A recent news item by A1 Radio (101.1 MHz) sparked public debate when it quoted the CEO of the Northern Development Authority (NDA) as saying: “Northern Ghana has many NGOs and funding support, but there is no visible change. The truth is, the money rarely gets here.” The comment, interpreted by many as questioning the effectiveness of NGOs in the region, reopened long-standing concerns about development accountability and coordination in Northern Ghana.
Taken at face value, this headline appeared to suggest either widespread inefficiency among non-governmental organizations or even questioned their value entirely. For a region where NGOs have played a vital role in filling development gaps left by the state, this statement, however unintended, was bound to provoke a reaction. Indeed, for many practitioners in the sector, it felt like an affront to their decades-long contributions toward improving livelihoods, building local capacity, and addressing systemic neglect in Northern Ghana.
In response, the NDA CEO quickly issued a clarification, disassociating himself from the media’s interpretation. He asserted, “The statement attributed to me yesterday on NGOs’ work in Northern Ghana is misleading.”
His timely intervention offered some relief, particularly to those who felt unfairly criticized. More importantly, the CEO did not stop at a mere disclaimer. He went on to provide insight into what the NDA has been working on under his leadership. He stated: “We are developing a comprehensive implementation framework for Northern Ghana including NGOs who are playing a significant role,” thereby reaffirming the relevance and contributions of civil society actors in the development of the North.
However, this reassurance opened a new line of discussion, one rooted in terminology, institutional memory, and clarity of approach. Alhaji Amidu Ibrahim-Tanko, CEO of STAR Ghana Foundation, contributed a critical yet constructive perspective. He urged: “Let’s build on the comprehensive framework developed by SADA under Charles Abugre. It remains one of the most comprehensive frameworks I have seen for the sustainable development of Northern Ghana.”
To this, the NDA CEO agreed, highlighting his own historical involvement in drafting the SADA Master Plan, which he now refers to as the current blueprint. He elaborated that the NDA is now working to develop a coordination framework that brings all actors, regional, cross regional, district, and community levels, into alignment.
He stressed the importance of defining roles, implementation mechanisms, and accountability structures to ensure efficient use of development resources.
All this, while laudable, begs one fundamental question: Are all stakeholders speaking the same language? Terms such as “comprehensive implementation framework,” “SADA framework,” “master plan,” and “coordination framework” have been used interchangeably in these discussions.
But are they actually the same? Or are we witnessing a deeper issue, one of conceptual confusion and unclear communication?
Let us then take a step back and clarify these terms, which are not merely semantic but foundational to effective planning, coordination, and execution.
What is a Policy Framework? A policy framework refers to a structured document that sets out the broad goals, values, principles, and guidelines that govern actions in a specific sector. It provides direction for decision-making and is usually endorsed at the highest levels, by a government, institution, or legal authority. Importantly, a policy framework does not prescribe specific actions but instead lays the foundation upon which strategies and plans are built.
What is a Strategy? A strategy is the bridge between policy and implementation. It outlines a coherent, long-term approach to achieving the goals defined in the policy framework. A strategy prioritizes actions, sets out sequencing, defines partnerships, and guides resource allocation. It is adaptive and flexible, allowing for adjustments based on evolving realities.
What is a Plan? A plan is the most operational and time-bound tool in this trio. It lays out specific actions, timelines, budgets, and responsible actors required to implement a strategy. Plans are typically short- to medium-term in scope (e.g., 3 to 5 years) and focus on execution and monitoring.
So, What Is the NDA Really Working On? When the NDA CEO speaks of a “comprehensive implementation framework,” it would be helpful to know whether he is referring to a policy-level document, a strategic roadmap, or an operational plan.
His reference to the SADA master plan as the NDA’s blueprint suggests a strategic-level framework, while his mention of a coordination framework implies an operational model for managing partnerships and responsibilities. But for NGOs, donors, and local stakeholders to engage meaningfully with the NDA, there must be clarity and coherence in how these concepts are used. Without that, even the best-intentioned framework risks being misunderstood, underutilized, or ignored.
The NDA stands at a critical crossroads. Its mandate to catalyze development in Northern Ghana is both necessary and urgent. However, to succeed, it must communicate clearly, and coordinate inclusively with NGOs, traditional authorities, and local governments.
More than anything, the conversation sparked by the A1 Radio headline is a timely reminder that language in development is not just semantics. It is structure, strategy, and accountability. The NDA and all its stakeholders; NGOs, traditional leaders, district authorities, and donors, must work from a common playbook, clearly defining the roadmap ahead, roles, and responsibilities.
That is the real foundation for transforming Northern Ghana from a landscape of fragmented efforts to one of sustained, inclusive progress.
My two pesewas on the matter is that the NDA should consider the following:
Publicly share and clarify its working definitions of key terms such as “framework,” “strategy,” and “plan.”
Clearly indicate the current stage of its work—is it at the level of a framework, a strategy, or an operational plan?
Establish a multi-stakeholder coordination platform that includes strong representation from civil society actors, ensuring transparency and shared ownership.
Dr. Emmanuel Abeere-Inya (though spelled Abeere-Inga, in Gurune it rightfully reads Abeere-Inya, meaning “Because of tomorrow”)—kudos on a commendable start.
We recognize that the development terrain is riddled with complexities and challenges. But let’s begin by anchoring our efforts in clarity of language and communication—it’s the first step toward carrying everyone along.
By Jonathan Adabre
