Ghana began its decentralisation journey several decades ago with a clear vision: to bring governance and development closer to the people. Enshrined in the 1992 Constitution and reinforced by subsequent legislation, decentralisation was intended to empower local governments to plan and implement development programmes that respond to local needs. Yet today, one critical sector—agriculture—remains neglected within the decentralised system, despite being the backbone of Ghana’s local economies.
Agriculture is not just another sector competing for attention at the district level. It is the fulcrum of Local Economic Development (LED). In most districts and municipalities, agriculture provides livelihoods for the majority of households, supplies raw materials for agro-processing, sustains local markets, and supports transport, trade, and small-scale industries. In short, when agriculture thrives, local economies grow.
Paradoxically, Ghana’s decentralised agriculture is severely under-resourced.
Decentralised in Law, Abandoned in Practice
The 1992 Constitution is clear. Article 240 mandates that decentralisation involves the transfer of functions, powers, responsibilities, and resources from the central government to local authorities. Article 36(2)(e) further obliges the State to promote agriculture as part of a balanced national development strategy.
These constitutional principles are operationalised under the Local Governance Act, 2016 (Act 936), which establishes agriculture as a decentralised function of Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies (MMDAs). District Departments of Agriculture are mandated to provide extension services, support farmers, promote improved technologies, and drive agricultural development at the local level.
Yet, in reality, these departments operate as “orphaned institutions”—mandated to deliver results without the resources to do so.
The DACF Blind Spot
The District Assemblies Common Fund (DACF), created under Article 252 of the Constitution, is the most significant source of discretionary funding for MMDAs. It was designed to promote equitable development by ensuring that local governments have access to national resources.
However, there is a fundamental flaw in the DACF framework: there is no statutory or protected allocation for agriculture.
This omission has far-reaching consequences. District Chief Executives, faced with multiple competing demands—roads, classrooms, markets, sanitation, and administrative costs—often deprioritise agriculture, not because agriculture is unimportant but because it has no legally protected fiscal space within the decentralised financing system.
As a result, District Departments of Agriculture lack vehicles and motorbikes for extension work, funds for farmer training and demonstrations, and resources to support agribusiness and value chain development. Extension officers are often confined to their offices, unable to reach farmers consistently. This undermines productivity, innovation, and resilience, particularly in rural areas.
Weak Local Agriculture, Weak National Programmes
The neglect of decentralised agriculture has national implications. Flagship programmes such as Feed Ghana Programme (FGP), youth in agriculture, tree crop development initiatives, and climate-smart agriculture interventions all depend on effective implementation at the district level.
When district agricultural services are weak, national policies struggle to achieve their intended impact. Food security, youth employment, agribusiness development, and rural transformation goals are all compromised.
In effect, Ghana’s agricultural challenge is not only about policy design at the centre; it is about implementation failure at the local level due to inadequate financing.
Time for Policy Change
If Ghana is serious about decentralisation and local economic development, then agriculture cannot be treated as an afterthought in district financing. Concrete reforms are urgently needed.
First, the government should introduce a statutory minimum allocation of the DACF to agriculture, dedicated specifically to agricultural and agribusiness development at the MMDA level. Ring-fencing even a modest percentage of the DACF for agriculture would transform extension delivery, irrigation support, mechanisation services, post-harvest management, and value chain development.
Second, stronger accountability mechanisms are required. District composite budgets should include clear agricultural budget lines, and agricultural performance indicators should be included in MMDA and District Chief Executive assessments. Agriculture must be recognised explicitly as the engine of local economic growth.
Third, the government should consider a more ambitious institutional reform: the creation of a Ghana Agriculture and Agribusiness Service (GAAS) within the Ministry of Food and Agriculture. Similar to the Ghana Education Service and Ghana Health Service, GAAS would provide a dedicated institutional home for decentralised agricultural service delivery, with predictable funding, logistics, and career progression for staff.
Agriculture Is the Foundation of Local Development
Ghana’s decentralisation agenda cannot succeed if agriculture—the foundation of most local economies—remains underfunded. The Constitution and existing laws already provide the mandate to resource decentralised agriculture. What is lacking is the political and fiscal commitment to act.
Investing in agriculture at the district level is not merely a sectoral choice; it is a strategic decision that affects food security, employment, rural livelihoods, and national economic transformation.
If development is truly to be driven from the bottom up, then agriculture must be placed at the centre of local governance—and resourced accordingly.
