1 23
Agriculture and Human ValuesJournal of the Agriculture, Food, andHuman Values Society ISSN 0889-048X Agric Hum ValuesDOI 10.1007/s10460-015-9612-0
Abandoning land in search of farms:challenges of subsistence migrant farmingin Ghana
Vincent Z. Kuuire, Paul Mkandawire,Isaac Luginaah & Godwin Arku
1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and all
rights are held exclusively by Springer Science
+Business Media Dordrecht. This e-offprint
is for personal use only and shall not be self-
archived in electronic repositories. If you wish
to self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com”.
IN THE FIELD REPORT
Abandoning land in search of farms: challenges of subsistencemigrant farming in Ghana
Vincent Z. Kuuire1 • Paul Mkandawire2 • Isaac Luginaah1 • Godwin Arku1
Accepted: 3 April 2015
� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015
Abstract Migration remains an important strategy for
livelihood security in sub-Saharan Africa. Like other parts
of the region, migrant flows within Ghana have historically
been directed towards urban, mineral, and plantation
economies. This study, however, examines a new pattern of
migration related to rural livelihood that has intensified in
recent decades largely in response to mounting environ-
mental pressures and worsening poverty. Using in-depth
interviews and focused group discussions and drawing on
perspectives from the livelihood approach and political
ecology, this paper examines the challenges confronting
farmers who flee poverty and environmental pressures in
Ghana’s Upper West Region and migrate to the agricul-
ture-rich area of Brong Ahafo Region to farm for subsis-
tence. The study revealed that migrant farmers’ acute lack
of social assets and agrarian resources in these remote
enclaves not only hampered their productivity but also
subjected them to exploitative and exclusionary practices
in these remote, host communities. The study contributes to
the understanding of social of realities migrant farming as
an emerging safety valve for the rural poor and makes
relevant policy recommendations.
Keywords Migrant farming � Livelihood � Poverty �Political ecology � Ghana
Abbreviations
BAR Brong Ahafo Region
FGD Focus group discussion
GSS Ghana Statistical Service
IDI In-depth interview
SAP Structural Adjustment Programs
SSA Sub-Saharan Africa
UWR Upper West Region
Introduction
This paper examines the experiences of migrant farmers
from Upper West Region (UWR) and the challenges they
face while laboring as subsistence farmers in the Brong
Ahafo Region (BAR) of Ghana. Labor migration towards
places of economic opportunity is a common phenomenon
across sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Historically, these
movements have both been shaped by established institu-
tional mechanisms such as the contract labor system (Posel
and Casale 2003), environmental challenges (Barrios et al.
2006), or by personal initiatives of individuals and families
in attempts to achieve livelihood security (Schrieder and
Knerr 2000; Potts 2006).
Previous studies on labor migration in Ghana have pri-
marily focused on rural-urban migration, generally from
poorer rural northern areas to the south (van der Geest et al.
2010; Kuuire et al. 2013). Migration from the rural north of
& Vincent Z. Kuuire
Paul Mkandawire
Isaac Luginaah
Godwin Arku
1 Department of Geography, Western University, London,
ON N6A 5C2, Canada
2 Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies, Carleton University,
Ottawa, Canada
123
Agric Hum Values
DOI 10.1007/s10460-015-9612-0
Author's personal copy
Ghana to urban centers in the south has deep roots in the
country’s history and is linked to spatial disparities in
levels of socioeconomic development that characterize the
physical landscape. Over the course of time, a coerced
form of labor migration from small communities in the
north to mining, farming, and urban centers in the south
during colonial times metamorphosed into self-initiated
labor migration in search of livelihood opportunities in
recent decades (Songsore 1983; Songsore and Denkabe
1995; Awumbila and Ardayfio-Schandorf 2008). Rural out-
migration has intensified following the aftermath of
Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) implemented in
the late 1980s and 1990s (Braimoh 2004).
Historically urban centers and mining communities in
the south of Ghana have been prime destinations for many
migrants from the north (Abdul-Korah 2007). This pattern
has not changed dramatically. For example, globalization
of the mineral extraction industry and associated increases
in the flow of foreign capital into the sector has drawn large
numbers of people to rural forest areas of Ghana where
they become an important source of cheap labor in loca-
tions with new mining concessions (Taabazuing et al.
2012). Additionally, plantation agriculture is another sector
that continues to draw large migrant flows into geograph-
ically remote areas where they sell labor to large-scale
estate owners geared toward export production (van der
Geest et al. 2010). Despite high vulnerability to unstable
world market prices, Ghana continues to be a major global
producer and exporter of cocoa due to availability of a
large supply of cheap migrant labor (Konadu-Agyemang
and Adanu 2003). This kind of migration is mainly char-
acterized by short-term seasonal migrants seeking imme-
diate financial gain before returning to their origins.
A large body of literature has documented the foregoing
patterns of temporary migration, the opportunities they
confer to the poor, and the experiences and challenges
faced by those who labor in these economies (Songsore and
Denkabe 1995; Awumbila and Ardayfio-Schandorf 2008;
van der Geest 2010). However, under-researched and
therefore remaining largely unknown is a pattern of rural
migration in which a growing number of rural poor flee
harsh environmental realities and deepening poverty and
are being driven into agricultural rich areas to work per-
manently as smallholder subsistence farmers rather than
temporary seasonal laborers. These migrants tend to settle
in their destinations on a long-term or permanent basis and
establish farms as a means of livelihood (Luginaah et al.
2009). This trend is increasingly becoming an important
livelihood strategy among residents of some migrant
sending areas. For instance, Dietz et al. (2013) indicate that
residents of UWR—a popular migrant origin location in
Ghana—view out-migration from the area positively and
have embraced it as a reasonable livelihood choice which
brings economic improvement to families. In light of the
growing importance of this type of migration from UWR
and the positive outlook towards the practice, this paper
seeks to answer the following questions: (1) how are
decisions to migrate negotiated? (2) what are the key
challenges that smallholder migrant farmers face in rural
economies of destination areas?
Migrant farming as a livelihood strategy in UWR
More than a century of geographically uneven develop-
ment policies in Ghana has meant that subsistence farming
remains the livelihood mainstay of the majority of people
in UWR (Sutton 1989; Abdul-Korah 2007; van der Geest
2011). As important as it is, subsistence agriculture has
recently come under increasing threat. Rapidly changing
agro-ecological and environmental conditions including
unpredictable rainfall patterns and declining soil fertility
have dramatically reduced agriculture productivity UWR
(Luginaah et al. 2009; Van der Geest and de Jeu 2008).
Erratic rainfall pattern and widespread environmental
degradation have greatly undermined farming in this area,
thereby exacerbating poverty. Thus, environmental chan-
ges, decline in farming, chronic underdevelopment, and
poverty in UWR coalesce and foment a pattern of liveli-
hood collapse that many residents cannot escape except
through out-migration from the region (Primavera 2005;
van der Geest 2011). Consequently, a rising number of
people migrate from UWR to remote agricultural rich
informal economies where they seek agricultural land to
cultivate crops. The true extent of such informal move-
ments is difficult to capture in official statistics. However,
it is estimated that over 100,000 people from UWR now
live in BAR as migrant farmers cultivating various food
crops (Primavera 2005; GSS 2011). While some of the
produce is sold for cash income, a large share of the harvest
is periodically remitted back home to family members in
UWR, thereby making food remittances an increasingly
important source of household food in UWR (Luginaah
et al. 2009; Kuuire et al. 2013). This has transformed
migrant farming from a temporary form of livelihood
where people migrated on an impermanent and irregular
basis to a more permanent feature where migrant farming is
steadily becoming routine and a mainstay of livelihoods
(Lobnibe 2010).
While out-migration from UWR has been a particularly
important livelihood strategy for the poor dating back to
colonial times, evidence suggests that this trend has
intensified in recent decades (Abdul-Korah 2007; Luginaah
et al. 2009; van der Geest et al. 2010; van der Geest 2011).
Until about two decades ago, migration from northern
Ghana was dominated by movements to economic and
V. Z. Kuuire et al.
123
Author's personal copy
administrative cities such as Kumasi and Accra as well as
mining centers in southern Ghana (Awumbila and Arday-
fio-Schandorf 2008). Since the year 2000, this migration
trend has been shifting to rural agricultural locations like
BAR (see van der Geest et al. 2010). Indeed people who
migrated to old mining towns such as Obuasi have also
been found to be moving away from such traditional
migration destinations to rural areas in BAR in order to
engage in agricultural activities (Abdul-Korah 2007).
Abdul-Korah (2007) explains that a major reason behind
this shifting trend is the result of declining opportunities in
these old mining towns and the increasing difficulties of
obtaining work in cities as unskilled labor.
A suitable agro-ecological environment for perennial
cultivation of food crops has made BAR an agricultural
hub (Lobnibe 2010). In addition, proximity to the north-
ernmost regions, the central geographical location of the
region relative to the rest of the country, availability of
arable lands as well as the presence of the largest agri-
cultural market in Ghana (i.e., Techiman market) has ren-
dered BAR a hotbed of migrant farming activities (Lobnibe
2010). As a result, the region has become a major attraction
for farmers in Ghana’s three northernmost regions (UWR,
Upper East Region, and Northern Region) which are agro-
ecologically less favorable for all year agriculture. Migrant
farmers generally cultivate food crops including maize,
cassava, plantain, yams, and beans among others. In some
instances, tree crops such as cashew nuts, mangoes, and
palm trees are interspersed with food crops.
Theoretical perspectives
Poverty and food insecurity are closely tied to the concept
of sustainable livelihoods and are important motivation for
migration of people (Ellis 2003; de Haan 1999). Studies
have shown that secure livelihoods lead to sustainable
poverty reduction as well as improved food security (Ellis
et al. 2003; Smith 2004; Altieri et al. 2012). According to
Ellis and Freeman (2004), the term livelihood represents an
effort to describe not just what people can do in order to
make a living, but also capture the resources with which
they are endowed that provide them with the capability to
build a satisfactory lifestyle. The model also includes the
risks that are inherent in the choices that individuals make
as well as the broader institutional and policy context that
facilitate or hinder the pursuit of a viable living.
In Fig. 1, vulnerability is proximally shaped by assets
characterized as: human (e.g., skills, education, health
status), physical (e.g., land, produced goods), financial
(e.g., money, loans), natural (e.g., land, water), and social
capital (e.g., networks, relations). The things people are
able to do with these assets in order to make a living are
referred to as activities (e.g., farming) and these activities
lead to outcomes (e.g., improved food security, improved
livelihood security). In the case of migrant farmers, assets
primarily revolve around access to land resources as well
as their own farming skills that enable them to undertake
farming activities. Berry (2009) indicates that possessing
the right social alliances facilitates access to land for
agricultural purposes, thereby shaping local structures and
influencing migrants’ ability to maintain a means of
livelihood. Especially for new migrant farmers, social
networks of friends or kin who have been in the BAR
before their arrival are important in helping new arrivals
identify landowners and negotiate land rent payments.
According to Ellis (2003), the risks that shape farmers’
ability to make a living are encapsulated within the vul-
nerability context. Specific to migrant farmers, these risks
pertain to prevailing conditions of the agro-ecological
environment, which promotes agricultural activities.
Beyond such physical factors as the agro-ecological envi-
ronment, it is important to recognize that migrant farmers
operate within a broader socio-political environment gov-
erned by extensive power structures. The policy and
institutional context captures factors and structures asso-
ciated with local and national government such as policies,
laws, and rights. Thus, the livelihood approach helps pro-
vide a scalar view of how migrant farmers survive within a
complex and evolving social, political, and environmental
context.
In addition, it has been further argued that a sustainable
livelihood allows an individual to cope with and rally from
stresses and shocks, maintain or enhance capabilities and
assets, while not undermining the natural resources base
(Scoones 1998; Adger 1999). Livelihood failure usually
signals the need for adaptation, with migration being one of
the possible adaptation measures.
The fact that livelihoods at the household level are also
mediated by broader social, economic, and political
structures allows for understanding sustainable livelihoods
through the political ecology lens. Political ecology is the
study of the relationships between political, economic, and
Fig. 1 The basic livelihood approach. Source: Ellis and Allison
(2004)
Abandoning land in search of farms: challenges of subsistence migrant farming in Ghana
123
Author's personal copy
social factors to environmental issues and change (Bryant
and Bailey 1997; Greenberg and Park 1994; Robbins 2004;
Walker 2005). Historically, political ecology has sought to
understand the political dynamics surrounding politicized
environmental issues in the developing world (Bryant
1998). Bryant (1998) particularly argues that while eco-
social problems are the focus of most research, there is
little discussion of political influences on such issues. Thus,
political ecology seeks to draw the links between macro
level processes and local practices in order to understand
how local experiences and livelihood opportunities are
shaped by larger political forces, such as for example,
government support to larger scale farming.
In Ghana, the BAR is one of the favored locations tar-
geted for large-scale agriculture in the country and has
recently been at the forefront of land grabbing activities
(Schoneveld et al. 2011). Land grabbing involves large-
scale (trans)national commercial land transactions which
may be straightforward private-private purchases and
public-private leases. The intrusion into this space by
commercial farmers usually with national government
encouragement creates a contested space where poor
smallholder farmers compete for access to land resources
with large, powerful corporate entities. This has implica-
tions for land tenure security, which is linked to the
livelihood outcomes of vulnerable groups such as women
and migrant farmers operating in the region (Schoneveld
et al. 2011; ElHadary and Obeng-Odoom 2012).
The related theories of sustainable livelihoods and
political ecology described above guided this study in two
major ways. First, a sustainable livelihood framework
enabled us to investigate how migration decisions are made
within the context of high poverty and environmental
degradation. Specifically, this pertains to the ability to
maintain a satisfactory lifestyle—in the absence of which
various adaptations including migration may be relied on.
It further enabled the study to undertake this investigation
within a household level perspective since most individuals
in such agrarian societies tend to draw on resources at that
level and are therefore likely to not take decisions on their
own (Bhandari 2013). Second, both political ecology and
the sustainable livelihood framework shaped the study’s
perspective on discussions about the agro-ecological
environment, resource access dynamics and broader social,
economic, and political structures. These factors together
delineate the circumstances (i.e., opportunities and/or
challenges) under which migrant farmers work in the BAR.
For instance, prevailing local social and political structures
have been found to impact one’s ability to negotiate land
use and this tends to have implications for tenure security
(Berry 2009). Also, while long-standing norms and social
relations surrounding farm labor may complicate
subsistence farming (Nyantakyi-Frimpong and Kerr 2014),
their marketing choices after production of surplus
involves a complex calculus, partly due to the lack of
support once offered by parastatal marketing boards
(Scoones et al. 2005).
Study area: the Brong Ahafo Region (BAR)
The Brong Ahafo Region (BAR) is the major reception
area for migrant farmers from UWR and other regions. The
region is located in the middle of Ghana and covers an area
of 39,557 km2. Although the exact number of people living
in BAR remains unknown due to high circular migration,
official estimates indicate that BAR has a population of 2.2
million people with a population density of 58 persons per
square kilometre, compared to a national figure of 103
persons per square kilometer (GSS 2011). Overall, the
region only accounts for 9.4 % of the national population
in Ghana (GSS 2011). As a result, this location in relative
terms is less densely populated and has vast lands for
agriculture.
As the preferred destination for migrants from the north
of Ghana (van der Geest et al. 2010), the ethnic composi-
tion of the region is relatively diverse although the Bono
and Ahafo speaking people dominate with a combined
share of about 60 % of the population. The rest of the
population is made up of other Akan speaking tribes, the
Guans, and other northern ethnicities; and it is estimated
that the Dagaabas form the highest number of all these
groups (GSS 2011). This demonstrates the preponderance
of Dagaare speaking people from the UWR and their
presence in reasonably large numbers might further rein-
force migration flows to the BAR.
About 26.4 % of people in the BAR have never been to
school, slightly more than 10 % below the national aver-
age. Household size in the region stands at 4.6 persons per
household, very close to the national figure of 4.4. Out
migration from BAR is low. Indeed, the region has the
third highest positive net-migration rate in the country at
9.6 %. Van der Geest et al. (2010) suggest that this might
be due to existing favorable conditions for agriculture in
the region, which acts as an attraction to migrant farmers
particularly from the drier regions of Ghana including the
UWR.
Ecologically, BAR is a transition zone between the
savannah north and forest south, which permits cultivation
of a wide variety of crops. There are two rainy seasons in
the BAR. The major rainy season occurs between the
months of March and June and the minor rainy season
occurs between September and November. The region’s
annual average rainfall is about 1250 mm. In comparison,
V. Z. Kuuire et al.
123
Author's personal copy
the UWR has an annual rainfall average of less 750 mm for
a 4-month period. In the BAR, a 3–4 month period usually
beginning in November or December, comes under the
influence of the Tropical Continental air mass. Trees briefly
shed their leaves during this period, which is characteristic
of this mainly semi-deciduous vegetative zone. See Fig. 2
for map of Ghana showing the different agro-ecological
zones in Ghana.
With the region having about 55.5 % of its population as
rural dwellers, it is unsurprising that agriculture is critical
to the economy of the BAR. Agriculture employs the
highest proportion of the region’s population at around
66 % (GSS 2011). In addition to agricultural productivity,
the BAR region is also home to Ghana’s biggest food
market, namely the Techiman market, making the region
highly attractive to migrant farmers from the UWR.
Fig. 2 Ecological zones in
Ghana
Abandoning land in search of farms: challenges of subsistence migrant farming in Ghana
123
Author's personal copy
Methods
Study design
This study employed a qualitative methodological
approach in order to better understand challenges facing
migrant farmers in the BAR. As a large-scale quantitative
survey would be unsuited to in-depth understanding of the
challenges that these migrant farmers encounter in these
remote places, this study used in-depth interviews (IDIs)
and focus group discussions (FGD) to provide a detailed
understanding of the challenges from the target population.
A set of semi-structured questions was developed to guide
these IDIs and FGDs. Probes were used to ensure that all
relevant issues in the themes (see Table 1) were covered in
the discussions. In effect, the same thematic issues were
put to all participants in this study.
Respondent selection, data collection, and analysis
Given that this study was carried out in a predominantly
rural area without a pre-existing sampling frame, and
coupled with the fact that we focused on understanding the
perceptions of individuals who engaged in migrant farm-
ing, purposive sampling was employed. Selection of
respondents was based on farmers’ potential to contribute
to the topic (Polkinghorne 2005) by way of their experi-
ences as migrant farmers. A criteria including length of
stay as migrant farmers in BAR (at least 1 year and more),
types of crops cultivated, and age (at least 18 years or
older) were used to select participants from three different
communities. Contact with prospective participants was
initiated with the help of a commercial truck driver who
operates between the UWR and BAR. He provided
prospective participants with a means of contacting the
research team directly. This culminated in visits to com-
munities where migrant farmers resided, during which
most respondents were recruited. A total of three FGDs
(one in each of the three communities; Nwoase and Offu-
man with eight participants each; and Manso with seven
participants) and 27 IDIs (nine interviews in each farming
village) were conducted.
Both IDI and FGDs were conducted at locations chosen
by respondents themselves such as market centers, church
premises, and at hometown community groups meeting
locations. The discussions were led by one of the authors
who is fluent in one of the major local languages spoken in
the area namely, Dagaare. This greatly helped to minimize
loss of information and facilitate the development of good
rapport with respondents. Interviews were tape recorded
with participants’ consent and were transcribed from
Dagaare to English. QSR software for qualitative data
Table 1 Summary of themes, questions, and probes used in IDIs and FGDs
Theme Question Probes
1. Migration decision Why did you migrate from UWR?
Why did you choose to come to BAR?
How did you come to the decision to migrate from UWR?
Was this a personal decision?
Was the prospect of a better life a consideration?
2. Migrant livelihood
circumstances in BAR
Describe your life here a migrant farmer
What is typical work routine like?
How would you assess your current living and work
conditions here in BAR compared to UWR?
Types of crops cultivated.
Are other people engaged (paid or unpaid) on your
farm?
3. Land tenure
arrangements
Describe how you obtained land for the farm you
currently work on
In your assessment, is this description typical for other
migrant farmers?
What are the terms of reference for the use of these lands?
How do you assess these arrangements?
Friend/relative knew the landowner?
Payment arrangements, farms of payments (cash/crop
share, installment/one-time payment)
Assessment of payment arrangement (is it fair?)
4. Access agricultural
resources and facilities
Is there a farmers’ cooperative that helps with purchase
and application of chemicals?
Can you describe what happens after you have harvested
your crops?
Are agricultural extension services available?
Do you sell harvested crops? To whom?
How far is your farm from the nearest market or major
road?
5. Remittance practices Why do you send remittances to UWR?
What do you typically remit to the UWR?
Any reasons why you sent such remittances?
How frequently do you send these remittances?
Frequency of remittances sent.
Food versus cash that is often remitted?
V. Z. Kuuire et al.
123
Author's personal copy
analysis (NVivo) was used as an organizational tool for
coding transcripts using open-coding techniques involving
the assignment of ideas as they emerge to text beside
sentences (Crang 2005).
Results
This section presents findings of the study. These are
divided into five themes, namely: migration decision-
making, negotiating land use, land tenure security, farm
labor constraints, and market, storage, and transportation
pressures. Quotes are provided in order to ground argu-
ments. Pseudonyms and relevant demographics (age, sex)
of the respondent are provided at the end of each quotation.
A summary of respondents’ characteristics are provided in
Table 2.
Migration decision-making
Participants in both interviews and FGDs constantly
stressed the involvement of entire households in their
migration process. Matters concerning who should migrate
to these agricultural locations were generally carefully
deliberated and evaluated by family members and typically
involved consultations with both immediate and extended
family. These dynamics were highlighted by a young
migrant who has been staying in BAR for over 5 years:
‘‘Before I left UWR I sat down with my family and dis-
cussed my intentions. My uncle volunteered to help raise
some start-up money for my transport and my food here’’
(Inusah, 27, M).
As shown in the above quote, deliberation of migration
decision often meant that household members contributed
financially to support the migration process and initial
resettlement expenses. As illustrated in the following two
quotes, this support was indispensable:
In that way, it feels like you have your kinsmen’s
blessings. The first season is the toughest because it’s
a totally strange place and you basically have noth-
ing, so it’s important to have some kind of support.
The money I was given was also used to pay for my
first land lease. (Abdullah, 31, M)
If you ignore them [family members] and you want to
come here, where will you get the money to start life
here? You need their support. (Karim, 34, M)
In light of this, migrants stated that those who do not
have supportive families and those from poorer households
find it difficult to successfully migrate or even do not
migrate at all. Such problems were highlighted by Abdul-
lah who indicated that he had delayed migration until his
family saved enough:
It took me a lot of time waiting for this move and I
am happy that it finally happened after my uncle
intervened. Finding the money was a big hassle. You
can have the desire but you also need enough money
to feed yourself and get the land on which to start the
farm. [31, M]
The collective nature of the decision-making process at
the household level partly demonstrates the importance of
the strategy in attempts at achieve sustainable livelihoods
among communities in UWR. It results in the spreading of
risks that have direct and indirect implications for poverty
reduction and sustainable livelihoods (de Haas 2006).
Negotiating land use
Difficulties involved in obtaining land for cultivation was
indicated by migrant farmers as one of the key factors
impeding farming in far-off destinations. Although land
was reported to be physically available in the area,
accounts of IDIs indicate that accessing land was a difficult
and frustrating process. It was reported that various social
and cultural norms and practices greatly hindered timely
availability of land to new arrivals. For instance, infor-
mants reported seemingly endless intricacies pertaining to
contractual details that needed to be sorted out before
access to land would be granted. These concerns were
Table 2 In-depth interview respondents’ characteristics (n = 27)
Characteristics Percent/mean
Age (years)
Age range 19–68
Average age 33
Gender (%)
Females 18.5
Males 81.5
Marital status (%)
Single 37.0
Married 55.6
Separated 7.4
Education attainment (%)
No education 44.4
Primary 29.6
Junior high school 26.0
Average length of stay in BAR (years) 7
Types of crops cultivated (%)
Only food crops 81.5
Food crops and cash crops 14.2
Only cash crops 3.7
Abandoning land in search of farms: challenges of subsistence migrant farming in Ghana
123
Author's personal copy
encapsulated by Atta who was visibly agitated about this
issue:
If you do not know anyone who can act as a guarantor
for you and convince the landlord that you will be
able to make your lease payment regularly, you can’t
get any land. (31, M)
According to respondents, chiefs traditionally own the
land in the area though in some cases individual families
also hold sizable pieces of land. On arrival, farmers face
the arduous task of identifying landowners from whom
they can potentially lease land. Participants clarified that
access to land was also undermined by what seemed to be
undue delays related to, for instance, the need for land
owners to perform traditional rites prior to transferring
usufruct rights to migrant farmers. These rituals included
the use of schnapps and palm wine as libation intended to
obtain permission and pacify the gods of the land as well as
bring good luck to the farmers themselves in terms of
increased crop yields. In addition, landowners placed
responsibility for obtaining items needed for rituals on
migrant farmers. This was frustrating as explained by a
male participant in the FGD conducted at Nwoase:
We don’t have a choice but to provide the items
needed. How can you refuse to make them available
when you are the one who desperately needs the
land? The fact that people back home have their eyes
on you for food also adds pressure on you to just
agree. (FGD1)
However, it was the financial demands associated with
land acquisition that presented the most formidable chal-
lenge to steady access to land. Once these rituals have been
performed, formal transfer of use rights had to be codified in
an agreement—usually verbal. Typically, land leases were
subject to renewal on a yearly basis but the intent to renew
had to be indicated well beforehand. According to many
respondents, the system of yearly land tenure renewal pri-
marily served economic interests of landowners as opposed
to the migrants as described in an in-depth interview by
Ameen who had been farming in the BAR for 3 years:
They know we will need it for more than a year but
they won’t allow you to have it for several years …so
when you go to see them again about your interest in
the land, they can charge you more. (28, M)
In view of this challenge, migrant farmers who report-
edly secured lease agreements lasting several years were
admired by others and were seen as ‘‘lucky.’’ Respondents
indicated that an agreement lasting between three to
5 years with clearly delineated terms was ideal. The terms
of payment for leased land varied with landowners. For
instance, while some landowners demanded full payment
upfront, others preferred installments. However, while
apparently straightforward, these arrangements were not
without complications. For instance, respondents indicated
widespread tendency for landowners to deliberately violate
the terms of these verbal contracts. Participants expressed
concerns that many landlords backtracked on standing
leases and arbitrarily demanded increases in land rent in the
middle of contracts. Issahaque who was visibly irritated by
this tendency recounted his ordeal:
I was surprised that one day my landlord suddenly
asked for additional rent for the land. But when I tried
to remind him about the contract he threatened to
evict me from the farm. I had no choice. I think he
backtracked on the contract because he saw that my
crop was doing very well. (36, M)
Such challenges presented constant anxiety to migrant
farmers who were scared of losing their lands and means of
livelihood. The fear of losing their land is unsurprising
since BAR is one of the locations in Ghana exposed to land
grabbing activities (Schoneveld et al. 2011). Land owners
in this area have a tendency of pitting current lease holders
against new arrivals and oftentimes it is the highest bidders
who prevails. It is worth noting that prior to the 1970s,
migrants gained access to land virtually free of any char-
ges. Land payment disputes rooted in undocumented
agreements between powerful landlords and migrants have
only increased in BAR in the last four decades (Kasanga
and Kotey 2001).
Not only did the types of lease differ from one landowner
to another, but informants also stated that even payments for
the land leases took different forms and varied with duration
of tenure. Generally, two major forms of payment were
allowable; cash payment or negotiated sharecropping
arrangements. Typically, sharecropping gave landowners
the authority to retain a certain portion (either half or one
third) of farm produce after harvest. This was reportedly a
more reliable arrangement especially among farmers whose
yields fell below expectation or whose produce could not
fetch anticipated market prices. A third payment option
combined both cash and farm produce for lease payments to
landlords. It is important to note that this hybrid option was
not the norm. Therefore, farmers considered the flexibility
afforded by the cash-kind option as a gesture of kindness
from the landowners as reported by a participant in the FGD
conducted at Offuman:
When I first came I paid cash for the land I farmed on
but after my first year of farming I did not get enough
money to pay the landowner for the following year. I
pleaded with him and paid cash and 2 bags of maize
after harvest. If he was not a good man he would have
taken back his land. (FGD2)
V. Z. Kuuire et al.
123
Author's personal copy
Although some landlords were generous, many respon-
dents reported various merciless practices, especially in the
event of rental default. Participants complained that land
rents were extremely high, which made it difficult for
farmers to pay. Generally, respondents in the Manso and
Nwoase paid between GH¢30 to GH¢50 per acre for a half
year of cultivation while those in Offuman area which is
located close to an agricultural service station rented land
for between GH¢60 and GH¢70 per acre per for half year1
cultivation. Participants indicated that these prices were
generally high and were constantly worried about the
possible consequences of defaulting. A respondent said that
a worst-case scenario would be one where defaulting
results in a migrant farmer being arrested. Many farmers
were aware of inequalities inherent in this system in a
context where while farmers did not have any recourse if a
landowner violated the contract, landowners could easily
bring defaulting farmers to justice. This illustrates the
unfair power relations between landowners and migrant
farmers. Participants in both FGDs and IDIs generally
reported the precarious family situation back home coupled
with often ruthless practices of landlords pressured them
into complying with landowners’ unscrupulous demands.
As a remedy, respondents indicated that in certain cases
they are given the option of paying cash for land or farm
produce. Because many relatively recent migrants or
newcomers did not have the amount of money required to
make such high cash rental payments, share cropping was
preferred as highlighted by one respondent:
As a new arrival you tend to have very little money to
give to the landowner and use the land. We usually
agree to give them part of our produce after we have
cultivated on the land. (Atta, 31, M)
Many farmers’ preference for sharecropping was also
linked to the idea of pooling the risk of crop and/or market
failure with the landowner as observed by a George:
When there is too much food on the [Techiman]
market, the produce are sold at very low prices.
Therefore you can’t get enough money for all the
things you want to do. (40, M)
The BAR like many Akan speaking areas of Ghana have
a long history of the abunu2 and abusa3 sharecropping
systems where landowners can appropriate up to half of the
crop produced by a tenant. According to Kasanga and
Kotey (2001), abunu and abusa initially applied to only
tree cropping but this practice was extended to include food
crop land contracts from the 1970s. These practices have
therefore been fairly entrenched and well known among
migrant farmers. Some indicated that their familiarity with
these practices in general partly make them more receptive
to such exploitative contractual terms.
Land tenure security
Overlaying challenges associated with land negotiations
was the concern that land rentals generally varied with the
kind of food crop being cultivated, creating a situation of
tenure insecurity in many cases. For instance, crops per-
ceived to be of high market value tended to attract higher
land rents from landowners. In a FGD, for instance, a
participant reported that, ‘‘when negotiating for the land
they [landlords] compare us [yam farmers] with those who
cultivate more exotic food stuffs such as garden eggs.’’
These views were supported by Ali, a tomato farmer who
lamented that landowners did not take into account the
inherent risks associated with such perishable crops:
You see, sometimes we make losses because we have
to sell quickly. We tend to reduce the price so we can
still get something small [money] before the tomatoes
get rotten. Otherwise how will you pay for the land?
(35, M)
Many migrant farmers were also reportedly afraid of
cultivating cash crops because, being poor, their overriding
concern was survival. This is evident in the kinds of crops
that dominate their agricultural activities when they start
cultivation in the BAR. Farmers only move on to take the
risk of cultivating more lucrative commercial food crops
after some time as explained by a participant in the FGD at
Offuman:
I had a small farm of yam when I first came…yam is
the crop that I now farm the most and a little maize as
well during the minor season. But when I initially
arrived here I did not cultivate this much yam.
(FGD2)
All respondents indicated that they sold part of what
they produced at the end of every year, which underscores
the dire need for cash among migrants. The money realized
from the sale of crops was used to reinvest in the farms,
remittances, health needs, personal up keep, and most
importantly payment for continual use of leased land.
Tending to their everyday needs sometimes directly
competed with the need to send enough food back home,
especially during times of poor harvest. In one of the IDIs,
Percy (26, M), for instance, remarked that ‘‘there are times
1 The BAR has two farming seasons within a year. Half a year of
cultivation means farming during only one of the two rainfall seasons
in a year.2 Abunu is a tenancy system where the proceeds from the harvest or
the farm may be divided equally between the tenant and the
landowner.3 Abusa is a tenancy system where the ratio of the tenant farmer’s
acreage to that of the landowner is two to one (see Benneh 1988).
Abandoning land in search of farms: challenges of subsistence migrant farming in Ghana
123
Author's personal copy
you know selling the food means sending less food and
money to our families back home’’. The tensions ushered in
by the desire to keep family food supplies flowing and also
meeting other needs that required selling of food for cash
were reportedly frustrating.
Last year around the time when my elderly father fell
sick and they needed food and money, my land rent
was also due and the landlord was demanding his
rent. I did not know what to do…so I sent the food
home and borrowed money to pay the landlord off.
[Abdullah, 31, M]
Migrants are under intense pressure to remit because of
expectations of their families back in the UWR. Meeting
their remittance obligations is paramount onmigrant priority
list. The influence of commercial large-scale farmers could
be driving landowners to adopt unpleasant behaviors in their
dealings with migrant farmers who default in rent payment.
Farm labor constraints
Acute labour shortage emerged as an important constraint
in migrant farmers’ ability to produce enough food for sale
and to send as remittance back home. Participants gener-
ally reported that cultivation in BAR requires a lot of
manual labor. It was reported that rich soils coupled with
abundant rainfall in the area while certainly conducive for
growing crops also resulted in constant need for weeding.
A regular supply of manual labor was required in order to
clear the fields and protect crops from otherwise aggressive
and persistent weeds. These concerns were highlighted by a
respondent in a FGD who stated that:
Unlike in UWR, the land here is extremely fertile. So
you don’t need any fertilizer at all. But the challenge
is that you need a lot of labor all the time until the
crop matures. Normally I weed three to four times in
just one growing season. If you can’t weed then all
your efforts are in vain because the weed is so
aggressive. (FGD2, Offuman)
Against this background migrant farmers relied on
young men whom they hired as casual laborers. These
workers were locally known as by-day-boys; this labor is
mobilized in the form of work parties ranging from two to
10 people. By-day-boys were typically seasonal workers.
Although they are generally considered an underclass even
by rural standards, respondents complained that by-day
boys’ charges for their labor could be extremely exorbitant.
It was reported that, ‘‘being also poor, by-day-workers also
wanted to take advantage of opportunities emerging in the
area to raise some money to go back to visit their families
back home [migrants’ home of origin]’’ (Inusah, 27, M).
But others thought that by-day-boys are opportunists who
are aware of the desperate labor needs of migrant workers.
Remuneration of by-day-boys is dependent on farm size,
extent of weed growth, and coverage and the number of by-
day-boys in a group as clarified by Mathias.
I came here alone and so I always work alone…my
family is far from here. I use by-day boys. They first
of all look at your face and if they think you look like
you have some money then they charge more. They
know you can’t refuse to pay because they know each
day you delay to weed, it dramatically reduces your
harvest and that your crops can die in a matter of
weeks. It is also hard to argue with these boys
because allegedly they can set your field ablaze if you
fail to pay them. It’s really hard for me to work alone
here although I have good land. (28, M)
Under such dire circumstances, it is not hard to see why
by-day-boys might want to leverage this desperate situation
to their advantage. Thus, they may be inclined to charge
exorbitant fees. Yet, the labor intensive nature of agricul-
ture makes them almost indispensable to people engaged in
agriculture in BAR.
Market, storage, and transportation challenges
Lack of amenities such as adequate transportation and
dependable storage facilities emerged as an important
source of frustration to most migrant farmers. The problem
of storage was reported by nearly all migrant farmers, but
was especially acute for those who grew perishable pro-
duce such as tomatoes and garden eggs. The majority of
complaints about storage related to the needed space for
safekeeping of their farm produce. Migrant farmers usually
put up small temporary shelters on their farms which can
be several hours walk from where they live. They stay in
these facilities for varying periods depending on the
farming season. Living in temporary shelters cobbled from
sticks and mud, many farmers complained about lack of
space in their homes to store harvested yams and maize,
which are normally stored under thatched sheds to avoid
loss from theft and exposure to bad weather and pests.
However, these concerns were also linked to security as
narrated by Dagbanja:
I am here on impermanent basis and I live in a small
temporary hut that doesn’t have enough space or
secure doors. Although we would like to keep our
harvest in the house, we end up keeping it outside
because of lack of space. My biggest fear is the bad
weather, especially when it rains. But even if I keep it
indoors I am still scared of theft. (M, 29)
The lack of adequate storage space was reported as one
of the major factors that pushed farmers to hurriedly sell
V. Z. Kuuire et al.
123
Author's personal copy
off their goods after harvest. However, farmers also
lamented that during such periods of glut, they are unable
to obtain fair prices for their goods. In this regard, farmers
who cultivate tomatoes and yams were the most vulnerable
as explained by a participant in a FGD conducted at
Nwoase.
The women who come here to buy the tomatoes
complain that the truck owners charge them a lot of
money because the roads here are bad. They [market
women] say that if we don’t reduce the prices they
would make losses. (FGD1)
Respondents who cultivated perishables reported some
form of unfair dealings with market women. Respondents
expressed disappointment following the sale of their pro-
duce as highlighted by Dari and a participant in the FGD
conducted at Manso:
When they come here we don’t usually measure the
amount of tomatoes. They look at the heap and tell us
how much they are going to buy and then we bargain
with them… but when they go back they put them in
cartons and sell at very expensive prices to other
market women who sell them in Accra, Kumasi, and
other places. (Dari, 30, M)
The market is only good for us during the early part
of the harvesting season and also when the harvesting
season has been over for some time….this is because
at the peak of the harvesting season there is so much
on the market and so you won’t get good prices for
your produce. (FGD3)
However, in addition to market and storage problems,
remitting food to families back home emerged as a key
challenge for migrant farmers. Respondents agonized that
sending food back home is one of the most excruciating
steps of the enterprise, as one farmer in the FGD at Manso
related:
The most painful part is that it’s the last but most
worrisome aspect of my life. You can have a bumper
yield but what’s the point if the food can’t get to the
table at home. (FGD3)
These worries pertained to unreliable transport. It was
reported that the major means through which the harvest
was remitted to respective families back home was private
transport. Private transporters would gather food from
disparate migrant farmers spread over the area together
with information about the addressee and deliver the food
at central places in the UWR. While certainly the only
means of transport available, this strategy presented a
number of challenges. Firstly, farmers stated that due to the
private nature of the available transport business, the cost
of sending food home was extremely expensive. In addi-
tion, there was an increase in incidences of thefts along the
way. The long distance coupled with poor road conditions
means that drivers take several days to drive the food items
from food producing remote villages in the BAR to desired
destinations in UWR, making several stops along the way.
Reportedly this increased not only the risk of theft, but also
chances of food items being spoiled by bad weather,
especially rainfall. Farmers emphasized that sending the
food back home was a nerve-racking moment as high-
lighted by Tizoo:
The moment I pack my foodstuffs is the same
moment I start praying until I get a message that my
family has received it. This is because sending food
does not guarantee that it will get there. Bridges get
washed away, occasionally bandits target these
transporters and steal the food, or rain can soak and
spoil the food items while in transit. (31, M)
In certain cases, food remittances were delivered to
wrong collection points. Due to these problems, respon-
dents stated that the time of remitting food was particularly
a nail-biting time. It was sometimes difficult for kinsmen to
believe that the food has been lost or spoiled along the way,
leading to mistrust and tensions among family members.
The foregoing discussion underscores a complex web of
challenges that shape migrant farming presently on the rise
in BAR of Ghana.
Discussion and conclusions
Migration remains a popular strategy for escaping inten-
sifying livelihood insecurity for an expanding section of
rural poor in Ghana amid deepening poverty and environ-
mental change (Kothari 2002; Abdul-Korah 2007;
Awumbila and Ardayfio-Schandorf 2008; Lobnibe 2010;
van der Geest et al. 2010). In the case of migrant farmers,
the transition from seasonal migrant farm laborers to per-
manent settlers with the establishment of farms in BAR is
an increasing practice. However, while certainly providing
an important escape from utter livelihood collapse, findings
of this study also suggest that the livelihood significance of
migrant farming must be understood within the limitations
imposed by a social and institutional context within which
this strategy is pursued. The findings of this study suggest
that while migrating to BAR was an important step in the
search for a sustainable livelihood, prevailing circum-
stances including land tenure, labor requirements, and
infrastructure challenges placed harsh limitations on the
ability of migrants’ to realize their dreams.
As evident from the findings of this study, migrant
farmers realized that their migration to BAR to engage in
Abandoning land in search of farms: challenges of subsistence migrant farming in Ghana
123
Author's personal copy
farming did not automatically translate into access to the
resources required for agriculture production. Consistent
with the sustainable livelihood framework, access to pro-
duction resources was compounded by prevailing social
and political structures at varying scales as well as the
interests of landowners (Ellis 2003; Bryant and Bailey
1997). Land is the most important agrarian resource, and
those who control it tend to wield a lot of power. Conse-
quently, migrant farmers were especially vulnerable to
opportunistic behavior of landowners in their negotiation
and implementation of usufruct agreements. These nego-
tiations are within the broader context that migrant farmers
are in competition with commercial farmers who might be
engaged in land grabbing (Schoneveld et al. 2011;
ElHadary and Obeng-Odoom 2012). The absence of any
institutional mechanisms for addressing grievances when
disputes arose between the parties can reinforce the vul-
nerability and poverty among migrant farmers.
While migrating to BAR brought migrant farmers into
close proximity with fertile lands they somuch lack at home,
this move however had the negative effect of separating
migrants from another vital agricultural resource—family
labor. Mobilization of domestic and kin labor, including
inter-household reciprocal labor arrangements continue to
be vital sources of farm labor in rural communities in SSA
(Mkandawire et al. 2014; Bezner-Kerr 2005).
The geographically inequitable development in Ghana
also compounded the experiences of migrant farmers in
profound ways. Due to a legacy of spatially uneven past
development policies of colonial and post-colonial
regimes, including SAPs, much of rural Ghana still has an
underdeveloped agricultural market and transport infras-
tructure (Anyinam 1994; Scoones et al. 2005). Institutional
challenges such as poor rural feeder road networks and lack
of storage facilities undermined profitable marketing of
agricultural produce. In addition to unreliable transport and
storage system, lack of security as evident by increasing
incidence of theft considerably undermined food remit-
tance to families left behind in the UWR.
In highlighting these challenges, the findings of this
study suggest that while an important source of livelihood,
migrant farming remains a highly fragile and insecure
livelihood strategy—evidenced by the challenges encoun-
tered by migrant farmers. This study therefore has uncov-
ered important aspects of rural poverty that are not well
understood or remain obscured from existing studies on
livelihoods or migration. In revealing these challenges, this
study seeks to improve understanding of smallholder
migrant livelihoods in a rapidly changing world and reveal
strategic areas that should form the basis of policy inter-
vention. For example, improving rural road infrastructure
can go a long way in improving rural transport efficiency
that would facilitate speedy and secure food remittance and
transportation to market centers. Similarly, attention should
be paid to land tenure regimes in rural areas. The lack of
trust between migrant farmers and landowners and asso-
ciated lack of adherence to contractual agreements on the
part of landowners remains an outstanding issue that needs
to be addressed in order to allow migrants farmers some
freedom in the quest to food production and sustainable
livelihoods. Innovative ways that allow for more trans-
parent and reliable land transactions that guarantee security
for both owners and tenants need to be explored. We agree
with Berry (2009), in this situation, social alliances nec-
essary for land negotiations could be nurtured by migrant
farmers as a form of a support system to improve their
ability to negotiate reasonable contract conditions of land
use and associated compensation with landlords. Although
migrant farmers in this area have frequently formed town
and village associations, the groups are still generally
rudimentary and would need to be strengthened to be able
to perform significant bargaining functions. Most of the
network ties of farmers tend to be within migrants—a
means through which they share vital information on land
management (Isaac et al. 2014). Improving such conditions
can greatly facilitate improvements in livelihood security
of migrant farmers in Ghana.
This paper brings to light challenges faced by migrant
farmers in their attempt to improve their livelihood con-
ditions. The illustrations suggest that there is the need to
appreciate migration from less favorable agricultural
regions within much broader lenses. In the case of the
north-south migration trend in Ghana, this is particularly
important as the once dominant short duration cyclical
migration is being replaced by more long-term and even
permanent stays in the BAR. Although our findings indi-
cate migrants’ realities of farming in the BAR generally as
uncomfortable, it seemed clear that migrant farmers still
consider the conditions in BAR relatively better as a source
of food and income when compared to the depleted envi-
ronments in the UWR. Consequently, for some people in
UWR, the circumstance of migration to the BAR is seen in
the context of an escape to a much favorable environment
with brighter livelihood prospects.
Acknowledgments Many thanks to Karen Van Kerkoerle, of the
Cartographic Unit, Department of Geography, University of Western
Ontario, Canada for drawing the map of the study area. We are also
appreciative of the useful comments provided by Siera Vercillo and
four anonymous reviewers. We however, are entirely responsible for
any shortcomings in the paper.
References
Abdul-Korah, G. 2007. ‘‘Where is not home?’’: Dagaaba migrants in
the Brong Ahafo Region, 1980 to the present. African Affairs
106(422): 71–94.
V. Z. Kuuire et al.
123
Author's personal copy
Adger, W.N. 1999. Social vulnerability to climate change and
extremes in coastal Vietnam. World Development 27: 249–269.
Altieri, M.A., F.R. Funes-Monzote, and P. Petersen. 2012. Agroeco-
logically efficient agricultural systems for smallholder farmers:
Contributions to food sovereignty. Agronomy for Sustainable
Development 32(1): 1–13.
Anyinam, C. 1994. Spatial implications of Structural Adjustment
Programs in Ghana. Journal of Economic and Social Geography
85(5): 446–460.
Awumbila, M., and E. Ardayfio-Schandorf. 2008. Gendered poverty,
migration, and livelihood strategies of female porters in Accra,
Ghana. Norwegian Journal of Geography 62(3): 171–179.
Barrios, S., L. Bertinelli, and E. Strobl. 2006. Climatic change and
rural-urban migration: The case of sub-Saharan Africa. Journal
of Urban Economics 60(3): 357–371.
Benneh, G. 1988. The land tenure and agrarian system in the new
cocoa frontier of Ghana: Wassa Akropong case study. In
Agricultural expansion and pioneer settlements in the humid
tropics, ed. W. Manshard, and W.B. Morgan, 225–240. Tokyo:
University Press Japan.
Berry, S. 2009. Property, authority, and citizenship: Land claims,
politics, and the dynamics of social division in West Africa.
Development and Change 40(1): 23–45.
Bezner-Kerr, R. 2005. Informal labor and social relations in Northern
Malawi: The theoretical challenges and implications of Ganyu
labor for food security. Rural Sociology 70(2): 167–187.
Bhandari, P.B. 2013. Rural livelihood change? Household capital,
community resources, and livelihood transition. Journal of Rural
Studies 32: 126–136.
Braimoh, A.K. 2004. Seasonal migration and land-use change in
Ghana. Land Degradation and Development 15(1): 37–47.
Bryant, L.R. 1998. Power, knowledge, and political ecology in the
third world: A review. Progress in Physical Geography 22:
79–94.
Bryant, L.R., and S. Bailey. 1997. Third world political ecology.
London: Routledge.
Crang, P. 2005. Analyzing qualitative materials. InMethods in human
geography: A guide to doing a research project, 2nd ed, ed.
R. Flowerdew, and D. Martins, 218–232. Essex, England:
Pearson Educational Ltd.
de Haan, A. 1999. Livelihoods and poverty: The role of migration—a
critical review of the migration literature. Journal of Develop-
ment Studies 36(2): 1–47.
de Haas, H. 2006. Migration, remittances, and regional development
in Southern Morocco. Geoforum 37(4): 565–580.
Dietz, T., K. van der Geest, and F. Obeng. 2013. Local perceptions of
development and change in Northern Ghana. In Rural develop-
ment in Northern Ghana, ed. J. Yaro, 17–36. New York USA:
Nova Science Publishers.
ElHadary, Y.A.E., and F. Obeng-Odoom. 2012. Conventions,
changes, and contradictions in land governance in Africa: The
story of land grabbing in North Sudan and Ghana. Africa Today
59(2): 58–78.
Ellis, F. 2003. Human vulnerability and food insecurity: Policy
implications for food security in Southern Africa. Theme Paper
No. 3. London: Overseas Development Institute.
Ellis, F., and E. Allison. 2004. Livelihood diversification and natural
resource access. Norwich, UK: Overseas Development Group,
University of East Anglia.
Ellis, F., and H.A. Freeman. 2004. Rural livelihoods and poverty
reduction in four African countries. Journal of Development
Studies 40(4): 231–242.
Ellis, F., M. Kutengule, and A. Nyasulu. 2003. Livelihoods and rural
poverty reduction in Malawi. World Development 31(9):
1495–1510.
Ghana Statistical Service (GSS). 2011. Housing and population
census report of Ghana. Accra.
Greenberg, J.B., and T.K. Park. 1994. Political ecology. Journal of
Political Ecology 1: 1–12.
Isaac, M.E., L.C. Anglaaere, D.S. Akoto, and E. Dawoe. 2014.
Migrant farmers as information brokers: Agroecosystem man-
agement in the transition zone of Ghana. Ecology and Society
19(2): 56.
Kasanga, K., and N.A. Kotey. 2001. Land management in Ghana:
Building on tradition and modernity. London: International
Institute for Environment and Development.
Konadu-Agyemang, K., and S. Adanu. 2003. The changing geogra-
phy of export trade in Ghana under Structural Adjustment
Programs: Some socio-economic spatial implications. The Pro-
fessional Geographer 55(4): 513–527.
Kothari, Uma. 2002. Migration and chronic poverty. Working Paper
No. 16, Chronic Poverty Research Center. Institute for Devel-
opment Policy and Management, University of Manchester.
Kuuire, V., P. Mkandawire, G. Arku, and I. Luginaah. 2013.
‘‘Abandoning’’ farms in search of food: Food remittance and
household food security in Ghana. African Geographical Review
32(2): 125–139.
Lobnibe, I. 2010. Of Jong migrants and Jongsecans: Understanding
contemporary rural out-migration from Northwest Ghana. Jour-
nal of Dagaare Studies 7(10): 1–21.
Luginaah, I., T. Weis, S. Galaa, K.M. Nkrumah, R. Benzer-Ker, and
D. Bagah. 2009. Environment, migration, and food security in
the Upper West of Ghana. In Environment and health in sub-
Saharan Africa: Managing an emerging crisis, ed. I.N. Lugi-
naah, and E.K. Yanful, 25–38. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Mkandawire, P., I. Luginaah, and J.Baxter. 2014.Growing up an orphan:
Vulnerability of adolescent girls to HIV inMalawi. Transactions of
the Institute of British Geographers 39(1): 128–139.
Nyantakyi-Frimpong, H., and R.B. Kerr. 2014. A political ecology of
high-input agriculture in northern Ghana. African Geographical
Review 34(1): 13–35.
Polkinghorne, E.D. 2005. Language and meaning: Data collection in
qualitative research. Journal of Counseling Psychology 52(2):
137–145.
Posel, D., and D. Casale. 2003. What has been happening to internal
labor migration in South Africa, 1993–1999? The South African
Journal of Economics 71(3): 455–479.
Potts, D. 2006. Rural migration as a response to land shortage in
Malawi. Population, Space, and Place 12(4): 291–311.
Primavera, C. 2005. Rural-rural migration in Ghana: The effects of
out-migration on the sustainability of agriculture in the Upper
West Region of Ghana. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Faculty of
Social and Behavioral Science, University of Amsterdam.
Robbins, P. 2004. Political ecology: A critical introduction. New
York: Blackwell.
Schoneveld, C.G., L.A. German, and E. Nutakor. 2011. Land-based
investments for rural development? A grounded analysis of the
local impacts of biofuel feedstock plantations in Ghana. Ecology
and Society 16(4): 10.
Schrieder, G., and B. Knerr. 2000. Labour migration as a social
security mechanism for smallholder households in Sub-Saharan
Africa: The case of Cameroon. Oxford Development Studies
28(2): 223–236.
Scoones, I. 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for
analysis. IDS Working Paper 72.
Scoones, I., S. Devereux, and L. Haddad. 2005. Introduction: New
directions for African agriculture. IDS Bulletin 36: 1–12.
Smith, L.E. 2004. Assessment of the contribution of irrigation to
poverty reduction and sustainable livelihoods. International
Journal of Water Resources Development 20(2): 243–257.
Abandoning land in search of farms: challenges of subsistence migrant farming in Ghana
123
Author's personal copy
Songsore, J. 1983. Intrarergional and interregional labor migration
in historical perspectives: the case of northern Ghana. Port
Harcourt, Nigeria: University of Port Harcourt Press.
Songsore, J., and A. Denkabe. 1995. Challenging rural poverty in
northern Ghana: The case of the Upper West Region. NTNU:
Trondheim.
Sutton, I. 1989. Colonial agricultural policy: The non-development of
the northern territories of the gold coast. The International
Journal of African Historical Studies 22(4): 637–669.
Taabazuing, J., I. Luginaah, G. Djietror, and M.K. Otiso. 2012.
Mining, conflicts, and livelihood struggles in a dysfunctional
policy environment: The case of Wassa West District, Ghana.
African Geographical Review 31(1): 33–49.
Van der Geest, K. 2011. North-south migration in Ghana: What role
for the environment? International Migration 49: e69–e94.
Van der Geest, K. 2010. Local perceptions of migration from
northwest Ghana. Africa 80(4): 595–619.
Van der Geest, K., and R. de Jeu. 2008. Climate change and
displacement: Ghana. Forced Migration Review 16: 31.
Van der Geest, K., A. Vrieling, and T. Dietz. 2010. Migration and
environment in Ghana: A cross-district analysis of human
mobility and vegetation dynamics. Environment and Urbaniza-
tion 22(1): 107–123.
Walker, A.P. 2005. Political ecology: Where is the ecology? Progress
in Human Geography 29: 73–82.
Vincent Z. Kuuire is a Ph.D. Candidate in Geography at University
of Western Ontario, Canada. His research interest areas include
migration, agriculture, food security, livelihoods, and development in
sub-Saharan Africa.
Paul Mkandawire is an Assistant Professor with the Institute of
Interdisciplinary Studies at Carleton University. His professional and
academic background is interdisciplinary and spans across eco-
nomics, international development, and health geography. Broadly,
his research is situated in the field of the social and environmental
determinants of health.
Isaac Luginaah is a Professor of Geography, a Canada Research
Chair in Health Geography at University of Western Ontario, and
Royal Society of Canada New Scholar. His broad area of research
interest includes environment and population health.
Godwin Arku is an Associate Professor of Geography at the
Department of Geography at the University of Western Ontario. His
research spans urban and economic geography, especially their
relation to the transformation of urban systems in a changing global
environment.
V. Z. Kuuire et al.
123
Author's personal copy
