The growing disagreement between the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA) and the Ministry of Finance over funding for agricultural programmes appears to stem from a fundamental difference in how the two institutions define “released” funds.
While the Finance Ministry insists that more than GH¢1.6 billion has been disbursed to the agriculture sector this year, MoFA maintains that only GH¢244.3 million, representing 12.4 percent of its approved 2026 budget, had been released as of the end of May.
An analysis of documents from both ministries suggests that the dispute is not necessarily about whether resources have been allocated to agriculture, but rather whether approved commitments, allotments, and authorised payments should be treated as funds available for programme implementation.
The disagreement surfaced after the Finance Ministry rejected claims that it was starving the agriculture sector of funds, insisting that it had released GH¢1.68 billion to MoFA, representing about 85 percent of the ministry’s approved budget of GH¢1.97 billion.
To support its position, the Finance Ministry released detailed records showing cumulative allotments of GH¢1.689 billion and actual releases of GH¢1.677 billion by the end of the second quarter.
The records indicate that major agricultural programmes have either received funding or been granted commitment authorisations.
According to the Finance Ministry, the Poultry Farm-to-Table Project, popularly known as Nkoko Nkitinkiti, received its full budget allocation of GH¢244.99 million. The Fertiliser and Certified Seeds Programme received GH¢515.31 million, while GH¢200 million was released to the National Food Buffer Stock Company.
The ministry’s figures also show that GH¢581.39 million had been released for the construction of 50 Farmers’ Service Centres and GH¢110.13 million for irrigation infrastructure projects.
The Finance Ministry argues that these figures demonstrate that substantial resources have already been made available to support government’s agricultural agenda.
MoFA, however, presents a dramatically different picture.
In a separate statement, the ministry argued that actual releases available for programme implementation were far lower than the figures being cited by the Finance Ministry.
Its breakdown shows that out of an approved budget of GH¢1.97 billion, only GH¢244.32 million had been released by the end of May, leaving an outstanding balance of more than GH¢1.72 billion.
The ministry’s figures indicate that the Fertiliser and Certified Seeds Programme had received only GH¢15.3 million out of its approved allocation of GH¢515.3 million, representing just three percent of its budget.
Similarly, the Poultry Farm-to-Table Project was reported to have received GH¢67.4 million out of a budgeted GH¢245 million, while the National Food Buffer Stock Company and the 50 Farmers’ Service Centres project were reported to have received no releases at all.
The contrast between the two sets of figures points to a deeper issue within public financial reporting.
The Finance Ministry appears to be counting allotments, commitment authorisations and payments processed through the government’s financial management system as released funds. Under this approach, once resources are approved, committed and made available for spending, they are treated as releases.
MoFA, on the other hand, appears to be counting only cash that has been received and is immediately available for programme execution.
This distinction is significant because commitment authorisations allow ministries to enter into contracts and undertake expenditure with the assurance that funds have been approved, even if the full cash amount has not yet been drawn down.
The Finance Ministry’s own records show commitment authorisations of GH¢200 million for the poultry programme, GH¢500 million for fertiliser procurement and GH¢551 million for the Farmers’ Service Centres project.
The analysis show both ministries may therefore be technically correct depending on the stage of the budget process being measured.
One is describing resources that have been approved and committed within government systems, while the other is focusing on cash that has become available for immediate spending.
The disagreement has nevertheless raised questions about transparency and consistency in public financial reporting, particularly as government pushes ahead with major interventions aimed at improving food security, increasing domestic food production and supporting farmers.
It has also exposed the challenge of communicating budget performance to the public, where terms such as allotments, commitments, authorisations and releases can mean different things to different institutions.
Until government reconciles the two sets of figures, the debate is likely to continue over whether the agriculture sector is adequately funded and whether resources recorded on paper are translating into money available on the ground for programme implementation.
