Shifting trends in rural livelihood a case study of asutifi district

Shifting Trends in Rural Livelihood: A Case Study of Asutifi District

Shifting Trends in Rural LivelihoodA CASE STUDY OF ASUTIFI DISTRICT

August 2006

Authors:Amma Birago Safo-KantankaEbenezer AttahEnoch OfosuJeroen NagelMary Anne AkutoMaurice van BeurdenPearl Boadiwaa KrahRichard Ahiagble

GHANAUNIVERSITEIT VAN AAMSTERDAM

1


Shifting Trends in Rural LivelihoodA CASE STUDY OF ASUTIFI DISTRICT

August 2006

Authors:Amma Birago Safo-Kantanka PlanningEbenezer Attah PlanningEnoch Ofosu Natural Resource Mgt.Jeroen Nagel Science and Innovation Mgt.Mary Anne Akuto Natural Resource Mgt.Maurice van Beurden Human Technology InteractionPearl Krah Biological ScienceRichard Ahiagble Psychology

Supervising team:Dr. S. Amissah, Faculty of Renewable Natural Resources, KNUSTDr. K. Boateng, Faculty of Renewable Natural Resources, KNUSTMr. S. Nketiah, Tropenbos International GhanaDr. S.E.Edusah Bureau of Integrated Rural Development, KNUSTMr. K. Afrifah, Institute of Renewable Natural Resources, KNUSTDr. C. Adu-Anning, Faculty of Renewable Natural Resources, KNUSTDr. Acheampong, Faculty of Renewable Natural Resources, KNUSTDr. Ohene – Yankyera, Faculty of Agricultural Science, KNUSTMr. K.A. Afrifah Faculty of Renewable Natural Resources, KNUSTMr. B.B. Campion Faculty of Renewable Natural Resources, KNUST

This research has been done in the context of an interdisciplinary student programme organized and financed by Tropenbos International Ghana (TBI-Ghana), using the educational model developed by the University of Amsterdam (UvA) and supervised by lecturers of the Institute of Renewable Natural Resources of Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST) and TBI-Ghana staff. The Ghanaian members of the research group are mainly fresh graduates from different universities in Ghana. The Dutch students are Master students form different universities in the Netherlands.

GHANA

UNIVERSITEIT VAN AMSTERDAM

2


PREFACEThis report recounts the activities of a project undertaken by an interdisciplinary team of students from the 29th of May 2006 – 1st of September. The Ghanaian members of the research group are mainly fresh graduates from different universities in Ghana. The Dutch students are Master students from different universities in the Netherlands.

The student programme was organized and financed by Tropenbos International Ghana (TBI-Ghana), using the educational model developed by the University of Amsterdam (UvA) and supervised by lecturers of the Institute of Renewable Natural Resources of Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST) and TBI-Ghana staff.

The team (frequently referred to as the livelihood group) was task with the responsibility of coming out with this research report about shifting trends in rural in Ghana, using Asutifi District as a case study.

Mr. Samuel Kwabena Nketiah, the programme team leader, Tropenbos International –Ghana, together with staff members: Mr. Kojo Affrifah and Dr. Acheampong from the Faculty of Renewable Natural Resources (FRNR) of Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), Kumasi were involved in looking at the scientific quality of the project.

The group thanks all and sundry who in one way or the other contributed to the success ofthis project. We deem it necessary to thank the entire staff of the Asutifi District Assembly especially the District Chief Executive and the District Planning Officer, for their precious time, deep interest and willingness to help the team in diverse ways.

As a group, we wish to acknowledge each other’s contribution, concern, dedication and love that kept us together for all these fourteen (14) weeks.Finally and most importantly, we thank the Almighty God for how far he brought us.

3


ABSTRACTThe concept of livelihood is of utmost importance to all development partners particularly the Department for International Development (DFID). A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets and activities required for a means of living. It is much more than a job as it covers a whole range of things people do to make a living.

People employ a diversity of means to help meet basic needs: food crop production; cash crop production; forest and tree product gathering, consumption, processing and sale; and income earning enterprises both on and off the farm at different times and places. Due to the dynamisms in society, people shift from one livelihood activity to the other in order to make a living and this creates the problem of livelihood insecurity. Questions that come to mind as people shift from one livelihood activity to the other include:

What are the characteristics of the assets which people draw their livelihood from? What are the livelihood activities available to people? How effective is the role of stakeholders in ensuring livelihood security for people?

In line with the above questions, a study was conducted in the Asutifi District in the Brong-Ahafo Region to analyse the livelihood trends of the people in the context of sustainable development. The specific objectives of the study included: To identify the characteristics of the assets from which people draw their livelihoods, to identify the livelihood activities and their contributions to household needs and to determine the effectiveness of the roles of the stakeholders in ensuring livelihood security for the people.

The study adopted a participatory approach by involving community members (as household respondents) and other stakeholders (the District Assembly, traditional leaders, Unit Committees and other non-governmental organizations as key informants) to achieve the research objectives. Data sources included both primary and secondary data. The primary data was collected through questionnaire administration, focus group discussions, key informant interviews and non-participant observation. The primary data was analysed both quantitatively and qualitatively in line with the specific research objectives. The secondary sources consisted of a desk study of books, journals, and the internet to extract information and statistics on livelihood related topics including the concept of sustainable livelihood, livelihood assets, rural livelihood and livelihood diversification.

The research revealed that people in the four communities visited still depend on natural capital (mainly farm lands) as their major livelihood asset from which they draw their livelihood. The major economic activity that people engage in as a means of living is agriculture (mainly crop farming) as indicated by 50 percent of the respondents. The study further revealed that there has been a shift in the livelihood activities of the people as admitted by 41 percent of the respondents. The major cause of the shift in livelihood activity of the people is the presence of the Newmont Mining Company in the study district. Other causes of the shift include land administration problems and low income.

In line with the research findings, it is recommended that farmers should be trained in improved farming technology in order to improve their production level. This recommendation is made based on the fact that Newmont Mining Company has taken about 7500 hectares of farm lands and farmers can now hardly practice shifting cultivation which they had hither to practiced. It is also recommended that the youth should be equipped with employable skills to improve their chances of getting employment aside farming. It is again recommended that the activities of Newmont Mining Company should be well monitored to promote livelihood security for the people

4


Table of Content

Preface.................................................................................................................................3Abstract..............................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.List of figures.......................................................................................................................7List of tables.........................................................................................................................7Acronyms.............................................................................................................................7

1 Introduction..................................................................................................................81.1 Statement of the Problem.....................................................................................81.2 Research questions...............................................................................................91.3 Research Objectives.............................................................................................9

1.3.1 General objective.........................................................................................91.3.2 Specific objectives.......................................................................................91.3.3 Scope............................................................................................................91.3.4 Limitation.....................................................................................................9

2 Theoretical framework...............................................................................................102.1 The Concept of Sustainable Livelihood.............................................................102.2 Livelihood Assets..............................................................................................112.3 The Role of Institutions in Livelihood Security................................................132.4 Rural Livelihood................................................................................................142.5 Rural Livelihood Diversification.......................................................................14

3 Background of the study area....................................................................................163.1 Introduction........................................................................................................163.2 Physical characteristics......................................................................................16

3.2.1 Location and size.......................................................................................163.2.2 Topography and drainage..........................................................................163.2.3 Geology and minerals................................................................................173.2.4 Climate and vegetatation...........................................................................173.2.5 Soils and crops suitability..........................................................................17

3.3 Demographic characteristics..............................................................................183.3.1 Population Size and Growth Rates:...........................................................183.3.2 Age and Sex Structure...............................................................................183.3.3 Population by settlement: rural urban split................................................193.3.4 Migration...................................................................................................193.3.5 District economy........................................................................................193.3.6 Household income and expenditure...........................................................19

3.3.6.1 Income pattern........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.3.3.6.2 Expenditure pattern................................................................................19

4 Research methodology...............................................................................................214.1 Target Population...............................................................................................214.2 Data Sources......................................................................................................21

4.2.1 Data Collection Procedure.........................................................................21

5


4.2.1.1 Household questionnaires......................................................................214.2.1.2 Key informant questionnaires................................................................214.2.1.3 Focussed group discussions...................................................................21

4.2.2 Sampling Method.......................................................................................224.2.3 Sample size................................................................................................22

4.3 Data Analysis.....................................................................................................22

5 Results and Discussion..............................................................................................235.1 Background of Respondents..............................................................................23

5.1.1 Sex of Respondents....................................................................................235.1.2 Age of Respondents...................................................................................235.1.3 Marital Status.............................................................................................245.1.4 Religion......................................................................................................245.1.5 Level of Education.....................................................................................245.1.6 Tribe of Respondents.................................................................................24

5.2 Migration...........................................................................................................245.2.1 In-migration...............................................................................................245.2.2 Out migration.............................................................................................25

5.3 Assets From Which People Draw Their Livelihood..........................................255.3.1 Natural Assets............................................................................................255.3.2 Financial Assets.........................................................................................265.3.3 Social Assets..............................................................................................265.3.4 Physical Assets..........................................................................................275.3.5 Human Assets............................................................................................27

5.4 Livelihood Activities.........................................................................................285.4.1 Agricultural Activities...............................................................................28

5.4.1.1 Crop Farming.........................................................................................285.4.1.2 Land Holdings for Farming Purposes....................................................295.4.1.3 Animal Production.................................................................................30

5.4.2 Problems faced by Farmers........................................................................305.4.3 Commerce..................................................................................................315.4.4 Service.......................................................................................................315.4.5 Industry......................................................................................................325.4.6 Gender and Livelihood Activities..............................................................325.4.7 Contribution of Livelihood Activities to Household Needs......................335.4.8 Shift in Livelihood.....................................................................................345.4.9 Trends in Economic Activities..................................................................36

5.5 Causes of shifts in Livelihood Activities...........................................................375.6 Effects of Shift...................................................................................................38

5.6.1 Positive Effect in Livelihood Activities.....................................................385.6.2 Negative Effects.........................................................................................39

6 Findings and Conclusions..........................................................................................426.1 Findings.............................................................................................................426.2 Assets From Which People Draw Their Livelihoods........................................426.3 Livelihood Activities Available.........................................................................42

6


6.4 Shift in Livelihood Activities............................................................................436.5 Causes and Effects of The Shift.........................................................................43

7 Recommendations......................................................................................................44

References..................................................................................................................46

AppendicesAppendix 1: Location study Area………………………………………………………………48Appendix 2: HOUSEHOLD INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE (HIQ)………………..49

Appendix 3: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION CHECK LIST……………………….55

List of figures

Figure 5-1 Gender of Respondents....................................................................................23Figure 5-2 Respondents Membership of Social Groups....................................................26Figure 5-3 Relationship between Gender and Economic Activities..................................33Figure 5-4 Previous Occupations of Respondents who Perceived a Shift.........................34Figure 5-5 Reasons for Unsatisfaction with Current Occupations....................................35Figure 5-6 Trend analysis of Economic Activities by sector employment......................36Figure 5-7 Perceived Reasons for Shift in Livelihood Activity........................................38

List of tables

Tabel 3-1 Soils and Crops Suitability................................................................................18Table 5-1: Religion of Respondents..................................................................................24Table 5-2: Livelihood Activities........................................................................................28Table 5-3: Major Crops Cultivated....................................................................................29Table 7-1: Action Plan…………………………………………………………………...45

Acronyms

DA District Assembly MoFA Ministry of Food and AgricultureNGGL Newmont Ghana Gold Limited OICI Opportunity Industrialization Centre International PA Plan AllianceWCED World Commission on Environment and Development

Introduction

A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources) and activities required for a means of living. It is much more than a job as it covers a whole range of things people do to make a living. A livelihood is sustainable if it can recover from stresses and

7


shocks maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets while not undermining the natural resources base (Scoones, 1998). It can therefore be said to be sustainable if it is socially responsible, economically efficient and environmentally viable to the people involved. The concept of livelihood has remained a subject of utmost concern due to its inevitable role in human existence.

Rural households in developing countries have three broad options to improve their livelihoods. These include natural resource based activities; non-natural resources based activities and migration to other agricultural areas or to urban areas (Carney, 1998). These are however not separate but mutually exclusive paths. The vast majority of rural households in West Africa follow at least two of the three strategies simultaneously (Brycesson, 1999). In most cases resources found within ones immediate vicinity will provide a livelihood for the people. It is therefore apparent that rural livelihood in forest fringe communities generally revolves around agriculture production and direct dependence on forest resources and activities.

Livelihood insecurity remains a major problem in less developed countries, particularly those in Africa. Poverty, famine and malnutrition are serious, perennial problems that these nations have to grapple with. Poverty in the developing world is more a rural than an urban phenomenon, and in the poorest developing countries, 65-80 percent of the population still live in rural areas (Shepherd et al, 1999). There is though the ability for the rural poor to move out of poverty but this is critically dependent on how accessible the assets are. It is therefore essential to investigate the roles of these livelihood assets in supporting the livelihoods of the rural poor, their relative importance in rural livelihood support, and how these can be improved to offer viable livelihood outcomes.

1.1 Statement of the Problem

Rural people, especially the poor, employ a diversity of means to help meet basic needs: food crop production; cash crop production; forest and tree product gathering, consumption, processing and sale; and income earning enterprises both on and off the farm. The recent intensification of agricultural production, overgrazing and conversion of Agricultural land to several other uses due to population pressure has resulted in several undesirable changes in the environment with adverse effects on Agriculture (Okigbo, 1997). This often leaves most rural folks with an option of a shift in livelihood. In the bid to secure their livelihood, people shift from one livelihood option to the other and this at times creates the problem of livelihood insecurity. This could be a total change in their means of living or a shift in the focus of their means of livelihood.

The situation at the rural communities in the Asutifi District in the Brong Ahafo Region may not be different from what is happening in other rural communities in the country and rural African communities at large. Livelihood insecurity is a problem in the Asutifi district considering the fact that natural capital in the form of lands for farming are being lost to mining within the past two years.

In the light of the above expositions, this study seeks to analyze the livelihood trends pertaining to the Asutifi District to ensure livelihood security in the context of sustainable development.

1.2 Research questions

To guide the research the following questions are of utmost importance: What are the characteristics of the assets which people draw their livelihood from?

8


What are the livelihood activities available to the people and their contribution to household needs?

Are there any shifts in the livelihood activities of the people? If there is a shift, what are the causes of the shift in the livelihood of the people and their

effects? How effective is the role of the stakeholders in ensuring livelihood security for the

people?

1.3 Research Objectives

The objectives of this research are two-fold: general and specific objectives.

1.3.1 General Objective

To analyze the livelihood trends pertaining to the Asutifi District to ensure livelihood security in the context of sustainable development.

1.3.2 Specific Objectives

To identify the characteristics of the assets from which people draw their livelihoods. Identify the livelihood activities available and their contributions to household needs. To determine the extent of shifts in livelihoods of the people. To identify the main causes of shifts in livelihoods and their effects. To determine the effectiveness of the roles of the stakeholders in ensuring livelihood

security for the people.

1.3.3 Scope

The scope of this research was both geographical and conceptual. The geographical scope was limited to selected communities in the Asutifi District. In order to achieve the research objectives and answer the research questions, the study was limited to four communities within the Asutifi district. These communities were Kenyase No.2, Hwediem, Ola and Ntotoroso resettlement communities. The conceptual scope however aimed at identifying the types and the contribution of various livelihoods to household needs, the assets from which people draw their livelihoods, various stakeholders and their roles in the livelihood of the people of Asutifi District as well as the causes and effects of changes in the livelihood of the people in the Asutifi District.

1.3.4 Limitation

In an attempt to answer the research questions for this project, a number of limitations were encountered. These included difficulty in administering some of the questionnaires. Some major stakeholders such as Newmont were not available for interviews. Other stakeholders such as traditional rulers were also not available for interviewing and in most cases sub-chiefs were alternatives.

9


2 Theoretical framework

This chapter focuses on how various authors and authorities have defined the concepts involved in this research. The topics that have been covered in this section include the concept of sustainable livelihood, livelihood assets, role of institutions in livelihood security, rural livelihood and livelihood diversification.

2.1 The Concept of Sustainable Livelihood

The concept of ‘sustainable livelihood’ is increasingly important in development debate. In view of this, different authors have expressed their views on what sustainable livelihood is or is not. Thus, different interpretations, often without clear and unambiguous meanings, have been given to the term sustainable livelihood’. As Carswell et al (1997) point out: “definitions of sustainable livelihoods are often unclear, inconsistent and relatively narrow. Without clarification, there is a risk of simply adding to a conceptual muddle…”.

Drawing on Chambers and Conway (1992) among others, Ellis (1999) notes that a livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources) and activities required for a means of living. He further opines that a livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, while not undermining the natural resource base. Carswell et al. (1997) argue that this, in turn, can be disaggregated to highlight different sub-components. Five key elements of the definition can be recognised, each relating to a wider literature with, in some cases, established ways of assessing outcomes. The first three focus on livelihoods, linking concerns over work and employment with poverty reduction as broader issues of adequacy, security, well-being and capability. The last two elements add the sustainability dimension, looking in turn at the resilience of livelihoods and the natural resource base on which they partly depend. These five key elements have been explained below.

Creation of working days – This relates to the ability of a particular combination of livelihood strategies to create gainful employment for a certain portion of the year. This may be on or off-farm (agrarian economy), part of a wage labour system or subsistence production. Sen (1975: 5) notes three aspects of employment – income (a wage for the employed), production (employment providing a consumable output) and recognition (where employment provides recognition for being engaged in something worthwhile).

Poverty reduction – The poverty level is a key criterion in the assessment of livelihoods.Various measures can be used to develop an absolute ‘poverty line’ measure based on income or consumption levels (Ravallion 1992; Baulch 1996). Alternatively, relative poverty and inequality can be assessed using Gini coefficient measures. There are a range of pros and cons for each measure, as well as some major measurement challenges (Greeley 1994). However, Schaffer (1996) notes that such quantitative assessments of poverty can be used in combination with more qualitative indicators of livelihoods.

Well-being and capabilities – The notions of ‘well-being’ and ‘capability’ provide a wider definitional scope for the livelihoods concept (Chambers, 1995). Sen (1984) sees capabilities as ‘what people can do or be with their entitlements’, a concept which encompasses far more than the material concerns of food intake or income. Such ideas represent more than the human capital which allows people to do things, but also the

10


intrinsically valued elements of ‘capability’ or ‘well-being’. Chambers (1997) argues that such a well-being approach to poverty and livelihood analysis may allow people themselves to define the criteria which are important. This may result in a range of sustainable livelihood outcome criteria, including diverse factors such as self-esteem, security, happiness, stress, vulnerability, power, exclusion, as well as more conventionally measured material concerns (Chambers, 1989).

Livelihood adaptation, vulnerability and resilience – The ability of a livelihood to be able to cope with and recover from stresses and shocks is central to the definition of sustainable livelihoods. Such resilience in the face of stresses and shocks is the key to both livelihood adaptation and coping (Davies, 1996). Those who are unable to cope (temporary adjustments in the face of change) or adapt (longer term shifts in livelihood strategies) are inevitably vulnerable and unlikely to achieve sustainable livelihoods. Payne and Lipton (1994) note that assessing resilience and the ability to positively adapt or successfully cope requires an analysis of a range of factors, including an evaluation of historical experiences of responses to various shocks and stresses. They further note that different types of shock or stress, in turn, may result in different responses, including avoidance, repartitioning, resistance or tolerance mechanisms.

Natural resource base sustainability – Most rural livelihoods are reliant on the natural resource base at least to some extent. Following Conway (1985), Holling (1993) and others, natural resource base sustainability refers to the ability of a system to maintain productivity when subject to disturbing forces, whether a ‘stress’ (a small, regular, predictable disturbance with a cumulative effect) or a ‘shock’ (a large infrequent, unpredictable disturbance with immediate impact). This implies avoiding depleting stocks of natural resources to a level which results in an effectively permanent decline in the rate at which the natural resource base yields useful products or services for livelihoods

Scoones (1998) also notes that a sustainable livelihood is the one that can recover from stresses and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, while not undermining the natural resources base. He further notes that a livelihood is sustainable if it is socially responsible, economically efficient and environmentally viable to the people.

The important thing to recognize about the concept of sustainable livelihood is that it is always subject to negotiation. Thus contradictions and trade-offs between different elements of the composite definition (above decomposed into five parts, but potentially divided up in different ways) must always be recognised. Different people will inevitably have different views as to the priority indicators, and, where conflicts are highlighted, choices then have to be made. By disaggregating the definition into a series of indicators, however, such choices become explicit, making negotiation between outcome possibilities possible as part of any policy development, planning or implementation process which has sustainable livelihood concerns at its centre (Conway, 1985).

2.2 Livelihood Assets

The ability to pursue different livelihood strategies is dependent on the basic tangible and intangible (material and social) assets that people have in their possession. Drawing on an economic metaphor, such livelihood resources may be seen as the ‘capital’ base from which different productive streams are derived from which livelihoods are constructed. According to

11


Ahmed and Lipton et al (1997) ‘Capital’ is conventionally seen as the stock of productive resources built up by human action by investing current income streams, and so increasing future benefits from a given input of labour or raw material. Such capital may depreciate, be consumed or be sold off. Johnson (1997) defines the various capital assets as follows:

Natural Capital – this refers to natural resources made up of land, water, soil, mineral, plant, fisheries, animal life and environmental services (hydrological cycle, pollution sinks etc) from which resource flows and services useful for livelihoods are derived. They provide goods and services, either without people’s influence (e.g. forest, wildlife, soil stabilization) or with their active intervention (e.g. farm crops, tree plantation). Antoh (2005) notes that various natural assets combine and vary over time (e.g. seasonal variations in value). For example, degraded land with depleted nutrients is of less value to livelihoods than high quality, fertile land, and the value of both will be much reduced if users do not have access to water and the physical capital or infrastructure that enables them to use water.

Within the sustainable livelihoods framework, the relationship between natural capital and the vulnerability context is particularly close. Many of the shocks that devastate the livelihoods of the poor are themselves natural processes that destroy natural capital (e.g. fires that destroy forests, floods and earthquakes that destroy agricultural land) and changes in the value or productivity of natural capital (Chambers, 1987).

Financial Capital – the capital base (cash, credit/debt, savings) which are essential for thepursuit of any livelihood strategy. Johnson (1997) categorises financial capital into:Stocks: savings, cash, bank deposits or liquid assets such as livestock. Financial resources can also be obtained through credit-providing institutions.

Regular inflows of money excluding earned income. The most common types of inflows are pensions, or other transfers from the state, and remittances.

Human Capital – the skills, knowledge, ability to labour and good health and physical capabilityimportant for the successful pursuit of different livelihood strategies. It is the most important, not only for its intrinsic value but also because other capital assets cannot be used without it.

Social Capital – Carney (1998) asserts that in the context of sustainable livelihoods framework, ‘social capital’ is taken to mean the social resources (networks, social claims, social relations, affiliations, associations) upon which people draw when pursuing different livelihood strategies requiring coordinated actions. Antoh (2005) notes that these social resources are developed through:

Networks and connectedness, either vertical (patron/client)or horizontal (between individuals with shared interests) that increases people’s trust and ability to work together and expand their access to wider institutions, such as political or civic bodies;

Membership of more formalized groups which often entails adherence to mutually-agreed or commonly accepted rules, norms and sanctions; and

Relationships of trust, reciprocity and exchanges that facilitate co-operation reduce transaction costs and may provide for informal safety nets amongst the poor.

Physical Capital – these are derived from the resources created by people, such as buildings, road transport, drinking water, electricity, communication systems as well as equipment and machinery needed to support livelihoods. It thus comprises producer goods and services, and also consumer goods available for people to use. Physical capital is important not only for meeting people’s needs directly, but also for providing access to other capital (e.g. through transport and infrastructure).

12


Out of these tangible and intangible assets people construct and contrive a living, using physical labour, skills, knowledge, and creativity. Thus, people pursue a range of livelihood outcomes (more income, food security, health security, reduced vulnerability, etc.) through different activities, by drawing on a range of assets (Chambers and Conway, 1992).

2.3 The Role of Institutions in Livelihood Security

A broad definition of institutions, derived from the sociological and anthropological literature is taken here. This sees institutions as ‘regularised practices (or patterns of behaviour) structured by rules and norms of society which have persistent and widespread use’ (Giddens, 1979). Institutions may thus be formal and informal, often fluid and ambiguous, and usually subject to multiple interpretations by different actors. Power relations are embedded within institutional forms, making contestation over institutional practices, rules and norms always important. Institutions are also dynamic, continually being shaped and reshaped over time. They are thus part of a process of social negotiation, rather than fixed ‘objects’ or ‘bounded social systems’. Institutions (in North’s terms the ‘rules of the game’) therefore are distinguished from organisations (the players) (North, 1990), the interplay of both being important in the sustainable livelihood framework. According to Davies (1997: 24): “institutions are the social cement which link stakeholders to capital of different kinds to exercise power and so define the gateways through which they pass on the route to positive or negative [livelihood] adaptation”.

Scoones (1998) notes that institutions really matter for the policy and practice of development forlivelihood security. He offers a number of inter-related reasons including the following:

Understanding institutional processes allow the identification of restrictions and opportunities (or ‘gateways’) to livelihood security. Since formal and informal institutions (ranging from tenure regimes to labour sharing systems to market networks or credit arrangements) mediate access to livelihood resources and in turn affect the composition of portfolios of livelihood strategies, an understanding of institutions and organisations is therefore key to designing improved sustainable livelihood outcomes.

An institutional approach sheds light on the social processes which underlie livelihood sustainability. Achieving livelihood security is not a deterministic affair; contestations, negotiations and trade-offs are evident at every turn. An insight into social relationships, their institutional forms (formal and informal) and the power dynamics embedded in these is therefore vital. Interventions in support of livelihood security therefore must be attuned to such complexity, if suitable institutional entry points are to be found.

An approach which emphasises both formal and informal institutions and underlying rules and norms suggests a complex and ‘messy’ institutional matrix mediating the processes of livelihood shift (Leach et al., 1997). For example, an analysis of an institutional matrix would look at which combinations of the wide range of informal and formal institutions and organisations operating at different levels – from within the household to the national (sometimes international) level – particularly influence different people’s abilities to pursue combinations of different livelihood strategies, with what results for sustainable livelihood outcomes. Describing such an institutional matrix in any setting is, not surprisingly, far from an easy task. However, the recognition of such complexity allows scope for innovation in planned interventions at

13


different levels, going beyond the conventional support for formal organisations or institutional mechanisms to look at combinations of formal and informal approaches (Cousins, 1997).

Different people clearly have different access to different livelihood resources. This is dependent on institutional arrangements, organisational issues, power and politics. A socially differentiated view to analysing livelihoods is therefore critical, one that disaggregates the chosen unit of analysis – whether community, village or household – and looks at individuals or groups of social actors and their relationships, in relation to the range of relevant dimensions of difference (wealth, gender, age and so on) and the distribution of control over resources (Richards, 1989).

2.4 Rural Livelihood

Rural livelihood strategies are often heavily reliant on the natural resource base (IDS, 1996). These various livelihood activities include food crop production; cash crop production; forest and tree product gathering, consumption, processing and sale; and income earning enterprises both on and off the farm (Brycesson, 1999).

Ellis (1999) in discussing rural livelihood diversity in developing countries notes that gender is an integral and inseparable part of rural livelihoods. He further argues that men and women have different assets, access to resources, and opportunities. Women rarely own land, may have lower education due to discriminatory access as children, and their access to productive resources as well as decision-making tend to occur through the mediation of men. Women typically confront a narrower range of labour markets than men, and lower wage rates. He concluded that diversification is more of an option for rural men than for women. In this sense, diversification can improve household livelihood security while at the same time trapping women in customary roles.

The tendency for rural households to engage in multiple occupations is often remarked, but few attempts have been made to link this behaviour in a systematic way to rural poverty reduction policies. In the past it has often been assumed that farm output growth would create plentiful non-farm income earning opportunities in the rural economy via linkage effects. However, this assumption is no longer tenable. For many poor rural families, farming on its own is unable to provide a sufficient means of survival, and the yield gains of new technology display signs of levelling off, particularly in those regions where they were most dramatic in the past (Ellis, 1999).

2.5 Rural Livelihood Diversification

In line with the Sustainable Livelihood framework, Ellis (1998) defines livelihood as ‘the activities, the assets, and the access that jointly determine the living gained by an individual or household’. He further defines ‘rural livelihood diversification’ as ‘the process by which households construct a diverse portfolio of activities and social support capabilities for survival and in order to improve their standard of living’.

Considerations of risk spreading, consumption smoothing, labour allocation smoothing, credit market failures, and coping with shocks can contribute to the adoption, and adaptation over time, of diverse rural livelihoods. However, livelihood diversity results in complex interactions with

14


poverty, income distribution, farm productivity, environmental conservation and gender relations that are not straightforward are sometimes counter-intuitive and can be contradictory between alternative pieces of case study evidence (Ellis, 1999).

15


3 Background of the Study Area

3.1 Introduction

The study area is the Asutifi District and is one of the districts in the Brong Ahafo Region of Ghana. The District, which was created in 1988 and is one of the districts classified by the Ministry of Local Government as deprived. The district economy is mostly agrarian and like a normal deprived district, Agriculture is in the hands of peasant farmers who still depend on rudimentary methods for production. As a result, output is low, soil is fast depleting and environmental degradation is setting in to disturb the once ecologically balanced semi-deciduous forest. Household incomes are generally low and poverty is widespread.

The district is however endowed with a variety of resources which when properly managed would help develop the district. These include the following:(i) Gold, Diamond and other mineral deposits at

Wamahinso, Nkrankrom and Kenyasi. (ii) Vast Forest Reserves (about 475.63km2 ) stocked

with timber and other forest products.(iii) Large quantities of Clay and Sand deposits (iv) Good soil of high agricultural value(v) Well established Senior Secondary Schools like OLA

Girls, Acherensua, Hwidiem, Gyamfi Kumanin.It is however important to note that the gold deposits is now being harnessed which has come with it both negative and positive effects.

3.2 Physical Characteristics

3.2.1 Location and Size

Asutifi District is located between latitudes 6°40' and 7°15' North and Longitudes 2°15' and 2°45' West. It shares boundaries with Sunyani District in the North, Tano District to the North East, Dormaa District to North West, Asunafo District in the South West and Ahafo Ano District (Ashanti Region) in the South East.

With a total land surface area of 1500 sq.km, the district is one of the smallest in the Brong Ahafo Region. There are a total of 117 settlements in the district and four paramouncies, namely: Kenyasi No.1 Kenyasi No.2, Hwidiem and Acherensua. The district capital is Kenyasi, which is about 50km from Sunyani, the regional capital.

3.2.2 Topography and Drainage

The district lies within the forest dissected plateau physiographic region with average height of about 700 feet above sea level. The lowest part is about 650ft above sea level found along the river basins whilst the highest point is found within a chain of mountains in the north east reaching a height of 1400 feet above sea level. These mountains form watershed for the many tributaries of the Tano River and other streams.

16


The district is drained by Tano River and its many tributaries which include Nsubin, Goa and Ntotro rivers exhibiting a dendritic pattern. These youthful fast flowing rivers have cut up the plateau surface giving rise to the dissected nature of the plateau.

3.2.3 Geology and Minerals

This physiographic region is underlain by Precambrian rocks of Biriniam and Dahomeyan formations. The Birimian formations are known to be the gold bearing rocks. There are reported cases of gold deposits at Kenyasi, Ntotroso, Nkrankrom, Acherensua and Wamahinso. Diamond is discovered at Wamahinso. There is also a widespread deposit of sand and clay; sand at Kenyasi, Gambia No.2, Hwidiem and Acherensua and clay at Nsunyameye and Dadiesoaba. Birimian rocks also have a high potential for Manganese and Bauxite. There are rounded out crops of granite found over the Birimian rocks as at Kwadwo Addae Krom, Goa Asutifi, Georgekrom and Konkontreso. These rocks have a high potential of iron and bauxite (DDP,2002).

3.2.4 Climate and Vegetation

The district lies within the wet semi-equatorial zone marked by double rainfall maxima with a mean annual rainfall between 125cm and 200cm. The first rainy season is from May to July and the second rainy season is from September to October when the district comes under the influence of the Wet Maritime Airmass. There is a sharp dry season between the two rainy seasons the main one coming between November and March when the tropical continental Airmass in the country sweep over the area.

Relative humidity is generally high ranging between 75% to 80% during the two rainy seasons and 70% to 80% during the rest of the year.

The district has a moist semi-deciduous forest. Man’s activities notably farming, lumbering and occasional bush fires have however disturbed this vegetation. This has changed some areas into a derived wooded savanna. Such transitional zones could be observed along the roads to Koforidua, Kensere and Kenyasi. There are however, large areas of forest reserves. These include the following:

Biaso Shelter Belt: 29.5 km2

Bia Tam Forest Reserve: 91.4 km2

Asukese Forest Reserve: 180.1 km2

Goa Forest Reserve: 23.8 km2

Desiri Forest Reserve: 151.0 km2

These forest reserves together covers a total of about 475.6 square kilometres about 30% of the entire land surface area of the district.

3.2.5 Soils and Crops Suitability

A study conducted in the sub-region by the Soil Research Institute of Kumasi in 1980 revealed the following soil Associations and the crops it supports. Tabel 3-1 shows the soil types and crop suitability.

17


Tabel 3-1 Soils and Crops Suitabilitysoil Type Suitable cropsKumasi Association Tree crops such as cocoa, coffee, citrus, oil

palm and pear as well as food crops such as maize, legumes, cassava, plantain and cocoyam.

Asuansi-Kumasi/Offin Association Not suitable for mechanized cultivation. Good for semi-perennial food crops like plantain

Hwidiem Association Good for the cultivation of food crops such as plantain, cassava and oil palm.

Akumadan-Bekwae/Oda Complex Association Suitable for a wide range of arable crops including maize, cassava, plantain, cocoyam and vegetables.

The Batia Associations Supports the same crops as Akumadan-Bekwae/Oda complex association does but needs proper management.

Bediesi Sutawa-Bejua Compound Association have little Agronomic values but recommended for forest reserves and wildlife conservation

Birim-Awaham/Chechewere Kakum Association

Suitable for vegetables, legumes, rice and sugar cane

Source: Soil Research Institute of Kumasi, 1980

3.3 Demographic Characteristics

3.3.1 Population Size and Growth Rates

The population of the district is estimated to be about 84,475 with a growth rate of 3 percent per annum. (National Population and Housing Survey, 2000).This growth rate is quite low compared with the rates of 3.0 percent at the national levels for the same period. The low population growth rate barring any data errors, could be due to less job opportunities to attract immigrants. The District’s population is estimated to be 87,529 by the year 2004. The district population has however almost doubled situation for the past two years with the establishment of the Newmont Ghana Gold Limited to conduct mining.

The implication of a low population growth rate is the concentration of population in the working age group. This situation augurs well for development. However, the quality of the labour force in terms of health and skill has an obvious implication.

3.3.2 Age and Sex Structure

As result of the low population growth rate in the district, a large proportion of the population; 50 percent falls within the working age group. This compares favourably with the national estimated figure of 51 percent. The implication for development is that many hands would be available for production. This underscores the great need to create job avenues to absorb the large labour force. (District development plan, 2004)

18


About 51 percent of the estimated population are females and the rest 49 percent males. This gives a sex ratio of 1:1.04. The dominance of females over males is a reflection of a nationwide trend where the estimated ratio is 1:1.03. The need to target women in any development programme in the district can therefore not be over-emphasized. (District development plan, 2004)

3.3.3 Population by Settlement: Rural Urban Split

The District has about 117 settlements and out of this only two –Kenyasi and Hwidiem are urban settlements having a population of over 5,000 (2000 Population and Housing Census). The District can be described as typically rural. It is currently estimated at 15 percent Urban; whiles that of the nation is 37.4 percent.

3.3.4 Migration

About 54 percent of the people are migrants (mainly Ashantis) with Bonos the indigenes constituting only 9 percent of the population (District Development Plan, 2004). These immigrants had however stayed in the district since time immemorial and hence do identify with the area and with development activities. With the advent of Newmont Gold Ghana Limited, migration pattern is likely to have changed.

3.3.5 District Economy

The predominant economic activity in the District is subsistence agriculture (mostly farming) which engages 77 percent of the economically active labour force. About 96 percent of those engaged in other occupations outside agriculture still take up agriculture as a minor activity. The service sector accounts for 21 percent of the active labour force consisting mainly of trading and this leaves the industrial sector with only 1 percent of the labour force employed in this sector. (District Development Plan, 2004).

3.3.6 Household Income and Expenditure

3.3.6.1 Income Pattern

Average household income earned per month for households is ¢202,553.75. Taking the main income as average income, annual per capita income is estimated at ¢2,430,645.00. (District development plan, 2004)

Crop farming constitutes the major source of income in the district, and accounts for about 50% of all incomes. This is followed by wages and salaries 15 per cent, business and trading 15, small scale industry (8.5%), livestock farming (6%), pension, rents and remittances (3.5%), and all other (2%).(DPP,2002-2004)

3.3.6.2 Expenditure Pattern

The leading area of household spending is on food. It represents 55 per cent followed by Energy 15 per cent, transport (11%), education (9%), health (5%), funerals (3%) and housing (2%).(DPP, 2002-2004)

19


The Ghana Living Standard Survey (1989) puts the expenditure on food at 63 percent. Expenditure on food in the district, therefore, falls below the national average. This could be attributed to the fact that it is a food crop growing area and almost all the farmers concentrate on subsistence agriculture.

Generally, the standard of living of the people is low. About 50 percent of the people live below the poverty line. The people's access to basic facilities and services is limited, and this account for their inability to contribute meaningfully to development. The people earn very little and cannot therefore save to build capital for development.

20


4 Research Methodology

4.1 Target Population

The study was carried out in four communities in the Asutifi District, namely Kenyase No. 2, Hwediem, Ola and Ntotoroso resettlement. The sampling frame consisted of community members (households) and other stakeholders who have expressed interest in the livelihood of the people. These included Non Governmental Organisations (NGO’s), the District Assembly, Unit Committees and other government agencies such as Ministry of food and Agriculture (MOFA). However Newmont Mining Company was considered as important stakeholder, the data that could be captured were public reports which were extracted from their website.

4.2 Data Sources

The research employed both primary and secondary data. The primary data was obtained from the field using instruments and methods like interview schedules, questionnaires, focussed group discussions and observation guide. The secondary sources consisted of a desk study of books, journals, newspapers and the internet to extract information and statistics on livelihood related topics.

4.2.1 Data Collection Procedure

Before administering the final questionnaires to the respondents, a pre-testing exercise was undertaken. This was to enable the necessary corrections to be made and ambiguities removed before administering the questionnaires to the target population. Observations were also used to gather primary data. Key informant interviews and focus group discussions in some of the communities were conducted. Focus group discussions were mainly used for consensus building among key stakeholders and to identify the linkages amongst them as well as the validation of the household questionnaires.

4.2.1.1 Household Questionnaires

Questionnaires were used for both household and institutional surveys. Both open and closed ended questions were used to gather information and also to ascertain the information gaps between the responses of the people and the observations of the researchers

4.2.1.2 Key Informant Questionnaires

Some key informants were identified and interviewed. These included the District Planning Officer, the district Director of Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA), the Unit Committee Chairmen of Ntotoroso and Ola resettlement communities and the chief’s registrar at Kenyasi No 2.

4.2.1.3 Focussed Group Discussions

For validation purposes focus group discussions were organised in two communities: Kenyasi No 2 and Ntotoroso resettlement.

21


4.2.2 Sampling Method

Clustered sampling technique (dividing the community into zones so that we select a specified number from each zone to prevent bias) was used together with Stratified sampling technique (choosing population according to age, gender, sex etc) in addition to simple random sampling technique to select respondents for the household survey. The combination of these two techniques was to ensure an even selection of the respondents giving each respondent an equal chance of being selected. Purposive sampling on the other hand was used to select institutions and key informants.

4.2.3 Sample Size

A sample size of 120 households was taken for the purpose of this research. This was made up of 45 households from Kenyase No. 2, 45 from Hwediem and 30 from Ola and Ntotoroso resettlement communities.

4.3 Data Analysis

In the analysis, both qualitative and quantitative methods were used to measure the research objectives and answer the research questions. The qualitative technique was in the form of comprehensive statements and analytical descriptions. This was to help consider several realities. The quantitative technique was mainly based on diagrams like graphs, ratios and percentages. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) computer application software was used to aid the quantitative analysis of the primary data. Data from the household questionnaires were entered into the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). These were then collated and analyzed in relation to the specific research objectives they answer. From these analyses, tables and charts depicting percentages of respondents were generated. Results are then discussed with references to the tables and charts. The quantitative data therefore was analyzed with SPSS.The qualitative data obtained mainly from key informant interviews and focus group discussions are to validate the responses from the household questionnaires. These are usually in the form of statements and descriptions which are not necessarily expressed in charts or tables. The rich source of information from this source can therefore only be discussed qualitatively.

22


5 Results and Discussion

This chapter begins by looking at the background of respondents and further discusses the results from the Household Questionnaires, the Focus Group Discussions and the Key Informant interviews under the various specific research objectives.

5.1 Background of Respondents

5.1.1 Gender of Respondents

Out of the 120 respondents, 59 percent were males while 41 percent were females. This is illustrated by Figure 5-1.

Figure 5-1 Gender of Respondents

5.1.2 Age of Respondents

Majority of the respondents (53%) were between 18-35 years old. Another 33 percent fell between the age ranges of 36-53. Considering these two categories as a productive age it implies most of the respondents (86%) were actively involved in one economic activity or the other. Only 5 and 8 percent were below 18 and above 531 years respectively.

1 The total might not be up to 100 percent due to rounding off.

23


5.1.3 Marital Status

Majority (73%) of the respondents were married whilst 21 percent were single. The percentages of divorced and widowed respondents were 4 and 2 respectively.

5.1.4 Religion of Respondents

Most of the respondents (73%) were Christians, 23 percent were Muslims and 3 percent were adherents of the traditional religion. Thus the majority of the inhabitants of the study area were Christians (see Table 5-2).

Table 5-2: Religion of Respondents

Religion Frequency Percent

Christianity 87 73

Islam 28 23

Traditional 4 3

None 1 1

Total 120 100

5.1.5 Level of Education of Respondents

Education plays a crucial role in every economy. As a form of human capital, it contributes greatly to the livelihood of people. In view of this the educational background of respondents was looked at. The respondents who have either completed primary school or middle school were 49 percent and about 27 percent were secondary or vocational school graduates. Only 5 percent of respondents had some form of tertiary education whilst 19 percent were illiterates.

5.1.6 Tribe of Respondents

Majority of the respondents (64%) were Akans originally located in the south of Ghana. About 26 percent of the respondents were Northerners. The Ewes represented 8 percent of the sample and the Gas’ represented 2 percent.

5.2 Migration

5.2.1 In-migration

Respondents were asked whether they were natives of the communities in which they resided. This was in line with determining the extent to which people have migrated to the study areas. Most of the respondents (71%) were natives whilst 29 percent were migrants.

About 49 percent of the respondents migrated into the area to look for employment at Newmont Ghana Gold Limited (NGGL), a mining company operating in the district. Out of this some have some kind of employment (mostly unskilled labour) with the mining company whilst others are still looking for jobs with the company. About 24 percent migrated because they wanted

24


farmlands to farm on and 4 percent moved to the communities because of their families or they were married into the community. The remaining 13 percent was made up of those who were posted there as teachers and those that were born there but are not natives of the communities.

5.2.2 Out Migration

Respondents were also asked if any one had left their household, how long the person(s) had left and why. This was to determine whether some natives of the communities have also moved out of the district and find the possible reasons why they moved. Out of the 120 respondents, about 31 percent said some one had left their household. Out of this, 12 percent had moved within a year and 13 percent between one and three years.

The reasons assigned to why people had moved out included to look for work in the cities. The rest had left because they married outside the district and therefore had to be with their family. Some also left because their lands were confiscated and others also have moved out to continue their education.

5.3 Assets from Which People Draw Their Livelihood

Literature has shown that there are five main assets or capital from which people draw their livelihoods. These are Natural, Financial, Social, Physical and Human capital. These assets are also found in the District. Though these five main assets may be present in every society, its quality and utility may be different. The characteristics of the assets were therefore investigated. These are discussed below.

5.3.1 Natural Assets.

The natural assets found in the district include land, water bodies, mineral deposit, forest reserves, and outcrop of rocks as well as clay and sand deposits.

Land in the district was generally described as fertile. It was however noted that in some few years to come the fertility of the soil is likely to reduce. This is because with Newmont Ghana Gold Limited (NGGL) taking up a vast area (536.56 square kilometres) of the people’s farm lands, fallow farming (a system practised by farmers to give the land its natural rejuvenation by leaving it for a year or more without cropping on it) can no longer be practice since they are now restricted to a small piece of land mostly two acres. Therefore with the use of rudimentary methods of farming and low fertilizer application, land in the district will lose its fertility with time if nothing is done about this situation.

Water bodies found in the district are mostly the tributaries of the Tano River which drains the district.

The major minerals found in the district are Gold and Diamond deposits. Exploitation of the gold deposit has now started but at the very early stages.

There are also vast forest reserves of about 475.63 square kilometre and these reserves are stocked with timber and other forest products. These reserves have however not been exploited to their fullest capacity yet. There is also vast deposit of sand and clay.

25


5.3.2 Financial Assets

The main financial Institutions from which people in the district can draw their financial needs from are basically Rural Banks and Commercial Banks. These banks provide services like Micro credit, Susu and normal banking. The District Assembly however operates micro-credit through the Tano Rural Banks and Agricultural Development Bank. According to the household survey, about 86 percent of the respondents indicated that they do not have access to credit facilities. This therefore pre-supposes that there is not a fair distribution of loans in the district.

During the household survey, only 14 percent of the respondents indicated that they save part of their income. The respondents did not complain about the quality of service provision by these banks. However the major concern was that one Rural Bank had bolted away with the money of the people. This situation has however discouraged others from saving in any other bank adding up to the low saving culture among the people. Non-payment of these loans results in the inability of the Directorate to re-disburse loans for other farmers who have not had the opportunity. This is basically so because the ability to continue disbursement of loans depend on the pay back rate.

5.3.3 Social Assets

The research revealed that respondents belong to various social groups from which they draw upon in pursuit of their livelihoods. This confirms the observation made by Antoh (2005) that people belong to social groups which contribute greatly to their livelihoods. About 45 percent of the respondent indicated that they belong to social groups. Figure 5-2 shows the various associations that respondents belong to.

Figure 5-2 Percentage of Respondents Membership of Social Groups

26


5.3.4 Physical Assets

The physical assets available to the people in the selected communities include; Road Networks, Schools, Health facilities, Water and Sanitation facilities, Electricity, Telecommunication systems and Housing facilities.

Road Network: roads in the district can be described as fairly accessible. Most of the feeder roads undergo routine maintenance each year.

Schools: According to the District planning officer, the Physical structures of school buildings are in good condition. He further noted that more children with the school going age are now in schools due to the introduction of the capitation grant (an educational policy which seeks to ensure that all children within the school going age attain basic education free of charge). On the whole both economic and physical access to schools can be described as good.

Health Facilities: Health facilities in the district include hospitals, health centres, clinics and maternity homes. There is however only one hospital in the District which serves as a referral point. Physical accessibility is now very good with the introduction of the Community Health Improvement Programme (CHIP) which aims at bringing health care to the door steps of the people. National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) has also enhanced economic access to health care in the selected communities. The district planning officer further noted that National Health Insurance Scheme coverage in the district now stands at 75 percent which he described as an excellent achievement. The physical structures are also in good condition.

Water and Sanitation: sanitary conditions in the district is quiet fair according to the District planning officer, however access to water is not the best which he rated at about 55 percent. The rest use hand dug wells which dry up in the dry seasons.

Electricity: data from the District planning officer showed that about 65 to75 percent of the people in the district have access to light. However due to increased number of people in the district, there is pressure on the facility which has led to power rationing.

Telecommunication systems: the operational telecommunication networks are Areeba and Tigo which has about 55-60 percent of coverage.

Housing: Housing conditions in the district are generally poor. There has also been an astronomical increase in rent attributed to the presence of mining company which can afford to pay high rent for their staff.

5.3.5 Human Assets

The research revealed that people do not generally know where to seek for information concerning their lives. Mostly, people go to the District Chief Executive (DCE) who will direct them to the right source for information. One good source of information is the district plan which under normal circumstances should be updated every year. This is however not done as confirmed by the District Planner.

Again, people do not know what programmes the assembly has in place concerning their livelihoods as noted by the District planning officer. This was attributed to the fact that representatives of the people (Unit Committees, Assemblymen) do not report back to the people after meetings with the assembly. Again, it was revealed that people generally lack information on where to access credit facility. Even though literacy rate in the district is quite high (81%) as compared to the national adult literacy rate (74%), most of the respondents have had their education up to the basic level as noted earlier on. This presupposes that people lack some skills and capabilities needed to develop the district.

27


In the area of skills and employable development, there is a youth employment programme in place to empower the youth. This is mainly for senior secondary school drop outs who are given some kind of training to become rural education volunteers. This programme is handled by the community based rural development programme in collaboration with Action Aid.

5.4 Livelihood Activities

People engage in diverse economic activities in order to make a living. The various livelihood activities that respondents engage in were put under the major economic activities (Agriculture, Industry, Service and Commerce.). The research revealed that majority (50%) of the respondents engage in agricultural activities whilst the industrial sector also employs about 13 percent of the respondents. The service and commerce sectors on the other hand employ about 14 and 23 percent of the respondents respectively (Table 5-3).

Table 5-3: Livelihood Activities

Economic Activity

Number of Respondents Percentage of respondents

Agriculture 59 50

Industry 16 13

Commerce 28 23

Service 17 14

Total 120 100

5.4.1 Agricultural Activities

Interactions with the district MoFA Director and the District Planning Officer indicated that agriculture contributes greatly to the rural economy in terms of sector employment. Most (50%) of the respondents confirmed this during the household survey by indicating that their major source of livelihood comes from the agricultural sector. Respondents employed by the agricultural sector were mainly into crop farming (77%) and mixed farming (19%) with only a few engaged in animal production (4%).

5.4.1.1 Crop Farming

Crops cultivated by the respondents included cash crops (cocoa and palm oil), cereals (maize and rice), root/tuber crops (yam, cocoyam, cassava,), vegetables (garden eggs, and tomatoes) and horticultural crops (oranges, chilli pepper, pineapple, mangoes) and others (see Table 5-4).

In the past crop farmers highly practiced shifting cultivation due to access to vast track of land. However, with the advent of Newmont mining company which has taken about 7500 hectares of farm lands, farmers lamented that they can now hardly practice shifting cultivation. They further indicated that this has a serious implication on soil fertility since fallow land is virtually non-existent particularly in the resettlement areas. This has affected food production and has also resulted in the high cost of farm produce in the district.

28


Table 5-4: Major Crops Cultivated

Crops Number of Respondents Percentage of respondentsCash crop 40 33 Cereals 16 13 Horticultural crops 10 8 Roots/Tuber 15 13 Vegetable crops 7 6 Others 32 27 Total 120 100

Among the farmers interviewed who indicated that they were into cash crop farming, about 90 percent of them were into cocoa farming whist the remaining 10 percent were into oil palm plantation. Interactions with the MoFA Director however revealed that almost every farmer in the district in one way or the other is into cocoa farming though on smallholder basis. This was confirmed by almost all the respondents during the household survey. The reasons assigned for this by the respondents were that since cocoa is not consumable at the household level, they market it to raise income to meet household needs. Plantain production is highly practiced by the farmers even though on smallholder basis. During the two focus group discussions, it became clear that plantain production is another major source of income to the farmers. Harvested plantain is sold to middle women who trade in plantain and occasionally come into the area to buy them for Accra and Kumasi markets. Agriculture in the study area therefore has a spill over effect by serving both the rural and urban economies. That is, the produce from farming activities is used to feed the household in the rural areas and the remainder sold to people in the urban areas. Farmers however lamented that due to low prices for their produce, they are not able to raise adequate income as targeted by the end of the farming season. The key informant in African Connection and the MoFA Director attributed the low prices for farm produce to lack of farmers associations in the communities visited which could serve as a strong bargaining force for farm produce.

5.4.1.2 Land Holdings for Farming Purposes

In responding to a question on land ownership, about 54 percent of the respondents indicated that they own the land on which they undertake their farming activities whilst 46 percent indicated that they do not own their farm lands. Those who said they own the land further indicated that the land is either a family or a stool land which has been given to them to farm on. According to the District Planning Officer, an individual can acquire a piece of land in three main ways for farming purposes. These are (i) complete purchase of the land, (ii) share cropping and (iii) rental. Other sources of land acquisition include family allocation or inheritance for natives and sometimes parcel(s) of land are given to some as gifts. This was confirmed by farmers during the household survey. Among the farmers who indicated that they do not own their farm land (46%), about 76 percent indicated that they are share croppers (the system whereby an individual acquires a piece of land to farm and share the produce either in one-third or two thirds basis with the land owner, popularly known as the “abunu and abusa” systems), about 20 percent indicated that they rent land for their farming activities whilst 4 percent have completely purchased land for farming purposes. During one of the focus group discussions, it became clear that those who do not own land are mostly migrants who for one reason or the other had moved into the communities to seek for greener pastures. This confirms the observation made by Carney (1998)

29


that people who migrate to the rural areas to improve their livelihoods are mostly faced with the challenge of getting access to land for agricultural activities.

Farming in the communities visited is undertaken on small scale basis (less than 5 acres) as confirmed by 48 percent of the respondents. A few of the respondents (23%) undertake farming activities on a large scale. Expert interview with the District MoFA Director indicated that farmers in the selected communities are basically smallholder farmers on family-operated farms using rudimentary technology. He further noted that only some of the industrial crops, such as oil palm and cocoa are produced on large scale, although smallholder farmers also produce significant quantities of these crops, especially cocoa. He further opine that farmers use more extensive farming methods (especially more land and labour), which affect their production levels. Even though farming is undertaken on small scale, about 58 percent of respondents indicated that they farm for both commercial and subsistence purposes as indicated earlier on. This confirms the observation made by Schaffer (1996) that farmers in the rural areas engage in farming activities for both consumption and income generation purposes.

5.4.1.3 Animal Production

Aside farming, about 8 percent of those employed by the agricultural sector are also into animal production. Some of the animals reared include poultry by 60 percent of respondents, goats and sheep (30%) of respondents and cattle (10%) of respondents. The animals are reared mostly on extensive basis. Those who rear animals indicated that livestock production is chiefly to supplement the protein needs of the household and not for commercial purposes. They however stated that they occasionally sell some of the animals to supplement family income when the need arises.

The average annual income of those in the agricultural sector is 830,000 cedis. Farmers indicated that they able to raise this amount of money through the sale of their farm produce and the sale of cocoa. From this money, farmers are able to meet their basic needs such as health, education and clothing.

5.4.2 Problems faced by Farmers

Through the expert interviews and focus group discussions, problems faced by farmers were captured. These include:

Post harvest losses – during bumper harvest, farmers are unable to ensure safe keeping of their farm produce due to inadequate storage facilities. During the focus group discussion at Ntotroso resettlement community, the participants complained of food insecurity as the major challenge facing the community. The MoFA Director attributed this to the fact that the produce from their previous harvest which they could have stored to meet their present food needs was not preserved due to lack of storage facilities.

Inadequate financial services and high cost of capital – farmers complained of difficulties in getting access to agricultural credit. The district MoFA Director however indicated that farmers are not getting access to credit for farming activities since there had been instances where farmers simply did not pay back loans received. He further noticed that this has prevented most credit institutions and even the government from giving credit to farmers in the area.

30


Inadequate access to appropriate technology – as noted earlier, farmers still continue to use rudimentary technology which is impeding increased productivity in the communities visited.

Inadequate input supply – farmers generally complained of not getting access to farm inputs such as fertilizer, insecticides, pesticides, and other farm inputs. They attributed this to inadequate income which prevents them from getting access to these inputs.

Limited access to market – access to market is a major problem faced by farmers in the area. Farmers have difficulties in marketing their produce due to constraints such as poor road network and lack of coordinated farmers’ associations to promote the marketing of farm produce.

Land fragmentation – in the resettlement communities, land fragmentation emerged as one of the fundamental problems that farmers face. Farmers interviewed attributed this to the fact that the mining company (Newmont Ghana Limited) has taken almost all their farm lands and they now have to either rent or buy land (with a high ‘drink fee’) for their farming activities. This they said has led to small land holdings in the area for agricultural activities which has also limited their ability to embark on large scale farming.

In spite of the myriad problems faced by farmers in selected communities, farming still continues to be the major livelihood activity of the people due to the many opportunities it offers. However, farm output growth has not created plentiful non-farm income earning opportunities in the rural economy via linkage effects as noted by the District MoFA Director. This is in line with the observations made by Ellis (1998) that “in the past it has often been assumed that farm output growth would create plentiful non-farm income earning opportunities in the rural economy via linkage effects. However, this assumption is no longer tenable. For many poor rural families, farming on its own is unable to provide a sufficient means of survival and the yield gains of new technology display signs of levelling off, particularly in those regions where they were most dramatic in the past”.

5.4.3 Commerce

About 23 percent of the respondents as noted earlier on are engaged in the commerce sector as their main source of livelihood. During the focus group discussions, the participant stressed that this is a current phenomenon due to the influx of people into the area. About 60 percent of those engaged in the commerce sector were found to be trading in non-agricultural produce (provision stores, sale of charcoal) whilst the remaining 40 percent trade in agricultural produce such as plantain, maize, tomatoes, chilli pepper and yam.

5.4.4 Service

The household survey revealed that 14 percent of the active labour force is employed by the service sector. The major kinds of services identified within the service sector included driving, security services, civil servants, teaching, tailoring, communication services, and hairdressing. With the exception of those in the civil service, all other respondents were found to be operating private business services either owned by themselves or have been employed to do so by others.

Incomes obtained monthly by those in the service sector were found to be mostly between three hundred and fifty thousand cedis and six hundred thousand cedis. Other respondents who

31


received monthly incomes above six hundred thousand formed 42 percent while 23 percent earned a monthly income less than three hundred and fifty-thousand cedis. Most of the respondents therefore earned below the government’s minimum wage per month. Some respondents however found it difficult to tell their monthly incomes because their daily expenditure depended on the income obtained daily. Most of the private services such as hairdressing and tailoring were also found to be working without records of their income and expenditure which was a limitation in their work.

Problems within the service sector as enumerated by respondents ranged from financial problems to lack of human resources. Those who had financial problems included respondents who received low remuneration, as well as those who experienced high cost of spare parts and food. Respondents who identified lack of human resources as a problem were those who did not have apprentices. Some identified the absence of communication network as a problem in their service provision while others found low patronage of their services as a problem.

5.4.5 Industry

Respondents who had their major livelihood activity within the industry sector constituted 13 percent. The industrial activities that people engaged in comprised the wood, metal, mining and food industries. Majority of the respondents (64%) who engaged in the industrial sector were within the mining sector. This was as a result of the mining project that has just started in the Asutifi district within the last few years. Some of the respondents who were employees at the mines were those who had lost their farms to the mining and sought to the mining industry as an alternative form of livelihood. Other employees were those who were formerly unemployed and have little or no skills at all but most of these respondents were found to be people who had moved from other mining areas to seek better working conditions at Newmont Gold.

Even though each of the respondents engage in one of the four economic activities as a source of livelihood, it was further revealed that those found in the service, commerce and industrial sectors were also into farming activities. However, their farms were mostly on smallholder basis to complement household food supply. This observation is directly in line with that of Scoones (1998) that most rural people engage in more than one livelihood activity as a source of livelihood.

5.4.6 Gender and Livelihood Activities

The research revealed that there is a strong correlation between gender and livelihood activities that the respondents are engaged in. This confirms the observation made by Ellis (1999) that gender is an integral and inseparable part of rural livelihoods. In the agricultural sector, women were predominantly engaged in farming activities as compared to their male counterparts. However, with respect to land ownership, it was clear that women mostly do not own farm lands as compared to their male counterparts. With respect to the industrial and service sector however, the number of males were slightly more than the number of women. Commercial activities particularly trading was predominantly undertaken by women. Figure 5-3 gives further details about the relationship between gender and livelihood activities of the respondents.

32


Figure 5-3 Relationship between Gender and Economic Activities

5.4.7 Contribution of Livelihood Activities to Household Needs

The livelihood activities that the respondents engage in have significant contribution to their household needs including basic needs such as food, clothing, shelter, water, education, health and other needs like energy (for cooking and lighting). The survey revealed that the rural folks barely have other means of generating income (e.g remittances, liquid assets and pension allowances) aside engaging in their preferred livelihood activity. Responding to a question on which livelihood activity contributes most to household needs, majority (70%) of the respondents said that farming is a key contributor to their basic needs. This was confirmed during the focus group discussions. The participants were of the view that through farming, they are able to meet their food needs as well as energy for cooking (wood fuel and charcoal as the main source). They further noted that they are able to sell some of their farm produce to meet other basic needs (clothing, shelter, water, education, health). Again, they opine that even those who engage in other livelihood activities like trading, mining, teaching and the like still engage in farming activity because it is a means of survival. This corroborates the assertion made by Ellis (1998) in his earlier work that for the rural families, farming on its own is unable to provide a sufficient means of survival. The next major contributor to household needs was trading be it in agricultural or non-agricultural produce as noted by 15 percent of the respondents. Wages and salary workers (those in the service sector) were next on the list of contribution of livelihood activity to household needs representing 9 percent of the respondents. Artisans, tailors, seamstresses and hairdressers (representing 6%) complained of the low contribution of their livelihood activities to their basic needs due the seasonality of their work.

33


5.4.8 Shift in Livelihood

In responding to a question on whether there has been a shift in the livelihood activity of the respondents or not, respondents had varied responses. About 41 percent of respondents admitted there was a shift in their livelihood activities whilst 59 percent had not changed their livelihood activities over the past 15 years. Majority (81%) of those who had changed their livelihood activities had done so between a year and 3 years. To determine the actual percentage of people who had changed their livelihood activities, one way or the other, previous occupations of respondents were sought. Out of the 41 percent who had experienced the shift in livelihood activities, about 61 percent were farmers. This however does not mean that all the 61 percent shifted from farming to something else. Majority of these included farmers whose farm sizes have reduced and are therefore engaging in other activities like trading, providing services among others in addition to the farming activity which hitherto was their only livelihood activity. The others include traders and public servants making up 18 percent who had also changed to other livelihood activities. The rest were hunters, drivers, miners and artisans making up 21 percent who are now engaged in other livelihood activities. Figure 5-4 depicts the percentage shift in the various livelihood activities

Figure 5-4 Previous Occupations of Respondents Who Perceived a Shift

Respondents who had experienced a shift in their livelihood were further probed to find out how satisfied they are with their current occupation. Only 29 percent of the respondents indicated that they were satisfied with their current livelihood activities. Reasons given by respondents as to why they were not satisfied included low remuneration or income, low job satisfaction, no access to lands, farmland too far away and livelihood activity not sustainable which is shown in Figure5-5.

34


Figure 5-5 Percentages of Respondents and Their reasons for Unsatisfaction with Their Occupations

Low remunerationAs the graph (label) above depicts, low remuneration accounted for the reason why 32 percent of the respondents are not satisfied with their current livelihood/occupational activities. This is made up of farmers (mostly commercial farmers) who are no longer getting enough from the proceeds of their farms mainly because their farm sizes have reduced or has been destroyed by the activities of the mining company. A typical example was a cocoa farmer in Jericho, Kenyasi No2 whose 10 acres cocoa farm has now been reduced to two acres because a part of it fell in the concession of the mining company. It also included unskilled miners who perceive their remuneration as inadequate. The same can also be said about public servants who complained of inadequate remuneration.

Low job satisfactionAbout 12 percent of respondents complained of low job satisfaction. This mostly applied to public and civil servants interviewed and a large proportion of those working with the mining company (unskilled miners)

Proximity to farmSome farmers especially those whose farms were taken over by the mining company and have to look for new farmlands now have to travel long distances to get to their farms. This problem is more peculiar to the resettled farmers in the two resettlement communities even though some

35


farmers interviewed in Kenyase No. 2 also complained about this problem. This they say is affecting their productivity as they get very tired by the time they get to their farms. Allied to this is the problem of transportation. Farmers indicated that they have difficulties in transporting their farm produce after harvesting.

Sustainability of livelihood activitiesAnother group of respondents (14%) complained that their current livelihood activities are simply not sustainable. According to them, their present livelihood activities are not able to sustain them and their families because the prices of goods and services in the district have suddenly shot up astronomically as a result of the mining company which has placed lots of money in the hands of a few individuals in the district.

OthersOther reasons given by respondents included unemployment, lack of customers (those in the service sectors like dressmaking). Lack of access to farmlands was mentioned by resettled farmers whose farmlands had been taken over by the mining company. Some youth who want to enter into farming but cannot get access to land because land has become very scarce and expensive as well as some farmers who complained of land fragmentation were among the reasons. This they said does not encourage any meaningful or productive cultivation.

5.4.9 Trends in Economic Activities

The key informant interviews and the focus group discussions revealed that there has been a shift over the past 15 years in the four major economic activities which people engage in as a source of livelihood which is shown in Figure 5-6.

Figure 5-6 Trend Analyses of Economic Activities by Sector Employment

From Figure 5-6 it is clear that there has been a decline in the number of people employed by the agricultural sector. Around 1995, the agricultural sector employed about 88 percent of the active labour force. However, the percentage of the active labour force employed by the sector declined to about 65 percent in year 2005. The household survey further showed that the agricultural

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1995 2000 2005

YEARS

Agriculture

Industry

Commerce

Service

36


sector currently employs only 50 percent of the active labour force in the selected communities. The percentage of the active labour force employed by the service sector also however reduced from about 36 percent as at 2000 to about 27 percent in 2005. The percentage of people employed by the other economic sectors (industry and commerce) on the other hand has been increasing over the past 10 years. For instance, the industrial sector which in 1995 employed only 20 percent of the active labour force in the district employed 40 percent of the labour force in 2005. The trend of the shift in livelihood activities however is fast moving towards the commerce sector. The commerce sector in 2005 employed about 58 percent of the labour force as against the number of people employed by the sector in 1995 (39%). This shift could be attributed to the fact that there had been an increase in the population in the district in recent years due to the influx of migrants who do not have farms and hence engage in buying and selling. Again the natives themselves have also started trading since there is a larger market now. The commerce sector is closely followed by the industrial sector due to the start of the mining activities.

5.5 Causes of shifts in Livelihood Activities

Livelihood activities in the four selected communities, namely Hwidiem, Kenyasi No. 2, Ola resettlement and Ntotroso resettlement have experienced some shifts as a result of many factors. Respondents gave various responses as the reasons for the change in their previous occupation or livelihood activity.

The presence of the mining company Majority (51%) of the people who had experienced a shift in their livelihood activities said the mining company was responsible for the change in their occupation or livelihood. Among this group of people are those whose lands have been totally or partially taken over by the company as part of its concession, farm labourers who do not get “BY DAY” (work as and when someone has a job to be done) to do anymore, sharecroppers who now have to switch to something else other than farming or look for new landlords to enter new agreements with and also farmers whose farm sizes have reduced drastically and are engaging in other activities to augment income from the farming activities. From the focus group discussions and key informant interviews, it was realised that the activities of the mining company is the major cause of shift in livelihood activities.

Low/inadequate incomeLow or inadequate income was also one of the reasons cited by the respondents as a cause of shift in their livelihood activity. About 17 percent had to change their livelihood activities because income from their previous livelihood activities was not adequate and therefore not sustainable. The only option left to this group was to change their livelihood activities to more sustainable ones. This group comprises mostly of those in the service sector moving to commerce or to industry (more specifically mining). During the focus group discussions, this was also pinpointed out.

Poor land administrationAbout 9 percent of respondents also cited poor land administration as one of the causes of the shift in their livelihood activity. Most of these people are sharecroppers who have had to change their livelihood activity. The reason was that there are no clearly defined rules on how to acquire land to farm on in the study areas. Some complained that in some instances after they have been given a piece of land to farm on, some body else comes to claim the land and in the process destroy all their crops. Such people have no choice but to change to other activities like trading or

37


looking for work in the mining company. Women do not often own land and sometimes they find it more difficult to get land to cultivate than their male counterparts.

OthersOther reasons given for the change in livelihood activities are shown in the graph below, among them are: to obviate conflicts in marriages, old age and pension, pregnancy or catering for children, redundancy and some leaving their work to continue their education.

Figure 5-7 Perceived Reasons for Shift in Livelihood Activity

5.6 Effects of Shift in Livelihood Activities

Shift in trends usually comes with it both positive and negative effects most especially with the major cause of the change or shift in trend being the presence of the mining company. Respondents were therefore asked of the perceived effects of the shift in their livelihood activities. The effects which could be either positive, negative or a combination of both were then analyzed. Most (70%) of the respondents perceived the effects of the change to be a negative one with only a few saying otherwise.

5.6.1 Positive Effect

About 30 percent of the respondents said the change was a positive one. An enhanced commercial and business activity was the major positive effect.

Enhanced Commercial / Business Activities

38


This was however made up of those who have in one way or the other established business (small scale enterprises) of their own. This group therefore pertains more to those who have changed from farming to commerce or service because their lands were taken over by the mining company or those who have taken advantage of the mining company to establish “Food Selling Businesses” and drinking spots which are recording high sales because of the ready market by those working in the mining company. An example in this case was a young man whose land was taken over by the mining company and who has established a big drinking spot in Jericho, Kenyasi No 2.

5.6.2 Negative Effects

Majority of respondents; 71 percent perceive food and livelihood insecurity as the most adverse effect of the change in their livelihood activities, comprising 39 percent and 32 percent respectively.

Food Insecurity About 39 percent of respondents indicated food insecurity as the major problem resulting from the change in their livelihood activities. These comprise mostly farmers ( especially in the resettlement areas) whose farm lands were taken over by the mining company and now have to resort to small parcels of land on which they have to farm for a limited number of years. These groups of farmers, landowners and sharecroppers alike are now faced with the problem of food insecurity in that most of them have to start cultivating new lands all over again. The “waiting period” within which the farm produce will be ready for consumption is creating the food insecurity problem. Some also have to contend with reduced farm sizes as a result of the take over. This adversely affects their output which is automatically reduced. This according to the participants of the focus group discussions is also responsible for the increase in prices of food stuffs in the district.

Livelihood insecurityThe other 32 percent said they have livelihood insecurity. They further noted that prices of goods and services in the study areas and the district in general have increased; unemployment rates are high in the district resulting in increased theft cases being reported from time to time.

OthersOther responses include parting with one’s family. This mostly pertains to miners who have moved into the study area, leaving their families behind. Marriages are not stable any longer since miners with lots of money to spend are taking over people’s wives. There is therefore a general feeling of insecurity in the lives of the people.

5.7 Roles of the Stakeholders in Ensuring Livelihood Security

This research revealed a number of stakeholders (people, agencies, or organizations) who are directly or indirectly involved in ensuring livelihood security of the people. The roles of these stakeholders and their contribution to the livelihood of the people are discussed below.

The District AssemblyThe District Assembly plays a significant role in promoting the livelihood of the people. As enshrined in Act 462 of 1994, the District Assembly plays both administrative and legislative role at the local level. At the focus group discussions, participants described the role of the District Assembly as effective even though the assembly is under resourced in terms of human resource requirement and logistics. For instance, the district

39


planning officer lamented that he is currently undertaking the task of budgeting in addition to his duties since there is no district budget officer.

Area Councils

Politically, the area councils are the next unit after the District Assembly. They facilitate local level development by discharging functions such as revenue collection. Respondents rated the effectiveness of the roles of the area council at 35 percent.

Unit CommitteesThe Unit Committee is the basic unit at the local level since they are located at the community level. Their roles include mobilization of community members for communal labour, monitoring the activities of the district assembly in their areas of jurisdiction and mobilising the communities to embark on self-help project initiatives. Respondents rated the effectiveness of their roles at 65 per cent.

The major constraints on the achievement of sustainable livelihood in the selected communities and the district at large through the decentralization process may be summed up as institutional inadequacies and financial constraints. Even though sub-districts structures (the District Assembly, Area Councils and the Unit Committee) are in place, they are not fully integrated to ensure effective community or grass root participation in the decentralization process. More importantly, there are still inadequate numbers of personnel with the requisite development planning and management skills and organizational competence to implement the decentralized planning system at the district level as reviewed during the institutional survey. It is therefore imperative to beef up the human resource base of the various district sub-structures particularly the area councils to ensure livelihood security of the people.

The Ministry of Food and AgricultureAn immediate programme currently being undertaken by the Ministry of food and Agriculture is the land access and Agricultural Improvement which is being funded by Newmont Ghana Limited. Due to inadequate funds the ministry has not been able to implement a lot of the programmes they have in place. For this reason Action Aid ( an NGO ) has been implementing most of their programmes ( about 90% ) on their behalf as noted by the MoFA Director.

Traditional Authorities The traditional authorities are the custodian of land in the study communities. Chiefs in the selected communities play an important role in allocating land within their stool for developmental purposes. At the settlement level, sub-chiefs or village chiefs, in consultation with elders resolve disputes as indicated by the respondents. Respondents rated the effectiveness of the roles of the traditional authority at eighty per cent (80%).

African ConnectionAfrican connection (an NGO) has operated in the Asutifi District for two years now. Their target group comprises of farmers who grow their selected crops and are aged between 25 and 65 and Small and Medium Enterprises (SME) The major activity of this NGO includes: Introduction of New crops, Farmer productivity training.

40


Institutional linkagesRespondent pointed out the fact that there are high level of cordial linkages between institutions and / stakeholders. However some respondents pointed out the negative aspects of the institutional linkages as: Most of the NGOs are biased towards Newmont Gold Ghana Limited (NGGL) and hence falsely publish reports in their favour instead of advocating for the rights of the inhabitants. On the positive side however, Action Aid has implemented about 90 percent of all the programmes of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA) because MoFA Lacks Funding.

41


6 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations

This section of the report discusses the major findings of the research based on the analysis done in the previous chapter. Conclusions and recommendations are then made based on the major findings. The study was conducted among other things to identify the characteristics of the assets from which people draw their livelihoods, to identify the various livelihood activities available and their contributions towards household needs, to determine whether there is a shift in the livelihood of the people, the extent of the shift, the causes and effect of this shift and to determine the effectiveness of the various stakeholders in ensuring livelihood security for the people.

6.1 Findings

6.1.1 Assets from Which People Draw Their Livelihoods

The main assets from which the people draw their livelihood are natural, physical, financial, social and human capitals. It was however found that most of these assets are not being fully exploited for example even though people depend mainly on natural capital, there is still a vast quantum of minerals, forest reserves and water bodies that are not being used to their fullest capacity. The physical assets in terms of road networks, schools, hospitals, electricity among others exist to a large extent in the communities but there is still a lot to be done in upgrading some of these infrastructures. For instance, before the advent of the mining company about 70 percent of residents had access to electricity. In recent times however, there has been an increased demand for electricity resulting in intermittent power cuts. Adult literacy rate which is major factor of improved human capital is cantered around those who have had education up to the basic level. With most of the economically productive inhabitants having only basic education, they engage in rudimentary methods of farming (which is their main source of livelihood).

6.1.2 Livelihood Activities Available

Farming happens to be the main livelihood activity that contributes to household needs. This is because most people engage in farming either on commercial or subsistent basis and from this they get their food items. Others get energy source (their fuel for cooking) from their farms. Even those working in the other sectors of the economy like industry, service or commerce still engage in subsistent farming to augment their incomes and provide some basic household needs. The advent of the mining company has however impacted heavily on the farming activities of the people. It has reduced the farm sizes of most people and others now have to travel long distances to get to their farms because they had to relocate to farmlands not within the concession of the mining company.

Other people engage in trading from which they pay utility bills, school fees, rent among others. Some are also in the industry and service sectors. The industrial workers are mainly miners, timber loggers and those in the metal processing industry. People employed in the service sector were mainly teachers, midwives, tailors, hairdressers and seamstresses

42


6.1.3 Shift in Livelihood Activity

There has been a significant shift in the livelihood activities of the people in the study communities. It was realized that agriculture which used to be the main livelihood activity of the people is gradually declining in terms of sector employment. For instance, over the past fifteen years, the sector has witnessed a drastic reduction in the percentage of people employed. From 88 percent prior to 1995, it reduced to 65 percent and to 50 percent according to the household respondents. People now engage in agriculture (mainly farming) just to augment incomes from other sources. This has therefore led to an increase in the number of subsistent farming and a reduction in large scale commercial farming. It was also found that the mining company was the main driving force behind the current trend of affairs. With the company taking over productive farmlands, people are being compelled to look for other sources of livelihood. Farm sizes have reduced and people now travel long distances to get to their farms. As the number of people employed by the agricultural sector declines, sector employment of the other sectors (industry, commerce and service) is increasing with the commerce sector being fast moving.

The economically active age group (the youth) now seek non existent jobs from the mining company. Most of them however, are not getting employment because they lack the needed educational qualifications the company is looking for. This has led to a high rate of unemployment in the district with its accompanying effects such as social vices.

It can thus be concluded that, there has been a significant shift in the livelihood activities of the people but this has been gradual and is still ongoing. Therefore even though there has not been a complete shift yet, if the current state of events prevails, in a few years time there could be a complete shift in the livelihood activities of the people in the district.

6.1.4 Causes and Effects of the Shift

The main cause of the shift in the livelihood activities of the people is the presence of the mining company (Newmont Ghana Gold Limited). The company which started actual production some few months ago has taken farm lands as part of its concession. People have lost a large quantum of their farmlands to the company and now have to contend with farming on small parcels of land which are sometimes very far away from their homes. The situation is even worse with the two resettlement communities (Ola and Ntotoroso) which had to be totally relocated to their present communities because their previous community was part of the company’s concession. Perhaps these two communities are the most affected by the operations of the company. Other causes identified include low income and poor land administration

The effects of the shift are diverse and profound. There is presently the problem of food insecurity in communities which hitherto never lacked food. Farmers now have to start cultivation on new farm lands all over again because their farms have been taken. They now have to purchase on a daily basis food stuffs which they previously had on their farms at exorbitant prices.

Unemployment has also increased in the district mainly because the local people who are mostly unskilled are not getting employment with the mining company. This has created the situation whereby the company sources its labour force from outside the district. Other effects include marriage break dawns and increased social vices including theft.

43


7 Recommendations

The following are suggested solutions drawn from the research which when implemented will go a long way to improve the livelihood of the people.

Equipping the youth with employable skills through vocational and technical training. This in the long-run will make the youth get employment in the mining company in order to reduce unemployment in the selected communities.

Training farmers in the use of improved technology. This will help improve the productivity of farmers.

Improving access to micro-credit in the district through the establishment of a Business Advisory Board Unit at the District Assembly. NGOs such as African Connection and OICI should also help in this area.

Provision of seed capital to farmers who have been trained in alternative livelihood activities to start operation. Farmers who have been trained in these areas should also be given a certificate to cover the training they have received.

Improving access to water and sanitation. With the influx of people into the four communities, there is the need to provide more water and sanitation facilities in order to reduce the pressure on the existing facilities.

Formation of Community Based Associations to aid local level development. These associations can join forces with other stakeholders to ensure efficient delivery of social responsibilities by the Newmont Mining Company.

The various occupational groups should form associations like farmer associations, traders associations among others. This will unify them to negotiate and access credit facilities from banks and other financial institutions to enhance their production.

Table 7-1 indicates the plan of action to implement the above recommendations.

44


Table 7-1 Action Plan

RECOMMENDATIONS IMPLEMENTING AGENCY

FUNDING AGENCY

COMMUNITY ROLE

Equipping the youth with employable skills

DA, OICI DA (DACF)Newmont

Co-operation

Training farmers in the use of improved technology

MoFAAction Aid

MoFAAction Aid

Co-operation

Improving access to micro-credit DAAction Aid

DA Participation

Provision of seed capital to people trained in alternative livelihood activities

OICIAfrican Connection

OICINewmont Co-operation

Provision of water and sanitation facilities

DANewmont Mining

CompanyDA

Communal labour Counterpart funding

Formation of Community Based Organisations in the 2 resettlement communities

DA, Unit Committees

DA Participation

Monitoring activities of Newmont Mining Company (Discharge of social responsibilities)

DA, Traditional Authorities, Unit

Committees, NGO’s

DACFNewmont

Co-operation

45


References

Carney, D. (ed). (1998), Sustainable rural livelihoods: What contribution can we make? London: DFID.

Chambers, R., (1987), ‘Sustainable livelihoods, environment and development: putting poor rural people first’, IDS Discussion Paper 240, Brighton: IDS

Chambers, R., Conway, G., (1992), ‘Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts for the 21 St century’, IDS

Chambers, R., (1997), ‘Responsible well-being – a personal agenda for development’, World Development, 25: 1743- 1745

Craig A. Johnson, (1997), ‘Rules Norms and the Pursuit of Sustainable Livelihoods’, IDS Working Paper 52

Cousins, B., (1997), ‘How do rights become real?’, IDS Bulletin, 28(4): 59-68

Conway, G., 1985, ‘Agroecosystems analysis’, Agricultural Administration, 20:31-55

Davies, S., 1996, Adaptable Livelihoods. Coping with Food Insecurity in the Malian Sahel, London

Ellis, F. (1999), Rural livelihood diversity in developing countries: Analysis, policy, methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, F. (1998), ‘Survey article: Household strategies and rural livelihood diversification’. The Journal of Development Studies. Vol.35, No.1

Farrington, J., Carney, D., Ashley, C. and Turton, C. (1999), ‘Sustainable Livelihoods in Practice: Early Applications of Concepts in Rural Areas’. Natural Resources Perspectives, Number 42, ODI, London

Grace Carswell, (1997), ‘Agricultural Intensification And Rural Sustainable Livelihoods: A ‘Think Piece’, IDS Working Paper 64

Ghana Statistical Services (2002), ‘Population and Housing Census Report’.

Greeley, M., (1994), ‘Measurement of poverty or the poverty of measurement?’,IDS Bulletin 25(2)

Giddens, A., (1979), Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis, London: MacMillan

Holling, C., (1993), ‘Investing in research for sustainability’, Ecological Applications, 3: 552-5

Ismail I., Ahmed and Michael Lipton, (1997), ‘Impact of Structural Adjustment on Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Review of the Literature’, IDS Working Paper 62

46


Ian Scoones, (1998), 'Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis', IDS Working Paper 72, Brighton: IDS. pp 3-22

Johnson, C., (1997), ‘Rules, norms and the pursuit of sustainable livelihoods’, IDS Working Paper 52, Brighton: IDS

Leach, M., Mearns, R., and Scoones, I., (1997), ‘Environmental entitlements: a framework for understanding the institutional dynamics of environmental change’, IDS Discussion Paper 359, Brighton: IDS

Payne, P., and Lipton, M., with Longhurst, R., North, J., and Treagust, S., (1994), ‘How Third World households adapt to dietary energy stress. The evidence and the issues’, Food Policy Review 2, Washington: IFPRI

Ravallion, M., (1992), ‘Poverty comparisons: a guide to concepts and measures’, Living Standards Measurement Paper 88, Washington: World Bank

Richards, P. (1989). Agriculture as performance. In: Chambers, R., Pacey, A. and Thrupp, L-A. (eds.), Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research, pp. 39-43. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

Schaffer, P., (1996), ‘Beneath the poverty debate: some issues’, IDS Bulletin 27(1)

Scoones, I. (1998), ‘Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis’. IDS Working Paper. No.72. Brighton: IDS.

Sen, A., (1975), ‘Employment, Technology and Development’, Oxford: Clarendon Press

Shepherd, G., Arnold, M. and Bass, S. (1999), Forest and Sustainable Livelihoods: current understanding, emerging issues and their implications for World Bank Forest Policy and Funding priorities. Paper prepared for the World Bank Forest Policy Review (draft for discussion), World Bank, Washongton D.C.

47


Appendices

Appendix 1: Location study Area

48


Appendix 2: HOUSEHOLD INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE (HIQ)

Name of Community:…………………………………… Code..........................................

Administrator/Interviewer:………………………………. Date: ……………………………

Background of Respondents

1) Name of Respondent ………………………………………

2) Sex: Male [1] Female [2]

3) Age: Below 18 [1] 18-35 [2] 36-53 [3] Above 53[4]

4) Marital status: Married [1] Single [2] Divorced [3] widowed [4]

5) Religion: Christianity [1] Islam [2] Traditional [3] None [4]

Others (specify)................................................

6) Level of education: Basic/Middle [1] Secondary/voc/tech [2] Tertiary [3] Illiterate [4]

Non-formal [5]

7) Number of dependants [ ]

8) What tribe do you belong to? Akan [1] Northerner [2] Ga [3] Ewe [4]

Others (specify) ……………………… [5]

Migration

9 Are you a native of this community? Yes [1] No [2]

9a) If no, why did you move here? ........................................................................

10) Has any one moved to join this household? Yes [1] No [2]

11) Since when has he/she been with your household? Less than 1 yr [1] Between 1 and 3

years [2] Between 3 and 5yrs [3] Above 5 years [4]

12) From where did he/ she join the household? Within district [1] Outside district [2]

13) Why did the person move here?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

14) Has any one left this household? Yes [1] No [2]

15) Since when has he/she been out of your household? Less than 1 yr [1] Between 1 and 3

years [2] Between 3 and 5yrs [3] Above 5 years [4].

49


16) Why did the person move out?.......................................................................................

Identification of Livelihood Activities

17) What major economic activity do you engage in as your main source of livelihood?

Agriculture [1] Industry [2] commerce [3] service [4]

Others (Specify).................................................................................

(Refer the section in which his/her economic/livelihood activities are and continue)

Agriculture

18) What type of agricultural activity are you engaged in? Crop farming [1] Mixed farming [2]

animal husbandry [3] s

(If crop farming continue from Question 19-28, 32-34; if animal husbandry answer Q29-34; if

mixed farming answer Q 19 – 34)

19) Do you own the land on which you cultivate your crops? Yes [1] No [2]

20) If no, how did you acquire the land? rental [1] borrowed [2] share cropping [3] family

land [4] others (specify)……………………………….

21) What farming practice do you undertake? Mono cropping [1] Mono culture [2] Mixed

cropping [3] Others (specify) [4].......................................................

22) What farming system do you practice? Shifting cultivation [1] Crop rotation [2]

Continuous cropping [3]

23) What main crop(s) do you grow? Cash crop [1] Cereals [2] Horticultural crops [3] Tuber

[4] Vegetable crops [5] Others (specify)......................................................

24a) On what scale do you farm? Large (10+) [1] medium (5-10) [2] small (>5) [3]

24b) On what basis do you farm? Commercial [1] subsistence [2] both [3]

25) What other crops do you grow? Cash crop [1] Cereals [2] Horticultural crops [3] Tuber

[4] Vegetable crops [5] Others (specify)......................................................

26) Do you market your produce? Yes [1] No [2]

27) If yes how do you market your

produce? ..........................................................................................

28) Do you have a ready market for your produce? Yes [1] No [2]

29) What kind of animal do you rear Poultry [1] Grass cutter [2] Goat and sheep [3] Snail [4]

others (Specify).......................................

30) What rearing system do you practice? Intensive [1] Semi-intensive [2] Extensive [3]

50


31) On what basis do you rear your animals? Commercial [1] Subsistence [2] Both [3]

31a) Do you sell some of your animals? Yes [1] No [2]

32) On the average, how much do you earn per month? Below ¢200,000 [1] 200,000 –

350,000 [2] 351 – 600,000 [3] 601-1,000,000 [4] 1- 2 million [5] above 2 million [6]

33) What problems do you encounter in your farming activity?

a)………………………………………………………………………….

b)………………………………………………………………………….

c)………………………………………………………………………….

34) How can these problems be addressed?

a)………………………………………………………………………….

b)………………………………………………………………………….

c)………………………………………………………………………….

Commerce

35) What commercial activity do you engage in? Non agricultural [1] Agricultural products

[2]

Forest products [3] Agricultural and forest products [4]

36) On what scale is your commercial activity? Petty trading [1] Retailing [2] Wholesaling

[3]

37) What is your source of initial capital? Bank [1] Personal savings [2] Friends [3] Family

[4] Susu groups [5] Others (specify) [6]

38) What is your Maximum sale ...................................... Minimum

sale .......................................

(per Day, Month, Season (specify) .........................................................................................

39) What is your average income per

month? .....................................................................................

40) What problems do you usually encounter in your business?

a)………………………………………………………………………….

b)………………………………………………………………………….

c)………………………………………………………………………….


a)………………………………………………………………………….

51


b)………………………………………………………………………….

Service

42) What kind of service do you render? Teaching [1] Tailoring [2] Hair dressing [3] Civil

servant [4] Public servant [5] Driving [6] Others (specify)……………………………….

43) What is your average monthly income? Below ¢200,000 [1] 200,000 – 350,000 [2] 351 –

600,000 [3] (d) 601-1,000,000 [4] 1- 2 million [5] above 2 million [6]

44) What problems do you usually encounter?

a)………………………………………………………………………….

b)………………………………………………………………………….

c)………………………………………………………………………….


a)………………………………………………………………………….

b)………………………………………………………………………….

c)………………………………………………………………………….

Industry

46) What type of industrial activity do you engage in? Wood based [1] Metal based [2]

Mining [3] Textiles [4] Others (specify)……………………………..

47) What is the ownership type of the establishment? Sole proprietorship [1] Partnership [2]

Others (specify)…………………….

48) What is your employment status in the establishment? Employer [1] Employee [2]

49) If employer, do you operate with a permit? (a) Yes [1] (b) No [2]

50) What is your average monthly income? Below ¢200,000 [1] 200,000 – 350,000 [2] 351 –

600,000 [3] 601-1,000,000 [4] 1- 2 million [5] above 2 million [6]

51) What problems do you usually encounter?

a)………………………………………………………………………….

b)………………………………………………………………………….

c)………………………………………………………………………….


a)………………………………………………………………………….

b)………………………………………………………………………….

c)………………………………………………………………………….

52


Shift in Livelihood Activity (For all respondents)

53) Has there been a shift in your economic/livelihood activity? Yes [1] No [2]

(If yes answer 54 to 60)

54) When did you change your occupation/livelihood activity? Less than 1 yr [1] Between 1

and 3 years [2] Between 3 and 5yrs [3] Above 5 years [4]

55) What used to be your occupation/livelihood activity? Farming [1] Timber Industry [2]

Trading [3] Civil and Public servants [4] mining [5] Artisan [6] Hunting [7] Others (specify)

……………………………………..

55a) If a farmer what would you say about your farm size. Increase [1] Decrease [2] Constant

[3]

56) Are you satisfied with your current occupation/livelihood? Yes [ ] No [ ]

57) If yes

why? ...................................................................................................................................

58) If no

why? .....................................................................................................................................

Causes and Effects of Shift in Livelihood Activity

59) What is the reason (cause) for the change in your previous occupation/livelihood? (In

order of priority)

1) ..................................................................................................................................................

2) ..................................................................................................................................................

3) ..................................................................................................................................................

60) What do you perceive to be the effects (positive & negative) of the change in your

occupation/livelihood? ................................................................................................................

........................

61) What other occupation/ livelihood do you engage in? (NT: In addition to the main

economic/livelihood activity)[1] Timber Industry [2] Trading [3] Civil and Public servants [4]

Artisan [5] Hunting [6] None [7] Others

(Specify)........................................................................

62) Why do you engage in other activities?..........................................................................

63) If none, why do you not engage in other activities?

53


...................................................................................................................................................

64) Which livelihood activity to contribute most to your household needs (past and present

livelihood activity)? (Please complete the table below. List in order of priority)

Previous Livelihood Activity

(NT: indicate the yrs.)

Current Livelihood Activity

1. 1.

2. 2.

3. 3.

Determining the Assets from Which People Draw Their Livelihood (All respondents)

Financial Capital

65) What other sources of income do you have aside what you get from your

economic/livelihood activity? Remittances [1] Liquid assets [2] Pension allowances [3]

None [4]

Others (specify)…………..

66) Do you have access to credit facility? Yes [1] No [2]

67) If yes, indicate the type Banks [1] Susu Groups [2] Cooperative Society [3]

Others (specify)………………..

68) If no, why? Lack of collateral [1] High interest [2] Not interested [3] others

(specify)……

69) Do you save part of your income? Yes [1] No [2]

70) If yes, where do you save? Banks [1] Susu Groups [2] Cooperative Society [3] Piggy

Box [4]

Others (specify)………………….

71) If no, give reason(s)……………………………………………………

54


72) Complete the table below on you household expenditure pattern per month/ annum

Items Expenditure(yr/mth) Items Expenditure(yr/mth)

Food Energy for cooking

Water Energy for lighting

Clothing Rent

Education Remittances

Health ….

Social Capital

73) Are you a member of any social group? Yes [1] No [2]

74) If yes, which society do you belong to? Workers cooperatives [1] Susu groups’ [2]

Religious groups [3] others (specify)................................................

75) How do you benefit from the social group? ...................................................................

55


Appendix 3: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION CHECK LIST

[A] INTRODUCTION

Introduction of group representatives and livelihood groups members.

Purpose of gathering.

Questions/ response from audience.

[B] DISCUSSION

Population trends (1995-2000; 2001-2006) NT: ask about reasons for changes in

population

If migration is a cause, probe on the characteristics of migrants(both in and out

migration)

What has been the trend of the various economic activities (1995-2000; 2001-

2006)?

What are the underlying causes of these changing trends?

Questions about the assets from which they draw their livelihood and their

characteristics.

A discussion about the shift in livelihood and the extent to which it has occurred.

A discussion about the possible causes.

A discussion about the perceived outcomes of the shift.

Has there been any cultural change.

H as there been and social change.

Which NGO’s or social groups are operating here.

Which of them have been most helpful?

What are the general problems inhabitant face in the area of livelihood

56


57

Date post:	29-Nov-2014
Category:	Education
Upload:	enoch-ofosu
View:	1,090 times
Download:	11 times