UNDAF Results Matrix – Ghana
UNDAF Results Matrix – Ghana
Thematic area 1: Agricultural Modernization and Food Security (with focus on Nutrition)
|National Development Priority: ACCELERATED AGRICULTURAL MODERNISATION |
|IMPROVED AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY |
|INCREASED AGRICULTURAL COMPETITIVENESS AND ENHANCED INTEGRATION INTO DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL MARKETS |
|NUTRITION AND FOOD SECURITY |
| |
|Support to MDGs: MDG 1, with close linkages to MDGs 2, 4, 5 and 6 |
|Outcomes |
| |Indicators , Baseline, Target |Means of Verification |Risks and Assumptions |Role of Partners |Indicative | |
|Outcomes | | | | |Resources (US$) | |
|Output 3.2: |Indicators: |Existence of the |Risks |GMET: use outcomes of studies and analysis reports to |UNDP | |
|A national risk |Establishment of data base on |national risk |Availability of funds |prepare policies and plans |CADRI |700,000 |
|monitoring observatory is|multisectoral indicators on disasters |monitoring observatory|Assumptions |NADMO: Lead national institution for Coordination/ | | |
|established for providing|at GMET | |Other agencies strengthen |facilitation; monitoring and evaluation, institutional | | |
|early warning information|Baseline: | |the other components of |and system development, expansion and mainstreaming of | | |
|by 2016. |National risk monitoring observatory | |early warning systems |DRR , advocacy, capacity development | | |
| |is not available | |Ghana becomes pilot country| | | |
| |Targets: | |of the CADRI/BCPR |EPA: Sector planning, review and coordination, resource| | |
| |Data base on multisectoral indicators | |Initiative on DRR |allocation, institutional and system development, | | |
| |on disasters developed | | |capacity development | | |
| |Fully functional national risk | | | | | |
| |monitoring observatory established | | | | | |
|Output 3.3: |Indicators: |National Strategy |Risks |NADMO: Lead national institution for Coordination/ |UNDP |300,000 |
|A national strategy to |Existence of National Strategy |document produced by |Overloaded school curricula|facilitation; monitoring and evaluation, institutional | | |
|raise public awareness on|Number of schools in the 4 |NADMO |Not enforcement of building|and system development, expansion and mainstreaming of | | |
|disaster risk reduction |Metropolitan Assemblies integrating |School curricula of |rules and regulations |DRR , advocacy, capacity development | | |
|in primary and secondary |DRR into school curricula |the 4 Metropolitan |Assumptions | | | |
|schools and for improving|% of critical facilities in the 4 |Assemblies |A wider strategy for |DISTRICT /MUNICIPAL/METROPLOLITAN ASSEMBLIES: | | |
|building safety and |Metropolitan Assemblies constructed |Building permits and |general public is developed|Operational planning, technical supervision and support,| | |
|protection of critical |according to building codes with |minutes of planning |and being implemented |monitoring and evaluation, coordination and | | |
|facilities is in place by|appropriate hazard-resistant features |committees of |Existence of a National |facilitation, capacity development | | |
|2013. |Baseline: |Metropolitan |Building Code incorporating| | | |
| |National Disaster Management Strategy |Assemblies |DRR |MINISTRY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Policy development, sector| | |
| |in place |Surveys to verify the | |planning, review and coordination, | | |
| |Targets: |respect of building | | | | |
| |National Strategy in Place |rules on DRR | |MINISTRY OF EDUCATION: Policy development, sector | | |
| |50 schools in the 4 Metropolitan | | |planning, review and coordination, resource allocation, | | |
| |Assemblies have integrated DRR into | | |institutional and system development, effective service | | |
| |school curricula | | |provision models, advocacy, capacity development | | |
| |100% of critical facilities in the 4 | | | | | |
| |Metropolitan Assemblies constructed | | | | | |
| |according to building codes with | | | | | |
| |appropriate hazard-resistant features | | | | | |
|Output 3.4: |Indicators: |Documentation |Risks |NADMO: Lead national institution for Coordination/ |UNFPA | |
|The institutional |NADMO simulates the contingency plans |(reports, |Staff turnover |facilitation; monitoring and evaluation, institutional |WFP | |
|capacities (assessment, |for flood, earthquakes, oil spillage |audiovisuals, |Assumptions |and system development, expansion and mainstreaming of |UNDP |300,000 |
|coordination and |and pandemics at least once annually |attendance sheets)of |Staff to be trained is |DRR , advocacy, capacity development. | | |
|information management) |by 2016 |the joint simulation |readily available | | | |
|of NADMO and other MDAs |% of population affected by disaster |exercises |Effective coordination and |MINISTRY OF INTERIOR: Policy development, sector | | |
|are reinforced for |reached by NADMO, MDAs and UN agencies|NADMO Situational |communication among NADMO, |planning, review and coordination | | |
|preparedness and response|within the timeframes specified in the|Reports |MDAs and UN is in place. | | | |
|to man-made and natural |National Contingency Plan |UN SITREPS | |MEST: Policy development, sector planning, review and | | |
|disasters |Number of people affected by | | |coordination | | |
| |natural/man-made disasters receiving | | | | | |
| |relief items | | |MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT: Policy development, sector | | |
| |Baseline: | | |planning, review and coordination | | |
| |NADMO, national and regional platforms| | | | | |
| |on DRR, Contingency Plans and National| | |MOH – Ghana Health Service: Implementation , | | |
| |Disaster Management Policy are in | | |coordination ,policy and strategic support for health- | | |
| |place | | |related disaster | | |
| |UN Interagency Contingency Plan is in | | | | | |
| |place | | |EPA: Sector planning, review and coordination, resource | | |
| |Monthly production EW information | | |allocation, institutional and system development, | | |
| | | | |capacity development | | |
| |. | | | | | |
| |Targets: | | |GHANA ARMED FORCES AND GHANA POLICE SERVICE: Providing | | |
| |8 joint simulation exercises conducted| | |logistical support for reconstruction and coordination | | |
| |70% of the population affected by | | |of relief assistance. | | |
| |disaster reached by NADMO, MDAs and UN| | | | | |
| |Agencies within the timeframes | | |NATIONAL FIRE SERVICE: Operational and Technical level | | |
| |specified in the National Contingency | | |support for fire-related disasters | | |
| |Plan | | | | | |
| |100% of people severely affected by | | |NGOs: Implementation of projects in close collaboration | | |
| |disaster receiving emergency | | |with local/national governments, communities and UN | | |
| |assistance | | |agencies | | |
|Output 3.5 Capacity of |Indicators: |Climate change policy |Risks |MEST: Policy development, sector planning, review and |UNDP |200,000 |
|the National Climate |Number of climate change policies |documents |Changes in political |coordination | | |
|Change Committee for |developed. |Briefs on attending |leadership | | | |
|policy development, |Number of international negotiation |international |Capacity dissipation due to|EPA: Sector planning, review and coordination, resource | | |
|participation in |meetings attended by national |negotiations |turn-over of NCC members |allocation, institutional and system development, | | |
|international |counterpart. |Papers and | |capacity development | | |
|negotiations, |Two capacity building reports for |presentations made at | | | | |
|coordination and |national climate change committee |international meetings|Assumptions |NDPC: Coordination and capacity development | | |
|harmonization of sectoral|members each year | |Continued support from | | | |
|strategies on climate | | |political leadership |MOH: Coordination the integration of climate change and | | |
|change strengthened by | | |NCC members available to |Health into sectoral programmes/plans | | |
|2016 | | |receive to attend |MINISTRY OF ENERGY: Coordination of energy-intensive | | |
| |Baseline: | |international negotiations |services into climate change programmes/ plans | | |
| |National Climate Change Committee | | |NATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE COMMITTEE: Reviews of national | | |
| |established. | | |climate change policies including coordination of | | |
| |Coordination of national climate | | |sectoral climate change programmes | | |
| |change strategies remains weak and | | | | | |
| |disjointed. | | | | | |
| |Participation of national climate | | | | | |
| |committee in international | | | | | |
| |negotiations is limited | | | | | |
| |Targets: | | | | | |
| |4 climate change policies developed | | | | | |
| |3 international meetings attended per | | | | | |
| |year | | | | | |
| |2 capacity building supports for | | | | | |
| |national climate change member | | | | | |
| |supported per year. | | | | | |
|Output 3.6 Mainstreaming |Indicators: |Climate smart-plans |Risks |MEST: Policy development, sector planning, review and |WFP | |
|of climate change |Number of climate resilient plans |Reports on supported |Turnover rate of staff |coordination |UNDP |400,000 |
|mitigation and adaptation|developed and implemented each year. |capacity development |Regular flow of funds |EPA: Sector planning, review and coordination, resource| | |
|into relevant sectors and|Number of capacity development |programmes |Limited technical capacity |allocation, institutional and system development, | | |
|80 district plans |programmes established |Proposal on |Changes in political or |capacity development | | |
|enhanced by 2014. |operationalorganised |climate-smart |technical leadership | | | |
| |Number of demonstration climate-smart |demonstration projects|Lack of capacity for |NDPC: Coordination and capacity development | | |
| |projects |Financial budget for |scaling up | | | |
| |Schemes for flood protection walls, |demonstration projects|Potential conflicts with |MOH: Coordination the integration of climate change and | | |
| |reforestation, tree planting, dug out | |other sector or district |Health into sectoral programmes/plans | | |
| |dams, rehabilitation of assets | |programmes |MINISTRY OF ENERGY: Coordination of energy-intensive | | |
| |damaged/affected by climate change | | |services into climate change programmes/ plans | | |
| |through food for work in the 3 | |Assumptions | | | |
| |northern regions | |Buy-in from political |FORESTRY COMMISSION: Sector planning, review and | | |
| |Number of water conservation projects | |leadership |coordination, resource allocation, institutional and | | |
| |developed through food for work in the| |Build on existing |system development, capacity development | | |
| |3 northern regions | |related-initiatives | | | |
| | | |Staff will be available for|MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE; Sector planning, review and | | |
| | | |training |coordination, resource allocation, institutional and | | |
| |Baseline: | |Environmental governance in|system development, capacity development | | |
| |Mainstreaming of climate change into | |Ghana remains consistent | | | |
| |national, sector and district plan in | |Local private financial |DISTRICT/MUNICIPAL/METROPOLITAN ASSEMBLIES: Operational | | |
| |10 pilot districts. | |entities will be on-board |planning, technical supervision and support, monitoring | | |
| |Preparation of national climate change| | |and evaluation, coordination and facilitation, capacity | | |
| |adaptation strategy | | |development | | |
| |Development of sector-specific | | | | | |
| |mitigation assessment | | | | | |
| |List of Nationally Appropriated | | | | | |
| |Mitigation Actions developed | | | | | |
| |Preparation of low carbon development | | | | | |
| |growth plan | | | | | |
| |Greenhouse gas inventory estimates | | | | | |
| |developed, | | | | | |
| |Targets: | | | | | |
| |20 climate-smart plans developed for | | | | | |
| |relevant sectors and district | | | | | |
| |assemblies each year. | | | | | |
| |Two capacity development programmes on| | | | | |
| |climate compatible planning organised | | | | | |
| |for twenty relevant MDAs and districts| | | | | |
| |assemblies supported. | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| |Support development and implementation| | | | | |
| |of five climate-smart demonstration | | | | | |
| |projects in five districts. | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| |1 rural climate-enterprise incubator | | | | | |
| |hub developed and established. | | | | | |
|Output 3.7 The capacity |Indicators: |Capacity development |Risks |MOFEP: Policy development, sector planning, review and |UNDP |200,000 |
|of the Ministry of |Number of implemented capacity |reports |Changes in political |coordination, resource allocation | | |
|Finance and Economic |development programmes. |Number of staff |leadership | | | |
|Planning (MOFEP) and |Number of MoFEP and private sector |attended international|High turnover of trained |MEST: Policy development, sector planning, review and | | |
|private sector (like |staff supported to attend |climate financing |staff |coordination | | |
|banks and industries) to |international climate financing events|events and their |Assumptions | | | |
|mobilize and access |each year. |reports |Availability of staff to be|EPA: Policy development, sector planning, review and | | |
|international funds on |No of CDM projects approved |Budget request for |trained. |coordination | | |
|climate change mitigation|National budget guidelines on |MoFEP |Support from political |PRIVATE SECTOR: Project development, implementation and | | |
|and adaptation developed |accessing international funding for | |leadership |provision of financial incentives | | |
|by 2013. |climate change adaptation developed | |Buy in from private sector | | | |
| |Baseline: | | | | | |
| |Limited capacity of MoFEP and private | | | | | |
| |sector to access international funds. | | | | | |
| |Knowledge of MoFEP and private | | | | | |
| |sector on the nuances of international| | | | | |
| |climate financing is limited | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| |Budget guidelines for climate change | | | | | |
| |under preparation | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| |Targets: | | | | | |
| |Three round capacity development | | | | | |
| |programmes for MoFEP and private | | | | | |
| |sector in climate financing supported.| | | | | |
| |Two staff from MoFEP and private | | | | | |
| |sector supported to partake in | | | | | |
| |international climate financing | | | | | |
| |events. | | | | | |
| |Provide technical and financial MoFEP | | | | | |
| |to establish or reorient institutional| | | | | |
| |set-up dedicated to facilitate access | | | | | |
| |to new streams of climate financing. | | | | | |
|Output 3.8 Biodiversity |Indicators: | | | |WFP | |
|and land management |No. of people benefiting from climate| | |EPA: Policy development, sector planning, review and |UNDP |250,000 |
|issues, with a special |adaptation and mitigation | | |coordination | | |
|focus on marine |(afforestation, water conservation) | | | | | |
|ecosystems and |degree of integration of EIA and Sea | | |DISTRICT/MUNICIPAL/METROPOLITAN ASSEMBLIES: Operational | | |
|afforestation, assessed |into district development plans | | |planning, technical supervision and support, monitoring | | |
|and integrated at the |deforestation rates |District level plans |District Assemblies have |and evaluation, coordination and facilitation, capacity | | |
|national and local level | | |capacity to deliver |development | | |
| |land degradation rates |Remote sensing/forest |Political will to enforce | | | |
| | |surveys |measures to stop illegal |MMDAs: Policy development, sector planning, | | |
| | | |logging |implementation, review and coordination | | |
| |ecological integrity of coastal |remote sensing/ground |Political will to enforce | | | |
| |lagoons |surveys |measures to stop land |ACADEMIA: Research, review of reports, and training | | |
| |National budget expenditure on | |degradation | | | |
| |Environment and natural resource |Assessment reports |Change in attitudes and | | | |
| |sector |using RAMSAR |behavior in the of | | | |
| | |Ecological Character |management plastic bags and| | | |
| |Baselines: |Criteria |waste | | | |
| |90,00 people benefiting from |- National |Political will to commit | | | |
| |afforestaion activities |Budget |funds to the Environment | | | |
| |Deforestation rate 65,000 ha/yr |figures |and Natural Resources | | | |
| |69% of the total land surface of Ghana| |sector | | | |
| |prone to severe or very severe soil | | | | | |
| |erosion | | | | | |
| |Up to 7kg of Beach litter (Marine | | | | | |
| |Debris) mainly plastics per 100m2 | | | | | |
| |National Budget Expenditure on the | | | | | |
| |Environment and Natural Resource | | | | | |
| |sector under 0.5% | | | | | |
| |Targets: | | | | | |
| |50 district development plans fully | | | | | |
| |integrating SEA prepared by 2014 | | | | | |
| |Deforestation rates to decrease by 30%| | | | | |
| |by 2014 | | | | | |
| |Land Degradation rates to decrease by | | | | | |
| |15% by 2014 | | | | | |
| |50% reduction of Beach litter by 2012 | | | | | |
| |Expenditure on Environment and Natural| | | | | |
| |Resources sector increased to 1% of | | | | | |
| |Budget | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|Outcomes |
|Outcomes |Indicators , Baseline, Target |Means of Verification |Risks and Assumptions |Role of Partners |Indicative | |
| | | | | |Resources (US$) | |
|Output 6.2 Coverage of High |Indicators: | |Risks |Xx | | |
|impact MNCH and nutrition |1. Proportion of children who | |Xx |Xx | | |
|interventions scaled up at |receive appropriate treatment for | |Assumptions | | | |
|facility and community levels|malaria, diarrhea and pneumonia | |Xx | | | |
| |2. Proportion of children 6-59 | | | | | |
| |months who received vitamin A in | | | | | |
| |the last 6 months | | | | | |
| |Proportion of Children 6-59 months| | | | | |
| |receiving therapeutic feeding at | | | | | |
| |facility level and supplementary | | | | | |
| |feeding at community level | | | | | |
| |Proportion of pregnant women that | | | | | |
| |received 4 ANC according to the | | | | | |
| |norms among the total of intended | | | | | |
| |pregnant women | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| |Baseline: | | | | | |
| |Xx | | | | | |
| |Targets: | | | | | |
| |Xx | | | | | |
|Output 6.3 Increased |Indicators: 1. EBF rate |DHS 2008 |Risks |Xx | | |
|awareness, demand for and |% of children under 5 years |DHS 201 |Xx |Xx | | |
|utilization of high impact |sleeping under bed nets | |Assumptions | | | |
|MNCH and nutrition |Proportion of women receiving the | |Xx | | | |
|interventions among all |prescribed number of post natal | | | | | |
|segments of population |visits | | | | | |
|including men |Proportion of pregnant women | | | | | |
| |receiving health and nutrition | | | | | |
| |education. | | | | | |
| |Proportion of men who accompany | | | | | |
| |their wives to health facilities | | | | | |
| |and received information on MNCH | | | | | |
| |and Nutrition education. | | | | | |
| |Xx4. | | | | | |
| |Baseline: | | | | | |
| |Xx | | | | | |
| |Targets: | | | | | |
| |Xx | | | | | |
|Output 6.4 Strengthened |Indicators: 1. Contraceptive |DHS 2008 |Risks |Xx | | |
|national institutional and |prevalence rate |DHS 2013 |Xx |Xx | | |
|technical capacity to |CYP | |Assumptions | | | |
|increase awareness, |Adolescent Birth Rate | |Xx | | | |
|availability and utilisation |Unmet need for family planning | | | | | |
|of family planning services. |Xx | | | | | |
| |Baseline: | | | | | |
| |Xx | | | | | |
| |Targets: | | | | | |
| |Xx | | | | | |
|Output 6.5 Strengthened and |Indicators: |GHS Annual reports |Risks |Xx | | |
|harmonized national systems |Timeliness and Completeness of |CHAG Annual report |Xx |Xx | | |
|for data collection, |DHIMS | |Assumptions | | | |
|management, and utilization |M&E group to assist with | |Xx | | | |
|of MNCH interventions. |additional indicators. | | | | | |
| |Xx | | | | | |
| |Baseline: | | | | | |
| |Xx | | | | | |
| |Targets: | | | | | |
| |Xx | | | | | |
|Output 6.6 Strengthened |Indicators: NB. Talk to NDPC | |Risks |Xx | | |
|capacity to plan and |Xx | |Xx |Xx | | |
|coordinate implementation of |Baseline: | |Assumptions | | | |
|MNCH strategies at national |Xx | |Xx | | | |
|and sub-national level |Targets: | | | | | |
| |Xx | | | | | |
|Outcomes |Indicators , Baseline, Target |Means of Verification |Risks and Assumptions |Role of Partners |Indicative | |
| | | | | |Resources | |
| | | | | |(US$) | |
|Output 7.2: Social Welfare |Indicators: | |Risks |-MESW, Min of food and |FAO | |
|Service providers (MDAs, |% of districts complying with | |Service providers work in |Agriculture, Ministry |UNAIDS UNDP | |
|CSOs, NGOs ) across Ghana |minimum standards for social | |silos |of Education, Ministry |UNESCO UNICEF| |
|deliver efficient, |welfare services | | |of Women and Children |WFP | |
|coordinated, social welfare |Baseline: | |Assumptions |Affairs, Ministry of | | |
|services (including in |Xx | |Coordination platforms |Health, Ghana AIDS | | |
|emergencies) to the poorest |Xx | |available at all levels |Commission | | |
|and most vulnerable groups |Targets: | | | | | |
| |Xx | | | | | |
|Contributing UN agencies: |Xx | | | | | |
|FAO, ILO, IOM UNAIDS, UNDP, | | | | | | |
|UNESCO, UNICEF, WFP | | | | | | |
|Output 7.6: By 2015 Child |% of districts complying with |-Reports of Monitoring Committees |Risks |-MESW, |ILO |USD600,000 |
|Protection service providers |minimum standards for child |-DOVVSU database |Service providers work in |Ministry of Women and |IOM |USD300,000 |
|(MDAs, CSOs, NGOs) across |protection services |-Database on OVC |silos |Children Affairs, |UNAIDS | |
|Ghana deliver efficient, |Child Protection referral | | |DOVVSU |UNICEF |USD 3 million |
|coordinated, gender |service operational at all | |Assumptions |Ministry of Education | | |
|appropriate child protection |levels | |1 Government of Ghana | | | |
|services to orphans and |Baseline: | |allocates adequate | | | |
|vulnerable children, |NPA for OVC | |resources for child | | | |
|including ‘at-risk’ groups. |NPA for WFCL | |protection services | | | |
| |Child Abuse network | |2.Coordination platforms | | | |
| |4 functioning Regional Networks| |available at all levels | | | |
| |Targets: | | | | | |
| |National level, Regional and | | | | | |
| |Community level | | | | | |
|Outcomes |Indicators , Baseline, Target |Means of Verification |Risks and Assumptions |Role of Partners |Indicative | |
| | | | | |Resources (US$) | |
|Output 9.2 Formal, |Indicators: |The Ghana Child Labour |Assumptions |Ministry of Education: Coordination |ILO | |
|alternative, accelerated |The number of working children |Monitoring System (see |Anti poverty and education |role and responsible for | | |
|basic education or vocational|aged 5-17 withdrawn and |Output 12.3 under Social |programmes gradually expand |mainstreaming child labour into the | | |
|and skills training services |prevented from child labour and |Protection Outcome Group) |available education, employment |education and vocational training | | |
|expanded to include former |integrating education or | |and income generation alternatives|system. | | |
|child labourers in 14 |vocational training services in | |to child labour starting in | | | |
|districts |the 11 districts | |project interventions zones |Selected NGOs: Implementation of the| | |
| |Baseline: | |The various actors working on the |programmes in the 14 districts | | |
|Contributing UN agencies: ILO|0 | |question of child labour in the | | | |
| |Targets: | |targeted countries, sectors and | | | |
| |5,000 children aged 5-17 | |communities agree to share | | | |
| | | |information, seek collaboration | | | |
| | | |and coordinate their efforts. | | | |
|Output 9.3 National and |Indicators: |MOE/GES reports |Assumptions |National MOE/GES, NADMO: Preparation|UNHCR | |
|sub-national capacity |1) % of refugee children | |Refugee children of school going |of emergency preparedness and | | |
|developed to provide |attending school | |age repatriate to country of |response plan, overall monitoring |UNICEF | |
|appropriate and relevant |2) % of IDP children attending | |origin. |and assessment of education in | | |
|education services for |school | |New influx of refugee children |emergency, resource allocation, |WFP | |
|children in emergency |3) # of children receiving | |from neighbouring countries. |advocacy, capacity development | | |
|situations in affected |emergency school feeding | |Government, DPs/NGOs provide |Regional and District Authorities: | | |
|locations. |Baseline: | |timely, sufficient and |Technical support and coordination | | |
| |1) TBD | |appropriate support in the |for the provision of education | | |
|Contributing UN agencies: |2) TBD | |provision of education services |services in emergency situations, | | |
|UNHCR, UNICEF, WFP |3) TBD | |for children in emergency |monitoring and evaluation of the | | |
| |Targets: | |situations |programmes, capacity development | | |
| |1) TBD | | |Schools: Provision of quality | | |
| |2) TBD | | |education services, community | | |
| |3) TBD | | |mobilisation, enrolment campaigns | | |
| | | | |DPs/NGOs: Complementary and | | |
| | | | |harmonised financial and technical | | |
| | | | |support for the provision of | | |
| | | | |education services in emergency | | |
| | | | |situations, community mobilisation | | |
| | | | |and enrolment campaigns | | |
|Output 9.4: National capacity|Indicators: |MOE/GES reports |Risks |Key Ministries and Government |WFP | |
|enhanced to plan and |1) Use of single registry as a |WFP Annual Standard Project|Staff turnover could delay project|Agencies at national, regional and | | |
|implement well co-ordinated |common targeting mechanism |Report |implementation |district levels (i.e. MLGRD, GSFP |UNICEF | |
|and targeted pro-poor |2) # of schools receiving school| |Assumptions |secretariat, MOE/GES, MoFA, MOH/GHS,| | |
|interventions such as school |feeding programme | |Government committed to the |MOESW, and MOWAC): Policy | | |
|feeding, take-home rations |3) # of students receiving | |implementation of Country |development, development of a common| | |
|and girls’ scholarship to |school feeding programme | |Programme Action Plan |targeting mechanism based on the | | |
|facilitate access for |4) # of girls receiving | |Other national level interventions|single registry, planning and | | |
|school-aged children from |take-home rations (THR) | |on deworming and school health are|implementation, advocacy, | | |
|deprived regions |5) # of girls receiving | |implemented to complement the |coordination and monitoring. | | |
| |scholarships | |realization of the full benefits | | | |
|Contributing UN agencies: |6) Attendance rate (boys and | |of school feeding. |DPs/NGOs (i.e. Dutch Embassy, World | | |
|WFP, UNICEF |girls): number of school days in| |Government assistance to the |Bank, USAID, Send Foundation, MVP, | | |
| |which boys and girls attend | |programme will not decease |etc): Support with funding, | | |
| |classes as percent of total | |severely during the period of |planning, capacity development, | | |
| |number of school days in the | |implementation |implementation and monitoring | | |
| |target communities | |Government would put in place a | | | |
| |7) Enrolment (boys and girls): | |school feeding policy to clarify |Private Sector: Implementation, | | |
| |Average annual rate of change in| |roles of all line Ministries |partnership, and capacity | | |
| |number of boys and girls | |Targeting under take-home ration |development | | |
| |enrolled in the target | |and school feeding components are | | | |
| |communities | |well focused to reach the most |Communities: Support for awareness | | |
| |8) Gender Parity index at JHS | |vulnerable districts/schools |generation, participation and | | |
| |level in the target communities | | |implementation | | |
| |Baseline: | | | | | |
| |1) 2010 – Single registry not | | |Media: Advocacy, partnerships, | | |
| |available | | |information dissemination, awareness| | |
| |2) 2010 – 496 schools in the 3 | | |creation and monitoring | | |
| |Northern Regions and MVP in | | | | | |
| |Ashanti Region | | | | | |
| |3) 2010 – 151,626 students in | | | | | |
| |the 3 Northern Regions and MVP | | | | | |
| |in Ashanti Region | | | | | |
| |4) 2010 – 10,000 girls for THR | | | | | |
| |in the Northern Region | | | | | |
| |5) 2010 – 16 girls receive | | | | | |
| |scholarship in the 3 northern | | | | | |
| |regions | | | | | |
| |6) 90% | | | | | |
| |7) 20% | | | | | |
| |8) 0.82 | | | | | |
| |Targets: | | | | | |
| |1) 2016 - Single registry | | | | | |
| |applied to all pro-poor | | | | | |
| |incentive programmes | | | | | |
| |2) 600 schools | | | | | |
| |3) 188,000 school children | | | | | |
| |4) 30,000 girls on THR | | | | | |
| |5) 30 girls receive scholarship | | | | | |
| |6) 97% | | | | | |
| |7) 40% | | | | | |
| |8) 1.00 | | | | | |
|Output 9.5 |Indicators: |1) National, Regional, |Risks |National MOE/GES: |UNICEF | |
|National and sub-national |1) % of primary schools |District CFS reports |Change of key staff at MoE/GES |Development/consolidation of CFS, | | |
|capacity enhanced to improve |(including KGs) meeting minimum |2) MOE/GES reports |could delay the implementation of |school health education and life |UNESCO | |
|educational quality through a|CFS standards |3) Special survey |quality improvement initiatives |skills programmes including the HIV | | |
|child-friendly school system |2) % of JHS with HIV Alert |4) GDHS, MICS |including CFS, life skills |Alert programme, and accredited | | |
|and life skills education |Status |5) EMIS |education, and teacher development|in-service teacher training | | |
|programmes including HIV/AIDS|3) % of out of school youth aged|6) MOE/GES reports |programmes |programme, upgrading of EMIS, | | |
|education |15-24 demonstrating | |Inability to raise enough funds to|resource allocation, institutional | | |
| |comprehensive knowledge of | |respond to quality needs |and system development, impact | | |
| |HIV/AIDS | |Assumptions |assessment of programmes, capacity | | |
|Contributing UN agencies: |4) % of young men and women aged| |MoE/GES ownership and commitment |development, and IEC/IPC | | |
|UNICEF, UNESCO, UNFPA |15-24 with comprehensive | |to improve the quality of |materials/activities development | | |
| |knowledge of HIV and AIDS | |education remains high. |National Youth Council and | | |
| |5) Availability of | |Other DP and NGO support |Adolescent health Division (GHS): | | |
| |comprehensive, timely and | |harmonised under the government |Policy implementation, coordination | | |
| |reliable EMIS | |leadership |and monitoring of out-of-school life| | |
| |6) Availability of accredited | |Classroom construction and other |skills education activities. | | |
| |in-service teacher training | |infrastructure improvement to be |Regional and District Authorities: | | |
| |programmes | |supported by other DPs/NGOs |Technical support and coordination | | |
| | | | |for programme implementation, | | |
| |Baseline: | | |technical supervision and support | | |
| |1) To be established in 2011 | | |for schools, monitoring and | | |
| |2) To be established in 2011 | | |evaluation of programmes, capacity | | |
| |3) To be established in 2011 | | |development | | |
| |4) 2008 (GDHS) | | |Schools: Implementation of CFS, life| | |
| |Males: 34% | | |skills education and other quality | | |
| |Females: 28% | | |intervention | | |
| |5) 2010 - Not available | | |DPs/NGOs: Complementary and | | |
| |6) 2010 – Not available | | |harmonised financial and technical | | |
| |Targets: | | |support for the implementation of | | |
| |1) 2016 - 70% | | |quality improvement interventions | | |
| |2) 2016 - 100% | | |NGOs, especially PPAG, CEDEP, | | |
| |3) 10% increase in baseline by | | |Theatre for a Change, Ananse Reach | | |
| |2016 | | |Concept, Curious Minds and informal | | |
| |4) TBD | | |sector: Advocacy, social | | |
| |5) 2013 - Comprehensive, timely | | |mobilisation and BCC | | |
| |and reliable EMIS available | | |Academic institutions especially | | |
| |6) 2014 - Accredited in-service | | |University of Cape Coast, UDS and | | |
| |programmes in place | | |KNUST: research, evaluation, | | |
| | | | |interest group analysis | | |
| | | | |Media: Advocacy, partnerships and | | |
| | | | |features | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | |NGOs, especially PPAG, CEDEP, | | |
| | | | |Theatre for a Change, Ananse Reach | | |
| | | | |Concept, Curious Minds and informal | | |
| | | | |sector: Advocacy, social | | |
| | | | |mobilisation and BCC | | |
| | | | |Academic institutions especially | | |
| | | | |University of Cape Coast, UDS and | | |
| | | | |KNUST: research, evaluation, | | |
| | | | |interest group analysis | | |
| | | | |Media: Advocacy, partnerships and | | |
| | | | |features | | |
| | | | | | | |
|Output 9.6 |Indicators: | |Assumptions |MOE, COTVET: Data collection; |UNICEF | |
|COTVET and REO/DEO capacity |1) Availability of costed TVET |1) TVET Action Plan |MoE and COTVET commitment to |analysis of market needs for TVET | | |
|enhanced to develop and |Action Plan |2) COTVET reports |implementing TVET policy and to |skills; review studies and |UNESCO | |
|implement TVET Action Plan |2) # of districts implementing | |expanding TVET facilities. |participation in policy simulation | | |
| |TVET Action Plan | |Development partners willing to |exercises, counselling regarding |UNFPA | |
|Contributing UN agencies: |Baseline: | |support development of technical |career choices, with focus of TVSD. | | |
|UNESCO |1) Costed Action Plan not | |skills. |DPs/NGOs: Allocation of funding | | |
| |available | | | | | |
| |2) None | | | | | |
| |Targets: | | | | | |
| |1) Costed Action Plan developed | | | | | |
| |2) At least 5 districts | | | | | |
|Output 9.7 |Indicators: |GES/NFED reports |Assumptions |NFED: development of functional |UNICEF | |
|GES Non-Formal Education |# of districts implementing | |More resources are mobilized to |literacy programmes; training of | | |
|Division has key competencies|functional literacy programmes | |support the development of adult |functional literacy providers |UNESCO | |
|and adequate resources to |Baseline: | |literacy programmes. | | | |
|implement functional adult |None | | |CSOs: Provision of functional |UNFPA | |
|literacy education |Targets: | | |literacy programmes, advocacy and | | |
|programmes. |At least 5 districts | | |promotion of the reading campaign | | |
| | | | |movement; provision of supplementary| | |
|Contributing UN agencies: | | | |reading materials | | |
|UNESCO | | | | | | |
Thematic area 4: Transparent and Accountable Governance
|National Priority: TRANSPARENT AND ACCOUNTABLE GOVERNANCE |
|ENABLING ENVIRONMENT FOR EFFECTIVE PLAN PREPARATION AND IMPLEMENTATION |
|MONITORING AND EVALUATION |
|- DEEPENING THE PRACTICE OF DEMOCRACY AND INSTITUTIONAL REFORM |
|- STRENGTHENING LOCAL GOVERNANCE AND DECENTRALIZATION |
|- WOMEN AND GOVERNANCE |
|- FIGHTING CORRUPTION AND ECONOMIC CRIMES |
|- ENHANCING RULE OF LAW & JUSTICE |
|- ENSURING PUBLIC SAFETY & SECURITY |
|- IMPROVING ACCESS TO RIGHTS & ENTITLEMENT |
|- PROMOTION OF NATIONAL CULTURE FOR DEVELOPMENT |
|- STRENGTHENING DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (PARTNERSHIP) FOR DEVELOPMENT |
|- PROMOTING EVIDENCE-BASED DECISION MAKING |
|- MANAGING MIGRATION FOR NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT |
|- DEVELOPING CAPACITIES OF KEY PLANNING AGENCIES |
|- M&E INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS UNDER THE GSDSA |
| |
|MDG Goal: Supports all MDGs |
|Outcomes |Indicators , Baseline, Target |Means of Verification |Risks and Assumptions |Role of Partners |Indicative | |
| | | | | |Resources (US$) | |
|Output 10.2 Mechanisms put |Indicators: |-Parliamentary records |Risks |Funding: GoG, UNCT, DANIDA, CIDA,| | |
|in place to ensure that women|- percentage increase in number |- MOWAC records |Resistance to affirmative action |EU, WB, Royal Netherlands | | |
|and vulnerable groups are |of women in leadership and |-GSS records | |Embassy, DfID | | |
|informed about their rights |decision making processes |-Training and workshop |Assumptions | | | |
|and supported to participate |- number of trainings sessions, |report |the government pushes for gender |Advocacy: MOWAC, media, CSOs, | | |
|actively in decision making |workshops to sensitize women and| |sensitive reforms |UNCT | | |
|processes |vulnerable groups on their | |Continuing interest by women to | | | |
| |rights | |take up positions | | | |
| |-number of advocacy and IEC | | | | | |
| |materials disseminated and | | | | | |
| |events organized | | | | | |
| |Baseline:, | | | | | |
| |-Socio-cultural and economic | | | | | |
| |conditions of women and | | | | | |
| |vulnerable groups have limited | | | | | |
| |their awareness and ability to | | | | | |
| |uphold their rights. | | | | | |
| |- existing institutional support| | | | | |
| |structures are weak and poorly | | | | | |
| |resourced | | | | | |
| |-low participation of women and | | | | | |
| |vulnerable groups in decision | | | | | |
| |making and leadership | | | | | |
| |Targets: | | | | | |
| |-DOVVSU, MOWAC, Ghana federation| | | | | |
| |of the disable, National Council| | | | | |
| |on Persons with Disability, | | | | | |
| |Parliamentary caucus for women, | | | | | |
| |CSOs, NGOs, | | | | | |
| |-xxxx Women in decision making | | | | | |
| |positions | | | | | |
| |-xxx seminars, workshops, | | | | | |
| |traning sessions organized | | | | | |
| |- xxxx advocacy and IEC | | | | | |
| |materials produced. | | | | | |
|Output 10.4 |Indicators: |- Meeting reports |Risks |Funding: GoG, GTZ, DANIDA, EU, | | |
|Locally elected officials and|Number and regularity of |- Citizen satisfaction |Politicization of traditional |DfID, the Netherlands, CIDA, | | |
|traditional authorities have |consultations among MMDAs and |surveys |leadership |USAID | | |
|a framework of consultations,|constituents including | |Inadequate and irregular flow of | | | |
|dialogue and coordinated |traditional authorities (TA) | |funds | | | |
|decision making to foster |Level of satisfaction of | | | | | |
|accountability |citizens about their involvement| |Assumptions | | | |
| |in decision making | |Elected officials and traditional | | | |
| | | |leaders see the value of working | | | |
| |Baseline: inadequate involvement| |collaboratively | | | |
| |of traditional authorities and | | | | | |
| |citizens in local governance and| | | | | |
| |decision making. This is a | | | | | |
| |source of tension and | | | | | |
| |conflicting messages in relation| | | | | |
| |to local governance issues | | | | | |
| |Targets: | | | | | |
| |-MMDAs, National and Regional | | | | | |
| |Houses of Chiefs, MLGRD, CSOs | | | | | |
| |- xxx MMDAs initiate actions | | | | | |
| |aimed at consultations with TAs | | | | | |
| |- xxx Citizen satisfaction | | | | | |
| |surveys are conducted per year. | | | | | |
|Output 10.6 |Indicators: |. |Risks | | | |
|Mechanisms of coordination |- the scores on the Functional | |Assumptions | | | |
|amongst the decentralized |Organizational Assessment Tool | | | | | |
|structures (RCCs, DAs, |(FOAT) | | | | | |
|Decentralized Department) are|-the time spent in responding to| | | | | |
|functional and enable |queries and complains from the | | | | | |
|transparent and accountable |public | | | | | |
|practices. |-the timeliness of response to | | | | | |
| |issues between the MMDAs and | | | | | |
| |ministry | | | | | |
| |Baseline: | | | | | |
| |-weak operational coordination, | | | | | |
| |supervision and monitoring | | | | | |
| |system in the decentralized | | | | | |
| |system and this leads to poor | | | | | |
| |delivery and accountability for | | | | | |
| |results. The budget processes | | | | | |
| |are not robust and streamlined. | | | | | |
| |Target | | | | | |
| |-MLGRD, MMDAs, RCCs | | | | | |
|Output 10.8 |Indicators | | | | | |
|Learnings from the experience|-number of CSOs joining the | | | | | |
|of CSOs are consolidated and|National Umbrella | | | | | |
|documented to inform policy |-the number of good practices | | | | | |
|debate on decentralisation |documented and disseminated | | | | | |
|and accountability. |-number of substantive | | | | | |
| |contributions by CSOs to public | | | | | |
| |policy debate. | | | | | |
| |-number of CSOs undertaking | | | | | |
| |specialized trainings, e.g | | | | | |
| |budget analysis | | | | | |
| |-increase in the membership of | | | | | |
| |CSOs | | | | | |
| |Baseline | | | | | |
| |-there is a vibrant CSO sector | | | | | |
| |in the country. In the absence | | | | | |
| |of a common front or platform | | | | | |
| |for coordination the CSOs | | | | | |
| |movement remains fragmented. | | | | | |
| |However, there is a growing | | | | | |
| |evidence of successful practices| | | | | |
| |with impact at both the | | | | | |
| |community and policy levels. | | | | | |
| |Targets | | | | | |
| |-CSOs, Ministry of Employment | | | | | |
| |and Social Welfare , Local | | | | | |
| |Governance Network, Peace | | | | | |
| |Building Networks, Democratic | | | | | |
| |Governance Networks, Governance | | | | | |
| |Think tanks, Academia, Faith | | | | | |
| |based organizations, gender | | | | | |
| |networks | | | | | |
|Output 10.9 |Indicators: |Reports of the Ministry of |Risks |Funding: |UNDP | |
|The reforms of the justice |- number of reforms completed |Justice |Silos culture of the justice |GoG, GTZ, DANIDA, CIDA, EU, The | | |
|sector completed and roles |- Reduction in prisons |Reports of human rights |delivery institutions |Netherlands, AFD | | |
|and responsibilities of the |congestions |organisations | | | | |
|different agencies clarified|- speed at which the police and|Police records |Assumptions |Technical Expertise: | | |
|and properly coordinated |AGs Department handle cases |Reports of the Juvenile |The high level dialogue holds |Academic and training | | |
| |-A policy on access to justice |Justice Administration |together institutions in the |institutions, CSOs, Ghana Bar | | |
| |for children | |justice delivery system |Association |UNICEF |USD 1 million |
| |-A well resourced functional | | | | | |
| |juvenile justice system | | | | | |
| |-Access to legal aid for | | | | | |
| |children | | | | | |
| |-Speed with which Juvenile | | | | | |
| |cases are disposed of | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| |Baseline: | | | | | |
| |- -the justice delivery system | | | | | |
| |employs manual and other | | | | | |
| |approaches that are not | | | | | |
| |responsive to prevailing | | | | | |
| |circumstances. | | | | | |
| |-challenges include poor case | | | | | |
| |management, poor coordination | | | | | |
| |of prosecution amongst the | | | | | |
| |Police and AG’s Department and | | | | | |
| |lack of alternative sentencing | | | | | |
| |which has resulted in prison | | | | | |
| |congestion amongst others | | | | | |
| |--Proposed reforms include | | | | | |
| |decoupling of the AG’s | | | | | |
| |Department from the Ministry of| | | | | |
| |Justice | | | | | |
| |Targets: | | | | | |
| |-the Ministry of justice, the | | | | | |
| |Ministry of the Interior ( the | | | | | |
| |Police, Prisons Service) | | | | | |
| |Judicial Service, CHRAJ, Legal | | | | | |
| |Aid Scheme, the Ghana Bar | | | | | |
| |Association | | | | | |
|Output 10.10 |Indicators: |Training reports |Risks |Funding: | | |
|Key Personnel of the Justice|-Number of attorneys trained in|Participants lists |Brain drain |GoG, Commonwealth Secretariat |UNDP | |
|delivery sector are trained |specialized areas |Training manuals | | | | |
|in essential skills and |-number of specialized training|Citizen satisfaction surveys|Assumptions |Technical Expertise: | | |
|processes to deliver |modules developed and trainings| |Conditions of service continually|Training firms | | |
|effectively and efficiently |conducted for attorneys | |improves and contributes to the | |UNICEF |USD 1.5 million |
|under the reformed justice |-increased public confidence in| |retention of qualified | | | |
|system |the professional handling of | |professionals in the field of | | | |
| |cases by state attorneys | |justice | | | |
| |-Key personnel of Juvenile | | | | | |
| |Justice system deliver | | | | | |
| |efficient legal services for | | | | | |
| |children | | | | | |
| |-Child victims and witnesses | | | | | |
| |treated at par with | | | | | |
| |international standards on | | | | | |
| |access to justice for children | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| |Baseline: | | | | | |
| |-presently there is a paucity | | | | | |
| |of qualified professionals to | | | | | |
| |perform the roles of | | | | | |
| |prosecution, case | | | | | |
| |investigations, law | | | | | |
| |administration and other | | | | | |
| |functions pertaining to the | | | | | |
| |delivery of justice. | | | | | |
| |Targets: | | | | | |
| |-in-service training for | | | | | |
| |attorneys in specialised area | | | | | |
| |-the School of Law and | | | | | |
| |Faculties of Law. | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|Output 10.11 |Indicators: |Adult literacy and IEC |Risks |Funding: GoG |UNICEF |USD 1 million |
|Citizens especially |-number of functional literacy |materials |Lack of interest in rights and | |UNDP UNESCO | |
|vulnerable groups sensitised|resources with the focus on |National and local budgets |civic education programmes | |UNFPA UNIFEM | |
|on their rights and duties |human rights. | | | | | |
|in relation to the justice |-levels of budget allocations | |Assumptions | | | |
|system |to civic education programmes. | |The government increases its | | | |
| | | |budgetary allocation to NCCE to | | | |
| |Baseline: | |undertake its Constitutional | | | |
| |-the unstructured civic | |mandate | | | |
| |education programmes result in | | | | | |
| |low awareness by vulnerable | | | | | |
| |groups on their rights and | | | | | |
| |means to access justice. | | | | | |
| |Support services to resolve | | | | | |
| |this issue are limited or | | | | | |
| |ineffective. | | | | | |
| |Targets: | | | | | |
| |-NCCE, CSOs MOWAC, NCPD, Media,| | | | | |
| |FBOs, Ministry of Justice and | | | | | |
| |AG’s Department | | | | | |
|Output 10.12 |Indicators: |Reports of the Ministry of |Risks |Dept of Social Welfare |UNICEF |3,000,000 |
| |A policy on access to justice |Justice |Silos culture of the justice |MoJ | | |
|A well resourced functional |for children |Reports of human rights |delivery institutions |Ghana Police | | |
|justice system provides |Access to legal aid for |organisations | |DOVVSU | | |
|Improved access to justice |children |Police records |Assumptions |Legal Aid Board | | |
|for vulnerable groups, in |Speed with which Juvenile cases|Reports of the Juvenile |The high level dialogue holds | | | |
|particular for children, and|are disposed of |Justice Adminstration |together institutions in the | | | |
|efficient service delivery |Percentage increase of children| |justice delivery system | | | |
|including juvenile justice |accessing the justice system | | | | | |
| |Key personnel of Juvenile | | | | | |
| |Justice system deliver | | | | | |
| |efficient legal services for | | | | | |
| |children | | | | | |
| |Child victims and witnesses | | | | | |
| |treated at par with | | | | | |
| |international standards on | | | | | |
| |access to justice for children | | | | | |
| |Baseline: | | | | | |
| |Under resourced juvenile | | | | | |
| |justice administration. | | | | | |
| |Targets: | | | | | |
| |xx | | | | | |
| |xx | | | | | |
|Output 10.13: MOWAC capacity|Indicators: |1. MOWAC APR |Risks |MOWAC,MDAs MMDAs, Quasi | |Output 23.1: MOWAC |
|enhanced to coordinate and |1. No of sectors with gender |2. National APR |Staff attrition |Government institutions, | |capacity enhanced to|
|monitor the implementation |policies and action plans |3. Reports on |Ethnic violence in districts |Academia, Private sector | |coordinate and |
|of the gender policy and the|2. No of districts with gender|implementation of | |including CSOs, Parliament, | |monitor the |
|national action plan and to|action plans |International treaties and |Assumptions |Cabinet | |implementation of |
|report on international |3. Timely submission of 4. 4 |conventions (MDGs, CEDAW, |Political will to promote gender | | |the gender policy |
|treaties on Gender Equality |key reports prepared and |BPFA, AWD). |mainstreaming | | |and the national |
|and Women Empowerment in |disseminated by 2016 | |Adequate resources allocated to | | |action plan and to |
|collaboration with key |Baseline: xxx of MDAs (2010) | |implement gender mainstreaming in| | |report on |
|stakeholders |with gender policies and action| |MDAs and MMDAs | | |international |
| |plans | | | | |treaties on Gender |
| |Xxx districts with gender | | | | |Equality and Women |
| |action plans | | | | |Empowerment in |
| |Targets: All MDAs and 50% of | | | | |collaboration with |
| |MMDAs | | | | |key stakeholders |
|Output 10.14: By 2013, a |Indicators: National Action |National Action Plan |Risks: |MOWAC , MDAs, CSOs and other | | |
|National Action Plan (NPA) |Plan printed and disseminated | |The Gender policy will not be |stakeholders | | |
|for implementing the |Baseline: MOWAC Sector Medium | |reviewed in 2011 | | | |
|National Gender Policy is |Term Plan 2010-2013 and 2005 | |Assumptions | | | |
|in place with inputs from |National gender Policy | |MDAs will be capable of | | | |
|all MDAs and other key |Targets: NPA to be available in| |contributing to the preparation | | | |
|stakeholders |print by 2012 | |of the NPA Xx | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|Output 10.15: Updated |Indicators: Updated AA Policy |MOWAC APR |Risks |MOWAC, Electoral Commission, | | |
|Affirmative Action (AA) |guidelines | |MOWAc will not have the capacity |Cabinet Parliament and CSOs | | |
|policy guidelines |Baseline: 1998 AA policy | |and the resources to push through| | | |
|disseminated by MOWAC by |guideline and APRM report | |an updated and disseminate the AA| | | |
|2014 |Targets: Updated AA Policy | |guidelines Xx | | | |
| |guidelines by 2014 | |Assumptions | | | |
| |Xx | |AA policy guidelines will be | | | |
| | | |adopted by government | | | |
|Output 10.16: Strategic |Indicators: No. of partnerships|MOUs and MOWAC APR |Risks |MOWAC (DOW) identifies potential | | |
|alliances with the private |established | |An MOU is not legally binding and|partners within the Private | | |
|sector, NGOs/CSOs leaders |Baseline: 0 | |parties may not fulfill their |sector including NGOs and CSOs | | |
|established for advocacy and|Targets: 2 MOUs signed | |commitments |for partnerships | | |
|resource mobilisation to | | |Assumptions | | | |
|enable MOWAC to address | | |MOWAC is interested in | | | |
|poverty reduction, gender | | |partnerships for resource | | | |
|equality and women’s | | |mobilisation | | | |
|empowerment by 2014 | | | | | | |
|Output 10.17 |Indicators: | |Risks |Funding: |UNDP | |
|The National Peace Council |The percentage increase in the |Programme and project |-Political interference in the |GoG, UNDP, DFID, BCPR, Swiss | | |
|is restructured and |number of conflicts prevented, |reports and evaluations |functioning of the NPC |Cooperation, SIDA, | | |
|resourced to conduct |resolved or mediated by the |Government and CSO (academia|-appointment of unqualified |Technical Expertise | | |
|assessment and to design |NPC. |and media) publications. |staff, |Academia, local and regional | | |
|conflicts management |Number of assessments conducted|-quarterly reports submitted|Assumptions |CSOs, UNDP, BCPR | | |
|responses |by NPC that feed into conflict | |The Government will continue to | | | |
| |prevention | |take the NPC as a priority. |Advocacy | | |
| |Regular and accurate update of|Assessments and mapping of | |Parliament, CSOs, Media, Peace | | |
| |information amongst NPC |conflict risks conducted in | |promoters/ambassador s | | |
| |structures |number of regions | | | | |
| |Baseline: | | | | | |
| |-the process of legal | | | | | |
| |institutionalization of the | | | | | |
| |National Peace Council is under| | | | | |
| |way. | | | | | |
| |-the law institutionalizing the| | | | | |
| |NPC will strengthen its mandate| | | | | |
| |and inform its operational | | | | | |
| |structures | | | | | |
| |-Regional Peace councils have | | | | | |
| |been set up in only 4 Regions | | | | | |
| |of Ghana out of 10 | | | | | |
| |--weak coordination mechanisms | | | | | |
| |between the agencies and the | | | | | |
| |human resources constraints | | | | | |
| |within the NPC (professional | | | | | |
| |skills, mediation, conflict | | | | | |
| |management, negotiation) | | | | | |
| |Targets: | | | | | |
| |Xxx New staff structure for NPC| | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| |Xxx Staff training in | | | | | |
| |specialised skills | | | | | |
| |Xxx Operationalise coordination| | | | | |
| |mechanisms | | | | | |
| |Xxx f conflicts prevented or | | | | | |
| |resolved /mediated | | | | | |
| |Xx x Assessments conducted | | | | | |
|Output 10.18 |Indicators: |Joint programming documents.|RISKS | |All UN Agencies | |
|UNCT has mainstreamed |-frequency of consultations |Reports on joint integrated |Silos culture within UNCT | | | |
|conflict prevention in |and discussions on conflict |planning meetings |Assumptions | | | |
|programming. |sensitive approaches by heads |Joint assessment reports |Government will continue to | | | |
| |of agencies | |insist on UN to Deliver as One | | | |
| |-harmonized conflict sensitive | | | | | |
| |programming guide in place | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| |Baseline: | | | | | |
| |-No Ghana UNCT wide guidelines | | | | | |
| |for conflict sensitive | | | | | |
| |programming | | | | | |
| |Targets: | | | | | |
| |-harmonization and adaptation | | | | | |
| |of existing conflict sensitive | | | | | |
| |programming tools for UNCT by | | | | | |
| |2013 | | | | | |
| |Xxx Coordination meetings held | | | | | |
| |Xxx Guidelines produced | | | | | |
|Output 10.19 |Indicators: |The government gazette, |Risks |Research and development: | | |
|Legislators and policy |-number of laws and policies |parliamentary hansard |Repercussions of high turnover of|academic institutions, research | | |
|makers are conflict |reviewed for conflict sensitive|Training report, |parliamentarian due to elections |department of Parliament, | | |
|-sensitive and mainstream it| |Research papers published | |governance think tanks | | |
|in policies and laws at |-Number of training sessions to| |Assumptions | | | |
|national and local levels. |the leaders of parliamentary | |Conflicts are not politicized | | | |
| |committees | |along ethnic and party lines |Dissemination of information: | | |
| |-number and quality of research| | |media, parliamentary press corps | | |
| |papers or reports by the | | | | | |
| |Research Department of | | | | | |
| |Parliament. | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| |Baseline: | | | | | |
| |-overlaps and gaps in | | | | | |
| |legislations in some thematic | | | | | |
| |areas | | | | | |
| |-laws and policies are not | | | | | |
| |backed by adequate and conflict| | | | | |
| |sensitive research and analyses| | | | | |
| |Targets: | | | | | |
| |Train leaders of parliamentary | | | | | |
| |committees in conflict | | | | | |
| |sensitive programming | | | | | |
| |Review xxxx laws and policies | | | | | |
| |Xxx training session for Lead | | | | | |
| |Parliamentarians | | | | | |
| |Produce xxxx research papers. | | | | | |
|Outcomes |Indicators , Baseline, Target |Means of Verification |Risks and Assumptions |Role of Partners |Indicative | |
| | | | | |Resources (US$) | |
|Output 12.5: |Indicators: | | | | | |
|Strengthened statistical and |Ghana and Demographic Health |Fact Sheets | |partners GSS, PIP, RIPS, ISSER, | | |
|data institutions to produce |Survey (GDHS) final reports |Policy Briefs and Reports | |Centre for Migration Studies | | |
|timely, accurate, and reliable |District, Regional and National |Sector Reports | | | | |
|age, sex, gender and spatially |Population Profiles |NPC Annual Plans | | | | |
|disaggregated population and |Policy Briefs and Fact Sheets | | | | | |
|development data for policies |Baseline: | | | | | |
|and plans at all levels. |2008 GDHS final report | | | | | |
| |2000 Population and Housing | | | | | |
| |Census | | | | | |
| |Sector Annual Reports and Plans | | | | | |
| |Targets: | | | | | |
| |2013 GDHS | | | | | |
| |80 District Population Profiles | | | | | |
| |by 2016 | | | | | |
| |10 publications each of | | | | | |
| |Population and Development Policy| | | | | |
| |Briefs and Fact Sheets by 2016. | | | | | |
|Output 12.6: GSS, MDAs, MMDAs |Indicators: sex disaggregated |Sector and MMDAs APR |Risks |MDAs amd MMDAs to collect and use| | |
|and Gender Statistics Working |data in M&E plans in MDAs and |reflect sex disaggregated |GSS will not be able sustain the |S/GDD GWSG to provide technical | | |
|Group (GSWG) increase knowledge |MMDAs |data |GSWG |support | | |
|for collecting, analysing and |Baseline: 2009 M&E plans (no.) | |Assumptions | | | |
|utilising sex/gender |Targets:All MDAs and 50% MMDAs | |from 2011, MDAs and MMDS will | | | |
|disaggregated data (S/GDD) for | | |start preparing and implementing | | | |
|evidence based planning and M&E| | |M&E plans | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|Output 12.7: By 2013, a |Indicators: | |Risks: |Ghana AIDS Commission: |UNAIDS | |
|decentralized National M & E |M& E operational plan available |M & operational plan. |- High Staff attrition rate at |Coordination, capacity |UNICEF UNFPA WHO| |
|system for HIV and AIDS, with |for implementation by 2011. | |the district level |development, development of tools| | |
|harmonized resource tracking in |No. of districts with functional | |-Insufficient funds to implement,|and guidelines | | |
|place. |M&E systems by 2013. |District reports on M& E |M&E at the lowest level | | | |
| |No. of regions and districts |activities conducted. |. Assumptions: |Ministry of Health /Ghana health | | |
|Lead Agency: UNAIDS |submitting quarterly HIV reports | |-Adequate resources are allocated|Service: | | |
| |using country Response | |for the national M&E system |Monitor the Health sector | | |
| |Information system (CRIS). | |-Existence of relevant |response, capacity building, HIV | | |
| |Expenditure tracking tool | |infrastructure |estimation and projection, HIV | | |
| |developed and incorporated with | |-Commitment at the district and |surveillance and drug resistance | | |
| |CRIS. | |regional level to implement the |monitoring | | |
| | | |M&E plan. | | | |
-----------------------
[1] Medium and small holder farmers are those on 5 – 10 and 2 – 3 acres respectively
[2] Farmers is defined as all forms of primary production (livestock, crops, fisheries, forestry)
[3] MoFA approved refers to services in line with the government’s strategy / policy documents
[4] Considered items such as fertilizer, improved seed, agrochemicals, etc.
[5] Fortified foods entails the addition of a multivitamin pre-mix to locally milled cereals at the community level (Iron, Vitamin A, Iodine, Zinc)
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- the regulation of microfinance in india
- ghana s third action plan on open government
- undaf results matrix ghana
- wash programme document
- ghana eiti communication strategy
- citi business news business news analysis articles
- 3rd aggregated report
- case study on foreign investment in ghana the
- ghana green climate fund readiness project
Related searches
- ghana treasury bill calculator
- current ministers in ghana 2019
- ghana ministers of state
- list of ghana ministers
- list of ministers in ghana 2017
- ministers in ghana 2018
- ghana ministers and their names
- ghana government ministries
- 1 ghana cedi
- list of ministers in ghana 2019
- current ministers in ghana 2018
- regional ministers of ghana 2019