UNIVERSITY OF GHANA INSTITUTE OF AFRICAN STUDIES ...

UNIVERSITY OF GHANA

INSTITUTE OF AFRICAN STUDIES

AGRICULTURAL COMMERCIALIZATION AND ITS IMPACTS ON LAND

TENURE RELATIONS IN THE NANUMBA NORTH DISTRICT

BY

ALIU AMINU

(10508519)

THIS THESIS IS SUBMITTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF GHANA, LEGON IN

PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF

MASTER OF PHILOSOPHY DEGREE IN AFRICAN STUDIES

JULY, 2016

University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh

i

DECLARATION I hereby declare that this thesis is the result of my own research work and I remain solely

responsible for any shortcomings in this study. The research was carried out in the

Institute of African Studies, University of Ghana, under the supervision of Professor Kojo

S. Amanor and Dr. Osman Alhassan. All relevant references cited in this work have been

duly acknowledged. This work is not presented in full or in part to any other institution

for examination.

Aliu Aminu (10508519) …………………… …………………..

Student name and ID Signature Date

Principal Supervisor

Professor Kojo S. Amanor ……………… ………………….

Signature Date

Co- Supervisor

Dr. Osman Alhassan …...……………… ……………….......

Signature Date


ii

DEDICATION

This research work is dedicated to my late Father, Mumuni Aliu (Zori Aliu) who died

during my course work on this programme and my late Mother, Mahama Azara, for the

faith and confidence she reposed in me at early hours of my education.


iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My special thanks go to my two supervisors, Professor Kojo S. Amanor and Dr. Osman

Alhassan for accepting to supervise this thesis and the professional manner they guided

me through this research work. But for their suggestions and critical lenses, I do not think

this research could have seen the light of day.

I also wish to acknowledge the financial support I received from Volkswagen Foundation

through the candid effort of Dr. Micheal Ayamba, African Post-Doctoral Fellow from

UDS-Tamale and Dr. Wolfram Laube, European Post-Doctoral Fellow, Bonn-Germany

who equally provided constructive criticisms that eventually shaped and opened my mind

towards this work. Another person who deserves mention is Professor/Dr. Friederike

Diaby Pentzlin, who encouraged me to work hard to merit the confidence reposed in me.

I will also like to acknowledge the parental guidance I have received from Mr. Silas

Natomah and his wife, Mrs. Nyadiya Ayi for providing me accommodation throughout

the course period.

Finally, I will like to thank the Almighty Allah for bringing me this far in the academic

cycle. This achievement could not have been possible without His gift of life,

determination, and fortitude to fight on to this level.


iv

ABSTRACT

The focus of recent literature is on land grabbing through international investment in

African agriculture that has attracted much attention in the media but overlooks the

processes of social differentiation in rural communities, which is also resulting in

processes of accumulation of large expanses of farmland by emerging commercial

farmers. There are multiple pathways by which agricultural commercialization and land

consolidation can occur. This study explored emergent land markets within rural areas

and the impact of agricultural commercialization on various forms of land transactions

and labour relations, and the extent to which this results in the dispossession of

smallholder farmers in the Nanumba North District. Appropriation of agricultural land

can occur through accumulation from (1) below, by investments of smallholder farmers

within a process of investing farm profits in further expansion of farming activities. It can

also occur from (2) above, by investments of other actors who have accumulated capital

outside of agriculture into agriculture, which they see as a profitable venture. Farmland

appropriations can also occur through (3) rental markets, neo-customary and informal

mechanisms based on notions of a moral economy rooted in reciprocity, obligations,

exchange of services and gifts, and debt.

This thesis argues that, the main source of accumulation within agriculture occurs from

investments of traders, civil servants, bureaucrats who use their savings to gain access to

farmlands. The research employed both quantitative and qualitative methods of data

gathering. The sample size was sixty farmers which comprised of twenty commercial

farmers, fifteen women, and ten labourers as well as fifteen small-scale farmers. The

findings revealed that the new path ways in which people accumulate agriculture land

from poor farmers is through the hiring of tractors and providing ploughing services to

land owners in exchange for land which reveals that land owners lack the necessary

capital to hire tractor services.

The study concludes that majority of the farmers who have tractors were civil servants

who accumulated their capital from non-farm activities and use this to influence land

owners to appropriate vast expanse of farmlands through the provision of ploughing


v

services and hiring out of tractors. It is recommended that government facilitates access

to market agricultural services such as tractor ploughing for smallholders, ensuring that

these are widely available and not controlled by a class of aspiring large-scale farmers

with political connections.


vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION ................................................................................................................................................ i

DEDICATION .............................................................................................................................................. ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................................... iii

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................. iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................. vi

CHAPTER ONE ........................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Problem Statement .............................................................................................................................. 3

1.3 Conceptual framework ........................................................................................................................ 3

1.4 Research Objectives ............................................................................................................................ 6

1.5 Research Questions ............................................................................................................................. 7

1.6 Research Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 7

1.6.1 Research Design ........................................................................................................................... 7

1.6.2 Sampling Design .......................................................................................................................... 8

1.6.3 Data collection methods and techniques .................................................................................... 10

1.7 Relevance of this Study .................................................................................................................... 11

1.8 Organization of this Study ................................................................................................................ 12

CHAPTER TWO ........................................................................................................................................ 14

LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................................... 14

2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 14

2.2 Concept of Agricultural Commercialization ..................................................................................... 17

2.3 Land and Labour Markets in Agricultural Commercialization ......................................................... 21

2.4 Land Tenure Systems in Africa ........................................................................................................ 27

2.5 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 30

CHAPTER THREE .................................................................................................................................... 31


vii

THE NANUMBA NORTH DISTRICT ..................................................................................................... 31

3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 31

3.2 Background Information on Nanun and its history ........................................................................... 32

3.3 Communal/Family Land Tenure Systems in Nanumba North District ............................................. 34

3.4 Mechanization of Agriculture and Agricultural Production in Nanun .............................................. 36

3.5 Agricultural production and markets in the area ............................................................................... 39

3.6 Relations between indigenes and settler groups................................................................................ 41

3.7 Role of chiefs in land tenure and distribution in Nanumba North District ....................................... 45

3.8 Changes in cropping system in Nanumba North District .................................................................. 47

3.9 Impact of agricultural commercialization on labour markets ........................................................... 49

3.10 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 54

CHAPTER FOUR ....................................................................................................................................... 55

IMPACT OF AGRICULTURAL COMMERCIALIZATION ON LAND AND LABOUR IN

NANUMBA NORTH DISTRICT .............................................................................................................. 55

4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 55

4.2 Perception of farmers on commercial farming activities .................................................................. 61

4.3 Access to farmland in Nanun ............................................................................................................ 63

4.5 Patterns of investment in crop production in Nanun ......................................................................... 73

4.6 Relationship between land owners and commercial farmers ............................................................ 75

4.7 Labour and Commercial Farming Relations ..................................................................................... 79

4.7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 86

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................... 88

APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................................... 101


viii

List of Acronyms

ADVANCE Agricultural Development and Value Chain Enhancement Program

AG Agricultural Commercialization

AM Agricultural Mechanization

AMSEC Agricultural Mechanization Service Enterprise Centers

BC Brigade Camps

CF Commercial Farmers

LLB Land and Labour Markets

MIS Management Information System

MOFA Ministry of Food and Agriculture

WB World Bank

WDR World Development Report


ix

List of Tables

Table 4.1 Acreages cultivated by tractor owners and hirers of tractor services ........................... 57

Table 4.2 Nature of land acquisition by tractor owners and tractor hirers ................................... 59

Table 4.3 The origins of farmers ................................................................................................... 69

Table 4.4 Occupations of farmers and tractor owners .................................................................. 70

Table 4.5 Land holdings of different occupation groups .............................................................. 71

Table 4.6 Crops cultivated by farmers .......................................................................................... 75

List of figures

Figure 3.1 A Map of Nanumba North District showing the farming communities ...................... 53

Figure 4.1: A chart showing the usage of farm machinery ........................................................... 60

Figure 4.2: A chart illustrating forms of land acquisition ............................................................. 67


1

CHAPTER ONE

1.1 Introduction

Recent interest in investing in African agriculture has generated debates about

land grabbing (Zoomers, 2010; GRAIN, 2008), though land grabbing is not a recent

phenomenon as attested by the large areas of land alienated from local farmers in white

settler colonies (Moyo et al., 2008, Ntsebeza 2005, Amin 1972). However, recent

developments are resulting in an internal land rush (Jayne et al., 2014; Peters, 2004)

emanating from agricultural commercialization. Commercial agriculture refers to the

production of significant amount of cash commodities, allocating a significant proportion

of production resources to marketable commodities or selling a considerable portion of

agricultural products by farmers (Von Braun, 1994; Jaleta et al., 2009; Pingali et al.,

2010; Zhou 2013). Cases drawn from Southeast Asia and Latin America show that there

are multiple pathways by which agricultural commercialization and land consolidation

can occur (Poulton et al., 2008).

These commercialization pathways are either driven by smallholder

accumulation, such as in the northeast region of Thailand or through large-scale

investments in commercial agriculture, as in Cerrado region of Brazil (Poulton et al.,

2008; Morris et al., 2009; World Bank, 2009). Yet in Africa there is insufficient evidence

on how commercialization and land consolidation occurs over time due to the limited

nature of studies (Muyanga et al., 2013; Chapoto et al., 2013; Poulton et al., 2008).

Peters (2004) argues that increasing competitiveness and concentration within agriculture

creates pressures on smallholders that ultimately result in dispossession. Dispossession


2

arises in two major forms. Firstly, from below, in which the increasing commercialization

of smallholder production and its integration into global agri-food chains results in the

expansion of more successful commercial smallholders at the expense of less commercial

producers. Secondly, the development of a land market opens the possibility of distress-

sales by the poor in times of hardship, thus accelerating social differentiation and

landlessness among the poor (Woodhouse and Chimwohu, 2006; Peters 2004)

Access to land in most of sub-Saharan Africa is determined by indigenous

systems of land tenure that have evolved over time under local and colonial influences

(Cheater 1990; Lund 2002). Empirical evidence suggests that in the nineteenth and early

twentieth-century African farmers were actively engaged in expanding agricultural output

in response to new local and international markets. For instance, Hill‘s (1963) study of

the origins of cocoa farming in Ghana in the first two decades of the twentieth century,

and Bundy‘s (1979) work on African farming in South Africa before the 1913 Land Act

show quite clearly the rapid evolution of land markets. This resulted in the formation of

alliances by most migrant Ghanaian cocoa farmers to purchase from chiefs tracts of forest

which they then cleared for cocoa farms. The South African peasants who supplied food

to mining towns were able to purchase titles to the land they farmed, titles that

subsequently presented significant obstacles to the removal of their descendants from the

land by the apartheid regime.

Teye et al., (2016) noted that the nature of agricultural commercialization has

been largely smallholder-based and less centered on large scale acquisitions. However,

recent revived interest in commercial investments created the conditions for large-scale


3

land acquisitions in Ghana. This study explores ways in which agricultural

commercialization transforms customary land tenure relations in the Nanumba North

District in the Northern Region of Ghana.

1.2 Problem Statement

The research on competitive struggles over land and land-based resources clearly

shows the involvement of state agencies, members of elites and a national ‗dominant

class‘. Yet, there is scanty information on the role being played by local actors who are

primarily involved in the accumulation of land resulting in the growth of the emergent

farm sector. More so, little is known about the role of local land markets in the process of

emergent farmland accumulation or consolidation.

This study contributes to the literature on the emergence of middle-scale

commercial farmers in Africa (Jayne et al., 2014), in which to date few studies have been

carried out in Ghana, with the exception of Teye, Yaro and Torkivey (2016) paper

presented at 2016 World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty, who study various

forms of agricultural commercialization including the emergence of commercial mango

farmers in Somanya farming up to 200 hectares. This study further explores emergent

land markets within rural areas and the impact of agricultural commercialization on

various forms of land transactions and labour relations, and the extent to which this

results in the dispossession of smallholder farmers.

1.3 Conceptual framework

In recent times, a large body of literature has dealt with international investment

in African agriculture (Policy & Practice, 2010; Cotula 2009; Amanor 2012). ―Land


4

grabbing‖ has attracted much attention in the media, but overlooks the processes of social

differentiation in rural communities, which is also resulting in processes of accumulation

of large expanses of farmland by emerging commercial farmers. Emergent farmers are

defined as cultivating between 5 ha to 100 ha of farmland (Jayne et al., 2014).

Widespread appropriation of farmland in rural communities are orchestrated by elites and

are situated within broader processes of social inequality and class formation as well as

the development of land markets (Amanor, 2001; Peter, 2004; Oya, 2007).

Rural inequalities and rural social differentiation have been quite significant in

much of Africa, even before the era of neoliberalism. Sender and Smith (1986) provide a

long list of rural surveys in different parts of rural Africa, which invariably demonstrate

that some rural entrepreneurs possessed extensive tracts of land, often appropriated land

that had previously been occupied by smallholder farmers. Jayne et al., (2014) conducted

a survey in (Ghana, Kenya, and Zambia), which indicated that the pace of land

acquisitions by medium-scale African investors, now control more land than large-scale

foreign investors. Their samples were drawn from lists of farms compiled by district

agricultural authorities and from local farmer-based organizations. Farmers were listed as

medium-scale if they were believed to hold between five and one hundred hectares.

Jayne et al. (2014) noted the difficulty involved in establishing the total hectares

under cultivation, but the Ministry of Agriculture data files suggest that roughly 0.24,

0.36, and 0.30 million hectares are under domestic large-scale landholdings in Ghana,

Kenya, and Zambia, respectively. In Ghana, farmlands over ten hectares accounted for

11.1 percent of total area under cultivation in 1992, but this rose to 36.7 percent by 2005.


5

In Kenya, rural population growth and land subdivision have led to an alarming rise in

the proportion of very small farms. Between 1994 and 2006, the proportion of Kenya‘s

farms smaller than one hectare rose from 44.8 to 67.2 percent. However, within this farm

size category, there was a curious 230 percent increase in average landholding size over

this twelve-year period, from 13.2 to 31.1 hectares. Jayne et al. (2014) further noted that

majority in Zambia acquired their farms after the age of forty. Using their savings from

their non-farm jobs, they were able to acquire farms and start farming during their mid-

life stages. Those who accumulated farmlands from below entered farming earlier than

their counterparts. They tend to have smaller holdings than more recent entrants from the

non-farm sector, but they put a greater proportion of their land under cultivation. The

findings revealed two categories of accumulators thus, people primarily engaged in non-

farm jobs and investing in land and relatively privileged rural-born men who were then

able to acquire large landholdings as they started out their careers (Jayne et al., 2014).

While researchers recognize social differentiation across Africa, they do not agree

on a single interpretive model for its analysis. Many studies distinguish rural populations

according to parameters based on landholding size, income, type of livelihood strategy

(such as the degree of farm production compared with wage labour) or combinations of

these. Commodification shapes, reshapes and transforms pre-existing social and cultural

ideas, practices and relations in most parts of rural communities (Oya 2007; Peters 2004;

Amanor 1999).

Understanding the processes of commodification or appropriation among rural

farmers allows the focus of analysis to concentrate on the dynamics and trajectories of


6

social change (Bernstein & Woodhouse 2001: 319). The intensification of production and

increased reliance on the market for inputs and for many basic necessities has led to

competition over land and labour, revealed in increased transfers of land through rentals,

sharecropping and sales. This also results in divisions within families following the stress

lines of generations and gender and increasing social stratification.

Clearly, the colonial and postcolonial governments have had profound effects on

both the conditions under which customary and other claims and rights are defined and

contested and on the framing of those claims and rights. As Amanor (1999: 20)

postulates, the ‗structures of inequality‘ across generations, genders and communities

have to be placed within ‗wider processes of commodification of agriculture and social

differentiation‘. A key socio-cultural dynamic of differentiation emerging from the

literature turns on divisions within significant social units – family, lineage, village, tribe

or ethnically defined group. Sometimes, competition over land leads to efforts to exclude

some users through various types of enclosure (Peters 1994; Amanor 1999; 2001;

Chauveau, 2000; Colin 2013).

1.4 Research Objectives

The specific objectives of this research include:

1) To examine the relationship between investment in land and agricultural

commercialization.

2) To examine the impact of agricultural commercialization on social differentiation.

3) To examine the impact of agricultural commercialization on farming strategies.


7

4) To identify the responses of different categories of rural farmers to agricultural

commercialization.

1.5 Research Questions

The main research questions include the following:

1) What are the main developments in agricultural commercialization in the area?

2) What are the patterns of investments in land for agricultural purposes?

3) What is the rationale for these investments?

4) Who are the main investors in agriculture?

5) What are the origins and sources of capital for investment?

6) Who are agricultural lands being acquired from?

7) What are the bases for these transactions?

1.6 Research Methodology

1.6.1 Research Design

This study uses a mixed method of integrating quantitative and qualitative data

collection and analysis in a single study (Creswell et al., 2003; Stange et al., 2006) to

generate new knowledge involving either concurrent or sequential use of two classes of

methods to follow a line of inquiry. Bulsara (undated) further explains that mixed

methods research involves collecting, analysing, and integrating or mixing quantitative

and qualitative research, and data in a single study or a longitudinal programme of

inquiry. Other sources included secondary sources (journals, articles, published books,

conference and research reports, working papers, and websites). Secondary sources


8

relevant to this study were used to get an insight into what the land tenure system in

Nanun used to be and it‘s changing trends and information on commercial farming.

Primary data gathering for this thesis spanned the period from October 2015 to March

2016. Nanumba North district was chosen for this research and its administrative capital

of Bimbilla houses most of the commercial farmers.

1.6.2 Sampling Design

Sixty farmers including commercial farmers, laborers, and women were

interviewed from five farming communities in Nanumba North District to develop a

pattern and offer a deeper appreciation of the research problem. The involvement of

labourers was to help in the understanding of the perception of these categories of the

process of land commodification and its impact on their lives, their access to and

resources, and food security. It was also to find out if there are conflicts over land.

This segment of the population was sampled with the use of purposive sampling

technique. I simply identified one commercial farmer through a key informant in

Bimbilla and after a successful interview; he/she then mentioned at least three names of

other farmers who were known to be commercial farmers in the study area. Every

commercial farmer who was interviewed during the process mentioned at least three or

more commercial farmers. The labourers and small-scale farmers who were interviewed

also assisted in identifying notable commercial farmers in the area and systematically the

sample size was realized through that technique. I then moved into compounds within

the communities and selected adults who were available and residents of those houses,

and willing to be interviewed. To avoid overrepresentation of a particular household or


9

gender, I made sure that, not more than two people from the same household were

included in the sample, and that the two household members were not of the same sex.

The Bimbilla-Na is the custodian of Nanun land and he delegates this

custodianship to his sub-chiefs who are in charge of the day-to-day administration of the

land and its resources (Staniland, 1975; Mahama, 2004). Because of the position of the

chiefs as custodians of land in their respective communities, some of them were

purposively selected for interview. The chief of Vo-Naa (Reagent of late Naa Abarika

Atta) and the Regent of Chamba town were interviewed.

The District Managing Director of MOFA, the MIS District Agricultural Officer

and the Agricultural Extension Officer for Bimbilla were purposively selected because of

their official positions and they assisted me to have a fair idea of how agriculture is being

commercialized. It was further explained that farmers who have farmlands below five

acres were categorized as smallholders and farmers with farmland holdings more than 5

acres were deemed as commercial farmers. Ten laborers were also interviewed from

among laborers who were harvesting rice on commercial farm at the time of the survey.

Interviews were carried out during the resting time for the laborers. However, some of the

laborers were still busy even when they were supposed to be on break. In the end, I

interviewed those who were willing to be interviewed. In all, primary data collected from

the sample ranged from the social profile of commercial farmers and laborers, and the

impact of commercial farming on members of the communities who may have multiple

rights in communal lands and other natural resources.


10

1.6.3 Data collection methods and techniques

A research assistant from Bimbilla was employed to help me administer and

complete the semi-structured questionnaires. The researcher discussed the concept of

commercial farming, objectives and the research questions the thesis intended to answer,

the translation of certain terms for commercial farming activities in the community and

all questions in the survey questionnaires with the assistant before we embarked on the

data gathering. At the community level, we also employed the services of two community

members – one from Chamba and another person from Lepusi because of his position as

‗Dema Naa‘ (entertainment chief) – who led us to opinion leaders in the community. In

Chamba, our first point of call was the Assemblyman, a local resident for the Chamba

electoral area to explain our mission to him. The assistant spoke many languages

including the Konkomba language and this facilitated the interview process from the

field.

Primary data collection in the selected communities was done using personal

survey interview questionnaires and in-depth interviews (open-ended and semi-

structured). Open-ended questionnaires were used to interview traditional authorities, the

District Director of MOFA, the Agricultural Extension Officer for the communities and

laborers on commercial farms. Two different sets of semi-structured questionnaires were

also administered to the selected commercial farmers and ordinary farmers (both men and

women in the community). A focus group discussion was carried out with a section of the

youth in the community to understand the farming practices in the area including the

crops that are grown. This section of the youth was comprised of labourers, tractor

operators and farmers in the community, who helped me, understand the farming


11

strategies and the relationships that exist among commercial farmers, land owners, and

laborers.

I also carried out in-depth interviews with the selected respondents who were made

up of commercial and peasant farmers and some community members so as to understand

the land acquisition process and how it impacts on their land relations. This in-depth

interview method helped me go beyond just the number of farmers and the acreage they

cultivate. It also gave me much information on how easily the people lose their farmlands

to commercial farmers in exchange for ploughing services and the extent to which people

use their influence to gain access to farmlands. Participant observation as a technique for

gathering data was also employed in the study. This included observation of social

phenomenon through interaction with the people in the communities. In-depth interviews

were recorded with using an audio recorder. A field notebook was also used to record the

salient points during interview sections and informal discussions.

1.7 Relevance of this Study

This study contributes to the argument by Woodhouse and Chimwohu (2006) that

intensification of production and increased reliance on the market for inputs and for many

basic necessities has led to competition over land and labour, resulting in transfers of land

through rentals, sharecropping, and sales.

The study also supports an assertion by Jayne et al., (2014) that people primarily

engaged in non-farm jobs are now investing in farmland and only relatively privileged


12

rural-born men are then able to acquire large landholdings as they started out their

careers. The new entrants tend to have large scale of farmland than traditional farmers

and it is the small-scale farmers who are losing out their farmlands in exchange of

ploughing services.

The new pathways in which people accumulate agricultural land from poor farmers is

through the hiring of tractors and providing ploughing services to landowners in

exchange for land which reveals that landowners may lack the necessary capital to hire

tractor services.

The study also revealed that majority of the farmers who have tractors were civil

servants who accumulated their capital from non-farm activities, which builds on the

argument of Oya (2007) that locally based entrepreneurs have engaged in the

appropriation of farmlands which leads to the emergence of social differentiation among

rural farmers.

1.8 Organization of this Study

The research is organized into five chapters. After this introductory chapter, the

next chapter contains the literature review where it is documented that commercialization

of agriculture is not a new phenomenon in the area but has taken different twist and turns

in most communities. It thereby argues that accumulation of farmlands do not necessarily

occur in structured markets alone but also through informal processes of accumulation in

rural communities.


13

The third chapter provides background information of the study area and the kind

of land tenure relations that exist in the area. It is argued in that chapter that there is a

linkage between agriculture production and markets and how this leads to networks and

building of relationship among farmers and traders. In chapter four, the various pathways

through which appropriations of land occur in Nanun are analyzed. It argues that there

are multiple pathways through which appropriation of land can occur. The chapter further

highlights a more nuanced perspective of appreciating different forms of local land

markets and it necessarily does not have to occur through only formal markets.

Last but not the least, chapter five is a summary of the findings of the research,

conclusion, and recommendations which emphasise the need for further research into the

internal land rush in Africa. Those who have been engaged in these appropriations are not

external agents but local based farmers who secure farmlands from farmers through the

provision of ploughing services by tractor owners and others through the hiring of

tractors to provide ploughing services in exchange of land from land owners. Landowners

do not have the networks or financial capital to expand agriculture and rather heavily rely

on the services of commercial farmers to get their fields ploughed for them.


14

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

Western companies have been in the spotlight for acquiring millions of hectares

of farmland in Africa in recent years. The focus of land grabbing by external agents for

agricultural developments is often treated as an isolated issue that dominated the

headlines overtime but land grabbing also occurs alongside forms of accumulation of

land at the national level. A significant number of informal paths in land acquisitions of

largely unknown proportions by a somewhat disguised class of ―emergent‖ or medium-

scale local farmers rather engaged in the appropriation of farmlands. Public debates about

transnational deals have diverted attention from this important source of pressures on the

land (Jayne et al., 2014; Cotula, 2012; Zoomers, 2009).

In many parts of Africa, villagers are feeling the squeeze, not because of land

acquisitions by global capitalists, but because of growing land concentration within the

rural area. A World Bank study covering the period 2004 to 2009 found that local based

farmers accounted for 97 percent of the land area acquired in Nigeria, and for half or

more in Sudan (78 percent), Ethiopia (49 percent) and Mozambique (53 per cent).

Similarly, in Senegal, acquisitions by local based farmers account for 61 per cent of

acquired land areas according to one inventory (Cotula, 2012; Jayne et al., 2014). Land

policies of African governments and agricultural development plans have largely been

prepared in an information vacuum, based on prior assumptions of land abundance

despite warnings of ―African enclosures‖ processes unfolding in some parts of rural


15

Africa. The possibility that indigenous rural communities may face land access problems

associated with constraints on cropland expansion raises important policy questions that

are seldom considered in national development strategies.

Debates about the development of agricultural capitalism in Africa are structured

around the nature of integration of smallholder farmers into agricultural markets and the

emergence of capitalism in smallholder agriculture. This focuses on the extent to which

the expansion of agrarian capitalism results in the survival or reproduction of petty

commodity producers and the increasing social differentiation of the peasantry. This is

manifest in theories of alternative paths to capitalist agriculture and appropriation from

above and below (Bernstein, 2004; Oya, 2007).

Appropriation of land needs to be placed in the context of longer-term processes

of capital accumulation and social differentiation within the nations concerned. Urban

groups have acquired large landholdings in rural areas. Politicians, government officials

and business people based in towns have used their influence within the state apparatus to

forge alliances with customary land management authorities to take control of rural land.

Growing land concentration has been driven by processes rooted in rural areas too. More

dynamic farmers have been able to increase their landholdings at the expense of other

groups. And in many places, customary chiefs have reinterpreted their land management

responsibilities as rights of ownership.

It is often assumed that the emergence of agricultural commercialization is

consistent with a relatively low incidence of landlessness in African social formations or

with ‗accumulation without dispossession‘ Berry (1993). Class formation and


16

differentiation in much of rural Africa are complex processes that do not exactly replicate

patterns of social differentiation in other regions. There is a complex interaction between

class, lineage-kinship and generational relations, which produce outcomes that can be

very location specific. At the same time, the very coexistence of different forms or

varieties of agrarian capitalism from large-scale agribusiness to peasant capitalism, and

their shifting fortunes as a result of external and internal dynamics, also underpin

differences in the nature of rural capitalist classes and the process of differentiation

across countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (Oya, 2007; Amanor, 2001).

Agricultural commercialization plays a major role in the contemporary processes

of social change and rural transformations in most part of Africa. Understanding the

various paths of agricultural accumulation by emergent commercial farmers - where they

get their initial capital, how they acquire and expand land, how they mobilize labour,

their access to capital and loans, their savings and investment patterns, and how

inheritance works in terms of concentration or dispersion of capital assets in any given

dispensation - is critical to understanding agricultural development (Oya, 2007).

This chapter examines the literature on processes of agricultural

commercialization through which emergent commercial farmers enclose lands within

rural communities and how it impacts on land tenure relations. It reviews the literature on

the concepts of agricultural commercialization, land and labor markets in agricultural

commercialization, land tenure relations in Africa, and the relationship between

agricultural commercialization and land tenure systems.


17

2.2 Concept of Agricultural Commercialization

The World Bank‘s World Development Report (WDR) emphasize on Agriculture

commercialization for the development of African agriculture especially for Sub-Saharan

Africa. The region is mostly agriculture-based and growth will happen through

investment where the agricultural potential is medium to large scale, while at the same

time ensuring the livelihoods and food security of subsistence farmers. Therefore

agriculture development requires improving access to markets and developing modern

market chains which they believe will stimulate a smallholder-based productivity

revolution aimed at achieving sustainable development and poverty reduction through the

development of commercial agriculture (World Bank, 2007). Another World Bank (WB)

report, Awakening Africa's Sleeping Giant argued that, for the foreseeable future,

reducing poverty in Africa will depend largely on stimulating agricultural growth (World

Bank, 2009).

Nevertheless, various authors have criticized the WB approach to engage

smallholders in commercial markets and see the WDR to be consistent with the World

Bank‘s mistaken philosophy of agricultural markets in Africa resulting in exclusion of

smallholders and a consequence of the type of project that was envisaged in the Sleeping

Giant report (World Bank, 2009). Amanor (2009) highlights the differential but often

exclusionary results of agribusiness investment and market access. The World Bank

noted that national agendas for agriculture need differentiation to reflect differences in

priorities and structural conditions across the three agricultural worlds. Kay (2009)

indicated that the WDR advocates three pathways out of rural poverty which can be

based on agriculture, the non-farm economy or outmigration but are unlikely to help the


18

poorest of the poor. Rather than accounting for differentiation within the rural population,

the approach of the World Bank is a prescription for furthering rural capitalism which

fails to address the development challenges facing the majority of independent rural

smallholders.

Amanor (2012) noted that increasing competitiveness and concentration within

agriculture creates pressures on smallholders that ultimately result in dispossession.

Dispossession arises in two ways. Firstly, from below, in which the increasing

commercialization of smallholder production and its integration into global agri-food

chains results in the expansion of more successful commercial smallholders at the

expense of less commercial producers, or in the movement of producers with options into

other sectors leaving those best able to absorb declining margins of profit to fend for

themselves. Jayne et al., (2014) indicated that those who appropriated from below belong

to a significant minority of medium-scale farmers who started out in agriculture, but from

a position of relative privilege. These farmers started out their careers with relatively

large landholdings and had other characteristics, such as educational attainment, that are

quite distinct from most small-scale farmers in Africa. On the other hand, appropriation

from above covers a majority of the new entrants into medium-scale farming who are

urban-based investors and accumulated cash savings and seek a stable long-term return

on their investment. Cowen and Shenton (1996: 300) attributed the emergence of

agricultural commercialization in Kenya to civil servants who owned and controlled

capital in large farms, real estate and a gamut of enterprises in trade, tourism and some

sectors of manufacturing industry.


19

Oya (2007) noted that internal enclosure of land emerged mostly from the ranks

of peasants ‗capitalism from below‘ as a result of farmers‘ differentiation, and not so

much from pre-colonial landowning classes or chiefs. Secondly, a contrast can be made

between West Africa, where artisanship and trade provided a significant pool of

entrepreneurs for the accumulation of land. Thirdly, many of today‘s commercial farmers

have, however, originated from families that had already previously accumulated some

form of economic or political power. The importance of access to formal state-mediated

wage employment for instances of rural accumulation has been highlighted by previous

studies, which not only emphasize the role of access to a stable source of revenue but also

the fact that skills acquired through state wage employment have been used to

consolidate or spur different forms of rural entrepreneurship.

A study conducted by Jayne et al., (2014) illustrates that the area controlled by

medium-scale landholdings in the five to one hundred hectare category now exceeds that

of small-scale farms less than five hectares in Zambia. In Ghana, small-scale farms still

accounted for a higher share of farmland than medium-scale farms. However, in all three

cases, farms in the five to one hundred hectare category account for a significant share of

the area under cultivation. Trends in the performance of medium-scale farms are hence

likely to have a major impact on overall agricultural performance in these countries, and

this impact is likely to become stronger over time, at least in Ghana and Zambia. A

majority of farmers tend to have smaller holdings than more recent entrants from the non-

farm sector, but they put a greater proportion of their land under cultivation. However,

given the initial size of their land acquisitions, this group of relatively successful farmers

is clearly not reflective of small-scale farmers. The median amount of land inherited from


20

their parents, or otherwise acquired, was twenty-six hectares in Zambia and fourteen

hectares in Kenya. Hence, a rather low percentage of medium-scale farmers correspond

to a narrative of successful graduation out of small-scale status through reinvestment of

their surplus and expanding their farms over time.

These investments may entail the move from one site of accumulation to another

and ultimately the emergence of class (vertical) differentiation within kin groups, which,

according to Berry (1985; 1993) reflects the mutual interaction between class and other

forms of stratification (communal, lineage-related, gender) that appear to be common in

West Africa. The differences among rural accumulators in this respect lie in the extent to

which some rural capitalists have initially accumulated on the basis of non-capitalist

labour relations and gradually transformed them into capitalist ones, through increasing

reliance on hired labour.

The dynamics of land relations are best understood within a framework that

examines the commodification of land and labour and the impact of these on social

relations and the transmission of property and land. The impact of increasing social

differentiation and capital accumulation on family relations is evident in the relationship

between family, hired and migrant labour. Conflicts over rights in land and rights to

labour service have often shaped the development of land markets and the ways in which

land is transmitted from one generation to the next, and this has often transformed family

relations and values. The commercialization of agriculture leads to a decline of family

farms, in which farming is conducted by various amalgamations of husband, wives, and

children (Peters, 2004; Amanor, 1999).


21

Teye et al., (2016) noted that large-scale agricultural land deals of the late 2000s

were influenced by an assertion that foreign investments are needed to modernize

agriculture. However, recent revived interest in commercial investments created the

conditions for large-scale land acquisitions in Ghana. For instance, Teye et al., (2016)

illustrated that commercial mango farmers in Somanya have the potential to swallow up

peasants and displaced them of their possessions. The commercial area has the highest

inequality in land ownership as domestic investors‘ crowd out the local farmers by

purchasing lands hitherto used by these groups. The trend in commodification of land,

especially on the changing forms of access, shows an evolutionary property rights system

with increasing individualization of land rights.

Amanor & Pabi, (2007) noted that agricultural commercialization may result in a

new coalition of elite farmers armed with tools to global markets coming to prominence

and displacing the existing peasantries. All these developments symbolize an appreciable

change in land transactions. Many of the responses of farmers are also conditioned by

policy dimensions, which can have positive, negative, and unintended impacts.

2.3 Land and Labour Markets in Agricultural Commercialization

Land commercialization does not need the development of formal markets in land

but can occur through vernacular markets and local idioms. Idioms of accumulation and

labour mobilization in agricultural commercialization are also about evolving labour

mobilization patterns among emerging rural accumulators and the conditions of labour

supply induced by processes of rural differentiation, and evolving labour mobilization

patterns. Vernacular land markets are informal processes of engaging in land transactions


22

that occur outside the formal or structured systems of appropriating land which put

pressure on local farmers and their access to farmlands. The various forms of vernacular

land markets that occur in rural communities have been discussed by Chauveau (2000),

Colin (2013), Woodhouse and Chimwohu (2006), Amanor and Diderutuah (2001).

Chauveau (2000) describes the ―tutorat‖ land relation in Côte d‘Ivoire. The tutorat

is a relationship between a migrant farmer and indigenous landowner based on a

relationship of patronage. The migrant owns an obligation to the land giver, the ―tuteur‖,

expressed through a moral economy of everyday civilities and providing labour services,

gifts, and contributions to important social occasions. With the rapid expansion of

migrants into southwestern Côte d‘Ivoire, the tutorat became a disguised form of land

sale, in which land was transacted with migrants through the tutorat. Thus the moral

economy of land became increasingly commoditized and land sales disguised as

customary presentations. As a consequence, the youth clearly saw this as alienation of

land and a sale of their rightful patrimony by the elders for selfish gain. This led to

grievances that exploded into violence against the migrant population. However, with the

massive arrival of migrants and the economic stake in land control with the development

of smallholder plantation economy, the emergence and development of land sales often

corresponded to a deepening and commodification of the migrants‘ initially symbolic

gifts presented to the tuteur during the ceremony that settled the migrant on a piece of

land. Through such transactions, the land transfer retains a strong relational dimension at

least in the mind of the seller. The payment then does not end the relationship but

establishes or perpetuates it.


23

Colin (2013) observed another form of vernacular land market in the form of

Plant and Share (P&S) contract that brings together an ‗assignor‘ and a ‗taker‘ for the

creation of new cocoa, palm or rubber plantations. The contract may be agreed upon

between villagers, but also between villagers assigning land and city dwellers or

technicians working in the agro-industrial sector as takers, especially regarding rubber

and palm tree plantations. The general principle of P&S is that the assignor provides the

land and the taker provides the capital, labour, and expertise needed to establish the

perennial plantation. The taker is responsible for maintaining the plantation until it

becomes productive. Once this happens, the sharing element kicks in. One can

distinguish three variants of P&S contracts. The first and dominant type involves rights

to the plantation but not to the land. When the plantation begins producing, it is shared

between the taker and the landowner, who retains a right of ownership over all the land.

Thus, takers only have a right to the portion of the plantation allocated to them when it is

shared out, which they can then farm independently. The second type involves rights to

the plantation and to the land. When the sharing occurs, the taker acquires rights not only

over part of the plantation but also obtains ownership rights to the land on which it

stands. In the third type of contract, it is the harvest, rather than the plantation (and

possibly the land) that is shared. Once the plantation starts producing, the taker gives the

assignor part of the yield.

Amanor and Diderutuah (2001) argued that the abusa and abunu systems have

been transformed from the relations that were typical of the classical colonial cocoa

economy. It shows how share contracts have changed from a relationship between

migrant labourers and landowning citizens, into a relationship between local citizens,


24

land-hungry youth, and landowning family elders. Within this arena, it has undergone

structural changes from a relationship between landowning family elders and youth into a

relationship between close kin. As land becomes increasingly scarce within the family,

the youth withdraw their labour from their families and work outside their kin group as

casual workers or share tenants. However, with growing competition for land in the New

Abirem area, there was then increasing competition for share contracts. To gain access to

land, youth negotiated share contracts with their families. This takes place within the

context of new oil palm and citrus fruit development, both of which are seen as lucrative,

but capital intensive. Since many of the elders who control land cannot afford to develop

their own plantations, they are demanding a share in this new business in return for

access to land.

The abusa land tenant system developed as a mode of land transaction through

which sub-chiefs acquire their own cocoa farms by providing access to virgin land and

receiving some years later a developed cocoa plantation. Similarly, landholders disguised

the transactions of land with strangers, by masking this as an abusa relationship. Share

contracts both express and disguise new ways of allocating, dispensing and transacting

land. The abusa tenant system developed as a contractual arrangement between landless

migrant labour and Akyem landowners for the development of cocoa. Migrant tenants

cleared mature forest and planted cocoa plantations using their own capital. They

maintained the cocoa plantation and the yield were divided into thirds, with the tenant

taking two-thirds. An alternative arrangement (the abusa land system) involved the cocoa

farms being shared once they came into bearing, in which the landowners took two-thirds


25

of the land and the tenant the remainder. Through the abusa mechanism, the chiefs and

landowners of Akyem Abuakwa were able to acquire considerable holdings in cocoa.

From the 1970s onwards there has been an increasing struggle between youth and

elders within the agrarian economy over access to land and control over labour. Many

rural youth are unwilling to work on their family farms, since they are not given

sufficient land for their own farming needs. They prefer to work as share tenants on other

people‘s land or to gain an income through hiring themselves out as casual labour. Elders

are reluctant to release land to their sons and nephews since these young men are not

working for them, and they will lose the revenue they might have got through abusa.

Rental arrangements are also forms of vernacular or local land markets. Colin et

al., (2009) argue that rental arrangements emerged in Lower Côte d‘Ivoire in the 1960s

for pineapple production and expanded in the 1980s and 1990s in Southern Côte d‘Ivoire.

Small plots of land were rented out for food crops, and to a much lesser extent, for

pineapple production, with rental agreements usually covering a single cropping cycle –

from a few months for maize, yam, and rice, to up to a year for cassava, and two and a

half to three years for pineapple. The rent is paid in cash before the land is cultivated,

except for rice production, for which it is sometimes paid in kind after the harvest (with a

given number of sacks of rice per hectare). As with sales and P&S agreements, landlords

in rental contracts are generally autochthones and the tenant‘s migrants.

Colin (2013) indicated that the emergence and development of land transactions

in the forested area of Southern Côte d‘Ivoire was as a consequence of the mass influx of

migrants coming from the savannas of the center and northern Côte d‘Ivoire, Upper Volta


26

(which then became Burkina Faso). Woodhouse and Chimwohu (2006) argued that the

mobility of labour has been an important factor driving commercialization of land in

Africa, and the literature suggests three categories of buyers. A first group derives from a

new generation of what Berry (1993) calls the ‗new big men‘ of rural Africa. Using

income earned from a full-time job and the knowledge and influence gained from

bureaucratic and political offices and/ or experience, they usually buy land to take

advantage of new opportunities in agriculture. Seeking land in communal areas is one

way of gaining access to land without the cost of official registration and other

procedures of formal land markets. A second group consists mostly of migrants who,

lacking any customary land rights in the areas to which they have moved, usually resort

to buying or renting land (Woodhouse et al. 2000). The third group usually consists of

those with rights to land through kinship but, where land is scarce, have to resort to land

purchase or rental, often from a senior male relative with land to spare.

Woodhouse and Chimwohu (2006) have indicated that failure to understand the

nature and extent of land markets under customary tenure regimes risks obscuring the

processes through which the poor have access to land and disabling efforts to maintain or

improve that access. Cousins et al. (2005) opined that informal property systems

currently support a robust rental market that is well suited to the poor. This raises a

number of important questions about the extent of individualized control over the land

being rented, and how this relates to notions of communal or tribal ownership. The

complexity and fluidity of governance of land in many customary jurisdictions in Africa

pose a challenge to empirical research. There are typically very limited records of

(commoditized) land exchanges due to the official view of such transactions as ‗illegal‘.


27

A key indicator of commoditization of land is the transition from the ‗gifts‘

historically expected as tokens of acknowledgement of customary authority and of

anticipated reciprocity to payments more closely related to exchange values of the land.

Commoditization of land works to the disadvantage of those with lower purchasing

power, thus threatening reduced access to land and potentially further impoverishment for

the poorer among existing land users. Although informal land markets are ‗socially

embedded‘ within the social relations of contemporary African rural society, increasing

competition and social conflict around land and landed resources across Africa belies

the assumption that socially embedded systems of landholding and land use guarantee

access (Peters, 2004; 278). Peters‘ view that contestations of such ‗socially embedded‘

rights both reflect and reproduce social differentiation and result in unequal outcomes,

contrasts with Berry‘s (1993) influential interpretation that such contests encourage

indefinite renegotiation and thus generally do not generate unequivocal or fixed

outcomes.

2.4 Land Tenure Systems in Africa

Customary land tenure is seen as a field where social and political relationships

are diverse, overlapping and competing. Property regimes are thus often analyzed in

terms of processes of negotiation, in which people‘s social and political identities are

central elements, and are also becoming contested terrain (Berry, 2002; Lund, 2002).

Peters (2002) identifies three basic positions in the literature with regard to the

negotiability of customary tenure. During negotiations for farmland in rural communities,

land ‗sales‘ are quite incomplete and socially embedded transactions. The object of the

transaction and the rights transferred between autochthones and ‗strangers‘ are usually


28

fairly vague leaving it open to question whether it is the land or the right to plant that has

been purchased, with a timescale that is implicitly determined by the lifespan of the crop

grown on the land. The fact that transactions are often socially embedded means that

sales cannot always be considered complete in the sense of entirely freeing the buyer

from any further obligations to the seller.

The first argues that the ambiguity and negotiability of customary tenure lead to a

pervasive insecurity of rights of producers and to a lack of investment and inefficient

uses. The second position identifies the negotiability and ambiguity of relations over land

as a reflection of defining features of African societies, such as the hold social relations

have over economic action, the dependence of individual actors on social networks to

gain access to resources, and malfunctioning states. The third view argues that people‘s

access to land is closely linked to membership of social networks and participation in

political processes and is seen to open up possibilities of access to land for the poor and

not as necessarily engendering insecurity and increasing inequality (Berry, 1993). This

holds that the ambiguity and negotiability of customary tenure do not necessarily inhibit

investment but leads to increasing inequality because some people are in a better

bargaining position than others and there are limits to negotiability and ambiguity (Berry,

2002; Woodhouse, 2003). The first view was dominant from the 1960s to the 1980s

(Acock, 1962; Yudelman, 1964) but it has now been largely abandoned. Researchers

such as Platteau (2000), Toulmin and Quan (2000) now appear to favor the second

position, although with sufficient unanswered questions to leave open the possibility of

accepting the third (Woodhouse, 2003). Others such as Cousins (2002), Peters (2002),

Shipton (2002) and Woodhouse (2003) support the third position based on mounting


29

evidence of land appropriation by influential elites and increasingly restricted and

insecure access to land (Abudulai, 1996; Reyna & Downs, 1988).

These debates point to the fact that negotiators or contestants in customary land

matters seldom operate on level playing fields. Some have more negotiating power, and

more defining and contesting powers than others (Shipton, 2002). When competition for

land intensifies, the inclusive flexibility offered by customary rights can quickly become

an uncharted terrain where the less powerful are vulnerable to exclusion as a result of the

manipulation of ambiguity by the more powerful (Woodhouse, 2003). Ambiguity offers

room for manoeuvre to small farmers and modest rural producers, but, at the same time,

is exploited by the privileged in order to obtain advantage (Peters, 2002). Berry, for

instance, invariably stresses the flexibility and negotiability of customary tenure, Amanor

cautions that defining the customary as flexible, adaptive, and dynamic and hybrid

creates problems for examining processes of change, since change has now become an

intrinsic feature of institutions rather than a product of struggle between different social

forces (2001). They do agree, however, that property relations are subject to intense

contestation in cases where access to wealth and authority are undergoing rapid change.

From the 1950s to the 1980s, the dominant framework in international

development for land reform was one of promotion of land titling and registration under

modernization theory paradigm. It was theorized that titling would enable farmers to gain

loans against their farms, thereby improvement of land and agricultural development.

However, land titling has had little success in Africa and has supported the expansion of

elite farmers and their appropriation of land lying in the customary sector without secured


30

rights informal legal institutions. Bruce argues that this accumulation of land by

commercial farmers is an abuse of state administration of land titling by elites with close

ties to political regimes (1993).

2.5 Conclusion

This chapter has highlighted the various theories underpinning commercialization

of agriculture and the kind of informal processes individuals engaged in other to access

farmlands in most rural communities. The trajectories of these accumulations within

communities and among farmers themselves and the internal land rush are not influenced

by land grabbing by external actors as speculated by most media houses and the focus of

recent literature. These processes of dispossession within rural communities are purely

the handy work of internal systemic dynamics that puts the small-scale farmers in a worse

situation in terms of controlling their farmlands. This has resulted in changing land

relations due to activities of agricultural commercialization, the changes it brings about in

agricultural technology and impact of these upon family relations, labour, capital, and

transactions in land and the emergence of local markets in land in which land is

transferred outside of formal land markets, but the processes of transferring land reflect

processes of commodification and the creation of class groups and social differentiation

in terms of access to farmlands. The next chapter looks at the setting of the area, the

degree of agriculture production and relationship between different land users.


31

CHAPTER THREE

THE NANUMBA NORTH DISTRICT

3.1 Introduction

There are a lot of factors that affect the success of agriculture and to a larger

extend commercial farming. These factors as identified by Eaton and Shepherd (2001)

are the suitability of utilities and communications; the availability of land; the physical,

social and cultural environments; and the availability of needed inputs. Hence, there is

the need to discuss the settings of the area this study examines – the Northern Region

with emphasis on Nanumba North District. This chapter traces the history of the

Nanumba people with particular emphasis on those aspects that are relevant to this study

and their economic activities, the communal or family land tenure systems,

mechanization of agriculture and agricultural production, agriculture production and

markets in Nanun, relations between indigenes and subjugated groups, and relations

between rural and urban towns and role of chiefs in land tenure.

The area has a low population density but mechanization of agriculture has

resulted in the rush for farmland for investment in food crop production and the district is

noted for the production of large-scale agricultural commodities to feed the southern

markets in Ghana. Climatically, the Northern Region is much drier than the southern

sector of Ghana due to its proximity to the Sahel and the Sahara desert. It experiences

two distinct seasons – dry and wet seasons – and this limits the cultivation of food crops

throughout the year except in the few places with irrigation facilities. The wet season

normally lasts from May to October with an average annual rainfall of 750 to 1050 mm


32

(http://www.ghanadistricts.com), while the dry season is between November and April

during which period the region records its highest temperatures with low humidity

(http://www.ghanadistricts.com). However, the hot harmattan winds from the Sahara

blow frequently between December and the beginning of February. The high

temperatures during this period are likely to impact on the type(s) of crops individual

farmers can cultivate in the region.

3.2 Background Information on Nanun and its history

Geographically, the study is conducted in the Nanumba Traditional area which

comprises the Nanumba North and Nanumba South District with Bimbilla as the

traditional capital. The area is located in the North-Eastern part of Ghana and bounded by

East Gonja District (Gonja Land) to the west and south-west and Yendi Municipality to

the North. To the East, it shares boundaries with Zabzugu District, and to the south-east,

it shares boundaries with Volta Region.

Nanun is a kingdom of about 350, 000 with a growth rate of 3.5 (2010 Population

and Housing Census). The people are traditionally farmers and live in village

communities. These communities are ruled by chiefs who are either royal divisional

chiefs or non-royals. Within the capital itself are a retinue of chiefs who assist the chief in

the administration of the kingdom. The Bimbilla Naa is viewed as the owner, caretaker

and chief administrator of the kingdom. The land was divided into two administrator

regions in (2004); Nanumba North and Nanumba South with Bimbilla and Wulensi as

their respective administrative capitals. The Nanumba North District has a total

population of 141,584, with females representing 50.6 percent and males 49.4 percent.


33

The corresponding sex ratio (males to 100 females) in the district is 97.8, which implies

that there are approximately 98 males for every 100 females in the population. Out of the

total population, 28.3 percent are urban dwellers with the majority (71.7%) of the people

residing in rural areas (www.statsghana.gov.gh).

The migrants who founded the Nanumba Kingdom were part of a movement

which led to the creation of the Mamprusi, Dagomba and Mossi states. The Nanumba

speaks Nanunli- a Gur language. Their language is called Nanunli which literally means

the language of the Nanumba. According to Staniland (1975), the mythology of all the

above-mentioned names refer to a common ancestor - Tohajee – the Red Hunter whose

grandson, Gbewa settled at Pusiga near Bawku in north-east Ghana. According to

Staniland, these migrants originated from the Hausa state, probably Zamfara – who

raided local communities in the Niger valley. Gbewa gave birth to seventeen children and

was succeeded by Zirli the eldest son. During his reign, the other sons moved

southwards. Tohagu founded the Mampurigu state, Sitobu founded the Dagomba state

and Ngantambu founded the Nanumba state. The Mossi state of Ouagadougou was

founded by an offspring of Yamture, the daughter of Gbewa. This explains why Dagban,

Nanun, Mampurugu are playmates of the member of Mossi because maternal cousins are

traditionally playmates of paternal cousins (Haluway 2008).

Staniland (1975) indicated that Sitobu, the founder of Dagbon pointed his hand

southwards and asked his brother, Ngantambu to follow the direction and settle there.

Those who made the movement became Nanumba which literally means people of the

chief‘s hand (Na-nuu-ba). The place they settled became known as Bimbilla which means


34

the few or small things. Nanun is inhabited by other ethnic groups such as the

Konkomba, the Nawuri, Kotokoli, Anufo. The land is one of the areas noted for its

agricultural potential and food crops such as yam, maize, millet, rice, soya beans, beans,

and groundnut are cultivated for market and also for household provisioning.

Farming is the main economic occupation of the area with the introduction of

modern trades such as carpentry, masonry, vehicle repair etc. The people have taken

advantage of them and many have combined farming with trade. This brought bitterness

as they have to sometimes compete with the settler Konkomba for farmland leading

thereby to skirmishes in the village. Many have attributed the Konkonba - Nanumba wars

of 1981, 1994, and 1995 to farmland litigations. The rich commercial farmers, however,

face the competition among themselves in order to get fertile lands for their crops.

3.3 Communal/Family Land Tenure Systems in Nanumba North District

According to Quisumbing et al., (2001) communal land tenure system may be

conceptualized as a set of tenures rather than a single tenure type. Customary land tenure

systems claim to draw their legitimacy from tradition and are held by ‗traditional‘

authorities such as chiefs/family or clan heads on behalf of the community. Under

customary tenure, ownership and rights in land, and its resources are embedded in the

fundamental concept of kinship relations (Trebilcock, 1984). Allocations of land are

made based on one's relationship with the kin group or the custodians. The concept of

customary land tenure is often complex with multiple and overlapping rights over the

same resources held by different users at the same time or over a period. Under

communal land tenure system, one person could have the right to cultivate crops; while


35

on the same piece of land, another could have rights to trees. Or land could be used by

crop cultivators during the cropping season and by herders during the off-season or

fallow period.

The most dominant form of land tenure practice in the area is the family land

tenure system, where members of the family have allegiance to the family head that

exercises dominion over family land and allocates portions of these lands to the youth.

Most farmers acquire their farmlands through inheritance. The ownership of those

farmlands by individual families ceases when the town develops to the area, then the

community chief now takes control over the land and allocate it to interested members for

building or commercial activities. As a resource belonging to the people of Nanun, land

in Nanun is traditionally not for sale. This is the adage because the custodians and council

of elders of the land hold it for the benefit of the people of their respective communities.

But now things are changing in most communities, especially in peri-urban and fast

developing communities in Nanun. The council of elders and chiefs of the communities

who are custodians of community lands now see land as their personal property which

they divide into ―pillared‖ plots for lease without providing options of livelihood sources

for other community members who depend on the land. This is common in peri-urban

Bimbilla where community people‘s farmlands are divided into plots by the custodians

for lease to people with money to put up settlements.

The loss of farmlands by people in the peri-urban areas to developers or land

speculators has impacted negatively on farmers, especially in Bimbilla. People who have

lost their farmlands are forced to travel long distances to find farmlands and they have to


36

commute daily to their farms. In some cases, these commuter-farmers seasonally migrate

to other villages during the farming season and they only return home after harvest with

their foodstuffs or only when it becomes necessary. The seasonal migrant farmers

sometimes form new settlements altogether with their own leader(s). Their leaders

represent them in matters concerning their welfare with the land-owning community.

They serve the interest of the settlers and as an agent of the custodian of the land and also

take taxes and contributions on behalf of the custodian. In recent times, these farm

settlements are not left out of the land lease problems faced by peri-urban dwellers.

People who have migrated to settle in remote areas are now facing the challenge of their

farmlands being leased out to local commercial farmers by community chiefs to

undertake large-scale commercial farming. But the opportunities that arise are that

farmers find new lands, locate near the lands and thus concentrate on their farm work.

3.4 Mechanization of Agriculture and Agricultural Production in Nanun

Agricultural mechanization in most African countries from the colonial period to

independence favored mostly the large-scale producer to the neglect of the smallholder

farmers. In Ghana, for instance, the various developmental plans from colonial period

favored the production of tree crops for export and later encouraged the development and

production of large-scale mechanization scheme in the country which was often affected

by other factors. Also in Ghana, increased public investment in agricultural production

was however not to improve or transform peasant production but rather to establish large

scale mechanized state farms in the early 1960s. Both the colonial and post-colonial

government officials considered the small scale farmers as being not only incapable but

also unwilling to increase production to external demand of southern urban consumers


37

(Koning, 1986). So the land rush is to a large extent the story of a restructuring of the

rural food and agriculture system in ways that favour large over small-scale farming.

Houssou et al., (2014) conducted a survey in the Northern region where tractor

services have been adopted more widely than in the South. The findings indicated that

77% of interviewed farmers reported the use of tractor services for plowing. The 2010

survey conducted by IFPRI’s Ghana Strategy Support Program in four districts of the

three northern regions indicates that about 95% of 173 interviewed maize farmers used

hired tractor services for land preparation (Akramov and Malek, 2012). Large scale

farmers are often the first-adopters of mechanization as profitability is possible for them

based on preparing their own large land area (Binswanger, 1986). The incentive for

medium-scale farmers to invest in machinery is less if it is only used for their own farm.

The degree of agriculture development in Nanun is influenced by social, technical

and political factors directed by state policies. The establishment of State Farms in Yendi

and Brigade camp in Bimbilla in the 1960s introduced the use of heavy equipment‘s such

as tractors and combine harvesters in farming to facilitate production but at the same time

drew the labour force from surrounding communities to work on those plantations. The

intention was to create mass employment for rural people and crops cultivated were

maize, yam, guinea corn, millet, and cashew. The farmland was given free of charge to

the leaders of workers brigade, but compensation was paid for shea and dawadawa trees

for binding women from picking those fruits. The area covered by the Brigade camp

extended from ‗Wampum to Kpagturi‘ area and covered a total land area of

approximately 2000 hectares. The first Workers Brigade camp to be established in the


38

north was in Damongo, and the Brigade camp in Bimbilla was established around 1962

onwards. The Workers Brigade officials annually sent food stuff after harvesting to the

chief‘s palace in a form of tribute and also to show recognition. The workers brigade

ceased operations in 1979 but they are some traces of cashew trees in those farms that

belong to the camp.

The Brigade Camps in Bimbilla brought together workers from all the

surrounding areas to work on the farms for wages that resulted in families losing their

family labour and at the same time it increased the desire of the youth to acquire fiscal

cash. The Brigade camps were earmarked as government lands. So when the Bimbilla

town was expanding people were initially afraid to go for those farmlands for residential

shelters. The reverse of Brigade camps to traditional authorities was a national policy

which was implemented in 1979 and given direction for all government lands to be

returned to original owners. After reversing the government compulsory acquired lands to

the chiefs, the land was then reallocated to members for building and for farming. Those

farmlands were later abandoned after the 1980s and have since been turned into

residential homes referred to as Masaka but at the same time, some distant portions of

those lands have been appropriated by individuals for cashew nut plantations.

The era of the Brigade camp marked the usage of farm tractors by a relatively few

wealthy indigenous farmers at the time. The recent introduction of Agriculture

Mechanization Service Enterprise Centers (AMSEC) to boost mechanization of the

agricultural sector in 2009 by the Government of Ghana paved the way for the

establishment of two AMSEC centers in Nanumba North namely ‗Global Al- Mas limited


39

and Kurkurdama Enterprise‘. The commercial farmers in Northern Ghana took advantage

of the policies instituted to benefit the mechanization of the agriculture in Ghana but

smallholders benefited very little from these policies. The AMSEC centers were all

supposed to provide cheap ploughing services to poor farmers but these tractors

according to interaction with the people did not last for even a year and almost all were

no longer functioning.

Mechanization is gaining grounds in the area but its use is limited to just

ploughing and does not include the other services such as weeding in farms, spraying of

weeds, hence leaving other sectors of agriculture out for farmers to adopt their own ways

of reducing cost of labour resulting in the use of herbicide to control or clear farms for

sowing. Farmers respond to improvements in incentives and market conditions by

changing production practices and investing in new technologies, including mechanical

technologies. Broad-based rural infrastructure development also reduces the costs to

commercial farmers who supply technology and inputs as well as markets.

3.5 Agricultural production and markets in the area

Agriculture production within the Nanumba traditional area is carried out by

different tribes, but it is largely dominated by both Konkomba‘s and Nanumbas‘. There

exist a number of different types of farmland known by the crops and the type of

agriculture worked on them. Backyard plots are seasonally used to cultivate pepper,

guinea-corn, soya beans, okra, and sorghum. The people allow no land to go uncultivated

and village boundaries will extend as far as the closest field of the neighboring village.

Only the rocky areas are usually left uncultivated. The economic life of the Nanumbas is


40

determined by the cycles imposed upon them by the radical changes that the West

African guinea savannah goes through during the course of a year. Especially during the

months of July, August and September, the basin/drainage area of the Oti River is almost

completely flooded resulting in washing away most soils and the land as well as crops are

the primary interest of both the settler groups and the indigenes. Interestingly, harvested

foods or food stuff is sent to the major markets for sale especially by the Konkomba

youth and women. It was through this kind of informal markets that opened the doors to

the Konkombas to seize the production of yam and intensified it by establishing a yam

market in Accra dubbed as the Konkomba Yam Market at Agbogbloshie (Dawson 2000).

In Ghana, the rise of the Konkomba yam markets in the south was crucial in

bringing to the fore those aspects of Konkomba identity which had been somewhat

suppressed by the Nanumba domination, but which had driven the Konkomba to resist

the imposition of territorial leadership from Nalerigu, Yendi, and Bimbilla. The yam

market in Accra, in many, ways represents all of the factors that have merged to comprise

Konkomba ethnicity and self-identity. Through the income that the market generates, the

Konkomba have become a powerful economic force in Ghana's agricultural economy and

are no longer kept in near destitution by the tribute imposed upon them in the past by

their neighbor‘s. The Dagomba, Marnprusi, and Nanumba now regularly rely upon the

Konkomba to supplement the produce of their field‘s, however, the Konkomba now exact

a heavy price for the goods they sell to their one time overlords (Dawson 2000).

Women in the district also engage in the marketing of the foodstuffs and cereals

produced by the farmers. Most of the food stuff and cereals which are produced in the


41

various villages are sent to the market centers by the women for sale. Some of the market

centers in the district are (Bimbilla, Chamba, Damanku, makayili, Nakpayili, Dokpam,

Taale, Bincheratanga and Wulehi). There are also markets at Lungni, Kumindi, and

Kpandai. One of the major problems facing the marketing of farm produce is the bad

nature of the roads in the district. Most of the roads linking the various communities are

feeder roads which become very deplorable during the rainy season and this makes farm

produce to get stacked on farms and the villages and not being able to get to marketing

centers. Recently, some financial institutions such as SNAPI ABA and Premium Fruits in

Kumasi and Techiman have networked with some of the commercial farmers through

‗ADVANCE‘ where they normally pre-finance the farmers and after harvesting the farm

produce then it is bought in bulk. In fact, most of the local market women sometimes also

give money to farmers during the farming period and collect back the money equivalents

when foods are harvested.

3.6 Relations between indigenes and settler groups

Farming is the main economic occupation of the area with the introduction of

modern trades such as carpentry, masonry, vehicle repair etc. the people took advantage

of that and many have combined farming with trade. This brought bitterness as they have

to sometimes compete with the settler groups such as the Konkonba for farmland leading

thereby to skirmishes in the villages. Many have attributed the Konkonba - Nanumba

wars of 1981, 1994, and 1995 to farmlands litigation. Some of the farmers in Bimbilla

town, on one hand,, do not face this problem of land competition as their farmlands are

farther away from town. The Konkomba communities are far from the town and are often


42

characterized by vast expanse of farmlands. The rich commercial farmers, however,, face

the competition among themselves in order to get fertile lands for their crops.

The relationship between Konkombas and their Nanumba counterparts dates back

to the 1940s when Konkombas first arrived on Nanumba land. There were accepted by

Nanumbas and were made to help in their farm work and portions were allocated to them

to feed their families. This kind of informal arrangement persisted for years until in 1981,

when it changed and eventually sparked the first Konkomba and Nanumba conflict. The

Chief of Vo-Naa (Reagent- Naa Abarika Atta) narrated that;

“A Konkomba man and the paramount chief of the Nanun traditional area at the time

(Naa Dasana) had a quarrel over one lady and the Konkomba man cutlass the son of the

paramount chief. The secretary of the chief was sent to find out from the Konkombas

what had happened and he was killed and this sparked the 1981 Konkomba/Nanumba

war” (Chief Vonaa). More so “Nanumbas were not doing their work as directed by the

chiefs and were pushing everything on Konkombas. So they felt ill-treated and were

looking for an opportunity to register their grievances. The dispute between the

paramount chief’s son and the Konkomba man resulted in the Nanumba and Konkomba

conflict” (Vo-Naa-Reagent of Naa Abarika Atta).

Brukum (2001) also observed that the main source of Konkomba discontent with

their Nanumba landlords originate from they being compelled to offer a week free labour

a year on the farm of Nanun chiefs. Also, in accordance with another Nanun tradition

konkombas were compelled to donate a hind leg of any big animal whether wild or

domesticated to Nanun chiefs. Tributes in the form of foodstuffs and livestock were also

collected from Konkomba tenants. These tributes were not peculiar to only Konkombas


43

but all setter groups who had settled on other people land honored that obligation. This

control over Konkombas faded with the formation of ‗Konkomba Youth Association‘ in

the early 1970s to eradicate what was referred as obsolete customs and to project

Konkomba culture through education and to elect a leader to adjudicate petty problems

among themselves. The implementation of this decision led to a war between Konkombas

and Nanumbas in 1980. As a consequence labour services are no longer provided in a

form of tribute and paying of royalties but occur in informal markets with hiring of

labour services to indigenes and vis-versa

Aapengnuo (2008) conducted research in the area and noted that the

administration of lands (Amendment) Decree, 1979 (AFRCD 61) vested all northern

lands under the authority of the chiefs. It was the land tenure act that favored Northern

chiefs, but at the same time, it became a setback for the non-centralized societies of the

region that had benefited during the post-colonial years from the dwindling authority of

the chiefs. Consequently, the chiefs‘ traditional jurisdictions were upheld as the

government relied on the boundaries the British established between each centralized

polity. Therefore the land historically occupied by groups lacking an officially recognized

chief became part of the domain of neighboring chiefs. Therefore, Bimbilla Naa formally

started exercising authority over people that had migrated to the area. Aapengnuo further

indicated that, by 1980 ―the Konkombas, represented as much as two-thirds of Bimbilla‘s

population of 125,000‖ (Skalnik 1983). The land tenure act vested unwavering powers of

exercising control over land in the hands of the four chiefly tribes (Dagombas,

Nanumbas, Mamprusi, and Gonjas) in northern Ghana. As a consequent, the majority of

the violent conflicts in northern Ghana took place after 1979. This shows that the


44

conflicts were not only identity conflicts but also interest-based conflicts which were

constructed to protect these interests. Aapengnuo, recorded this information in an

interview with some Nanumbas where they asserted that:

―Predominantly, their main source of livelihood is agriculture which they cherish so

much and very sensitive to issues bordering on our land and geographical

boundaries...Land is one of the most important and closely guided resources of the

Nanumbas. Since our mainstay is agriculture, our survival depends on the preservation of

this important resource. We practice rotational farming and so we need ample land to

farm. Because our land is rich, we like to farm on virgin land and land is free‖

(Aapengnuo, 2008; 85).

This notion of farming on virgin lands has now become a thing of the past as

lands have become scarce and shifting cultivation is no longer practiced since they are no

fallow lands. The activities of commercial farming lead to a situation where few people

appropriate large areas of farmlands, resulting in scarcity of land. Improvement in

technology has resulted in an increase in farm size by individual commercial farmers

which has made land to be scarcer but not due to increase in population since the area is

characterized by low population density. Conflict of interest over the ownership and use

of the common resource further led to misunderstanding attitudes among the indigenes

and settler groups. It is significant to mention that virgin lands are still available but the

resources needed to develop these fields is difficult a task to manage and this ultimately

pressurizes the few existing developed fields for farmers in most local communities. In a

separate interaction, the Konkombas also hold a strong view that land is in abundance


45

and no single tribe can claim ownership and therefore indicated to Aapengnuo (2008)

that;

―We believe land is there for us to till and to farm to make a living and we also believe

that since time immemorial, which we cannot place a definite date on, the area around

yendi, known as the eastern dagomba belong to the Konkonbas. Dagombas came and met

us and a number of writers have attested to that. To us as long as we are allowed to work

on the land without any hindrance, it does not really matter who says he is the owner. A

Konkomba man is a farmer and so fertile land is important to him. They migrate to other

places in search of land. Wherever they go they have problems. They are accused of not

being indigenous and so are often levied heavily. We do not have chieftaincy so when we

settle, Nanumbas enskin chiefs for us and want us to pay allegiance to the chief and this

brings problems‖ Aapengnuo (2008; 85).

3.7 Role of chiefs in land tenure and distribution in Nanumba North District

Nanumba land is for Bimbilla chief who administers this land through his sub-

chiefs and linguist as well as his children. There are villages and each village has a chief.

Land in Nanun is not for sale as majority of the farmers interviewed hold a view which

corroborates with Aapengnuo (2008) interaction with some Konkombas who asserts that;

We value land and we think that nobody has paid for land. We want land purely

for farming activities and we do not intend to buy or sell land to anybody and we

believe that, if somebody wants land for farming, no matter the sizes, he should be

given free of charge, don’t take anything.


46

Farming goes on in the area in such a way that if you want land to farm, it can be

gotten through a native in consultation with family heads or land owners. In the past any

stranger who acquired land for farming or building, when that individual is to leave the

community then he/she returns the land to the chief or landowner from whom the land

was acquired. The king of Nanung and his sub-chiefs are the custodians of the Nanumba

land. Land is closely linked with chieftaincy, the role of the Nanumba chief when

―enskined‖ by the king is to see to it that the wellbeing of his subjects and the land is

secured. The sub-chiefs account to the paramount chief by informing him on the issues

emerging in their localities and how those issues are being resolved. If you are a stranger

and want to settle in a particular community then you need to see the chief who then

listens to you through his representatives.

Mostly, a native will lead you to meet an elderly person who in turn takes you to

the chief palace for you to declare your intention for coming into that community-

whether to settle or do business. As chiefs takes ultimate responsibility for any good or

misfortunes under their ruling, he then directs one of his linguists to check through

soothsayers whether the person is a good person or bad person and the kind of fortune the

person is bringing to the community. If the findings are good then you readily accept the

person and give them land to settle. The inability of any chief to have full knowledge and

control of issues happening in their respective jurisdictions could result in the chief losing

respect among his subjects.


47

3.8 Changes in cropping system in Nanumba North District

Agriculture is the main occupation of the people in the Nanumba North District.

They engage in the production of all kinds of food crops for house consumption and also

to supplement household income. Yam is the original staple crop in the area grown

largely for household consumption but also for markets. In recent years cassava has also

become important in household provisioning. In recent time rice and maize have

increasingly become important as commercial crops and are displacing yam.

In the past, in preparing land for yam cultivation, farmers used to engage people

to remove the grasses and trees (fana-pahibu) between August-October. Yam is cultivated

on either kasokurli (old land- compose of small trees and a tractor can plough the field) or

Garigu (virgin land) – a deep forest that has a lot of trees and a tractor cannot plough.

The next stage of preparing land is to burn portions of the field and start raising yam

mounds in November. The biggest trees are latter prune to eliminate insects and to give

some amount of sunshine. These pruning of trees is to prevent jalinbohu (a destructive

insect) that normally emerges from excretes of cattle to pears through the yam mounds

thereby destroying the yam. Also, the pruned trees are later used as supporting sticks to

the yam mounds known as nyusahu. The various varieties of yam cultivated in the area

include; kpeno, laabako, sheni, tchentchoto, fuara, nawohu, kpayohi. An acre can yield

more than one thousand (1,000) yam mounds and the by day workers farm for a pay on a

daily basis. The raising of a hundred yam mounds used to cost two cedis (2 cedis) and

now the cost is five cedi.


48

When yams mature the harvesting is done manually by hand using cutlass to dig

and cover the vine. The yields depend on the time for cutting the yam sets especially if it

matures. Farmer‘s inability to get good and matured people during planting affects the

yield. More so, the weather pattern can favor some farmers depending on the quantity of

water received in their farms. As a result of improvement in technology and

mechanization of agriculture, the farming systems have changed. Farmers no longer

engaged in fana pahibu but rather use chemicals to spray the farm to kill the grass before

raising yam mounds. After planting the yam surds, the whole farm is sprayed after one

week to control weeds from appearing on the field. This is a complete departure from the

old method of farming yam, though the entire process of yam cultivation has not been

fully mechanized because – digging, stacking, covering of the vine and mounding are still

being done manually.

Maize is also cultivated on either upland plots Kukou or baapimpina – where the

maize is cultivated very early to support the family. This maize which is normally planted

at baapimpina has duration of three months – so that it matures early before the valleys

get flooded. The upland plots are planted in June. Varieties of maize include; obaapanta,

akumasa, Panaa and all these varieties are planted on either upland or valley land.

Akumasa and Panaa are all long varieties and their drought resistant. In the past land

preparation for maize production was done by using hoe and cutlass which later change

to the use of bullocks and tractors. Now land preparation is done using chemicals to spray

the field since their old lands and later use tractor to plough. After planting, the field is

sprayed to prevent weeds from appearing. This simple method of land preparation

enables farmers to cultivate large acres of farmland since they do not need more physical


49

labour to bring the weeds under control. This act favors few with sufficient capital who

control large portions of family land to the disadvantage of other family members leading

to land scarcity among families and hence displacement of less-privileged farmers. This

trend of appropriation affects land holdings of farmers as has been illustrated in the above

discussions.

Rice production occurs mainly in valley lands called baa, which are water lock

areas. Initially, the production of rice used to be done on zero tillage and with the use of

simple farming equipments like hoe and cutlass. This method of farming required the

breaking of the top soil to loosen it for the planting of rice and this limited the number of

acres farmers could cultivate since it involved the use of manual labour. This has

fundamentally changed due to mechanization of the agriculture sector and farmers are

able to plough large acres of farmland by using tractors and harrow to work on the field.

The commercial farmers used combined harvester‘s to harvest rice and also used it to do

threshing which eliminates the manual system. These changes that have occurred in the

cropping systems favor some new crops over and above others.

3.9 Impact of agricultural commercialization on labour markets

In the past, Nanumba landlords controlled land which was farm by subjugated

groups such as (Konkomba, Chekose, Nawuri, etc) who provided labour services in

exchange for land (Brukum 1998). After the Konkomba - Nanumba conflict in 1994/5,

this has changed - labour markets are no longer provided as tributes but occur within an

internal market. Similarly, youth no longer provide labour services for their in-laws and

family elders but farm independently and hire out their labour. This is reflected in an


50

interview with 42-year-old man - Mr. Wumbei – an agronomist and a commercial farmer

who indicated that;

The practices of buying farmlands have not been made open in this area.

Inhabitants used to declare three days to farm for the chief at the various stages of

the farming process. Chiefs have always been the custodians of the land and are

entrusted with its allocation rights. All inhabitants including indigenes and

subjugated tribes used to pay tribute to the chief up till the 1990s when it changed.

Nobody pays a Kobo for obtaining farmland but now farming has become much

easier due to the availability of labour rendered by both students and community

members to people who seek for those services.

It was the less privileged people and strangers who used to farm for the chief and

as well send some farm produce to the chief palace every year to take care of his family

and partly to show appreciation to the landowners. Farmland was not sold because it was

assumed that every community was made up of the same people and this kind gesture

continued even when strangers started joining the communities. So it was deemed not

appropriate to sell farmland to a relative or a close friend. Every stranger enters a

community through a native and expresses interest to stay in that community. Times have

changed and love for money has dominated all activities in communities and people no

longer give attention to loyalty. To this end, labour services are no longer provided as an

obligation but now occur within a market in which labour replacing technology such as

ploughing services and combined harvesters can be transacted for land. Many


51

commercial farmers gained access to land by providing ploughing services to land

owners.

A prerequisite for investment in land is the availability of labour. To examine the

emergence of land markets in relation to labour in this research is a necessary priority.

Without labour, they cannot be any land markets. Processes of social differentiation

among the peasantry in rural communities (in which poorer households supplement

agriculture with hiring out labour). This was illustrated by Tahidu Adam, a 32 year old

teacher who recently started farming five years ago and indicated that;

We contact groups or individuals in the town who are known for doing ‗by-day-

work‘. Some people have taken it up as their work and they are from amongst the

community. Other laborers also come from different towns and villages who need

money to solve family problems and we engage their services. The school

children are also another source of labour we frequently use during weekends.

Now family labour has declined as farmers hire their services based on

negotiations. The issue of autochthons and indigenes based on payment of tribute has

been reversed. The migrant youth composing largely of Konkombas now possess some

farm land and usually release some to Nanumbas to farm based on informal negotiations

of rendering ploughing services and farm maintenance. In an interview with Alhassan

Mubarik, a 25-year-old boy who serves as a labourer in Lepusi, and normally work for

most of the farmers indicated that;


52

I do by day work for a living in this community. I work for both my family

members and outsiders who seek for my services. The farmers themselves often

time approach me to inform me about their work and we sometimes work as a

group. The kind of work we do for farmers includes weeding, planting,

broadcasting, spraying and removing of bad weeds on their rice fields and

harvesting of maize. Each person takes 7 cedis a day for planting (sowing of

maize) and those who do dibbing take 9 cedis a day. As for weeding they measure

sections for us to weed and the measurement is usually 20 by 20 and we charge 8

cedi. When the farm is big, we can bargain for the whole farm and use either a

week or two to finish the work. When we raise yam mounds, we charge 5 cedis

per every 100 mounds and during harvest time for maize we follow farmers to bag

the maize and charge 1 cedi per bag.

The consequences of the development of these informal labour markets have

polarized the family labour relations and rather inure to the benefit of commercial

farmers who hire the services of these labourers and the remunerations are often very

poor as evidenced by the interview with the labourers. The resultant effects are that

commoditization of land inevitably works to the disadvantage of those with lower

purchasing power, thus threatening reduced access to land and potentially further

impoverishment for the poorer among existing land users.


53

Figure 3.1 A Map of Nanumba North District showing the farming communities

Source: (GSS 2010)

From the district map above, Bimbilla which is the district capital harbors the

commercial farmers who in turn move out to farm in the adjoining communities such as

Chamba, Dakpem, Bangdiyili, Chichehi, Lepusi, Kpagturi, Jua, Sangnayili etc. The

district capital also serves as transactional grounds for the farmers where food crops are

brought to the market.


54

3.10 Conclusion

The background characteristics of the people clearly show the intensification of

agricultural production in the area and to which extent relations between indigenes and

settler groups are linked to access and control of land. The role of chiefs in land tenure

relations is strictly limited to the control of building plots and not farmlands since the

predominant tenure relations in the area is the family land system where family heads

exercise control over family lands. The changing labour relations in which tributes are no

longer paid to indigenes but instead occur through informal processes of labour exchange

and hiring out of labour services. The extent to which this has resulted in changes in

agricultural activities and its impact on land and labour relations will be discussed in the

next chapter.


55

CHAPTER FOUR

IMPACT OF AGRICULTURAL COMMERCIALIZATION ON LAND AND

LABOUR IN NANUMBA NORTH DISTRICT

4.1 Introduction

In this research, sixty farmers were interviewed in total and this comprised of

twenty commercial farmers, fifteen women, and ten labourers as well as fifteen small-

scale farmers. Commercial farmers are people who engage in production for market and

for profit through investment in capital for labour, inputs, fertilizer or through

accumulation from below (within agriculture) or accumulation from above (outside

agriculture). The extent of scale or intensification of production of food crops by

individual farmers shows their categories and differentiation in rural communities.

Appropriation of agricultural land can occur through accumulation from below, by

investments of smallholder farmers within a process of investing farm profits in further

expansion of farming activities. It can also occur from above, by investments of other

actors who have accumulated capital outside of agriculture into agriculture, which they

see as a profitable venture. These include traders, other entrepreneurs, salaried workers,

bureaucrats, and politicians who appropriate and acquire farmland.

However, acquisition of land does not necessarily occur through structured land

markets. It can also occur through rental markets, neo-customary and informal

mechanisms based on notions of a moral economy rooted in reciprocity, obligations,

exchange of services and gifts, and debt. Therefore it is important to examine transactions

in land outside specific notions of land markets and examine how land is transacted and


56

negotiated as part of a process of agricultural commercialization within general

transactions.

In this chapter, it is argued that in the Nanumba North district, the main source of

accumulation within agriculture occurs from investments of traders, civil servants,

bureaucrats who use their savings to gain access to farmlands. The rise of land

transactions is related to the large local demand for tractor services and the scarcity of

existing tractors. As a result of this scarcity many smallholders fail to secure tractor

ploughing before the onsets of the rainy season. The main commercial farmers invest in

tractor services, which they hire out to local farmers in a number of different types of

transactions. One of the most significant transactions for local farmers and landowners

occurs as the provision of tractor services in exchange for land. The main commercial

farmers are from Bimbilla, the district capital, and take advantage of the lack of tractor

services to insist in payment in kind, which includes both crops and land. Frequently

farmers cannot afford to pay in cash and the tractor operators take payment in crop after

the harvest season. Currently, the tractor owners take one maxi bag of maize or rice.

However, when the harvest fails and the farmers are unable to pay, the tractor

operators have to make payment in land. Some tractor operators prefer to seek payment

in crops rather than cash and others prefer land. As a consequence, land is being

transferred and transacted outside of formal land markets. The commercial farmers in

most cases are unlikely to lose since farmers will be forced to provide what is due them

in any way possible. But in many instances, farmers are willing to release land to tractor


57

owners to gain access to ploughing services. Ploughing services are considered scarcer

than land. The degree of scarcity of tractor services is illustrated in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 Acreages cultivated by tractor owners and hirers of tractor services

Type of ploughing Median

acreage

cultivated

Mean

acreage

cultivated

Minimum no.

of acreages

cultivated

Maximum

no. of

acreages

cultivated

Total no. of

farmers

Tractor owners 41.00 63.10 8 210 20

Tractor hirers 14.00 24.2 3 170 37

Manual ploughing 21.50 40.67 19 52 3

Source: 2016 Field Work

From table 4.1, the mean acres for farmers who own tractors is 63 and the

minimum number of acres put under cultivation is 8 acres, whilst the maximum number

of acres cultivated by tractor owners is 210. The mean acres for farmers who hire tractors

are 24, and the minimum number cultivated is 3 acres with the maximum number

cultivated by tractor is 170 acres. The total acreage cultivated by 20 farmers who own

tractors is 1262, whilst 37 farmers who hire tractor services had a total acreage of 896.

This means that tractor owners cultivate significantly larger acreage of farmland than

those who hire tractor services. Those who engage in manual ploughing are a residual

category and no significant conclusions can be drawn from them since they consist of

only 3 farmers. This implies that there is no level playing field in land transactions and

arrangements between tractor owners and those who hire tractor services and this could


58

further exacerbate inequalities and social differentiation between land owners and

commercial farmers.

The study revealed that most people are converting their assets to hire land as can

be seen in table 4.2. Thirty-seven of the farmers hired tractor services out of which nine

farmers representing 24% got their land by providing ploughing services to land owners.

This implies that the land owners do not have the capital to hire tractors or they do not

have the connections or network with tractor drivers. It means there is more demand for

land ploughing in exchange of land by land owners. Also, 17 of the respondents

representing 46% equally engage in hiring of tractor services and got their land through

inheritance. This further implies that tractors are so scarce and land owners cannot find

sufficient tractor operators to plough their land for them that they give out land to those

who are able to hire tractor services in exchange for a number of acreages of land

ploughed. These pressures that the deals create on local land relations are shaped not only

by the aggregate land area acquired, but also by the quality and location of that land.

Those who acquire land through gift and forest department are insignificant and will not

make for any meaningful analysis.


59

Table 4.2 Nature of land acquisition by tractor owners and tractor hirers

Means of land

acquisition

Tractor owner Hire tractor

services

Manual

ploughing

Total

Through

inheritance

8

(40.0%)

17

(45.9%)

1

(33.3%)

26

(43.3%)

Through the

chief

2

(10.0%)

4

(10.8%)

1

(33.3%)

7

(11.7%)

In exchange for

ploughing

7

(35%)

9

(24.3%)

1

(33.3%)

17

(28.3%)

Through gift 2

(10.0%)

4

(10.8%)

0

(0.0%)

6

(10.0%)

Through the

forest

department

1

(5.0%)

3

(8.1%)

0

(0.0%)

4

(6.7%)

Total 20 37 3 60

(100)


From figure 4.1, ninety-five percent of the farmers interviewed used tractor

ploughing services and only five percent used manual ploughing. Of the ninety-five

percent of farmers who used tractor ploughing, thirty-three percent own tractors and the


60

remaining sixty-seven percent hire tractor services. The tractor owners would first of all

want to plough their own farms which are not small acres of land. This leads to excessive

demand for tractor services due to limited number of tractors that pushes the cost of

ploughing up and for which reason farmers are usually not able to afford the cash

payments but instead resort to ploughing either on credit or to be paid an equivalent

amount of maize or rice after harvesting. In some cases, other farmers release some

portions of their land to tractor owners in other to get their fields ploughed for them on

time. A relatively small number of farmers still resort to manual farming by the use of

hoe and cutlass to till the soil. The numbers of farmers who own tractors and were from

Bimbilla were about 15 people representing 71% of tractor owners in the study area as

compared to the remaining 29% percent farmers who heal from other villages. In Chamba

only two tractors are operating and both are owned by commercial farmers.

Figure 4.1: A chart showing the usage of farm machinery

1. Tractor Owner

2. Hirers of tractor services

3. Manual Ploughing


61

4.2 Perception of farmers on commercial farming activities

The informal arrangement that exist between farmers and commercial farmers

resulting in the provision of ploughing services for landowners in the form of reciprocity

inure to the benefit of commercial farmers but often disadvantage a greater number of

small scale farmers who engage in those transactions. Most farmers feel that it is the

commercial farmers who continue to benefit as they get land and labour from the

community and in the end they are only given a small portion of what they harvest. After

releasing the land for commercial farmers, they often plough an insignificant number of

acres for landowners with the highest ranging between 3 and 5 acres. The kind of

arrangements between landowners and commercial farmers are not fixed and very

informal that could lead to the withdrawal of the offer made. Commercial farmers are

obliged to renew their informal agreements by visiting the farming community before the

beginning of the season to serve as a reminder to the land owner.

There were instances where farmers narrated that, some of the commercial

farmers are greedy and when you give them the land to plough, they plough just some

few acres for you and forget of the commitment and the loyalty. They will over plough

the initial size or acres agreed upon and when it gets to that point land owners also take

drastic measures by releasing the land to a different farmer without the farmer‘s

knowledge. In an interview with Mananu Alabire who heals from a family that has plenty

farmlands in Bangdiyili noted;


62

“When the commercial farmers come to take the land to farm, we normally give them the

land to plough depending on the number of acres requested by the commercial farmer

without putting any charge across. The landowners do not have to mention in plain terms

what is required from the commercial farmers. They normally allow the commercial

farmers to use their own discretion to plough a number of acres for the land owner and

during farm maintenance, they provide us with farm inputs like fertilizer and herbicides.

If it happens the landowner is not able to get any good yield from the field, it will be

reasonable for the commercial farmer to give some number of bags to the land owner.

Those who normally forget of how they gained access to the field and treat landowners

anyhow risk losing the farmland the following season. For instance, this year a certain

commercial farmer has been denied access to the farmland and it is given to someone

else because he no longer recognizes the owners of the land. When harvested the

foodstuff, he failed to give the land owners and even elders in the community”.

In some instances some farmers narrated that, during the ploughing season they

are made to buy a gallon of diesel at the cost of 10 cedi per acre. After harvesting their

food crops they still had to pay one bag per acre if maize or two bags of rice to the tractor

owner. The cost of ploughing is sixty cedi per acre at the beginning of the season and the

price of a bag of maize is ninety at the time of harvesting. This implies that farmers are at

a disadvantage position in engaging in th kind of negotiations and it is they the farmers

who lose not only the farmland but their labour as well. This further implies that those

arrangements are actually leading to exploitation of the already impoverished farmers

who spend not only on ploughing services at a higher cost but also spend a considerable

amount of money on herbicides, labour, fertilizer which reduces their return on

investments.


63

The farmers also know that without the services of these commercial farmers

farming could be too difficult to pursue as a venture since farming has now become

capital intensive and those with financial capital are able to meet the needed targets by

practicing the right farming methods. The farmers also believe that getting farmland in

the area is becoming difficult due to the expansion of commercial farms. Approximately

90% of the respondents lamented that it is becoming difficult to acquire farmland or get

access to farmland in the area due to the activities of commercial farmers who end up

ploughing more than 10 to 50 acres of land in their localities which leaves relatively

small portions available for the majority of farmers. In an interview with Alhassan

Fuseini, a 39-year-old teacher, he indicated that:

Ever since I was young I used to follow my parents to work on their farms but

never was I allowed owning a farm until when I became a teacher in the year

2000. Commercial farming is affecting our access to farmland because people are

not ready to develop the virgin lands. They all want to have access to an already

developed field which is causing problems for us. More so people have realized

that farming has become lucrative and most government workers are now entering

into farming and the lands they want to acquire are large acres of farmland which

is putting pressure on land owners.

4.3 Access to farmland in Nanun

Anybody who wants land either for building or farming needs to get in touch with

an indigene. The person takes the seeker of land to the chief palace with cola to seek the

blessings of the skin. There are varied ways of negotiating access to farmland and there is


64

no proper laid down procedure since the dominant land tenure system in the area is a

family land where people acquire farmland through inheritance. Apart from building

plots that are under the jurisdiction of the chief all other plots especially farmlands are

controlled and managed by individuals and families who have rights to those lands. As

noted by Dawson (2000) and Aapengnuo (2008) , farmlands in the area is not for sale but

people who want to have access to any farmland does that through negotiation either with

landowners or through a community chief if the person has abundant farmlands in the

area. They mentioned that farmlands are not sold because it was assumed that people in

the communities were related in one way or the other and thus not appropriate to sell

farmland to a relative or a close friend. In an interview with Vo-Naa (Reagent of Naa

Abarika), he indicated that:

Farmlands are not for sale. Nanumba land is controlled by Bimbilla Chief and he

exercises control over the land through sub-chiefs and linguist as well as his

children, there are villages and every village has a chief. In Nanun, land tenure

system exists and there are two categories of tenure relations namely leasing and

gift. The leasing of land is a new form of arrangement, which is alien to the

traditional practices in the area. In time past, when you were given land for

farming or building and you want to leave the place you simply give it back to the

chief of that community. Chiefs who have no knowledge of what is happening in

their communities will always have challenges with their respective areas and a

possible calamity could occur in the area. An example of a calamity could be

youth leaving your town to seek refuge elsewhere, a lot of things would go bad

and this could lead to low productivity.


65

Again, he made mentioned that modernity has reduced the powers of chiefs in

various localities and their authority is now limited to four corners of the courtroom and

chiefs are no longer respected by the masses. For instance:

“If a chief wants to use part of his land for development and a stranger or native

already have acquired that parcel of land through someone, it could end up in

court. The judge presiding over the matter has inadequate knowledge of the

traditional practices of the area and may rule against the chief. It could also

happen the judge has no respect for chieftaincy in his area. So if the courts could

give a listening ear to chiefs and work closely with them it could help reduce the

quarrels and conflicts in most communities” (Vo-Naa-Reagent of Naa Abarika Atta)

However, due to transformations in land transactions and processes of acquiring

farmlands, the desire for money has dominated all activities in communities where

individuals have devised other means of acquiring these lands without necessarily

exchanging fiscal cash but instead those arrangements are closely associated with

payments. Some farmers contact land owners and make it open to them that when given

access to the field, they will provide them with herbicides and fertilizer. The motive

behind investing in farmland is to make profit. Most emergent commercial farmers

normally do a careful study of the farming system to determine the crops that gives more

yields and the associated market for those crops. Most of the farmers interviewed

indicated that they prefer growing maize and rice because a lot of people consume those

staples and it is easy to farm the two crops since it takes a maximum of three months to

get matured. Rice is rated to give higher yield than maize. The farmers then use their


66

tractor services (as bargaining chips) to exchange for not only farmland but for the best

and fertile lands. They also look for valley lands that have already been developed and

take advantage of those fields. Farming has become expensive in the area and those with

access to capital gain access to land more easily.

As illustrated in Figure 4.2, the majority of the farmers (43%) get their farmlands

through inheritance, since most of the farmlands are claimed to belong to families and not

traditional heads. A small proportion of farmers (11%) get their land through the chief

and their linguist (11%). Those that appropriated land through gift and the forest

department were also low representing 10% and 7% respectively. A common mode of

land acquisition in the area which is dominated by people who have money and those

who possess capital (tractors and combined harvesters) provide ploughing services to

farmers/land owners in exchange for land. The Forest Department releases land within

forest reserves to farmers on the taungya system or basis in which lands are released to

farmers for three years to cultivate yams provided they plant timber species within the

fields. This strategy is used by the forest department to increase afforestation but is also a

disincentive to the farmers since after developing the fields they do not have continues

access to the field after three years and often allocated different plots.


67

Figure 4.2: A chart illustrating forms of land acquisition


The nature of farming activities in the area normally occur outside the district

capital and to an extent, most of the farmers reside in Bimbilla and seek farmlands in the

adjourning villages to cultivate food crops. The cultivation of food crops varies from one

location to the other depending on the traditional knowledge of the environment and what

specific crops does well in those areas. Most of these new entrants into the farming


68

occupation in the area usually do a careful study of the crop pattern before maneuvering

into farming. As shown in Table 4.3, the majorities of the farmers reside or originate

from Bimbilla but take advantage of the fields in the villages to engage in large-scale

commercial farming. Out of the 60 respondents, 23 of the farmers hailed from Bimbilla

representing 38 percent. The second largest community where the respondents came from

is Lepusi representing 18 percent. Nakpayili and Wulensi all had 3 respondents each,

representing 5 percent which is residual and will not make any meaningful analysis.


69

Table 4.3 The origins of farmers

Town Name Frequency Percent

Bangdiyili 1 1.7

Bimbilla 23 38.0

Bincheratanga 2 3.4

Chamba 1 1.7

Dokpam 1 1.7

Glisiya 1 1.7

Gundoo 1 1.7

Jua 1 1.7

Keta Krachi 1 1.7

Lepusi 11 18.3

Makayili 2 3.4

Nakpa 1 1.7

Nakpali 1 1.7

Nakpayili 3 5.0

Opidjua 1 1.7

Puduya 1 1.7

Pusiga 2 3.3

Saboba 1 1.7

Tong 1 1.7

Vitim-Tamale 1 1.7

Wulensi 3 5.0

Total 60 100.0



70

While land consolidation by a relatively elite minority is not a new phenomenon in much

of Africa the scope and scale of this process is. Those who were engaged in non-farm

activities accumulated their capital from above and using it judiciously to appropriate

farmlands in most rural communities. The influence of the elite minority in farmland

acquisition is illustrated in table 4.4.

Table 4.4 Occupations of farmers and tractor owners

Occupation of

respondents

I own farm

machine

I hire manual

ploughing

Total

Farmer 6

(30.0%)

20

(54.1%)

2

(66.7%)

28

(46.7%)

Trader 2

(10.0%)

5

(13.5%)

0

(0.0%)

7

(11.7%)

Civil servant 10

(50.0%)

12

(32.4%)

1

(33.3%)

23

(38.3%)

Pensioner

(retired)

2

(10.0%)

0

(0.0%)

0

(0.0%)

2

(3.3%)

Total 20 37 3 60


Table 4.4 shows that 10 respondents representing 50% of those who own tractors are civil

servants. Only 6 of the respondents representing 30% are farmers who own tractors. This

means that majority of the tractor owners are civil servants and a lot of farmers depend on

them for ploughing which results in a shortage of tractors and hence demand outstrips


71

supply. This leads to negotiation and lobbying to get farm fields ploughed on time by

farmers. The civil servants who own these tractors plough their own fields first before

rendering services to other farmers.

Table 4.5 Land holdings of different occupation groups

Occupation

of farmers

Median Mean Minimum

acres

Maximum

acres

Total

acreages

Total

no. of

farmers

Farmer 14.50 29.54 3 170 827 28

Trader 12.00 16.00 5 41 112 7

Civil

servant

41.00 56.52 5 220 1300 23

Pensioner

(retired)

20.50 20.50 15 26 41 2

In table 4.5, the mean land holdings of civil servants are 56.52 with total acreages of

1300. On the other hand, the mean acres of farmers are 29.54 with a total acreage of 827.

This means that land holdings of civil servants are more than the other category of

workers. From the data, 5 farmers have over 50 total acreages of land and 15 farmers

cultivate a total land area of more than 10 acres.

The process of acquiring land in the respective communities varies from one community

to the other. In certain instances, some commercial farmer‘s contacted family heads to get


72

access to the farmlands. Most of the commercial farmers got their farmlands by

expressing interest to farm through a native in the farming community who then links

him up to the chief linguist. He first of all provides what is often known as cola or drink

money of 10 cedis so as to open negotiation for him to have access to the field. Mr.

Zakari Mustapha, a forty-seven year old man who is educated and currently serves as a

Man-Power of Ghana Education Office in the district narrated that although he was born

into farming and worked as a labourer in his youthful age, he only developed interest in

farming in the last four years, when he realized it was a profitable venture:

I started farming in 2010 because it is financially beneficial. I currently have

about 40 acres of rice field and 10 acres of maize farm. Here usage of farmland is

virtually free, except that anyone who has interest need to see the landowners and

make arrangements to use the land. When I got my rice fields, the land owner told

me to use it for two years. Every year I go to renew the mandate with the land

owner and depending on the yield, I offer some bags of rice. If you do not do it

continuously, then the land might be given to somebody in the next farming

season. In this area, farmland is virtually free, so anyone who want land to farm

need to see the landowners and make arrangements to use the land.

Mostly those who release land for ploughing services are among the poorer

farmers in the district. They have access to these fields either through inheritance or by

first occupancy right but has very small capital to develop the field on a larger scale. So

farmers armed with farm machinery and financial capital approach them for farmland

then it becomes easy where they release large portions of their field in exchange of


73

ploughing services and then you in turn plough some 3 to 5 acres of land for the

landowner.

4.5 Patterns of investment in crop production in Nanun

The nature of investment in food crop production is influenced by the demand in

the local markets. Farmers used to invest largely in the production of yam for household

consumption and for the market. This has changed to the production of maize and rice.

The commercial farmers who are engaged in these activities especially in the production

of maize, soya beans and rice easily feel they reap more profits from these crops than

yam. Animal rearing is also another venture that farmers invest their capital. Farmers also

believe that the investment cost is moderate and the yield is very high. They

approximated that an acre of maize or rice can give fifteen bags. As a result, recent years

have witnessed an unprecedented surge in demand for large areas of farmland in the area

for the production of these food crops – especially in Jua, Sangnaayili, Chamba,

Bangdiyili etc. where fertile farmlands are comparatively cheaper and abundant.

Commercial farmers have recently sought to expand their portfolio of land by either

renting extra land or ‗purchasing‘ rights of access to farmland from both traditional

leaders and individuals. This is greatly influenced by civil servants who had access to

wages from formal employment which has become an important source of investment in

this increasingly commercialized agriculture.

The marketing of the farm produce is a big problem. The market women are the

main people who purchase these foodstuff and they still measure with bowls even when


74

farmers have more than hundred bags of any of the foodstuff. The rice is bought by

women for par boiling which normally break the grains and leave some particles in the

rice. There is a company called ‗AVANASH‘ in Tamale that engages in the buying of

rice, but they do not like par boiled rice and they are not ready to buy from local farmers.

Maize and rice are measured in bowls and not in kilograms. The market women come

from Tamale, Accra, Yendi, Bawku, Salaga and from many other places to purchase

foodstuff in Bimbilla. Table 4.5 details the various crops and the percent that is put under

cultivation by farmers in the area. For instance, yam is a traditional crop in the area of

which 52 of the respondents are engaged in its cultivation representing 17.5% but the

maximum number of acres that are set out for yam cropping is twenty (20) acres. This is

far below the maximum number of acres used for maize and rice cultivation – 100 acres

and 140 acres respectively. The number of respondents (farmers) who engaged in maize

production was 54 representing 18% and 35 farmers representing 12% were also involved

in the cultivation of rice. Almost everybody interviewed was farming maize simply

because it is a staple crop. About half of the respondents are into soya bean cultivation

and they solely do it for market provisioning.


75

Table 4.6 Crops cultivated by farmers

Crops No. of farmers

cultivating each

crop

Percent of what

Yam 52 17.5%

Groundnut 19 6.4%

Maize 54 18.2%

Rice 35 11.8%

Pepper 9 3.0%

Millet 22 7.4%

Guinea corn 18 6.1%

Soya beans 32 10.8%

Cassava 22 7.4%

Beans 1 0.3%

Sorghum 2 0.7%

Cashew 1 0.3%

267 100.0%


4.6 Relationship between land owners and commercial farmers

In the process of gaining access to farmlands farmers normally develop partial

relationship with land owners but these relations are interest based and as soon as the

common interest vanishes, the bond also gets weakened. The production of rice for


76

instance occurs on valley lands and before any farmer gets the fields to plough he needs

to negotiate with land owners. These negotiations are normally informal and the right to

farm on the field whether maize, rice, yam or any food crop as a commercial farmer

depends on continues building of contacts and network in the farming community. Some

of the farmers lamented that they are normally not given fixed time period in which to

have access to the farm either for one year, two years or three years, but the kind of

arrangements occurs in such a way that every year the farmer has to renegotiate with land

owners to get more land or reduced access depending on the behavior and relationship

developed with land owners over the previous year.

Due to competition for the rice fields, every farmer would first of all provide

some ploughing service for the land owner after gaining access to the land. In an

interview with Mr. Adam Mashal, a former Principal of the E.P Training College in

Bimbilla and a known commercial farmer indicated that the increase in demand for

farmland is eventually transforming the land relations in the area. He used to farm about

seventy acres of maize field and got the land free from the traditional leaders in Jua. For

him, it was out of good will that he sent some foodstuff to the land owners after

harvesting the food crops. He narrates that:

Now times have changed and when people gain access to farm land they plough at

least an acre for the land owner. Every year people go to renew their

commitments with land owners to avoid the issue of losing those lands and

minimize the tendency of land owners releasing the land to a different person.

This is the main reason why farm lands are not sold in the area. So that land


77

owners can continue to exercise control over the land in the area. This is because

when farmers fail to show up in a particular year, you will find it difficult to

release the land to a different person. The difficulty with commercial farming

activities has to do with the releasing of plenty farm lands to individuals which

constraints the access to the field by small scale farmers.

Those who beg for farmlands from land owners are responsible for looking for

tractors to plough their fields and after harvesting they give some of the food stuff to the

land owner or the chief to show appreciation. The dynamics have changed and

commercial farmers who seek for land from land owners rather plough an acre or two for

the land owner to foster good relationship and understanding among them. The benefits

associated with these kinds of arrangements are two-fold; whilst the land owners who

have large families and lack the necessary capital to develop the fields in order to fully

utilize the farmlands are now able to get some portions ploughed for them; the

commercial farmers through these negotiations are also able to appropriate appreciable

quantity of farmlands from land owners. As household population is increasing, it will

lead to fragmentation of the available land which could result in conflict between land

owners and commercial farmers. As more people enter into farming, it will get to a time

when the land owners will need some portions to give to family relations and the land

might have been given to commercial farmers.

Some farmers are also entering into ruminants production thus the rearing of

animals, which when fully developed will need grazing places. This could ultimately lead

to fragmentations of available farmlands. Commercial farmers are not given time lines in


78

their access to the field or definite time period within which to release the land or stop

farming on a particular land. It is usually those who sought for the land, they abandoned

the farm land without informing the land owners. For instance, Iddrisu Adam, a native

from Dakpam and a small scale farmer laments that:

The accesses to farmlands by individual who come to beg for the lands in this

community are not regulated by any traditional law or formal law. After obtaining

the land the individual farmer has no fixed time within which to stop farming in

the area. In fact they use these lands in perpetuity until the farmer who sought for

the land does something wrong. For instance, withdrawal of services previously

rendered to land owners by either giving of food stuff or ploughing some number

of acres for land owners can result in the farmer losing the land. So the activities

of these commercial farmers will in future be a big problem because some of them

will want to permanently acquire these farmlands from land owners which could

potentially create problems in the area. There are native lands and traditional

lands. People related to those areas will not have any issue going into the future in

accessing farm lands. But non-natives from the respective farming communities

are most likely to face land problems.

From the above, it can be deduced that land owners are aware of the dangers

involved in releasing farmlands to commercial framers. This implies that their inability to

cater for ploughing services and take good care of the crops is partly a reason why they

allow those transactions in their localities.


79

4.7 Labour and Commercial Farming Relations

Farming activities involve the use of labour, thus, to engage in farming without

labour is fundamentally difficult to pursue as a venture. This is a more reason why both

commercial farmers and non-commercial farmers hire the services of these labourers in

neighboring communities where they can get access to these labourers. Commercial

farmers normally engage labourers to make mounds for yam cultivation, planting,

weeding, and spraying, harvesting, broadcasting, padding of rice. The labourers are

engaged on daily basis but most of them are not permanent labourers. Those who have

permanent labourers have close family relations with them and some of them look after

the farms for the commercial farmers. Those who hire labourers on permanent basis

ranges between 10-15 labourers and those who do by-day for some short time are paid as

they go. There is competition for labourers during peak farm seasons and this cause

labour to become scarce as a result some farmers fall on students during weekends.

There are lead farmers (out growers) who also double as commercial farmers and

provide ploughing services to people. The maximum number that commercial farmers

plough for land owners is usually 5 acres. Commercial farmers most often enter into

informal arrangements with farmers where some of them pay in kind or cash after

harvesting. Commercial farming activities are increasing every year and that is a major

source of worry for small scale farmers and labourers. In an interview with Habib Imoro,

a labourer in Chamba, he indicated that the commercial farming activities are not helping

them in the community because:


80

The commercial farmers come and take our farmlands from us and we go to work

for a pay. What we normally get from the by-day work cannot really help us to do

any meaningful thing but we have no option. They need our services to

accomplish their farming activities but the remunerations are very low. During

planting period, they pay us 7 cedi a day. It was weeding of farms that used to

give us money. The commercial farmers and any other farmer now use herbicides

to control weeds that have affected our work. After the farming season is over we

struggle to survive and the commercial farmers are not even living with us that

you could seek for help from them against the next farming season. If we could

develop the farm lands ourselves then, it could have solved most of our problems.

Farming requires more capital and most of us in the rural communities do not

have the resources to develop these fields.

4.6 Presentation of case studies.

Below is an illustration of individual narratives on farming activities and the relations it

produces on agricultural commercialization. The individual case histories will further

give a hint on modes of land acquisitions and hinge on antecedents in labour relations as

well as land tenure systems in the area.

Case Study 1: Tindana Dokurigu: A retired civil servant

Mr. Tindana Dokurigu is a retired civil servant and he is 62 years old. He had

served as a civil servant for 42 years before retiring in 2014. He was less than ten years

when his parents died. After a successful completion of Agricultural College in 1972, he


81

was posted to Nakpayili Primary School and then transferred to Lugni Primary in 1973. It

was in Lugni that he started a half-acre cotton farm. After harvesting, he noticed the

amount he got from the crop was ten times his monthly salary. This was where he

determined that farming is a profitable business. He continued farming and extended it to

2 acres and continued farming to feed the family and support him financially but he was

then not a commercial farmer. After his retirement, he now cultivates 23 acres of maize,

10 acres of yam and 15 acres of rice. He owns a tractor and a corn sheller. He indicated

that rice was his preferred crop because, when he farmed 15 acres of rice field last year,

he got more than 150 bags and indicated that rice was in high demand and it does not get

spoiled easily. He further explained that where he farms was 21 kilometers away from

Bimbilla:

Where I farm is too far from the district capital and the competition over

farmlands is not very pervasive. I first went to the area and expressed interest

through a native at a village called ‗Kpagturiyili‘ and fortunately because I was a

worker at district education office almost everyone new me in the district because

we use to do monitoring. I was given access to the land and since then I have been

farming in that locality. The lack of readily available jobs in the locality is also

driving people into farming. Jobs are not available, people are not learning any

trade and the only available job for people is farming. The rice fields have vast

expands of valley lands and no single individual can farm all rice fields in a given

location because it requires a lot of capital to do rice farming.

Case Study 2 Hajia Wumbei Zenabu: A trader in farm produce


82

Hajia Wumbei Zenabu is a 62 year old woman and married with 6 children. She

indicated to me that she is a trader engaged in the buying and selling of farm produce.

She indicated that she does farming to cater for her children needs and to support herself

because a man will not provide all your needs for you. She cultivates 5 acres of yam, 7

acres of maize, and 2 acres of soya beans. She said:

My husband is a farmer, so I asked for farmland and yam sets from him to start

farming. It is six years ago when I entered into serious farming, then I began

lobbying for farmland. Sometimes when he refuses to give me land to farm, I

normally tell my children to request for the farmland from him and secretly give it

to me to farm‖. For instance ―last year I was given four acres of farmland by my

uncle to farm soya beans and I ploughed 2 acres for him. The yield I got from the

soya beans farm was only 2 bags. This year I wanted to use the farmland to grow

maize, but the farmland has been given to a different man to farm.

Case Study 3: Iddrisu Ayi – A trader and commercial farmer

Iddrisu Ayi is a 52 year old woman and she is a business woman engage in buying and

selling of foodstuff. She also engaged in the cultivation of food crops apart from trading

and currently possesses a Motorcycle that assists her both in her trade and conveying her

farm produce. She noted that;

In the past, women were not involved in the cultivation of main crops such as

yam, maize, and rice but instead cultivated okra pepper, and cowpea to prepare

soup for household consumption. We now cultivate almost all the crops due to our


83

ability to hire labour and provide ploughing services for land. We are given

farmland to farm in exchange for doing any of these: ploughing some acres of

land for landowners, buying them fertilizers, and weedicides. Although, it is not

clearly spelt out that they are selling the farmland to us, but in exchange, it is

equivalent to leasing the farmland. I also provide financial assistance and seeds to

farmers at the peak of the farming season. When they harvest their food crops,

some payback in cash and others equivalent bags of their farm produce.

Case Study 4: Alhaji Yakubu Sule – A former labourer and now commercial farmer

Alhaji Yakubu Sule was adjudged the (District Best Farmer, 2015). He indicated

that he has been farming for over 30 years now. He became a cattle header whilst he was

with his uncles at an infancy age and used to follow them to farm. Farming was an

occupation of my father and developed interest in it at infancy. His parents died when he

was not fully grown and he started working a labourer on people‘s farms to make ends

meet. He lamented that;

It was through the by-day work that I got my first wife across the sea. After the

Konkomba and Nanumba conflict in 1994/5, we formed groups and started

farming from one community to the other. When I accumulated some little

capital, I started doing my own farm.

He told me he now cultivates 6 acres of yam, 20 acres of maize, 20 acres of rice, 5 acres

of cassava, and 4 acres of soya beans. He further explained that when he wanted land to

farm


84

I met a Konkomba man who is an elder in the community (Jakpamba) and

expressed interest in the land to farm maize. I gave him cola money of 10 cedis

and when he granted me access to the field I ploughed 3 acres for him and 20

acres for myself. If you want a rice field to farm, you need to get in touch with the

traditional authorities who exercises control over the valley lands. When you are

giving a valley land, in other to leave peacefully with the people, you establish

good relations by ploughing some acres for them. Since you are not living in that

community, they will protect the farm for you. You need to remember that the

farmland was not sold to you and your loyalty can be withdrawn at any time. Now

the relations have changed because our grandfathers first gave farmlands to

Konkombas when they received them in the early 1940s and we also get land to

farm through negotiations with the Konkombas

Case Study 5 Alhassan Ibrahim: A teacher

Alhassan Ibrahim (Kibos) is a professional teacher and has been teaching for the past

twenty years. He is now a commercial farmer who is into the cultivation of maize, rice,

and soya beans. He has a total land area of 190 acres of which he uses 130 acres for rice

cultivation, 40 acres for maize production and 10 acres for soya beans cultivation. He

decided to take farming as a full-time business because he realized when he invests into

farming the returns on investment is often two times more than what he invested. He

prefers the cultivation of maize and rice because he has observed the two crops has a lot

of profit and ready buyers at all material time. He uses the food crop to feed his family


85

and help the extended family during funerals and occasions. He narrated how he first got

his farmland and indicated that;

For my rice fields, I went and met the community chief and he gave me 70 acres

of farmland. I first approached him and presented cola to him and later ploughed

5 acres for him. I also provided him with seeds and during farm maintenance; I

helped him with herbicides and fertilizer. Tractors are very scarce in this area and

so I normally provide ploughing services to farmers at the beginning of the

farming season. The farmers pay 10 cedis per acre before I plough their farmland

for them and when they remove the foodstuff, they pay one bag per acre. The

normal cost for ploughing an acre is sixty cedi. When farmers start harvesting

food crops a bag of maize is 100 cedi and a bag of rice is 80 cedi. Through the

provision of the ploughing services, I managed to have three hundred and sixty

farmers (who I classified as my out-growers). Because when the farmers pay back

in kind after harvesting, I also buy their farm produce and sell it to a company

called premium fruits in Kumasi and ADVANCE in Tamale. I have generated ID

cards for all the farmers who I provide ploughing services to and for which reason

I see them as my out growers

Case Study 6: Mr. Saaka Sayibu Alhassan - District Director of MOFA

Mr. Saaka Sayibu Alhassan is the Nanumba North District Director of MOFA. He

explained to me that he was born into farming and as a young boy, farming was the

occupation of his parents and through that he became a farmer. This was partly why he

went to study horticultural science at the secondary school and proceeded to do it both


86

college and university level. He has 4 acres of yam farm, 3 acres of maize farm and 14

acres of rice farm. A crop that he prefers cultivating is yam because he feeds the family

with it and further indicated that the primary factor of being a farmer is to meet the food

needs of the family. He hails from Tamale and this was how he acquired his farmland;

When I wanted land to farm I went and met the chief through his linguist and

declared my intention to farm a particular crop. Then they showed me somebody

who helped me get access to farmland. But before we got to the chief palace I

obeyed the customs of the area by providing cola for the chief. The owner of the

land first gave 3 acres to farm maize and when I developed a good relationship

with him and consolidated our trust he showed where to get more land and that is

how come I now cultivate about 14 acres of rice field.

4.7 Conclusion

There are multiple pathways by which agricultural commercialization and land

consolidation can occur. This chapter explored emergent land markets within rural areas

and the impact of agricultural commercialization on various forms of land transactions

and labour relations, and the extent to which this results in the dispossession of

smallholder farmers. Appropriation of agricultural land can occur through accumulation

from below, by investments of smallholder farmers within a process of investing farm

profits in further expansion of farming activities. It can also occur from above, by

investments of other actors who have accumulated capital outside of agriculture into

agriculture, which they see as a profitable venture. The chapter revealed that the main


87

source of accumulation within agriculture in Bimbilla occurs from investments of traders,

civil servants, bureaucrats who use their savings to gain access to farmlands.

The findings revealed that the new pathways in which people alienate agriculture

land from poor farmers is through the hiring of tractors and providing ploughing services

to landowners in exchange for land which reveals that land owners lack the necessary

capital to hire tractor services. It also revealed that majority of the farmers who have

tractors were civil servants who accumulated their capital from non-farm activities and

use this to influence land owners to appropriate vast expanse of farmlands through the

provision of ploughing services and hiring out of tractors. The emerging paths through

which appropriation occur include; Paying for ploughing services for land owners to get

access to farmland, buying farm inputs like fertilizer and weedicides in exchange of

farmland. Also, among the commercial farmers more than half of the tractor owners are

civil servants.


88

CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In this study, I examined the impact of agricultural commercialization on land and

labour relations and how it affects the holdings of small scale farmers. I also looked at

transaction in land and the emergence of various types of formal and informal land

markets in Nanumba North District. The study focused on transactions in land outside

specific notions of land markets and how land is transacted and negotiated as part of a

process of agricultural commercialization within general transactions, specifically on the

rise of tractor ploughing as a means of gaining access to land.

The main commercial farmers are from Bimbilla the district capital, and take

advantage of the lack of tractor services to insist in payment in kind, which includes both

crops and land. The numbers of farmers who own tractors and are from Bimbilla are

about 15 people representing 71% of tractor owners in the study area as compared to the

remaining 29% percent farmers who hail from other villages. This means that tractor

owners cultivate significant number of farmland than those who hire tractor services.

Tractors are so scarce and land owners cannot find tractor operators to plough their land

for them but rather rely heavily on those hiring tractors to plough their land in exchange

for land. This lead to excessive demand for tractor services due to limited number of

tractors that pushed the price of ploughing to go up and for which reason farmers are

usually not able to afford the cash payments but instead resort to ploughing either on

credit or to be paid an equivalent amount of a maxi bag of maize or rice after harvesting.


89

Farmers are of the view that farming has now become capital intensive and those

with financial capital are able to meet the needed targets by practicing the right farming

methods. The farmers also hold a view that getting farmland in the area is becoming

difficult due to expansion in farm size by commercial farmers that squeezes the available

land thereby leading to conflict over land in the area. The majority of the respondents

lamented that it is becoming difficult to acquire farmland or get access to farmland in the

area. This is due to the activities of commercial farmers who end up ploughing more than

10 to 50 acres of land in their localities which leads to fragmentation of available

farmlands leaving relatively smaller portions for majority of them to compete for land.

This result in conflict over farmland by individual farmers which is non-violent conflict

but conflict of interest over who gains access to a more suitable fertile land.

Woodhouse and Chimwohu (2006) have observed that those who appropriate

farmlands in large sums are those who use income earned from a full-time job and the

knowledge and influence gained from bureaucratic and political offices, to take

advantage of new opportunities in agriculture. Seeking land in rural communities is one

way of gaining access to land without the cost of official registration and other

procedures of formal land markets. A majority of the tractor owners are civil servants and

a lot of farmers depend on them for ploughing which results in a shortage of tractors and

hence demand outstrips supply. This leads to negotiation and lobbying to get farm fields

ploughed on time by farmers.

The land holdings of civil servants are significantly larger than the other category

of workers. Those who release land for ploughing services are mainly among the poorer


90

farmers in the district. They have access to these fields either through inheritance or by

first occupancy right but has very small capital to develop the field on a larger scale.

However, they lack access to sufficient labour to farm this land or capital to hire

labourers and tractor ploughing services. As a consequence they are willing to transact

land in exchange for access to tractor ploughing services that enables them to work

portions of their land. The expansion of commercial farming is dominated by salaried

workers in Bimbilla and few civil servants coming from Accra. A few commercial

farmers have accumulated resources in agriculture locally. Agricultural

commercialization has led to a shift in cropping systems with maize and rice

complementing and displacing yam. Woodhouse and Chimwohu (2006) argue that failure

to understand the nature and extent of land markets under customary tenure regimes risks

obscuring the processes through which the poor have access to land and disabling efforts

to maintain or improve that access.

Chauveau (2000) describes the ―tutorat‖ land relation in Côte d‘Ivoire and

indicates that it is a relationship between a migrant farmer and indigenous landowner

based on a relationship of patronage. Subsequently, the moral economy of land became

increasingly commoditized and land sales are disguised as customary presentations. This

assertion by Chauveau has some correlation with the rendition of Brukum (1998) on

transformations between Konkombas and Nanumbas where Nanumba landlords initially

controlled land which was farm by subjugated groups which later changed after the

Konkomba - Nanumba conflict in 1994/5. As consequent labour is no longer provided as

tributes but occur within an internal market. Similarly, youth no longer provide labour


91

services for their in-laws and family elders but farm independently and hire out their

labour.

The migrant youth composing largely of Konkombas now possess some farm

land and usually release some to Nanumbas to farm based on informal negotiations of

rendering ploughing services and farm maintenance. It was the less privileged people and

strangers who used to farm for the chief and send some farm produce to the chief palace

every year to take care of his family and partly to show appreciation to the landowners.

Times have changed and monetary exchanges dominate all activities within communities.

As Peters (2004) noted, a key indicator of commoditization of land is the

transition from the ‗gifts‘ historically expected as tokens of acknowledgement of

customary authority and of anticipated reciprocity, to payments more closely related to

exchange values of the land. Commoditization of land works to the disadvantage of those

with lower purchasing power, thus threatening reduced access to land and potentially

further impoverishment for the poorer among existing land users. Although informal land

markets are ‗socially embedded‘ within the social relations of contemporary African rural

society, increasing competition and social conflict around land and landed resources

across Africa belies the assumption that socially embedded systems of landholding and

land use guarantee access.

In conclusion, most academic and media attention on the growing interests in

African land and land intensification has focused on the rapid increase in global

investments in African land for the large-scale production of food and fuel crops. Jayne et

al., (2014) findings revealed two categories of accumulators thus, people primarily


92

engaged in non-farm jobs and investing in land and relatively privileged rural-born men

who were then able to acquire large landholdings as they started out their careers. They

further noted that majority of the new accumulators acquired their farms after the age of

forty. Using their savings from their non-farm jobs, they were able to acquire farms and

enter farming during their mid-life stages. Those who accumulated from below entered

farming earlier than their counterparts. They tend to have smaller holdings than more

recent entrants from the non-farm sector.

This study contributes to the literature on the emergence of middle-scale

commercial farmers in Africa (Jayne et al., 2014), in which to date few studies have been

carried out in Ghana, with the exception of Teye, Yaro and Torkivey (2016) paper

presented at 2016 World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty, who study various

forms of agricultural commercialization including the emergence of commercial mango

farmers in Somanya farming up to 200 hectares.

This study has also revealed that a significant proportion of the land in Nanumba

North District is farmed by civil servants, who had a mean of 57 acreages as compared to

mean acreages of 30 controlled by the local farmers. While the civil servants have

captured much land this has occurred outside of formal market transactions for land.

Most of this land has been captured in exchange for ploughing services or in exchange

for farm inputs. More than half of the commercial farmers own tractors, which are used

to alienate land from poorer farmers. This, therefore, shows that land alienation is arising

from the increasing commercialization of land and that land is being transferred from


93

those with least resources to invest in commercial agriculture to those with the most

resources.

Thus agricultural investment is not determined by the existence of well-defined

land markets. However, lack of access of poor farmers to agricultural services, such as

ploughing, increases inequality and results in poor farmers transacting lands that they

struggle to cultivate without modern technologies to gain access to agricultural services.

Therefore the lack of access to agricultural services undermines the ability of

smallholders to utilize their land and makes them vulnerable to appropriation by large

farmers.

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Cortula (P.177) argues that the land rush accelerates the breaking up of the

relationship between land and labour with investors taking the land and rural people

providing labour. In Ghana agrarian markets are uneven and poorly serve poor farmers.

Where markets provide limited access to agricultural services, these can be used

politically to dispossess small farmers of lands.

In this case study, control over limited supply of tractors is being used by urban-

based middle farmers to gain access to rural lands and crops. Among these middle

farmers are well connected political elites, who use their access to political networks of

power to gain favorable access to tractors and lands, resulting in less land availability for

smallholders. Since this has the potential to both distort markets and access of

smallholders to land it is important that government both collects data on the


94

developments of middle scale farmers and their impacts on land availability at the local

level.

It is also important that government facilitates access to market agricultural

services such as tractor ploughing for smallholders, ensuring that these are widely

available and not controlled by a class of aspiring large-scale farmers with political

connections.


95

REFERENCES

Aapengnuo, C. M. (2008). Threat Narratives, Group Identity and Violence: A Study of

the Dagomba, Nanumba and Konkomba of Northern Ghana (Doctoral

dissertation).

Amanor, K. (2001). Land, Labour and the Family in Southern Ghana: a critique of land

policy under neo-liberalisation (No. 116). Nordic Africa Institute.

Amanor, K. S. (2001). Empowering women through tree planting? Gender and global

environmentalism in Northern Ghana. Research Review, 17(1), 63-73.

Amanor, K. S. (2010). Family values, land sales and agricultural commodification in

South-Eastern Ghana. Africa, 80(01), 104-125.

Amanor, K. S. (2012). Global resource grabs, agribusiness concentration and the

smallholder: two West African case studies. Journal of Peasant Studies, 39(3-4),

731-749.

Amanor, K. S., & Pabi, O. (2007). Space, time, rhetoric and agricultural change in the

transition zone of Ghana. Human Ecology, 35(1), 51-67.

Amanor, K., & Diderutuah, M. K. (2001). Share contracts in the oil palm and citrus belt

of Ghana. IED

Amin, S. (1972). Underdevelopment and dependence in Black Africa—origins and

contemporary forms. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 10(04), 503-524.

Bernstein, B. (2004). The structuring of pedagogic discourse. Routledge.

Berry, S. (1997). Tomatoes, land and hearsay: property and history in Asante in the time

of structural adjustment. World Development, 25(8), 1225-1241.


96

Berry, S. (2009). Property, authority and citizenship: land claims, politics and the

dynamics of social division in West Africa. Development and Change, 40(1), 23-

45.

Chanock, M. (1991). Paradigms, policies and property: a review of the customary law of

land tenure. Law in colonial Africa, 61, 84.

Chapoto, A., Haggblade, S., Hichaambwa, M., Kabwe, S., Longabaugh, S., Sitko, N., &

Tschirley, D. L. (2013). Institutional Models for Accelerating Agricultural

Commercialization: Evidence from Maize, Cotton and Horticulture (No. 154940).

Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource

Economics.

Chauveau, J. P. (2000). The land tenure question in Côte d'Ivoire: A lesson in history.

International Institute for Environment and Development, Drylands Programme.

Cheater, A. (1990). The ideology of ‗communal‘land tenure in Zimbabwe: Mythogenesis

enacted? Africa, 60(02), 188-206.

Chimhowu, A., & Woodhouse, P. (2006). Customary vs Private Property Rights?

Dynamics and Trajectories of Vernacular Land Markets in Sub‐Saharan Africa.

Journal of Agrarian Change, 6(3), 346-371.

Colin, J. P. (2013). Securing rural land transactions in Africa. An Ivorian perspective.

Land use policy, 31, 430-440.

Colin, J. P., & Woodhouse, P. (2010). Introduction: Interpreting land markets in Africa.

Africa: The Journal of the International African Institute, 80(1), 1-13.


97

Cotula, L. (2012). The international political economy of the global land rush: A critical

appraisal of trends, scale, geography and drivers. Journal of Peasant Studies,

39(3-4), 649-680.

Cotula, L. (2013). The great African land grab?: agricultural investments and the global

food system. London: Zed Books.

Cotula, L. (2013). The great African land grab?: Agricultural investments and the global

food system. London: Zed Books.

Cotula, L., Vermeulen, S., Leonard, R., & Keeley, J. (2009). Land grab or development

opportunity. Agricultural investment and international land deals in Africa, 130.

Cowen, M., Cowen, M. P., & Shenton, R. W. (1996). Doctrines of development. Taylor

& Francis.

Dawson, C., (2000). Becoming Konkomba: Recent Transformatioris in a Gur Society of

Northern Ghana. MA Dissertation University of Calgary, 2000.

Diao, X., Cossar, F., Houssou, N., & Kolavalli, S. (2014). Mechanization in Ghana:

Emerging demand, and the search for alternative supply models. Food Policy, 48,

168-181.

Gebremedhin, B., & Jaleta, M. (2010). Commercialization of smallholders: Does market

orientation translate into market participation? (No. 22). ILRI (aka ILCA and

ILRAD).

GRAIN, 2008. Seized! The 2008 Land Grab for Food and Financial Security. GRAIN

Briefing October 2008. Available at: www.grain.org/go/landgrab.


http://www.grain.org/go/landgrab

98

Hendricks, F., & Ntsebeza, L. (1999). Chiefs and rural local government in post-

apartheid South Africa. African Journal of Political Science/Revue Africaine de

Science Politique, 4(1), 99-126.

Jaleta, M., Gebremedhin, B., & Hoekstra, D. (2009). Smallholder commercialization.

processes, determinants and impacts.

Jayne, T. S., Chapoto, A., Sitko, N., Nkonde, C., Muyanga, M., & Chamberlin, J. (2014).

Is the Scramble for Land in Africa Foreclosing a Smallholder Agricultural

Expansion Strategy? Journal of International Affairs, 67(2), 35.

Kanyinga, K., Lumumba, O., Amanor, K. S., & Moyo, S. (2008). The struggle for

sustainable land management and democratic development in Kenya: a history of

greed and grievances. Land and sustainable development in Africa, 100-126.

Lund, C. (2000). African land tenure: Questioning basic assumptions. International

Institute for Environment and Development.

Morris, M. L., Binswanger-Mikhize, H. P., & Byerlee, D. (2009). Awakening Africa's

sleeping giant: prospects for commercial agriculture in the Guinea Savannah

Zone and beyond. World Bank Publications.

Moyo, S., Matondi, P. B., & Amanor, K. S. (2008). Interrogating sustainable

development and resource control in Zimbabwe. Land and sustainable

development in Africa, 55-82.

Muyanga, M., Jayne, T. S., & Burke, W. J. (2013). Pathways into and out of poverty: A

study of rural household wealth dynamics in Kenya. The Journal of Development

Studies, 49(10), 1358-1374.


99

Ntsebeza, L. (2005). Democracy compromised: Chiefs and the politics of the land in

South Africa (p. 326). Brill, Leiden [etc.].

Oya, C. (2007). Stories of rural accumulation in Africa: trajectories and transitions

among rural capitalists in Senegal. Journal of Agrarian Change, 7(4), 453-493.

Peters, P. E. (2004). Inequality and social conflict over land in Africa. Journal of

Agrarian Change, 4(3), 269-314.

Pingali, P. L. (1997). From subsistence to commercial production systems: The

transformation of Asian agriculture. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,

79(2), 628-634.

Polly Hill. (1997). The migrant cocoa-farmers of southern Ghana: A study in rural

capitalism. LIT Verlag Münster.

Pottier, J. (2005). ʻCustomary Land Tenureʼ in Sub-Saharan Africa Today: Meanings and

contexts. From the Ground Up: Land Rights, Conflict and Peace in Sub-Saharan

Africa, 55-75.

Poulton, C., Tyler, G., Hazell, P., Dorward, A., Kydd, J., & Stockbridge, M. (2008). All-

Africa review of experiences with commercial agriculture: lessons from success

and failure. Background paper for the Competitive Commercial Agriculture in

Sub-Saharan Africa (CCAA) Study. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Schoneveld, G. C. (2014). The geographic and sectoral patterns of large-scale farmland

investments in sub-Saharan Africa. Food Policy, 48, 34-50.

Sender, J., & Smith, S. (2013). The development of capitalism in Africa. Routledge.

Sitko, N. J., & Jayne, T. S. (2014). Structural transformation or elite land capture? The

growth of ―emergent‖ farmers in Zambia. Food Policy, 48, 194-202.


100

Sitko, N., & Chamberlin, J. (2015). The Anatomy of Medium-Scale Farm Growth in

Zambia: What Are the Implications for the Future of Smallholder Agriculture?

Land, 4(3), 869-887.

Von Braun, J., & Kennedy, E. (1994). Agricultural commercialization, economic

development, and nutrition. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Yaro, J. A., Teye, J. K., & Torvikey, G. D. (2016). Historical Context of Agricultural

Commercialisation in Ghana: Changes in Land and Labour Relations. Journal of

Asian and African Studies, 0021909616657368.

Zhou, S., Minde, I. J., & Mtigwe, B. (2013). Smallholder agricultural commercialization

for income growth and poverty alleviation in southern Africa: A review. African

Journal of Agricultural Research, 8(22), 2599-2608.

Zoomers, A. (2010). Globalisation and the foreignisation of space: seven processes

driving the current global land grab. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 37(2), 429-

447.


101

APPENDIX

1.1 Questionnaire on agricultural commercialization

INSTITUTE OF AFRICAN STUDIES

UNIVERSITY OF GHANA, LEGON

SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE IMPACT OF AGRICULTURAL

COMMERCIALIZATION ON LAND TENURE RELATIONS IN NANUMBA

NORTH DISTRICT.

This questionnaire is designed to gather information solely for academic purpose. I assure

you that your identity and the information you provide will be treated with utmost

confidentiality.

Thank you.

SECTION A: INFORMATION ON COMMERCIAL FARMING

1. When did you start farming?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

2. Where did you learn how to farm and from whom?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

…………………………………………………………………………………………


102

…..............................................................................................................................…

3. Do you have other family members who are farmers?

a) Yes [ ]

b) No [ ]

4. If yes, mention the types of crops they grow.

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

5. What influenced you to go into commercial farming?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

6. What are some of the crops you currently cultivate and where? Please kindly list

them.

Crop Location


103

…………………………. ……………………………

………………………….. …………………………….

………………………….. ……………………………..

………………………….. ……………………………..

7. Why do you prefer growing a particular crop(s)?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

8. Which crop(s) do you consider to be the most profitable crop to grow in this area?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

9. How many acres of land are you currently cultivating?

a) 1-5

b) 6-10

c) 11-15

d) 20 and above

10. How many bags do you normally get from the crop(s)?

…………………………………………………………………………………………


104

…..............................................................................................................................…

11. How long have you been farming?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…..

…………………………………………………………………………………………

SECTION B: INFORMATION ON LAND TENURE

12. How did you acquire your farm land?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

13. How far is your farm from your home?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

14. If you want to acquire farm land in this area, what are the different ways to get land?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…


105

a) If bought how much did you buy it for?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

b) If leased how much did you lease land a year?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

c) If inherited from whom did you inherit it from?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

d) If shared crop, how do you share?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

15. Who controls the sale of land in this community?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

…………………………………………………………………………………………


106

…..............................................................................................................................…

16. What process do individuals normally go through in other to access farm land in this

area?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

17. Have you ever sold any land?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

18. Why did you sell the land?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

19. Have you ever sublet land to any one?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

20. Why did you sublet the land?

…………………………………………………………………………………………


107

…..............................................................................................................................…

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

21. What were the arrangements?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

22. Do you ever work as a labourer?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

23. Who do you work for as a labourer?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

WOMEN AND FARM LAND ACQUISITION


108

24. Do women own land in this community?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

25. How do women acquire farm land?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

26. Is it difficult for women to get land?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

27. Does clans/lineage play a role in farm land acquisition?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

28. Is it difficult to get farm land in this area?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

29. If yes, why is it getting difficult to acquire farm land?

…………………………………………………………………………………………


109

…..............................................................................................................................…

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

COST OF FARM LAND

30. How much does land cost now?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

31. Is farm land becoming more expensive?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

32. IF yes, why is it becoming too expensive?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…


110

33. Can you remember the cost of farm land in the past?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

34. When did people start leasing farm land?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

35. Who are the large farmers in this area?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…


111

SECTION C: INFORMATION ON INVESTMENT

36. How many farms do you have?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

37. How do you clear the land?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

38. What tools do you use to prepare the land –tractor or animal traction or hand hoe and

cutlass?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

39. Do you own any farm machine or you hire eg Tractor etc

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

a. If no, why and how do you go about your farming activities?


112

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

40. Do you practice mechanize farming?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

b. If yes, which farming activities do you use the machine for?

…………………………………………………………………………………………..

…………………………………………………………………………………………

41. Do you usually cut all the trees on the farm? Or you always preserve some?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

42. List the tree species that you normally preserve on your farm?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

43. Do you have dawadawa trees on your farm?

…………………………………………………………………………………………


113

…..............................................................................................................................…

44. If yes, do you preserve the dawadawa trees and why?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

45. How often do you clear new plots for cultivation-once every year, twice every year

etc?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

46. Where do you get money to farm?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

47. Do you receive any loans to farm? (a) Yes (b) No

a) If yes, from whom do you receive loans?


114

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

b) If no, please explain your source of funding?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…...................................................................................................................................

48. Where did you get your seeds to farm?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

49. How much did you spend on seeds?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

50. Do you use fertilizer on your farm? (a) Yes (b) No

a) If yes, then which crops do you apply fertilizer to?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

b) Where did you get fertilizer from?

…………………………………………………………………………………………


115

…..............................................................................................................................…

c) What do you use to measure fertilizer for farm application? Cup, bowl

(gbarigbuni), pehuu (calabash), etc?

d) Do you normally buy bags of fertilizer?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

e) If yes, how many bags did you use this year?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

f) What type of fertilizer did you use?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

g) How much did you spend on fertilizer this year?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

51. Do you use weedicides to clear your farm land? (a) Yes (b)No


116

a) If yes, what type of weedicide do use?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

b) Where did you get your weedicide from?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

c) How many bags did you use?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

d) So, how much did you spend on fertilizer?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

52. Do you take labor to help you in your farm? (a) Yes (b) No

a) How many labors have you hired in the last year?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…


117

b) What work do you hire labor to do?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

c) How many days do you hire labor for?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

53. What is your source of labor?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

54. If family, which type?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

55. If nuclear, which of your relations?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

56. How and where do you store your farm produce after harvest?


118

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

…..............................................................................................................................…

57. Who do you normally sell your farm produce to?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

58. Do you have any arrangement with buyers or any company?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

a) If yes, what is the arrangement?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

b) If no, please explain how you get access to the market?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

…………………………………………………………………………………………


119

…..............................................................................................................................…

59. Do you belong to any farmers association? (a) Yes (b) No

a) If yes, then which of the associations?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…

SECTION D: BACKGROUND INFORMATION OF RESPONDENTS

60. What is your sex?

a) Male [ ]

b) Female [ ]

61. How old are you?

a) 15-19 [ ]

b) 20-25 [ ]

c) 26-30 [ ]

d) 31-35 [ ]

e) 35 and above [ ]

62. What is your religious denomination?

a) Christian [ ]

b) Muslim [ ]

c) Traditional [ ]

d) Others, please kindly specify............................................................

63. Are you a native of this community?

a) Yes [ ]

b) No [ ]

64. Where were you born?

a) Yes [ ]


120

b) No [ ]

65. Where are you from? ………………………………………..

66. What is your level of Education?

a) Basic [ ]

b) Koranic/Islamic [ ]

c) Secondary/Commercial/Vocational [ ]

d) Tertiary [ ]

67. What is your marital status?

a) Single [ ]

b) Married [ ]

c) Divorced [ ]

d) Widowed [ ]

68. If married, how many wives do you have?

a) One [ ]

b) Two [ ]

c) Three [ ]

d) Four and above [ ]

69. How many children do you have?

a) None [ ]

b) 1-3 [ ]

c) 4-6 [ ]

d) 6 and above [ ]

70. What is the size of your household?

a) 0-4 [ ]

b) 5-8 [ ]

c) 9-13 [ ]

d) 15 and above [ ]

71. Are you the head of your family?

e) Yes [ ]

f) No [ ]


121

72. If no, indicate your position in the family?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…..............................................................................................................................…


Date post:	19-Dec-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

UNIVERSITY OF GHANA INSTITUTE OF AFRICAN STUDIES ...

Documents