LAND
GRABS
AND
LIVELIHOOD
OUTCOMES:


EXPLORING
THE
COPING
MECHANISMS
ADOPTED
BY
FARMERS
IN

AGRARIAN
COMMUNITIES
IN
GHANA





by





John
Hopeson
Anku



BA
University
of
Ghana,
2007

MA
University
of
Ghana,
2012























THESIS
SUBMITTED
IN
PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT
OF

THE
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
THE
DEGREE
OF

MASTER
OF
ARTS

IN

INTERNATIONAL
STUDIES























UNIVERSITY
OF
NORTHERN
BRITISH
COLUMBIA



May
2021





©John
Hopeson
Anku,
2021

















Abstract




Large-scale
land
acquisitions
worldwide
evoke
controversy
due
to
its
impact
on
communities.

This
 thesis
 employs
 the
 Sustainable
 Livelihoods
 Framework
 to
 examine
 the
 coping

mechanisms
adopted
in
host
communities
to
cope
with
the
impact
of
land
grabs
on
livelihoods.

The
 study
 adopts
 an
 exploratory
 approach
 using
 mixed-methods
 design
 to
 arrive
 at
 the

findings.
The
thesis
finds
the
effect
of
land
grabbing
on
communities
to
be
negative.
This
thesis

also
finds
that
the
alternative
livelihood
activities
people
have
resorted
to
in
response
are
not

sustainable.
 Further,
 it
 finds
 that
the
regulatory
 and
 institutional
regime
 guiding
 these
 land

transactions
has
done
little
to
assist
the
people
to
cope
well
with
the
adverse
outcomes
of
land

grabs.
 These
 findings
 point
 to
 the
 need
 for
 the
 establishment
 of
 precise
 timelines
 for

compensation
to
affected
people.
Also,
there
is
the
need
to
involve
the
people
in
the
decisionmaking
process
from
project
planning
to
implementation.




































i



Table
of
Contents

Abstract


i


List
of
Tables


iv


List
of
figures


v


Glossary


vi


Acknowledgments




vii


Chapter
1:
Introduction


1


1.0
Background:
land
grabs
and
livelihood
outcomes


2


1.1
Research
Problem


4


1.2
Research
question
&
objectives


6


1.3
Significance
of
the
study




7


Chapter
2:
Literature
review


8


2.0
Introduction


8


2.1
The
global
land-grab
phenomenon


9


2.2
Land
grabs
in
Africa


11


2.3
Thematic
analysis
of
land
grabs
in
Ghana


13


2.3.1
The
concept
of
land
grabs


13


2.3.2
The
Actors
and
Drivers
of
Land
Grabbing
in
Ghana


14


2.3.3.
The
land
tenure
regime
and
land
grabs
in
Ghana


17


2.3.4.
Customary
land
institutions
and
land
grabs


20


2.3.5.
Effects
of
Land
Grabbing
in
Ghana


23


2.3.6
Differentiated
implications
of
land
grab
in
Ghana


25


2.3.7.
Land
grabs
and
conflicts
in
Ghana


28


2.3.8.
Conclusion


29


2.4
Conceptual
framework




31


Chapter
3:
Methodology


37


3.0
Introduction


37


3.1
Methodological
approach


37


3.2
Case
study
selection,
locations,
and
sample
population


39


3.3
Data
collection


42


3.3.1
Survey


43


3.3.2
Focus
Group
Discussions


44


3.3.3
Key
Informant
Interviews


45







ii



3.3.4
Document
Analysis


45


3.4
Concluding
Remarks:
COVID-19
and
the
Limitations
of
Data
Collection




45


Chapter
4:
Results


49


4.0
Introduction


49


4.1.
Socio-economic
and
demographic
characteristics
of
respondents


50


4.2
The
impact
of
land
grabs
in
Ghanaian
communities


52


4.2.1
Land
grabs
and
access
to
lands
for
farming:
a
regional
breakdown


53


4.2.2
Impact
of
land
grabs
on
food
security


59


4.2.3


61


Land
grabs
and
social
differentiation:
gender
and
community
status


4.3
Responding
to
the
processes
of
land
grabs


66


4.3.1
The
coping
strategies
in
response
to
land
grabs


68


4.5
The
role
of
institutions
in
mediating
livelihood
outcomes


72


4.5.1
The
state,
land
grabs,
and
rural
livelihoods


72


4.5.2
Traditional
authorities,
land
grabs,
and
rural
livelihoods


76


4.5.3
Land
grabs,
the
investment
environment,
and
rural
livelihoods


77


4.5.4
Conclusion




79


Chapter
5:
Discussion
of
study
results


81


5.0
Introduction


81


5.1
Land
grabs
and
the
impact
on
rural
livelihoods


81


5.1.1
Land
grabs
and
land
dispossession


82


5.1.2
Land
grabs
and
food
insecurity


84


5.1.3
Land
grabs
and
loss
of
income


86


5.1.4
Land
grabs
and
gender


87


5.2
A
struggle
for
survival:
coping
with
the
phenomenon
of
land
grabs


89


5.3Ghana’sinstitutionalframework,landgrabs,andrurallivelihoods


93


5.4
Reflections
on
the
linkages
between
the
research
findings
and
conceptual
framework
 97

5.5
Policy
and
future
research
recommendations


99


5.6.
Conclusion




101


Bibliography


103


Appendix


116


Questionnaire




116











iii




List
of
Tables



Table
1:
Thematic
Breakdown
of
Sample
Survey
Questions


50


Table
2:Socioeconomic
Characteristics
of
Respondents


51


Table
3:Regional
Breakdown
of
the
loss
of
farmlands


53


Table
4:
Gender
and
loss
of
farmlands


62


Table
5:
The
gendered
implications


62


Table
6:
Community
status,
the
project,
and
food
security


65


Table
7:
Community
status
and
loss
of
farmlands


66


Table
8:
Gendered
representation
of
the
perception
of
coping
strategies


68


Table
9:
Coping
strategies
in
response
to
land
grabs


70


Table
10:Gender
perceptions
on
the
alternative
livelihood
options


71


Table
11:Phases
of
land
administration
in
Ghana


94







iv




List
of
figures




Figure1:InstituteofDevelopmentStudies’SustainableRuralLivelihoodsFramework
(Adapted
from
Scoones
1998;
Sobeng
et
al.
2018)


34


Figure
2:
Study
locations.


41


Figure
3:An
abandoned
project
site
in
the
Northern
region


54


Figure
4:A
picture
of
the
palm
plantation
managed
by
TOPP


55


Figure
5:
Brazil
Agro
rice
mill
in
the
Volta
region.


58


Figure
6:
Impact
of
the
Project
on
Food
security


60


Figure
7:Ability
to
find
alternative
livelihoods


67


Figure
8:
Community
status
and
the
ability
to
cope


68


Figure
9:
Compensation
payments


74


Figure
10:
Government
and
alternative
livelihoods


75


Figure
11:Support
from
traditional
authorities


77














v










Glossary




Breadwinner

 








The
primary
source
of
income
for
a
family.


Jatropha
















Sub-chief






reports








District
assembly















Smallholder
farmers











A
multipurpose
plant
with
biodiesel
production
and


medicinal
potential.







In
the
traditional
political
structure,
this
is
a
leader
who

to
another
chief
of
a
higher
status.







This
is
the
highest
political
authority
or
body


responsible
for
local
governance
in
Ghana.





Individuals
engaged
in
farming
on
smaller
land
sizes.



Structural
Adjustment
Programme
































A
set
of
economic
policy
reforms
(emerging
in
the


1980s)
that
a
country
must
adopt
to
qualify
for
support

from
the
Bretton
Woods
institutions
 






























































vi




Acknowledgments



First
 and
foremost,
I
thank
Dr.
Nathan
Andrews,
my
supervisor,
without
whom
I
 would
not


have
been
able
to
conduct
this
study.
Throughout
this
experience,
his
unwavering
advice
and

encouragement
 have
 been
 invaluable.
 Members
 of
 my
 supervisory
 committee,
 Dr.
 Tristan

Pearce
and
Dr.
Logan
Cochrane,
I
appreciate
your
commitment
to
assisting
me
in
completing

this
study.
Your
thorough
comments
on
different
drafts
were
highly
beneficial.
I
am
thankful

to
 the
 Social
 Sciences
 and
 Humanities
 Research
 Council
 (SSHRC)
 for
 the
 generous
 grant,

which
 ensured
that
 funds
 were
available
 for
data
 collection
 in
 Ghana
during
 these
difficult

times.
 Thank
 you
for
 making
 the
 sacrifices
to
make
 this
possible,
 my
 lovely
wife,
 Jennifer

Frimpong.
 In
 addition,
 I
 would
 like
 to
 express
 my
 gratitude
 to
 Dr.
 Joseph
 Appiah
 Oduro,

Daniel
Nkansah
Adjei
and
Richard
Darko
for
their
words
of
encouragement
and
support
during

my
studies.
I
want
to
acknowledge
the
research
team
in
Ghana
led
by
Abdallah
Ibrahim
for
the

diligence
exhibited
during
the
fieldwork.

My
sincere
gratitude
to
my
family
and
friends
for

the
unwavering
support
through
this
journey.













vii







Chapter
1:
Introduction







Africa
has
become
a
prime
target
for
most
land
grabs
because
the
continent
is
endowed


with
abundant
land
and
water
resources
and
tends
to
have
weaker
protections
for
land
rights.

(Aha
 and
Ayitey
 2017).
This
interest
has
occasioned
 heated
 debates
and
 academic
 research

looking
at
various
dimensions
of
the
phenomenon
(Ahmed
et
al.
2019).
However,
the
dominant

literature
 on
 this
 subject
 has
 primarily
 focused
 on
 documenting
 the
 impacts
 of
 these

acquisitions
on
host
communities
(Suhiyini
 et
al.
2018).
These
studies
 essentially
concluded

that
land
acquisitions
negatively
impact
host
communities,
including
land
dispossession,
food

insecurity,
and
a
widening
gender
equity
gap
(see,
e.g.,
Hausermann
et
al.
2018;
Suhiyini
et
al.

2018).




In
terms
of
the
emphasis
of
previous
studies
and
the
prevalent
literature,
little
is
known


about
how
farmers
in
host
communities
respond
to
land
grab-related
livelihood
changes.
This

study,
therefore,
seeks
 to
explore
how
Ghanaian
farmers
are
dealing
with
 the
 situation.
The

Sustainable
 Livelihood
 Framework
 guides
 the
 study
 (see
 Chambers
 and
 Conway
 1992;

Scoones
1998).
The
Sustainable
Livelihood
Framework
provides
a
useful
guide
to
understand

the
impact
of
these
land
grabs
on
farmers,
how
they
respond
to
the
phenomenon,
and
the
role

institutions
play
to
either
aid
or
constrain
these
responses/coping
mechanisms.
The
adoption
of

the
livelihood
strategies
and
 outcomes
component
of
 the
framework
provides
the
context
to

describe
 the
means
adopted
by
 the
farmers
in
response
to
livelihood
changes
occasioned
by

land
grabs.





The
first
part
of
this
thesis
provides
 a
background
 to
the
phenomenon
of
land
grabs.


The
following
section
contains
a
summary
of
relevant
literature
on
the
subject
and
the
context

in
 which
 this
study
 is
 conducted.
 The
 third
 section
comprises
a
 description
 of
the
 research

methodology,
the
research
design,
and
the
methods
employed
for
data
collection.
It
is
then








1



followed
 by
 a
 chapter
 on
 the
 findings,
 analysis,
 and
 discussions.
 The
 concluding
 chapter

reflects
the
key
findings,
policy
prescriptions,
and
recommendations
for
future
research.

1.0
Background:
land
grabs
and
livelihood
outcomes







“Buyland,they’renotmakingitanymore”

(Mark
Twain
cited
in
Fortin
and
Richardson
2013:1)





The
 above
 statement
 made
 with
 humour
 seems
 to
 have
 been
 taken
 up
 seriously
 as

different
 global
 entities
have
 actively
sought
to
 acquire
land
 for
 various
purposes.
Although

there
is
no
consensus
on
the
exact
quantum
of
land
acquisitions
worldwide,
some
studies
(e.g.

Cotula
2013;
Fortin
and
Richardson
2013)
estimate
that
over
200
million
hectares
of
land
have

either
been
sold,
leased
or
are
being
negotiated.
The
opaque
nature
of
these
land
acquisitions

has
been
cited
as
the
reason
for
the
apparent
scanty
and
inconclusive
information
on
the
actual

land
 sizes
 acquired
 globally
 (Nolte
et
 al.
 2016).
 However,
 there
 is
 some
 agreement
 among

scholars
(Cotula
2013;
Fortin
and
Richardson
2013;
Nolte
et
al.
2016)
that
many
land
areas
are

purchased
worldwide.
The
Land
Matrix
(2020)
estimates
that
67,807,624
million
hectares
of

land
have
been
acquired
worldwide.




Several
factors,
including
the
growing
demand
for
food,
fuels,
shrinking
resource
base,


and
trade
liberalization,
have
been
cited
for
driving
the
global
rush
for
 land
(Answeeuw
and

Taylor
2014).
The
need
to
produce
more
food
due
to
rising
food
prices
and
the
abundance
of

mineral
and
other
natural
resources
drive
interest
in
African
lands
(Lanz
et
al.
2018).
Also,
the

quest
for
alternative
energy
solutions
through
biofuel
production
has
occasioned
land
grabs
on

the
continent
(Boamah
and
Overa
2016).
As
a
result,
the
race
for
African
land
is
designed
to

meet
both
food
and
non-food
production
needs
so
that
these
products
can
be
exported.




The
quest
for
lands
to
meet
demands
for
increased
food
production
has
led
to
a
surge


in
Foreign
Direct
Investment
(FDI),
primarily
in
agricultural
production
in
Africa.
This
surge

is
linked
to
the
steep
rise
in
commodity
prices
in
2007
and
2008.
Countries,
heavily
dependent







2



on
food
imports,
decided
to
invest
in
other
countries
where
 land
and
other
natural
resources

are
abundant
 to
 secure
 supply
 (Gerlach
 and
 Liu
2010).
This
 new
 scramble
 for
 resources
 in

Africa
 has
 a
 different
 dimension
 when
 examining
 the
 plurality
 of
 global
 actors
 involved

(Carmody
 2011).
The
 rise
 of
 new
 global
powers
 such
 as
 the
 BRICS
(Brazil,
 Russia,
 India,

China,
and
South
Africa)
has
changed
foreign
investments
in
Africa.
These
countries
compete

favourably
with
traditional
global
powers
such
as
the
United
Kingdom,
France,
and
the
United

States
for
turf
in
Africa.
The
influence
of
these
new
powers
reflects
in
global
statistics
on
trade

and
flows
of
Foreign
Direct
investments
(FDI).
There
has
been
a
leap
in
investments
from
6%

in
1980
to
31%
in
2012.

Their
share
of
global
trade
also
expanded
from
8%
in
1980
to
27%
in

2010
(Amanor
and
Sergio
2016).





Aside
from
their
increasing
power
base
and
influence
in
Africa,
these
new
powers
and


the
traditional
ones
are
investing
heavily
in
the
 agricultural
sector
of
Africa
for
a
 myriad
of

reasons.
 The
 quest
 for
 fish
 products,
 for
 instance,
 has
 driven
 the
 European
 Union
 and
 the

Chinese
government
to
enter
into
fishing
agreements
with
African
governments
to
benefit
from

the
estimated
7.3
million
tonnes
of
fish
that
Africa
produces
in
a
year
(Carmody
2011).
On
the

other
hand
is
the
demand
for
biofuels
and
other
considerations
such
as
high
oil
prices,
energy

security
concerns,
and
climate
change
(Acheampong
and
Campion
2014;
Alhassan
et
al.
2018).


These
 global
powers
have
used
 a
 combination
of
 force
and
 rewards
 to
 achieve
their

goals
in
 the
 scramble.
The
commercialization
of
 agriculture
in
Ghana,
for
instance,
evolved

progressively
from
the
colonial
era
aided
by
policies
of
coercion,
persuasion,
and
incentives
to

its
current
globalized
form
(Yaro
et
al.
2018).
To
help
the
commercialization
plan,
large
tracts

of
land
have
been
bought.
It
is
estimated
that
26,938,403
hectares
of
land
have
been
acquired

in
Africa
(Land
Matrix
2020).
In
sub-Saharan
Africa,
some
24
million
hectares
of
land
have

been
obtained
for
commercial
 agriculture
(Abubakari
 et
al.
2019).
 In
the
 case
of
Ghana,
an

estimated
 1.1
 million
 hectares
 of
 land
 have
 been
 acquired
 for
 investments
 in
 large-scale







3



agriculture,
mining,
and
biofuel
production
(Andrews
2018).
Most
of
these
acquired
lands
are

usually
located
in
communities
with
a
reliance
on
lands
for
daily
livelihood
needs.


1.1
Research
Problem





Despite
 the
 impact
 of
 agricultural
 commercialization
 on
 local
 communities,
 most

country
 projects
have
 focused
on
 stronger
market
 orientation.
For
instance,
in
 2013,
 Ghana

launched
 the
 Ghana
 Commercial
 Agriculture
 Project
 (GCAP)
with
 the
 objective
 to,
 among

others,
improve
the
investment
climate
for
agri-business
and
develop
inclusive
Private-Public

Partnerships
 (MoFA
 2020).
 GCAP
 targets
 commercial
 enterprises
 engaged
 in
 agricultural

production,
agro-processing,
and
other
activities
along
the
value
chain.
Commercial
farming

has
risen
due
to
this,
fueled
in
part
by
the
population
demands,
commodity
price
swings,
biofuel

mandates,
and
the
prospect
of
economic
growth.
(MoFA
2020).
However,
the
acquisition
of

lands
for
commercial
agriculture,
either
for
food-based
production
or
for
the
development
of

biofuels,
has
been
a
highly
controversial
issue.
The
controversy
surrounds
the
possible
impacts

of
these
projects
on
the
local
populations
of
the
areas
where
the
acquisitions
occur.
Ross
(2014:

99)
 concludes
 that
 the
 boom in biofuel production, for instance, was “an extension of a
prolonged
 colonial
 affair
designed
to
displace
 subsistence,
food-based
 autonomy
 for
global

commodityproduction.”




This
pessimistic
viewpoint,
as
mentioned
above,
has
fueled
widespread
opposition
to


land
deals.
Citizens
in
the
areas
where
these
land
purchases
occur
also
suffer
adverse
economic

consequences,
 resulting
 in
 public
 uproar.
 As
 a
 result,
 research
 on
 land
 grabs
 for
 biofuel

development
has
centred
on
the
livelihood
consequences
of
agricultural
land
transfer
to
other

uses
 (e.g.Boamah
 and
 Overå
 2016;
 Kidido
 and
 Kuusaana
 2014;
 Schoneveld
 et
 al.
 2011).

Similar
 studies
 have
 been
 conducted
 into
 the
 impact
 of
 commercial
 cash
 crop
 farming
 on

communities.
For
instance,
Anderman
et
al.
(2014)
found
a
significant
 negative
relationship







4



between
 cash
 cropping
 and
 the
 three
 dimensions
 of
 food
 security:
 food
 availability,
 food

access,
 and
 food
utilization.
 Doso
 et
 al.
 (2016)
 found
 that
 large-scale
 gold
mining
 posed
 a

substantial
long-term
threat
to
food
crop
production
in
their
host
communities.
Also,
Gyapong

(2019),
in
a
study
on
wage
labour
in
the
commercial
oil
palm
production
in
Ghana,
concludes

that
workers
drawn
mainly
from
the
communities
of
operation
do
not
benefit
from
their
work

on
 the
 palm
 plantations.
 This
 finding
 contrasts
 the
 positive
 impacts
 of
 contract
 farming
 in

Ethiopia
 in
 an
 earlier
 study
 by
 Rieraa
 and
 Swinnen
 (2016)
 cited
 in
 Cochrane
 and
 Legault

(2020).




The
 preceding
 observation
 demonstrates
 that
 commercial
 land
 transactions
 have


detrimental
implications
for
local
communities.

However,
current
information
about
the
social

distinction
involved
in
understanding
such
impacts
along
gender
and
social
grouping
lines
is

still
 lacking.
 Furthermore,
 little
 is
 known
 about
 the
 coping
 strategies
 used
 by
 smallholder

farmers
in
agrarian
societies
in
terms
of
livelihood
outcomes.
Admittedly,
some
studies
(Fredua

et
 al.
 2017;
 Mensah
 et
 al.
 2019;
 Tanle
 and
Abane
 2018)
 have
 been
 carried
 out
 on
 various

aspects
of
sustainable
 livelihoods
 in
 Ghana.
Fredua
 et
 al.
(2017),
 in
 their
research
 into
 the

effects
of
environmental
and
socioeconomic
stressors
on
the
livelihoods
of
Ghanaian
fishers,

concluded
that
both
climate
and
non-climate
stressors
have
combined
complex
ways
to
affect

the
livelihoods
of
small-scale
coastal
fisheries.




Similarly,
 Tanle
 and
 Abane
 (2018)
 examined
 how
 mobile
 phones,
 viewed
 as
 a


livelihood
capital,
couldreducevulnerabilityandenhanceanindividual’slivelihood
outcomes.

The
authors
concluded
that
mobile
phone
use
enables
people
to
engage
in
different
livelihood

activities
to
improve
their
livelihood
outcomes.
The
data
for
this
analysis
was
gathered
using

a
qualitative
approach
therefore,
it
only
presented
findings
without
necessarily
having
an
indepth
 examination
 of
 how
 mobile
 phone
 usage
 could
 reduce
 vulnerability
 and
 improve

people’s livelihoods.Further,in
a
study,
Mensah
et
 al.
(2019)
found
that
sanitation
affected







5



livelihoods
associated
 with
tourism,
fishing,
and
salt
production
through
 its
implications
for

health,
productivity,
income,
job
security,
and
sustainability
of
the
physical
environment.




A
recent
study
by
Suhiyini
et
al.
(2018)
is
related
to
my
research
with
specific
reference


to
the
impact
of
land
grabs
on
livelihoods.
In
a
study
carried
out
in
seven
regions
in
Ghana,
the

authors
focused
on
land
grabs
and
their
impacts
on
farmer
livelihoods
in
farming
communities,

including
Lolito.
The
study
concluded
that
land
grabs
pose
a
threat
to
development
because
the

disadvantages
outweigh
the
advantages
of
the
people's
livelihood
outcomes.
While
the
research

is
helpful,
there
is
still
a
gap
 in
understanding
 how
institutional
and
 regulatory
mechanisms

influence
 the
 land
 acquisition
 process
 and
 its
 impacts
 on
 smallholder
 farmers'
 livelihoods.

Furthermore,
it
is
unclear
how
livelihood
options
and
structural
interventions
forecast
whether

locals
will
be
able
to
cope
well
with
the
phenomenon
of
land
 grab
in
farming
communities.
These
are
the
knowledge
gaps
that
this
study
aims
to
fill
using
data
from
Ghana's
three
agrarian

regions.
 In
 other
 words,
 this
 study
 seeks
 to
 learn
 more
 about
 the
 effect
 of
 land
 grabs
 on

smallholder
farmers
and
how
they
cope
and
adjust
to
the
changes
in
their
livelihood.

1.2
Research
question
&
objectives





The
 central
 research
 question
 for
 this
 study
 is,
 how
 are
 farmers
 experiencing
 and

responding
to
processes
of
land
grabs?
To
answer
this
question,
the
study
aims
to

1.
 document
the
impact
of
land
grabs
on
livelihoods
in
Ghanaian
farming
communities;

2.
 examine
 the
 coping
 mechanisms
 adopted
by
individual
farmers
 and
 communities
 to

mitigate
 the
 impact
 of
 land
 grabs
 to
 livelihood
 alternatives,
 food
 security,
 and

meaningful
economic
opportunities;
and

3.
 investigate
the
institutional
and
regulatory
frameworks
that
aid
or
constrain
the
coping

mechanisms
in
local
communities.









6



1.3
Significance
of
the
study





In
addition
to
contributing
to
the
ongoing
scholarly
debate
around
the
processes
of
land

deals
and
the
consequent
implications
for
livelihoods,
this
study
also
intends
to
inform
policies

on
 future
 land
 acquisitions.
 The
 outcome
 of
 this
 study
 should
 help
 shape
 policies
 on
 land

acquisitions
 that
 consider
 the
 impact
 on
 the
 livelihoods
 of
 smallholder
 farmers
 and
 the

provision
 of
 alternatives
 to
 enable
farmers
to
 cope
with
 these
livelihood
 changes.
A
recent

study
 by
 Cochrane
 et
 al.
 (2021)
 identified
 some
 of
 these
 knowledge
 gaps
 around
 coping

mechanisms
and
livelihood
outcomes
as
characteristic
of
the
existing
literature.
Therefore,
this

study
 is
 particularly
 relevant
as
 it
 falls
 within
 and
 contributes
 to
 the
 broader
 debate
 on
 the

global
land
rush
(see
Kaag
and
Zoomers
2014;
Ross
2014).





















































7



Chapter
2:
Literature
review

2.0
Introduction





This
chapter
is
in
two
parts:
a
review
of
relevant
literature
on
the
phenomenon
of
land

grabs
and
the
conceptual
framework
which
guides
this
study.
The
first
part
offers
a
thematic

analysis
of
the
themes
which
emerged
from
a
scoping
literature
search
on
land
grabs
in
Ghana.

Thematic
analysis
is
a
method
for
analyzing
qualitative
data
that
entails
searching
across
a
data

set
to
 identify,
analyze,
and
 report
 repeated
 patterns
(Kiger
 and
Varpio
 2020).
This
 type
of

review
 allows
 the
 researcher
 to
 associate
 the
 frequency
 of
 a
 theme
 with
 one
 of
the
 whole

contents.
In
doing
so,
the
researcher
can
summarize,
highlight
key
features
of,
and
interpret
a

wide
 range
 of
 data
 sets
 while
 discussing
 existing
 literature
 based
 on
 themes
 or
 theories

important
to
understanding
the
topic
(Alhojailan
2012).





The
scoping
review
of
the
literature
was
conducted
using
Web
of
Science
and
Google


Scholar
databases.
Peer-reviewed
publications
from
Web
of
Science
were
compiled
using
the

keywords“landgrab”and“large-scale
land
acquisition,”
each
paired
with“Ghana”inseparate
searches
for
publications
on
the
subject
matter
up
to
the
year
2020.
Removing
false
positives

from
the
results
was
undertaken
to
eliminate
studies
not
primarily
related
to
Ghana.
The
same

pairings
were
carried
out
to
search
for
related
articles
on
Google
Scholar.
The
search
results

from
 these
 two
 databases
 were
 then
 merged
 to
 remove
 duplicates
 (i.e.,
 articles
 in
 both

searches).
The
 themes
 found
 in
 the
 review,
which
 serve
 as
sub-headings
 for
 the
 discussion

below,
include
defining
the
concept
of
land
grabs,
the
actors
and
drivers
of
the
phenomenon
in

Ghana.
It
also
consists
of
the
effects
of
land
grabs
and
differentiated
impacts,
the
land
tenure

system,
the
role
of
 customary
institutions,
and
 the
role
of
land
grabs
in
fueling
or
curtailing

conflicts
over
natural
resources
in
Ghana.
However,
before
examining
these
themes,
this
next

section
begins
with
 a
 brief
overview
 of
 the
 literature
 on
 the
 global
land
 grab
 phenomenon,

followed
by
a
review
of
land
grabs
in
the
African
context.







8



2.1
The
global
land-grab
phenomenon






The‘globallandgrab’accordingtoBorrasandFranco(2012),emergedasacatch-all

phrase
 to
 refer
 to
 the
 explosion
 of
 (trans)national
 commercial
 land
 transactions
 and
 land

speculation
in
recent
years
mainly,
but
not
solely,
around
the
large-scale
production
and
export

of
food
and
 biofuels.
 According
to
Wily
 (2012),
companies
seeking
lands
to
grow
jatropha,

sugar
cane,
and
particularly
palm
oil
on
an
industrial
scale
to
replace
a
percentage
of
oil
use

with
 biofuels
 caused
 an
 explosion
 in
 commercial
 land
 transactions.
 Industrial
 economies

(which
now
include
Brazil,
Russia,
India,
China,
and
Middle
Eastern
countries)
were
identified

by
 Wily
 (2012)
 as
 countries
 involved
 in
 acquiring
 lands
 on
 a
 commercial
 scale
 in
 rural

communities
in
Africa,
Asia,
and
Latin
America.
The
Land
Matrix
(2020)
notes
that
these
lands

are
being
used
or
intended
to
be
used
to
produce
food
and
energy
crops,
conservation,
timber

plantations,
tourism,
and
industries.




The
land
grab
phenomenon
is
two
phases.
According
to
Borras
et
al.
(2011),
the
first


phase
 witnessed
 the
colonial
 scramble
for
 lands
in
the
 developing
 world
 by
 the
 imperialist

North.
 On
the
other
 hand,
the
 current
phase
 is characterized by an emerging ‘South-South’
dynamic
 with
 economically
 powerful
 non-Northern
 countries
 such
 as
 China,
 Brazil,
 India,

Singapore,
Malaysia,
and
 Qatar
getting
 involved
in
the
new
 scramble
for
land,
especially
in

Africa.
However,
a
study
by
Cochrane
and
Amery
(2017)
downplayed
the
scale
of
acquisitions

by
some
of
these
emerging
countries.
Their
study,
which
focused
on
the
Gulf
states
(including

Qatar),
found
that
land
acquisitions
by
these
emerging
countries
were
not
significant
compared

to
 the
 investments
 by
 traditional
 global
 powers
 such
 as
 the
 United
 States
 and
 the
 United

Kingdom.




The
work
of
Dell’Angeloetal.(2017)outlinedcertainvital
elements
of
land
grabs.
The


first
 is
 that
 the
 ongoing
 land
 acquisitions
 worldwide
 are
 associated
 with
 a
 change
 in
 the

production
system,
 from
subsistence
and
smallholding
to
commercial
farming,
which
entails







9



fundamental
 social
 transformations.
 Secondly,
 these
 acquisitions
 target
 common
 lands
 and

land
with
multiple
access
and
use
claims
and
turn
them
into
private
property
or
concessions
for

the
exclusive
use
of
the
investors.
Finally,
the
acquisitions
are
marked
by
unequal
power
ties

and
are
not
without
dispute.
Combining
these
elements
in
global
land
acquisitions
led
to
 the

conclusion
 that
 land
grabs
 inherently
 have
 negative
 implications
 for
 host
 communities
 and

vulnerable
groups.
In
addition
to
this,
these
communities
and
groups
are
often
alienated
from

the
 land
 purchase
 negotiation
 process,
 inadequate
 or
 no
 payment
 of
 compensation,
 and

sometimes
 forced
 evictions
only
 compound
the
 negative
 impact
of
 these
deals
on
people
in

host
communities.





Non-Governmental
 Organizations
 (NGOs)
 and
 other
 civil
 society
 groups
 have
 been


vital
 in
 drawing the world’s attention to land grabs and their consequent impact on
communities.
 For
 instance,
 an
 NGO,
 Genetic
 Resources
 Action
 International
 (GRAIN),
 is

credited
to
have
been
the
first
to
declare
a
global
trend
in
land
grabbing
linked
to
ramped-up

biofuel
 promotion
 and
 food-for-export
 initiatives
 (Borras
 and
 Franco
 2012).
 These
 activist

groups
paint
the
picture
of
foreign
entities
dispossessing
peasants
and
indigenous
peoples
and

ruining
 the
 environment.
 However,
 Edelman
 et
 al.
 (2013)
 contend
 that
 land
 grabs
 include

domestic
and
international
players,
and
 locals
are
not
 often
removed
or
displaced
from
their

territories,
as
many
activists
say.
According
to
their
research,
locals
are
often
subsumed
into

contract
farming
schemes
or
other
collaboration
agreements
that
do
not
deprive
them
of
their

livelihoods.
This
observation
notwithstanding,
other
scholars
(see
Davis
et
al.
2014;
Cochrane

2011;
Oberlack
et
al.
2016;
Mabe
et
al.
2019)
believe
that
land
grabs
potentially
affect
incomes

with
implications
for
food
security,
poverty
levels,
and
urbanization.
Also,
Ward
and
Baldinelli

(2020)
 note
 that
 the
 phenomenon
 of
 land
 grabs
 can
 lead
 to
 land
 inequality,
 which
 directly

threatens
the
livelihoods
of
an
estimated
2.5
billion
people
worldwide
involved
in
smallholder







10




agriculture.
 Such
 findings
 underscore
 the
 devastating
 impacts
 of
 the
 global
 land
 grab

phenomenon
on
the
environment,
communities,
and
livelihoods.


2.2
Land
grabs
in
Africa




There
 is
 now
no
denying
 that
Africa
 has
become
 a
sought-after-continent
in
 a
short

space
 of
time,
thanks
to
its
strategic
importance,
today
Africa
really
matters
...
if
the

United
States
and
Europe
 are
serious
about
biofuels,
they
must
turn
to
the
 South
for

theirsupplies…Africaisanunexploitedresourceforbiofuelsdevelopment(Carmody

2011:140).






To
 a
 considerable
 extent,
 the
 above
 observation
 represents
 the
 motivations
 for
 the


scramble
 for
 lands
 in
 Africa
 for
 alternative
 energy
 sources.
 As
 a
 result
 of
 such
 incentives,

several
countries
in
Africa
have
seen
some
interest
in
land
acquisitions
for
biofuel
production.

In
Zimbabwe,
for
instance,
40,000
hectares
of
 land
were
acquired
 from
local
households
to

grow
sugar
cane
for
bio-ethanol
production
by
the
year
2009
(Thondhlana
2015).
Around
the

same
period,
Ethiopia
saw
more
than
400,000
hectares
of
land
acquired
for
industrial
biofuel

development
for
large-scale
Jatropha
plantations
for
biofuel
production
(Tufa
et
al.
2018).





On
a
 broader
scale,
the
Land
Matrix
(2020)
reports
that
 64,678,512
hectares
of
land


have
been
acquired
in
Africa.
According
to
the
Land
Matrix
(2020),
the
natural
appeal
of
the

continent
lies
in
the
perceived
availability
of
land
and
other
natural
resources,
geographical,

cultural,
 and
historical
reasons,
and
market
opportunities.
These
notwithstanding,
it
is
worth

noting
that
domestic
policy
plays
an
essential
role
in
promoting
land
grabs
in
Africa.
A
case
in

point
 is
 Ethiopia,
 where
 the
 government
 fashioned
 out
 deliberate
 policies
 and
 entered
 into

agreements designed to specifically attract investors into the country’s agriculture sector
(Dejene
 and
 Cochrane
 2021;
 Hules
 2017).
 As
 noted
 by
 Dejene
 and
 Cochrane
 (2021),
 the

Ethiopian
 government
 was
 actively
 seeking
 out
 foreign
 investors
 and
 offering
 attractive

incentive
packages.
According
to
Hules
(2017),
Indian
companies
investing
in
Ethiopia
agreed

with
 the
 Ethiopian
 government
 to
 export
30-40
 percent
 of
their
 harvest
 to
 India.
 This
 case

introduces
 a
 new
 narrative
 suggesting
 that
 countries
 in
 Africa,
 through
 domestic
 policy,






11




occasioned
land
grabs
in
Africa.
Another
actor
whose
activities
have
dominated
the
literature

on
land
grabs
in
Africa
is
China.
While
seminal
works
like
that
of
Carmody
(2011)
position

China
as
a
significant
player
in
the
scramble
for
lands
and
resources
in
Africa,
others
such
as

Bräutigam
and
Zhang
(2013)
opined
contrary
positions
concerning
China’sroleinAfrica.They
argued
 that
 land
 acquisitions
 by
 Chinese
companies
 in
 Africa
 have
 been
 quite
 limited
 and

focused
on
production
for
African
consumption.
They
further
contend
that
Chinese
investment

in
Africa
is
not
part
of
a
coordinated
Chinese
strategy
to
secure
land
in
Africa
to
grow
food
for

China.
 Instead,
 they
 reflect
 the
 uncoordinated
 plans
 of
 several
 different
 firms
 to
 explore

commercial
investment
opportunities
across
multiple
sectors
on
the
continent.







However,
the
literature
seems
to
agree
on
the
effect
of
these
land
investments
in
Africa.


According
to
Oberlack
et
al.
(2016),
land
grabs
result
in
the
marginalization
of
people
who
are

already
in
difficult
situations,
agribusiness
failure,
and
only
offer
temporary
employment.
In

specific
terms,
Wily
(2012)
found
that
dispossessed
locals
in
Rwanda
 saw
 a
plunge
in
their

incomes
and
loss
of
land.
Similarly,
Tankari
(2017)
concluded
that
land
grabs
to
produce
cash

crops
negatively
impact
the
welfare
of
farm
households
in
Senegal.





Some
scholars
have
also
explored
the
gendered
dimension
of
the
impact
of
land
grabs


(see
Daley
and
Sabine
2014;
Ndi
2019;
Mariwah
et
al.
2019;
Reem
et
al.
2019).
The
studies

conclude
that
women
are
more
likely
to
be
negatively
affected
than
men
in
the
event
of
a
land

grab.
This
situation
is
primarily
due
to
their
lack
of
 access
 to
 productive
resources,
relative

income
 poverty,
 and
 low
 participation
 in
 the
 decision-making
 process
 in
 many
 African

countries.
 To
 a
 considerable
 extent,
 the
 African
 land
 grab
 situation
 mirrors
 the
 worldwide

crisis.
A
key
point
of
departure
is
that
though
the
increase
in
food
prices
has
occasioned
land

grabs
worldwide,
governments
in
Africa
have,
through
deliberate
policy,
facilitated
the
 land

grab
situation
in
Africa.
One
such
country
is
Ghana.
The
following
section
primarily
focuses

on
a
thematic
review
of
the
scholarship
on
the
land
grab
phenomenon
in
Ghana.








12




2.3
Thematic
analysis
of
land
grabs
in
Ghana





From
 the
 onset,
 it
 should
 be
 noted
 that
 since
 1844,
 various
 Gold
 Coast/Ghanaian

governments
have
had
policies
aimed
at
attracting
viable
agricultural
investments,
with
varying

degrees
of
success
(Ahwoi
2010).
This
ranged
from
non-interventionist
policies
(1844-1956)

to
complete
state
 interference
through
the
 entire
 value
 chain
(1957-1966).
In
 the
1980s,
the

Structural
 Adjustment
 Programme
 (SAP)
 established
 the
 position
 of
 the
 private
 sector
 in

attracting
 viable
 agricultural
 investments
 (Ahwoi
 2010).
 Attracting
 investments
 into
 the

agricultural
 sector
 is
 not
 a
 new
 phenomenon
 in
 Ghana.
 Governments
 have
 encouraged

commercial
 investment
 in
 Ghana's
 agricultural
 sector
 through
 deliberate
 policy
 and

cooperation
with
the
private
sector.
The
influence
of
these
projects
on
host
communities
was

the
primary
focus
of
the
literature
reviewed
for
this
study.
Other
themes
in
scholarly
works
on

land
grab
in
Ghana,
however,
included
discussions
of
the
land
tenure
regime
in
which
these

land
grabs
occur
and
the
involvement
of
customary
institutions
in
the
land
grabbing
process.

The
 following
 section
gives
an
 overview
of
 the
 main
themes
 that
emerged
 from
the
Ghana

review.


2.3.1Theconceptoflandgrabs




The
phenomenon
of
land
grabs
has
attracted
lots
of
attention
in
the
scholarly
literature

on
land
grabs
in
Ghana.
The
concept
itself
is
viewed
from
two
perspectives:
the
neo-colonialist

paradigm
 and
 the
 development
 optimism
 narrative
 (Boamah
 2014).
 The
 neo-colonialist

perspective
sees
these
land
deals
as
a
new
attempt
by
foreign
companies
to
grab
indigenous

lands
with
negative
livelihood
outcomes.
In
their
descriptions
of
land
sales,
supporters
of
this

narrative
conjure
images
of
illegality
and
theft
on
the
part
of
these
corporations.
On
the
other

hand,
the
development
optimism
narrative
sees
these
deals
as
a
win-win
situation
with
positive

outcomes
for
both
the
investor
and
the
local
populations
(Boamah
2014).
As
such,
depending







13




onone’sorientation,
the
quest
by
a
foreign
company
to
acquire
lands
in
agrarian
communities

could
either
be
deemed
a
land
grab
or
a
profitable
land
transaction.





However,
it
is
worth
noting
that
much
of
the
definitions
found
in
the
reviewed
literature


tilted
 towards
 the
 neo-colonialist perspective. To this end, it has been defined “as
 taking

possession
of
and
controlling
a
scale
of
land
for
commercial/industrial
agricultural
production

which
is
disproportionate
in
size
compared
to
the
average
landholding
in
the
region
(Boamah

2014:324).
On
its
part,
the
International
Land
Coalition
cites
an
acquisition
as
a
land
grab
when

it
 violates
 human
 rights,
 does
 not
 seek
 free
 and
 prior
 informed
 consent
 disregards

socioeconomic
 and
 environmental
 impacts,
 and
 is
 not
 based
 on
 democratic
 planning
 and

participation
 (Ahmed
 et
 al.
 2019).
 The
 neo-colonialist
 narrative
 reflects
 these
 definitions,

primarily
identifying
international
land
deals
as
land
grabs.
As
a
result,
it
can
be
concluded
that

these
 land
 deals,
 especially
 those
 involving
 foreign
 entities,
 favour
 foreign
 capital
 while

restricting
locals'
access
to
land,
which
is
their
primary
source
of
income.
As
 a
result
of
the

acquisitions'
negative
livelihood
consequences
(the
case
of
Ghana
is
no
exception),
they
can

rightly
be
defined
as
land
grabbing.

2.3.2TheActorsandDriversofLandGrabbinginGhana




There
 are
 varied
 driving
 forces
 behind
 the
 phenomenon
 of
 land
 grabs
 in
 Ghana.

However,
 a
 key
 finding
 by
 Cotula
 et
 al.
 (2011)
 highlights
 the
 importance
 of
 the
 host

government
in
any
land
deal.
According
to
the
authors
of
a
multi-country
study
that
included

Ghana,
 most
 acquisitions
 were
 carried
 out
 by
 international
 private
 entities
 or
 governmentowned
firms.
Another
set
of
actors
revealed
from
the
reviewed
literature
is
domestic
investors

who
 are
 either
directly
 engaged
in
the
land
grabs
themselves
or
serve
 as
 facilitators
 of
 land

grabs
by
foreign
companies.
A
study
by
Cotula
et
al.
(2014)
revealed
that
Ghanaian
investors

account
 for
 4
 out
 of
 15
 of
 these
 land
 grabs.
 A
 study
 by
 Cochrane
 et
 al.
 (submitted
 for

publication)
found
that
domestic
actors
(from
Ghana)
have
acquired
222,961
hectares
of
land






14




in
Ghana.
This
acquisition
constitutes
16.8%
of
the
land
deals
recorded
in
the
country
by
the

Land
Matrix
(2020).
Though
this
number
is
smaller
than
the
situation
in
Ethiopia,
where
80%

of
land
deals
were
found
to
be
undertaken
by
Ethiopian
nationals,
it
only
underscores
the
fact

that
these
land
grabs
are
not
exclusive
to
foreign
interests
(Cotula
et
al.
2014).





Another
 finding
 worth
 noting
 from
 the
 reviewed
 literature
is
 the
 list
of
countries
 of


origin
for
the
recent
land
grabs
in
Ghana.
Traditionally,
land
grabs
in
Africa
were
carried
out

by
the
colonial
bloc
of
Europe
(United
Kingdom,
France)
and
the
United
States.
However,
the

reviewed
literature
suggests
that
emerging
countries
and
their
affiliates
have
become
dominant

actors
in
the
phenomenon
of
land
grabs
in
Ghana.
Prominent
among
these
is
the
influence
of

Norwegian
and
Chinese
interests
in
Ghana.
A
study
by
Bull
(2009)
revealed
that
a
Norwegian

company
Scanfuel
AS
leased
some
400,000
hectares
of
land
for
50
years
in
Ghana.
This
land

size
acquired
in
comparative
terms
constitutes
half
of
the
total
arable
land
available
in
Norway,

pegged
 at
 805,130
 hectares
as
 of
 2016
 (World
 Bank
 2016).
 However,
 this
 assertion
 about

Norway
 has
 been
 countered
 by
 Cochrane
 et
 al.
 (2021),
 who
 found
 that
 the
 actual
 lease

agreement
signed
was
for
13,000
hectares
in
2009.




The
story
of
Chinese
investment
in
Ghana's
agricultural
sector
took
an
unexpected
turn.


Cook
et
al.
(2016)
found
that
Chinese
investments
were
mainly
driven
by
independent
actors

with
little
to
no
funding
from
or
even
interaction
with
the
Chinese
government,
contrary
to
the

opinion
of
scholars
such
as
Cotula
et
al.
(2011)
that
China
was
engaged
in
a
quiet
war
with
the

West
 in
 the
 scramble
 for
 African
 resources.
As
 a
 result,
this
finding
 refutes
the
 notion
that

Chinese
investments
were
made
as
part
of
a
predetermined
state-sponsored
scheme
to
compete

with
traditional
forces
in
the
race
for
African
territory.
Beyond
the
agricultural
sector,
a
study

by
Hilson
et
al.
(2014)
on
China's
involvement
in
Ghana's
mining
industry
also
suggests
no

evidence
to
indicate
that
the
Chinese
government
is
involved.
According
to
them,
the
Chinese

government's
participation
was
limited
to
dialogue
with
the
Ghanaian
government
to
provide







15




fair
treatment
to
its
people
and
a
willingness
to
fund
return
flights
for
those
detained
for
illegal

mining
in
Ghana.




In
 addition,
 the
 introduction
 of
 the
 Structural
 Adjustment
 Programme
 in
 1983


encouraged
land
grabs
in
Ghana,
according
to
the
reviewed
literature.
The
agricultural
sector

changed
 due
 to
 this
 programme
 and
 the
 subsequent
 market
 liberalization
 policies.
 Takane

(2004),
for
example,
pointed
out
 that
laws
like
the
Land
Title
Registration
Law
(1986)
were

put
 in
 place
 primarily
 to
 protect
 investors'
 property
 rights.
 Furthermore,
 the
 creation
 of

investment
 promotion
 agencies
 (such
 as
 the
 Ghana
 Investment
 Promotion
 Centre
 in
 1994)

carried
out
 government
 policy
to
 attract
 investment,
especially
 foreign
 investment,
 into
 the

country.
 Their
 position
 included,
 among
 other
 things,
 facilitating
 land
 access
 for
 potential

investors
and,
on
occasion,
directly
allocating
land
to
investors.
This
new
regime
provided
a

favourable
climate
and
eliminated
the
risks
associated
with
large-scale
farming.
As
a
result,
in

the
 1980s,
 the
 country's
 production
 of
 large-scale
 farms
 resulted
 from
 this
 deliberate
 state

policy
(Ahwoi
2010).
The
policy
inevitably
encouraged
land
grabs
in
Ghana.




In
 addition,
 the
 government’s decision to attract investments into the country was


driven
 by
 the
 desire
 to
 increase
 exports,
 control
 inflation
 through
 appropriate
 fiscal
 and

monetary
policies,
achieve
and
sustain
economic
growth,
and
transfer
state-owned
enterprises

into
private
hands.
The
purpose
was
to
expose
state
enterprises
to
competitive
market
forces

and
 stimulate
 more
 cost-effective
 and
 financially
 responsible
 management
 (Mmieh
 and

Owusu-Frimpong
 2004).
 Aside
 from
 the overall economic imperative, the government’s
decision
 was
borne
out
of
the
desire
to
 bring
in
some
efficiency
into
the
operations
of
state

enterprises.

 The
quest
for
alternative
energy
sources,
which
saw
biofuels
being
promoted
as

a
 solution,
 was
 also
 a
 driving
 force
 behind
 land
 grabs
 in
 Ghana.
 Globally,
 investors
 and

governments,
including
Ghana's,
adopted
deliberate
policies
to
gain
access
to
lands
for
biofuel

development.
Ghana
drafted
the
Strategic
National
Energy
Plan
(SNEP)
in
2006
to
“secure
and







16




increase
future
energy
security
by
diversifying
sources
of
supply
through
fuel
substitution
and

complement
alternative
fuels
to
achieve
10%
penetration
in
supply
mix
by
2015
and
20%
by

2020”(Ahmed
 et
 al.
2017:134).
Therefore,
this
 policy
 objective
 saw
the
 influx
of
investors

into
 the
 biofuel
 sector.
 By
 2009,
1,075,000
 hectares
of
 land
 had
 been
 set
 aside
to
 produce

biofuels
from
jatropha
(Nygaard
and
Bolwig
2018).
The
primary
resource
on
which
the
locals

relied
for
their
survival
was
these
lands.
As
a
result,
the
change
in
land
use
affects
the
people's

livelihood
choices
in
the
host
communities.




The
 global
land
rush
has
been
blamed
on
rising
demand
 for
food,
fuels,
a
 shrinking


resource
 base,
 trade
 liberalization,
 the
 quest
 for
 mineral
 resources,
 and
 renewable
 energy

solutions
through
biofuel
production.
The
global
land
rush
has
been
blamed
on
rising
demand

for
food,
fuels,
a
shrinking
resource
base,
trade
liberalization,
the
quest
for
mineral
resources,

and
the
search
for
renewable
energy
solutions
through
biofuel
production.
However,
in
Ghana,

deliberate
 government
 policy
 of
 market
 liberalization
 pushed
 for
 large-scale
 agricultural

investments.

2.3.3.ThelandtenureregimeandlandgrabsinGhana




The
land
tenure
regime
within
which
these
land
grabs
occur
in
Ghana
has
also
been
one

significant
theme
discussed
by
the
literature
on
land
grabs
in
Ghana.
The
land
tenure
system
in

Ghana
has
undergone
several
changes
dating
back
to
pre-colonial
times.
Kuusaana
and
Gerber

(2015)
traced
the
trajectory
by
noting
the
phases
of
land
tenure
regimes
in
Ghana.
They
first

acknowledged
 the
 passage
 of
 the
 Land
 Bill
 in
 1894,
 which
 entrusted
 idle,
 un-owned,
 and

unused
land
under
the
control
of
the
colonial
government.
In
1928,
the
Native
Administration

Ordinance
was
followed
up,
which
sought
to
administer
the
then
colony
under
the
indirect
rule

policy.
The
post-independence
era
also
saw
several
legislations
which
formed
the
basis
of
land

reform
in
Ghana.
The
legislation,
according
to
Kuusaana
and
Gerber
(2015)
includes
the
Land

Registry
Act
1962
(Act
122),
 Administration
of
Lands
Act
1962
(Act
123),
State
Lands
Act






17




1962
(Act
125)
and
Survey
Act
1962
(Act
127),
the
Land
Title
Registration
Law
1986
(PNDCL

152)
 and
 the
 Ghana
 Land
 Policy
 (1999).
 The
 key
 feature
 of
 these
 legislations
 is
 that
 the

government
of
 Ghana
has
maintained
a
non-interfering
stance
in
customary
land
markets
to

protect
 the
sanctity
 and
 independence
of
customary
land
 institutions
(Kuusaana
 and
 Gerber

2015).
 However,
 the
 views
expressed
 in
 Ahwoi
 (2010)
 point
 to
 the
fact
 that
 beyond
these

legislations,
the
state
has
to
the
contrary,
become
an
active
participant
in
promoting
land
deals.

This
 meddling
 in
 land
 deals
 by
 successive
 governments
 is
 motivated
 by
 the
 economic

imperative
to
attract
foreign
investments
into
the
economy.





Regarding
the
forms
of
land
ownership,
the
literature
revealed
that
the
legal
regime
in


Ghana
 recognizes
 three
 basic
 types
 of
 land
 ownership
 (Kirst
 2020).
 These
 are
 state
 lands

appropriated
in
the
national
interest,
vested
lands
that
are
remnants
of
land
inherited
from
the

colonial
era,
and
customary
lands
that
are
often
legitimized
through
the
 first
settlement
 of
a

group
in
an
area
(Kirst
2020).
Therefore,
there
is
shared
ownership
of
lands
in
Ghana
between

the
state
and
the
various
customary
structures
represented
by
chiefs.
 In
 this
regard,
Kasanga

and
Kotey
(2001)
noted
that
the
state
owns
part
 of
the
 land,
but
80-90%
 of
all
undeveloped

land
is
held
under
customary
tenure
through
chieftaincies
act
as
legal
entities.
Therefore,
the

management
of
these
lands
is
under
the
auspices
of
the
state
and
the
customary
structures.
The

state
 acquired
 management
 responsibility
 for
 vested
 lands
 as
 a
 function
 of
 law,
 while
 the

management
of
customary
lands
is
in
the
hands
of
the
chief,
who
receives
rents
for
land
usage

(Nolte
and
Vath
2015).





Therefore,Ghana’s landtenure regime can
 be
 said
 to
 be
pluralistic.
 This
 is
because


both
customary
and
legislative
structures
are
recognized
and
perform
similar
functions.
This

legal
 system
 has
 resulted
 in
 a
 situation
 in
 which
 traditional
 authorities
 and
 the
 state
 share

sovereignty
 (Lambrectht
and
 Asare
2016).
 Hence,
the
interests
 and
rights
in
 land
 emanated

from
customary
laws
and
enacted
legislation,
giving
rise
to
what
has
been
termed
customary







18




(communal)
and
statutory
land
tenure
system.
The
distinction
between
customary
and
statutory

land
 tenure
is
reflected
in
their
characteristics
 and
management
styles.
Customary
lands
are

under
 the
 control
 of
 traditional
 authorities
 represented
 by
 stools,
 skins,
 and

family/clan/community
 heads
 and
 are
 generally
 governed
 by
 the
 customary
 practices

prevailing
in
communities.
On
the
other
hand,
state
lands'
laws
are
codified
into
statutes
and

regulations
based
on
laws
(Aha
and
Ayitey
2017).
Also,
Tsikata
and
Yaro
(2011)
revealed
that

the
 relationship
 between
 these
 two
 tenure
 systems
 is
 that
 the
Ghanaian
state
 regulates
 and

legitimizes
 customary
 land
 transactions.
 This
 is
 to
 ensure
 some
 form
 of
 uniformity
 in

describing
land
tenure
interests.
This
interface
between
the
state
and
customary
structures
in

managing
lands
in
Ghana
meant
that
customary
landowners
in
Ghana
have
more
legal
rights

regarding
 land
 transactions.
 The
 Constitution
 (articles
 267
 and
 270)
 and
 the
 Office
 of
 the

Administrator
of
Stool
Lands
Act
1994
(Act
481)
recognize
the
traditional
roles
and
authority

of
 chiefs,
 elders,
 and
 priests
 when
 it
 comes
 to
 land
 administration
 (ElHadary
 and
 ObengOdoom
2012).




Thanks
 to
 the
 acceptance
 of
 the
 customary
 land
 tenure
 system,
 this
 pluralistic
 land


tenure
regime
has
the
advantage
of
not
alienating
people
from
their
ancestral
lands.
However,

it
can
exacerbate
tensions
between
the
new
legal
system
and
the
traditional
land
management

system.
In
the
specific
case
of
land
acquisitions,
conflicts
are
likely
to
occur
over
jurisdictional

issues
 when
 negotiating
 land
 transactions
 with
 investors.
 This
 weakness
 of
 the
 plural
 land

tenure
 system
 often
 leads
 to
 situations
 where
 investors
 exploit
 the
 loopholes
 to
 the

disadvantage
 of
 locals
 in
 project
 host
 communities.
 For
 instance,
 Andrews
 (2018)
 reveals

Newmont
Ghana
Limited
refused
payment
of
compensation
to
owners
of
unused
lands
in
their

mining
project
area
in
Ghana.
This
was
made
possible
over
the
unclear
nature
of
roles
and
rules

within
the
land
tenure
system.
In
a
bid
to
forestall
future
occurrences,
Ghana
passed
the
Land

Act
2020
to
revise
and
consolidate
the
laws
on
land,
with
the
view
to
harmonizing
those
laws







19




to
ensure
sustainable
land
administration
and
management,
and
effective
land
tenure
systems.

An
interesting
component
of
Act
2020
is
the
restrictions
placed
on
land
acquisition
by
a
noncitizen,
as
captured
in
Article
10
(1)
of
the
Act.
Among
others,
it
stated
that
a
person
could
not

create
an
interest
in,
or
right
over,
land
in
Ghana,
which
vests
in
another
person
who
is
not
a

citizen
of
Ghana.
Therefore,
a
company
or
corporate
body
is
not
a
citizen
if
non-citizens
hold

more
 than
40%
 of
the
equity
shareholding
or
ownership.
This
act,
therefore,
seeks
to
 secure

domestic
actor
participation
in
the
acquisition
of
lands
in
Ghana
while
curtailing
the
influence

of
 foreign
 investors.
 
 The
 Act
 2020
 also
 aims
to
create
a
 fair
 and
 efficient
 mechanism
 for

registering
land,
strengthening
institutional
capability,
 harmonizing
 statutory
 and
customary

law,
 and
 improving
 land
 dispute
 resolution
 in
 Ghana
 (Landlinks.com
 Ghana
 profile
 2021).

Therefore,
the
new
regime
seeks
to
mitigate
the
negative
impacts
of
these
acquisitions
and
their

attendant
consequences
such
as
conflicts
while
strengthening
the
institutional
mechanism
that

ensures
efficiency
in
land
acquisitions.


2.3.4.Customarylandinstitutionsandlandgrabs




A
significant
number
of
scholarly
works
on
land
grabs
in
Ghana
was
dedicated
to
the

role
of
customary
 institutions
(traditional
authorities)
 in
the
 processes
 leading
to
 land
grabs

(see
 Ablo
 and
 Asamoah
 2018;
 Ahmed
 et
 al.
 2018;
 Amanor
 1999;
 Antwi-Bediako
 2018;

Boamah
2014;
Campion
and
Acheampong
2014;
Kirst
2020;
Nyari
2008;
Obeng-Odoom
2016;

Tsikata
 and
 Yaro
2011).
 The
 volume
of
work
around
the
role
 of
traditional
institutions
is
a

result
of
theprominentroletheyplayinGhana’slandtenureregime,
as
discussed
above.
Their

role
in
Ghana
is
further
enhanced
because
agricultural
land
is
either
under
the
control
of
landowning
families,
with
most
family
heads,
elders,
and
chiefs
(Tsikata
and
Yaro
2011).




Writing
 on
 the
 role
 of
 chiefs
 in
 land
administration
 in
 Ghana,
 Ahmed
 et
 al.
 (2018)


argued
that
they
have
two
primary
roles:
serving
as
custodians
of
the
 land
and
the
interface

between
 donors
 and
 investors.
 The
 performance
 of
 these
 roles,
 especially
 the
 latter,
 has






20




increased
 the
 chiefs’ growing
 involvement
 in
 land
 politics.
 The
 neoliberal
 policies
 of

successive
governments
to
open
up
the
country
to
investors
enabled
chiefs
to
engage
directly

with
 developers,
 investors,
 and
 donors.
 And
 with
 most
 of
 the
 lands
 under
 the
 control
 of

customary
law
(Kirst
2020),
the
acquisition
process
involves
negotiation
with
the
local
chief

and
his
council
of
elders.
This
system's
traditional
ownership
of
lands
was
designed
to
ensure

that
land
is
distributed
fairly
for
use
in
the
area
(Kirst
2020).
However,
the
literature
revealed

that
the
chiefs,
in
most
cases,
entered
these
negotiations
over
the
land
sale
with
self-serving

ambitions.
Kasanga
and
Kotey
(2001)
found
that
chiefs
often
make
decisions
on
land
and
the

sale
of
it
without
any
community
involvement.
The
resultant
benefits
in
terms
of
compensation,

be
it
 monetary
or
otherwise,
are
further
appropriated.
This
view
is
further
reinforced
 by
the

recent
work
of
Kirst
(2020),
which
also
concluded
that
when
it
comes
to
allocation
of
lands,

Chiefs
do
not
adhere
to
the
principles
enshrined
in
the
law
but
rather
operate
by
the
authority

yielded
to
them
in
their
communities.
According
to
Kirst
(2020),
the
chiefs
are
a
significant

contributor
to
conflicts
 over
 land
 grabs
 in
 Ghana.
 These
 studies
 (Kasanga
and
 Kotey
 2001;

Kirst
2020)
have
revealed
how
the
institutional
framework
at
the
local
level
has
alienated
the

people
in
the
land
acquisition
process.





It
 was
 also
 observed
 that
 the
 increased
 investments
 in
 the
 biofuel
 sector
 saw
 a


corresponding
rise
in
the
power
of
chiefs
to
allocate
lands.
Boamah
(2014)
revealed
that
many

Ghanaian
chiefs
have
allocated
large
land
areas
to
investors,
mainly
from
Italy,
Norway,
Israel,

and
Canada,
for
biofuels
and
other
agricultural
projects
in
Ghana
during
the
last
decade.
This

increased
role
relegated
state
institutions
to
confirm
and
register
the
agreements
between
chiefs

and
investors.

Although
estimates
of
biofuel
land
deals
are
often
contentious,
it
nonetheless

suggests
that
the
authority
of
chiefs
in
land
allocations
has
increased
in
recent
times
relative
to

that
of
the
 state.
The
 involvement
of
state
 institutions
 in
 land
allocations
 now
 merely
takes

confirmation
and
registration
of
the
agreements
reached
between
the
chiefs
and
investors.
The







21




implication
of
this
is
that
chiefs
in
Ghana
have
become
facilitators
of
land
grabs
in
Ghana.
This

position,
 therefore,
 empowers
 them
 to
 manipulate
 land-acquisition
 processes,
 benefiting
 in

ways
that
go
beyond
their
mandates.
In
many
cases
(as
cited
in
Kirst
2020),
the
resultant
effect

could
lead
to
alienation
of
the
people,
community
resistance,
and
eventually
conflicts.
AntwiBosiako
(2018)
has
however
sought
to
clarify
the
position
of
the
chiefs
when
it
comes
to
taking

the
blame
for
problems
associated
with
land
grabs.
His
study
identified
challenges
such
as
the

state’snon-interference
policy
in
these
negotiations,
the
insecure
nature
of
land
ownership,
and

the
annexation
 of
 lands
by
brokers.
 These
 brokers
 often
deceived
chiefs
into
releasing
large

tracts
 of
 lands
 for
 development
 to
 turn
 over
 such
 lands
 to
 investors
 for
 personal
 profit.

Therefore,
the
consequent
dispossession
of
lands
leading
to
the
loss
of
livelihoods
should
not

be
blamed
solely
on
the
chiefs.





However,
as
 noted
 in
 Ahmed
 et
 al.
(2018),
 chiefs
 do
have
an
onerous
 responsibility


placed
on
them
 by
the
state.
Chiefs
being
custodians
of
land
are
expected
to
 determine
how

land
and
its
resources
are
used
and
receive
royalties
on
behalf
of
their
people.
The
role
of
chiefs

regarding
 land
 sales
 is
 further
 reinforced
 in
the
 Lands
Act
 2020.
 Article
 13
 (3)
 of
 the
 Act

charges
 chiefs
 to
 be
 transparent,
 open,
 fair
 and
 impartial
 in
 making
 decisions
 affecting
 the

specified
 land.
 Failure
 to
 do
 this
 has
 punishment
 prescribed
 in
 Article
 13
 (4)
 including

summary
conviction
to
a
fine
of
not
less
than
five
thousand
penalty
units
and
not
more
than
ten

thousand
penalty
units
or
a
term
of
imprisonment
of
between
five
and
ten
years
or
both
penalty

and
 imprisonment.
By
 implication,
though
chiefs
 are
quite
powerful
 in
 selling
 lands
 within

their
 jurisdictions,
 legal
 restrictions
 have
 been
 placed
 on
 them
 to
 check
 arbitrary
 use
 of

discretionary
power.
In
the
performance
of
the
fiduciary
roles,
they
are
expected
to
act
in
ways

that
 will
 protect
 the
 interest
 of
 the
 people.
 However,
 as
 noted
 in
 the
 previous
 section,
 the

pluralistic
land
tenure
 regime
operational
in
Ghana
negatively
affects
the
people
concerning

processes
leading
up
to
and
after
land
acquisitions
by
investors.
The
overlapping
roles
of
the







22




state
and
the
traditional
authority
in
land
acquisition
processes
often
create
loopholes
for
the

investors
to
exploit.


2.3.5.EffectsofLandGrabbinginGhana




The
 reviewed
 literature
 highlighted
 that
 significant
 scholarly
 work
 about
 land

acquisitions
 in
Ghana
was
dedicated
to
examining
the
impact
of
the
projects
on
livelihoods.

However,
it
is
worth
noting
that
the
conclusions
arrived
at
portrayed
the
outcomes
of
these
as

largely
 negative,
 though
 some
 positives
 were
 also
 highlighted.
 For
 instance,
 Gordon
 and

Botchway
 (2017)
 contend
 that
 Chinese
 mining
 involvement
 transformed
 the
 sector
 and

introduced
 mechanization
 and
 technology
 transfer
 to
 local
 artisanal
 miners
 in
 Ghana.
 The

intensification
of
gold
production
due
to
these
new
techniques
reflects
a
phenomenal
increase

in
the
contribution
of
small-scale
gold
mining
to
total
gold
production.




Also,
 Twene
 (2017)
 notes
 that
 the
construction
 of
 the
 Bui
dam
 helped
 improve
 the


conditions
 of
 the
 affected
 people,
 including
 improvement
 in
 roads,
 educational
 and
 health

facilities,
and
access
to
good
drinking
water.
The
negative
impacts,
such
 as
loss
of
access
to

land
and
water
resources
and
consequent
food
security
implications,
made
the
author
conclude

that
the
project
negatively
affected
livelihoods
in
the
project
area.





Some
studies
(Alhassan
et
al.
2018;
Alhassan
2020;
Madueke
2019;
Schoneveld
et
al.


2010,
2011;
Yaro
and
Tsikata
2013)
explored
the
specific
impacts
of
large-scale
 farming
on

local
 livelihoods.
 Schoneveld
 et
 al.
 (2011)
 examined
 the
 local
 effects
 of
 biofuel
 feedstock

plantations
and
found
that
the
host
communities
lose
access
to
vital
resources,
especially
forests

and
land.
Vulnerable
groups,
such
as
women
and
migrant
farmers,
were
negatively
impacted.

Formal
employment
opportunities
on
the
plantations,
on
the
other
hand,
were
found
to
have
a

net
positive
 effect
 on
employee
households'
livelihoods
by
improving
 income
flow
stability

and
welfare.
However,
the
loss
of
community
access
to
vital
resources,
especially
forests
and

land
with
the
consequent
food
security
and
the
threat
to
the
people's
income-earning
potential,






23




were
 negatives
 that
 outweighed
 the
 supposed
 benefits
 of
 the
 project.
 A
 similar
 study
 by

Madueke
 (2019)
 found
 that
 the
 activities
 of
 Herakles
 farms
 damaged
 the
 host
 community

economically,
 socially
 and
 destroyed
 the
 environment.
 In
 particular,
 the
 impacts
 included

population
displacement,
loss
of
autonomy,
breakdown
in
social
cohesion,
and
environmental

degradation.
The
findings
of
 this
study
 are
supported
 by
Alhassan
 et
 al.
 (2018,
 2020),
 who

found
 that
 land
 grabbing
 harms
 smallholder
 farming
 households'
 livelihood
 outcomes
 in

Ghana.
Even
though
incentives
are
provided,
they
favour
the
government
and
related
agencies

rather
than
the
impoverished
rural
communities
where
these
land
grabs
occur.




To
better
understand
the
impact
of
land
grabs
on
host
communities,
Mabe
et
al.
(2019)


conducted
a
study
to
assess
the
effects
of
land
grabs
on
communities
without
these
acquisitions

and
those
where
these
acquisitions
have
taken
place.
Their
study
concluded
that
households
in

communities
without
the
investments
and
projects
had
higher
livelihood
security
(HLS)
index

in
terms
 of
food
security,
 health,
economic,
 and
sanitation
 than
the
 communities
where
 the

acquisitions
have
taken
place.
The
non-participation
of
the
people
and
the
failure
of
the
actors

involved
in
the
land
deals
to
achieve
consensus,
according
to
Yaro
and
Tsikata
(2013),
is
the

reason
most
of
these
land
deals
fail
to
achieve
their
stated
objectives.
To
worsen
the
situation

of
the
people
in
host
communities
further
is
the
finding
by
Schoneveld
 et
al.
(2010)
that
the

institutional
 mechanisms
which
 enable
 these
land
 grabs
 are
 incapable
 of
 acting
 to
 mitigate

adverse
impacts
of
the
projects.
The
authors
noted
a
variety
of
factors
that
cause
this
situation.

The
 first
 issue
 is
 the
 chiefs'
 lack
 of
 oversight
 and
 responsibility.
 There
 is
 also
 a
 lack
 of

coordination
 among
 the
 various
 government
 agencies
 responsible
 for
 the
 sector.
 Finally,

traditional
authorities
tend
to
act
without
consequence
and
a
lack
of
appreciation
of
the
actual

value
 of
 the
 land.
 Together,
 these
 factors
 undermine
 any
 efforts
 to
 leverage
 simplified

processes
for
enhancing
local
participation
to
ensure
maximum
benefits.









24







According
to
 the
literature,
 land
 grabbing
 has
also
 occurred
 in
 the
 mining
 industry,


negatively
affecting
livelihoods.
Ayelazuno
(2014)
contends
that
Ghanaian
governments
have

promoted
 large-scale
 mining
 by
 transnational
 mining
 companies
 (TMCs)
 as
 a
 fundamental

development
 strategy.
 However,
 the
 implementation
 of
 this
 strategy
 comes
 with
 attendant

effects,
 including
land
 dispossessions,
 loss
of
access
to
water
resources,
 and
 environmental

degradation.
 According
 to
 Andrews
 (2018),
 the
 dispossession
 experienced
 undermines
 the

potential
contribution
of
mining
to
the
absence
of
sustainable
livelihood
outcomes
for
people

in
host
communities.
The
operations
of
the
large-scale
mining
companies
have
also
become
a

source
 of
 conflicts
 within
 the
 host
 communities.
 The
 local
 small-scale
 miners
 felt
 their

livelihood
 source
 had
 been
 threatened
 due
 to
 the
 takeover
 of
 mining
 concessions.
 This,

therefore,
 culminated
 in
 violent
 confrontations
 between
 small-scale
 operators,
 the
 new

investors,
and
 the
security
 forces
 often
 deployed
 to
protect
 the
 concessions
acquired
 by
the

large-scale
mining
companies
(Aubynn
2009).

2.3.6DifferentiatedimplicationsoflandgrabinGhana




Commercial
farming
projects
resulting
from
land
grabs
have
differentiated
impacts
on

various
 segments
 of
 society.
 A
 study
 by
 Kuusaana
 (2017)
 found
 that
 chiefs,
 local
 elites,

speculators,
and
some
government
agencies
were
 perceived
to
benefit
in
various
ways
from

land
transactions.
This
 contrasts
the
experiences
of
groups
such
 as
migrant
farmers,
women,

poor
 community
commoners,
and
the
title-less
smallholder
farmers
who
were
worse
off
in
a

land
 grab
 process.
 Boamah
 (2015)
 discovered
 that
 the
 differentiated
 effect
 of
 biofuel

investments
 on
 the
 livelihoods
 of
 individuals
 and
 social
 groups
 was
 dependent
 on
 how

individuals
and
social
groups
interacted
with
changing
social
and
political
institutions,
as
well

as
how
investors
(re)negotiate
with
local
socio-political
institutions
in
the
implementation
of

biofuel
projects.
The
impact
these
large-scale
projects
have
on
the
various
segments
of
the
host







25




communities
depends
onone’sstatusandthelevelofpowerandinfluencetheywieldwithin
the
community.





Mariwah
et
al.
(2019)
noted
that
different
segments
of
people
in
the
host
communities


tend
to
have
varied
concerns
on
the
implications
of
land
grabs
in
their
respective
communities.

They
discovered
in
a
study
that
while
young
people
and
women
were
concerned
about
the
longterm
 effects
 of
 allocating
 too
 much
 land
 to
 cashew
 plantations,
 the
 middle
 and
 older

generations
were
concerned
about
their
poor
bargaining
position
during
negotiations
over
land

sales.
This
study
sought
to
gauge
the
people's
perceptions
on
the
commercial
projects
reveals

howone’sstatusinthecommunitycouldleadtoadifferentiatedimpactoftheprojectontheir
livelihoods.
 For
 instance,
 the
 youth
 could
 benefit
 by
 way
of
 possible
 employment
 avenues

created
by
the
project.
The
elderly
could
lose
access
to
their
ancestral
lands,
and
the
fortunes

of
 women
 could
 become
 a
 lot
 worse
 by
 their
 marginalized
 status
 in
 Ghanaian
 society.

Therefore,
 the
 reviewed
 literature
 had
 some
 scholarly
 works
 assessing
 the
 gendered

implications
of
land
grabs
in
Ghana
(see
Bukari
and
Kuusaana
2018;
Hausermann
et
al.
2018;

Nibi
2012;
Tsikata
2014;
Williams
et
al.
2012).





For
instance,
Hausermann
et
al.
(2018),
in
a
study,
concluded
that
 land-grabbing
for


gold
 resulted
 in
 deeper
 gender
 inequalities
 and
 social
 differentiation.
 This
 is
 because
 the

compensation
 paid
 to
 men
 for
 the
 destruction
 of
 their
 farms
 far
 exceeds
 that
 of
 women
 if

compensated
but
in
most
 cases
rarely
 compensated.
According
to
the
authors,
 this
 disparity

exploited
the
already
existing
customary
land
tenure
systems
that
are
socially
and
structurally

biased
 against
 women.
 The
structure
 enabled
 men
 to
 cultivate
 lucrative
 cash
 crops
 such
as

cocoa,
rubber,
 and
 rice.
In
 contrast,
 women
 planted
 subsistence
 crops
for
 food
 preparation.

Tsikata
and
Yaro
(2014)
found
these
inequalities
in
the
land
tenure
systems
have
contributed

to
the
fact
that
women
routinely
have
smaller
and
less
fertile
land
and
experience
challenges

with
 productivity
and
 livelihood
 outcomes.
 As
a
 result,
 even
 though
 both
 men
 and
 women







26




depend
on
the
land
for
their
livelihoods,
the
 loss
of
this
asset
widens
the
gender
gap
 in
host

communities.




This
assertion
is
further
affirmed
by
the
research
findings
of
Nibi
(2012).
In
her
study


on
the
effect
of
large-scale
agrofuel
production
on
women
in
Northern
Ghana,
she
discovered

that
 expanding
 agrofuels
 into
 areas
 where
 women
 have
 poor
 tenure
 protection
 due
 to

patriarchal
systems
and
 norms
serves
to
exacerbate
the
situation
through
a
process
she
calls

"double-dispossession."

This
double-dispossession
means“asituationwherewomenloseboth
their
 rights
and
 access
 to
land
for
cultivation
and
secondly
to
the
natural
resources
for
food,

income,medicine, andfodder”(Nibi2012:33).Thisresearch,therefore,reinforcestheview
that
the
phenomenonoflandgrabsexposestheweaknessesofGhana’slandtenuresystem;
the

only
 difference
 in
 the
 context
 of
 this
research
 is
 that
 women
 tend
 to
 bear
 the
 brunt
 of
 this

phenomenon.





The
inability
of
projects
resulting
from
land
grabs
to
reduce
gender
inequalities
in
the


control
of
livelihood
resources
and
incomes
was
explored
by
Tsikata
and
Yaro
(2014).
Their

research
into
the
operations
of
the
IntegratedTamaleFruitCompanyfoundthatthecompany’s
activities
worsened
women’sreproductiveburdens
through
the
loss
of
forest
resources
closer

to
their
homes.
The
new
time
and
transportation
costs
and
the
need
to
negotiate
access
to
new

sources
of
forest
resources
were
a
threat
to
the
livelihood
prospects
of
women.
It
must
be
noted

that
the
pre-existing
inequalities
inherent
in
the
land
tenure
system
notwithstanding,
the
failure

of
projects
to
take
these
into
account
or
to
mitigate
them
contribute
to
exacerbating
the
gender

inequalities
within
the
host
communities
of
these
projects.




According
 to
 Huggins
 et
 al.
 (2017),
 the
 attempt
 to
 address
 these
 concerns
 only


exacerbates
the
gender
inequality
problem.
Their
study
contends
that
the
government's
attempt

to
contain
and
regulate
small-scale
artisanal
mining
in
Africa
only
reinforces
existing
gender

inequalities.
They
assert
that
the
emphasis
by
governments
on
the
formation
of
associations
in







27




mining
communities
creates
male
leaders
to
the
disadvantage
of
women
working
in
and
around

mining
sites
may
be
less
likely
to
have
such
a
platform
for
negotiating
with
other
stakeholders.

2.3.7.LandgrabsandconflictsinGhana




The
history
of
Ghana
is
replete
with
conflicts
and
contestations
over
shared
commons

such
as
land
and
water.
According
to
Campion
et
al.
(2012),
recent
natural
resource
conflicts

in
Ghana
are
associated
with
land
related
to
expropriation,
ambiguous
land
ownership
systems,

and
tenure
arrangements,
unfair
or
unpaid
compensation,
and
abuse
of
power.
To
the
specific

issue
 of
 how
land
grabs
play
 a
role
in
these
resource
 conflicts,
 the
study
found
 that
biofuel

investments
deprived
communities
of
using
resources
on
which
their
livelihoods
depend.
The

situation
 is
 further
 compounded
 by
 the
 non-payment
 of
 compensation
 or
 provision
 of

alternative
livelihoods.
 These
minuses
form
the
basis
of
 discontent
 among
 the
 local
 people,

often
resulting
in
resistance
and,
ultimately,
conflicts.





Kasanga
et
al.
(2019)
add
other
considerations,
such
as
the
undocumented
existence
of


group
land
borders,
tenancy
history,
and
legislative
intervention
by
the
state
and
its
agencies,

to
the
view
that
land
grabbing
acts
as
a
precursor
to
land
disputes
in
Ghana.
In
recent
times,

the
increasing
value
of
land
in
response
to
the
rush
for
lands
in
Ghana
has
only
exacerbated
the

underlying
 problems
 associated
 with
 land
 management
 in
 Ghana.
 According
 to
 a
 study

conducted
by
Kuusaana
and
Bukari
(2015)
in
the
Asante
Akim
North
District,
while
there
are

issues
regarding
land
ownership,
access,
and
usage
of
customary
land
that
trigger
conflicts
in

the
 region,
 the
 situation
 has
 worsened
 due
 to
 rising
 land
 prices
 and
 scarcity
 as
 a
 result
 of

commoditization,
individualization,
and
commercialization
of
land
in
a
new
era
of
land
grabs.




However,
an
exciting
finding
 in
the
literature
points
out
that
some
of
these
investors


have
sought
to
mitigate
some
of
these
conflicts
through
corporate
social
responsibility
(CSR).

Abubakari
 et
 al.
 (2020)
 found
 that
 implementing
 CSR
 interventions
 and
 benefit-sharing

mechanisms
has
had
de-escalating
effects
on
land
conflicts
in
two
selected
communities
that






28




have
experienced
land
grabs
(i.e.
Agogo
and
Kpaacha).
In
Agogo,
for
example,
the
researchers

discovered
that
steps
such
as
the
investor's
decision
to
shift
investment
focus
from
biofuel
to

food
crops,
the
establishment
of
a
structured
rent
payment
system,
and
the
operation
of
flexible

and
 rotational
 work
 schemes
 for
 community
 members
 were
 all
 taken
 to
reduce
 the
 risk
 of

conflict.
 Similar
 interventions
 in
 Kpaacha
 including,
 infrastructure
 development
 and
 derestricted
 communal
 access
 to
 unused
 land
 spaces
 and
 economic
 trees
 for
 local
 livelihood

sustainability,
 softened
 local
 discontent
 and
 served
 as
 a
 mitigation
 measure
 against
 the

outbreak
of
conflicts.

2.3.8.Conclusion




A
review
of
the
literature
on
land
grabs
conducted
above
reveals
that
the
nature
of
land

deals
with
their
largely
negative
effects
on
host
communities
qualify
the
acquisitions
in
Ghana

to
 be
 termed
 as
 land
 grabs
in
 line
with
 the
 neo-colonialist
perspective
 as
 noted
in
Boamah

(2014).
It
was
also
discovered
that
successive
governments
had
been
the
main
drivers
of
land

grabs
in
 Ghana
by
establishing
an
enabling
atmosphere
to
draw
foreign
investments
into
the

agriculture
sector
through
deliberate
policy.
For
instance,
the
Ghana
Commercial
Agriculture

Project
launched
in
2013,
for
example,
targeted
commercial
enterprises
engaged
in
agricultural

production,
 agro-processing,
 and
 other
 activities
 along
 the
 value
 chain.
 The
 goal
 was
 to

improve
 the
 investment
 climate
 for
 agri-business
 and
 develop
 inclusive
 public-private

partnerships
(MOFA
2020).
Therefore,
the
consequent
rise
in
commercial
farming
projects
can

be
attributable
to
this
deliberate
government
policy.
Regarding
actors
involved
in
the
Ghanaian

land
 grab,
 the
 existing
 literature
 acknowledged
 the
 role
 of
 traditional
 land
 grabbers
 of
 the

United
Kingdom
and
the
United
States.
It
was
also
worth
noting
that
countries
such
as
India

and
China
have
emerged
as
significant
competitors
in
Ghana.
These
acquisitions
took
place
for

various
reasons,
including
food
crops,
biofuels,
forestry,
and
mining.







29







Due
to
its
inherent
institutional
weaknesses,
the
Ghanaian
land
tenure
system
has
also


been
faulted
for
overseeing
bad
deals
and
being
inherently
too
weak
to
supervise
the
companies

engaged
 in
 commercial
 agricultural
 projects
 in
 the
 country.
 At
 the
 base
 of
 institutional

weakness
 is
 the
 overlapping
 roles
 of
 the
 state
 and
 customary
 institutions
 (chiefs)
 over
 the

processes
leading
to
land
acquisitions
in
Ghana.
It
will
be
interesting
to
determine
how
the
new

Land
 Act
2020
will
harmonize
 the
rules
governing
 the
 land
 acquisition
processes
 to
ensure

clarity
of
roles
and
responsibilities
between
the
institutions.
The
weakness
of
the
institutions

was
further
cited
as
a
cause
of
the
negative
effects
of
land
grabs
in
the
country.












The
negative
effects
revealed
in
the
various
studies
were
varied.
They
include
a
threat
to

food
security,
income
loss
to
families,
displacement,
a
threat
to
social
cohesion,
conflicts,
and

environmental
impacts.
Specific
attention
was
also
paid
to
how
these
land
acquisitions
affect

different
segments
of
the
various
communities.
Studies
such
as
Hausermann
et
al.
(2018),
Nibi

(2012),
Tsikata
(2014),
Williams
et
al.
(2012),
and
Bukari
and
Kuusaana
(2018)
examined
how

land
 grabs
 affected
 women
in
 the
host
 communities
 and
 found
 that
 women
 were
 generally

worse
off
in
terms
of
livelihood
outcomes
as
a
result
of
land
grabs.
Their
low
status
within
the

social
 structure
 disables
 them
 from
 owning
 lands
 that
 could
 earn
 them
 some
 form
 of

compensation.
The
role
of
chiefs
in
the
processes
of
land
grabs
was
also
explored
in
the
existing

literature.
It
was
noted
that
in
various
communities
where
these
acquisitions
occur,
chiefs
had

become
significant
sources
of
conflict.




From
the
above,
there
seems
to
be
a
significant
amount
of
literature
on
the
phenomenon


of
 land
 grabs
 in
 Ghana.
 However,
 there
 is
 a
 need
 for
 more
 work
 on
 the
 phenomenon,

particularly
 concerning
 how
 the
 host
 communities
 are
 coping
 with
 the
 identified
 negative

impacts
of
land
grabs.
Also,
more
research
 needs
to
be
carried
out
 to
understand
 how
these

land
 grabs
 affect
different
 segments
 of
 the
 community’ssocialstructure andtheir response
mechanism.
Some
scholars
have
explored
the
sustainable
livelihood
question
in
this
research







30




within
the
 Ghanaian
context
(see
Fredua
et
 al.
 2017;
 Tanle
 and
Abane
2018;
 Mensah
 et
al.

2019).
With
specific
reference
to
the
impact
of
land
grabs
on
livelihoods,
the
study
by
Suhiyini

et
 al.
 (2018)
concluded
 that
 land
grabs
posed
 a
 threat
to
development
 as
 the
 disadvantages

outweigh
 the
 advantages
 of
 the
 livelihood
 outcomes
 of
 the
 households.
 While
 the
 study
 is

relevant,
it
did
not
consider
how
institutional
and
regulatory
frameworks
contribute
to
the
land

acquisition
process
and
impact
smallholder
farmer
livelihoods.




Additionally,
the
study
did
not
consider
how
land
ownership
status,
community
status,


gender, incomes,availability oflivelihood alternatives, and availability of farmers’ support

groups
predict
the
impacts
of
land
grabs
on
livelihoods.
Furthermore,
the
study
did
not
focus

on
how
livelihood
alternatives
and
institutional
interventions
predict
the
likelihood
to
cope
well

with
the
 phenomenon
 of
land
grabs
in
farming
 communities.
These
 are
the
knowledge
gaps

this
study
seeks
to
fill
using
insights
from
the
study
areas.




A
study
by
Quaye
(2008)
sheds
light
on
coping
strategies
in
response
to
food
insecurity


to
include
migration,
support
 from
relatives
and
friends,
sales
from
livestock
and
household

valuables,
 and
 food
 intake
 reduction
 and
 consumption
 of
 less
 preferred
 food.
 Her
 study

outlined
 the
 broad
 mechanisms
 households
 adopt
 in
 response
 to
 a
 specific
 impact
 of
 food

insecurity.
A
further
differentiated
examination
of
the
coping
mechanisms
adopted
would
have

enhanced
our
knowledge
of
how
individuals
are
likely
to
respond
to
food
insecurity
challenges

based
on
characteristics
such
as
gender,
income,
and
community
status.

2.4
Conceptual
framework






The
 study
 employs
 the
 Sustainable
 Livelihoods
 Framework
 (see
 Chambers
 and

Conway
1992;
Scoones
1998)
to
understand
how
farmers
are
experiencing
and
responding
to

the
 phenomenon
 of
 land
 grabs.
 This
 framework
 helped
 to
 understand
 better
 the
 livelihood

outcomes
of
land
grabs
on
individual
farmers.
Other
frameworks
have
been
used
to
study
the

phenomenon
 of
 land
 grabs
 and
 associated
 livelihood
 outcomes.
 Two
 of
 such
 frameworks






31




include
political
ecology
and
socio-ecological
frameworks.
A
 study
by
Adams
et
 al.
(2019),

for
 instance,
 combined
 political
 ecology
 with
 the
 hydro-social
 cycle
 to
 discover
 the
 sociopolitical
 factors
 that
underlie
 land-water
 grabs.
 The
choice
of
political
 ecology
enabled
 the

research
 to
examine
the
multiplicity
 of
 actors
involved
in
the
process
 and
to
 understand
the

motivations
and
power
relations
that
underlie
land
and
water
grabs
as
one
socio-environmental

process
through
which
society
and
nature
shape
each
other.
Similarly,
Ndi
(2017)
adopted
the

feminist
 political
 ecology
 framework
 to
 understand
the
 gendered
perceptions
 of
 large-scale

land
acquisitions.




Oberlack
 et
 al.
 (2016)
 also
 utilized
 the
 socio-ecological
framework
 to
 explain


livelihood
changes
due
to
interactions
between
system
components
such
as
resource
systems,

resource
units,
governance
systems,
and
actors.
This
framework
allowed
them
to
examine
the

factors
 and
 processes
 that
 generate
 different
 livelihood
 outcomes
 in
 large-scale
 land

acquisitions
 in
 a
 study
 covering
 four
 different
 continents
(Africa,
 Latin
 America,
Southeast

Asia,
and
Eastern
Europe).
Olalekan
et
al.
(2012)
also
applied
the
socio-ecological
framework

to
understand
the
relationship
between
people,
land,
and
water
resources
in
Ghana.
The
choice

of
this
framework
was
relevant
as
it
enabled
them
to
investigate
how
the
complex
systems
link

social,
economic,
and
 political
settings
 and
 related
ecosystems.
 The
application
 of
political

ecology
 and
 socio-ecological
 framing
 allowed
 previous
 researchers
 to
 examine
 the

phenomenon
of
land
grabs
at
the
macro/micro
level,
including
the
consequential
impacts
and

how
the
phenomenon
connects
to
the
multiple
sectors
and
actors
within
the
societal
ecosystem

(see
Ahmed
et
al.,
2019;
Ndi
2017;
Oberlack
et
al.
2016;
Olalekan
et
al.
2012).
In
other
words,

these
conceptual
frameworks
enabled
an
understanding
of
the
complexities
surrounding
issues

related
 to
 environment
 and
 development.
 The
 Sustainable
 Livelihood
 Framework
 as

implemented
by
the
United
Kingdom's
Department
for
International
Development
(DFID)
and

other
relevant
studies
(see
Mabe
et
al.
2019;
Owusu
2019;
Sobeng
et
al.
2018;
Suhiyini
et
al.






32




2018)
 is
 most
 appropriate
 for
 this
 study.
 This
 study
 investigates
 how
 individual
 farmers

encounter
and
react
to
livelihood
changes
at
the
micro-level.
Notably,
the
application
of
this

framework
enables
me
to
examine
the
livelihood
outcomes
of
land
grabs
in
host
communities.




The
 DFID
has
used
this
framework
to
understand
and
analyze
the
 livelihoods
of
the


poor
(DFID
1999).
A
livelihood
is
sustainable
when
it
can
cope
with
and
recover
from
stress

and
shocks,
maintain
or
enhance
its
capabilities
and
resources
or
assets,
and
provide
sustainable

livelihood
 opportunities
 for
 the
 next
 generation.
 It
 is
 comprised
 of
 the
 capabilities,
 assets

(stores,
resources,
claims,
and
access),
and
activities
required
for
a
means
of
living
(Chambers

and
Conway
1992;
Scoones
1998).
According
to
Jongschaap
et
al.
(2007),
these
assets
could

be
 in
 physical
 assets
such
as
 infrastructure,
 housing,
 equipment,
and
livestock
or
 a
 form
of

human
assets
such
as
education,
health,
knowledge,
and
skills.
They
could
also
be
social
assets,

including
community
relationships,
involvement
in
political
and
social
activities,
involvement

in
 decision-making,
 and
 the
 platform
 of
 representation.
 Water,
 soil,
 and
 environmental

resources
are
 all
considered
natural
assets.
Individual
 assets
thus
serve
 as
the
 foundation
for

their
competitiveness
and
long-term
viability.
The
main
components
of
this
framework
include

the
 vulnerability
 context,
 livelihood
 assets,
 policies,
 institutions
 and
 processes,
 livelihood

strategies,
 and
 livelihood
 outcomes
 (GLOPP
 2008).
 This
 study
 adopts
 three
 framework

components:
livelihood
assets,
institutions,
and
livelihood
strategies
and
outcomes
to
achieve

the
stated
objectives
(seeFigure1below).












33





Figure1:InstituteofDevelopmentStudies’SustainableRuralLivelihoodsFramework
(AdaptedfromScoones1998;Sobengetal.2018)


CONTEXT

&

CONDITIONS















LIVELIHOOD


RESOURCES




INSTITUTIONS



LIVELIHOOD

PATHWAYS


LIVELIHOOD

OUTCOMES 














Demography
Naturalassets


Socialassets

























































Microeconomic

Livelihood
PhysicalassetsLivelihood
conditions
Institutions
adaptation
HumanAssetsstrategies




Livelihood
Social





differentiation








































































Analysingpolicy
setting





Influenceonaccessto
livelihoodresourcesand
strategy





































The
 livelihood
 assets
 referred
 to
 above
 include
 land,
 which
 serves
 as
 a
 source
 of


livelihood
to
the
people
through
 subsistence
farming.
 The
land
is
an
asset
that
enables
rural

communities
 to
 have
 improved
 and
 better
 livelihoods.
 Therefore,
 dispossessing
 rural

communities
 of
 their
 lands
 through
 large-scale
 land
 acquisitions
 can
 render
them
 landless,

thereby
depriving
them
of
their
livelihood.
Gironde
and
Golay
(2015)
noted
that
the
dislocation

of
 people
 due
 to
the
land
acquisition
might
mean
that
they
 must
restructure
their
livelihood

from
 losing
their
 assets.
 Through
 the
phenomenon
of
 land
 grabs,
a
 change
 in
 access
to
this







34




asset
impacts
their
 livelihood.
Therefore,
focusing
on
this
component
helps
to
document
the

conditions
that
currently
affect
livelihoods
in
the
communities.


The
adoption
of
the
livelihood
strategies
and
outcomes
component
of
the
framework

would
provide
the
context
to
describe
the
mechanisms
adopted
by
the
community
members
in

response
 to
 the
 change
 occasioned
 by
 land
 grabs.
 Institutions
 play
 an
 essential
 role
 in
 this

framework.
Davies
(1997),
cited
in
Sobeng
et
al.
(2018:
161),
views
institutions
as
“thesocial
cement
which
links
stakeholders
to
access
capital
of
different
kinds
to
the
means
of
exercising

power
and
so
define
the
gateways
through
which
they
pass
on
the
route
to
positive
or
negative

[livelihood]
 adaptation.”
Similarly,
Hodgson
(2006)
views
institutions
as
formal
or
informal

entities
normally
established
 and
 constituted
by
binding
 laws,
regulations,
 conventions,
and

norms
embedded
in
traditional
social
practices
and
culture.
In
this
research,
the
role
of
the
state

and
 customary
institutions
 (chiefs)
is
examined
to
assess
how
 their
 conduct
determines
and

shapes
livelihood
outcomes
of
people
affected
by
the
phenomenon
of
land
grabs.
Institutions

at
these
two
levels
are
important
because,
as
noted
in
Lambrecht
and
Asare
(2016),
oversight

over
lands
management
in
Ghana
is
jointly
managed
by
the
state
and
traditional
authorities
at

the
 local
 levels.
 Therefore,
 to
 a
 considerable
 extent,
 their
 conduct
 determines
 how
 people

respond
to
the
livelihood
changes
occasioned
by
land
grabs.
The
state
is
represented
through

agencies
 such
 as
 the
 ministry
 responsible
 for
 lands
 and
 natural
 resources
 and
 the
 Land

Commission.
According
to
the
Chieftaincy
Act
(2008),
a
chief
is
a
person
who
hails
from
the

appropriate
family
or
lineage,
has
been
validly
nominated,
elected,
or
selected
and
enstooled,

enskinned
or
installed
a
chief
or
queen
mother
in
accordance
with
the
relevant
customary
law

and
usage.
Therefore,
these
two
entities
(state
and
the
chiefs)
have
a
legitimate
basis
to
act
in

the
administration
of
lands
in
Ghana.
As
a
result,
 a
better
understanding
of
the
role
of
these

institutions
allows
this
study
to
look
at
the
mechanisms
that
help
or
hinder
the
achievement
of

sustainable
livelihoods
in
the
selected
communities.







35







This
framework
has
been
applied
in
various
studies.
For
instance,
Sobeng
et
al.
(2018)


adopted
it
to
examine
the
effect
of
forest
management
on
the
livelihood
of
communities
living

near
the
Tano-Offin
forest
reserve
in
Ghana.
Also,
Owusu
(2019)
utilized
it
to
investigate
the

livelihood
 situation
 of
 small-scale
 coastal
 fisherfolk
 in
 the
 Western
 Region
 of
 Ghana.

Similarly,
Mabe
et
al.
(2019)
employed
it
to
estimate
the
household
livelihood
security
index

for
households
living
in
communities
with
and
without
large-scale
land
acquisition
in
Northern

Ghana.
In
their
respective
studies,
the
authors
emphasized
different
aspects
of
the
framework.

In
 their
 study,
Suhiyini
et
al.
 (2018)
emphasized
 the
 vulnerability
 component
to
 establish
 a

correlation
 between
 land
 grabs
and
 negative
livelihood
outcomes.
 Similarly,
Owusu
(2019)

also
focused
on
the
vulnerability
context
to
understand
the
changes
in
the
external
environment

and
 how
 they
 affect
 or
 influence
 people’s
 livelihoods.
 A
 more
 related
 application
 of
 this

framework
is
contained
in
Sobeng
et
al.
(2018).
Their
study
highlighted
how
institutions
serve

as
barriers
to
and
opportunities
for
achieving
sustainable
livelihoods.





Similar
 to
 the
 application
 of
 the
 framework
 by
 Sobeng
 et
 al.
 (2018),
 this
 study


emphasizes
the
role
of
institutions.
This
is
because
institutions'
decisions
over
who
has
access

to
a
natural
asset
(i.e.,
land)
could
significantly
alter
the
livelihood
options
available
to
locals

in
 a
 community.
 Land
 constitutes
 a
 significant
 asset
 for
 farmers;
 therefore,
 losing
 such
 a

resource
 will
 affect
 their
 livelihood
 outcomes.
 The
 Sustainable
 Livelihood
 Framework

provides
a
helpful
frame
to
 understand
the
impact
of
these
land
deals
on
farmers,
how
 they

respond
 to
 the
 phenomenon,
 and
 the
 role
 institutions
 play
 to
 either
 aid
 or
 constrain
 these

response/coping
 mechanisms.
This
study
examines
 the
 effects
of
land
 grabs
and
 the
 coping

mechanisms
adopted
by
farmers
 in
communities
where
these
acquisitions
have
either
failed,

been
 successful,
and
are
being
contested.
This
 classification
 improves
 our
 understanding
of

how
institutions
act
and
affect
livelihood
outcomes
under
different
circumstances.









36






Chapter
3:
Methodology

3.0
Introduction





This
chapter
presents
the
 procedures
that
 were
followed
to
carry
out
 the
research.
 It

describes
the
methodological
approach
and
the
methods
used
for
data
collection,
including
how

primary
 data
 was
 collected
 and
 analyzed
 for
 this
 thesis.
 Specifically,
 the
 chapter
 entails

information
about
the
types
and
sources
of
data,
sampling
techniques,
methods,
and
tools
for

data
collection
and
the
techniques
employed
for
analyzing
the
data.
However,
the
concluding

section
will
briefly
reflect
on
the
data
collection
processes
and
protocols
amidst
the
COVID19
pandemic
due
to
the
unique
circumstances
in
which
this
research
was
conducted.

3.1
Methodological
approach





To
 achieve
 the
 objectives
 of
 this
 study,
 I
 adopted
 an
 exploratory
 research
 approach

using
 mixed
 methods
 to
 collect
 data
 for
 this
 thesis.
 This
 approach
 offers
 a
 broad-ranging,

purposive,
 systematic,
 prearranged
 undertaking
 designed
 to
 maximize
 the
 discovery
 of

generalizations
leading
to
description
and
understanding
of
an
area
of
social
or
psychological

life
(Stebbins
2001).
Swedberg
(2020)
contends
that
at
the
core
of
exploratory
research
is
an

attempt
 to
 discover
 something
 new.
 Through
 an
 extensive
 literature
 review
 and
 field
 data

collection
on
the
phenomenon
of
land
grabs,
the
exploratory
research
approach
helps
fill
the

gaps
in
knowledge
by
generating
new
insight
into
how
farmers
in
Ghana
are
coping
with
the

processes
of
land
grabs.





Regarding
 data
 collection,
 I
 employed
 a
 mixed-method
 research
 approach.
 Mixed


methods
refer
to
a
research
design
that
integrates
qualitative
and
quantitative
research
methods

(Darian-Smith
and
McCarty
2017).
I
chose
this
approach
because
it
ensures
a
more
profound,

broader
understanding
of
the
phenomenon
under
study
and
gives
readers
more
confidence
in

the
results
and
conclusions
they
draw
from
the
study
(McKim
2017).
Also,
the
mixed-method






37




approach
is
appropriate
in
conducting
global
analyses
of
issues
as
it
encompasses
both
micro

and
 macro
 dimensions.
 It
 allows
 a
 researcher
 to
 pair
 interviews
 with
 target
 groups
 with

quantitative
 data
(Darian-Smith
and
McCarty
2017).
Therefore,
this
approach
is
suitable
 for

this
 study
 as
 it
 seeks
 to
 understand
 how
 a
 global
 phenomenon
 such
 as
 land
 grabs
 affects

people's
livelihoods
in
specific
local
areas.

The
 mixed-method
 approach
 has
 been
 applied
 to
 undertake
 related
 studies.
 For

instance,
 Santos
 and
 Brannstrom
 (2015)
 adopted
 it
 to
 demonstrate
 that
 recent
 fishery

agreements
 with
 a
 marine
 extractive
 reserve
 in
 Cassuruba
 (Brazil)
 contradict
 fisherfolk

livelihood
diversification
strategies
and
produce
differentiated
impacts
on
households.
Smith

(2014)
 also
 applied
 it
 to
 provide
 an
 overview
 of
 Kenya's
 ethical
 sourcing,
 gender,
 and

sustainable
 livelihoods.
 Similarly,
 Okpara
 et
 al.
 (2016)
 employed
 it
 to
 examine
 the

phenomenon
of
lake
drying
and
livelihood
dynamics
in
the
context
of
multiple
stressors
using

Lake
 Chad
 as
 a
 case
 study.
 These
 examples
 highlight
 the
 utility
 of
 this
 methodological

framework
for
my
proposed
research.




The
 mixed-method
 approach
 applied
 in
 this
 study
 is
 evident
 in
 data
 collected,
 data


analysis,
 and
 presentation
 and
 is
 explained
 as
 follows.
First,
 a
 field
survey
was
 conducted,

which
formed
the
quantitative
component
of
the
data
for
the
study.
The
data
collected
from
the

survey
was
then
analyzed
using
the
statistical
data
analysis
software
Stata.
According
to
Tiong

(2017),
Stata
is
a
complete,
integrated
statistical
software
package
that
helps
with
data
analysis,

data
management,
and
graphics
and
is
particularly
useful
for
managing
large
datasets.
For
this

thesis,
Stata
16.1
was
used
to
group
the
variables
into
various
categories,
estimate
proportions,

and
generate
graphs
for
the
selected
variables.
The
results
of
the
quantitative
data
analysis
are

presented
in
tables
and
graphs
in
the
results
section
of
this
thesis
(Chapter
4).
The
qualitative

component
of
the
data
was
generated
through
three
methods,
namely
focus
group
discussions,

key
informant
interviews,
and
document
analysis.
 The
focus
 group
 discussions
were
 held
at







38




designated
 public
 places
 within
 the
 communities.
 It
 was
 followed
 by
 interviews
 with
 key

informants
 on
 the
 subject
 matter
 of
 land
 grabs
 in
 Ghana.
 Finally,
 I
 carried
 out
 document

analysis
on
policies,
reports,
and
various
legislations
governing
land
administration
in
Ghana

to
 augment
 the
 previous
 two
 techniques.
 The
 data
 from
 the
 qualitative
 component
 was

categorized
into
themes
and
analyzed
using
the
qualitative
data
analysis
software,
MAXQDA.

This
software
allows
researchers
to
organize
and
categorize
data
into
various
themes,
code
and

retrieve
coded
segments
in
a
click
(Marjaei
et
al.
2019).

The
results
from
the
qualitative
data

analysis
 are
 presented
 in
 quotations
 under
 various
 respective
 themes
 in
 the
 chapter.
 The

findings
from
both
the
quantitative
and
qualitative
data
were
triangulated
across
the
different

data
sets
(e.g.,
survey
and
interviews)
and
alongside
existing
scholarly
works
to
gain
a
nuanced

understanding
of
the
processes
and
outcomes
of
land
grabs
in
Ghana.

3.2
Case
study
selection,
locations,
and
sample
population







This
project
entails
exploratory
research
that
uses
a
case
study
approach
to
gain
an
indepth
understanding
of
the
relationship
between
land
grabs
and
livelihood
outcomes.
A
case

study
is
defined
as
an
 intensive
study
of
a
single
unit
 to
understand
a
larger
 class
of
similar

units
(Gerring
2004).
In
other
words,
a
case
study
allows
for
an
in-depth
understanding
of
the

phenomenon
being
studied
(Yin
2003,
2009).
By
adopting
a
case
study
approach,
this
research

can
construct
cases
from
a
single
unit
while
remaining
attentive
to
inferences
that
span
similar

units
 outside
 the
formal
 scope
 of
 the
investigation
 (Darian-Smith
and
McCarty
2017).
 This

method
was
used
to
learn
how
farmers
in
Ghana's
agrarian
communities
deal
with
and
react
to

land
grabs
in
their
communities.












For
this
case
study,
I
purposively
selected
communities
in
three
regions
of
Ghana:
the

Northern
region,
Central
Region,
and
the
Volta
Region
(see
Figure
2).
These
communities
were

chosen
for
the
following
reasons.
First,
the
selection
was
based
on
the
presence
of
large-scale

land
investments.
Second,
there
is
information
about
the
respective
projects
and
a
dimension






39




of
 land
 grabs.
 According
to
 the
 Land
 Matrix
 (2020),
 these
 three
 regions
have
 recorded
 41

separate
land
deals
with
an
estimated
land
size
of
209,406
hectares.
The
selection
allows
the

analysis
 of
 livelihood
 outcomes
 in
 communities
 where
 investments
 have
 been
 largely

successful
 (Central),
 contested
 (Volta),
 and
 failed
 (Northern).
 These
 classifications
 are

informed
 by
 the
 varied
 outcomes
 and
 responses
 the
 various
 projects
 elicited
 from
 host

communities.
 Preliminary
 research
 on
 the
 selected
 sites
 revealed
 that
 the
 projects
 in
 the

Northern
 region
 were
 abandoned
 midway,
 hence
 the
 classification
 as
 a
 failed
 project.
 The

project
in
the
Central
region
 was
deemed
successful
due
 to
the
 continuous
execution
of
the

project
with
little
or
no
resistance
from
the
people
in
the
host
communities.
The
project
in
the

Volta
 region
 has
come
 under
 tremendous
contestation
and
 protests
 from
the
people
thereby

justifying
the
tag
of
being
a
contested
case.
The
findings
of
this
study
as
contained
in
Chapter

4,
 coupled
 with
 the
 discussions
 in
 Chapter
 5,
 justify
 these
 study
 locations'
 pre-fieldwork

classifications.
Thirdly,
according
to
the
2010
Population
and
Housing
Census,
these
regions

share
 a
 common
 feature
 of
 their
 local
 economies
 being
 driven
 by
 subsistence
 agricultural

activities.
 According
to
the
census
figures,
 the
total
number
 of
 agricultural
households
 was

13,366,340,
 accounting
 for
 54.2%
 of
 the
 total
 population.
 Out
 of
 this
 figure,
 rural
 areas

(including
the
study
areas)
accounted
for
73.5%
of
the
agricultural
households
(Nortey
2013).

Specifically,
the
Central
and
Volta
regions
have
73.2
%
rural
population,
while
the
Northern

region
has
89.9%
rural
population.
As
such,
the
purposive
selection
of
respondents
from
these

populations
enabled
the
research
team
to
collect
representative
data
on
farmer
experiences
and

responses
to
the
processes
of
land
grab
in
the
respective
communities.
















40




Figure2:Study
locations.




Notes:Maprepresentingstudyareas-
Thecommunitieswherethedatawascollectedwereplottedusingthecoordinateschosenduringthe
datacollectionprocess.Thecolourediconsrepresentthespecificcommunitiesvisitedinthevarious
regions.Inthisregard,intheCentralregion,thecommunitiesincludeTwifoNtafrewaso,Edwabeng,
TwifoMampong,andTwifoHemang.IntheVoltaregion,thecommunitiesincludeLolito,Atravenu,
andKpenuwhiletheNorthernregionincludesTuya,Kpaacha,andParishenaaya.






41







In
 selecting
 the
 participants
 for
 this
 research,
 snowball
 sampling
 techniques
 (Ranjit


2011)
were
adopted.
For
the
sample,
farmers
in
the
respective
communities
above
the
age
of

18
were
selected;
some
officials
were
also
interviewed.
Out
of
the
902
respondents,
478
were

men,
and
424
were
women.
The
selection
of
the
 farmers
was
built
on
the
criterion
of
people

present
in
the
selected
communities
and
engaged
in
farming.
Therefore,
farmers
who
satisfied

the
above
criterion
at
the
household
level
 were
selected.
This
was
done
through
the
 help
of

community
 leaders
 and
 some
 of
 the
 farmers
 in
 facilitating
 the
 identification
 of
 various

households. Selected farming household’s heads were interviewed. Where the heads of
households
were
unavailable,
their
spouses
were
interviewed
instead.
Seven
interviews
were

also
conducted
with
officials
whose
selection
was
based
on
their
role
in
the
processes
leading

up
to
land
acquisitions.
The
choice
of
the
institutional
 respondents
was
based
on
the
criteria

that
first,
that
the
institution
got
involved
in
land
acquisition
within
the
study
area.
Secondly,

the
institution
performs
functions
connected
with
land
acquisition
or
administration
in
general.

To
this
end,
data
were
collected
from
the
Office
 of
the
Administrator
of
Stool
Lands,
Lands

Valuation
Unit,
Lands
Commission,
the
respective
corporate
entities,
and
traditional
authorities

in
the
study
areas.
Additionally,
six
focus
group
discussions
were
held
in
the
communities.
The

selected
 communities
included
Kpachaa,
Parishenaaya,
and
 Tuya
(in
 the
 Northern
 Region),

Twifo
 Hemang,
 Twifo
 Ntafrewaso,
 Mampong,
 and
 Edwabeng
 (in
 the
 Central
 Region),

Atravenu,
Kpenu,
and
Lolito
(in
the
Volta
Region).



3.3
Data
collection






The
data
for
this
research
was
collected
between
September
and
 November
2020.
A

survey
instrument
was
utilized
to
collect
quantitative
data,
while
focus
group
discussions
and

key
 formant
 interviews
 were
 used
 to
 collect
 qualitative
 data.
 Quantitative
 work
 rests
 on

observing
 and
 measuring
 repeated
 incidences
 over
 several
 cases.
 This,
 according
 to
 John

(2010),
 allows
 for
 generalizations
 to
 be
made
 about
 the
 empirical
 world.
 Therefore,
 it
 is
 a






42




valuable
method
in
conducting
this
type
of
research
that
seeks
to
understand
the
respondents'

attitudes
 towards
 the
 phenomenon
 of
 land
 grabs.
 On
 the
 other
 hand,
 the
 main
 focus
 of

qualitative
methods
is
to
understand,
explain,
explore,
discover,
and
clarify
situations,
feelings,

perceptions,
attitudes,
values,
beliefs,
and
experiences
of
a
group
of
people
(Ranjit
2011).
The

qualitative
methods
used
(i.e.
key
informant
interviews
and
focus
group
discussions)
allowed

ustogaininsightintopeople’sthoughtsandfeelingsconcerningthephenomenonoflandgrabs.

3.3.1Survey


The
survey
method
was
employed
to
address
research
objectives
#1
and
#2,
to
examine

the
livelihood
outcomes
of
land
grabs
on
smallholder
farmers
(including
food
security,
income,

and
 land
 access)
 and
 examine
 the
 coping
 mechanisms
 that
 have
 been
 adopted.
 A
 survey,

according
to
Kelly
(2003),
refers
to
the
selection
of
a
relatively
large
sample
of
people
from
a

pre-determinedpopulation(the‘populationofinterest’;thisisthebroader
group
of
people
in

whom
 the
 researcher
 is
 interested
 in
 a
 particular
 study),
 followed
 by
 the
 collection
 of
 a

relatively
 small
 amount
 of
 data
 from
those
 individuals.
 In
 designing
 the
 questionnaire,
 the

research
 team
 opted
 for
 closed-ended
 questions.
 Closed
 questions
 provided
 ‘ready-made’
categories
 within
 which
 respondents
 reply
 to
 the
 questions
 asked
 by
 the
 researcher,
 which

ensured
 that
 the
 information
 needed
 by
 the
 researcher
 is
 obtained
 to
 achieve
 the
 study

objectives
 (Ranjit
 2011).
 Respondents
 were
 therefore
 offered
 options
 to
 choose
 from
 in

answering
and
sharing
their
experiences
with
the
processes
of
land
grabs
in
their
respective

communities.
Information
was
solicited
from
respondents
through
the
administration
of
semistructured
questionnaires.
Respondents
were
allowed
to
express
themselves
and
express
their

views
on
land
acquisition
issues.
The
questionnaire
was
grouped
into
sections
aligned
with
the

research
questions
to
establish
consistency
with
the
study
objectives.
In
total,
902
surveys
were

administered
across
the
three
study
regions.
To
collect
survey
data,
the
team
used
KoBo
collect

software.
The
software
enabled
the
team
to
collect
the
data
using
mobile
devices
such
as
mobile






43




phones
and
tablets.
The
recurring
themes
from
the
survey
were
then
used
to
guide
subsequent

focus
group
discussions
and
interviews.


3.3.2FocusGroupDiscussions



A
 focus
 group
 is “a group of individuals selected and assembled by researchers to

discuss
 and
 comment
 upon,
 from
 personal
 experience,
 the
 topic
 that
 is
 the
 subject
 of
 the

research” (Stokes and Bergin 2006:27).
 The
 data
 generated
 from
 this
 interaction
 can
 be

detailed,
and
the
forum
used
to
explore
a
wide
variety
of
issues.
In
this
regard,
the
focus
group

discussions
were
utilized
to
achieve
objective
#3
of
the
research,
which
sought
to
examine
the

institutional
 and
regulatory
frameworks
within
which
the
processes
of
land
grabs
take
place.

The
focus
group
discussions
presented
an
opportunity
for
the
farmers
to
provide
more
context

and
detailed
information
to
complement
the
data
from
the
survey.




Participants
were
chosen
from
the
local
population
of
various
socioeconomic
statuses


in
each
community.
A
total
of
six
focus
group
discussions
were
held,
two
in
each
identified

fieldwork
 location.
 Given
 the
 negative
 impacts
 of
 land
 grabs
 on
 women
 as
 outlined
 in
 the

literature
 review
 above,
 deliberate
 steps
 were
 taken
 to
 elicit
 women
 perspectives
 in
 this

research.
To
this
end,
two
separate
focus
group
discussions
were
held
for
women
to
air
their

views
on
the
 livelihood
outcomes
of
land
grabs
in
 their
communities.
Due
to
the
 patriarchal

nature
of
these
communities,
it
was
anticipated
that
having
men
and
women
in
the
same
group

discussions
would
not
afford
the
women
the
opportunity
to
express
themselves
in
 ways
that

reflect
their
realities
freely.
Having
separate
group
discussions
for
women
yielded
significant

results
in
shedding
insight
on
how
women
in
the
respective
regions
have
experienced
and
dealt

with
the
phenomenon
of
land
grabs.
Details
of
these
findings
are
captured
in
Chapters
4
and
5

of
 this
 study.
 A
 discussion
 guide
 containing
 nine
 questions
 was
 utilized
 to
 clarify
 the

respondents'
perspectives.
The
research
team
took
notes
to
complement
audio
recordings
of
the

discussions.






44




3.3.3KeyInformantInterviews



Key
informant
interviews
involve
interviewing
a
select
group
 of
individuals
who
are


likely
to
provide
needed
information,
ideas,
and
insights
on
a
particular
subject
(Kumar
1989).

The
interviewees
were
selected
because
they
believe
that
they
possess
knowledge
or
ideas
to

enable
the
researcher
to
achieve
objective
#3
of
the
research,
that
is,
to
examine
the
institutional

and
regulatory
frameworks
within
which
these
land
grabs
occur.
There
were
seven
interviews

conducted
to
elicit
 data
from
institutional
respondents.
 These
interviews
 were
 meant
to
help

understand
in
a
deeper
context
the
role
of
institutions
in
aiding
and
or
constraining
the
ability

of
smallholder
farmers
to
cope
with
the
phenomenon
of
land
grabs.

3.3.4DocumentAnalysis



To
further
triangulate
my
findings,
I
also
conducted
document
analysis
as
part
of
the


research.
Bowen
(2009)
defines
document
analysis
as
a
systematic
procedure
for
reviewing
or

evaluating
 both
 printed
 and
 electronic
documents.
 According
to
Jentoft
and
Torunn
 (2019),

data
 triangulation reveals a social phenomenon’s complexity by providing a fuller picture,

thereby
making
the
research
more
complete.
To
this
end,
I
reviewed
various
documents
about

land
 grabs
 in
 Ghana.
 These
 include
 policy
 documents,
 legislation,
 technical
 reports
 from

funding
agencies,
and
 information
found
on
websites.
The
aim
was
 to
gather
information
to

aid
the
content
analysis
that
would
enhance
the
findings
from
the
fieldwork.
The
analysis
of

these
 documents
provided
information
 on
 the
processes
 which
 aid
 the
phenomenon
of
 land

grabs
and
details
on
how
the
activities
of
land
governance
institutions
in
Ghana
aid
or
constrain

the
ability
of
farmers
to
cope
with
the
consequent
livelihood
changes.

3.4
Concluding
Remarks:
COVID-19
and
the
Limitations
of
Data
Collection







My
thesis
has
been
carried
out
as
a
component
of
the
Social
Sciences
and
Humanities

Research
Council
(SSHRC)
Insight
Development
Grant
project
on
“The
Global
 Land
Rush,







45




Inequalities
 and
 Livelihoods:
 Enabling
 Environments
 for
 Strengthening
 Food
 Security
 in

Ethiopia
and
Ghana.”
The
project
seeks
to
understand
the
legal,
policy,
and
regulatory
regimes

and
 processes
 that
 form
 an
 enabling
 environment
 for
 the
private
 sector
 to
 strengthen
 food

security,
improve
livelihoods
 and
promote
economic
growth
for
all
using
the
case
studies
of

Ethiopia
and
Ghana.
This
project
received
ethics
approval
from
the
respective
universities
of

the
lead
 researchers,
that
 is,
Carleton
University
Research
Ethics
Board-A
 (CUREB-A)
 and

University
of
Northern
British
Columbia
Ethics
board.





On
 the
 other
 hand,
 my
 research
 seeks
 to
 highlight
 the
 livelihood
 outcomes
 in


communities
where
land
grabs
have
occurred
in
Ghana.
Therefore,
I
was
contracted
to
assist

with
data
collection
for
the
project
and
contribute
by
working
on
selected
research
questions

as
a
master's
degree
student
at
the
University
of
Northern
British
Columbia.
As
a
student,
my

duties
 included
 conducting
 literature
 reviews
 and
 assisting
 with
 primary
 data
 collection

between
June
and
August
2020.
The
outbreak
of
COVID-19
within
this
originally
stipulated

period
of
primary
data
collection
and
the
consequent
international
travel
ban
meant
alternative

means
had
 to
be
 used
 to
 collect
 the
primary
 data
from
 Ghana.
 To
this
end,
 a
Ghana-based

research
team
(based
at
the
University
of
Development
Studies)
was
employed
to
assist
with

data
 collection
 between
 September
 and
 November
 2020.
 Meetings
 were
 held
 between
 the

Canada
 research
 team
 (my
 supervisors
and
 I)
and
 the
 Ghana
 research
team
to
apprise
 them

about
 the
 project
 and
 its
 expected
 outcomes,
 the
 various
 methods
 of
 data
 collection
 to
 be

adopted,
 the
selected
locations
for
the
data
collection,
and
ethical
consideration
and
training

for
the
Ghana
research
 team.
 The
 Ghana
research
team
 then
visited
 the
chosen
locations
 to

collectthedata.Theresearchteam’sknowledgeofthestudylocationsenabledthemtoengage
in
seamless
community
entry,
identify
potential
respondents
according
to
the
sampling
frame,

and
seek
their
written
and
verbal
consent
from
the
respondents.
They
then
proceeded
with
the

data
collection
in
the
respective
communities.







46







The
raw
 data
from
this
team
was
subsequently
shared
with
us
at
UNBC
(myself
and


my
supervisor)
to
screen,
clean,
and
analyze
for
both
the
bigger
SSHRC
project
and
my
thesis.

I
signed
an
agreement
with
the
project
team
to
have
access
to
the
primary
data
and
use
portions

relevant
 to
 understanding
 the
 coping
 mechanisms
 employed
 by
 farmers
 in
 agrarian

communities
where
land
grabs
have
taken
place.





However,
my
inability
to
participate
in
the
data
collection
process
directly
presented


certain
limitations.
Generally,
the
personal
nuances
that
I
could
have
drawn
from
engaging
in

the
various
aspects
of
the
data
collection
process
were
lost.
Specifically,
I
could
have
drawn

certain
inferences
from
the
administration
of
the
questionnaires
to
inform
the
subsequent
focus

group
 discussions
 were
 missing
 due
 to
 my
 absence.
 Another
 challenge
 resulting
 from
 my

absence
from
the
field
is
the
consequent
 inability
to
make
 certain
observations
in
 the
study

areas
and
keep
a
daily
journal
of
occurrences.
Moreover,
it
would
have
helped
significantly
to

work
 directly
with
 local
experts
 who
know
the
 context
and
 are
 well
placed
to
contribute
to

knowledge
production.
 These
 personal
interactions
on
the
 field
 could
have
 provided
 further

context
and
insight
into
the
data
collected.






The
 surveys
 were
 conducted
at
the
individual
households
of
the
 respondents
at
their


convenience.
The
focus
group
discussions
were
held
at
designated
places
within
the
respective

communities.
 The
 interviews
 were
 conducted
 with
 key
 informants
 at
 a
 location
 and
 time

convenient.
 Amid
 COVID-19,
the
team
took
steps
to
adhere
strictly
to
the
 guidelines
put
in

place
by
 the
 National
COVID-19
team
 in
Ghana.
 These
 steps
included
wearing
face
masks,

hand
 washing
 and
 sanitizing,
 and
 adhering
 to
 social
 distancing
 protocols.
 This
 was
 a

requirement
adhered
to
by
both
the
respondents
and
the
researchers.
The
Ghana
research
team

that
 collected
 the
 data
 was
 paid
 an
 amount
 agreed
 upon
 by
 both
 parties.
 However,
 no

compensation
was
paid
to
the
respondents,
but
this
did
not
significantly
impact
the
quality
or

quantity
of
the
data
collected.








47







In
the
context
of
the
constraints
within
which
this
study
was
carried
out,
as
highlighted


above,
 there
 were
 certain
 limitations
 worth
 noting.
 For
 instance,
 my
 inability
 to
 travel
 for

fieldwork
 robbed
 me
 of
 the
 opportunity
 to
 apply
 the
 Sustainable
 Livelihood
 Framework's

various
components
fully.
This
was
particularly
evident
when
analyzing
the
qualitative
data.

One
aspect
of
the
framework
which
was
not
fully
explored
has
to
do
with
how
people’s
social

assets,
manifested
inhowone’ssocialrelationsandconnectionstothecentresofpower,
affect

their
ability
to
respond
to
the
livelihood
changes
brought
about
by
land
grabs.
Also,
there
was

a
limitation
in
seeking
more
detailed
answers
further
to
interrogate
some
of
the
issues
during

the
interviews
and
focus
group
discussions.
A
case
in
point
has
to
do
with
the
specific
activities

the
people
engaged
in
 post
land
loss.
I
would
have
delved
deeper
to
understand
whether
the

activities
mentioned
were
complementary
to
their
earlier
occupation
of
farming
or
were
new

initiatives
occasioned
by
the
loss
of
land,
which
curtailed
their
farming
activities.
However,
by

focusing
primarily
on
natural
assets
(i.e.,
land),
the
study
was
able
to
highlight
how
the
conduct

of
institutions
affects
people’slivelihoodopportunitiesinthefaceofcompetinginterestsfrom
external
sources.



























48




Chapter
4:
Results

4.0
Introduction





This
chapter
presents
the
key
findings
from
the
survey,
key
informant
interviews,
focus

group
discussions,
and
the
analysis
of
documents.
The
study
examined
how
farmers
respond

to
the
processes
of
land
grabs
in
selected
communities
in
Ghana.
Communities
were
selected

from
three
regions
in
Ghana
following
a
methodological
typology
that
classified
these
cases
as

‘failed’ (i.e.,
Northernregion),‘successful’(i.e.,
Central region),and‘contested’(i.e.Volta
region).
 The
 reviewed
 literature
 highlights
 the
 absence
 of
 discussions
 on
 the
 alternative

livelihood
options
adopted
by
farmers
in
response
to
 land
grabs
and
the
intervening
 role
of

institutions
in
the
process
(Cochrane
et
al.,
2021;
Suhiyini
et
al.,
2018).





The
main
themes
that
emerged
from
the
analysis
covered
how
land
grabs
affect
access


to
lands,
impacts
on
food
security,
the
community
status
and
gender
dimensions,
and
the
roles

of
 institutions
 in
 mediating
 livelihood
 outcomes.
 These
 themes
 will
 form
 the
 basis
 of
 the

discussion
in
this
chapter.
It
can
be
concluded
that
 though
communities
in
 the
three
 regions

were
negatively
affected
due
to
land
grabs,
the
farmers
in
the
Northern
region
are
particularly

left
 worse
 off
 in
 terms
 of
 losing
 access
 to
 their
 lands.
 Another
 insight
 is
 that
 alternative

livelihood
options
employed
by
people
in
these
communities
are
not
sustainable
and
therefore

do
not
guarantee
their
sustainable
livelihoods.





The
 findings
 are
 presented
 using
 descriptive
 statistics
 (mostly
 frequencies
 and


percentages),
 including
 quotes
 and
 rephrased
 statements.
 The
 first
 part
 is
 dedicated
 to

presenting
findings
that
speak
to
the
study's
first
objective
(i.e.,
to
document
the
impact
of
land

grabs).
 Then
 I
 present
 findings
 on
 the
 second
 objective,
 which
 examines
 the
 coping

mechanisms.
Finally,
results
highlighting
the
role
of
institutions
in
land
grabs
and
livelihood

outcomes
are
presented.
To
provide
a
context
to
how
I
arrived
at
the
data
for
these
findings,







49




Table
1
provides
a
sample
of
the
questions
asked
during
the
survey
and
their
corresponding

theme(s),
whereas
the
detailed
questionnaire
is
included
in
the
appendix.


Table1:Thematic
Breakdown
ofSample
Survey
Questions


Theme

Land
grabs
and
access
to

lands


Questions

Did
you
lose
farmland
to
a
commercial
farm
project?

If
yes,
what
has
been
the
effect
of
the
loss
on
your
farming

activity?

Land
grabs
and
Food
security
 Compared
to
your
current
situation,
how
was
the
food
security
in

your
house
before
the
foreign
investment?

Overall,
do
you
find
that
foreign
investment
has
reduced
your

access
to
food?


Responding
to
the
processes
 Have
you
engaged
in
other
income-generating
activities
after
the

of
land
grabs

loss
of
land?




Do
you
think
this
is
a
better
alternative
to
farming
activities?

Role
of
institutions

Were
you
compensated
for
the
loss
of
land?

Did
the
traditional
authorities
offer
any
form
of
assistance?

Did
the
government
provide
an
alternative
source
of
livelihood?



4.1.
Socio-economic
and
demographic
characteristics
of
respondents





This
 first
 section
contains
 demographic
 information
 on
 the
 respondents
 in
 the
 three

regions
where
data
 was
collected.
The
information
includes
gender,
age,
level
of
 education,

marital
status,
income
 levels,
 and
the
community
 membership
status
of
the
respondents.
 As

contained
 in
 Table
 2,
 the
 collection
 of
 this
 data
 helps
 to
 understand
 better
 how
 the
 social

composition
of
the
respective
communities
impacts
the
views
expressed
by
the
respondents.





















50




Table2:Socioeconomic
Characteristics
of
Respondents

Item

Sample
size

Gender

Age



Educational
level


Marital
status

Community
Status

Monthly
income

(1CAD=4.5254)02/
9/2021







Source
of
income




Male


Female

18-30

31-40

41-50

Above
60

None

Primary

Secondary

Technical

Tertiary

Single


Married


Divorced


Indigene

Migrant


Less
than
400
cedis


Frequency

 Percentage

(%)

902

100

478

52.99

424

47.01

124

13.75

269

29.82

302

33.48

207

26.57

363

40.24

333

36.92

137

15.19

27

2.99

42

4.66

150

16.63

691

76.61

61

6.76

615

68.18

287

31.82

788

87.36


401-500
cedis

501-
600
cedis


Above
600
cedis

Farming


Other



9

13

92

748

154


1

1.44

10.2

82.93

17.07







The
socio-economic
characteristics
of
the
respondents
captured
above
offer
an
insight


into
the
living
conditions
of
people
in
these
communities
who
are
also
subject
to
the
processes

and
impacts
of
land
grabs.
For
instance,
the
high
level
of
illiteracy
(77.17%)
recorded
among

the
respondents
confirms
the
findings
of
the
2017/2018
Ghana
Census
of
Agriculture
report.

The
report
indicated
that
more
than
four-fifths
(i.e.
over
80%)
of
persons
engaged
in
agriculture

have
 either
never
attended
or
 attained
a
basic
level
of
education
for
all
types
of
agricultural

activities
 (Ghana
Statistical
 Service
 2020).
 Also,
the
 Gender
 and
 Agriculture
 Development

Strategy
 (GADS
 II)
 estimates
 that
 52%
 agricultural
 workforce
 are
 women
 and
 30%
 of
 the

country’s households are female-headed
 (GADS
 II
 2015).
 This
 existing
 information







51




contextualizes
why
47%
of
the
survey
respondents
were
women
–
even
within
this
rural
and

supposedly
patriarchal
environment.





Further
 analysis
 of
 the
 data
 revealed
 that
 82.92%
 of
 the
 respondents
 indicated
 that


farming
was
their
main
source
of
income.
This
confirms
the
rationale
behind
the
selection
of

the
study
locations.
As
indicated
in
the
case
study
selection,
Farming
is
the
main
occupation

of
 the
 people
in
 the
 selected
 communities.
 Therefore,
 the
 high
 number
 of
 respondents
 who

indicatedfarmingasasourceofincomesupportsthisstudy’srespondents'
characterization
and

their
communities
as
agrarian.
However,
it
is
worth
noting
that
the
farming
activity
undertaken

was
not
 exactly
 lucrative
 as
87.36%
of
 respondents
earned
less
 than
 $100
a
 month.
Taking

away
 the
 opportunity
 to
 earn
this
minimal
 income
through
 land
 grabs
ultimately
leaves
the

people
in
a
precarious
 living
 condition.
This
situation
is
 also
true
for
the
respondents
in
the

higher
income
bracket
of
respondents
(i.e.,
those
who
earned
above
600)
because
90.22%
also

relied
on
farming
as
their
main
source
of
income.
However,
it
is
worth
emphasizing
that
most

group
(85.87%)
were
surveyed
in
the
Central
region
where
the
respondents
indicated
that
they

had anopportunity to workunderthe company’s smallholderfarmerscheme, albeit with a
monthly
income
is
sligh










4.2
The
impact
of
land
grabs
in
Ghanaian
communities






This
section
addresses
the
first
objective
of
this
study:
to
document
the
impact
of
land

grabs
on
 livelihoods
in
Ghanaian
farming
communities.
The
 rationale
for
this
objective
is
to

assess
 the
 lived
 realities
 and
 experiences
 of
 the
 respondents
 in
 these
 communities
 amidst

processes
of
large-scale
 land
acquisition.
To
this
 end,
this
section
 examines
findings
on
the

general
impact
of
land
grabs
on
the
respondents,
the
gendered
dimension,
and
the
effects
these

projects
have
on
food
security
in
the
respective
study
areas.









52




4.2.1Landgrabsandaccesstolandsforfarming:aregionalbreakdown




The
 study
 found
 that
 across
 the
 regions
 which
 constituted
 the
 study
 area
 for
 this

research,
48.23%
lost
access
to
their
asset
(i.e.
land)
through
the
processes
of
land
grabs,
while

51.77%
indicated
that
 they
did
not
lose
 access
 to
their
lands.
These
figures
suggest
that
less

than
50%
of
the
respondents
noted
they
had
lost
access
to
their
lands.
These
were
lands
they

were
hitherto
cultivating
for
food
and
to
earn
some
income.
This
finding
is
contrary
to
popular

literature
reviewed
as
part
of
this
study,
which
suggests
that
land
grabs
lead
to
a
high
level
of

land
dispossessions
in
host
communities
on
a
broader
level.
However,
further
disaggregation

of
the
data
on
regional
bases
reveals
the
extent
of
land
deprivation
caused
by
land
grabs
in
the

selected
communities.




To
better
understand
the
impact
of
the
land
grabs
in
the
respective
study
communities,


I
further
disaggregated
the
figures
presented
above
to
understand
the
regional
impact
of
land

grabs
regarding
access
to
 lands.

 From
Table
3
below,
communities
studied
in
the
Northern

region
recorded
 a
 high
 percentage
of
loss
 of
86.97%
 (247),
 the
 Central
region
 had
 42.95%

(131),
and
the
Volta
region
recorded
28.43%
(89).



Table3:RegionalBreakdownofthelossoffarmlands



Central


Northern


Volta


Effect



Frequency

 Percent


Frequency


Percent


Frequency
 Percent


Yes



131


42.95


247


86.97


89


28.43


No


174


57.05


37


13.03


224


71.57


Total



305


100


284


100


313


100






The
 high
 rate
 of
 losses
 recorded
 in
 the
 Northern
 region
 (86.7%)
 confirms
 why


community
 resistance
 to
 the
 projects
 leads
 to
 their
 eventual
 collapse
 or
 abandonment
 of

projects,
as
shown
in
Figure
3
below.
The
reasons
for
this
were
noted
by
a
participant
in
a
focus






53




groupdiscussionwhostated:“alotoffarmlandsweretakenfromfarmers,whichnearlycaused
hunger
during
that
period.
Looking
at
how
the
company
was
operating
if
they
were
to
continue,

hungerwouldhavebefallenus”(Male
participant,
Tuuya/Northern
region,
September
2020).

The
power
of
the
chiefs
in
allocating
lands
to
investors
was
evident
in
the
Northern
region.
The

investors
contacted
the
chief
of
the
area,
and
land
allocations
were
made
without
the
people's

consent.
This
was
evident
 in
an
interview
with
a
sub-chief
 of
Tuuya
 (Northern
region)
who

noted,
“theTijorinaa
(paramount
chief)
gave
the
lands
out
to
the
company
because
he
[oversees

the
land].
So
if
he
comes
to
tell
you
that
he
has
given
the
lands
out
and
for
that
reason,
you

have tonothingtosay”(Sub-chief,
Tuuya/Northern
region,
September
2020).
This
situation

where
the
chief's
power
is
unilaterally
exercised
leaves
the
people
worse
off
in
any
transaction

over
land,
which
serves
as
their
main
source
of
livelihood.

Figure3:An
abandoned
project
site
in
the
Northern
region








54







This
view
taken
by
the
respondents
bears
testimony
to
the
importance
they
attach
to
the


role
land
plays
in
achieving
their
livelihood
objectives.
The
operations
of
the
company
in
the

area
 and
 the
 means
 through
 which
 they
 acquired
 the
 lands
 for
 their
 project
 displeased
 the

farmers.
A
male
focus
group
participantnoted,“thebestthingtheyshould
have
done
was
to

get
a
small
land
somewhere
and
use
it
as
a
test
so
that
we
can
see
but
it
was
not
so;
they
just

cameandtookoverthelandswiththeconsentofourleader”(Male
participant,
Tuuya/Northern

region,
September
2020).
The
processes
that
led
to
 the
company's
land
grab
and
the
lack
 of

active
participation
with
community
representatives
in
decision-making
processes
deprived
the

citizens
of
their
lands
and
the
ability
to
pursue
other
livelihood
opportunities.
In
this
context,

as
the
local
authority,
the
chief
placed
himself
in
a
position
to
directly
negotiate
with
developers

over
the
leasing
of
lands
in
the
community,
disregarding
the
people's
interests.
The
decision
as

to
the
type
and
size
of
the
lands
to
be
leased
out
to
the
investors
was
the
sole
decision
of
the

chief
who
presided
over
the
area.




The
case
of
the
Central
region,
which
recorded
a
42.95%
loss
of
farmlands,
presents
a


unique
case
on
how
the
processes
leading
up
to
land
acquisition
and
the
actors
involved
could

determine
whether
people
lose
access
to
lands
or
not.
The
project
in
question,
Twifo
Oil
Palm

Plantation
 (TOPP),
 was
 initiated
 by
 the
 Government
 of
 Ghana
 with
 land
 acquired
 for

commercial
cultivation
of
palm
fruits
(Ghana
Investment
Promotion
Council
2021).


Figure4:A
picture
of
the
palm
plantation
managed
by
TOPP






55







Source:(http://www.toppghana.com)



Participants
in
a
focus
group
discussion
in
the
area
confirmed
the
role
of
government


in
the
acquisitionprocess:“we
were
working
on
the
land
that
belongs
to
our
grandparents
for

farming
cocoa
before
the
 government
came
to
 take
over
 and
handed
it
 over
to
the
company

that
 is
 TOPP”
 (Female
 participant,
 Twifo
 Mampong/Central
 region,
 October
 2020).
 The

government’spowertoacquirelandsin Ghanaisstipulatedinthe1992Constitution,
which

statesinArticles1(a)that“thetakingofpossessionoracquisitionisnecessaryintheinterest
of
 defence,
 public
 safety,
 public
 order,
 public
 morality,
 public
 health,
 town
 and
 country

planning
 or
 the
 development
 or
 utilization
 of
 property
in
 such
 a
 manner
as
 to
promote
 the

public benefit.” Further,Article 1(b) states that “the necessity for the acquisition is clearly
stated
and
is
such
as
to
provide
reasonable
justification
for
causing
any
hardship
that
may
result

toanypersonwhohasaninterestinorrightovertheproperty”
(Constitution
of
Ghana
1992).













The
 interpretation
 of
this
 constitutional
 provision
 is
 that
 the
 government
 can
 acquire

lands
in
the
name
of
national
interest
compulsorily.
However,
Article
20(3)
of
the
Constitution

mandates
the
state
to
protect
the
interests
of
people
whose
lands
were
being
taken.
The
mandate

is
to
ensure
that:






56






Where
 a
 compulsory
 acquisition
 or
 possession
 of
 land
 effected
 by
 the
 State
 in



accordance
with
clause
(1)
of
this
article
involves
displacement
of
any
inhabitants,
the



State
shall
resettle
the
displaced
inhabitants
on
suitable
alternative
land
with
due
regard



for
their
 economic
 well-being
 and
social
 and
 cultural
values
 (Constitution
of
 Ghana



1992:
35).














To
this
end,
 deliberate
steps
were
taken
by
 the
 state
to
ensure
those
to
be
 affected
by

TOPP
operations
were
resettled,
asconfirmedbysomerespondents:“TOPPcompanyacquired
the
land
in
this
community,
and
they
gave
us
ten(10)acresforeachoneofusafteraninterview”
(Male
participant,
Twifo
Mampong
Central
region,
October
2020).
 Another
respondent
shed

further
light
on
the
operations
of
TOPP,
stating
that
“beforethecompanycan takeoverthe
land
completely,
they
planted
their
seeds
on
the
farm
on
which
we
were
 working
and
 so
the

company
 and
 we
 the
 farmers
 were
 managing
 the
 farm
 together
 (Male
 participant,
 Twifo

Mampong-Central
region,
October
2020).




This
land
redistribution
post-land
 grab
 by
the
state
 best
 explains
why
 in
 this
 region,


respondents
 who
lost
access
to
lands
were
in
the
minority
compared
to
the
 Northern
 region.

According
to
the
policy
statement
of
TOPP
cited
by
the
study,
the
redistributed
lands
formed

the
basis
of
the
Twifo
smallholder
oil
palm
project.
According
to
TOPP,
this
project
aims
to

settle
 displaced
 farmers
 following
 the
 establishment
 of
 TOPP
 and
 reduce
 poverty
 among

farmers
within
the
Twifo
community
(TOPP
Ghana
2021).
It
must
be
added
that
this
project

undertaken
by
TOPP
augments
the
categorization
of
land
acquisition
in
the
Central
region
(at

leastinthecontextofthecommunitiesincludedinthisstudy)aslargely‘successful’despite
some
community
concerns.





According
to
the
Land
Matrix
(2020),
the
Brazil
Agro-Business
Group,
which
operates


in
the
Volta
region,
is
owned
by
Brazilian
farmer
Frademir
Saccol
who
invested
in
the
Lolito

enclave
of
the
Volta
region.
The
company
estimated
that
its
rice
harvests
correspond
to
2,220

hectares
annually,
with
the
potential
to
produce
up
to
155,400
tons
of
rice
(Ghanaweb
2017).










57





Figure5:
Brazil
Agro
rice
mill
in
the
Volta
region.













The
 low
 percentage
of
 respondents
 in
 the
 region
 (28.43%)
who
 reported
 losing
 their

lands
 in
 the
 survey
makes
 an
interesting
 read
 compared
 with
 the
 available
 qualitative
 data

sources.
 According
to
 a
2015
report
 by
farmlandgrab.org,
about
600
 farmers
were
displaced

because
of
this
investment
in
rice.
This
report
was
confirmed
by
participants
in
a
focus
group

discussiononeofwhomstatedthat“alotoffarmlandsweretakenfromfarmersaswellastheir
fishpondsdestroyedandnearlycausestarvation…ifyoucalculate
the
number
of
people
whose

farmlands
 were absorbed by the operations of the company, it is uncountable” (Male

participant,
Kpenu/Volta
region,
November
2020).











This
 assertion
 by
 the
 people
 in
 the
 discussion
 contradicts
 the
 recorded
 low
 figures

regarding
the
respondents
who
lost
their
lands.
The
finding
from
the
survey
is
further
intriguing

when
one
places
into
context
the
fact
that
this
project
has
been
a
subject
of
protests
from
the

people,
 as
 reported
 by
 farmlandgrab.org
 –
 even
 with
 a
 case
 currently
 awaiting
 the
 court

decision.
The
seeming
discrepancy
in
the
quantitative
and
qualitative
data
can
be
attributed
to

two
factors.
First,
I
noted
from
 a
review
of
the
news
portals
(Ghanaweb,
farmlandgrab.com)

that
the
company
had
to
start
its
operations
on
portions
of
land
that
were
not
the
subject
matter






58




of
court
litigation
while
awaiting
the
outcome
of
the
court
verdict.
This
could
explain
why
the

number
of
respondents
who
confirmed
losing
their
lands
to
the
project
during
the
survey
was

low.
Secondly,
the
protests
that
greeted
the
company's
operations
in
the
area
can
be
ascribed

to
 the
 nature
 of
 land
 transfer
 between
 the
 earlier
 company
 (Biofuel
 Africa)
 and
 the
 new

company
 (Brazil
 Agrobusiness
 group).
 Having
 failed
 in
 their
 initial
 project
 at
 biofuel

production
on
the
same
portions
of
land,
Biofuel
Africa
transferred
the
land
ownership
to
Brazil

Agrobusiness
group
for
rice
production.
This
transfer
appeared
to
have
angered
the
locals,
who

most
probably
felt
ownership
of
the
land
should
have
reverted
to
them
for
personal
use,
hence

the
protests.
The
anger
that
greeted
the
onset
of
the
project
most
probably
found
expressions

during
the
 platforms
offered
during
 the
 focus
group
discussions
 and
the
interview
sessions.

They
provided
respondents
with
an
opportunity
to
fully
air
their
views
and
grievances,
unlike

the
limited
scope
of
the
surveys.
The
points
raised
here
support
the
classification
of
this
case

as
contested.

4.2.2Impactoflandgrabsonfoodsecurity




To
 examine
 the
effect
 of
 land
 grab
 on
food
 security,
 the
 respondents
 were
 asked
 to

assess
 their
 food
 security
 situation
 after
 the
 inception
 of
 the
 projects
 in
 the
 respective

communities.
From
the
survey,
most
respondents
(60.7%)
indicated
that
the
land
grab
in
their

communities
negatively
affected
their
food
security
situation,
as
depicted
in
the
graph
below.





















59




Figure6:
Impact
of
the
Project
on
Food
security
450

427

400
354
350
300
250
200
150

121

100
47.34

50

39.25
13.41

0
Yes

Somewhat
Frequency




No

Percent




Further
analysis
of
the
data
revealed
that
food
insecurity
was
occasioned
by
two
factors:


land
loss
and
the
type
of
crops
produced
on
the
acquired
lands.
A
key
informant
with
the
Land

Secretariat
noted,
“thefarmswherepeoplefetchtheirfoodfrom aretakingby the company
andbecauseofTOPP’sinvestment,peopletendtofarmoilpalmratherthanfood
crops”
(Male

participant,
Central
region,
October
2020).
Similar
sentiments
were
expressed
during
a
focus

group
discussion
in
Tuuya
intheNorthernregion.Aparticipantnoted,“even thefarmingof
food
crops
we
do
is
not
enough,
and
you
come
and
take
our
farmlands
not
to
cultivate
maize

butJatropha”(Male
participant,
Tuuya-Northern
region,
September
2020).





The
institutional
respondents
at
the
local
level
and
individual
farmers
believe
that
these


land
grabs
have
harmed
people's
food
security
based
on
the
above
findings.
According
to
the

data,
 land
loss
and
 how
newly
acquired
lands
 are
 used
 harm
 household
food
 security.
 This

finding
contradicts
the
laid-out
institutional
policy
document
guiding
such
land
deals
in
Ghana

toensurefoodsecurity.Thefirstoftheseiscontainedinsection(d)oftheLandCommission’s
guidelines
 for
 large-scale
 land
 acquisitions,
 which
 enjoins
 the
 investor to “ensure that the
investment
 does
 not
 harm
 food
 security
 and
 sustainability
 of
 livelihood
 of
 the
 affected






60




communitiesbutratherstrengthenthem”(LandCommissionGhana2015:9).Alsorelevant
is

the
policy
document
by
the
Ministry
of
Food
and
Agriculture
(MoFA
2015)
to
regulate
largescale
 land-based
investments
 under
the
Ghana
commercial
agriculture
project.
 According
to

thepolicyguidelines,affectedcommunitiesaretoamongothers,“inexchangefortheirland,
receive
assets
that
will
allow
them
to
be
equally
or
more
well-off
than
they
were
before
the

investment
 benefit
 from
 a
 scheme
 that
 provides
 broad-based,
 long-term
 food
 security
 and

income-generating potential for the community” (MoFA 2015:
 42).
 Therefore,
 it
 can
 be

deduced
 that
 though
an
 elaborate
policy
framework
 exists
 to
ensure
 that
 host
 communities

benefit
post
the
acquisition
of
their
 lands,
evidence
from
 this
research
 proves
 otherwise.
In

particular,
the
respective
projects
the
study
found
have
worsened
the
food
security
situation
of

the
people.


4.2.3 Landgrabsandsocialdifferentiation:genderandcommunitystatus




This
section
 presents
 findings
 on
 the
 effect
 of
 land
grabs
on
 gender
 and
 how
one
 is

impacted
based
on
one’s
status
within
the
community
either
as
an
indigene
from
the
area
(i.e.

‘son/daughterofthesoil’)
or
a
settler/migrant.
The
objective
is
to
determine
the
extent
to
which

different
segments
of
society
are
affected
by
the
processes
of
land
grabs.




The
 Gender
 and
 Agricultural
 Development
Strategy
(GADS
 II
 2015)
 recognizes
 the


potential
of
different
segments
of
the
society,
including
men,
women,
the
youth,
and
persons

living
with
disability,
in
accelerating
agricultural
growth
and
development
of
the
country.
This

study,
therefore,
sought
to
examine
how
these
commercial
investments
in
agriculture
impact

the
different
segments
 of
the
respective
 communities
under
study.
Further
disaggregation
of

the
total
of
902
 respondents
in
this
study
indicates
that
both
 men
and
women
 were
affected.

Table
4
shows
that
51.88%
of
the
men
lost
farmlands
because
of
land
grabs,
while
51.65%
of

the
 women
 reported
 the
 same
 experience.
 This
 demonstrates
 that
 access
 to
 lands
 became

restricted
to
both
men
and
women
in
the
study
areas.
This
is
an
important
finding
because,
in






61




rural
communities
such
as
those
covered
in
this
research,
access
to
land
invariably
determines

one’saccesstoincome-generating
activitiesaswellasone’saccesstofood.As
a
result,
we
can

conclude
that
land
grabs
pose
 a
danger
to
household
income
and
food
security
 by
their
very

nature,
with
60.7%
of
respondents
stating
that
the
projects
harmed
household
food
security.





Table4:
Gender
and
loss
of
farmlands



Men


Women


Effect


Frequency


Percent


Frequency


Percent


Yes


248


51.88


219


51.65


No


230


48.12


205


48.35


Total


478





424










The
 implications
 of
 the
 loss
 of
 farmlands
 noted
 above
 are
 that
 73.52%
 of
 women


experienced
a
reduction
in
the
size
of
the
farmlands
available
to
them
and
consequently
their

income.
 This
 represents
 a
 higher
 percentage
 than
 those
 of
 their
 male
 counterparts
 which

amounts
to
63.71%,
as
indicated
in
Table
5
below.



Table5:
The
gendered
implications











Men


Women


Effect


Frequency
(m)
 Percent



Frequency
(f)


Percent



Reduced
Farm
Size


66


26.61


39


17.81


Reduced
Income


20


8.06


18


8.22


Both


158


63.71


161


73.52


Other



4


1.61


1


0.46


Total



248


100


219


100




62







The
outcome
of
the
analysis
of
the
survey
data
reveals
that
both
men
and
women
have


borne
the
brunt
of
the
phenomenon
of
land
grabs.
However,
the
high
figure
recorded
for
women

acrossthethree regionsisaworryingstatistic.Thisisbecause52%ofGhana’s
agricultural

workforce
are
women
(GADS
II
2015).
Data
from
a
female
focus
group
discussion
in
the
Volta

region,
on
the
other
hand,
shows
an
intriguing
relationship
between
the
women
in
the
area
and

the
land
 grab
project.
According
to
the
data,
 women
in
the
study
locations
within
 the
 Volta

region,
unlike
in
the
other
areas,
benefit
from
the
project
located
in
the
city.
This
benefit
comes

from
the
opportunity
to
trade
in
the
company
products
to
earn
an
income.
The
company,
the

Brazil
Agro
group,
outlined
a
policy
objective
to
produce
rice
for
sale
locally
and
for
export

(Ghanaweb
2017).
A
female
focus
group
participantnotedthat“thiscompanyhasbeenvery
beneficial
to
us
 women.
It
helps
us
 earn
 some
income
 to
 take
 care
of
our
families
 (Female

participant,
 Atravenu/Volta
 region,
 November
 2020).
 This
 initiative,
 therefore,
 created
 an

avenue
for
women
to
sell
the
rice
milled
at
the
company
as
a
source
of
income
while
the
men,

mostly
farmers,
lost
their
lands
on
which
they
farm
to
earn
a
living.
A
sub-chief
 and
a
male

participant noted the following: “they gave work to our women as they can trade in their
produce…our wives had the opportunity to trade in the processed rice produced at the
company”(Sub-chief,
Kpenu/Volta
region,
November
2020).




The
role
reversal
brought
about
due
to
the
onset
of
these
projects
had
a
telling
effect
on


family
relations.
The
men
complained
about
how
the
projects
have
threatened
their
status
as

headsoftheirfamilies.Arespondentcontendedthat“theyhavemadeourwivesnotrespect
us

and
 feel
 superior
 because
 they
 have
 more
 money
 than
 we
 the
 men
 nowadays
 due
 to

unemployment in thearea”(Male
participant,
 Kpenu/Volta
 region,
 November
2020).
Aside

from
 the
 women's
 economic
 empowerment
 in
 the
 area
 that
 supposedly
 threatened
 family

relations,
 other
 men
working
 with
the
companies
(primarily
migrants)
were
also
accused
of

further
 destroying
marriages.
 A
focus
group
 participantalleged, “men whowere taking big






63




monies
from
the
company
were
now
those
 dating
 our
wives,
and
so
as
believers,
we
prayed

thatthecompanycollapses,anditdid”(Male
participant,
Tuuya/Northern
region,
September

2020).









It
 is
 worth
 noting
 that
 though
 results
 from
 the
 survey
 data
 across
 the
 three
 regions

indicated
that
women
were
also
negatively
affected
by
the
projects,
the
insights
gained
from

the
focus
group
discussions
in
the
Volta
region
offered
a
different
perspective.
Women
in
the

region
have
 been
economically
motivated
due
to
earning
money
by
trading
company
goods.

However,
this
empowerment
was
misinterpreted
by
men
as
a
challenge
to
their
dominance
and

patriarchal
role
in
society.
It
should
be
noted
that
this
conclusion
is
based
on
an
examination

of
qualitative
data
from
the
Volta
region
and
thus
does
not
apply
to
all
cases.




On
the
theme
of
migration,
the
Ghana
Statistical
Service,
in
its
2010
population
report,


found
an
influx
of
 people
into
rural
 areas.
The
first
group
of
migrants
 includes
people
from

urban
 areas
 who
 lack
 job
 opportunities
 in
 the
 cities,
 engaged
 in
 what
 they
 termed
 ‘return

migration
to
rural
areas
(Ghana
Statistical
Service
 2010).
Aside
from
this,
people
also
move

into
rural
areas
searching
for
fertile
lands
to
engage
in
agricultural
activities.
These
new
settlers

often
entered
into
various
agreements
with
landowners
in
the
communities
they
settle
to
carry

out
their
 activities.
Both
indigenes
and
their
guests
(migrants)
depend
 on
the
land
to
 earn
a

livelihood.
I,
therefore,
explored
how
the
processes
of
land
grabs
reflect
in
the
lives
of
these

two
groups
of
people
in
host
communities.
One
area
examined
is
how
the
projects
affect
their

food
security
situation.
Table
6
indicates
that
the
food
security
situation
of
migrants
worsened

because
of
the
onset
of
the
various
projects
 compared
to
that
of
indigenes.
A
high
score
of

68.99%
 of
 migrants
 indicated
 experiencing
 food
 insecurity
 while
 37.24%
 of
 the
 indigenes

stated
the
same.










64




Table6:Community
status,
the
project,
and
food
security





Indigenes


Migrant



Effect


Frequency


Percent



Frequency


Percent



Yes


229


37.24


198


68.99


Somewhat


74


12.03


47


16.38


No


312


50.73


42


14.63


Total


615


100


287


100







Tounderstandhowone’sstatuswithinthecommunitydeterminestheextenttowhich

the
investment
affects
access
to
farmland,
I
further
segregated
the
data
from
the
respondents.

As
 shown
 in
 Table
 7
 below,
 though
 there
 were
 losses
 on
 both
 sides,
 57.24%
 (352)
 of
 the

indigenes
 suffered
 higher
 losses
 than
 40.07%
 (115)
of
migrants.
 The
 high
 rate
of
land
 loss

among
the
locals
can
be
explained
by
the
fact
that
inheritance
is
the
most
common
method
of

land
acquisition
in
Ghana.
In
a
paper,
Annan
and
Grant
(2004)
reported
that
in
the
Volta
region,

for
instance,
access
to
land
was
primarily
through
inheritance
and
sharecropping.
Inheritance

accounted
for
61%
of
land
acquisitions,
while
sharecropping
arrangements
(typically
open
to

migrants)
accounted
for
14%
of
land
acquisitions.




Consequently,
 any
 process
 that
 results
 in
 land
 loss
 would
 disproportionately
 affect


indigenous
peoples
rather
than
migrants.
This
is
because
indigenes
had
a
higher
proportion
of

communal
 lands
 under
 their
 control
 than
 migrants
 whose
 rights
 were
 limited
 under

sharecropping
agreements.
Also,
of
the
total
number
of
respondents
surveyed
in
this
research,

indigenes
 constituted
 68.18%
 of
 the
 sample
 population.
 Therefore,
 the
 indigenes
 are
 more

likely
to
be
recorded
as
having
lost
lands
to
the
processes
of
land
grabs.









65




Table7:Communitystatusandlossoffarmlands






Indigenes



Migrants



Effect



Frequency


Percent


Frequency


Percent


Yes


352


57.24


115


40.07


No


263


42.76


172


59.93


Total



615


100


287


100







The
phenomenon
where
people
move
from
their
communities
and
settle
in
other
areas


of
Ghana
is
common.
From
the
last
population
and
housing
census
in
2010,
it
was
noted
that

9,866,774
people
moved
into
rural
areas
in
Ghana
(Ghana
Statistical
Service
2010).
Out
of
this

number
are
farmers
who
migrate
to
farming
communities
to
cultivate
food
and
cash
crops.
The

main
attraction
is
to
be
close
to
fertile
lands,
which
they
lack
back
at
home.
In
the
communities

where
 they
 resettle,
 the
 standard
 farming
 practice
 is
 to
 either
 lease
 lands
 or
 engage
 in

sharecropping.
 Therefore,
 it
 is
 understandable
 that
 59.93%
 of
 the
 respondents
 did
 not
 lose

farmlands
to
land
grabs.
The
high
rate
of
food
insecurity
recorded
among
migrants
(68.99%)

after
the
inception
of
these
commercial
projects
is
indicative
of
their
fragile
status
within
these

communities
 and
 the
 extent
 to
 which
 engaging
 in
 agricultural
 practices
 sustains
 their

livelihoods.

4.3
Responding
to
the
processes
of
land
grabs






This
 section
 addresses
 objective
 2,
which
 seeks
 to
 examine
 the
 coping
 mechanisms

adopted
by
individual
farmers
and
communities
to
mitigate
land
grabs.
The
aim
is
to
gauge
the

alternative
livelihood
 options
 adopted
 by
the
 farmers
 in
 response
to
the
 livelihood
 changes

resulting
from
the
land
grab
phenomenon
in
their
communities.








66







The
respondents
were
also
asked
to
rate
how
well
they
have
coped
with
the
livelihood


changes
caused
by
land
grabs
in
their
communities.
From
Figure
10,
63.41%
(572)
said
they

had
found
ways
to
cope,
while36.59%said‘no.’

Figure7:Ability
to
find
alternative
livelihoods

37%

63%

Yes




No

















From
the
gendered
perspective,
70.5%
(337)
of
men
from
the
aggregate
figures
in
the

three
 regions
 responded
 positively
 to
 coping
 well
 with
 the
 livelihood
 change
 compared
 to

55.42%
(235)
of
women
whose
response
was
negative.
This
indicates
that
while
both
men
and

women
have
found
ways
to
cope,
the
high
percentage
of
men
could
be
attributable
to
the
fact

that
the
men
are
generally
expected
to
provide
for
their
families
even
though
women,
in
many

cases
are
also
take
up
such
roles.
This
accounted
for
the
drive
by
the
male
respondents
to
find

alternative
livelihood
sources
 when
 dislocated
 from
their
farms
 by
 the
 phenomenon
 of
land

grabs.
Men
in
these
communities
feel
entitled
to
receive
the
available
wage
labour,
especially

when
 the
 jobs
 require
 mechanical
 equipment
 or
 manual
 labour.
 For
 instance,
 in
 the
 Volta

region,
aparticipantinafocusgroupdiscussionassertedthat“they
(company)
picked
us
to
do

part-time
jobs
especially
when
they
needed
people
to
sow
their
rice
or
apply
fertilizer”(Male

participant,
 Kpenu-
 Volta
 region,
 November
 2020).
 Before
 purchasing
 lands
 for
 the






67




commercial
 rice
farm
 project,
 men
in
 the
 area
 used
to
plant
 rice
 and
 apply
 fertilizers.
As
 a

result,
when
the
company
required
farm
hands
to
complete
these
tasks,
the
men
were
ready
for

the
temporary
alternative.

Table8:Gendered
representation
of
the
perception
of
coping
strategies

Gender



Men


Women


Effect



Frequency



Percent



Frequency



Percent


Yes



337


70.5


235


55.42


No


141


29.5


189


44.58


Total



478


100


424


100














Results
in
Figure
8
show
that
both
migrants
and
indigenes
from
the
three
regions
have

coped
well
with
the
livelihood
changes
occasioned
by
land
grabs.
However,
indigenes
had
a

higher
percentage
of
65.2%
than
the
migrant
population,
which
stood
at
59.58%.



Figure8:Community
status
and
the
ability
to
cope


Percent

40.42
59.58

Migrants

Indigenes

Pecent

Frequency

116

Frequency

0

100
200
No Yes

300

400

500

171
0

50
No

100
Yes

150

200


4.3.1Thecopingstrategiesinresponsetolandgrabs




The
aggregated
data
from
this
study
suggest
that
respondents
reported
a
loss
of
land
to

the
processes
of
land
grabs
in
the
three
regions
surveyed.
In
these
instances,
the
people
adopt

appropriate
 coping
 strategies
 to
 promote
 continuous
 sustainable
 livelihoods.
 The
 study






68




assessed
the
various
strategies
adopted
by
the
respondents.
It
can
be
seen
from
Table
9
that
the

respondents
 resorted
 to
 other
 income-generating
 activities
 in
 response
 to
 their
 livelihood

changes.
 Petty
 trading
 constituted
27.44%
(76),
artisans
 were
11.91%
 (33),
7.22%
reported

being
 employed
 by
 the
 project,
 and
 10.47%
 of
 the
 respondents
 engaged
 in
 other
 forms
 of

agricultural
 activities
such
 as
 livestock
 rearing.
Also,
9.03%
 (25)
 of
the
 respondents
 found

alternative
employments
while
7.22%
(22)
remained
farmers
but
on
a
much
smaller
scale.

The

respondents
had
no
choice
but
to
resort
to
these
alternatives
as
their
main
income
source
after

losing
their
lands.
To
further
ascertain
the
direct
benefits
of
the
projects
in
terms
of
employment

opportunities
for
both
men
and
women,
I
segregated
the
data
on
the
respondents
who
indicated

the
project
employed
them.
Out
of
the
20
people
who
indicated
the
projects
used
them,
85%

(17)
were
men,
while
only
15%
(3)
were
women.





This
 suggests
that
 men
 tend
 to
have
 more
 opportunities
 for
 direct
 employment
 than


women
after
they
have
both
lost
farmlands
to
processes
of
land
grabs.
According
to
a
sentiment

expressed
in
a
focus
group
discussion
in
the
Volta
region,
men
had
a
better
chance
of
being

hired
by
these
firms.
Amaleparticipantnoted,“wewerejustemployedaslabourersonaparttime
 basis
 when
 they
 need
 people
 to
 sow
 their rice or apply fertilizer” (Male
 participant,

Kpenu/Volta
region,
November
2020).
It
reflects
that
the
available
jobs
were
labour-intensive,

and
such
jobs
were
historically
considered
to
be
the
domain
of
men
in
these
communities.
As

a
result,
it
explains
why,
according
to
a
focus
group
participant,
men
were
in
a
stronger
position

to
get
hired
by
the
companies,
even
if
just
part-time.















69




Table9:Copingstrategiesinresponsetolandgrabs
Alternative
livelihood


Frequency



Percent



Artisan



33


11.91


Petty
trading



76


27.44


Project
employment



20


7.22


Casual
work


5


1.81


Diversified
agriculture



29


10.47


Reduced
farming
activity


20


7.22


Alternative
employment



25


9.03


Indeterminate




65


23.47







The
number
of
people
who
indicated
the
respective
projects
employed
them
suggests


the
promised
jobs
often
used
as
the
marketing
strategy
to
attain
general
social
acceptance
for

these
projects
failed
to
materialize.
A
male
respondent
confirmed
this
assertion
by
stating:



First,
 there
was
 no
truth
between
what
 the
 company
said
 in
 the
 beginning
and
what



they
are
doing
afterwards.
The
truth
is
that,
when
the
company
came,
we
were
told
it



was
 going
 to
 plant
 rice
 for
 which
 they
 would
 employ
 some
 of
 us
 to
 work
 in
 the



company.
But
most
of
the
people
they
employed
were
from
other
parts
of
the
country



and
the
region.
(Male
participant,
Kpenu-
Volta
region,
November
2020).



A
similar
sentiment
was
expressed
in
the
Northern
region
when
a
participant
in
a
male
focus

group
discussion
noted:



They
said
that
they
were
going
to
employ
us
the
villagers
so
we
can
benefit
from
the



company.
 But
 most
 of
 the
 people
 they
 employed
 were
 from
 Tamale,
 the
 regional



capital.
These
were
the
people
who
took
good
salaries
even
though
we
had
the
same



level
of
qualification
and
for
those
that
were
doing
the
part-time
jobs
were
paid
60
to



70
 Cedis
 at
 the
 end
 of
 the
 month.
 Can
 this
 amount
 be
 used
 to
 buy
 necessities
 and



sustain
the
 family?
 So,
 there
 was
 no
 truth
 in
 what
 they
 promised
 (Male
 participant,



Tuuya/Northern
region,
September
2020).













From
the
above
data,
it
can
be
inferred
that
the
people
whose
source
of
livelihood
was

directly
 affected
 by
 the
 citing
 of
 the
 projects
 in
 the
 communities
 did
 not
 benefit
 from
 the






70




respective
projects
in
terms
of
offering
direct
employment.
As
a
further
insight,
an
interview

by
Jose
Leor
Valer
(Owner,
Brazil
Agro
company,
Volta
region)
a
decade
ago
speaks
to
the

employmentissues:“thechallengefacingthecompanynowisthelackofskilledmanpowerto
workon thefarms”
(Modernghana
2010).
For
the
few
who
got
employed
by
the
companies,

there
was
no
security
of
tenure
as
their
services
could
be
disposed
of
at
any
time.
A
respondent

notedthat:“forhere,itwaspart-time
jobs
they
(company)
picked
us
to
do.
That
is
when
they

needed
people
to
sow
their
rice
or
apply
fertilizer
and
lay
us
off
at
any
point
in
time
they
feel

like
doing
so
(Male
participant,
Kpenu/Volta
region,
November
2020).





It
was
therefore
not
surprising
that
when
asked
to
assess
their
level
of
satisfaction
with


the
alternative
livelihood
options
post
the
land
grabs,
60.98%
(550)
of
the
respondents
were

not
 satisfied
 with
 the
 alternatives
 compared
 to
 39.02%
 (352)
 of
 them
 who
 said
 they
 were

satisfied
with
the
options
they
chose.







Regarding
how
both
men
and
women
view
the
alternatives
they
resorted
to,
as
indicated


in
table
10,
54.6%
of
the
men
were
not
happy
with
the
other
options.
In
comparison,
68.16%

of
the
women
indicated
their
disapproval.
This
shows
that
most
of
the
women
were
not
satisfied

with
the
available
alternative
livelihood
options
they
have
access
to
in
response
to
the
processes

and
impacts
of
land
grabs
in
their
respective
communities.

Table10:Genderperceptionsonthealternativelivelihoodoptions



Men


Women





Frequency


Percent



Frequency



Percent



Yes



217


45.4


135


31.84


No


261


54.6


289


68.16


Total



478


100


424


100










71














Therefore,
it
is
worth
noting
from
the
above
 that,
in
as
much
as
the
people
in
the
host

communities
found
alternative
means
to
mitigate
the
negative
impact
of
the
land
grabs
on
their

livelihoods,
 these
 alternatives
 were
 temporary,
non-satisfactory,
 and
 unsustainable.
 The
 net

effect
of
this
is
that
not
only
have
the
people
suffered
a
loss
of
an
important
asset,
but
they
are

unable
to
cope
with
the
consequent
livelihood
outcomes.


4.5
The
role
of
institutions
in
mediating
livelihood
outcomes






The
 results
 presented
 below
 address
 this
 study's
 third
 objective,
 which
 seeks
 to

investigate
 the
 institutional
 and
 regulatory
 frameworks
 that
 aid
 or
 constrain
 the
 coping

mechanisms
 in
 local
 communities.
 The
 aim
 is
 to
 understand
 the
 nature
 of
 the
 regulatory

frameworks
for
land
investments
in
Ghana
while
examining
the
role
played
by
institutions
to

help
 farmers
in
 the
 study
 areas
cope
with
the
livelihood
 changes.
To
 understand
the
 role
 of

institutions
in
this
regard,
I
reviewed
policies
that
govern
land
administration
in
Ghana.
The

findings
 from
 this
 review
 are
 presented
 here
 to
 provide
 the
 context
 within
 which
 the
 data

gathered
from
the
respondents
are
analyzed.


4.5.1Thestate,landgrabs,andrurallivelihoods




The
state
is
empowered
to
undertake
acquisitions
of
properties
belonging
to
individuals

or
facilitate
the
same.
This
finds
expression
in
the
Constitution
of
Ghana
in
various
sections
of

article
20
(a)
empowers
the
state
to,
in
the
public
interest,
take
possession
of
lands
to
be
utilized

for
the
benefit
of
the
people.
However,
article
20
(b)
mandates
the
state
to
provide
reasonable

justification
for
causing
any
hardship
that
may
result
in
any
person
who
has
an
interest
in
or

right
over
the
property.
To
do
this,
the
Constitution
expects
the
 state
to,
as
stated
 in
 Article

(2a),
ensure
the
prompt
payment
of
fair
and
adequate
compensation
and
in
Article
(3)
resettle

the
 displaced
 inhabitants
 on
 suitable
 alternative
 land
 with
 due
 regard
 for
 their
 economic

wellbeing
and
social
and
cultural
values.







72







Within
this
constitutional
framework,
the
state
has
fashioned
various
policies
to
guide


land
acquisitions
in
Ghana.
To
harmonize
land
laws
in
Ghana,
the
National
Land
Policy
(1999)

was
formulated
to
 ensure
uniformity
of
laws
with
clearly
defined
roles
for
the
various
actors

within
 the
 land
 management
 space.
 Regarding
 land
 acquisitions,
 the
 policy
 provided
 that

“when necessary, the government may intermediate infacilitating investors' access to land
ownedbystools,skins,clans,families,orindividuals”(GhanaNationalLandPolicy1999:
13).

Significantly,twoobjectivesofthepolicyinclude“protecttherightsoflandownersandtheir
descendantsfrombecominglandlessortenantsontheirlandsand“ensurethepayment,within
a
reasonable
time,
of
fair
and
adequate
compensation
for
land
acquired
by
the
government
from

stool,skinortraditionalcouncil,clan,family,andindividuals”(GhanaNationalLandPolicy
1999:
7).
And
to
ensure
fairness
 in
 the
compensation
payment,
the
Land
Act
 2019
in
article

258
 (2)
 provides
 that
 an
 expert
 should
 represent
 a
 claimant
 for
 assessing
 meaningful

compensation
(Ghana
Land
Act
2020:
131).





It
 can
therefore
be
concluded
 that
the
current
regulatory
regime
envisages
a
role
for


the
state
and
its
actors
in
the
acquisition
of
lands
in
rural
communities
for
large-scale
farming.

The
state
is
enjoined
to
ensure
appropriate
compensation
 is
paid
to
the
affected
landowners.

The
intent
is
to
ensure
that
though
they
are
being
deprived
of
land,
there
is
some
form
of
support

to
cope
 with
the
livelihood
change.
However,
evidence
from
 the
 data
collected
in
the
 study

areas
suggests
that
the
people
are
worse
off
despite
the
policy
regime.
From
Figure
9
below,

84.26
 percent
 (760)
 of
 the
 respondents
 declared
 no
 compensation,
 while
 15.74%
 (142)

indicated
they
received
some
payment.
The
non-payment
of
the
compensation
packages
to
the

respondents
 is
 further
 worsened
 by
 the
 fact
 that
 the
 respondents
 faulted
 the
 state
 for
 not

providing
them
with
an
alternative
source
of
livelihood.
Although
numerous
policy
documents

reviewed
made
provisions
for
compensation
payments,
the
data
from
this
study
shows
that
the

reverse
 is
 true
 when
 it
 comes
 to
 implementation.
 Those
 in
 charge
 of
enforcing
 regulations







73




ignore
them,
which
highlights
wider
shortcomings
on
the
part
of
the
state
and
its
institutions

and
the
position
of
traditional
authorities,
both
of
which
are
discussed
further
below.

Figure9:Compensation
payments

Yes
16%

No
84%













Interviews
from
the
field
confirmed
the
fact
that
even
in
situations
where
compensations

were
paid,
the
amounts
involved
could
not
guarantee
sustainable
livelihoods.
A
sub-chief
in
an

interview,
for
instance,
lamented,
“we
were
compensated
but
it
was
not
enough,
and
we
cannot

say
anything,
but
it
was
insulting.

How
can
you
give
20
cedis
to
a
family
head
as
compensation

for
taking
 away
 his
 farmland?”
(Sub-chief,
 Kpenu/Volta
 region,
November
2020).
 Another

respondent
intimated
that
there
were
problems
with
the
compensation
payment
process,
which

resulted
in
fatal
consequences:


We
 were
 working
 on
 the
 land
 that
 belongs
 to
 our
 grandparents
 for
 farming
 cocoa




before

the
government
 came
to
take
 over
and
 handed
 it
over
to
 the
company
 that
is

TOPP
and
we
were
being
interviewed
before
some
portion
has
been
given
to
we
 the

farmers.
The

 amount
that
was
supposed
to
be
given
to
us
was
not
paid
in
full
which

led
 to
 the
 death
 of
 most
 of
 our
 grandparents,
 elders,
 and
 parents
 because
 of
 shock

(Female
participant,
Twifo
Mampong
/Central
region,
October
2020).



The
 respondents
 from
 the
 table
 below
 indicated
 that
 the
 state
 failed
 to
 provide
 them
 with

alternative
livelihood
options.
Figure
10
shows
that
98.67%
(890)
of
the
respondents
indicated







74




that
the
government
played
 no
role
 in
helping
 them
cope
with
the
 livelihood
 changes
while

1.33%
(12)
indicated
to
have
received
some
assistance
from
the
government.

Figure10:Government
and
alternative
livelihoods
1000
900
800
700
600
500

890

400
300
200
100
12
Yes

0

No
Frequency














The
 inability
 of
 the
 state
 to
 ensure
 the
 payment
 of
 compensation
 and
 the
 failure
 to

provide
suitable
alternatives
does
not
only
 deprive
 the
 people
of
their
livelihood,
but
it
 also

goes
against
the
dictates
of
the
1992
Constitution.
Article
36
(8)
states
that:













The
 State
 shall
 recognize
 that
 ownership
 and
 possession
 of
 land
 carry
 a
 social

obligation
to
serve
 the
 larger
 community
and,
in
 particular,
 the
State
shall
recognize

that
the
managers
of
public,
stool,
skin
and
family
lands
are
 fiduciaries
charged
with

the
obligation
to
discharge
their
functions
for
the
benefit
respectively
of
the
people
of

Ghana,
of
the
stool,
skin,
or
family
concerned
and
are
accountable
as
fiduciaries
in







this
regard
(Constitution
of
Ghana
1992:
45).



Also,
it
goes
against
the
2015
Land
Commission
policy
guideline
governing
large-scale


land
transactions
in
Ghana.
Among
other
things,
the
guideline
aims
to
safeguard
the
interests

of
local
communities
by
preventing
situations
in
which
individuals
who
buy
vast
tracts
of
land

usurp
the
general
public's
rights.
However,
the
evidence
shows
that
the
various
law
and
policy

provisions
 are
 not
 strictly
 followed.
 As
 a
 result,
 host
 populations
 suffer
 a
 worsening
 of

livelihood
outcomes.










75




4.5.2Traditionalauthorities,landgrabs,andrurallivelihoods




The architecture of Ghana’s land governance system is structured to accommodate
customary
institutions
(Chieftaincy)
in
the
administration
of
lands
in
the
country,
as
noted
in

Article
36(8)
quoted
on
page
76
above.
Besides,
the
Chieftaincy
Act,
2008
(Act
759)
mandates

the
 traditional
 council
 to
 manage
 stool
 (skin)
 land.
 The
 creation
 of
 the
 Customary
 Land

Secretariats
(CLS)
under
the
Land
Administration
Project
(LAP
I
and
II)
further
enhanced
the

role
of
customary
authorities.
The
CLS
created
paramount
chiefs
and
served
as
an
institutional

bridge
 between
 the
 traditional
 authorities
and
 the
 land
sector
agencies
 (Ghana
 Commercial

Agriculture
Project
2015).
Based
on
the
above
legislative
and
policy
backing
of
the
chieftaincy

institution
coupled
with
the
establishment
of
the
various
regional
and
national
houses
of
chiefs,

the
 position
 of
 chiefs
 within
 the
 national
 political
 structure
 has
 been
 greatly
 enhanced.

Consequently,
chiefs
play
important
roles
during
land
transactions,
from
the
negotiation
stages

to
signing
the
deals.
This
power
in
negotiating
land
deals
has
transformed
chiefs
from
being

custodians
of
lands
to
the
status
of
owners.
It
is,
however,
expected
of
them
to
act
in
the
interest

of
 the
 people
during
the
processes
leading
 up
to
land
acquisitions
within
their
 jurisdictions.

The
respondents
were
therefore
asked
if
they
received
support
from
the
traditional
authorities.






The
results
shown
in
the
table
below
indicate
that
2.11%
(19)
answered
yes
to
receiving


support.
In
comparison,
97.29%
(833)
responded
no
to
whether
they
had
some
support
from

their
respective
traditional
authorities.








76




Figure11:Support
from
traditional
authorities

2%

Yes
No

98%













Despite
the
enhanced
status
and
role
of
chiefs,
the
evidence
from
the
study
suggests
that

they
did
not
use
their
positions
to
protect
the
people's
interests
when
negotiating
land
deals
in

their
jurisdictions.
The
enhanced
status
only
enabled
them
to
negotiate
deals
favourable
to
them

and
not
the
generality
of
the
people.
More
so,
the
evidence
from
this
study
suggests
that
they

offered
little
or
 no
support
to
 affected
community
members
to
enable
them
to
cope
with
the

livelihood
changes
resulting
from
land
grabs.

4.5.3Landgrabs,theinvestmentenvironment,andrurallivelihoods




An
aspect
of
the
institutional
discussion
under
this
section
has
to
do
with
the
enabling

environment
for
foreign
investment
in
land
and
agriculture.
The
climate
in
Ghana
regarding

attracting
investments
into
the
 country
saw
 a
sea
change
 in
the
 early
1980s
with
 neo-liberal

policies
 such
 as
 the
 Structural
 Adjustment
 Programmes
 (SAPs).
 Aside
 from
 the
 policy

framework
under
the
SAPs,
specific
institutions
were
created
to
facilitate
the
entry
of
investors.

In
furtherance
of
this
goal,
the
Ghana
Free
Zones
Act,
1995
(Act
505)
was
passed,
which
set

up
 the
 Ghana
 Free
 Zones
 Authority
 (GFZA)
mandated
 to
 provide
 a
 range
 of
 incentives
 to







77




encourage
 inward
 investment
 Ghana.
Besides
 the
 GFZA,
 the
 Ghana
 Investment
 Promotion

Centre
 (GIPC)
 was
 set
 up
 under
 the
 GIPC
 Act,
2013
 (Act
 865)
 to
 encourage
 and
 promote

investments
 in
Ghana,
 to
provide
for
the
creation
of
an
attractive
incentive
framework
and
a

transparent,
 predictable,
 and
 facilitating
 environment
 for
 investments
 in
 Ghana.
 Therefore,

these
two
institutions
play
vital
roles
in
encouraging,
regulating,
and
legitimizing
large-scale

land
investments.




At
 the
 ministry
 level,
 the
 Ministry
 of
 Food
 and
 Agriculture
 (MoFA)
 contributes
 to


large-scale
land
acquisitions
by
providing
help
to
access
suitable
agricultural
 land
and
other

advisory
 services
 to
 investors.
 In
 2012,
 MoFA
 launched
 GCAP
 to
 facilitate
 access
 to

appropriate
 agricultural
 lands
 for
 investment
in
 commercial
 agriculture
 (MoFA
 2012).
 This

policy
 shifted
 from
 a
 subsistence-based
 smallholder
 system
 to
 a
 stronger
 market-oriented

system
that
larger
commercial
enterprises
drive.
The
setting
up
of
the
GFZA,
the
GIPC,
and

the
GCAP
 framework
 has
 provided
 the
 enabling
environment
for
investors
to
acquire
 large

tracts
of
land
in
rural
communities
to
engage
in
commercial
agriculture.





Theinvestors,however,havecertainresponsibilitiesstatedintheLandCommission’s

2015
policy
guidelines
for
large-scalelandacquisitionsasfollows:“ensurethatthe
investment

does
 not
harm
food
security
and
sustainability
of
livelihood
of
the
affected
communities
but

ratherstrengthenthem”(LandCommission2015:
9)
As
demonstrated
above,
the
investments

examined
 in
 the
 study
 areas
 negatively
 affected
 household
 food
 security.
 Additionally,
 the

respondents'
non-payment
of
compensation
and
the
failure
of
the
various
institutions
to
provide

alternative
 livelihood
 options
 suggest
 that
 these
 projects
 have
 not
 contributed
 to
 the

sustainability
of
livelihoods
in
the
study
areas.





However,
 the
 study
 found
 that
 certain
 aspects
 of
 communal
 life
 saw
 some
 positive


results
despite
the
negative
livelihood
outcomes
experienced
in
the
study
areas.

For
instance,

intheNorthernregion,arespondentconfirmedthat“theonlybenefit
we
got
from
the
company







78




was
 the
 dam
 they
 dug
 for
 us,
 which
 we
 drink
 [water
 from]
 during
 the
 dry
 season
 (Male

participant,
Tuuya-Northern
region,
September
2020).
In
the
Central
region,
respondents
noted

some
 of
 the
 project
 benefits
 to
 include
 the
 following: “they have schools, clinics,a police
station
and
a
hospital
in
their
yard
which
we
use,
and
a
local
information
centre
where
people

announce
missing
items,
selling
of
items
and
upcoming
and
ongoing
programmes
to
be
held

outside or within the community”
 (Female
 participant,
 Twifo
 Mampong
 /Central
 region,

October
 2020).
Additionally,
the
respondents
also
confirmed
how
the
company
 had
enabled

them
to
access
credit
facilities
to
finance
their
basic
expenses.
A
participant
revealed
that
the

project
in
the
areabenefitedthem“becausewecaneducateourchildrenandtradetoobytaking
a
 loan
from
 the
bank,
and
an
 amount
is
deducted
from
the
little
we
earn
from
the
 company

every month till we are done paying the actual amount and the interest as well” (Female

participant,
Twifo
Mampong
-Central
region,
October
2020).
These
observations
highlight
the

social
differentiation
involved
in
the
distribution
of
harms
and
benefits
from
large-scale
land

acquisition,
 implying
that
 even
 in
places
where
most
 people
 have
 experienced
 the
 negative

consequences
of
land
grabs,
individual
experiences
vary
depending
on
their
access
to
capital,

employment
opportunities,
and
social
networks.

4.5.4
Conclusion





The
 data
 obtained
 in
 the
 three
 study
 areas
 are
 summarised
 in
 this
 chapter.
 Three

conclusions
can
be
taken
from
the
findings.
First,
land
grabbing
has
had
adverse
effects
on
the

communities
surveyed,
such
as
land
dispossession,
food
shortages,
and
loss
of
income.
Second,

the
study
shows
that,
while
people
find
other
ways
to
cope
with
changes
in
their
 livelihood,

these
alternatives
were
neither
adequate
nor
long-term.
Significantly,
the
study
discovered
that

the
 much-touted
 employment
 prospects
 associated
 with
 land-grab
 projects
 were
 practically

non-existent
 in
 the
 communities.
 The
 few
 people
 who
 worked
 on
 the
 projects
 were
 not

guaranteed
 a
 job.
 Finally,
 the
 findings
 indicate
 that
 institutions
 played
 little
 to
 no
 role
 in






79




offering
 appropriate
 alternative
 livelihood
 choices.
 Instead,
 the
 current
 laxity
 in
 enforcing

existing
 regulatory
 provisions
 has
 exacerbated
 the
 plight
 of
 communities,
 particularly

smallholder
farmers,
whose
livelihoods
and
well-being
are
already
at
risk.












































































80






Chapter
5:
Discussion
of
study
results

5.0
Introduction





The
agricultural
sector
has
always
received
global
research
attention
because
of
its
role

in
sustaining
rural
 livelihoods.
Many
 governments,
including
those
 in
 developing
 countries,

have
 shown
 an
 interest
 in
 investing
 in
 agriculture
 in
 the
 last
 decade.
 Therefore,
 these

governments
have
 implemented
various
policies
to
 attract
 and
regulate
 investments
into
the

agricultural
sector.
Flowing
from
the
presentation
of
results
on
the
impact
and
the
responses
to

these
investments
in
Ghana,
this
chapter
discusses
specifically
the
results
presented
in
Chapter

4
and
seeks
to
examine
the
effects
of
land
grabs
on
rural
livelihoods,
the
strategies
adopted
in

response
 and
the
influence
 of
institutions
on
the
coping
processes.
This
chapter
also
reflects

the
 linkages
 between
 the
 study
 results
 and
 the
 conceptual
 framework
 that
 underpins
 this

research.
 I
 conclude
 this
 chapter
 by
 offering
 recommendations
 to
 guide
 policy
 and
 future

research.

5.1
Land
grabs
and
the
impact
on
rural
livelihoods





Subsistence
agriculture
is
the
mainstay
of
the
local
economies
in
the
three
study
areas,

(i.e.
Northern,
Central,
and
Volta
regions).
Therefore,
lands
and
their
resources
play
a
critical

role
 in
 helping
 people
 achieve
 their
 desirable
 livelihood
 outcomes.
 Having
 access
 to
 land,

therefore,
is
a
matter
of
survival.
As
such,
the
debate
on
the
negative
and
positive
impacts
of

large-scale
 land
acquisitions
 on
 local
 populations
 is
 still
up
 for
 discussion
 (Edelman
 et
al.,

2013).
 Therefore,
 the
 understanding
 that
 large-scale
 land
 acquisitions
 can
 negatively
 affect

local
 people
 is
 not
 new.
 Madueke
 (2019)
 draws
 attention
 to
 the
 socio-economic
 and

environmental
damages
they
pose
to
host
communities.
Also
cited
is
the
loss
of
access
to
vital

resources
 (Schoneveld
 et
 al.,
 2011)
 as
 a
 precursor
of
 conflicts
 (Kasanga
 et
 al.,
 2019).
In
 a







81




related
study,
Alhassan
et
al.
(2018,
2020)
concluded
that
land
grabbing
has
adverse
effects
on

the
livelihood
outcomes
of
smallholder
farming
households
in
Ghana.




This
 study
 expands
 on
 the
 above
 literature
 on
 the
 impact
 of
 these
 land
 deals
 on


Ghanaian
farmer
households.
 To
this
end,
three
key
findings
have
been
made
regarding
the

impact
of
land
grabs
in
Ghana.
First,
it
was
observed
that
farmers
lost
access
to
lands.
Secondly,

they
 suffered
 food
 insecurity,
 and
 lastly,
 they
 witnessed
 a
 reduction
 in
 their
 income.
 This

ultimately
worsened
their
livelihood
options.

5.1.1Landgrabsandlanddispossession



In
 this
report,
land
dispossessions
are
discussed
in
 light
 of
the
 concept
 of
 economic

dispossessions
by
Magdoff
(2013).
The
author
points
out
that
neo-liberal
agreements
are
oneway
economies
that
 are
opened
up
to
investment,
 among
 other
 things.
According
to
Ahwoi

(2010),
Ghana's
introduction
of
the
western-backed
Structural
Adjustment
Programme
in
the

early
 1980s
resulted
in
significant
investments
in
 the
 agricultural
sector,
 which
had
 various

consequences,
especially
on
host
communities.
According
to
Rutherford
and
Addison
(2007),

commercial
farmers
only
seek
to
maximize
their
profitability
in
a
neo-liberal
environment
in

agriculture
–
an
environment
such
as
the
one
created
by
the
Ghanaian
government.
This
profit

motive
most
often
comes
at
the
expense
of
the
people
living
in
host
communities.
A
nuanced

analysis
of
the
data
revealed
certain
interesting
trends
on
the
implications
of
this
on
the
people

in
the
study
areas
captured
in
this
thesis.
For
instance,
regarding
the
loss
of
access
to
lands,
the

acquisition
mode
largely
determines
the
outcome.
The
decision
by
the
government
to
undertake

what
can
be
described
as
dispossession
for
redistribution
for
the
TOPP
largely
explains
why
in

the
Central
region,
the
issue
of
land
lost
is
less
pronounced
than
in
the
Northern
region.
The

approach
to
giving
back
some
portions
of
the
land
to
the
original
owners
solves
two
problems

posed
by
land
grabs:
displacement
of
landowners
and
the
prevention
of
hostility
towards
the

investor
 by
 the
 host
 communities.
 This
 approach
 to
 land
 grabbing
 ensures
 it
 serves
 as
 a






82




mitigation
measure
 in
 the
 host
community.
 The
relatively
positive
role
 of
 the
 land
grabbers

(government
 and
 the
 investor)
 to
 ensure
 that
 the
 people
 are
 not
 deprived
 totally
 of
 their

livelihood
assets
(i.e.
land)
is
a
key
highlight
of
the
findings.

This
provides
an
insight
into
how

land
grabbing
can
be
carried
out
to
ensure
an
arguably
positive
outcome
and
supports
Zhan
et

al.
(2015)'s
conclusion
that
the
negative
effect
of
 land
grabs
on
jobs
and
profits,
land
rights,

and
the
environment
is
mainly
dependent
on
government
and
investor
decisions.





However,
the
study
revealed
that
institutions
played
a
role
in
depriving
the
respondents


of
 their
 property,
 despite
 this
 exception.
 In
 Ghana,
land
 governance
 institutions,
especially

chiefs,
have
been
identified
as
key
players
to
dispossess
the
people
from
their
lands.
According

to
Ahmed
et
al.
(2018),
chiefs
often
acted
as
landowners,
sellers,
expropriators,
negotiators,

and
 compensation
 recipients
 in
 addition
 to
 their
 traditional
 positions
 as
 land
 custodians.

According
to
Kirst
(2020),
this
enhanced
role
of
chiefs
serves
as
a
major
source
of
conflict
in

Ghana.
This
is
a
view
supported
by
 Peña‐Huertas(2017),
who
 argued
 that
the
exclusionary

nature
of
the
institutions
that
regulate
the
access
and
assignment
of
property
rights.
Therefore,

it
 was
 not
surprising
to
 find
that
 in
the
 study
areas,
chiefs
were
 faulted
 for
negotiating
 and

selling
lands
without
the
involvement
of
the
primary
land
users,
that
is,
the
people.





This
study's
discovery
of
land
loss
resulting
from
land
grabs
backs
up
previous
research


on
 the
 effect
 of
 land
 grabs
 on
 host
 communities.
 Aha
 and
 Ayitey
 (2017)
 discovered
 that

international
biofuel
projects
in
Yeji
(Brong
Ahafo
district,
Ghana)
resulted
in
the
displacement

of
indigenous
farmers.
The
findings
of
Schoneveld
and
German
(2014)
also
confirm
that
local

farmers
have
been
displaced
as
a
result
of
foreign
corporations’
biofuel
ventures.
In
an
earlier

study,
Aha
and
Ayitey
(2017)
found
that
institutions
(Chieftaincy)
facilitated
the
dispossession

of
farmers
from
their
lands
in
the
wake
of
biofuel
investments.
Therefore,
it
is
fair
to
conclude

that
land
 grabs,
 especially
by
 foreign
entities,
 resulted
 in
the
 loss
of
 lands
 in
the
respective







83




societies,
which
had
a
disastrous
multiplier
 impact
on
livelihoods.
This
is
 due
to
the
critical

position
that
land
access
plays
in
rural
communities.

5.1.2Landgrabsandfoodinsecurity




Food
security
is
a
significant
public
policy
concern
in
every
country.
This
explains
why

different
 governments
 make
 deliberate
 policy
 decisions
 to
 ensure
 that
 their
 citizens
 have

adequate
 and
 nutritious
 food.
 The
 World
 Bank,
 for
 example,
 has
 called
 for
 foreign
 direct

investments
 as
a
means
of
alleviating
 food
 supply
problems
 in
developing
countries,
but
as

Häberli
and
 Smith
 (2014)
 discovered,
 these
 investments
 often
 result
 in
 the
 displacement
 of

local
 agricultural
farmers
 in
favour
of
the
investor,
resulting
in
 food
 insecurity.
As
a
result,

food
 insecurity
 has
 been
 linked
 to
 land
 grabs.
 This
 is
 supported
 by
 the
 fact
 that
 in
 most

developing
countries,
such
as
Ghana,
the
policy
system
guiding
land
grab
deals
and
land-use

decisions
 appears
 to
 favour
 the
 investor
 over
 the
 local
 community
 (Atuoye
 et
 al.,
 2021).

Governments
 pursue
 a
 pro-investment
 strategy
 that
 prioritizes
 the
 production
 of
 exportoriented
goods
over
domestically
consumed
goods.
Another
explanation
for
food
insecurity,
as

Rulli
 and
 D'Odorico
 (2014)
 stated,
 is
 that
 these
 land
 grabs
 appear
 to
 exclude
 the
 local

population
 from
 potentially
 highly
 productive
 agricultural
 land,
 even
 without
 significant

investments.





The
 investments
 made
 in
 the
 three
 regions
 had
 interesting
 consequences
 for
 food


security,
as
identified
in
this
study.
Lands
that
were
previously
used
for
food
crop
production

in
the
Northern
region
were
purchased
by
an
investor
who
used
the
land
to
cultivate
a
non-food

crop,
 namely
jatropha.
Palm
 trees
were
 planted
 on
the
 purchased
lands
in
the
Central
 area.

People
were
also
encouraged
to
go
into
palm
production
as
part
of
the
redistributed
land
scheme

to
meet
the
factory's
needs.
The
acquisition
of
lands
for
commercial
rice
production
in
the
Volta

region
deprives
them
of
their
right
to
decide
their
land
resources
to
meet
their
household
food







84




needs.
Therefore,
it
was
not
surprising
to
find
that,
 on
aggregate,
60.7%
of
 the
 respondents

indicated
they
experienced
food
insecurity.




The
cause
of
this
food
insecurity
is
not
far-fetched.
For
example,
switching
from
food


crop
production
to
 jatropha,
for
example,
on
such
a
large
scale
ensures
food
insecurity.
 This

confirms
an
earlier
study
by
Renzaho
et
al.
(2017),
which
found
that
the
social
and
economic

benefits
 of
 biofuels
 initiatives
 heralded
 by
 foreign
 entities
 do
 not
 always
 accrue
 to
 local

communities.
 According
 to
 the
 authors,
 the
 host
 communities
 for
 these
 projects
 suffer

negatively.
According
to
Lisk
(2013),
the
evidence
from
East
Africa
also
points
to
the
fact
that

land-based
foreign
investments
have
left
African
smallholder
farmers
particularly
vulnerable

to
dispossession
and
local
communities
at
the
risk
of
increasing
marginalization
and
threat
of

food
insecurity.
The
case
was
not
different
in
Ghana,
as
this
research
found
similar
impacts
on

household
food
security.
This
was
especially
evident
in
the
Northern
area,
where
opponents
of

the
biofuel
project
claimed,
among
other
things,
that
the
jatropha
plant,
particularly
the
seeds,

posed
a
threat
to
people
and
livestock
and
that
the
project
resulted
in
extensive
deforestation

and
the
loss
of
income
from
gathering
forest
products
like
shea
nuts
(Nyari
2008).
As
a
result,

the
people
had
to
deal
with
losing
access
to
their
source
of
income
while
also
worrying
about

the
jatropha's
devastating
effect
on
their
climate,
livestock,
and
ability
to
feed
their
families.

The
lack
of
access
to
lands
and
the
replacement
of
food
crop
production
for
biofuels
resulted

in
food
insecurity
in
the
Northern
region,
as
evidenced
by
this
study.




The
situation
in
the
Central
and
Volta
regions
offers
a
somewhat
different
perspective


on
land
grabbing
on
food
security.
Though
lack
of
access
is
a
common
denominator
across
the

three
 regions
 studied,
 the
 main
 impact
 of
 land
 grabs
 in
 these
 two
 regions
 is
 how
 the

phenomenon
leads
to
a
rise
in
land
prices,
leading
to
rising
food
prices.
As
a
result,
people
in

host
 communities
 cannot
 compete
 for
 arable
 land
 and,
 even
 though
 food
 is
 grown
 in
their

communities,
they
cannot
afford
it.
 People
 in
the
 Volta
region,
for
example,
 were
forced
to







85




look
for
alternative
sources
of
income
or
rely
on
their
wives
for
survival
after
their
lands
were

lost
to
the
rice
project.
Residents
could
not
afford
to
look
for
alternative
agricultural
lands
or

buy
the
food
they
were
previously
producing
to
feed
their
families
because
of
their
low
income.

This
 confirms
 an
earlier
 study
 by
 Zain
 et
 al.
 (2015)
 that
 poverty
 is
 a
 major
 cause
 of
 food

insecurity.
 Poverty,
 the
 authors
 argue,
 combines
 with
 other
 socio-economic
 issues
 such
 as

small
 landholdings,
 a
 lack
 of
 input,
 and
 ineffective
 agricultural
 methods,
 which
 results
 in

reduced
food
production.
The
redistribution
of
lands
in
the
Central
region
due
to
TOPP’s
start

of
the
oil
palm
project
had
two
consequences
for
food
security.
The
project
reduced
the
amount

of
land
available
to
farmers,
and
the
ready
demand
for
palm
fruits
provided
by
TOPP
under
the

smallholder
scheme
made
the
people
concentrate
less
on
food
crop
production.
As
a
result
of

the
cumulative
impact,
less
food
is
produced,
resulting
in
a
rise
in
food
prices,
 and
with
the

majority
of
people
earning
less
than
$100
per
month,
they
will
struggle
to
feed
their
families.

5.1.3Landgrabsandlossofincome




It
 is
 impossible
 to
 overestimate
 the
 importance
 of
 land
 in
 rural
 households
 and

economies.
The
 explanation
for
this
 is
that
land
is
the
 most
important
 asset
for
rural
people

who
depend
on
farming
to
live.
According
to
the
findings,
farming
was
the
primary
source
of

income
 for
82.92
percent
 of
those
surveyed.
As
 a
result,
having
 access
 to
land
is
 crucial
in

deciding
household
income
in
these
areas.
As
a
result,
the
loss
of
land
and
subsequent
inability

to
 participate
 in
 agricultural
 activities
 significantly
 impact
 their
 household
 income.
 It
 is

impossible
 to
 overestimate
 the
 importance
 of
 land
 in
 rural
 households’
 economies.
 The

explanation
 for
 this
is
 that
land
is
the
most
important
asset
for
rural
people
who
 depend
 on

farming
to
 make
a
 living.
 According
to
 the
 findings
of
this
study,
 farming
was
the
 primary

source
of
income
for
82.92%
of
those
surveyed.
As
a
result,
having
access
to
land
is
crucial
in

deciding
 household
 income
 in
 these
 areas.
 The
 loss
 of
 land
 and
 subsequent
 inability
 to

undertake
agricultural
activities
significantly
impact
their
household
income.
In
a
study,
Jiao






86




et
al.
 (2015)
found
no
evidence
of
 positive
income
effects
land
deals
on
households
in
 host

communities.




This
backs
up
Alhassan
et
al.’s
(2018)
findings
that
land
grabbing
harms
farmer
profits.


As
 84.92%
 of
the
 respondents
 in
 this
study
 live
 on
 less
 than
$100
 per
month,
losing
 their

livelihood
assets
(i.e.,
land)
puts
them
in
a
precarious
economic
situation.
It's
worth
noting
that

the
negative
consequences
of
land
grabs
found
in
this
study
are
linked
in
a
complex
way
(i.e.,

loss
of
farmlands,
lost
income,
and
food
security).
This
is
because,
for
people
who
depend
on

the
 land
 to
 earn
 a
 living
 and
 maintain
 household
 food
 security,
 a
 loss
 of
 access
 to
 land

inevitably
means
a
 loss
 of
 income,
 putting
 their
 food
 security
 in
jeopardy.
 This
 is
 because

residents
of
host
communities
cannot
grow
food
crops
to
feed
their
families,
nor
do
they
have

sufficient
income
to
buy
these
household
necessities.

5.1.4Landgrabsandgender




The
 role
 of
 women
 in
 the
 agricultural
 value
 chain
 in
 Ghana
 cannot
 be
 underrated.

Higgins
and
Fenrich
(2012)
pointed
out
that
they
constitute
52%
of
the
agricultural
workforce

and
account
 for
 70%
of
those
 involved
 in
the
 production
of
subsistence
 crops.
Yet,
women

generally
 have
 limited
 access
 to
 and
 control
 over
 land
 and
 other
 resources
 necessary
 for

economic
development.
This
unequal
access
to
productive
resources
has
led
to
a
feminization

of
poverty
in
Ghana
(Higgins
and
Fenrich
2012).
The
status
of
women
within
the
Ghanaian

context
was
due
to
the
culturally
defined
roles
which
place
men
as
the
primary
producers
and

owners
of
the
production
system.
Kent
(2018)
shows
this
system
puts
women
in
a
subordinate

position
 and
 secures
 their
 access
 to
 productive
 resources
 through
 men.
 Therefore,
 women

mostly
 suffer
 land
 tenure
 insecurity
 because
 of
 this
 derivative
 right
 created
 by
 communal

institutions.
As
Buss
et
al.
(2017)
found
in
their
study,
women's
livelihoods
are
woven
into
the

social
and
institutional
contexts
within
which
the
activity
takes
place.
In
the
specific
case
of

Ghana
and
the
access
of
women
to
lands,
Bawa(2016)contendsthatwomen’saccesstoland





87




is
dependent
on
their
social
status
as
wives,
sisters,
and
daughters.
Therefore,
a
woman's‘good’
relationship
with
people
connected
to
land
plays
a
crucial
role
in
her
ability
to
gain
farmland
if

she
 lacks
 the
 financial
 resources
 to
 buy
 or
 rent
 such
 land
 herself.
 Hence
 in
 most
 of
 these

communities,
women
most
often
 find
themselves
living
off
the
periphery
of
lands
owned
by

their
 male
 relations.
 As
 a
 result,
 previous
 studies
 have
 concluded
 that
 the
 privatization
 of

common
assets
through
land
grabs
does
not
bode
well
for
women.
For
example,
Darkwah
et

al.
(2017)
conclude
that
land
dispossession
exacerbates
gender
inequalities
because
women
are

less
likely
to
be
compensated
for
land
lost
and
are
less
likely
to
be
recruited
as
farmhands
when

investors
take
over
their
community
lands.
Women
lack
alternative
livelihood
opportunities,

especially
 concerning
 wage
 labour
 on
 newly
 established
 plantations.
 Another
 study
 by

Hausermann
 et
 al.
 (2018)
 found
 that
 when
 it
 comes
 to
 compensation
 payments
 to
 people

harmed
by
land
grabbing,
men
receive
much
more
money
than
women
for
losing
their
farms.

According
to
 Nibi
(2012),
 land
 grabs
in
 the
 Northern
 region
have
resulted
in
women
losing

both
 their
 rights
 and
 access
 to
 land
 and
 the
 natural
 resources
 needed
 for
 food,
 income,

medicine,
and
fodder.
 Similar
findings
were
made
by
 Tsikata
 and
 Yaro
(2014)
that
projects

resulting
from
land
grabs
worsened
women’sreproductiveburdensbylosingforestresources
closer
to
their
homes.






It
is
against
the
background
of
these
negative
findings
on
the
impact
of
land
grabs
on


women
 that
 the
 finding
 by
 this
 study
 in
 the
 Volta
 region
 is
 a
 significant
 contribution
 to

knowledge
on
the
subject
matter.
The
aggregate
results
from
this
study
reveal
that
73.52%
of

women
lost
 access
to
farmlands
and
income
 due
to
the
land
 grabs
which
took
place
 in
their

communities.
 However,
 a
 review
 of
 the
 qualitative
 data
 from
 the
 Volta
 region
 brings
 an

exciting
 perspective
 on
 the
 impact
 of
 the
 project
 on
 women
 in
 the
 area.
 According
 to
 the

women,
the
company's
operations
(Brazil
Agro
group)
have
been
a
blessing
financially.
This

finding
offers
a
fresh
perspective
on
how
projects
arising
from
land
grabs
can
empower
women







88




who,
as
previous
studies
found,
tend
to
be
disadvantaged
when
land
grabs
occur.
The
case
from

the
Volta
region
highlights
the
fact
that
if
properly
targeted,
there
could
be
positive
outcomes

of
land
grabs.
The
dominance
of
literature
on
the
negative
consequences
of
land
grabs
further

makes
this
finding
significant
in
understanding
the
socially
differentiated
impacts
of
land
grabs

in
host
communities.





However,
this
research
finding
has
socio-cultural
implications
for
perceptions
around


the
 sustenance
 of
 the
 family
 system
 in
 the
 host
 communities.
 The
 complaint
 by
 men
 of

“disrespectfromtheirwives”indicates
the
threat
they
perceive
the
economic
empowerment
of

their
 wives
 posed
 to
 their
 primacy
 as
 family
 heads,
 ultimate
 decision-maker,
 and
 home

provider.
The
financial
independence
attained
by
women
due
to
the
income
earned
from
trading

in
 the
 rice
 produced
 by
 the
 company
 frees
 them
 from
 the
 control
 of
 their
 husbands.
 The

negative
interpretation
given
by
the
men
to
the
newly
found
status
of
their
wives
demonstrates

their
 emotional
 attachments
 to
 the
 patriarchal
 norms
 governing
 gender
 relations
 in
 these

communities.
Beyond
 mere
 emotional
 attachments,
 Dery
and
 Akurugu
 (2021)
 contend
 that

such
narratives
perpetuate
men’sheteronormative
breadwinning
role
as
a
model
of
masculinity.

According
to
Dery
(2020,
2019),
society
requires
that
men
earn
respect,
achieve
social
power

and
positioning
in
the
gender
hierarchies
by
adequately
fulfilling
varying
ideals
of
masculinity.

This
places
enormous
pressure
on
men
to
fulfill
their
obligation
to
the
household.
And
with
the

situation
as
found
in
this
research
where
men
are
rendered
unemployed
and
their
position
as

breadwinners
 is
 threatened,
 there
 may
 be
 little
 incentive
 to
 embrace
 any
 form
 of
 women

empowerment.
 Therefore,
 it
 is
 not
 surprising
 the
 level
 of
 disquiet
 expressed
 by
 the
 men

regarding
the
new
status
of
the
women
when
it
comes
to
contributing
to
household
income.


5.2
A
struggle
for
survival:
coping
with
the
phenomenon
of
land
grabs.





The
response
mechanisms
to
the
phenomenon
of
land
grabs
vary.
For
instance,
in
rural

Cambodia,
Park
(2019)
noted
that
the
response
came
with
violent
protests.
A
protestor
captured






89




in
her
study
stated,
“land
grabbing
is
so
painful
that
we
are
not
afraid
to
die.
Our
lands
are
our

lives.
 We
are
 not
 afraid
 to
 risk
 our
 lives
 to
get
 the
 land
 back” (Park 2019:
 30).
 Given
 the

importance
of
land
in
rural
livelihoods,
it
is
understandable
that
losing
access
to
this
valuable

resource
could
result
in
various
reactions,
including
the
violent
protests
seen
in
Cambodia.
In

Ghana,
studies
 indicate
that
more
than
60%
 of
the
population
is
engaged
 in
agriculture
as
 a

source
 of
 livelihood
 (Anang
 et
 al.
 2020).
 Similarly,
 other
 studies
 on
 Africa
 find
 that
 rural

households
essentially
depend
on
agriculture
(Davies
et
al.,
2017;
Cunguara
2011).





Despite
their
reliance
on
agriculture,
this
study
finds
a
high
poverty
level
in
these
areas.


The
study
revealed
that
84.15%
of
the
respondents
indicated
they
earned
less
than
400
cedis

(less
 than
 $100)
 a
 month.
 The
 people's
 inability
 to
 access
 livelihood
 resources
 (i.e.,
 land)

harmed
 their
 income
 and
 household
 food
 security
 in
 this
 case.
 This
 finding
 is
 similar
 to

Scoone's
(1998)
 evidence,
which
shows
that
rural
communities
depend
on
natural
resources

for
 their
 livelihood.
 The
 lack
 of
 access
to
these
 resources
 limits
 their
livelihood
 pathways.

Similarly,
Lee
and
Neves
(2009)
argue
that
rural
poverty
and
natural
resources
are
inextricably

linked
because
the
rural
poor
depend
on
agriculture
or
other
natural
resources
to
make
a
living.

Because
 of
the
 high
levels
of
poverty
in
these
 areas,
commercial
projects
 made
possible
by

land
grabs
harms
the
people's
livelihoods.




Hence,
they
 had
 to
adopt
alternative
strategies
 in
 response
to
 the
challenge
posed
to


their
source
of
livelihood.
According
to
Scoones
(1998),
they
have
three
options:
agricultural

intensification/extensification,
 livelihood
diversification,
and
migration.
This
 means
 that
the

people
in
response
can
intensify
their
capital
and
labour
investment
into
agricultural
activities

or
 put
more
 land
under
cultivation,
 diversify
to
other
 off-farm
 income-earning
activities,
or

move
 away
 and
 seek
 a
 livelihood.
 However,
 the
 findings
 from
 this
 research
 point
 to
 the

undeniable
fact
that
the
affected
people
are
limited
to
 these
options.
The
reasons
for
this
are

not
far-fetched.
Land
grabs
by
their
very
nature
deprive
people
of
their
access
to
lands;
hence







90




the
first
option
of
intensifying
production
or
expanding
the
size
of
their
land
use
is
off
the
table,

and
even
in
instances
where
a
few
still
had
access
to
their
lands,
the
low-income
levels
reported

in
 the
 study
 areas
makes
 it
almost
 impossible
 for
 them
 to
intensify
 capital
 investment
 into

agriculture
to
boost
productivity.





The
study,
therefore,
found
that
the
people
had
to
diversify
to
other
off-farm
income-

earning
 activities
 as
 a
 livelihood
 strategy.
 As
 indicated
 in
 Table
 9,
 the
 other
 options
 the

respondents
 resorted
 to
 includes
 petty
 trading,
 artisanship,
 serving
 as
 labourers,
 finding

alternative
employment,
or
being
in
the
employment
of
the
companies
engaged
in
land
grabs.

This
finding
agrees
with
Harmenoo
et
al.
(2018)
that
large-scale
land
acquisition
tends
to
push

farming
households
into
adopting
different
 coping
strategies.
According
to
Banchirigah
 and

Hilson
(2010),
smallholder
farmers
have
to
branch
out
into
non-farming
activities
in
response

to
the
low
earnings
from
farming
activities,
especially
in
the
liberalized
market.
The
liberalized

market
 has
 ensured
 the
 dominance
 of
 commercial
 interests
 in
 direct
 competition
 with

smallholder
farmers
over
land.
The
discussions
around
the
response
mechanism
of
smallholder

farmers
could
be
situated
with
the
related
concepts
of
de-agrarianization
and
de-peasantization.

De-agrarianization,
according
to
Hebinck
(2018)
manifests
itself
in
rural
communities
where

there
 is
 a
 shift
 in
 occupation
 from
 farming
 activities,
 thereby
 reducing
 the
 contribution
 of

smallholder
farmers
to
agricultural
production.
De-peasantization,
on
the
other
hand,
manifests

in
situations
where
peasant
farmers
are
dispossessed
and
replaced
by
out-growers
and
contract

farming
schemes
or
corporate
large-scale
 farming
operations.
 This
is
particularly
true
in
the

cases
examined
in
this
study.
This
is
because
governments
and
corporations
are
spearheading

land
grabbing
to
the
detriment
of
small-scale
farmers.




The
farmers,
therefore,
had
to
shift
to
survive.
According
to
Singh
and
Bhogal
(2014),


this
shift
can
be
classified
into
two
categories:
growth-led
shift
and
distress-induced
shift.
The

growth-led
 shift
 is
 related
 to
 developmental
 factors
 like
 the
 mechanization
 of
 agriculture,







91




increasing
 employment
 and
 income,
 and
 state
 intervention
 for
 generating
 employment

opportunities.
 According
to
the
authors,
these
 factors
attract
the
workforce
from
 farming
 to

more
lucrative
non-farm
activities.
On
the
other
hand,
distress-induced
transformation
is
based

on
 hardship
 or
 crisis-driven
 factors
 such
 as
 falling
 productivity,
 increasing
 costs,
 and

decreasing
returns
on
unemployment,
forcing
the
workforce
from
farming
towards
non-farm

activities
to
eke
out
their
livelihood.
The
findings
of
this
research
fit
into
the
classification
of

distressed
induced
transformation.
Due
to
the
processes
of
land
grabs,
the
smallholder
farmers

in
 the
 study
 areas
 were
 forced
into
 seeking
 non-farming
 alternatives
 such
 as
 petty
 trading,

artisans,
casual
work,
and
seeking
alternative
employment
in
other
sectors.
Despite
the
peculiar

case
 of
 the
 Central
 region
 where
 the
 state,
 through
 direct
 intervention,
 sought
 to
 promote

mechanized
agriculture
to
increase
income
and
generate
employment,
we
can
conclude
that
the

shift
witnessed
 in
the
region
 was
intended
to
be
a
growth-led
shift.
The
Volta
and
Northern

region
situation
tends
to
mirror
the
second
category,
that
is,
distress-induced
shift.




The
process
of
de-peasantization,
however,
has
its
own
set
of
issues.
According
to
Warr


(2021),
the
problem
stems
from
the
fact
that
rural
people
are
often
directly
or
indirectly
reliant

on
agriculture;
as
a
result,
they
are
emotionally
attached
to
the
land,
which
provides
for
their

basic
 needs
through
agriculture.
The
socio-economic
significance
 of
 land
in
the
lives
of
the

rural
 people,
 to
 an
 extent,
 explains
 why
 the
 majority
 of
 respondents
 surveyed
 (60.98%)

revealed
they
were
not
satisfied
with
the
non-farming
alternatives
they
resorted
to
in
response

to
 land
 grabs.
 This
 level
 of
 dissatisfaction
 and
 the
 fact
 that
 they
 received
 no
 livelihood

alternatives
 from
the
government
(98.67%)
 or
 their
chiefs
(97.29%)
suggests
 that
the
study

areas
cannot
cope
satisfactorily
with
the
challenges
posed
by
land
grabs.
Therefore,
the
results

of
this
study
indicate
that
the
livelihood
options
adopted
by
the
people
as
a
coping
mechanism

did
not
 yield
 sustainable
livelihood
 outcomes.
 Besides,
the
 failure
 of
institutions
 to
provide

suitable
alternatives
further
worsens
the
plight
of
the
people
negatively
affected
by
land
grabs.







92




As
conceived
in
the
Sustainable
Livelihood
Framework,
institutions
are
to
mediate
livelihood

strategies
and
pathways
of
the
people;
however,
the
study
found
the
opposite
to
be
true.


5.3
Ghana’sinstitutionalframework,landgrabs,andrurallivelihoods





The
policy
and
constitutional
reforms
adopted
by
respective
governments
have
created

modern
statutory
laws
 on
 land
governance
 which
 complement
the
traditional
land
practices.

According
to
Akolgo-Azupogo
et
al.
(2021),
these
two
systems
are
employed
to
determine
land

usage
 in
 the
 country.
 These
 systems
 often
 run
 parallel
 to
 each
 other
 and,
 at
 times,
 are

disconnected
 from
 each
other.
 It
 is
within
 this
 institutional
 complexity
that
land
 grabs
took

place
in
the
host
communities.
Livelihoods
within
the
research
areas
are
therefore
governed
by

a
complex
web
of
institutions
and
processes
that
determine
people's
livelihood
outcomes
to
a

considerable
extent.
As
noted
in
Lewins
(2004),
the
nature
and
function
of
institutions
are
key

in
influencing
how
livelihood
opportunities
may
(or
may
not)
manifest
themselves
to
the
poor

and
 define
 the
gateways
through
 which
they
pass
 towards
a
 negative
 or
positive
 livelihood

adaptation.
 Through
 this
 research,
 I
 discovered
 that
 Ghana's
 processes
 of
 land
 grabs
 are

governed
 by
 a
 multi-layered
 institutional
 and
 policy
 system.
 The
 adoption
 of
 market

liberalization
 policies,
 Berry
 (2009)
 notes,
 democratized
 governance,
 led
 to
 widespread

changes
 in
 governing
 structures
 and
 contributed
 to
 a
 proliferation
 of
 both
 individual
 and

institutional
competitors
for
power
and
resources,
and
of
fora
in
which
people
seek
access
to

property
and
authority.
It
is
within
this
competitive
institutional
environment
that
the
land
grabs

in
 the
 selected
 case
 studies
 occurred.
 The
 table
 below
 outlines
 how
 institutions
 from
 the

colonial
 era
 have
 collaborated
 to
 administer
 lands
 in
 Ghana
 till
 the
 present
 competitive

environment
between
the
state
and
chiefs.












93




Table11:Phases
of
land
administration
in
Ghana
Source:
Author’scompilation

Era




Objective/Activity

*Placed
idle
lands
under
the
control

of
the
colonial
government.

*Lands
administered
through
native

authorities.


*Strengthened
role
of
Chiefs
in
the

control
of
customary
land.

Post*Accelerated
land
privatization
and

independence
 commoditization.


*Aid
in
land
privatization
and

securitization

*Develop
reliable,
simple,
cheap,

speedy,
and
suitable
methods
of

recording
customary
transfers
or

interests







*To
clean
up
legislative
and



institutional
challenges
that
persist
in



the
land
market.



*To
consolidate
and
harmonize
the



laws
on
land.

Post
the

*To
ensure
sustainable
land

SAPs

administration
and
effective
land

tenure
systems







Policy/Regulatory
framework

Land
Bill
(1894)

Native
Administration
Ordinance

(1928)

Watson
and
Coussey

Committee
reports
(1948-1949)


Land
Registry
Act
1962
(Act
122),

Administration
of
Lands
Act
1962

(Act
123)

State
Lands

Act
1962
(Act
125)

Survey
Act
1962
(Act
127)

Conveyancing
Decree
1973
(Act

175)

Land
Title
Registration
Law
1986

(PNDCL
152)

1992
Constitution

Ghana
Investment
Promotion

Centre
Act,
1994
(Act
478)

National
Development
Planning

Commission
Act,
1994
(Act
479)

Ghana
Free
Zones
Authority
Act

1995
(Act
504)

National
Land
Policy
(1999),
Land

Administration
Project
(2004)


Food
and
Agricultural
Sector

Development
Policy
(FASDEP)

2007

Lands
Commission
Act,
2008
(Act

767)

Land
Act
2019


The
 three
 phases
 of
 land
 administration
 depicted
 in
 the
 table
 above
 correspond
 to


Ghana's
 phases
 of
 land
 administration.
 The
 colonial
 period
 was
 defined
 by
 the
 struggle
 to

determine
 who
 controlled
 which
 lands.
 Under
 the
 indirect
 rule
 scheme,
 the
 colonial

government
gave
 chiefs
direct
control.
After
 that
came
the
 post-independence
period,
when

market-driven
imperatives
 ruled.
 The
 land
 was
 given
 a
high
 monetary
 value
 to
privatize
 it.

Following
the
implementation
of
the
SAPs,
some
institutions
were
established
to
regulate
the






94




land
 market
 and
 create
 an
 enabling
 environment
 for
 land
 investment.
 However,
 the
 study's

findings
indicate
that
these
systems
have
done
little
to
help
people
in
host
communities
find

better
ways
to
make
a
living.
According
to
the
results
of
this
study,
Ghana
has
adequate
laws

and
institutions
to
handle
lands
in
the
country's
various
uses.
This
structure
is
intended
to
direct

land
acquisition
processes
and
protect
the
rights
of
citizens
in
host
communities.
In
terms
of

institutions,
the
 study
discovered
that,
in
line
with
previous
 studies,
chiefs
in
these
 societies

have
transitioned
from
land
custodians
to
landowners,
making
land
deals
mainly
for
personal

gain
 (see
 Kirst
 2020;
 Lanz
 et
 al.
 2018).
 The
 situation
 is
 exacerbated
 by
 the
 fact
 that
 state

institutions
that
should
have
acted
as
a
check
on
the
exercise
of
traditional
authority
have
either

failed
to
do
so
or
have
yielded
to
the
chiefs'
authority
when
it
comes
to
land
transactions.




Some
reasons
have
been
provided
to
explain
why
 chiefs
tend
to
have
an
overbearing


influence
within
the
scheme
of
land
transactions.
Ahmed
et
al.
(2018)
note
that
Ghana's
weak,

undocumented,
 and
largely
discretionary
land
administration
system
allows
chiefs
to
bypass

both
 customary
 and
 statutory
 land
 laws.
 Another
 factor
 is
 what
 can
 be
 referred
 to
 as
 the

‘electoralmagnetismofchiefs.
In
Ghana,
the
power
of
chiefs
in
deciding
electoral
outcomes

makes
 it
 much
 more
 difficult
 for
 public
 officers
 to
 act
 as
 a
 check
on
 chiefs.
 According
 to

Gyampo
(2009),
the
political
class
understands
that
chiefs
can
easily
organize
and
manipulate

their
 subjects
 to
 vote
 for
 them,
 whether
 subtly
 or
 overtly.
 According
 to
 the
 author,
 chiefs'

influence
 in
 elections
 stems
 from
 their
 ability
 to
 get
 their
 favoured
 candidates
 elected

unopposed
by
persuading
or
coercing
rival
 candidates
to
 step
down
or
 mobilizing
their
subchiefs
and
sections
of
the
electorate
behind
his
preferred
candidate.
Being
aware
of
this
inherent

influence
they
wield,
the
chiefs
exploit
it
to
their
benefit.
Individual
landowners
are
the
losers

in
this
situation
since
they
have
been
stripped
of
their
lands
and
are
left
to
fend
for
themselves.




The
situation
is
further
worsened
because
the
various
land
policy
measures
to
protect


rural
livelihoods
(1992
constitution,
the
2020
Land
Act,
Land
commission
policy
documents)







95




remain
 beautiful
 laws
 without
 the
 necessary
 implementation
 or
 enforcement.
 As
 a
 result,

investors
 are
 under
 no
 real
 pressure
 to
 ensure
 that
 they
 provide
 people
 with
 long-term

livelihood
 options
 beyond
 a
 few
 developmental
 and
 public
 relations-driven
 ventures
 like

schools
and
water
facilities
to
boost
their
brand
image.
One
area
where
there
has
been
a
lax
in

implementing
 laws
 is
 compensation
 payment.
 Although
 there
 are
 established
 policies
 for

paying
 compensations,
 most
 affected
 farmers
 received
 no
 compensation
 for
 property
 loss,

demonstrating
the
lack
of
compliance
that
has
hampered
Ghana's
land
acquisition
processes.

Further,
the
dissatisfaction
expressed
by
the
few
respondents
who
said
they
were
compensated

reveals
 a
 need
 to
determine
 fair
 compensation,
 a
point
 also
 discussed
 in
 Twerefoo
 (2021).

According
to
Twerefoo
(2021),
this
 fair
compensation
should
be
sustainable
compensation,

which
 she
defines
 as
an
 income-generating
 activity
 or
 asset
rather
 than
 a
one-time
 reward.

According
to
Obeng-Odoom
(2012),
the
justification
for
the
payment
compensation
is
attached

to
the
notion
of
taking
either
through
the
compulsory
physical
acquisition
of
land
or
a
reduction

in
the
market
value
of
the
land.




However,
according
to
Obeng-Odoom
(2012),
to
assess
compensation,
three
essential


elements
 must
 be
 considered:
 namely,
 compensation
 warranted
 or
 necessary,
 current
 laws

protect
property
rights
by
providing
for
compensation,
and
does
the
state
pays
compensation,

and
 if
 so,
 to
 whom?
 Andrews
 (2018)
 further
 reiterates
 this,
 noting
 that
 discussions
 about

compensations
should
move
beyond
determining
the
value
of
the
economic
trees
on
the
land

or
the
land
itself
to
settling
the
question
of
who
deserves
to
be
paid
for
the
land
use
deprivation.

The
 groups
 studied
 follow
 the
criterion
 outlined
 above.
They
 have
 lost
 their
 lands
 and
 are

entitled
to
compensation
outlined
in
the
constitution
and
various
laws
addressed
in
this
study.

The
farmers
are
a
distinct
community
that
can
be
separated
to
decide
who
gets
paid.
As
this

study
discovered,
people's
livelihoods
are
dependent
on
their
access
to
land.
As
a
result,
debates

about
compensations
must
be
viewed
through
the
lens
of
providing
sustainable
livelihoods
to







96




the
affected
farmers,
rather
than
simply
satisfying
legal
criteria
for
the
compensation
to
have
a

substantive
effect.

5.4
Reflections
on
the
linkages
between
the
research
findings
and
conceptual
framework





The
effect
of
land
grabs
on
host
communities,
their
response
mechanisms,
and
the
role

institutions
play
in
assisting
or
hindering
people's
ability
to
cope
with
livelihood
changes
were

all
 examined
 using
the
Sustainable
Livelihood
Framework.
 In
terms
of
the
approach
 to
 this

research's
human
asset
 aspect,
the
presence
 of
 the
 projects
in
the
respective
 areas
provided

some
job
opportunities
for
the
citizens.
In
addition,
providing
school
facilities
(as
seen
in
the

Central
region)
helps
boost
the
human
capital
base
of
communities,
while
establishing
a
rice

mill
 (as
 seen
 in
 the
 Volta
 region)
can
 help
 with
 value
addition.
 However,
the
low
 level
of

education
in
the
 respective
communities
had
a
significant
impact
on
the
human
assets
of
the

households.
 This
is
 because
 education
 contributes
 to
the
 efficiency
 of
a
 household's
human

assets.
As
a
result,
the
skills
and
knowledge
required
to
boost
household
economic
activities

and
improve
their
livelihood
were
minimal.
As
previously
mentioned
by
Leor
Valer
of
Brazil

Agro,
this
harmed
their
job
prospects
because
they
lacked
the
skills
required
by
the
companies

(Modernghana
2012).




The
natural
asset
(land)
is
a
valuable
resource
and
a
factor
of
production,
particularly


in
 subsistence
 agriculture.
 The
 presence
 of
 these
 commercial
 ventures
 adversely
 impacts

farmers
who
lose
their
land.
This
harms
household
income,
which
decreases.
As
a
result,
the

research
finding
that
household
income
fell
after
the
projects
took
off
backs
up
the
conceptual

framework.
This
is
because
the
land
taken
for
these
commercial
farms
deprives
the
people
of

their
 primary
 source
 of
 income.
 Due
 to
 the
 lack
 of
 farmland,
 there
 would
 be
 little
 or
 no

productivity,
resulting
in
low
wages.





The
findings
of
the
study,
which
show
that
people's
access
to
their
land
is
harmed
as
a


result
 of
 land
 being
 taken
 for
 commercial
 ventures,
 are
 consistent
 with
 the
 sustainable






97




livelihood
 context.
 This
 is
 because
 people
 depend
 on
 assets
 like
 land
 to
 allow
 them
 to

participate
in
activities
that
provide
them
with
a
long-term
source
of
income.
As
a
result,
the

discovery
of
household
food
insecurity
and
resulting
income
loss
resulting
from
land
grabbing

corroborates
the
conceptual
framework's
dictates
that
deprivation
of
one's
assets
contributes
to

negative
 livelihood
 outcomes.
 In
 terms
 of
 social
 assets,
 the
 livelihoods
 of
 local
 people,

especially
women,
 have
improved,
and
their
income
levels
have
 increased
 as
a
result
of
 the

company's
rice
trading,
according
to
a
study
conducted
in
the
Volta
region.
This,
on
the
other

hand,
tends
to
cause
social
tension
among
household
members
(e.g.
in
marriages).





The
argument
is
made
in
the
scholarship
that
engages
with
the
Sustainable
Livelihood


Framework
that
institutional
policies
and
procedures,
such
as
the
decision
to
lease
vast
tracts

of
land
owned
by
local
farmers,
restrict
their
access
to
their
natural
asset,
land.
The
role
of
land

governance
institutions
in
the
processes
leading
up
to
land
grabs
demonstrates
that
when
they

fail,
as
this
study
 discovered,
livelihoods
suffer.
As
a
 result,
the
 failure
of
 institutions
limits

rural
people's
ability
to
cope
with
the
changes
in
their
livelihoods
brought
about
by
land
grabs.

This
 study
 contributes
 to
 the
 Sustainable
 Livelihood
 Framework
 by
 demonstrating
 how

institutions
 and
 their
 processes
 form
 the
 essence
 and
 extent
 of
 land
 grab
 effects
 and
 their

responses
to
coping
with
livelihood
changes
brought
on
by
such
events.




The
study
also
reveals
that
most
households
are
involved
in
farming,
which
provides


them
with
income
to
support
their
families.
According
to
the
findings
of
the
livelihood
study

of
household
activities,
most
farmers
who
lost
their
land
saw
a
significant
drop
in
their
income.

The
decline
in
their
income
level
affects
their
livelihoods,
which
explains
the
levels
of
poverty

observed
in
the
communities
studied.
The
Sustainable
Livelihood
Framework
used
in
this
study

is
people-centered
in
that
it
focuses
on
what
people
have
(e.g.,
assets
or
capital)
and
what
they

do
(e.g.,
livelihood
activities),
diverting
attention
away
from
what
they
lack
and
allowing
them

to
improve
their
capabilities
(Bebbington
1999).
According
to
Jongschaap
et
al.
(2007),
these







98




assets
owned
by
individuals
form
the
basis
for
their
productivity
and
sustainability.
As
a
result,

institutions
must
ensure
that
citizens
have
access
to
their
assets
(land)
while
also
helping
them

develop
their
livelihood
activities
(i.e.,
farming)
rather
than
facilitating
the
process
of
denying

them
access
to
their
lands.
The
role
of
institutions
in
the
sustainable
livelihood
system
must
be

examined
because,
as
Sobeng
et
al.
(2018)
point
out,
institutions
bind
the
other
components
of

the
framework,
such
as
livelihood
resources,
livelihood
strategies,
and
outcomes.

5.5
Policy
and
future
research
recommendations





While
 Ghana
 has
 laws
 and
 policies
 to
 protect
 the
 interests
 of
 citizens
 in
 host

communities
 where
 land
 acquisitions
 occur,
 this
 study
 shows
 that
 the
 implementation

mechanism
needs
to
be
improved
to
ensure
compliance.
The
compensation
regime
is
one
area

that
 requires
 special
 attention.
 Simply
 requiring
 businesses
 to
 pay
 compensation
 does
 not

guarantee
that
the
affected
population
will
be
handled
equally.
The
majority
of
respondents
in

this
 study
 said
 they
 were
 not
 compensated.
 Even
 those
 who
 said
 they
 have
 been
 paid

complained
 about
 the
 sums
 involved,
 which
 they
 felt
 were
 insufficient.
 I
 recommend
 that

precise
 timeframes
 be
 established
 for
 negotiation,
 agreement,
 and
 payment
 of
 appropriate

packages
 mutually
 agreeable
 to
 all
 parties
(the
 investor,
the
 state,
 and
 the
 host
 community

members).
It
will
ensure
that
the
reimbursement
programme
is
tailored
to
the
needs
of
those

who
have
been
negatively
affected.




In
 addition,
 Chiefs'
 roles
 in
 land
 negotiations
 should
 be
 re-examined.
 The
 trustee


positions
 conferred
 on
 have
 been
 seconded
 to
 the
 chiefs'
 interests
 during
 negotiations,

according
to
Kirst
(2020)
and
Lanz
et
al.
(2018).
This
leaves
the
people
"stranded,"
as
neither

the
government
nor
the
 chiefs
protect
their
 interests.
In
this
study,
respondents
unanimously

agreed
that
their
chiefs
did
not
help
them
in
their
efforts
to
deal
with
the
challenges
posed
by

land
grabs.
As
a
result,
it
is
recommended
that
the
agencies
involved
ensuring
that
impacted

people's
 informed
 consent
 is
 obtained
 immediately
 from
the
 planning
 stage
 to
 the
 project's






99




implementation.
This
can
 be
done
as
part
of
a
 community-focused
social
and
environmental

impact
 evaluation.
 To
 this
 end,
 Andrews
 and
 Essah’s
 (2020)
 process
 of
 “Open,
 Prior,
 and

Independent
Deliberate
Discussion”
(OPIDD)
are
especially
useful.
The
authors
argue
that
the

government
should
play
the
country's
primary
role
in
ensuring
the
well-being
of
its
citizens.

According
 to
 the
 authors,
 the
 OPIDD
 process
 allows
 for
 community
 engagement,
 ensures

deliberate
 dialogue
 that
 reflects
 what
communities
 can
expect
 from
 companies,
 and
 allows

communities
to
be
informed
before
communicating
with
companies.




The
focus
on
the
government's
position
in
the
OPIDD
process
emphasizes
the
role
they


must
 play
 in
 the
 framework
 for
 sustainable
 livelihoods.
 Institutional
 behaviour
 can

significantly
impact
the
livelihood
results
of
communities
where
these
acquisitions
occur.
At

both
 the
 national
 and
 local
 levels,
 institutions
 can
 plan
 well-thought-out
 comprehensive

livelihood
 enhancement
 programmes
 before
 project
 implementation
 to
 ensure
 long-term

coping
mechanisms.
It
should
include
the
skill
set
needed
by
the
upcoming
business
to
train

employees
for
opportunities
that
will
arise
due
to
the
company's
launch.
It
will
ensure
that
the

people,
especially
the
youth,
are
safe.
This
 study
 identifies
 certain
 areas
 for
 future
 research
 on
 land
 grabs
 in
 Ghana.
 This

includes
areas
on
migrants
and
land
tenure
security
and
a
deeper
examination
of
the
gendered

dimension
 discovered
 in
 this
 research.
 It
 will
 be
 interesting
 to
 explore
 in
 detail
 the
 power

dynamics
in
these
communities,
which
could
affect
one’s
ability
to
respond
effectively
to
the

processes
and
outcomes
of
land
grabs.
With
 the
limited
literature
on
women
and
land
grabs,

the
finding
from
the
Volta
region
could
be
further
explored
to
ascertain
the
extent
to
which
the

finding
represents
the
generality
of
women’sexperiencesinthisregion.












100



5.6.
Conclusion






This
thesis
has
contributed
to
knowledge
in
the
following
ways:
First,
the
study
found

that
 the
 projects
 for
which
these
 lands
 were
purchased
posed
 severe
 threats
 to
 the
 people's

livelihoods.
 The
 threats
 include
 loss
 of
 lands,
 less
 income,
 and
 household
 food
 insecurity.

Secondly,
the
non-farming
coping
strategies
such
as
petty
trading
or
professional
artisanship

resorted
to
by
the
people
did
not
produce
satisfactory
livelihood
outcomes.
Thirdly,
the
study

further
found
that
though
there
needed
institutional
and
policy
framework
to
protect
farmers'

interests,
people
feel
left
out
and
worse
off
financially
when
the
projects
finally
took
off.
The

lack
of
oversight
on
the
process
 and
the
non-involvement
of
 the
 people
in
decision-making

around
the
projects
account
for
this
situation.
Further,
the
finding
that
women
appear
to
have

benefited
from
the
 project
more
than
their
male
counterparts,
especially
in
the
 Volta
region,

provides
insight
into
how
these
projects
can
empower
women
economically.
Additionally,
the

land
redistribution
model
implemented
 in
the
Central
region
presents
a
unique
way
to
find
a

middle
ground
in
acquiring
large
tracts
of
lands
for
societal
benefit
while
ensuring
individuals

are
not
deprived
of
their
core
livelihood
asset
(i.e.,
land).





The
Sustainable
Livelihoods
Framework
allows
us
to
 see
the
 impact
of
development


activities
 at
 the
 local
 level,
 connecting
 micro-level,
 situated
 particularities
 of
 poor
 people's

livelihoods
to
larger-scale
 institutional
and
policy
framings
at
the
district,
provincial,
global,

and
even
international
levels
(Scoones
2009).
As
a
result,
when
making
decisions
about
rural

livelihoods,
 the
 goal
 should
 be
 to
 take
 a
 livelihood
 perspective.
 Successful
 community

engagements
will
ensure
that
sustainable
alternatives
are
offered
before
starting
these
ventures,

serving
 as
a
 mitigating
measure
against
 the
 potential
negative
effects
of
land
 grabs
in
these

communities.
Exploring
the
data
gathered
for
this
analysis
has
revealed
new
areas
that
need

further
research.
The
relationship
between
land
grabbing,
community
exclusion,
and
land
rights

is
 one
 such
 field
for
future
study.
The
 current
 literature
 on
 how
 land
 grabs
impact
 migrant







101



farmers
in
Ghana
in
settler
communities
is
limited.
This
will
give
policymakers
some
insight

into
the
diverse
experiences
 of
migrant
farmers
in
Ghana,
 allowing
them
to
craft
policies
to

protect
their
rights.
It
will
also
shed
light
on
the
ethnic
aspects
of
land
grabs
and
how
communal

relations
are
organized
both
during
and
after
land
grabs.


























































































102







Bibliography



Abubakari,
Ahmed,
Zaid
Abubakari,
and
Alexandros
Gasparatos.
2019.
"Labelling
Large

Scale
Land
Acquisitions
as
Land
Grabs:
Procedural
and
Distributional
Considerationsfrom

Two
Cases
in
Ghana."
Geoforum
105:
191-205.



Acheampong,Emmanuel,andBenjaminCampion.2014.“TheEffectsofBiofuelFeedstock
ProductiononFarmers’LivelihoodsinGhana:TheCaseofJatrophaCurcas.”Sustainability

6
(7):
4587–4607.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su6074587.



Achterbosch
Thom,
Siemen
van
Berkum
and
Meijerink
Gerdien,
Asbreuk
H,
Oudendag
A.

2014.

 Cash
Crops
and
Food
Security;
Contributions
To
Income,
Livelihood
Risk
and

Agricultural
Innovation.
Wageningen,
LEI
Wageningen
UR
(University
&
Research
centre),

LEI
Report
2014-015,
57
pp.;
20
fig.;
3
tab.;
60
ref.



Adams,
Ellis
A.,
Elias
D.
Kuusaana,
Abubakari
Ahmed,
and
Benjamin
B.
Campion.
2019.

"Land

Dispossessions
and
Water
Appropriations:
Political
Ecology
of
Land
and
Water

Grabs
in
Ghana."
LandusePolicy
87:
104068



Addo,A,EBessah,andSkAmponsah.2014.“UncertaintyofFoodSecurityinGhanaby
Biofuel
(JatrophaCurcas)
Production
as
an
Adaptation
and
Mitigation
Capacity
to
Climate

Change.”EthiopianJournalofEnvironmentalStudiesandManagement
7
(1):
790.

https://doi.org/10.4314/ejesm.v7i1.9S.



Afriyie,
Kwadwo,
Kabila
Abass,
and
Janet
Afua
Abrafi
Adomako.
2014.
"Urbanisation
of
the

Rural
Landscape:
Assessing
the
Effects
in
Peri-Urban
Kumasi."
InternationalJournalof
UrbanSustainableDevelopment
6
(1):
1-19.



Aha,Bismark,andJonathanZ.Ayitey.2017.“Biofuelsand
the
Hazards
of
Land
Grabbing:

Tenure(in)SecurityandIndigenousFarmers’InvestmentDecisionsinGhana.”LandUse
Policy
60
(January):
48–59.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.10.012.



Ahmed,Abubakari,BenjaminBeteyCampion,andAlexandrosGasparatos.2017.“Biofuel
Development
in
Ghana:
Policies
of
Expansion
and
Drivers
of
Failure
in
the
Jatropha
sector.”
RenewableandSustainableEnergyReviews
70
(April):
133–49.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.216.



Ahmed,
Abubakari,
Zaid
Abubakari,
and
Alexandros
Gasparatos.
2019.
"Labelling
LargeScale

 Land
Acquisitions
as
Land
Grabs:
Procedural
and
Distributional
Considerations
from

Two

 Cases
in
Ghana."
Geoforum
105:
191-205.

Ahwoi,
Kwesi.
2010.Government’sRoleinAttractingViableAgriculturalInvestments
Experiences

 from
Ghana,
paper
presented
at
The
World
Bank
Annual
Bank
Conference
on

Land
Policy
and
Administration,
Washington,
DC
April
26
and
27,
2010
Alhassan,SuhiyiniI.,MohammedT.Shaibu,andJohnK.M.Kuwornu.2018.“IsLand
Grabbing
an
Opportunity
or
a
Menace
to
Development
in
Developing
Countries?
Evidence






103



fromGhana.”LocalEnvironment
23
(12):
1121–40.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2018.1531839.



Althubaiti,
Alaa.
2016.
"Information
Bias
in
Health
Research:
Definition,
Pitfalls,
and

Adjustment
Methods."
Journalofmultidisciplinaryhealthcare
9:
211



Amanor,
Kojo
S.
and
Sérgio
Chichava.
2016.
"South-South
Cooperation,
Agribusiness,
and

African
Agricultural
Development:
Brazil
and
China
in
Ghana
and
Mozambique."
World
Development81:
13-23.



Anang,
Benjamin
Tetteh,
Kwame
Nkrumah-Ennin,
and
Joshua
Anamsigiya
Nyaaba.
2020.

"Does

Off-Farm
Work
Improve
Farm
Income?
Empirical
Evidence
from
Tolon
District
in

Northern
Ghana."
Advances
in
Agriculture
(Hindawi
Publishing
Corporation)
2020:
1-8.



Anderman,
Tal
Lee,
Roseline
Remans,
Stephen
A.
Wood,
Kyle
DeRosa,
and
Ruth
S.

DeFries.
2014.
Synergies
and
Tradeoffs
between
Cash
Crop
Production
and
Food
Security:
A

Case
Study
in
Rural
Ghana.
Vol.
6.
Dordrecht:Springer
Netherlands.



Andrews
Nathan
and
Cochrane
Logan.
2021.
International
Political
Economy
and
the
African

Land
Rush:
Trends,
Scale,
Narratives,
and
Contestations
in
TheTransnationalLandRushinAfrica,
Cochrane
Logan
and
Andrews
Nathan
(Palgrave
Macmillan),
1-17



Andrews,Nathan.2018.“LandversusLivelihoods:
Community
Perspectives
on

DispossessionandMarginalizationinGhana’sMiningSector.”ResourcesPolicy
58

(October):
240–49.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.05.011.



Andrews,
Nathan.
2016.
"Challenges
of
Corporate
Social
Responsibility
(CSR)
in
Domestic

Settings:
An
Exploration
of
Mining
Regulation
Vis-à-Vis
CSR
in
Ghana."
Resources
Policy
47:
9-17.



Asabere,
Paul
K.
1994.
"Public
Policy
and
the
Emergent
African
Land
Tenure
System:
The

Case
of
Ghana."
JournalofBlackStudies
24
(3):
281-289.



Anseeuw,
Ward.,
and
Taylor,
Mike.
2014.
"Factors
Shaping
the
Global
Land
Rush"
in

Grabbing
Back:
Essays
Against
the
Global
Land
Grab.
ed.
Ross,
A.R.
Oakland,
CA:
AK

Press.45



Antwi-Bediako,
Richmond.
2018.
"Chiefs
and
Nexus
of
Challenges
in
Land
Deals:
An

Insight
into
Blame
Perspectives,
Exonerating
Chiefs
during
and
After
Jatropha
Investment
in

Ghana."
CogentSocialSciences
4
(1).



Atuoye,
Kilian
Nasung,
Isaac
Luginaah,
Herbert
Hambati,
and
Gwyn
Campbell.
2021.
"Who

are
the
Losers?
Gendered-Migration,
Climate
Change,
and
the
Impact
of
Large
Scale
Land

Acquisitions
on
Food
Security
in
Coastal
Tanzania."
LandusePolicy
101.



Barriball,
K.
Louise,
and
Alison
While.
1994.
"Collecting
data
using
a
semi-structured

interview:
a
discussion
paper."
JournalofAdvancedNursing-InstitutionalSubscription
19,

no.
2:
328-335.









104



Bawa,
Sylvia.
2016.
"Paradoxes
of
(Dis)Empowerment
in
the
post
colony:
Women,
Culture

and
Social
Capital
in
Ghana."
Third
World
Quarterly
37
(1):
119-135.





Bebbington,
Anthony.
1999.
Capitals
and
Capabilities:
A
Framework
for
Analysing
Peasant

Viability,
Rural
Livelihoods
and
Poverty.
WorldDevelopment,
27(12),
pp.
2021-2044



Berg,
Bruce
L.
2001.
QualitativeResearchMethodsfortheSocialSciences.
4th
ed.
Boston:

Allyn
and
Bacon.



Berry,
 Sara.
 2009.
 "Property,
 Authority
 and
 Citizenship:
 Land
 Claims,
 Politics
 and
 the

Dynamics
of
Social
Division
in
West
Africa."
Development
and
Change
40
(1):
23-45.



Biitir,SamuelB.,BaslydB.Nara,andStephenAmeyaw.2017.“IntegratingDecentralised
Land
Administration
Systems
with
Traditional
Land
Governance
Institutions
in
Ghana:

PolicyandPraxis.”LandUsePolicy
68
(November):
402–14.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.08.007.



Boamah,Festus.2014.“ImageriesoftheContestedConcepts‘LandGrabbing’and‘Land
Transactions’:ImplicationsforBiofuelsInvestmentsinGhana.”Geoforum
54
(July):
324–
34.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.10.009.



Boamah,
Festus,
and
Ragnhild
Overå.2016.“RethinkingLivelihoodImpactsofBiofuelLand
DealsinGhana:RethinkingLivelihoodImpactsofBiofuelLandDealsinGhana.”
DevelopmentandChange
47
(1):
98–129.
https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12213.



Borras
Jr,
Saturnino
M.,
Elyse
N.
Mills,
Philip
Seufert,
Stephan
Backes,
Daniel
Fyfe,
Roman

Herre,
and
Laura
Michéle.
2020;2019;.
"Transnational
Land
Investment
Web:
Land
Grabs,

TNCs,
and
the
Challenge
of
Global
Governance."
Globalizations
17
(4):
608-628.



Borras,
Saturnino
M.,
Ruth
Hall,
Ian
Scoones,
Ben
White,
and
Wendy
Wolford.
2011.

“TowardsaBetterUnderstandingofGlobalLandGrabbing:AnEditorialIntroduction.”
JournalofPeasantStudies
38
(2):
209–16.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2011.559005.



Borras
Jr,
Saturnino
M.
And
Jennifer
C.
Franco.
2012.
"Global
Land
Grabbing
and

Trajectories
of
Agrarian
Change:
A
Preliminary
Analysis:
Global
Land
Grabbing
and

Trajectories
of
Agrarian
Change."
JournalofAgrarianChange
12
(1):
34-59.



Bowen,
Glenn
A.
2009.
"Document
Analysis
as
a
Qualitative
Research
Method."Qualitative
ResearchJournal
9
(2):
27-40.Can



Brain,
Kelsey
A.
2017.
"The
Impacts
of
Mining
on
Livelihoods
in
the
Andes:
A
Critical

Overview."
TheExtractiveIndustriesandSociety
4
(2):
410-418.



Bräutigam,
Deborah
and
Haisen
zhang.
2013.
"Green
Dreams:
Myth
and
Reality
in

China'sAgricultural
Investment
in
Africa."
ThirdWorldQuarterly:
Global
Land
Grabs
34
(9):

1676-1696.



Brønd,
Frederik.
2018.
"Territory
and
Trade
Networks
in
the
Small-Scale
Oil-Palm
Industry

in
Rural
Ghana."
AppliedGeography100:
90-100.








105



Buss,
Doris,
Blair
A.
Rutherford,
Jennifer
Hinton,
Jennifer
M.
Stewart,
Joanne
Lebert,
Gisèle

Eva
Côté,
Abby
Sebina-Zziwa,
Richard
Kibombo,
and
Frederick
Kisekka.
2017.“Genderand
artisanal
and
small-scaleminingincentralandeastAfrica:Barriersandbenefits”.GrOW
WorkingPaperSeriesNo.
GWP--0
2



Carmody,
PNdraig
Risteard.
2011.
The
New
Scramble
for
Africa.
Cambridge,
UK;
Malden

Mass;

 Polity

 Press.



Cochrane
Logan,
Anku
John,
Andrews
Nathan.
2021“BeyondtheLandRush?Reflections
onBroaderInteractionsandtheFutureIPEofAfrica”inCochrane,Logan,Andrews,Nathan
(Eds.)
TheTransnationalLandRushinAfricaPalgrave
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-03060789-0






Cochrane,
Logan,
and
Danielle
D.
Legault.
2020.
"The
Rush
for
Land
and
Agricultural

Investment
in
Ethiopia:
What
We
Know
and
What
We
Are
Missing."
Land
9,
no.
5
():
167.



Cochrane,
Logan,
and
Hussein
A.
Amery.
2017.
"Gulf
Cooperation
Council
Countries
and

the
Global
Land
Grab."
TheArabWorldGeographer
20,
no.
1:
17-41.



Cochrane,
Logan.
2016
"Land
grabbing."
Encyclopediaoffoodandagriculturalethics:
1-5.

Cochrane,
Logan.
2011.
"Food
security
or
food
sovereignty:
The
case
of
land
grabs."
The
JournalofHumanitarianAssistance
5




Charmaz,
Kathy.
2006.
ConstructingGroundedTheory.London ;ThousandOaks,Calif:
Sage
Publications.



Cobbinah,
Patrick
Brandful,
Eric
Gaisie,
and
Lucia
Owusu-Amponsah.2015.“Peri-Urban

MorphologyandIndigenousLivelihoodsinGhana.”HabitatInternational
50
(December):

120–29.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.08.002.



Cotula,
L.
2013.
The
great
African
Land
Grab?:
Agricultural
investments
and
the
global
food

system.
Zed
Books
Ltd



Cunguara,
Benedito,
and
Ika
Darnhofer.
2011.
"Assessing
the
Impact
of
Improved

Agricultural

 Technologies
on
Household
Income
in
Rural
Mozambique."
FoodPolicy
36

(3):
378-390.



Daley,
Elizabeth,
and
Sabine
Pallas.
2014.
Women
and
Land
Deals
in
Africa
and
Asia:

Weighing
the
Implications
and
Changing
the
Game.
Vol.
20
Routledge.



Darian-Smith,
Eve
and
Philip
C.
McCarty.
2017.
The
Global
Turn:
Theories,
Research

Designs,
and
Methods
for
Global
Studies.
Oakland,
California:
University
of
California

Press.



Davis,KyleF.,PaoloD’Odorico,andMariaCristinaRulli.2014.“LandGrabbing:A
Preliminary
Quantification
of
Economic
Impacts
on
Rural
Livelihoods.”Populationand
Environment
36
(2):
180–92.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11111-014-0215-2.









106



Davis,
Benjamin,
Stefania
Di
Giuseppe,
and
Alberto
Zezza.
2017.
"Are
African
Households

(Not)
Leaving
Agriculture?PatternsofHouseholds’IncomeSourcesinRuralSub
Saharan

Africa."
FoodPolicy
67:
153-174.



Dejene,Melisew,andLoganCochrane.2021.“ThePowerofPolicyandtheEntrenchment
of

InequalitiesinEthiopia:ReframingAgencyintheGlobalLandRush.”InTheTransnational
Land Rush in Africa: A Decade After the Spike,
 edited
 by
 Logan
 Cochrane
 and
 Nathan

Andrews,
 215–234.
 Cham:
 Springer
International
Publishing.
 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3030-60789-0_9.



Dell’Angelo,Jampel,PaoloD’Odorico,MariaCristinaRulli,andPhilippeMarchand.2017.
"The
Tragedy
of
the
Grabbed
Commons:
Coercion
and
Dispossession
in
the
Global
Land

Rush."
WorldDevelopment
92:
1-12.






Dery,IsaacandAkurugu,Constance.2021.RealMen’SupportTheirWives:Reconstructing
Masculinity
Among
Men
in
Rural
Northwestern
Ghana.
Hypatia,
36(1),
172190.doi:10.1017/hyp.2020.46



Dery,
Isaac.
2020.
"A
Situated,
African
Understanding
of
African
Feminism
for
Men:
A

Ghanaian
Narrative."
Gender,
Place,
and
Culture:
AJournalofFeministGeography
27
(12):

1745-
 1765



Dery,Isaac2019.“Tobeamanisnoteasy”:Everydayeconomicmarginalityand
configurations
of
masculinity
among
rural
Ghanaian
youth.
MasculinitiesandSocialChange,

8(2),171-194.
doi:
10.17583/MCS.2019.4157



Doso,
Stephen,
Jnr,
Ayensu-Ntim
Abraham,
Twumasi-Ankrah
Boakye,
and
Twum
Barimah

Prince.
2016."Effects
of
Loss
of
Agricultural
Land
Due
to
Large-Scale
Gold
Mining
on

Agriculture
in
Ghana:
The
Case
of
the
Western
Region."
BritishJournalofResearch
2,

 no.

6




Duncan
Beatrice
Akua
 and
Brants
Caroline.
2004.
Access
to
and
Control
over
Land
 from
a

Gender
Perspective:
A
Study
Conducted
in
the
Volta
Region
of
Ghana,
Food
and
Agriculture

Organization
publication.




Edelman,
Marc,
Carlos
Oya,
and
Saturnino
M.
Borras.
2013.
"Global
Land
Grabs
Historical

Processes,
Theoretical
and
Methodological
Implications,
and
Current
Trajectories."
Third
WorldQuarterly
34
(9):
1517-1531.



Farmalandgrab
.2015.
Locals
cry
foul
as
foreign
firm
grab
land
for
rice
cultivation

https://www.farmlandgrab.org/post/view/24482
accessed
on
25/02/2021



FAO.
2006.
Access
to
and
control
over
land
from
a
gender
perspective:
A
study
conducted
in

the
Volta
Region
of
Ghana
http://www.fao.org/3/a0493e/a0493e04.htm
accessed
on

30/03/2021



Fortin,Elizabeth,andBenRichardson.2013.“CertificationSchemesandtheGovernanceof
Land:EnforcingStandardsorEnablingScrutiny?”Globalizations
10
(1):
141–59.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2013.760910.








107



Freduah,
George,
Pedro
Fidelman,
Timothy
F.
Smith,
Fakulteten
för
utbildningsvetenskaper,

Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga
vetenskapsområdet,
Uppsala
universitet,
and
SWEDESD

-
Internationellt
center
för
lärande
för
hållbar
utveckling.
2017.
The
Impacts
of

Environmental
and
Socio-Economic
Stressors
on
Small
Scale
Fisheries
and
Livelihoods

 of

Fishers
in
Ghana.
Vol.
89
ElsevierLtd.



Gerlach,
Ann-Christin,
and
Liu,
Pascal.
2010.
"Resource-Seeking
Foreign
Direct
Investment

in
African
Agriculture."
FAOCommodityandTradePolicyResearchWorkingPaper
No.
31



Gerring,
John.
2004.
"What
is
a
case
study
and
what
is
it
good
for?"
AmericanPolitical
ScienceReview
98,
no.
2:
341-354



Ghanaweb
2012.
Brazil
Agrobusiness
Group
to
increase
rice
production

https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/business/Brazil-Agrobusiness-Group-toincrease-rice-production-597028
accessed
24/01/2021



Ghana
Investment
Promotion
Council
2010.
Twifo
Oil
Palm
Plantations
Limited

https://gipcghana.com/66-ghana-club-100/company-profiles-2010/234-twifo-oil-palmplantations-limited.html
accessed
on
07/03/2021



Ghebru,Hosaena,andIsabelLambrecht.2017.“Driversof
Perceived
Land
Tenure

(in)Security:EmpiricalEvidencefromGhana.”LandUsePolicy
66
(July):
293–303.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.04.042.



GLOPP2008.DFID’sSustainableLivelihoods
Approach
and
its
Framework.
Globalisation

and

 Livelihood
Options
of
People
living
in
Poverty
GLOPP
Available
at

www.glopp.ch/B7/en/multimedia/B7_1_pdf2.pdf
(Accessed
on
28/03/2020)



Guarte,
Jacqueline
M.
and
Erniel
B.
Barrios.
2006.
"Estimation
Under
Purposive

Sampling."
Communications
in
Statistics
-
Simulation
and
Computation
35
(2):
277-284.



Gyampo,E.VRansford.2009."Chiefsandelectoralpoliticsinghana’sfourth
republic."
JournalofIntraAfricanStudies
1,
no.
1:
86-111.



Gyapong,
Adwoa
Yeboah.
2019.
"Land
deals,
wage
labour,
and
everyday
politics."
Land
8,

No.
6:94.



Hamenoo,
Simon
Victory
Quarcson,
Simon
Victory
Quarcson
Hamenoo,
Prince
Osei-Wusu

Adjei,

Prince
Osei-Wusu
Adjei,
Jacob
Obodai,
and
Jacob
Obodai.2018."Households’
Coping
Dynamics
in
Response
to
Large-Scale
Land
Acquisition
for
Jatropha
Plantations:

Evidence
from
Asante
Akim
North
District
of
Ghana."
GlobalSocialWelfare:Research,
Policy&Practice
5
(4):
225-241.https://www.bog.gov.gh/treasury-and-the-markets/daily

interbank-fx-rates/



Higgins,
Tracy
and
Fenrich
Jeanmarie.
2012.
"legal
Pluralism,
Gender,
and
Access
to
Land
in

Ghana."
Fordham
Environmental
Law
Review
23
(2):
7-21.



Hilson,
Gavin,
Abigail
Hilson,
and
Eunice
Adu-Darko.
2014.
"Chinese
Participation
in

Ghana's
Informal
Gold
Mining
Economy:
Drivers,
Implications
and
Clarifications."
Journal
ofRuralStudies
34:
292-303.






108





Hervas,
Anastasia
and
Isakson
S.
Ryan.
2020.
"Commercial
Agriculture
for
Food
Security?

the
Case
of
Oil
Palm
Development
in
Northern
Guatemala."
FoodSecurity
12
(3):
517-535.



Huggins,Chris,DorisBuss,andBlairRutherford.2017."A‘cartography
ofConcern’:PlaceMaking
Practices
and
Gender
in
the
Artisanal
Mining
Sector
in
Africa."
Geoforum
83:
142152.



Hules,
Magdalena,
andSimronJitSingh.2017."India’sLandGrabDealsinEthiopia:Food
Security
Or
Global
Politics?"
LandusePolicy
60:
343-351.



Jentoft,
Nina
and
Torunn
S.
Olsen.
2019.
"Against
the
Flow
in
Data
Collection:
How
Data

TriangulationCombinedwitha‘slow’InterviewTechniqueEnrichesData."
Qualitative

Social
Work:
QSW:
ResearchandPractice
18
(2):
179-193.



John,
Peter.
2010
“QuantitativeMethods.”InTheoryandMethodsinPoliticalScience,

edited
by
David
Marsh
and
Gerry
Stoker,
267-284.
Palgrave
Macmillan



Jiao,
Xi,
Carsten
Smith-Hall,
and
Ida
Theilade.
2015.
"Rural
Household
Incomes
and
Land

Grabbing
in
Cambodia."
LandUsePolicy
48:
317-328.



Kaag,
Maria
Margaretha
Antonia
and
E.
B.
Zoomers.
2014.
TheGlobalLandGrab:Beyond
theHype.
Black
Point,
Nova
Scotia;
London:
Fernwood
Publishing.



Kasanga,
K.
and
Kotey,
N.
A.,
2001.
LandManagementinGhana:BuildingonTraditionand
Modernity.
International
Institute
for
Environment
and
Development,
London



Kent,
Rebecca.
2018.
""Helping"
Or
"Appropriating"?
Gender
Relations
in
Shea
Nut

Production
in
Northern
Ghana."
Society
&
Natural
Resources
31
(3):
367-381



Kelley,
K.
2003.
"Good
Practice
in
the
Conduct
and
Reporting
of
Survey

Research."
InternationalJournalforQualityinHealthCare
15
(3):
261-266.



Kuusaana,
Elias
Danyi.2016."Large‐ScaleLandAcquisitionsforAgriculturalInvestments
in
Ghana
Implications
for
Land
Markets
and
Smallholder
Farmers."
PhD
diss.,
Rheinischen

Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universitaet
Bonn,
Germany



Kumar,
Krishna.
1989.
Conductingkeyinformantinterviewsindevelopingcountries.

Washington
DC:
Agency
for
International
Development.


Kiah,
Smith.
2014.
Ethical
Trade,
Gender
and
Sustainable
Livelihoods
in
Kenya:
Mixed

Methods
for
Women's
Participation.
London:
SAGE
Publications.



Kidido,
Joseph
Kwaku,
andEliasDanyiKuusaana.2014.“Large-Scale
Investment
in
Biofuel

FeedstockProductionandEmergingLandIssuesinGhana.”JournalofSocialScience
Studies
1
(2):
163.
https://doi.org/10.5296/jsss.v1i2.5114.



Kirst,Sarah.2020.“‘ChiefsDoNotTalkLaw,MostofThemTalkPower.’Traditional
AuthoritiesinConflictsoverLandGrabbinginGhana*.”CanadianJournalofAfrican






109



Studies/RevueCanadienneDesÉtudesAfricaines,
February,
1–21.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00083968.2020.1719170.



Lambrecht,Isabel,andSarahAsare.2016.“TheComplexityofLocalTenureSystems:A
Smallholders’PerspectiveonTenureinGhana.”LandUsePolicy
58
(December):
251–63.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.07.029.



Landlinks2021.“Ghanacountryprofile”,accessedfromhttps://land-links.org/country-

profile/ghana/



Lanz,
Kristina,
Jean-DavidGerber,andTobiasHaller.2018.“LandGrabbing,theStateand
Chiefs:
The
Politics
of
Extending
Commercial
Agriculture
in
Ghana:
Land
Grabbing,
the

StateandChiefsinGhana.”DevelopmentandChange
49
(6):
1526–52.

https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12429.





Lee
David
R.
and
Neves
Bernardete.
2009.
Rural
Poverty
and
Natural
Resources:
Improving

Access
and
 Sustainable
Management
 ESA
 Working
 Paper
No.
 09-03
Food
 and
Agriculture

Organization,
United
Nations



Lewins
Roger.
(2004)
The
Sustainable
Livelihoods
Approach:
The
Importance
of
Policies,

Institutions,
and
Process.
In:
Neiland
A.E.,
Béné
C.
(eds)
Poverty
and
Small-scale
Fisheries

in
West
Africa.
Springer,
Dordrecht.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2736-
 5_3



Lisk,
Franklyn.
2013.
"'Land
Grabbing'
Or
Harnessing
of
Development
Potential
in

Agriculture?
East
Asia's
Land-Based
Investments
in
Africa."
PacificReview
26
(5):
563-587.



Lobao,
Linda,
Linda
Lobao,
Curtis
W.
Stofferahn,
and
Curtis
W.
Stofferahn.
2008.
"The

Community
Effects
of
Industrialized
Farming:
Social
Science
Research
and
Challenges

 to

Corporate
Farming
Laws."
AgricultureandHumanValues
25
(2):
219-240



Luker,
Kristin.
2010.
Salsa
Dancing
into
the
Social
Sciences:
Research
in
an
Age
of
InfoGlut.

 London;
Cambridge,
Mass:
Harvard
University
Press



Mabe,
Franklin
N.,
Sulemena
Nashiru,
Eliasu
Mummuni,andVivianF.Boateng.2019.“The
Nexus
between
Land
Acquisition
and
Household
Livelihoods
in
the
Northern
Region
of

Ghana.”LandUsePolicy
85
(June):
357–67.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.03.043.



MacIvor,
Robyn
Elizabeth.
2019."Challenges
and
prospects
of
Ghanaian
palm
oil

development
and
the
role
of
independent
smallholders
in
sustainable
production."
Ph.D.
diss.,

The
University
of
British
Columbia.



Mandacı,NazifandMehmetUfukTutan.2018."GlobalLandGrabandtheBalkans:
Continuity
and
Changes
in
a
Unique
Historical
Context."
JournalofBalkanandNear
EasternStudies20
(3):
230-250.



Magdoff,
 Fred.
 2013.
 "Twenty-First-Century
 Land
 Grabs
 Accumulation
 by
 Agricultural

Dispossession."
Monthly
Review
(New
York.
1949)
65
(6):
1.








110



Margulis,MatiasE.,NoraMcKeon,andSaturninoM.Borras.2013.“LandGrabbingand
GlobalGovernance:CriticalPerspectives.”Globalizations
10
(1):
1–23.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2013.764151.



Mariwah,
Simon,
Ruth
Evans,
and
Kwabena
Barima
Antwi.
2019.
Gendered
and

Generational

 Tensions
in
Increased
Land
Commercialisation:
Rural
Livelihood

Diversification,
Changing
Land
use,
and
Food
Security
in
Ghana's
Brong‐AhafoRegion.Vol.
6.
London:
JohnWiley&Sons,
Inc



Marjaei,
Seyedhadi,
Fahimeh
Ahmadian
Yazdi,
and
M.
Chandrashekara.
2019.
"MAXQDA

and
its
Application
to
LIS
Research."
LibraryPhilosophyandPractice.



Martellozzo,
Federico,
Navin
Ramankutty,
Ron
J.
Hall,
David
T.
Price,
2015.
"Urbanization

and
the
Loss
of
Prime
Farmland:
A
Case
Study
in
the
Calgary–Edmonton
Corridor
of

Alberta."
RegionalEnvironmentalChange
15
(5):
881-893



McKim,
Courtney
A.
2017.
"The
Value
of
Mixed
Methods
Research:
A
Mixed
Methods

Study."
JournalofMixedMethodsResearch
11
(2):
202-222.



Meng,
Xiangrui.
2013.
"Scalable
simple
random
sampling
and
stratified
sampling."

In
InternationalConferenceonMachineLearning,
pp.
531-539.



Melisew
Dejene
and
Logan
Cochrane.
2021.
The
Power
of
Policy
and
Entrenching

Inequalities
in
Ethiopia:
Reframing
Agency
in
the
Global
Land
Rush
in
TheTransnational
LandRushin-Africa,
Cochrane
Logan
and
Andrews
Nathan
(Palgrave
Macmillan)
215-260



Mensah
Justice
and
Enu-Kwesi
Francis.
2019.
Implications
of
Environmental
Sanitation

Management
for
Sustainable
Livelihoods
in
the
Catchment
Area
of
Benya
Lagoon
in
Ghana.

Vol.
16.
Abingdon:
Taylor
&
Francis.



Ministry
of
Food
and
Agriculture
(MoFA)
(2020).
Ghana
Commercial
Agricultural
Project.

Ministry
of
Food
and
Agriculture,
Republic
of
Ghana,
Accra-Ghana



Mmieh,
Frederick
and
Nana
Owusu-Frimpong.
2004.
"State
Policies
and
the
Challenges
in

Attracting
Foreign
Direct
Investment:
A
Review
of
the
Ghana
Experience."
Thunderbird

International
Business
Review
46;39;
(5;6;):
575-599.



ModernGhana
2012.
Ghana
targets
50%
local
rice
production
by
2012


https://www.modernghana.com/news/263147/ghana-targets-50-local-rice-production-by2012.html
accessed
on
07/03/2021



Mtero,Farai.2017.“RuralLivelihoods,
Large-Scale
Mining
and
Agrarian
Change
in
Mapela,

Limpopo,SouthAfrica.”ResourcesPolicy
53
(September):
190–200.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2017.06.015.



Ndi,
Frankline
A.
2019.
Land
Grabbing:
A
Gendered
Understanding
of
Perceptions
and

Reactions
from
Affected
Communities
in
Nguti
Subdivision
of
southwest
Cameroon.
Vol.
37

WileySubscriptionServices,Inc.









111



Nolte,Kerstin;Chamberlain,Wytske;Giger,Markus.2016.“InternationalLandDealsfor
Agriculture.
Fresh
insights
from
the
Land
Matrix:AnalyticalReportII”.Bern,Montpellier,
Hamburg,
Pretoria:
Centre
for
Development
and
Environment,
University
of
Bern;
Centre
de

coopération
Internationale
en
Recherche
Agronomique
pour
le
développement;
German

Institute
of
Global
and
Area
Studies;
University
of
Pretoria;
Bern
Open
Publishing.



Nortey,
Ezekiel.
2013.
National
Analytical
Report:
2010
Ghana
Population
and
Housing

Census.



Nyari
 Bakari.
 2008.
 Biofuel
 land
 grabbing
 in
 Northern
 Ghana,
 https://www.rainforestrescue.org/news/1062/biofuel-land-grabbing-in-northern-ghana
accessed
on
April
18,
2021



Nygaard,
Ivan
and
Simon
Bolwig.
2017.
"The
Rise
and
Fall
of
Foreign
Private
Investment
in

the
Jatropha
Biofuel
Value
Chain
in
Ghana."
EnvironmentalScience&Policy
84:
224-234.



Obeng-Odoom,
Franklin.
2012.
"Natural
Resource
Abundance
and
Eminent
Domain:
A
Case

Study
from
Africa."
LocalEconomy
27
(4):
319-325.



Oberlack,
Christoph,
Laura
Tejada,
Peter
Messerli,
Stephan
Rist,
and
Markus
Giger.
2016.

“SustainableLivelihoodsintheGlobalLandRush?ArchetypesofLivelihoodVulnerability
andSustainabilityPotentials.”GlobalEnvironmentalChange
41
(November):
153–71.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.10.001.



Ofosu-Budu,
Kwabena,
and
Sarpong
Daniel
Bruce.
2013"Oil
palm
industry
growth
in
Africa:

Avaluechainandsmallholders’studyforGhana."
RebuildingWestAfrica’sFoodPotential.
Rome:FAO/IFAD:
349-389



Okpara,
Uche
T.,
Lindsay
C.
Stringer,
and
Andrew
J.
Dougill.
2016.
"Lake
Drying
and

Livelihood
Dynamics
in
Lake
Chad:
Unravelling
the
Mechanisms,
Contexts,
and

Responses."
Ambio
45
(7):
781-795.



Olalekan
Williams
Timothy,
Gyampoh
Benjamin,
Kizito
Fred,
and
Namara
Regassa.
2012.

"Water
Implications
of
Large-Scale
Land
Acquisitions
in
Ghana."
WaterAlternatives5

 (2):

243-265.




Oware
Twerefoo
Portia
(2021):
Mining-induced
displacement
and
resettlement
policies
and

localpeople’slivelihoodsinGhana,DevelopmentinPractice,

DOI:10.1080/09614524.2020.1867065



Owusu,Victor.2019.“ImpactsofthePetroleumIndustryontheLivelihoodsofFisherfolk
in

Ghana:ACaseStudyoftheWesternRegion.”TheExtractiveIndustriesandSociety
6
(4):

1256–64.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2019.11.002.



Pearce,Fred.2012.“TheLandGrabbers:TheNewFightoverWhoOwnstheEarth,”Beacon
Press
350.



Peña‐Huertas,Rocío,LuisEnriqueRuiz,MaríaMónicaParada,SantiagoZuleta,andRicardo
Álvarez.
2017.
"Legal
Dispossession
and
Civil
War
in
Colombia."
JournalofAgrarian
Change
17
(4):
759-769








112



Quaye,
Wilhemina.
"Food
Security
Situation
In
Northern
Ghana,
Coping
Strategies
and

Related
Constraints."
Africanjournalofagriculturalresearch
3,
no.
5
(2008):
334-342.



van
Vliet,
Jasper,
David
A.
Eitelberg,
and
Peter
H.
Verburg.
2017.
"A
Global
Analysis
of

Land

 Take
in
Cropland
Areas
and
Production
Displacement
from
Urbanization."
Global
EnvironmentalChange
43:
107-115.



Ranjit,
Kumar.
2011.
Researchmethodology:Astep-by-stepguideforbeginners.
Sage

Publications
Limited.



Reem
Hajjar,
Alemayehu
N.
Ayana,
Rebecca
Rutt,
Omer
Hinde,
Chuan
Liao,
Stephanie

Keene,
Solange
Bandiaky-Badji
&
Arun
Agrawal
(2019):
Capital,
labour,
and
gender:
the

consequences
of
large-scale
land
transactions
on
household
labour
allocation,
TheJournalof
PeasantStudies,
DOI:
10.1080/03066150.2019.1602520



Riera,
Olivia
and
Johan
Swinnen.
2016.
"Household
Level
Spillover
Effects
from
Biofuels:

Evidence
from
Castor
in
Ethiopia."
FoodPolicy
59:
55-65.



Rhebergen,
Tiemen,
Thomas
Fairhurst,
Shamie
Zingore,
Myles
Fisher,
Thomas
Oberthür,

and
Anthony
Whitbread.
2016.
"Climate,
Soil
and
Land-use
Based
Land
Suitability

Evaluation
for
Oil
Palm
Production
in
Ghana."
EuropeanJournalofAgronomy
81:
1-14



Ross,
Alexander
Reid.
2014."
Biofuels,
Land
Grabs,
Revolution"
in
Grabbing
Back:
Essays

Against
the
Global
Land
Grab.
ed.
Ross,
A.R.
Oakland,
CA:
AK
Press.99



Renzaho,
Andre
M.
N.,
Joseph
K.
Kamara,
and
Michael
Toole.
2017.
"Biofuel
Production

and
its

Impact
on
Food
Security
in
Low
and
Middle-Income
Countries:
Implications
for
the

Post-
 2015
Sustainable
Development
Goals."
Renewable&SustainableEnergyReviews78:

503-516.



Rutherford,
Blair,
and
Lincoln
Addison.
2007.
"Zimbabwean
Farm
Workers
in
Northern

South
Africa."
ReviewofAfricanPoliticalEconomy
34
(114):
619-635.



Sahoo,
Minati,
Dharmabrata
Mohapatra,
and
Dukhabandhu
Sahoo.
2017.
"Mining
and

Livelihood:
A
Microanalysis
in
Odisha,
India."
InternationalJournalofSocialEconomics
44

(1):
93-113.



Saunders,
Benjamin,
Jenny
Kitzinger,
and
Celia
Kitzinger.
2015.
"Participant
anonymity
in

the
internet
age:
from
theory
to
practice."
QualitativeResearchinPsychology
12,
No.
2:
125137.



Santos,
Anna
N.
and
Christian
Brannstrom.
2015.
"Livelihood
Strategies
in
a
Marine

Extractive
Reserve:
Implications
for
Conservation
Interventions."
MarinePolicy
59:
44-52.



Schoneveld,GeorgeC.,LauraA.German,andEricNutakor.2011.“Land-Based
Investments

for
Rural
Development?
A
Grounded
Analysis
of
the
Local
Impacts
of
Biofuel
Feedstock

PlantationsinGhana.”EcologyandSociety
16
(4):
art10.
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04424160410.









113



Scoones,Ian.1998.‘SustainableRuralLivelihoods:AFrameworkforAnalyses’.IDS
Working
Paper
No.
72.
Brighton:
IDS,
University
of
Sussex



Sharma,
Gaganpreet.
2017.
"Pros
and
cons
of
different
sampling
techniques."
International
JournalofAppliedResearch
3,
no.
7:
749-752.



Singh,
Sukhpal,
and
Shruti
Bhogal.
2014.
"Depeasantization
in
Punjab:
Status
of
Farmers

Who
Left
Farming."
CurrentScience
(Bangalore)
106
(10):
1364-1368.



Smis,
Stefaan,
Dorothee
Cambou,
and
Genny
Ngende.
2013.
"The
Question
of
Land
Grab
in

Africa

and
the
Indigenous
People's
Right
to
Traditional
Lands,
Territories,
and

Resources."
LoyolaofLosAngelesInternational&ComparativeLawReview
35
(3):
493.



Sobeng
Augustus
Kweku,
Agyemang-Duah
Williams,
Thomas
Andrew
&
Oduro
Appiah

Joseph.
2018.
"An
assessment
of
the
effects
of
forest
reserve
management
on
the
livelihoods

of
forest
fringe
communities
in
the
Atwima
Mponua
District
of
Ghana”
Forests,Treesand
Livelihoods
27:3,
158-174,
DOI:
10.1080/14728028.2018.1490668




Stebbins,
Robert
A.
2001.
Exploratory
Research
in
the
Social
Sciences.
Vol.
48.
Thousand

Oaks,

 Calif:
Sage
Publications.



Stokes,
David,
andRichardBergin.2006."MethodologyOr“methodolatry”?anEvaluation
of
Focus
Groups
and
Depth
Interviews."
QualitativeMarketResearch
9
(1):
26-37.



Swedberg,
Richard.
2020.
"Exploratory
research."
Theproductionofknowledge:Enhancing
progressinsocialscience:
17-41.



Tankari,
Mahamadou
Roufahi.
2017.
"Cash
Crops
Reduce
the
Welfare
of
Farm
Households

in
Senegal."
FoodSecurity9
(5):
1105-1115.



Tanle
Augustine
and
Abane
Albert
Machistey.
2018.
“MobilePhoneuseandLivelihoods:
QualitativeEvidencefromsomeRuralandUrbanAreasinGhana”.Vol.83.Dordrecht:
Springer
Netherlands.



Thondhlana,Gladman.2015.“LandAcquisitionforandLocalLivelihoodImplicationsof
BiofuelDevelopmentinZimbabwe.”LandUsePolicy
49
(December):
11–19.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.06.025.



Tiong,
Daniel.
2017.
"Empirical
Research:
Getting
Started
with
Stata."
AustralianEconomic
Review
50
(2):
236-250.



Tufa,
Fekadu
A.,
Aklilu
Amsalu,andE.B.Zoomers.2018.“FailedPromises:Governance
RegimesandConflictTransformationRelatedtoJatrophaCultivationinEthiopia.”Ecology
andSociety
23
(4):
art26.
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10486-230426.



Ward
Anseeuw,
and
Giulia
Maria
Baldinelli.
2020.
"Uneven
Ground:
Land
inequality
at
the

heart
of
unequal
societies
"
The
Land
Initiative



Warr,
Mohd
Anzar.
2021."Issues
and
Challenges
of
Depeasantization
in
Contemporary

Kashmir
(India):
A
Sociological
Analysis."
JournalofAsiaPacificStudies
6,
no.
1







114





Wily,
Liz
Alden.
2012.
"Global
Land
Grab
Threatens
Millions
of
African
Farmers."
Pacific
Ecologist
(21):
17.



Yaro,
Joseph
Awetori,
Joseph
Kofi
Teye,
and
Gertrude
Dzifa
Torvikey.
2018.
"Historical

Context
of
Agricultural
Commercialization
in
Ghana:
Changes
in
Land
and
Labour

Relations."
JournalofAsianandAfricanStudies
53
(1):
49-63.



Yin,
Robert
K.
2017.
Casestudyresearchandapplications:Designandmethods.
Sage

publications



Yin,
R.K
(2009),
CaseStudyResearch:DesignandMethods.
4th
ed.
Applied
Social

Research
Methods,
Thousand
Oaks,
California:
SAGE
Publications



Yin,
R.K.
(2003)
ApplicationsofCaseStudyResearch,
2nd
ed.,
Thousand
Oaks:
CA:
Sage

Publications.



Zevenbergen,Jaap,ClarissaAugustinus,DaniloAntonio,andRohanBennett.2013.“ProPoor

 Land
Administration:
Principles
for
Recording
the
Land
Rights
of
the

Underrepresented.”
 LandUsePolicy
31
(March):
595–604.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.09.005



Zain,
Muhammad,
Imran
Khan,
and
Shakeel
Anjum.
2015.
"The
Causes
of
Food
Insecurity

and
Preventive
Measures."
TechnologyTimes
6
(33).



Zhan,
James,
Hafiz
Mirza,
and
William
Speller.
2015.
"The
Impact
of
Larger-Scale

Agricultural

 Investments
on
Communities
in
South-East
Asia:
A
First
Assessment."
In,

edited
by
Christophe
Gironde,
Christophe
Golay,
and
Peter
Messerli,
81:
BRILL.
















































115







Appendix


Questionnaire

Land
Grabs
and
Livelihood
Outcomes:
exploring
the
coping
mechanisms

adopted
by
farmers
in
agrarian
communities
in
Ghana.

Questionnaire
no:

Village:

District:

Background
of
respondents



1.


Gender
of
respondent


2.

50


Age


3.



Level
of
education











a)
Male








a)
20-30


b)
31-40


c)
41-50





a)
None


b)
Primary


c)
Secondary
 





b)
Female


d)
Technical/Vocational


e)
Tertiary


a)
Single


c)
Divorced




4.


Marital
Status
 




5.


Community
membership
status





6.
 
 How
much
do
you
earn
a
month?




 










b)
Married


a)
Indigene





b)
Migrant


a)
Less
than
400

b)
401-500



d)
Above
600





7.
 
 What
is
the
size
of
your
household?
 
a)
1-2
 


d)
Above


b)
3-4
 


c)
501-600

c)
5
and
above






Impact
of
land
grabs


1.

 Do
you
own
a
piece
of
land?

 a)
Yes
 


b)
No


2.

If
yes,
what
was
the
mode
of
acquisition?

Purchase




a)
Inheritance
 


b)
Gift


3.
If
no,
how
did
you
get
land
for
farming?






a)
Rent





b)
Sharecropping
 c)
Other

4.
Is
the
land
registered?


a)
Yes
 











5.
What
type
of
farming
are
you
engaged
in?


Other
 































116

b)
No
 


a)
Commercial





b)
Subsistence




c)


6.
 What
is
the
source
of
finance
for
farming
activity?





Co


c)







a)
Banks




b)
Credit
Union

c.
NGO






d)
Savings
and
Loans








e)
Personal




Savings

f)
Family
&
Friends

7.
What
is
the
main
source
of
your
household
income?
 a ) 
From
farming
b)
Other

sourcespleasespecify……………………….

8.
Did
you
lose
farmland
to
a
commercial
farm
project?

 a)
Yes
 


b)
No


9.
If
yes,
what
has
been
the
effect
of
the
loss
of
land
on
your
farming
activity?


a)
Reduced
farm
size
 b)
Reduced
income
 c)
Both



d)
Others,


specify…………




10
Compared
to
your
current
situation,
how
was
the
food
security
in
your
house
before

 the

foreign
investment:







a)Much
better



b)
Moderately
better

c)
Same

d)
Worse

e)
Much
worse


10.
Overall,
do
you
find
that
the
foreign
investment
has
reduced
your
access
to
food

(e.g.farmproduce)?”a)Yesb)Somewhatc)
No

11.
Do
you
belong
to
some
farmer
association
or
farmer
support
group?


a)Yes
b)
No

12.
Are
you
aware
of
entitlements
for
compensation
due
to
the
loss
of
land
to
a
commercial

agricultural
project?


a)
Yes
 


13.
Were
you
compensated?



b)
No

a)Yes



b)No


14.
If
yes,
how
were
you
compensated?




a)
Cash


b)Relocated
to
different
land


c)Employed
by
the
company
 
d)Other





15.
Are
you
satisfied
with
the
compensation


a)Yes
 


b)No






16.
If
No
why?............................................................................................................





17.
Was
the
Local
Assembly
involved
in
negotiating
compensation
package
a)
Yes




b)No





18.Ifyes,whatroledidtheyplay…………………………………………………………





19.
 If
you
belong
to
a
farmer
association/support
group,
did
the
group
play
any
role
in




negotiating
a
compensation
package?



a)
Yes















b)
No






20.
Were
you
informed
about
the
intended
benefits
of
the
farm
project?
 
a)
Yes











b)

No





21.

If
yes,
is
the
company
living
up
to
your
expectation?
























a)
Yes
 

No





22.
 Do
you
have
any
issues
with
the
operations
of
the
company?








b)No

117

a)Yes


b)








23.

If
yes,
are
you
aware
of
any
dispute
resolution
processes?
















a)Yes


b)No




Coping
mechanisms




1.
 Do
you
still
have
access
to
another
piece
of
farmland
of
your
own?
 a)Yes
b)No

2.
 If
No,
are
you
are
renting?













a)Yes







b)No

3.
 Howwouldyouratetheimpactofthecompany’sfarmingproject


 















a)
Positive









b)Negative

4.
 

How
are
you
coping
with
the
outcome
of
the
project?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…..




5.


If
there
is
a
farmland
loss
or
reduction
in
farmland
size,
have
you
engaged
in
other
income-

generating
activity




a)
Yes
 

b)No

6.
 If
yes,
specify………………………………………….....................................................

7.
 Do
you
think
this
is
a
better
alternative
to
farming
activities?
 


 b)No


a)Yes


8.

Did
the
 local
 government
 provide
 an
 alternative
source
 of
 livelihood
 for
 approving
 the

project
which
is
likely
to
impact
you,
smallholder
farmers?


 a)Yes
 

b)No

9.
If

yes,

specify……………………………………………………………………………………

10.
 Did
the
traditional
authority
provide
an
alternative
source
of
livelihood
for
approving
the

project
which
is
likely
to
impact
you,
smallholder
farmers?


 a)Yes
 

b)No

11.
 If
yes,
what
type
of
assistance
was
offered

farming
 b)
 Financial
 assistance
 c)

specify…………………


a)
 Acquisition
 of
 different
 land
 for

Employment
 opportunity
 d)Others,


12.
 Are
you
satisfied
with
the
alternatives
provided?


a)Yes
 


b)
No


13.
Is
there
anything
you
wish
is
done
by
the
local
government
to
improve
livelihoods

in

the

community

………………………………………………………………………

14.
 Is
there
anything
you
want
traditional
authorities
to
do
for
farmers
in
the
community?

15.
 Any
additionalcomments………………………………………………………………














118







Interview
guide
for
traditional
authorities
and
government
officials

Interview
guide
for
traditional
authority

Position
in
the
community.........................................

Impactoftheprojectonthepeople
1.

Was
there
a
compensation
package?











2.
Did
every
farmer
receive
payment?













































3.

If
no
why?

4.
Were
there
any
promises
and
explanations
of
the
benefits
the
community
members
would

get
from
the
project?









5.
If
yes,
what
were
some
of
the
promises?

6.Whataretheimpactsofthecompany’soperationinthecommunity?

7.
What
 are
 some
 of
the
 main
 challenges
 affecting
 farming
 and
 other
land
 resource-related

activities
after
the
project
started?

Copingandadaptationmechanisms
1.
What
measures
have
been
put
in
place
to
help
the
farmers
adjust
to
the
changes
in
land
use

and
access
to
land?

Interview
guide
for
company
representatives

1.
Position
in
the
company.........................................


2.
How
long
has
the
company
been
operating
in
the
area?............................

Modeoflandacquisition
3.
How
was
the
land
acquired?
……………………………………………………………..

4.
How
much
was
paid
in
the
land
acquisition?......................................................................

5.Whowasthepaymentmadeto?…………………………………………………………..

Impactofcompany’sproject

1.
What
is
the
total
land
sizeofthecommunity…………………………………………….

2.
What
is
the
total
size
of
land
taken
over
by
your
company?..................................................

3.
Out
of
the
total
land
taken
by
your
company,
what
is
the
size
of
the
land
which
is
presently

being
utilized
by
the
company?..................................................................

4.
How
many
farmers
are
affected
by
the
land
acquisition
process?........................................







119



5.
 What
 form
 of
 compensation
 did
 your
 company
 give
 to
 the
 affected

farmers?.................................

6. Does the company have anidea about the number of people affected by the company’s
operations?...................................................................................................................................
......

Copingmechanisms
1.
How
does
your
company
cater
to
the
farmers
who
lost
the
lands
to
the
company?

2.
Which
entities
did
the
company
involve
 in
negotiating
alternative
livelihoods
for
affected

farmers?

3.
Is
there
a
mechanism
through
which
the
company
interacts
with
the
farmers?

4.Isthereanypolicydocumentthatguidesthecompany’sinterventionsinthecommunity?

5.Ifyes,isthedocumentavailabletothemembersofthecommunity?………………………..



Interview
guide
for
national-level
institutional
representatives



1.
 How
long
have
you
held
your
current
position?

2.
 What
role
does
your
institution
play
in
large-scale
land
acquisitions?

3.
 What
goes
into
selecting
the
land
for
the
investors?

4.
 Are
there
any
livelihood
impact
assessments
carried
out
before
the
start
of
the
project?

5.
 What
law
governs
large-scale
land
acquisitions
in
the
country?

6.
 Are
there
any
statutory
obligations
these
companies
must
fulfill?

7.
 What
level
of
community
engagement
takes
place
before
signing
a
land
deal?

8.
 Are
there
any
monitoring
mechanisms
during
project
execution
by
your
outfit?

9.
 Are
there
avenues
through
which
the
host
community
can
report
concerns?
If
so
how?

10.
Are
 there
 any
improvements
 you
 would
 like
to
 see
concerning
 how
 large-scale
 land

acquisitions
are
carried
out
in
Ghana?





















120