Land grabbing, social differentiation, intensified migration and food security in northern Ghana

Abstract

This paper argues that large-scale land appropriation is displacing subsistence farmers and reworking agrarian social relations in northern Ghana. The recent wave of farmland enclosure has not only resulted in heightened land scarcity, but also fostered a marked social differentiation within farming communities. The dominant form of inequality is an evolving class of landless and near-landless farmers. The majority of households cope with such dynamics by deepening their own self-exploitation in the production process. The fulcrum of this self-exploitation is gendered property rights as part of the conjugal contract, with men exerting a far greater monopoly over land resources than had previously been the case. Due to acute land shortages, women’s rights to use land as wives, mothers and daughters are becoming insecure, as their vegetable plots are being reclassified as male-controlled household fields. The paper further documents the painful choices that landless farmers have to make in order to meet livelihood needs, including highly disciplined, yet low-waged, farm labor work and sharecropping contracts. In these livelihood pathways, there emerge, again, exploitative relations of production, whereby surplus is expropriated from land-dispossessed migrant laborers and concentrated with farm owners. These dynamics produce a ‘simple reproduction squeeze’ for the land-dispossessed. Overall, the paper contributes to the emerging land grabbing literature by showing geographically specific processes of change for large-scale mining operations and gendered differentiated impacts.

Keywords:

• land grabbing
• gender relations
• peasant class differentiation
• food security
• Ghana

Acknowledgements

We appreciate insightful feedback from Ruth Hall, Carol Hunsberger, Tony Weis, Adriana Premat, Issac Luginaah and William Moseley. The paper was originally presented in Utrecht, The Netherlands, and in Stellenbosch, South Africa, at conferences on Gender, Land Governance and Agricultural Investments in Africa. We thank the funders and organizers of these conferences, and gratefully appreciate constructive feedback from the conference participants. Our thanks are also due to Karen Van Kerkoerl for cartographic assistance, and to JPS editor Jun Borras for his support. As well, we are deeply indebted to two research assistants whose contributions have been immeasurable in this work. Finally, we appreciate the critical and extensive feedback from two anonymous reviewers. All remaining shortcomings are solely our own.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 Farmlands are also being acquired in other regions such as Southeast Asia, and in Latin America and the Caribbean (see Kaag and Zoomers 2014, 3).

2 Behrman, Meinzen-Dick, and Quisumbing (2012) and Daley (2011) have also examined the gendered implications of large-scale land grabbing. However, these papers are reviews of secondary literature, and do not rely on in-depth, field-based evidence. Additionally, Cotula (2013) offered a brief but useful discussion on gendered impacts of land deals, cautioning against treating women as a homogeneous group affected by land loss.

3 Using in-country case studies, Cotula et al. (2009, 42) indicate 452,000 hectares of approved projects in Ghana between 2004 and early 2009. However, the authors noted that their data were incomplete as a result of information gaps on specific projects. Drawing upon remote sensing data, key informant interviews, site visits, focus groups and a survey of 31 employees and 64 land-losing households, Schoneveld, German, and Nutakor (2010) found that as of August 2009, foreign-based companies had access to 1,075,000 hectares of land for the cultivation of Jatropha curcas (13 companies), cassava (one company) and oil palm (one company) in Ghana. The authors noted that just ‘a fraction of these lands have, however, actually come under cultivation, with no more than 10,000 hectares likely to be under cultivation by these investors’ (Schoneveld, German, and Nutakor 2010). Compiling their evidence primarily from media reports, Friis and Reenberg (2010, 11) indicated 89,000 hectares of acquired land between 2008 and 2010. Furthermore, Friends of the Earth Europe (2010, 6) indicated a total area of 735,000 hectares, of which 105,000 hectares have been acquired by Italian-based Agroils; 120,000 hectares by Jatropha Africa, United Kindgdom; 10,000 hectares by ScanFuel Norway, with additional contract of 400,000 hectares; and 100,000 hectares acquired by Galten Israel (see map in Friends of the Earth Europe 2010, 6). According to Friends of the Earth Europe (2010), these figures are based on research carried out by Friends of the Earth Ghana. However, the report provides no information on the time span over which these lands were acquired.

4 According to field interviews with village elders, this concession was awarded in 2005. Some households reported that they started experiencing dispossession in 2006, whilst others mentioned 2007–2008.

5 While we were able to get a copy of the Social and Environmental Impact Assessment, it was impossible to see the actual legal documents covering this land acquisition. As a result, we are unable to comment on the legal regime and the terms of land acquisition.

6 Jongorro is a pseudonym. The research village name has been changed – first, for ethical reasons, and, second, because participants were anxious about how we might write up our results. Many participants complained that in the past, government officials have berated some villages for providing information to researchers investigating biofuel and mineral-based projects in northern Ghana.

7 Tengdaamba are descendants of the first settlers in the village (see Kasanga and Kotey 2001, 14).

8 These households were among the land-losing group who were disgruntled and felt suspicious about the motives of our study. They associated our survey with activities of the mining company and feared that we might share their names and landholding information with the government. Later in the fieldwork, this problem tapered off, as villagers realized that our work was not linked to the activities of any company. Indeed, the early stages of the fieldwork were fraught with several difficulties (e.g. gaining and securing access) which we cannot fully elaborate here due to space limitations.

9 To protect participants’ confidentiality, we have given pseudonyms to all informants featured in this contribution.

10 During the course of the research (January to August 2012), the prevailing exchange rate was approximately: GH ¢2 = USD 1.

11 Based on the exchange rate as of 2012.

Additional information

Funding

This paper is based on fieldwork conducted with research grants from the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Canada [grant number 106690-99906075-013]; the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), Canada; The University of Western Ontario, Canada; and the Land Deal Politics Initiative (LDPI), Institute of Social Studies, The Netherlands.

Notes on contributors

Hanson Nyantakyi-Frimpong

Hanson Nyantakyi-Frimpong is a post-doctoral fellow at the University of Toronto, Canada. His current research focuses on sustainable agriculture and food systems, as well as the human dimensions of global environmental change. He explores these topics from a political ecology perspective. Corresponding author.

Rachel Bezner Kerr

Rachel Bezner Kerr is an associate professor in the Department of Development Sociology at Cornell University. Her research interests focus on farmer-led agroecology, critical examinations of neoliberal approaches to agriculture, and the historical, political, economic and gender dynamics that shape food security in sub-Saharan Africa. Email: [email protected]