the district level.
(iii)
The head teacher keeps records, prepares a procurement plan, and confirms quantity and
quality of commodities delivered, and signs for delivery.
(iv)
The SMC and SFC, led by the head teacher, manage the HGSF program at the school
level.
Parents represented by the committees are responsible for overseeing general management of the
programme, which includes overseeing food deliveries, signing off on reports and delivery notes,
and making procurement and management decisions. To access funding at the school level, three
parties must sign for it (head teacher, SMC chairperson, and the SFC chairperson).
Cost Per Child Per Day
The average daily average cost per child in the MoE HGSF program is approximately
US$0.09—a little over half of the WFP feeding program price at US$0.16 per child. The HGSF
transfers do not include funds for energy efficient stoves or infrastructure.
Cash Transfer Scheme
The MoE funds are disbursed to the schools twice a year, directly into a specified bank account
for each school. The account is designated for only the local purchase of cereals, pulses, and oil.
Supply Chain/Procurement Mechanism
The MoE HGSF issues local tenders for cereals, pulses, and oil, while the parents source salt and
firewood. A school’s ability to purchase locally grown products is hindered because all schools
in the HGSF program are within semi-arid areas, where production capacity is limited. As a
result, the MoE has suggested using traders as a fallback in times of decreased rainfall. When
food prices are at their lowest, directly after harvest, schools will purchase as much as possible to
ensure a supply sufficient for the entire term. Storage, however, i
See figure 6
below for Kenya’s supply chain.
Figure 6
: Kenya’s School Feeding Supply Chain
Nutrition Standards
The nutrition standards are set by the MoE and h
components: access to education and addressing short
and nutrition. The
MoE has not established menu options for the HGSF program, but has instead
adopted the
WFP’s daily hot lunch ration, which
legumes (mainly beans or yellow split peas), 5g of fortified vegetable oil, and 3g of iodized salt.
Involvement of Local C
ommunities
Community participation and involvement
the SFP, and typical contributions include firewood, water, cash for cooks’ salaries, and salt.
When households cannot contribute, the SMC makes alternative
and the r
emaining supplies are purchased from
the tenders come from members of the community, the SMC knows them and what they are
capable of producing and de
livering. The SMC offers
community.
Key Learnings fro
m Kenya’s C
•
Programme
targeted to poorest areas
•
Strong community participation
food prices are at their lowest, directly after harvest, schools will purchase as much as possible to
ensure a supply sufficient for the entire term. Storage, however, i
s a challenge for many schools
below for Kenya’s supply chain.
: Kenya’s School Feeding Supply Chain
The nutrition standards are set by the MoE and h
istorically have
focused on two major
components: access to education and addressing short
-
term hunger, while also improving health
MoE has not established menu options for the HGSF program, but has instead
WFP’s daily hot lunch ration, which
includes 150g of cereals (mainly maize), 40g of
legumes (mainly beans or yellow split peas), 5g of fortified vegetable oil, and 3g of iodized salt.
ommunities
Community participation and involvement
are
strong. Each household is
the SFP, and typical contributions include firewood, water, cash for cooks’ salaries, and salt.
When households cannot contribute, the SMC makes alternative
arrangements with the family,
emaining supplies are purchased from
the community through a tender process. Because
the tenders come from members of the community, the SMC knows them and what they are
livering. The SMC offers
preferential tendering terms to
m Kenya’s C
ase
targeted to poorest areas
Strong community participation
26
food prices are at their lowest, directly after harvest, schools will purchase as much as possible to
s a challenge for many schools
.
focused on two major
term hunger, while also improving health
MoE has not established menu options for the HGSF program, but has instead
includes 150g of cereals (mainly maize), 40g of
legumes (mainly beans or yellow split peas), 5g of fortified vegetable oil, and 3g of iodized salt.
strong. Each household is
asked to contribute to
the SFP, and typical contributions include firewood, water, cash for cooks’ salaries, and salt.
arrangements with the family,
the community through a tender process. Because
the tenders come from members of the community, the SMC knows them and what they are
preferential tendering terms to
the local
27
•
Each household is asked to contribute to the SFP. Typical contributions include firewood,
water, cash for cooks’ salaries, and salt. When households cannot contribute, the SMC
makes alternative arrangements with the family.
•
Managed at school level—funds are directly disbursed twice a year to the designated
school bank accounts (so less frequent delays and issues with the caterers)
Challenges in Kenya
•
Low Capacity – risk of program leading to price increases
•
Disparity in costs
•
Funding shortfalls from fluctuating food prices
•
Delays in disbursements
4.3.3.
Brazil
3
Brief Description
Brazil’s National School Feeding Programme (now called “PNAE”) started in 1955 and serves
37 million children across the country. The Brazilian model is a decentralized home grown
school feeding programme and its local procurement target is 30%. The PNAE is administered
by the National Fund for Educational Development (Fundo National de Desenvolvimento da
Educação or FNDE). The FNDE provided R$1.5 billion (about US$750 million) in 2006. Since
2008, the PNAE has been supported by the National Constitution and highly integrated with
national policy.
Governance and M&E of School Feeding
Each municipality or state government sets up a School Feeding Committee (Conselho de
Alimentacao Escolar or CAE). The CAE is mainly responsible for the execution of the PNAE at
the local level and members are re-elected every two years. The CAE usually consists of the
following:
•
One executive representative (from the municipal or state secretariat of education)
•
One legislative representative (from the municipal council)
•
Two teacher representatives
3
Brazil: A Desk Review of the National School Feeding, Kei Otsuki and Alberto Arce, 2007.
28
•
Two parent representatives (usually elected members of Parents and Teachers
Association)
•
One representative of a related segment of civil society such as Rural Workers,
Syndicates, producers, associations, or NGOs which support these producers
In order to participate in the PNAE, the state, federal district, or municipal government must:
1)
Apply for financial resources (for school food) from the FNDE
2)
Allow the CAE to monitor its fiscal status, submit a statement of account for every
transfer, and send in the yearly statement every January
3)
Follow the FNDE’s instructions and rules in using the resources (For example, the FNDE
suggests that the responsible government involve at least one qualified nutritionist to
guarantee the level of nutrition in each school meal.)
The FNDE can stop the disbursement of funds if the CAE does not submit an account statement
on time. The FNDE and the Federal Account Tribunal (Tribunal de Contas da União, or TCU)
started providing manuals to all the municipalities in 2004 to prevent this. Even so, in 2007,
about 1,000 municipalities did not send the account statements and properly form their CAEs.
Additionally, school feeding committees monitor quality and composition of menus and the
tendering process and the FNDE regularly inspects the performance of the committees in order to
prevent fraud in the food procurement process. Since July 2008, a computerized monitoring
system was implemented in all municipalities.
Cost Per Child Per Day
Although the cost per child per day varies across the country, the FNDE uniformly provides the
following support and state governments and municipal governments cover the rest.
•
R$0.18 daily per student for municipal or state-run crèches, pre- and primary schools, and
philanthropic schools (mostly subsidized by the federal government)
•
R$0.35 for schools in indigenous people reserves and quilombos
Local governments are obliged to spend 70% of the transferred money on basic foodstuff,
preferably acquired from local producers in order to simultaneously enhance local economic
development.
29
Cash Transfer Scheme
The funds are transferred from the FNDE to all the municipalities across Brazil. In 1998, the
financial transfer from FNDE to local governments became automatic, reducing paperwork. In
2001, the transfer became a regular arrangement of ten installments per year (each payment is
expected to cover food for 20 school days).
Supply Chain/Procurement Mechanism
The supply chain in the Brazilian decentralized system varies among municipalities, reflecting
the differences in community involvement and existing networks or infrastructure. This variation
is also attributable to the fact that Brazil is a federal republic comprised of states with a certain
degree of autonomy. Although the decentralized school feeding programme reflects the diversity
of municipalities, it also sometimes leads to disparity in quality. For example, when a
municipality wants to introduce new local products to the school menus, the municipal
government needs to train cooks and nutritionists. Some municipal governments cannot afford
these new material arrangements and recede to old industrial food provision by commissioned
enterprises. As we cannot generalize one typical supply chain implemented in the PNAE, we
would like to describe two examples: the state of Sao Paolo and the state of Castanhal.
The Case of the Municipality of Campinas, the State of Sao Paolo
The municipality of Campinas has a population of one million, and 160,000 students in the
municipality across 518 public crèches, pre-schools and primary schools benefit from the PNAE.
The school feeding programme in Campinas is considered to be one of the most successful
models in Brazil. In Campinas, the executer of the PNAE is the Nutrition Coordinator affiliated
with the Municipal Secretary of Education, and the state-run Supply Centre and Assistance
Services (Central de Abastecimento e Servicos Auxiliares, or CEASA). The CEASA works as an
intermediary among schools, local farmers, wholesalers, FNDE, the state government, and the
municipal government (see figure 7 below for details). The CEASA not only transfers funding
from governments to local farmers/wholesalers, but also educates cooks about the nutritional
aspects of menus, sanitary matters, and culinary experiments.
30
Figure 7: Campinas’ School Feeding Supply Chain
The Case of Castanhal, the State of Pará
In the north region of Brazil, many of municipalities need improvement in basic infrastructure
such as clean water, electricity, roads, and storage. Under these conditions, the State of Pará,
through the State Secretariat of Education, has been promoting the process of ‘regionalisation’ of
school food since 1997. Many municipal governments and the State Secretariat of Education
provide financial support as complementary to the FNDE’s funding by combining the school
feeding programme and agricultural extension services and associated funds. It is also beneficial
for local producers’ cooperatives and associations who can barely commercialize their products
due to logistical problems and a lack of market (see figure 8 below for details).
Distribution
to schools
Food
preparation
StudentsStorageTransportation
Wholesale/
Trading
Food
production
CEASE
600 cooks
518 public
crèches,
pre-schools
and primary
schools
Perishables
Non-
Perishables
Local farmers
Tendering
FNDE
R$0.18/child/day
State Gov’t
R$0.22/child/day
Municipal
Gov’t
R$0.34/child/day
10
nutritionists
Elaboration of
menus
R$0.24/child/day
(for cook and equipment)
R$0.50/child/day
(for food)
The Case of the Municipality of Campinas, the State of São Paulo
31
Figure 8: Castanhal’s School Feeding Supply Chain
Nutrition Standards
The nutrition standards also differ from one municipality to another. In general, nutrition intake
is focused on vitamins, proteins, and iron, which can be found in fresh vegetables, fruits and
meat.
Involvement of Local Communities
The CAEs are supposed to reflect “local reality” in menu development and food procurement by
respecting local eating habits or preferences for basic and fresh products. This connects the
PNAE with the regional agricultural activities partly supported by the Food Security and
Nutrition Programme of the Zero Hunger Project, which promotes several support programmes
for small farmers. Food procurement is decentralized and largely school-based. The school
procures fruit, vegetables, meat, and bread from local producers with financial support from the
Distribution
to schools
Food
preparation
StudentsStorageTransportation
Wholesale/
Trading
Food
production
Municipality of Castanhal
cooks
public
crèches,
pre-schools
and primary
schools
small farmers and extraction workers’
cooperative
FNDE
R$0.18/child/day
Municipal
Gov’t
R$0.11/child/day
Nutritionists?
Elaboration of
menus
Payment for cooks and
equipments
Payment for food
The Case of Castanhal, the State of Pará
School
gardens
60% of ingredients
are local products
- State Secretariat of Agriculture
- Technical Assistance and Rural
Extension Corporation
- Local NGOs
- University programs
Vegetables
Technical Support
32
municipal government. The Ministry of Agriculture’s Programa de Aquisição de Alimentos
(Food Procurement Programme) organizes and trains the small producers to become suppliers of
the school feeding progamme. Many municipalities have started to buy fruits, flour, and beans
from local rural producers’ cooperatives and associations, benefitting local rural producers rather
than large-scale providers.
Key Learnings from Brazil’s Case
•
Integration with the national policy
•
Autonomy of municipalities to reflect differences in economic status and local taste
•
Combination of funding sources to create market and technical supports that optimize
food supply
Challenges in Brazil
•
Difficulty in overseeing and managing numerous municipalities
•
Disparity in quality among municipalities
4.3.4.
Chile
Brief Description
The school feeding programme in Chile started in 1929 and in 1976, began using an auction
system to choose a school’s food service provider. 1.8 million children from low-income
families in 9,800 schools are served by the programme. The meals have different nutritional
content and are distributed approximately 180 days per year. The Chilean model is driven by a
public-private partnership and has no local procurement target. The National Board of School
Assistance and Scholarships (La Junta Nacional de Auxilio Escolar y Becas, or JUNAEB) is
mandated by Chilean Law No. 15720 to administer the school feeding programme.
4
The Auction System
The Chilean model is characterized by the use of a mathematical auction system developed by
the University of Chile’s Department of Industrial Engineering in 1997. The following is a brief
explanation of how the auction system works.
4
International Approaches to School Feeding: Country Experiences from Mali, Chile, and India, Rachel Winch, 2009.
33
i)
For the purposes of the auction, Chile is divided into approximately 120 school districts
or territorial units (TUs).
ii)
The JUNAEB holds auctions for school catering services in one-third of these districts
every year, awarding three-year contracts.
iii)
The JUNAEB then evaluates the companies from a managerial, technical, and financial
point of view and eliminates those that don’t meet minimum reliability standards.
iv)
Qualifying vendors are classified according to two characteristics: their financial and
operating capacity, and their technical and managerial competence.
v)
Potential vendors submit their bids through an online system. Each bid includes a
technical project for meal service and its price. The technical project must meet
regulations established by the JUNAEB, such as nutritional and hygiene requirements.
vi)
Vendors that satisfy these conditions remain in the bidding process and compete on price,
through their respective bids. A bid can cover anywhere from one to twelve TUs,
depending on the vendor’s classification. Vendors can submit as many bids as they want.
When the JUNAEB accepts a company’s bid, the company must provide all meal
services in the corresponding TUs. (Because JUNAEB allows companies to submit bids
that cover multiple TUs, vendors can take advantage of economies of scale.)
vii)
The JUNAEB asks companies to quote alternatives to these services, such as
improvements to the nutritional quality of the meals. Vendors also quote prices for
different levels of demand, thereby reducing the risk the vendors would face if they
provide fewer meals because of unforeseen events, such as teacher strikes. Firms can also
offer discounts if the real demand turns out to be higher than anticipated.
5
Cost Per Child Per Day
The cost per child per day is determined by the auction system in Chile. The JUNAEB pays
approximately $1.13 per child per day for breakfast and lunch, with some variation by region and
method of preparation.
6
5
No Such Thing as Free Lunch?, Jaime Catalan, Rafael Epstein, Mario Guajardo, Daniel Yung, Lysette Henriquez, Cristian
Martinez and Gabriel Weintraub, 2009.
6
International Approaches to School Feeding: Country Experiences from Mali, Chile, and India, Rachel Winch, 2009.
34
Cash Transfer Scheme
The JUNAEB controls the programme budget and pays the school food service providers. The
school food service providers are responsible for providing the JUNAEB with documentation of
the number of meals served since they are paid per meal served to an eligible student. In each
school both a staff member from the private contractor and a designated teacher from the school
record daily meal participation and ensure that the correct students receive meals. At the end of
each month, the JUNAEB pays the private contractors for the number of meals served in the
previous month.
Supply Chain/Procurement
Although the JUNAEB sets the nutrition and quality standards of meals, procurement of
ingredients falls under the operation of the food service providers. See figure 9 below.
Figure 9: Chile’s School Feeding Supply Chain
Distribution
to schools
Food
preparation
StudentsStorageTransportation
Wholesale/
Trading
Food
production
The Case of Chile
School service providers chosen by the auction
Schools
in 130 Tus
JUNAEB
Avg. $1.13/child/day
Documentation of
# meals served*
*Both a staff member from the private contractor and a designated
teacher from the school record daily meal participation and ensure that
the correct students receive meals
- Oversees the auction
and execution
- Determines nutrition
standards for the
programs
35
Nutrition Standards
The JUNAEB and Junta Nacional de Jardines Infantiles (JUNJI) set and control nutrition
standards for their programmes, including number of calories per meal, quantity of protein,
quantity of fruits and vegetables, and requirements for variety.
Involvement of Community
As explained in previously, the procurement of ingredients falls under the operation of food
service providers who won the auction. The programme does not appear to have much
community involvement.
Key Learnings from Chile’s Case
•
Integration with the national policy
•
Highly transparent and open selection process
•
Cost efficiency achieved by market mechanism
Challenges in Chile
•
Not necessarily contributing to local economy
4.4. Conclusion
Since each school feeding programme is unique due to differences in the state of the economy,
infrastructure, and agriculture, it is hard to generalize findings from the international bench
marking. However, we would like to highlight two findings:
• Successful programmes are tightly integrated with national policy.
In India, Brazil, and Chile, the school feeding programmes are tightly integrated with
their national policies. As the stakeholders associated with school feeding ranges
from Ministry of Agriculture to Education, from Economy to Health, tangible
commitment from the government is key for success. It is essential to establish a
national framework for school feeding to achieve efficient and effective coordination
among the different stakeholders.
36
• The biggest challenge of a decentralized HGSF lies in striking a balance between
benefits for the local community and for the programme as a whole.
Balancing both pros and cons of a decentralized HGSF simultaneously is a huge
challenge. It can help stimulate local agriculture and enable municipalities to reflect
locality into school feeding. At the same time, it fails to enjoy cost reduction through
economies of scale (both in administration and procurement) and sometimes leads to
disparity in the quality of school feeding.
The table below summarizes the key learnings and challenges from the countries examined.
Table 4: International Comparison of Learnings and Challenges
4.5. Practical Checklist of Best Practices
The checklist below was developed based on the comparison with school feeding programmes in
Kenya, India, Brazil and Chile, and on the field research done by our team. For a more
comprehensive checklist, please review Appendix 3 of “Rethinking School Feeding: Social
Safety Nets, Child Development, and the Education Sector,” a 2009 publication from the World
Bank.
(Stage 3) (Stag 5)
(Stage 5)
(Stage 5)
• Targeted to poor
• Strong community
participation
• Flexible Parental
contribution
• Managed at school
level – funds
disbursed 2x p.a.
• Policy Integrated,
Public-private Mix
• Centralized food
provision
• Thorough reporting
• Expenses, M&E, etc
• Nutritional Base
• Policy Integrated
• Autonomous
municipalities –
regional differences
• Financial &
Technical Support
(optimize supply)
• Policy Integrated
• Highly transparent
and open selection
process
• Cost efficient
market mechanism
Kenya India Brazil Chile
Learnings
Challenges
• Not necessarily
contributing local
economy
• Difficulty in
overseeing and
managing
numerous
municipalities
• Disparity in quality
among
municipalities
HGSF
• Low Capacity – risk
of program leading
to price rises
• Disparity in costs
• Funding shortfalls
from fluctuating
food prices
• Delays in
disbursements
• Children out of
school not covered
• Flow of funds
• Actual
implementation
patchy and hard to
monitor
• Indian infrastructure
resources not
applicable to
Ghana.
37
Integration with national policy
•
Is the school feeding programme integrated with the national policy?
•
Is the school feeding programme supported by the Constitution and/or laws?
•
Is there an independent agency of the school feeding programme who chiefly funnels
various efforts, ranging from financial supports to technical supports, to the school
feeding programme?
Autonomy of municipalities to reflect difference in economic status and locality
•
Do local governments have authority/funding to adjust the school feeding programme in
order to deal with differences in infrastructure, local farmers’ standing and trading habits?
•
Does the menu of school feeding consider local students’ habits and tastes?
Combination of funding supports and technical supports
•
Do small farmers have opportunities to learn how to optimize production and marketing
of their crops?
•
Do small farmers have access to financial resources/funding supports to expand
agricultural production?
•
Do teachers, managers, and school feeding committees have opportunities to learn about
nutrition, food security, and health?
•
Do cooks have opportunities to learn about the nutritional aspects of menus, sanitary
matters, and culinary experiments to secure food quality?
•
Are there any opportunities to work with universities, NGOs, or other governmental
organizations to train stakeholders in the school feeding programme?
Transparent selection process of school feeding service providers
•
Are there any standardized nutritional and hygiene requirements for the school feeding
programme?
•
Is the selection process of school feeding service providers transparent and open to any
organizations as long as they meet the above-mentioned requirements?
Market mechanism to reduce cost and secure quality standard
-
Does the market mechanism work properly in the selection process of school feeding
service providers and daily execution of the school feeding programme?
Clear target segments
•
Does the school feeding programme have target segments?
38
•
Does the school feeding programme wholly cover the areas where target segments live?
•
Does the school feeding programme successfully reach them?
•
Does the program target the geographic regions where it is needed most?
Community Integration
•
Is the programme fully integrated into the local community?
Monitoring & Reporting
•
Are thorough, standardized reporting processes in place?
5.
Characterization of the Existing GSFP Process
In analyzing the processes within the Ghana School Feeding Programme, we traced the activities
from different perspectives to paint a complete picture of the organization of the programme as it
exists today.
5.1. Money Network
The trail of money is an important component in understanding the stresses within the existing
setup; the lack of sufficient liquid funds at different stakeholder levels causes discomfort, adding
to existing problems in the setup. Therefore, to characterize the supply chain, we looked at
‘following the money’ and treating the flow as an independent, but inter-related supply chain.
The following steps are taken by money through the system:
Figure 10
: Flow of Funds: Beyond the caterers, the linkage is very weak
The various players and
relevant
per child per day. Thi
s system has a lot of strengths;
one number to focus on.
However, it may not be particularly we
of increasing local
agricultural production
Assemblies
play in the administration of funds
effectively.
Currently funds are tr
ansferred from the
the DAs
disburse the payments to caterers based on the number of days for which payment has
been received. However,
the payment is made after services are rendered so
managing the purchase of food with her own
not obtain a loan or have personal savings to draw from, the caterer’s only option is
food ingredients from a party that is capable of
traders and market queens. Even if the
be willing to sell to her
because
: Flow of Funds: Beyond the caterers, the linkage is very weak
relevant
transactions are focused around the payment of the meal cost
s system has a lot of strengths;
from an accounting perspective there is only
However, it may not be particularly we
ll
suited to the parallel objective
agricultural production
. The role the National S
ecretariat and the District
play in the administration of funds
is paramount in ensuring that t
ansferred from the
MLGRD to the various District A
disburse the payments to caterers based on the number of days for which payment has
the payment is made after services are rendered so
managing the purchase of food with her own
financial resources.
Therefore, if the caterer does
not obtain a loan or have personal savings to draw from, the caterer’s only option is
food ingredients from a party that is capable of
giving her produce and grains on credit, meaning
traders and market queens. Even if the
caterer wished to buy from
farmers, the farmer would
because
the farmer is not able to extend credit.
39
transactions are focused around the payment of the meal cost
from an accounting perspective there is only
suited to the parallel objective
ecretariat and the District
is paramount in ensuring that t
he caterers operate
MLGRD to the various District A
ssemblies, and then
disburse the payments to caterers based on the number of days for which payment has
the payment is made after services are rendered so
the caterer is
Therefore, if the caterer does
not obtain a loan or have personal savings to draw from, the caterer’s only option is
to buy the
giving her produce and grains on credit, meaning
farmers, the farmer would
not
40
As an example, a caterer needs the following items to produce one meal (rice and beans) in a
term. For the simplicity of the argument, consider that this meal has only the two main
ingredients and nothing else.
Even if the caterer were paid in advance for 20 days, the caterer would barely be able to cover
the price of rice for a term; and since the farmer doesn’t have easy access to credit, the sale of
product needs to result in a cash inflow for the farmer. Further, if we were to consider only the
caterer’s operations, any delay in payment and/or having to buy on credit would mean that she
will not be able to get the best possible prices for farm produce and grains, thus inflating the cost
and decreasing the satisfaction level of the caterers. In addition, there are several other costs that
are not effectively captured. The following sections will help illuminate what other costs there
are and attempt to quantify them individually. The methodology used here assumes that no
school feeding programme exists; we will go through a framework that may be used in thinking
about costs associated with school feeding. See Figure 11.
Rice Beans
No of students in School 500 No of students in School 500
x No of days in a term 66 x No of days in a term 66
= number of meals to be prepared 33000 = number of meals to be prepared 33000
x quantity of rice per meal (KG) 0.08 x quantity of beans per meal (KG) 0.04
= Quantity of rice to be bought (KG) 2640 = Quantity of beans to be bought (KG) 1320
x average price of rice (prepared by farmer) 1.2 x average price of beans (prepared by farmer) 1.5
= Cash on hand needed 3168 = Cash on hand needed 1980
Figure 11: Framework for Analyzing School Feeding Costs
Figure 11: Framework for Analyzing School Feeding Costs
41
42
5.2. Start-up/Capital Costs
In the context of HGSF, this would mean all related start-up activities including, but not limited
to, construction of the kitchens, kitchen storage facilities, and equipment such as fuel-efficient
stoves, cooking vessels, and cooking utensils. In addition, costs involved with setting up
administrative structures would also have to be considered in the design of the programme. In
earlier studies
7
the costs of setting up school level infrastructure were identified as:
•
Standardized kitchens
•
Storage space for food and fuel at schools
7
Millennium Villages Project: School Feeding Program Cost Analysis, Rafael Flor and Cheryl Palm.
Box 1: Case Study to understand costs associated with setup of kitchen and stove
In January 2010, NewEnergy lead a process as an outcome of the
CSO platform Energy Workshop in
May 2009. The objectives were to:
a)
Find sustainable solutions to the GSFP kitchen inadequacy.
b)
Investigate and make recommendations on sustainable improved cookstove devices for
promotion in the GSFP.
The following were the key takeaways from this study:
The need for a safe, clean, and secure kitchen environment was considered as top priority by all
respondents, and even in schools where there are already some basic kitchen facilities, the cooks and
matrons identified the need for specific enhancements to existing facilities. The following features
represent the broad consensus of a model GSFP kitchen, suitable for a pupil population of 300-500:
•
Adequate working space: floor area approximately 16 square
•
Secure space for storage of materials, utensils, and fuel
•
Well ventilated with chimney and large windows/honey-com walls
•
Ensure high local construction materials content, with a target cost of about GHC 4,000
Continued...
From
a related study on cookstoves and warehousing
provide every school with a gas stove in order to cook food
some distance to be traveled before reaching that goal; in the Central and Western regions none
of the schools visited had cookstoves.
obtain enough gas—
in the Northern region
8
Berkeley GSFP, An A
nalysis of Warehouses, School Gardens a
Theresa Finn, Julia Ponce.
9
Kitchen Improvement Programme for the G
Upper East Regions,
NewEnergy, January 2010
Setup Costs
Number of Schools covered under GSFP
(
less
) No of Schools that already possess kitchens
= Net Schools that require setup
x Cost of standardised kitchen and storage
= Setup cost for HGSF
Figure
1
: Setup Costs for HGSF
a related study on cookstoves and warehousing
8
, we find that a program
provide every school with a gas stove in order to cook food
. Based on
our field visits
some distance to be traveled before reaching that goal; in the Central and Western regions none
of the schools visited had cookstoves.
Fu
rther, depending on the region, it might be
in the Northern region
the
Tamale metro is the only area where one can
reliably procure gas to run the kitchens. In
such a scenario, possibly the Wale Wale
smokeless or the Toyola s
models
9
can be used to characterize the costs
that are associated
with setup at the school
level. (See Box 1.)
nalysis of Warehouses, School Gardens a
nd Energy Efficient Cookstoves,
Kitchen Improvement Programme for the G
hana School Feeding Programme,
Pilot Project for Twelve Schools in N
NewEnergy, January 2010
.
Number of Schools covered under GSFP
) No of Schools that already possess kitchens
= Net Schools that require setup
x Cost of standardised kitchen and storage
43
, we find that a program
me objective is to
our field visits
there is still
some distance to be traveled before reaching that goal; in the Central and Western regions none
rther, depending on the region, it might be
difficult to
Tamale metro is the only area where one can
reliably procure gas to run the kitchens. In
such a scenario, possibly the Wale Wale
smokeless or the Toyola s
toves/kitchen
can be used to characterize the costs
with setup at the school
nd Energy Efficient Cookstoves,
Cliff Dank, Adrian Durbin,
Pilot Project for Twelve Schools in N
orthern and
In summary, a method to think about the costs involved for setup at schools wo
characterized by figure 12
. In principle, cos
are part of the government
and community’s contribu
MVP, and Plan Ghana) use local g
and start-up costs in
new schools and are seen as a pre
community. Costs of unski
lled and skilled community labo
calculations. These costs, however, are significant, as explained in the referenced repor
needs to be considered.
Figure 12
: Recurrent Costs of School Feeding Programmes
The most common mistake that could be made in characterizing costs associated with a
programme is to ignore these costs. However, they must be included in the overal
they are paid for by
the project or other sources (g
it can be assumed that the
infrastructure costs need to be covered by the programme itself.
In summary, a method to think about the costs involved for setup at schools wo
. In principle, cos
ts associated with the construction of infrastruct
and community’s contribu
tions to a SFP. Other SFPs (e.g., WFP,
MVP, and Plan Ghana) use local g
overnment and community resources to cover infrastructure
new schools and are seen as a pre
-
condition to the beginning of a SFP in a
lled and skilled community labo
r are usually omitted in total cost
calculations. These costs, however, are significant, as explained in the referenced repor
: Recurrent Costs of School Feeding Programmes
The most common mistake that could be made in characterizing costs associated with a
programme is to ignore these costs. However, they must be included in the overal
the project or other sources (g
overnment, other
donors, community, etc), and
infrastructure costs need to be covered by the programme itself.
44
In summary, a method to think about the costs involved for setup at schools wo
uld be
ts associated with the construction of infrastruct
ure
tions to a SFP. Other SFPs (e.g., WFP,
overnment and community resources to cover infrastructure
condition to the beginning of a SFP in a
r are usually omitted in total cost
calculations. These costs, however, are significant, as explained in the referenced repor
ts, and
The most common mistake that could be made in characterizing costs associated with a
programme is to ignore these costs. However, they must be included in the overal
l costs whether
donors, community, etc), and
infrastructure costs need to be covered by the programme itself.
45
Infrastructure that is necessary for the programme should come from governments and
communities’ contributions and should be a requirement before starting the program.
Negotiations among stakeholders involved in the programme for the infrastructure should be the
first step after evaluating the situation on the ground.
5.3. Recurrent/Operational Costs:
The recurrent costs associated with a SFP can be characterized by splitting costs into direct
feeding costs and indirect support costs. Here, since we are dealing with the outsourced caterer
model, we have split the costs along the lines of responsibility, dealing with them as
characterized in figure 12.
First we look at the costs directly incurred by the caterer, and characterize them as the cost for
food and fuel/water/staffing. Even within this bucket, there needs to be an understanding of the
different nature of these costs. While the direct food costs are easily pro-rated (meaning that the
addition of one student to the school results in a proportional increase in the food that needs to be
produced) the other costs do not behave in this manner. This understanding is paramount to
correctly assess the costs that are incurred in the supply chain, and therefore, will be treated
differently. While the costing tool will be able to provide accurate outputs (given the right
inputs), these other costs exhibit a behavior similar to a step function, and therefore need to be
accurately assessed while launching a SFP.
Table 5: Effect of Scale on Indirect Feeding Costs
Cooking Staff/Personnel: The number of cooks needed by a caterer depends heavily on the
number of students in the school. For example, in schools that have 1200-1500 students, the
number of cooks required may be in the range of 6-9. An accurate estimation of cost on this front
would require further specialized study. With the available data, and based on assumptions that
Changing Cells:
Number of Students 100 200 500 1000 1500
Result Cells:
Salaries 0.04GHC 0.02GHC 0.01GHC 0.00GHC 0.00GHC
Firewood/Fuel 0.02GHC 0.01GHC 0.01GHC 0.01GHC 0.01GHC
Transportation 0.03GHC 0.01GHC 0.01GHC 0.00GHC 0.00GHC
46
we have made, we were able to calculate the impact of cooks on the cost of feeding, as shown in
table 5. The costing tool requires the user to provide the number of cooks and their salary as an
input.
While setting up a programme, it is important to ensure that all personnel (hired by the caterer, in
this case) are paid at least minimum wage in accordance with the country’s laws. On our field
trips, we noticed that some cooks are being paid as little as GH¢ 30/month, which is lower than
the minimum wage set by the Government of Ghana.
Fuel & Water:
A similar step-function behavior can be observed here as well. From our field
research, we found that there is a wide disparity in the manner of obtaining firewood as fuel and
water for cooking. In some communities, there is no cost associated with fuel as the community
helps in bringing firewood. Similarly for water, there are regions where water is freely available,
and no cost is incurred in providing water for cooking. However, in regions where such natural
resources are not available or where communities do not provide, there is a definite cost
associated with fuel and water. The costing tool is meant to include these costs, given an accurate
estimation of prices and transportation. Efficiencies of scale also play a big role in bringing down
the per child cost of feeding, shown in table 5.
Costs associated with food:
This component is by far the key contributor to cost in the
programme, and is part of the basket of responsibilities belonging to the caterer. In our field
study and analysis, we find that the food ingredients compose the majority of a caterer’s costs.
The costing tool now provides a way to analyze and understand costs of different menus and
ingredients, and to understand how cost varies across different regions (provided the right quality
of inputs are available). What is unique about the cost of food is that it is the only cost that can
be approximated linearly without distorting the true nature and proportion of the cost.
We also found that when the funds for buying food prove to be insufficient, the reaction from the
caterers is to simply reduce the quantity of food given to each student; this hurts the school
feeding programme more directly in the short term and in the long term, and therefore needs to
be given requisite focus. With the outsourced caterer model that is followed by Ghana, we feel
that the sheer nature of the caterers’ incentives (saving money increases profit) means that it will
47
need significant monitoring and evaluation by the SFP secretariat. This issue will be addressed
in later sections.
5.4. Costing Example
The cost of nine menus received from the GSFP secretariat was calculated using three different
price sources. The first source was the market of Makola in Accra at the end of May 2011. The
second source consists of the prices that caterers gave in the interviews in eight of the ten regions
in the country; all of these interviews were carried out in May 2011. The third source of prices
used in the comparison is the average of the official prices of the Ministry of Agriculture from
January to August 2009. This costing exercise was done with the following information for the
school and caterer:
The result of this costing exercise (see table 6) indicates that the cost of ingredients is higher than
40 pesewas for all menus using any of the price sources, with no change in results even if we
were to use prices from 2009.
10
This would mean that delivering these menus is unviable from a
caterer’s perspective. However, the demand for catering contracts is high and the caterers we
interviewed complained about the payments but never mentioned an intention to end the contract.
The volume of food ingredients per menu was arrived at from a document
11
that was provided to
us by the GSFP Secretariat. The units of measure given in that document were converted into
more usable units (kilograms, liters) based on conversion information that we had, plus
10
Ministry of Agriculture, Production and Cost Estimates.
11
Costing document for 500-600 pupils, GSFP Secretariat.
Parameter Value
Number of students enrolled and served
500
Meals served per day per student
1
Price paid per meal
GHS 0.40
Tax applied to price paid to caterers
5%
Days served in a month
22
Months in a term
3
Terms in a year
3
Monthly salary of each cook
GHS 30.00
Number of cooks employed
3
Average served days between payments
22
Effective annual interest rate
30%
48
additional intelligence that we were able to gather from our visit to the market in Accra
referenced above.
Some possible explanations for this contradiction are:
1.
The different adaptations in each region that replace some unavailable ingredients for
some more readily available ones, decreasing the cost per meal.
2.
The caterers are serving less quantity per student than what is planned by the Secretariat.
3.
The caterers are using more of the cheaper ingredients and less of the more expensive
ones in order to reduce the average cost per meal.
Table 6: Costing Exercise for GSFP Menus
Beans, gari &
fried plantain and
oranges
Banku, fish &
pepper sauce
Jollof & sausage/
vegetables
Banku, okro &
garden egg
stew/fish and
tripe
Waakye, fish and
gari
Avg.
Prices from Accra market (Makola)
Cost of ingredients
GHS 0.87
GHS 0.51
GHS 0.63
GHS 0.51
GHS 0.61
GHS 0.63
Cost of ingredients/total operating cts
95.50%
92.50%
93.90%
92.60%
93.70%
93.71%
Total operating costs
GHS 0.91
GHS 0.55
GHS 0.68
GHS 0.55
GHS 0.65
GHS 0.67
Total costs with financing
GHS 0.96
GHS 0.59
GHS 0.72
GHS 0.60
GHS 0.69
GHS 0.71
National prices (field research)
Cost of ingredients
GHS 0.83
GHS 0.52
GHS 0.68
GHS 0.52
GHS 0.59
GHS 0.63
Cost of ingredients/total operating cts
95.30%
92.70%
94.40%
92.70%
93.50%
93.73%
Total operating costs
GHS 0.88
GHS 0.56
GHS 0.72
GHS 0.56
GHS 0.63
GHS 0.67
Total costs with financing
GHS 0.92
GHS 0.61
GHS 0.77
GHS 0.61
GHS 0.67
GHS 0.72
National prices 2009 (M o Agric)
Cost of ingredients
GHS 0.58
GHS 0.54
GHS 0.58
GHS 0.45
GHS 0.51
GHS 0.53
Cost of ingredients/total operating cts
93.40%
93.00%
93.50%
91.60%
92.50%
92.36%
Total operating costs
GHS 0.62
GHS 0.59
GHS 0.63
GHS 0.49
GHS 0.55
GHS 0.58
Total costs with financing
GHS 0.66
GHS 0.62
GHS 0.66
GHS 0.52
GHS 0.58
GHS 0.61
Groundnut soup
and omu tuo
Egg stew with rice
and vegetables
Kontomire stew
with yam and
plantain
Garden egg stew
with yam and
plantain
Prices from Accra market (Makola)
Cost of ingredients
GHS 0.56
GHS 0.67
GHS 0.52
GHS 0.53
Cost of
ingredients
/total operating cts
93.15%
94.23%
92.68%
92.79%
Total operating costs
GHS 0.60
GHS 0.71
GHS 0.56
GHS 0.57
Total costs with financing
GHS 0.64
GHS 0.75
GHS 0.60
GHS 0.61
National prices (field research)
Cost of ingredients
GHS 0.58
GHS 0.71
GHS 0.50
GHS 0.52
Cost of ingredients/total operating cts
93.40%
94.55%
92.41%
92.75%
Total operating costs
GHS 0.62
GHS 0.75
GHS 0.54
GHS 0.56
Total costs with financing
GHS 0.66
GHS 0.79
GHS 0.58
GHS 0.61
National prices 2009 (M o Agric)
Cost of ingredients
GHS 0.54
GHS 0.60
GHS 0.41
GHS 0.42
Cost of ingredients/total operating cts
92.99%
93.66%
91.02%
91.08%
Total operating costs
GHS 0.58
GHS 0.64
GHS 0.46
GHS 0.46
Total costs with financing
GHS 0.62
GHS 0.68
GHS 0.49
GHS 0.49
49
It is important to highlight that these three possible explanations are just hypotheses that should
be studied in depth in the future. The fact that not one of them can be immediately discarded
shows the following gaps in the current system:
1.
There is no control of the price effects on the cost per meal due to the regional
adaptations.
2.
The control of the quantity served is more subjective than quantitative. There is currently
no periodic supervision that compares the contracted amounts per meal and the amounts
delivered by the caterer.
5.5. Indirect Costs
These costs, while seemingly unimportant, could possibly be one of the most critical elements to
the success of a SFP. In our characterization, we divided these costs into three buckets:
•
Support Infrastructure
•
Monitoring and Evaluation
•
Audit Function
Figure 13: Information Flow
While the first is
fairly straightf
coordinating councils
, the second and third elements of indirect costs relate to players and roles
that, in essence, could make or break the programme. It is these two costs
from the perspective of a valu
The role of monito
ring and evaluation and
compliance –
the programme needs to ensure that all players within the val
out their roles correctly. For example,
ensure that the food quantity and quality is maintained. The caterers themselves need to be
trained to properly keep
purchase and consump
internal government resources and external independent resources. In characterizing the costs
fairly straightf
orward to imp
lement in terms of setting up
, the second and third elements of indirect costs relate to players and roles
that, in essence, could make or break the programme. It is these two costs
from the perspective of a valu
e-chain of information (table 7).
ring and evaluation and
external and internal audits are
the programme needs to ensure that all players within the val
out their roles correctly. For example,
for the caterers t
here needs to be regular monitoring to
ensure that the food quantity and quality is maintained. The caterers themselves need to be
purchase and consump
tion records, which need to be audited by both
internal government resources and external independent resources. In characterizing the costs
50
lement in terms of setting up
national and regional
, the second and third elements of indirect costs relate to players and roles
that, in essence, could make or break the programme. It is these two costs
that we will focus on,
external and internal audits are
for reporting and
the programme needs to ensure that all players within the val
ue chain are carrying
here needs to be regular monitoring to
ensure that the food quantity and quality is maintained. The caterers themselves need to be
tion records, which need to be audited by both
internal government resources and external independent resources. In characterizing the costs
51
that would be associated with these activities, we find literature that suggests 7% of the feeding
costs should be considered while budgeting for a school feeding programme.
Table 7: Actual v. Recommended Costs
In table 7, we have estimated ‘ideal’ expenses based on literature
12
for monitoring, evaluation
and administrative costs. The sustainable model will discuss a solution that will accommodate
part of this increased budget (GH¢1,022,400), and be used to increase monitoring and ensuring
that both quality and quantity is maintained throughout the programme. From our field research,
we find that there is potential for better system implementation, and will present a few
recommendations as part of the sustainable model.
5.6. Farmer Level Interventions and Costs
In the process of setting up a school feeding programme, it is important to first evaluate the main
objectives of the programme. In the case of Ghana, the three immediate objectives are to:
•
Reduce hunger and malnutrition
•
Increase school enrollment and retention
•
Boost domestic food production
While what we have discussed so far addresses the first two objectives, there are certain other
considerations that need to be made in order to achieve the third objective. In certain countries,
there is existing infrastructure that can be used to provide the linkage between farmers and the
school feeding programme. For example, India’s Food Corporation existed and was functioning
years before nationwide mid-day meals were introduced. However, in most other countries, such
12
New Benchmarks for Costs and Cost-efficiency for Food Provision in Schools in Food Insecure Areas, Aulo Gelli, Andrea
Cavallero, Licia Minervini, Mariana Mirabile, Luca Molinas and Marc Regnault de la Mothe.
Actual 2011 %age WFP literature %age
Administration Cost GHC 1,847,651.00 2% GHC 1,847,651.00 2%
Feeding Costs GHC 81,120,000.00 96% GHC 81,120,000.00 90%
Investment (mostly national) GHC 1,219,710.00 1% GHC 1,219,710.00 1%
Monitoring and Evaluation GHC 94,800.00 0% GHC 5,678,400.00 6%
GHC 84,282,161.00 100% GHC 89,865,761.00 100%
infrastructure may not exist. This aspect ma
but is still an extremely important pre
The advantages of school feedi
understood by the diagram
in f
farmers can depend on, agricultural output is pushed to a level above sustenance farming
to a spiraling virtuous cycle.
Figure 14
: The Food Cycle and
From our field research and literature review, however, we feel that in setting up HGSF, the
programme needs to assume that this supply chain is broken, and therefore, will require
investment to set up the linkage between farmers and SFP. This can be ac
different ways, based on the existing systems that are already working in Ghana, and
internationally; the sustainable model will discuss in detail what we feel is a viable working
option and make use of the good programmes that are existi
(Buffer stock company, Block farming
infrastructure may not exist. This aspect ma
y not necessarily be under the purview of the SFP,
but is still an extremely important pre
-
condition to the success of the SFP achieving its targets.
The advantages of school feedi
ng programmes to the agricultural
community are commonly
in f
igure 14
. The theory is by creating a fixed, constant demand that
farmers can depend on, agricultural output is pushed to a level above sustenance farming
: The Food Cycle and
the Missing Piece
From our field research and literature review, however, we feel that in setting up HGSF, the
programme needs to assume that this supply chain is broken, and therefore, will require
investment to set up the linkage between farmers and SFP. This can be ac
different ways, based on the existing systems that are already working in Ghana, and
internationally; the sustainable model will discuss in detail what we feel is a viable working
option and make use of the good programmes that are existi
ng within the Ghana ecosystem
(Buffer stock company, Block farming
– Project Savannah).
52
y not necessarily be under the purview of the SFP,
condition to the success of the SFP achieving its targets.
community are commonly
. The theory is by creating a fixed, constant demand that
farmers can depend on, agricultural output is pushed to a level above sustenance farming
, leading
From our field research and literature review, however, we feel that in setting up HGSF, the
programme needs to assume that this supply chain is broken, and therefore, will require
investment to set up the linkage between farmers and SFP. This can be ac
hieved in several
different ways, based on the existing systems that are already working in Ghana, and
internationally; the sustainable model will discuss in detail what we feel is a viable working
ng within the Ghana ecosystem
53
6.
The Costing Tool and Data
For collecting quantitative data, our group divided into four groups for field research. Each group
was sent to two to three regions (Greater Accra, Volta, Ashanti, Brong Ahafo, Central, Western,
Northern, Upper West), covering over 20 districts. From interviews with local farmers, caterers,
market women, and traders, it was possible to gather information about products (price, volumes,
destinations, etc.) and business behavior, especially the relation between caterers and farmers.
An example of the date collected is shown below in table 8.
Table 8: Example of Interview Guide (Farmers)
Although a large number of data was collected, our team faced a major challenge during the
process – Ghanaians, in general practice, do not follow a unified measurement system. The
problem is aggravated in poor communities far from the capital. The interviewees, both farmers
and caterers, found it very hard to convert their crops and purchases to standardized measures
(such as GH¢/kilo or GH¢/liter). Even the local measures are not the same among the regions
and cannot be converted to the same basis for comparison. Some of the most common measures
we found were buckets, olonka (bowls), baskets, tin can, cartons, crates, trucks, acres, or simply
units of the products (such as tubers of yam).
No.
Type of crops
Harvest Months
Amount sold
(annual)
Unit
Sold to?
Price
Unit
Who Pays for
Transport?
1 Maize Feb-Jun 625 kg Market Queen/other farmes 2 $/kg Buyer
2 Soybean Mar-Mai/Aug-Dez 450 kg Market Queen/other farmes 2 $/kg Buyer
3 Yam Sep 160 kg Market Queen/other farmes 1 $/kg Buyer
4 Pepper Feb-Mai 1 Bucket Market Queen/other farmes 3 $/kg Buyer
5 Tomato NA - kg GSFP / community 1 $/kg Buyer
6 Okro NA - kg GSFP / community 1 $/kg Buyer
7 Cassava Takes 18 months 30000 kg Traders (Accra) 0 $/kg Buyer
8 Palm oil Jan-April 4 barrel Traders (Accra) 2 $/l Buyer
9 Cocoa NA - kg Export 3 $/kg Buyer
54
Table 9: Commodities: Olonkas to Kilograms
In some cases, we were able to estimate the weights and prices in comparable measures as shown
in table 9 above. From 693 entries originating from the fieldwork, 338 contained more reliable
data and were compiled in a database (see table 10 below). An analysis of these numbers gave us
some insight about market behavior (relation between caterers and farmers) and could be used to
feed part of the first draft of the school feeding costing tool.
A disclaimer about the data:
these
numbers were not collected through a scientific method and should not be used for any
decision making
.
Table 10: Example of Cost Database
The costing tool was designed to be a conceptual model. The model can only be run with
precision by using official information from the Ministry of Agriculture. Data provided should
be in a standardized measure that allows the linkage between model (concept) and market
(reality). Menus should also follow the same measures, so the average cost per meal can be
estimated from the point of view of the caterers.
Example of ghanaian measure x kg
kg/olonka kg/olonka
Commodity (flat to cup) (heaped up)
Cowpea 2.2291 2.5094
Gari 1.7174 1.9782
Groundnut 1.9803 2.2426
Maize 2.3043 2.5344
Millet 2.355 2.6504
Onion 1.6037 3.1123
Pepper 0.6193 0.8642
Sorghum 2.3666 2.6878
Soybean 2.2377 2.5039
Tom Brown 1.4406 1.708
Region District Interviewee Product Vol Purchased Unit Price unit Who pays for transp?
Volta
South Tongu
Caterer
Beans
350
bags
2.40
$/kg
Caterer
Volta
South Tongu
Caterer
Beans
1400
kg
2.40
$/kg
Caterer
Volta
South Tongu
Caterer
Cassava dough
1400
bags
0.44
$/kg
Caterer
Volta
South Tongu
Caterer
Beans
500
kg
2.40
$/kg
Caterer
Volta
South Tongu
Caterer
Cassava dough
1400
bags
0.44
$/kg
Caterer
Accra Greater Accra Caterer Rice 50 kg 1.50 $/kg Caterer
Accra Greater Accra Caterer Tomato 50 kg 2.40 $/kg Caterer
Accra Greater Accra Caterer Pepper 1 kg 5.00 $/kg Caterer
Accra Greater Accra Caterer Cooking oil 10 l 3.00 $/l Caterer
55
7.
A Sustainable Model to Link Farmers and Caterers
Farmers are supposed to be a core part of the GSFP; however their participation in the program
is still limited. The design of the GSFP successfully addresses the creation of demand and its
proper serving, but neglects the creation of supply by farmers and their linkage to the program.
There are no established procurement models or procedures for caterers that facilitate the
purchase from farmers. GSFP provides only a guideline for food procurement, which is “80% of
foods must be procured from locally-grown (Home-Grown) commodities produced by local
farmers.” However the program does not address the challenges that caterers and farmers face in
effectively linking.
In this section, the challenges faced by farmers and caterers are presented and analyzed through
value chain frameworks, and the participation of stakeholders (DICs, SICs, and others) in the
program is evaluated. This discussion serves as input to the design of a new model to link
farmers to caterers in the program in the next section.
7.1. Overall Challenges in Linking Farmers and Caterers
The mismatch of incentives of farmers and caterers prevents their integration in the program
value chain. Added to that, the lack of farmers’ organization prevents caterers from reaching
them effectively.
•
Mismatch of cash flow: Farmers need to sell their crops as soon as they harvest due to
lack of storage facilities and for the immediate cash, and caterers do not have the cash in
hand to buy and store their produce. This mismatch of cash flow makes it difficult for
caterers to trade with farmers.
•
Lack of trust between farmers and caterers: Farmers are not willing to sell foodstuff to
caterers on credit. Inconsistent disbursement of funds from the government worsens their
perception about the possibilities of payment.
•
Difficulty of caterers in accessing farmers: Practically, purchasing food grown locally by
smallholder farmers would require caterers to travel from farm to farm to find and
negotiate commodities available for sale. Neither time nor resources are adequate for
such purchasing methods for caterers.
56
7.1.1.
Farmers
Farmers face huge challenges in Ghana’s environment, mainly due to 1) lack of financial
resources to obtain inputs and equipment and to obtain storage capacity and 2) lack of capacity
(knowledge, skills) to efficiently produce, store, and sell foodstuff. These are the high level
issues that indirectly prevent them from negotiating with caterers. In order to better understand
these issues and their consequences, a framework for the farmers’ value chain was defined,
encompassing five main steps: 1) Obtain inputs; 2) Plant and Maintain; 3) Harvest; 4) Store; 5)
Sell (see figure 15 below).
Figure 15: Value Chain - Farmers
The main challenges in linking farmers with caterers in GSFP relate to the “Store” and “Sell”
activities of the value chain. The inherent seasonality of production added to the need for cash
(to pay debt, and prepare for thenext planting) and lack of storage facilities give farmers no
option but to sell all their production at the time of harvest for low prices. There is also a lack of
trust from farmers in selling and giving away all foodstuffs for caterers and relying on future
payments. Therefore, some of the farmers we interviewed sell at most 20% of production to
Value Chain – Farmers
Main challenges that prevent
integration with caterers
Obtain inputs
Plant and
maintain
Harvest Store Sell
Main issues
• Farmers not able to
finance storage
period
• Most small farmers
don’t have facilities
to store food
• Lack of knowledge in
processing of food
increases post-
harvest losses
• Processing facilities
usually centralized –
high costs for
transportation
• Need quick cash, not
able to sell on credit
• Lack of power to
negotiate prices due to
small scale and excess
supply in the market -
perishable ingredients
negotiated at a high
discount
• Is responsible for paying
high transportation costs
• Farther location from
main markets creates a
huge challenge to sell
products
• Lack of knowledge of
best farming
techniques
• No access to
equipment such as
tractors, plows due to
lack of scale
• Lack of irrigation
systems to overcome
rain shortages
• Maintenance affected
by lack of inputs –
fertilizer and
pesticides
• Seasonality of planting
and harvesting- only 2
times a year
• Lack of cash causes
farmers to give away
significant part of
production to pay for
labor required
• Inputs financed
through vendors
• Usually no other
financing available to
obtain inputs
• When available, at
high interest rates
• A district in Greater
Accra provides
farmers with 50% of
the inputs to be
repaid when the
farmers receive cash
Description
• Processing of food
• Transportation to a
storage facility
• Maintenance of
stored products
• Active sale of
commodities to
market/caterer
• Transportation
• Utilization of land,
inputs and equipment
• Collection of crops• Buy/collect seeds,
chemicals, fertilizer,
and other inputs
necessary
57
caterers, and the rest to the market. Also, the challenges faced by farmers to produce foodstuff
often prevent them from providing the local supply required by the GSFP. This is especially true
in the northern regions where land is plentiful, but the low crop yields result in inadequate output.
There is no national program with reach into all the regions to address the financing issues of
farmers. Farming involves significant cash commitments (especially for inputs and equipment),
and for a long period of time (up to nine months for the major season). In a few districts,
initiatives that try to address this problem were identified: some provide inputs to farmers; some
used the quarterly fund to buy equipment (tractors, plows, etc.) and lend them to farmers; some
places have programs to provide farmers with equipment for free. Nonetheless, all these
initiatives still have very limited reach, and are not present in the most needy areas, such as the
Northern region.
The lack of capacity to produce, in terms of knowledge and skills, is also critical in Ghana. We
can observe this even in regional terms, with southern regions having yields up to ten times
higher than the northern regions. Many farmers do not know how to handle the chemicals and
fertilizers and do not know the best techniques in growing crops. A few initiatives were observed
addressing this issue, but again, none at a National level.
In order to create scale that facilitates several of their activities, from sharing equipment to
negotiating sales, farmers have been organizing into farmer-based organizations (FBOs). In a
single district, there may be over 30 FBOs with an average 50 farmers per FBO. These
organizations are clustered by proximity, and the District Agricultural desk is responsible for
overseeing the farmers. This kind of organization can help solve many of the challenges
discussed here, such as creating creditworthiness, sharing equipment costs and store facilities,
sharing knowledge for plantation and storage, and increasing negotiation power for selling crops.
7.1.2.
Caterers
The GSFP adopts a decentralized procurement system, in which school caterers are hired by the
DIC and tasked with procuring, storing, cooking, and delivering food to the schools. The quality
of food prepared by caterers is then monitored and evaluated by the SIC. Procurement decisions
depend on the costs and on the cash available, and for transportation caterers may use their own
58
trucks or taxis. The way and the extent to which caterers store food vary from district to district,
but most have access to storage facilities (small household storage, school storage, or private
storage). They cook and prepare food for students either in their homes or at school facilities.
Cash transfers are made from the District Assemblies to caterers under the supervision of the
DIC, based on GH¢0.40 per child per day. The caterers’ profit is derived from savings made
after food has been procured, prepared, and distributed.
In order to better understand the caterer’s challenges, a framework based on the caterer’s value
chain was defined, encompassing 4 main steps: 1) Procure food, 2) Store, 3) Cook, and 4) Feed
for school (see figure 16 below).
Figure 16: Value Chain - Caterers
The main challenges that caterers have are food price volatility and the inability to mitigate it due
to GSFP late payment cycles. Comparing the harvest and lean seasons, prices can go up as much
as 400%. As payments are received after the meals are served, most of the caterers do not have
the resources to buy in bulk and guarantee a better and stable price, protecting them from
fluctuations. In some cases caterers are forced to buy on credit from the markets, as they do not
Value Chain – Caterers
Procure food Store Cook Feed
• Quantities for menus not
standardized
• Funding does not reflect
actual number of meals
served, which increases
during school terms due
to feeding programs
• While quality of food it
monitored qualitatively,
quantities do not enough
for pupils in some cases
• Some caterers do not
have enough
storage/refrigeration or
cannot bear its costs
• Storing at caterers’
storage makes M&E by
schools difficult
• No schedule to receive
funds makes planning
difficult
• Variations in food and
fuel prices not adjusted
in amount received
• No access to financing to
purchase in bulk - buying
small portions increases
transportation time and
cost
• Not easy to contact with
farmers and get price
information
• Serve food for school
children
• Store food at their own
home or storage
• Cook at their own kitchens
or at school
• Buy crops and processed
food products from local
farmers and market
women
• Cooking at caterers’
kitchen makes M&E by
schools difficult
Main challenges that
prevent to integrate with
farmers
Main issues
Description
59
have the financial resources to pay in advance, and thus are under worse negotiating conditions.
The inconsistency of payments, claimed by caterers and farmers in several districts also impact
their cash position, and can weaken their negotiation position.
To overcome price issues and to make ends meet, some caterers may reduce the amount of food
served, or change menus. A few caterers mentioned that they were allowed to change the food
menu by speaking to the District Assemblies, thus the menu can be adjusted according to food
availability. For example, they can use gari when the supply of yam is insufficient. When fresh
vegetables such as tomatoes are expensive in the lean season, they tend to use canned tomato
paste instead. Caterers also pointed that payments often do not reflect the exact number of pupils
since enrollment often increases during the school term, which could possibly lead to either less
food served per child or higher costs faced by the caterers.
The procurement of food from local farmers could help caterers overcome the volatility issue. In
all the regions we visited, we found that the caterers are willing to procure their food from local
farmers. By buying from farmers, caterers could benefit from prices 40-50% lower than the
market, and would be able to reduce price fluctuations. Nonetheless, the reality is that almost all
the food is still bought from markets.
The lack of financial resources to buy in bulk is the main factor for keeping caterers away from
buying their crops from farmers. As we already discussed, farmers need to sell their crop as soon
as they harvest for immediate cash and due to the lack of storage facilities, and caterers do not
have the cash in hand to buy and store their production. Agreement on a different payment
scheme is difficult to obtain as well. Cash transfers from DICs to caterers are reportedly
inconsistent (according to interviews, delays in payments can go up to 12 weeks), and farmers
cannot bear the risk of a longer financing period.
The inconvenience of procuring from many small farmers also hinders the caterers’ local
procurement. It is a challenge to efficiently reach a number of small farmers and negotiate with
them—in practice, purchasing food grown locally by smallholder farmers would require caterers
to travel farm to farm. Neither time nor resources are adequate for such purchasing methods for
caterers. On top of this, many caterers do not have contact information for the local farmers.
60
7.1.3.
Other Stakeholders (DICs, SICs)
With regard to DICs and SICs, the main challenges preventing a sustainable linkage between
local farmers and the GSFP are connecting caterers and farmers, building trust among them, and
ensuring community and farmer awareness and ownership. As the committee overseeing the
implementation and management of all components of the GSFP, the DIC has a vital role to play
in linking the small farmer to the caterer, but currently few concrete actions for that purpose
were observed in the field.
The organization of small farmers into larger groups is critical to ensure that they play their role
in the value chain effectively, and the District Director of Agriculture is key for that purpose, as
he or she is the first contact for the farmers at the district level. Programmes for organizing
farmers already exist: Farmer-based organizations (FBOs) exist in most of the districts, and the
government’s intervention with the block farming concept under the Youth in Agriculture policy
is to further enhance the organization of farmers. We therefore see the District Director of
Agriculture as a critical facilitator in linking agriculture to the school feeding programme.
The local assembly involvement also must not be underrated, since it is the structure capable of
bringing trust to negotiations between farmers and caterers. Should an agreement be reached,
there is no better witness than the assembly itself, since the assembly represents the government
at the district level. To buttress this point further, the assembly is also the paying agent at the
local level, and would be able to assure both parties in the agreement of receiving whatever is
due them, especially the farmers who may have to part with their products and wait to be paid at
a later date.
Within the DIC, there exists the challenge of the workload of the members constituting the
committee. The District Directors of Agriculture, Health, and many other members of the DIC
are all full-time employees of the district assembly and involved in several work schedules. This
may hamper the effectiveness of the DIC, especially the Director of Agriculture in the
organization of farmers to effectively participate in the GSFP. It was clear during our field visits
that when other Desk Officers from Agriculture, Health, etc. were co-opted to be members of the
committee, there was much more initiative from them in linking farmers to caterers.
61
Members of the SIC are also similarly constituted to ensure community ownership, but in some
schools much is left to be desired of them. It is very important to equip members of the SIC with
the requisite knowledge of the programme and the skills needed to effectively carry out their
duties. For instance, educating members, especially farmers, about the programme and its
numerous benefits to the society as a whole will make the community embrace the programme as
their own. It was interesting to learn from an SIC that members of the community came together
to contribute to help a caterer cook to feed the children when the moneys expected from the
government was delayed. Indeed this is a good sign of community ownership. Unfortunately, the
situation is much different in most of the districts visited.
The absence of well-documented criteria on the quality and quantity of food to be served to
children is also a big threat to the sustainability of the programme. Most SICs from the schools
we visited have dedicated members who check on the food served to the pupils on a daily basis,
however it remains unclear how the quality of the food is ascertained and how much is the
standard quantity that must be given to the children.
Both DICs and SICs are faced with the challenge of budgetary and logistical constraints that
indirectly post some threat to the sustainability of the programme. It was interesting to note that
these committees do not run on any budget from the National Secretariat, and the lack of funds
sometimes hampers their effectiveness especially in the area of monitoring, since monitoring
entails regular visit to the schools. Aside from all the challenges faced by these committees in
linking farmers to caterers for a sustainable SFP, both DICs and SICs remain an integral part of
any successful model due to the numerous services they provide for the programme. However,
much more remains to be done to equip them to play a more effective role in the supply chain of
the GSFP.
7.2. Design of a Sustainable Model to Link Farmers and Caterers
The sustainable model to link farmers and caterers presented in this section is based on our
fieldwork interviewing stakeholders including NGOs, DICs, SICs, caterers, farmers, and
especially the work by ECASARD in Ga West, Dangme West, and Ga East. This model includes
changes in design and implementation at the national and local levels, and requires new roles and
62
attributions for several stakeholders. These changes are critical to support the linkage between
the farmers and the caterers, and strengthen community participation—a critical factor found in
successful school feeding beneficiaries in the GSFP and MVP.
7.2.1.
The Pillars for a New Model
In the design of a new model, some pillars were identified as critical guidelines that should be
followed for maximum effectiveness:
• Organizing farmers
: It is unlikely that unorganized farmers will be able to participate in
GSFP, due to their lack of resources to access buying markets, and the challenges that
buyers face to access unconsolidated sellers. Therefore, creating strong farmer
organizations is critical. As observed, the District Ministry of Agriculture is in a unique
position to play the facilitator.
• Creating a structure to bring farmers and caterers to a discussion
: The creation of a
known structure, such as a roundtable meeting to be held every month, can help farmers
and caterers to meet and share ideas.
• Building trust between caterers and farmers
: The lack of trust can be addressed by
having some reliable and recognized organization overseeing the process. The district
assembly would be suited for this purpose, as both farmers and caterers respect and rely
on it.
• Defining ground rules for negotiation and disputes resolution
: Farmers and caterers
should both be able to benefit from the scheme, and the definition of some ground rules
can help them settle agreements, as both would be able to anchor their claims and not
request unrealistic negotiation conditions.
7.2.2.
The Description of the Model: The GSFP Roundtable
The proposed model is based on the creation of a district roundtable, a meeting scheduled to
happen monthly (or as needed), starting before the school year and lasting throughout, to be
attended by farmers’ representatives, caterers’ representatives, a district assembly representative,
a district Ministry of Agriculture representative, and a community representative (with other
participants as necessary) to negotiate on foodstuff exchanges. Farmers would come up with the
amount produced, caterers with the amount demanded, and prices and deliveries would be
negotiated. Figure 17 below describes the framework.
63
Figure 17: Framework for the GSFP Roundtable
Master Contract
The roundtables, which would begin at least six months prior to the start of the school
year, should culminate with the signing of a Master Contract between farmers and
caterers that would include the following information:
•
Quantity of foodstuff deliveries
•
Timing of deliveries and the pricing with any future price revisions explicitly
stated (e.g., prices will be reviewed every term)
•
Transportation and storage costs
•
Payment timing (e.g., within one week of government money transfers to the
caterers)
•
Penalties for non-deliveries or non-payments
•
Quality level of foodstuff deliveries
To reach such an agreement, the farmers and caterers should come prepared to the
discussion.
Framework of the GSFP roundtable for
caterers and farmers
Caterers
FBOs and individual farmers
Farmers
representative
• Present farmers’ production for the year
• Negotiate agreement on behalf of farmers
Caterers
representative
District Agric
representative
District
coordinator
Community
representative
• Present caterers’ demand for the year
• Negotiate agreement on behalf of caterers
• Mediate the negotiation
• Mediate dispute resolution
• Present farmers’ production for the year
• Present relevant market data for the deal
• Provide insights from community
GSFP Roundtable
• Provide info about demand per ingredient
• Provide info about production per ingredient
Master Contract
• Objective: Forum used
by farmers and
caterers to negotiate
foodstuff exchange
• Executed at the District
level
• Monthly schedule,
beginning at least 6
months before the start
of the school year
• Culminates with the
signing of a Master
contract
• Quantity of foodstuff deliveries
• Timing of deliveries and the price
definition and revisions: eg.:
prices will be reviewed every
term
• Payment timing should be fixed:
within 1 week of government
money transfers are received
• Penalties for non-deliveries and
non-payments
• Quality level of foodstuff
deliveries
64
Farmers and Ministry of Agriculture
•
A representative should be chosen to negotiate on behalf of the group.
•
The quantities to be supplied by all participating farmers in the district for the
school year should be consolidated by the Ministry of Agriculture and presented
to the caterers with details on the quantity per school term.
Caterers
•
A representative should be chosen to negotiate on behalf of the group.
•
The quantities to be demanded from farmers in the school year should be
consolidated by the group based on the number of children to be fed, and include
details on ingredients desired per school term.
District Assembly
A member of the District Assembly should act as a mediator to the negotiation,
preventing impasses, providing inputs to draw the discussion to an agreement.
7.2.3.
Implementation
The adoption of this new model can only be effective if the right environment is in place. Here
we present the critical needs for implementation of the model.
• Communication about the model and its benefits to key stakeholders
: A communication
program should be rolled out to create awareness for the new model, targeting farmers and
caterers. The modus operandi and roles of all involved should be addressed, but the benefits
of the program to farmers and to caterers should be emphasized. Communication should also
be made with processors, financial institutions, and input dealers, so they can have active
participation in the value chain.
• Enforcing adoption of the new model by caterers
: For caterers, the requirement of
participation in the roundtables should be included in the GSFP manual. Caterers would have
to come to the roundtable to negotiate with farmers before being allowed to buy from the
markets. Punitive measures could also be defined for caterers who do not show up.
• Obtaining support from stakeholders responsible for critical roles in the model
: The
participation of the District Assembly and Ministry of Agriculture is critical to make the
model work. Therefore, special attention should be paid to obtaining the buy-in from these
bodies and engaging them in working with their local structures to make the roundtable a
success.
65
• Providing the requirements identified
: Other requirements to the model should be
addressed before the model is rolled out, in order to show the government’s commitment and
to avoid problems with implementation.
o
Quantities of ingredients should be provided in the menus, so that caterers can better
calculate their needs.
o
Government and DICs should provide notice when funds are disbursed (e.g., via
SMS), so farmers can track the timeliness of payments.
o
The government should have a calendar to disburse funds (e.g., on a fixed date of
each month of school).
7.2.4.
Key Performance Indicator
In order to monitor the success of the model, we suggest that the key performance indicator be
the percentage of food (of the total feeding cost) bought by the caterers from the farmers,
evaluated on a yearly basis in parallel with the roundtable negotiation process. The current target
of 80% of school feeding sourced from local farmers could remain the goal, and a district’s
success would be evaluated on their progress towards that goal.
66
8.
Design & Implementation Changes to Support a Sustainable Model
Based on our fieldwork interviewing stakeholders including NGOs, DICs, SICs, caterers, and
farmers
13
and our review of existing literature, the sustainable model for linking local
agricultural production to the GSFP includes changes in design and implementation at the
national and local levels. These changes serve to strengthen communication and community
participation, improve record keeping for data analysis, support the linkage between the farmers
and caterers, and improve the payment system. The changes also necessitate the addition of a key
GSFP staff member—the District Coordinator—who will add much needed capacity for
effectively implementing the GSFP across all beneficiary schools.
8.1. Strengthening Communication and Participation
School Implementing Committee
It is important that the members of the SIC have a sense of ownership over the implementation
of school feeding as they represent the beneficiaries of the programme. Based on fieldwork, it is
clear that the not all members of the community are aware of the procurement and agricultural
development goals of the GSFP or the need for community participation, and we posit that if the
community is more engaged, then the overall goals of the GSFP will more likely be achieved.
14
While community ownership is emphasized in the GSFP Operation Manual (2008), the program
design does not create ownership because decision-making happens at the NS and DA levels. To
foster community involvement, several changes to the roles and responsibilities of the SIC are
recommended. The District Assembly has one critical responsibility stated in the District
Operations Manual (2009) that can be ceded to the SIC:
•
Interview and appoint Caterers and ensure that appointed caterers/matrons are:
o
Capable of cooking food on large-scale basis under hygienic conditions.
o
Able to demonstrate basic understanding of the nutritional needs of children.
If the SIC appoints the caterer, then it is more likely that the caterer will come from the school’s
community and know the farmers in the area, and thus be more incentivized to perform well at
his/her task, source more food locally, and drum up support for the supply of kitchen inputs and
structures.
13
See Appendix D for summary of data collected.
14
See “Rethinking School Feeding: Social Safety Nets, Child Development, and the Education Sector”, Bundy et al, 2009.
67
We recommend the following SIC responsibilities be expanded upon:
•
Facilitate community involvement, mobilization and support for the implementation of
the programme, and especially for the construction of a simple all weather kitchen, store,
canteen with seats and table as required by the school.
•
Liaise with the DIC in collaboration with District Nutrition Officer to develop a locally
and seasonally driven menu to provide nutritionally adequate meals, taking into account
the production of farmers in the community.
•
Collaborate with CSOs to sensitize communities to take ownership of the programme,
and conduct termly community meetings.
We recommend the following SIC responsibilities be added:
•
Organize and conduct monthly meetings of the SIC to ensure the smooth operation of the
feeding programme.
•
Act as liaisons between the community and the DIC.
•
Select roster for cooks to be hired by caterer, and enforce the minimum wage law for the
cooks (currently 55 GHS/month).
•
Review the caterer’s purchasing records on a monthly basis.
These changes support increased community involvement and facilitate open communication
between the community stakeholders. For the menu chart, the school’s stakeholders are in the
best position to determine what local agriculture and in what amounts can be incorporated into
the programme, and it will be dependent on the District Nutritionist to adjust the submitted
menus to comply with nutrition requirements.
Communication of responsibilities can be further improved beyond the basic list. Using the
example of construction works, in the Operations Manual, the procurement level assigned to the
kitchen, store, etc. is the DIC (see figure 18), while the SIC roles and responsibilities table
includes kitchen facilities with the responsible party listed as “DIC and Community”. (See table
11.) The lack of specificity—is it the DIC or the SIC? —leads to inaction by all parties. In this
case, the procurement level and responsibility should be set to the SIC if it is desired that the
community provide these inputs for the GSFP. Tables of responsibilities divided not only by
committee but by spec
ific members within a committee will help with having the correct parties
involved in particular tasks and provide accountability.
Figure
18: GSFP Operations Manual, Procurement Levels
Table 11: GSFP Operations Manual, SIC Roles and Responsibilities
Annual District Plans (ADPs) for GSFP are currently only for direct feeding costs,
costs of construction for school feeding needs should be co
our fieldwork, we found that many schools had some sort of rooftop
15
See Appendix A for example table
.
16
Ghana School Feeding Programme
Operations Manual, October 2008.
ific members within a committee will help with having the correct parties
involved in particular tasks and provide accountability.
15
18: GSFP Operations Manual, Procurement Levels
Table 11: GSFP Operations Manual, SIC Roles and Responsibilities
Annual District Plans (ADPs) for GSFP are currently only for direct feeding costs,
costs of construction for school feeding needs should be co
nsidered at the national level.
our fieldwork, we found that many schools had some sort of rooftop
for the kitchen, and all but
Operations Manual, October 2008.
68
ific members within a committee will help with having the correct parties
Annual District Plans (ADPs) for GSFP are currently only for direct feeding costs,
16
and the
nsidered at the national level.
From
for the kitchen, and all but
69
one school lacked a canteen, which causes the feeding to disrupt the classroom and affect
teaching. This was a common complaint from the SICs. If the National Secretariat could provide
a portion of the material costs for the canteen on condition of matching by the community, then it
may spur the community to action. Organizing the community for the remaining costs and for
labor would rest with the SIC. The estimated cost of materials for an open-walled canteen with
tables and chairs is approximately 3000 GHC.
17
Also, it is important that the SIC expand in number to reflect the increase in responsibility and
engage more members of the community. We recommend the following SIC composition:
18
•
The PTA Representative of the beneficiary school (Chairperson)
•
Headteacher of the school (Secretary)
•
One Representative of the School Management Committee
•
One Traditional Ruler from the community
•
An Assembly Member
•
The Boy and Girl Prefects of the school
•
Village Agricultural Representative
•
Village Health Representative
•
Village Education Representative
•
Women’s Group Representative
•
Opinion leader (x2) from the PTA
•
GSFP District Coordinator
District Implementing Committee
In some districts, a functional DIC does not exist, or the DIC meeting is scheduled as needed. In
order to establish the DIC as a contributing part of the GSFP, it is important that regular
meetings be set so that the major stakeholders are kept abreast of the GSFP progress in the
district in relation to the schools, students, farmers, and caterers, and that the individual members
17
Kitchen Improvement Programme for the Ghana School Feeding Programme - Pilot Project for Twelve Schools in Northern
and Upper East Regions – NewEnergy, January 2010
18
Based partly on “School Feeding Program Manual”, The Millenium Villages Project, 2007.
70
of the DIC are fulfilling their respective responsibilities.
19
The following responsibility should be
added to the DIC list:
•
Organize and conduct monthly meetings of the DIC to ensure the smooth operation of the
feeding programme.
8.2. Improving Record Keeping for Data Analysis
A few provisions at the national level have the potential to improve data collection throughout
the programme. The following additions to the roles and responsibilities of the National
Secretariat are recommended:
o
Provide specific measurements for the ingredients used in the school menus so
that the menus are meeting nutritional requirements.
o
Provide a template for the record keeping of caterers’ purchases for the
programme.
The benefits in providing specific measurements for the ingredients used in the menus are three-
fold: it allows the caterer to plan purchases more accurately, it allows the monitoring and
evaluation to be held to an objective nutritional standard versus being qualitatively assessed,
20
and it allows the programme to more accurately determine the direct feeding costs for the
children. While measurements are provided in the menu templates found in Appendix 1 of the
GSFP Operations Manual (2008), these menus do not accurately reflect the lunches being
provided to the students. The ingredients and nutritional content should be updated completely
and the menus made more readily usable by the caterers.
Providing a record-keeping template for the caterers also allows them to plan purchases more
accurately, gives the SICs a way to track utilization of the funds, and serves to provide robust
data points for the programme to evaluate costs against number of children fed.
21
Training in
measuring and record keeping will be required for the caterer at the district level. An example of
a purchasing record can be found in Appendix B.
19
Linking Domestic Food Production to the GSFP: A Pilot Study of Selected GSFP Schools in the Savelugu-Nanton, Garu-
Tempane and Sissala West Districts
20
See “Report on the Monitoring of the Ghana School Feeding Programme in Selected Districts in the Eastern Region of the
Country” prepared in November 2010 by the MLGRD/GSFP National Secretariat.
21
See “Financial & Monitoring Assessment of the Ghana School Feeding Program” prepared in June 2007 by UC Berkeley, Haas
School of Business, International Business Development Program.
71
The need for specific measurements in the menu cascades down to the district level, and the
following responsibility for the DIC, and specifically the District Nutrition Officer, is
recommended for addition to the District Operations Manual:
•
Create school menus (for every term if seasonality is a factor) that specify the weight of
each ingredient, meet nutritional requirements, and include feedback from the SIC on
local agricultural production.
8.3. Supporting the Linkage between Farmers and Caterers
The proposed model for linking the local farmers to the GSFP requires provisions at the District
Assembly level so that the structure is in place for MoU negotiations and the farmers are able to
produce the necessary crops. The following additional responsibilities are recommended for the
DA:
•
Organize a Caterers Association for the district to facilitate negotiations with FBOs.
•
The District Director for MoFA is responsible for the following:
o
Strengthen existing FBOs, and where there are no FBOs, organize farmers.
o
Educate farmers with farming techniques, on negotiating with the Caterers
Association, obtaining financing, and creating storage for their crops.
o
Provide farming inputs and credit access for the farmers.
22
•
Payment to Caterers and Farmers should be strictly by cheque.
The addition of farmers to the payment responsibilities is to strengthen the linkage between
farmers and caterers—providing farmers with quicker payment by removing the intermediary
step of the caterer paying the farmer and giving the farmers more reason to trust the MoU. We
emphasize that the ability of the District Director for MoFA to perform his or her duties is of
paramount importance to the success of linking the local farmers to GSFP. Their responsibilities
to the farmers cannot be overstated.
22
These are indicators already found in the GSFP Operating Manual (2008), but are not called out specifically in the District
Operation Manual.
72
8.4. Improving the Payment System
Payment frequency was the most frequently stated complaint from our fieldwork. This is a
known and well-documented issue that is beyond the control of the GSFP National Secretariat,
but it should be emphasized that stable, predictable funding for the programme would lower
costs for the caterers and farmers, and alleviate friction between the two parties.
A lever that is accessible to the NS is how often the enrollment is updated for determining the
amount paid to the District Assemblies. Currently, the enrollment figures are updated annually in
February, but with some enrollment percentage increases in the double digits at beneficiary
schools, it is critical to the quality and quantity of the food that enrollment be updated more
frequently. This affects the financial planning at the national level, and it is recommended that an
expected average enrollment growth percentage (based on schools in past years) be added to the
total feeding budget to cover the additional students. An addition to the NS and DA
responsibilities could be the following:
•
Update the enrollment of beneficiary schools at the end of every term (3x per year).
Another way to improve the payment system is for the DICs to analyze the entire process—from
receipt of the funds to payment to the caterers—as a mandate from the NS. If payment speed via
cheque to the caterers and farmers is found to be a significant portion of the process time, then
mobile payments (such as MTN Ghana’s Mobile Money service) may serve to shorten the
process and allow caterers and farmer to better utilize their income. A record-keeping system
would have to be devised for the mobile money payments.
8.5. Addition of District Coordinator Role
To ensure that the DICs and SICs are functioning optimally, it is important that a dedicated
GSFP staff member be allocated to each district. This staff member, or District Coordinator (DC),
would facilitate the implementation of the programme, playing the role of resident expert for the
district. The list of responsibilities include:
•
Monitor the beneficiary schools
•
Provide guidance to the SIC and DIC
•
Liaise between the district and the Regional Coordinator
•
Oversee the roundtable process between farmers and caterers
73
•
Work with the MoFA on achieving small farmer goals
•
Help the SICs prioritize needs for the school and farmers
•
Review with the SIC and caterer monthly expenditures on food against enrollment figures
•
Coordinate GSFP assignments done in collaboration with other Ministries and check for
overlap
He or she would be a full member of the SIC and DIC. A common issue found throughout the
regions was the lack of resources to perform the functions required for the GSFP, and the need
for a DC is supported by previous research conducted in 2006.
23
The DC would eliminate the
need for Regional Monitors and a District Desk Officer, and the new composition of the DIC
would be the following:
•
The District Chief Executive (Chairperson)
•
The District Director of Education
•
The District Director of Health
•
The District Director of Agriculture
•
One Traditional Ruler from the District
•
Two Representatives of the Social Services Sub-committee
•
One Opinion Leader from the District
•
District Coordinator (Secretary)
Figure 19: Organogram with District Coordinator
23
See “Opportunities for Sustainable Development of the Ghana School Feeding Programme through Agricultural Empowerment”
prepared in June 2006 by UC Berkeley, Haas School of Business, International Business Development Program.
74
8.6. Summary of New Roles & Responsibilities to Support a Sustainable Model
Role Responsibility/Change Opportunities Challenges
SIC Interview and appoint Caterers
•
Greater community
ownership
•
Caterer likely to
know local farmers
•
May be difficult to
avoid favoritism
Facilitate community involvement,
mobilization and support…
especially for
the construction of a simple all weather
kitchen, store, canteen with seats and
table
•
Greater community
ownership
•
Greater ease to
provide school
feeding
•
Assuming that
community has
resources to provide
Liaise with the DIC…to develop a locally
and seasonally driven menu to provide
nutritionally adequate meals,
taking into
account the production of farmers in the
community
•
Greater community
ownership
•
Greater linkage to
local farmers
•
Local farmer
production may not
be diverse enough
Collaborate with CSOs to sensitize
communities to take ownership of the
programme,
and conduct termly
community meetings
•
Greater community
awareness
•
Community may
not see benefit in
attending meetings
Organize and conduct monthly meetings
of the SIC to ensure the smooth operation
of the feeding programme
•
Greater
accountability and
communication
•
Members may not
see benefit in
attending meetings
Act as liaisons between the community
and the DIC
•
Greater community
awareness
Select roster for cooks to be hired by
caterer, and enforce the minimum wage
law for the cooks
•
Greater community
ownership and
support
•
Benefit the cooks
•
May be difficult to
avoid favoritism
Review the caterer’s purchasing records
on a monthly basis
•
Greater community
ownership
•
Greater caterer
accountability
Change: increasing the membership of the
SIC
•
Greater community
participation
•
May make
coordination
difficult
DIC Organize and conduct monthly meetings
of the DIC to ensure the smooth operation
of the feeding programme
•
Greater
accountability and
communication
•
Members may not
see benefit it
attending meetings
Create school menus (for every term if
seasonality is a factor) that specify the
weight of each ingredient, meet
nutritional requirements, and include
feedback from the SIC on local
agricultural production
•
Greater
accountability for
caterers
•
Better data for NS
•
Greater linkage to
local farmers
•
Measurements may
be difficult to meet
in implementation
DA Organize a Caterers Association for the
district to facilitate negotiations with
FBOs
•
Greater linkage
with local farmers
•
Sharing of
knowledge
•
Achieving
consensus on
negotiations
The District Director for MoFA is
responsible for the following:
•
Strengthen existing FBOs, and where
•
Greater linkage
with local farmers
•
Greater production
•
May be difficult to
incentivize MoFA
Director
75
there are no FBOs, organize farmers.
•
Educate farmers with farming
techniques, on negotiating with the
Caterers Association, obtaining
financing, and creating storage for
their crops
•
Provide farming inputs and credit
access for the farmers
by local farmers
•
Better cash flow for
local farmers
Update the enrollment of beneficiary
schools at the end of every term
•
More accurate
payment for caterer
•
Avoid sacrifice of
quality/quantity of
food
•
More paperwork
NS Provide specific measurements for the
ingredients used in the school menus so
that the menus are meeting nutritional
requirements
•
Greater
accountability for
caterers
•
Better data for NS
•
Measurements may
be difficult to meet
in implementation
Provide a template for the record keeping
of caterers’ purchases for the programme
•
Greater
accountability for
caterers
•
Better data for NS
•
Accuracy/regularity
of record keeping
by caterer
Update the enrollment of beneficiary
schools at the end of every term
•
More accurate
payment for caterer
•
Avoid sacrifice of
quality/quantity of
food
•
More paperwork
•
Difficult to budget
DC Monitor the beneficiary schools
•
Greater monitoring
capacity
Provide guidance to the SIC and DIC
•
Better
communication
•
Serve as impetus
•
Seen as interference
Liaise between the district and the RC
•
Better
communication
•
Seen as interference
Oversee the roundtable process between
farmers and caterers
•
Greater linkage to
local farmers
•
Better
communication
•
Seen as interference
Work with the MoFA on achieving small
farmer goals
•
Serve as impetus
•
Seen as interference
Help the SICs prioritize needs for the
school and farmers
•
More effective
implementation
•
Seen as interference
Review with the SIC and caterer monthly
expenditures on food against enrollment
figures
•
Greater
accountability
•
Better data
Coordinate GSFP assignments done with
other Ministries and check for overlap
•
More effective use
of resources
76
9.
Monitoring and Evaluation
Currently the monitoring topics of menu implementation, expenditure, foodstuffs, food
preparation, feeding, sanitation & hygiene, school level information are designed to be done at
every level: NS, RC, MMDA, SIC.
24
One main complaint by the DICs is that there is no budget
to do the monitoring. If a district coordinator is hired, than he or she can coordinate the
monitoring at the district and school level, and provide final reports to the RC.
In a report from 2007, the overall low assessment of GSFP monitoring can be attributed to one
factor: capacity.
25
Capacity is needed to perform the monitoring, to report and aggregate the
results, to address issues, and to do all of these things in a timely manner. It is equally important
that training be thoroughly executed with the addition of district coordinators. The GSFP has an
appropriate monitoring framework in place; it is now a matter of execution. While this will be an
increase in annual costs for the programme, it is a necessary cost that will ensure the effective
implementation of the programme and its good governance.
9.1. Effects on the Budget
There are two proposed changes that would affect the GSFP budget: adding District
Coordinators to the staff and providing half the materials for the construction of a canteen. Table
12 below summarizes the budget for 2011 as of April 19, 2011.
Table 12: GSFP Budget, Actual and Projected
GSFP Budget, April 19, 2011 (GHC)
Administration 1,847,651 2.2%
Feeding 81,120,000 96.2%
Investment 1,219,710 1.4%
Monitoring and Evaluation 94,800 0.11%
84,282,161 100%
GSFP Budget with Changes (GHC)
Administration 1,847,651 2.1%
Feeding 81,120,000 93.1%
Investment (+Canteen) 3, 749,601 4.3%
Monitoring and Evaluation (+DCs) 397,200 0.5%
87,114,452 100%
24
Ghana School Feeding Programme Operation Manual, October 2008.
25
“Financial & Monitoring Assessment of the Ghana School Feeding Program”, UC Berkeley, Haas School of Business,
International Business Development Program, June 2007. See Appendix C.
77
With presence in all 170 districts and 28 Regional Monitors, 142 District Coordinators would
need to be added at a cost of 7200 GHC per year, assuming that the current Regional Monitors
would move into this new position. Since the District Coordinators would directly impact
monitoring and evaluation capacity, this additional cost has been added to the M&E category.
For the canteen materials, we estimate that the GSFP would provide 1500 GHC per school, with
the assumption that 96.9% of the 1741 schools served by GSFP lack canteens. This percentage is
based off what was seen in the field and represents an investment made by the GSFP.
With these two additional costs, the total costs for GSFP increases by 3.4%, but the impact to
monitoring and evaluation increases by a factor of 5, and class time saved could be upwards of
30 min per student. As a benchmark, WFP’s feeding cost consists of 90% of the total budget, so
at 93% for GSFP, there is possibly more room for other spending that will help with the overall
effectiveness of the programme. While it is good to feed as many students as possible, it is
important to consider the how well the programme is being implemented and monitored. If only
DCs are added to the programme, the cost represents a 0.36% increase in the total budget.
78
10.
Funding for GSFP
With significant financial and operational resources being committed to the Ghana School
Feeding Program, it is critical to understand the funding requirements of the program and keep
securing its funding resource. In this section, we discuss the GSFP funding requirements and
funding sources based on the following literature:
GSFP 2011 Annual Operating Plan
Home Grown School Feeding Technical Assistance Plan – February 2011
Financial & Monitoring Assessment of the Ghana School Feeding Program - June
2007
10.1. Current Funding Requirements
According to the GSFP 2011 Annual Operating Plan, the annual fund requirement is
approximately GH¢69M as shown in the table below. We assume that this required amount is
based on the GSFP’s targets of covering 2,710 schools and 1,040,000 pupils in 2011, which are
also stated in the AOP. Assuming that the program continues to operate in its current form, it
requires the same amount of funding every year from now on. (Note: In different sections, we
use the most updated 2011 budget figure of GH¢84M, but here we use the following figures
from 2011 AOP for discussion purposes.)
Table 13: GSFP Budgetary Requirements in 2011
Source: GSFP 2011 Annual Operating Plan
10.2. Current Funding Sources
From 2007-2010 the Dutch government committed to financially supporting 50% of food
79
purchases for the program up to €40M. However, at the end of 2010, the Dutch government had
not yet invested approximately half of the €40M because of delays in implementation. It is also
highly possible that the Dutch government will not renew its commitment. Although the
following GSFP funding plan in 2011 includes GH¢11.7M funding from the Dutch government,
it is critical for the GSFP to find alternative funding sources without expecting the Dutch
government to maintain or expand the program.
Table 14: GSFP Sources of Funding in 2011
Source: GSFP 2011 Annual Operating Plan
10.3. Future Funding Sources
Without doubt, the government of Ghana has been and will be the primary funding source of the
GSFP, and it is vital to secure long-term government funding for the program while seeking
other potential funding sources. Strong commitment from the government is especially important
in instances where other partners, such as the Dutch government or the World Food Programme
(WFP), is phasing out of, or handing over, operations in the country. This has been demonstrated
in cases like Botswana, Brazil, El Salvador, Jamaica, and Namibia, where strong government
commitment has been the decisive factor in whether the programmes continue after other
partners have phased out of the country. Some cases show that, even faced with a serious lack of
resources, strong government commitment may enable creative solutions. This was the case in El
Salvador, where political support and collaboration from senior staff led to using non-traditional
funds to continue the programme after the WFP’s exit.
In the following, we discuss three other potential funding sources. The first two opportunities
will be discussed briefly, as each is highly dependent on outside decision makers. The last
suggestion, the gist of which was suggested by a past Berkeley Haas IBD team but has not been
implemented, is a strategic decision that the GSFP can make and that can directly impact the
80
funding of the program.
NGO Support
The GSFP has seemingly done a strong job of mobilizing support for the school feeding program
from the NGO community. Although direct financial support from this sector is unlikely, the
GSFP should be able to mobilize operational support from NGOs. This support, if appropriately
structured, could enable the GSFP to transfer costs by outsourcing some of the work currently
being done within the GSFP Secretariat office. However, in order to appropriately structure these
arrangements it is important that the NGO is both committed and competent in the area where it
is working.
Private/Foreign Government Donations
As with the grant from the Netherlands, there are other private donors and governments that the
GSFP can approach regarding funding for the school feeding programme. In terms of private
donors, the GSFP stakeholders underscore great potential in private sector funding for the
program, however, this potential has hitherto not been pursued. It is worthwhile seeking out
private partners who are interested in supporting the GSFP as a means of advertising of corporate
social responsibility activities. Of course, it is important to choose partners who not only have
financial capacity but also share the same strategic goals and priorities of the programme.
School Children Payments for Meals
Although the current structure of the school feeding programme provides children with meals for
free, it is important to consider scenarios in which children pay for a portion of their lunches.
With food costs representing the largest component of the total programme costs, any ability to
offset these expenses could have a material impact on the long-term sustainability of the
programme.
Case
study: El Salvador
A national law passed in 2000 determined that the proceeds of the privatization of the national
telecommunication company be allocated to a trust fund. The interests gained would benefit social
programmes such as school feeding. To date, the trust fund has generated about US$32 million. In
2008, earnings from the trust fund represented 30 percent of the government expenditures for the
programme.
81
A major goal of the GSFP is poverty reduction throughout the country by creating a ready
market for small farmers, thus increasing local agricultural production and improving incomes. If
this goal is achieved, over time these communities will enjoy increases in income that may
enable parents to partially subsidize school lunches. However, the possible trade-off is that there
will be the risk of alienating the poorest children whose parents cannot afford the fee. This risk
needs to be mitigated, for example by establishing at the level of each community a quota of
“poorest pupils” exempted from contributing, or externally funded “scholarships” to pay for the
school feeding fees of those who cannot afford them. This is important because the increase in
school enrollment is parallel goal of GSFP.
The Millennium Villages Project is an example validating that this cost sharing system works. In
the MVP, the participating communities and MVP share the cost of the programme almost
equally. MVP bears the cost of the staples and some relatively costly but nutritious ingredients
such as fish and beans, while the communities provide water, fuel, wood, and some ingredients
for cooking. Based on a common understanding, each community adopts its own strategy for
mobilizing funds to meet the recurrent cost. In most cases, parents agree to contribute GH¢0.50
per week per child.
82
11.
Policy
11.1. Integration with National Policy
As clearly stated in the WFP’s “Learning from Experience: Good Practices from 45 years of
School Feeding”, the quality and sustainability of school feeding is dependent on the
understanding of and commitment to the programme at the decision-making levels of the
government, as well as its embedding in national policy frameworks. Integration with the
national policy increases both sustainability and quality of the school feeding programme, as
other anecdotes from other countries indicate: in India the programme is supported by a Supreme
Court Ruling; in Brazil it is included in the National Constitution; Honduras recently passed a
national congressional bill on school feeding.
26
Moreover, the school feeding programme needs to be backed by a legislative national policy to
prevent abuse or its being used as a political tool. For instance, the programme is undergoing re-
targeting at the moment because it is perceived that some less privileged schools are not being
reached due to a lack of funds, while schools in communities with higher standards of living are
being reached. Also, a national policy will increase awareness as well as encourage community
ownership of the programme because it is expected that views of the citizenry will be sought in
drafting the policy, and discussions would have been held with major stakeholders like parents,
teachers, health workers, and other opinion leaders in society. The policy document will spell out
the evaluation criteria and so can be used in assessing the progress and impact of the programme.
These will all help in the effectiveness and sustainability of the programme.
11.2. National Policy: Education and/or Agriculture
The next question is how the school feeding programme should be incorporated into national
policy. In order to achieve the GSFP’s local procurement target of 80%, the GSFP should be
considered not only as an educational policy issue, but also as an agricultural policy and food
security issue. In regions where small farmers lack access to funding, equipment, and knowledge
to scale up their farming, technical support for farmers is essential in achieving the procurement
target. Thus, the national policy for GSFP is expected to incorporate both perspectives and
establish roles of each stakeholder at the national level, such as the Ministry of Food and
26
Learning from Experience: Good Practices from 45 years of School Feeding, World Food Programme.
83
Agriculture, Ministry of Local Government, Ministry of Finance & Economic Planning, Ministry
of Health, Ministry of Women and Children's Affairs, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Youth
& Sports, and the Ghana Education Service. Then, this national policy is to be translated into
regional and district level policy for execution.
Key issues to be addressed in the national policy are as follows:
•
The agency to implement the GSFP
•
Resource allocation
•
Support for agricultural expansion
•
Details for execution and standards for evaluation
11.3. Case Study: Brazil
In Brazil, the school feeding programme is highly integrated into national policy through the
National Constitution, laws, and a national initiative. The National Constitution of 1998 states
that all school-age children in the country are entitled to receive one meal at school. Two laws
under the Ministry of Education and one national resolution also support the school feeding
programme. Based on these laws, the agency responsible for implementation of the programme,
the National Fund for Educational Development (FNDE), was founded in 2001 and the FNDE’s
resource allocation and the major operational details of the programme were set up. Brazil is
enacting a law to establish that at least 30 percent of the food used by the school feeding
programme should be procured locally. Moreover, the school feeding programme is part of
“Zero Hunger”, the biggest initiative by the Brazilian government to combat hunger in the
history of the country.
84
12.
Institutional Collaboration
A successful school feeding programme should be designed with the active involvement of key
collaborating government institutions. In Ghana, key players on the national level include the
Ministry of Education (MoE), Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA), Ministry of Health
(MoH), with the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development (MLGRD) hosting the
National Secretariat. On a local level, players include Metropolitan, Municipal, and District
Assemblies as the core implementing body. Collaboration ensures that a range of necessary
complementary services can be provided to the programme. A recent study has shown
weaknesses resulting from weak ties between the GSFP and the decentralized Ministries. The
services that suffered include:
•
Basic infrastructure (kitchens, equipment, water tanks, clean water, latrines, hand
washing, classrooms, and furniture)
•
Health services (lack of cook training, water sanitation training, body mass index checks,
no health-focused inspections)
•
Agricultural services (farmers’ access to credit, farming inputs, storage)
•
Educational services
A SEND-Ghana commissioned 2008 study recommended the following to improve collaboration:
1.
Educate all stakeholders, especially community members, and officials of collaborative
decentralized directorates.
•
Civil society organizations could also be encouraged to assist in the sensitization of
communities regarding the programme. Avenues such as community radio, FM
stations, and TV could be used to increase stakeholder awareness of the plans,
objectives, strategies, and requirements.
2.
Strengthen the collaboration between the GSFP and other agencies.
•
Place a GSFP liaison officer at each agency.
•
Create school feeding desks at the agencies with responsibility for all aspects of the
programme.
•
Hold a regular multi-stakeholder forum on the GSFP.
3.
Involve local stakeholders when formulating the programme.
85
•
Formulation of the annual plan should start at the DIC levels with the active
participation of all SICs. The various DIC plans should then be consolidated at the
national level.
4.
Re-define the role of the MoFA.
•
The MoFA should be tasked with the responsibility of making food available for the
programme.
•
The MoFA should target farmers in the various districts for extension services, inputs,
and other support necessary to expand food production. Farmers involved in the
programme can easily be identified and improvement in their welfare tracked to
assess the benefit of the programme.
5.
Use monitoring teams comprising of representation from each of the decentralized
directorates and agencies.
•
The different stakeholders in the team will ensure that all areas of the program
including health and agriculture are covered in the monitoring.
86
13.
Conclusion and Next Steps
The following is recommended to the GSFP as the process of re-designing the programme starts
in September:
1.
The programme possesses a number of strengths due to the nature of the outsourced
caterer model that is being employed, however it can be more difficult to achieve some of
the programme’s goals, such as keeping the cost of the meal low and stimulating local
agriculture production. Therefore, the programme will need to invest in concerted efforts
to implement the framework to link the farmers and caterers that is outlined in the report.
2.
Further data collection and work on the menus would be the next logical step in research;
the focus would have to be on standardizing the menus that are being used all over the
country, and then analyze whether the nutritional targets set by the programme are being
achieved. We also recommend that detailed data be collected on prices and that regular
updating of the price table occurs in the costing tool provided. Once this is done, the
programme should be able to understand the true cost of standard meals; this information
may then inform the redesigning of the programme.
3.
Regarding cost, we recommend that the programme explore utilizing Ghana’s buffer
stock company as first point of purchase for the caterers. The buffer stock company could
possibly benefit farmers by providing a means of storage for their crops.
4.
Sensitization for the DICs and SICs should be increased so that these committee
members do not view their roles as being an add-on, or an additional responsibility; they
need to believe that the GSFP is part and parcel of their roles. The GSFP duties need to
be integrated tightly within the roles and responsibilities of the existing players at the
district and the school level.
5.
The GSFP should reconsider their current staffing model. While it is important that as
little money as possible be spent on administration and overhead, it is equally important
that the GSFP be staffed at a level that ensures its effective implementation and
sustainability. Reducing staffing costs in the short-term could have significant negative
results in the long run.
The Government of Ghana, the GSFP National Secretariat, and partner organizations involved
with the design and execution of the GSFP should be commended for their dedication to
improving the health and education of children and the income of local farmers in Ghana— to
87
implement and administer a programme as large and as fast growing as this one is impressive but
not without its challenges. As the program continues to scale, it is important that the strategies
and policies of the programme evolve. We believe that the Ghana School Feeding Programme
has a number of strengths and with its re-design it has the potential to be a model for many
African nations.
14. Appendix
14.1. Appendix A
From “School Feeding Program Manual”, The Millenium Villag
From “School Feeding Program Manual”, The Millenium Villag
88
From “School Feeding Program Manual”, The Millenium Villag
es Project, 2007.
14.2. Appendix B
89
14.3. Appendix C
From
“Financial & Monitoring Assessment of the Ghana School Feeding Program”, UC
Berkeley, Haas School of Business, International Business Development Program, June 2007.
“Financial & Monitoring Assessment of the Ghana School Feeding Program”, UC
Berkeley, Haas School of Business, International Business Development Program, June 2007.
90
“Financial & Monitoring Assessment of the Ghana School Feeding Program”, UC
Berkeley, Haas School of Business, International Business Development Program, June 2007.
91
14.4. Appendix D - Summary of Qualitative Interviews
For collecting qualitative and quantitative data, our group was divided into four groups for field
research. Each group was sent to two regions (Greater Accra, Volta, Ashanti, Brong Ahafo,
Central, Western, Northern, Upper West), covering a total of over 20 districts. From interviews
with 109 local farmers, 71 caterers, 27 DICs, and 21 SICs, we gathered information about the
stakeholders’ perspective on the GSFP, their current behavior, and their thoughts for future
improvement, in addition to quantitative data. Below is a brief summary of the answers to our
qualitative questions.
Issues Stakeholders Summary
Knowledge about GSFP Farmers
79% of farmers answered they knew
about the GSFP
Many of them knew as parents, not as
sellers to caterers
Sales to GSFP caterers Farmers Only 10% of farmers directly sell to
the GSFP caterers
Access to financing Farmers 46% of farmers have access to bank
loans or financial support (in-kind
provision) from District Assemblies
Loans from NGOs, MiDI, etc are
available for some of them
Many of them have access, but do not
use it due to high interests
Requests to government Farmers 72% raised their needs of
governmental supports for agricultural
inputs and finance as their most
important request to the government
Storage capacity
Caterers 35% of caterers have storage at their
own home
65% of caterers have storage at
schools
Food preparation site Caterers
32% of caterers prepare food in their
kitchen
68% of caterers prepare food in
schools
Payments from the
government
Caterers
79% of caterers raised the issue of
delays in payments from the
government
Monitoring and
Evaluation capacity
DIC 11% of DIC pointed out the lack of
monitoring and evaluation capacities
