Dynamics of youth access to agricultural land under the customary tenure regime in the Techiman traditional area of Ghana

Land Use Policy 60 (2017) 254–266

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol

Dynamics of youth access to agricultural land under the customary tenure regime in the Techiman traditional area of Ghana Joseph Kwaku Kidido a,∗ , John Tiah Bugri a , Raphael Kasim Kasanga b a b

Department of Land Economy, College of Art and Built Environment, KNUST, Kumasi, Ghana Centre for Land Studies, College of Art and Built Environment, KNUST, Kumasi, Ghana

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 13 June 2016 Received in revised form 26 October 2016 Accepted 26 October 2016 Keywords: Youth Land Access Customary Tenure Techiman

a b s t r a c t This paper investigated youth access to agricultural land under customary land tenure in Ghana. Using Techiman Traditional Area as a case study, the study applied multiple sampling techniques in a multistage sampling process to select the study communities and respondents. A total sample of 455 youth respondents and 23 elders were covered in twenty peri-urban and rural communities. The study revealed that irrespective of whichever mode (market or non-market) the youth employed to access agricultural land, in rural or peri-urban areas, there were constraints to their land sizes. Majority of the youth, both indigenes and migrants, held small land sizes of 1–3 acres for farming purposes. The underlying causes were two-fold: demand-related such as high cost of accessing land and competition from residential developers and supply-related such as unwillingness of the elders to release land and increasing scarcity of productive family land, among others. It is thus the conclusion of the paper that more research should be conducted across the country into youth access to agricultural land under customary tenure as a means of formulating an evidence-based youth agricultural land access policy for the country. There is also the need for public education of customary authorities to sensitize them on the need for making land accessible to the youth for agricultural purpose. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Land is a key resource in the social, economic, cultural and political facets of man. Accordingly, people are better placed to raise and stabilize their incomes and also participate in economic growth if they have access to land (Oxfam, 2007). Central to poverty reduction and empowerment of poor people in their communities is access to land (Bennell, 2007; Deininger, 2003). Economic decisions of people are shaped by their claims to and control over desirable land for varied purposes. Land access encompasses availability of land and ownership security, desirable physical and economic attributes, the level of transparency and fairness of transactions (Ahene, 2009). Attaining equitable and fair distribution of land rights across the social spectrum therefore remains a prime issue of concern in the social, economic and political discourse of agrarian economies such as Ghana. In the past, favourable demographic conditions and the existence of large expanses of land made the customary land tenure

∗ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (J.K. Kidido), [email protected] (J.T. Bugri), [email protected] (R.K. Kasanga). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.10.040 0264-8377/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

regimes sources of equitable land access (Kasanga, 1999; Toulmin, 1999; Ensminger, 1997 and Gildea, 1964). As noted by Kasanga (1999) “no man (was) ‘big’ or ‘small’ in his own village or town” when it came to land under the Ghanaian customary tenure system. However, recent research has shown that the customary tenure system is fraught with a myriad of challenges and unable to guarantee equitable access to land for all within the social spectrum. It is noted that, in some parts of Ghana customary landholding arrangements often exclude groups such as the youth and women from equitable and secure access to land and partaking in decision-making on land matters (Kwapong, 2009; GoG, 2002). This situation is exacerbated by increasing corporate or absentee acquisition of community land and local micro-land grabs (White, 2011) and rising population. In many developing countries, ongoing subdivisions and fragmentation of land through inheritance create unviable land parcels and make the youth increasingly landless (Bennell, 2007). In most countries in sub-Saharan Africa, the World Bank (2012) notes that, land remains largely abundant but due to the ambiguities of acquisition processes through purchase, leasing, inheritance and assignment under the traditional rules it has become virtually impossible to acquire new land. The customary land tenure system dominates in Ghana and virtually all land rights for agricultural purposes emanate from the

J.K. Kidido et al. / Land Use Policy 60 (2017) 254–266

customary land sector. Due to the low levels of capital injection into agriculture, land and labour are therefore of primary concern for increased agricultural production by most farmers. Yet, most research on land access in the customary tenure regime has tended to focus on gender with women at the centre as a vulnerable segment of society in need of targeted actions for improved land access. Various research works (e.g. Kuusaana et al., 2013; Bugri, 2008; Adiaba, 2006; Dowuona-Hammond, 2003; ISSER, 2003; BorteiDoku, 1997; Benneh et al., 1995; Kotey and Tsikata 1990) have identified women as vulnerable in terms of access to land under the customary tenure system in Ghana. There is limited research on youth land access under customary tenure regime in Ghana. The few available studies have centred on changing inter-generational land relations and how these changes reshape the moral economy of the family and landholding rights of the youth (Quan, 2007); changing family land relations and land contestations occasioned by agriculture and land commoditization as new frontiers of cocoa production declined in south east and west Ghana (Amanor, 2010, 2008) and Boni (2008). None of these studies directly focused on youth agricultural land access to understand in-depth the dynamics and challenges faced by the youth under the customary tenure regime in Ghana. This is the research gap this study seeks to fill. This paper thus examines the dynamics of youth access to agricultural land under the customary tenure regime in the Techiman Traditional Area (TTA) with a view to improving on youth access to agricultural land in Ghana. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 the related literature is examined, while the methodology is discussed in Section 3. An overview of the study area characteristics is presented in Section 4 to contextualize the key issues investigated by the paper. The results and discussion is undertaken in Section 5, the conclusions and recommendations made in Section 6.

2. Literature review 2.1. Youth land access constraints and implications Land plays a central role in any agrarian enterprise and its access is a key determinant of entry into the sector. Getting access to land while young is a crucial factor in young people’s involvement in agriculture. Land access difficulty has been described as a prominent ‘push’ factor (Sumberg et al., 2012) which forces the youth out of agriculture-based livelihoods against their will. It is noted that, young people of today, if even interested in agriculture are faced with increased narrowing and sometimes a complete closure of access to land (White, 2011). In many agrarian societies the older generations (parents, community elders or chiefs) retain control of land for as long as possible (White, 2012). White believes that, this long period of waiting by the young people in order to gain access to land partly accounts for their aversion to farming. He questioned; “Who wants to wait around in the village until they are 40 or 50 years old to be a farmer”. The World Bank (2014) also reports that although some young people own small plots of land, land ownership is highly concentrated among the older adults. André and Platteau (1998) also provided evidence of land concentration among the older adult headed households than young headed households in Rwanda. In the Western Burkina Faso and Ivory Coast, Chauveau et al. (2006) observed that youth access land under restricted conditions imposed by their family heads. Bezu and Holden (2014) similarly reported that, in southern Ethiopia, youth access to land remains a major challenge to their livelihood opportunities in agriculture as they cannot inherit sufficient land resources from their parents. The youth therefore rely on the land rental market where they are also constrained by lack of capital and negotiation skills to acquire viable land units. Bezu and Holden

255

noted these constraints have rather ‘pushed’ the youth from agriculture as a livelihood and resulted in migration into urban centres for salaried employment in Ethiopia. Boni (2008) found that in the Sefwi area of Ghana, during the second half of the twentieth century, the elders through forest clearing in the previous decades had accumulated prerogatives over large tracts of land while the youth faced land shortage. Again, in the Eastern and Western regions of Ghana, Amanor (2008) also noted that the sale of land to migrant cocoa farmers resulted in land shortage for the local youth. This sparked off anger by the local youth against the migrants (Boni, 2008; Amanor, 2008, 2001). In some cases, youth in response to alienation of substantial amounts of land to ‘outsiders’ or migrants by their elders have forcefully entered and taken possession of properties of the grantees. Amanor (1999) reported of the youth harvesting oil palm kernels belonging to the Ghana Oil Palm Development Corporation (GOPDC) at night in the Kwae area of the Eastern region of Ghana in frustration over land which should have been given to them but had rather been granted to GOPDC for an oil palm plantation. “The youth. . .argue that the land belongs to them any way and was taken away unfairly so they have the right to harvest the fruits” (Amanor, 1999: 109). A similar case was reported by Kouame˙ (2010) where Abura youth in Côte d’Ivoire destroyed pineapple crops in the field belonging to Burkinabe migrants in protest over letting of land to migrants by their old men (cf. White, 2012). The retention of land by the elderly and at times alienation outside the kinship group to the detriment of the younger members of the land owning group has potential to provoke tension in society. Quan (2007: 57) noted that limitations in young people’s access to land, land concentration and the allocation and sale of land by the older generation outside the kin group could trigger wider social conflict (see also Bennell, 2007: 9). In Ghana, land alienation to the detriment of the local youth has compelled them to either abandon farming or seek alternative means of survival. “Without secure access to family land, many youth have chosen to withdraw from the family farm, seek alternative livelihoods, or work as labourers or sharecrop tenants elsewhere” (Amanor, 2008: 72), also see Amanor, (2010). Similarly in Sierra Leone and Liberia, Richards (2005) noted young men chose to become guerrilla fighters instead of succumbing to exploitative customary requirements in accessing land from their local elders (cited in Future Agricultures Consortium, 2010). André and Platteau (1998) also reported of the social repercussions of youth land access constraints occasioned by the emergence of a land market in the Gisenyi area of Northwest Rwanda which was discriminatory and unfair to the youth. They noted that land purchases became a common mode of accessing land which disrupted the customary process of land transmission (i.e. land access afforded by membership of kinship group under the customary system was curtailed). Customary rules governing lineage access to land became defined and enforced in more restrictive ways against the vulnerable groups and the younger members. These changes in the customary land access arrangements fuelled resentment among the younger generation resulting in uncontrollable delinquency among the landless youth and frequent intra-family disputes. André and Platteau (1998) further observed that the changes in customary land holding arrangements prepared the grounds for the ethnic violence in the region which was largely directed at the older generation, who, under the emerged land market had appropriated large land holdings at the expense of the youth (see also Quan, 2007). The challenges the youth encounter in accessing agricultural land are mostly embedded in the traditional landholding arrangements which tend to vest land allocation rights in the older generation and who sometimes exploit the system to the detriment of the younger members. Given that the survival of the agricultural sector hinges on active involvement of the youth, and the fact

256

J.K. Kidido et al. / Land Use Policy 60 (2017) 254–266

that farming population in Ghana is ageing with average age of a farmer being 55 years (MoFA, 2011), there is the need to create a smooth transition from this ageing farming population. This can best be done by understanding and addressing youth land access constraints. If the youth who are energetic lack access to land on favourable terms this could potentially push them out of the agricultural sector, negatively affect the country’s food security and the supply of raw materials for industries. The current youth policy climate does not emphatically address this issue as far as land access is concerned.

2.2. Policy disconnect on youth land access Youth involvement in agriculture is among the nineteen policy priority areas the 2010 National Youth Policy of Ghana seeks to vigorously pursue. The policy alludes to the immense contribution of the agricultural sector to the GDP of Ghana and also as the largest employer in the country. The policy acknowledges the prospects in agriculture in addressing youth unemployment and at the same time guaranteeing food security in the country. The state under the policy undertakes to promote youth involvement in agriculture as a career through the “provision of resources for the participation of the youth in modern agriculture” (MYS, 2010). However, the policy does not directly mention land access and how this important factor matters in the overall objective of promoting youth participation in agriculture. It can however be inferred that, the “provision of resources for the participation of the youth in modern agriculture” as captured in the policy broadly includes land. But unlike access to finance, infrastructural facilities such as irrigation, farming technology and other inputs which are very much within the domain of the government to control, the case of land is different. Government does not own land in all areas where the youth are scattered across the country and indeed will not be able to directly offer land to all youth desiring to participate in agriculture. This is so because customary land owners are the largest supplier of land in the country, holding as much as 80% of lands in Ghana (see Bugri, 2013; Sulemana, 2011; Larbi, 2008). Before the customary sector can offer the needed land to the youth to engage in farming, any underlying issues which can possibly frustrate the land transmission process must be well understood in context and addressed. There is obviously a missing link in this policy aspiration of promoting youth participation in agriculture without devoting adequate attention to the land access difficulties and the processes to overcome same. This policy oversight on youth land access affirms the observation by White (2011) that many governments have not made youth access to land a priority in their policy agenda. Again, the National Land Policy document launched in 1999 has also failed to specifically cater for youth land issues. The policy among other things, seeks to promote land rights of the vulnerable groups such as women and smallholder farmers, yet there is no mention of the youth as a social category whose land access should be on the national agenda (see GoG, 1999). This leaves more to be done in the arena of youth land access, implying a thorough understanding of the land access constraints of the youth based on research to inform policy direction and the needed interventions.

3. Defining youth for this study It is imperative to clearly define which group of people are the youth within the social spectrum for the purpose of this study. “Youth is socially constructed, not biologically fixed; its meaning and boundaries vary over time, between societies and within societies” (White, 2011:2).

Definitions of youth in the literature have generally centred on ‘age-based’ and ‘transitional’ perspectives. Some schools of thought define youth by reference to age ranges. These age ranges vary across regions, countries and cultures when used in the definition of youth (Lintelo, 2011; UN-HABITAT, 2011). Varying age limits are set by institutions, national authorities and in policy documents. For instance, United Nations defines youth to be people between the ages of 15 and 24 years, while the Commonwealth definition of youth includes individuals from 15 to 29 years (cited in UNHABITAT, 2011). African Union (2006) defines youth to cover those individuals between the ages of 15 and 35. Ghana’s National Youth Policy 2010 also defines “youth” as “persons who are within the age bracket of fifteen (15) and thirty-five (35)”. Youth are also seen as a period of transition or social process (Wyn and White, 1997). From this perspective, youth is defined as the period of transition from childhood to adulthood, from education to employment, from family of origin to family of destination as well as encompassing processes of sexual maturation and attainment of social and economic autonomy from parents and careers (World Bank, 2014, 2007; White, 2011; MYS, 2010; Bennell, 2007, 2000; UNESCO, 2004). Scientific and policy construction often situate understanding of the term youth in the context of transition (White, 2011). According to the World Bank (2007), for research and policy purposes, it is useful to pin down more precisely the period of youth. Youth is often defined with reference to a particular age brackets for policy and operational purposes (Leavy and Smith, 2010; Bennell, 2000). For the purpose of this study, we define youth as both male and female within the active workforce of 15 up to 34 years. In Ghana, people under age 15, are legally prohibited from engaging in employment. Section 89 of the Children’s Act 1998 (Act, 560) stipulates the minimum age for admission of a child into employment to be 15 years. Thus, for a study on youth access to agricultural land, people who are not legally qualified to be involved in any agriculture-based employment activities were not the target. It was in this respect that youth was defined in line with the statutory prescription of when a young person is permitted to engage in productive economic venture in Ghana. The Ghana National Youth Policy, 2010 pegs the upper limit for the youth at 35 years. This study, however, pegged the upper limit at age 34 to align with the Ghana Statistical Service age categorizations in order to use their census data for this research. Ghana Statistical Service categorizes people who are 35 years in the age band of 35–39 years (see GSS, 2012). It was impossible to ascertain the number of people who were 35 years from the GSS Census data if the definition covered them. It was thus appropriate to align the upper age limit of youth with the GSS categorization to be able to use their census data to ascertain youth population in the study communities for sampling purposes.

4. Study area The geographical scope of the study was limited to the Techiman Traditional Area (TTA) in the Brong Ahafo region. Situated within the middle belt of Ghana, the TTA comprises two administrative districts i.e. Techiman Municipality and Techiman North district (see Fig. 1). It is an active agricultural area with a blend of indigenous and migrant youth from the northern part of Ghana. A substantial amount of Ghana’s food production takes place within this part of the country due to the area’s high soil fertility, favourable climatic conditions with double annual maxima rainfall occurring in April/May and September/October (TENDA, 2013). It is also strategically located, lying between the savannah ecological region of northern Ghana and the forest belt of southern Ghana making the

J.K. Kidido et al. / Land Use Policy 60 (2017) 254–266

257

Fig. 1. District Map of Brong Ahafo Region of Ghana Highlighting the Study Area District. Source: Modified from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Brong Ahafo districts.png

area capable of supporting a variety of agricultural activities. As a strategic location, the area serves as a contact zone and stopover point for traders from the North and exchanges products of two economic regions of northern and southern Ghana (Kasanga and Avis, 1988). The Techiman Township has a thriving and a highly prosperous agricultural market. It was thus appropriate to situate this study within the Techiman Traditional Area to understand youth agricultural land access dynamics towards recommending policy interventions to enable the youth fully exploit the vast opportunities in agriculture in the area and Ghana in general.

5. Methodology This study employed a mixed methods research design based on a case study research to investigate youth access to land and emerging dynamics under customary land tenure. Mixed methods research is where a researcher employs both qualitative and quantitative approaches at any stage in the research processes including design of research questions, sampling strategies, data collection and analysis techniques and conclusion (Creswell and Clark, 2011; Lisle, 2011; Creswell and Garrett, 2008; Tashakkori and Creswell 2007). The combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches in the research processes is geared towards complementarity, in-depth understanding and corroborations (Ganle, 2013; Creswell and Clark, 2011). The mixed method is grounded on pragmatic research epistemologies or philosophical assumptions [consequence-oriented, problem centred and pluralistic perspective] (Creswell, 2003). Thus, instead of focusing more on the methods, the researcher considers the research problem as the most important element and uses multiple approaches to understand the problem (Creswell, 2003). The decision to blend the two approaches in this study was due to a number of reasons. First, is the robustness of the approach in offering a wide and flexible means to understand and explain land

access by the youth under the customary tenure system which is noted as dynamic, fluid and negotiated (Boni, 2008; Oomen 2002; Berry, 1993) and centred on people’s interpretation and experiences. Secondly, triangulating data sources from different actors as a means for seeking convergence, complementarity and validity checks was another motivation for adopting the mixed methods. Thirdly, by collecting both closed ended quantitative data and open-ended qualitative data under the mixed methods it is highly advantageous to best understand a research problem (Creswell, 2003). Land and control over it at the household level under customary settings is about seniority (Bugri, 2008) and age (Boni, 2008; Chauveau et al., 2006). Thus, the processes and power relations governing land ownership and access cannot be fully appreciated by consigning to only one particular research method. The ability to address the complex land problem of the youth within the larger social structure needs a blend of approaches to fully unravel the dynamics, hence the choice of mixed methods design for this study. Two research instruments were used in collecting primary data for this study. Data collection took place between May 2015 and January 2016. Both structured questionnaires and an open-ended interview guide for In-Depth Interviews (IDIs) were employed for data collection. While the structured questionnaires were administered to the youth for largely quantitative data, the IDIs focused on the elders and family heads who make land allocation and use decisions. The youth respondents were first interviewed followed by the IDIs with the elders. This sequence provided opportunity to triangulate and authenticate from the perspectives of the elders, the claims made by the youth respondents regarding land rights allocation among other access issues. The study applied multiple sampling techniques in a multi-stage sampling process. The communities in the TTA were first stratified into peri-urban and rural. Stratification of the communities into urban, peri-urban and rural was based on functional aspect of the communities and not based on the demographic definition

258

J.K. Kidido et al. / Land Use Policy 60 (2017) 254–266

Table 1 Communities and respondents covered in the survey in the Techiman Traditional Area. Community Peri-Urban Hansua Krobo Tuobodom Nkwaeso Bamiri Twimia-Koase Mesidan Sansama Kuntunso Subtotal Rural Aworowa Nsuta Buoyem Tanoso Adieso Tadieso Amangoase Tanoboase Offuman Kokroko Fiaso Subtotal Total

Number of Youth

IDIs (Elders)

20 27 89 20 12 21 8 13 12 222

2 3 – 4 1 1 2 – – 13

39 18 14 53 5 11 9 6 51 5 22 233 455

1 – 2 3 – – – 2 2 – – 10 23

of communities. Peri-urban and rural areas are important agricultural centres and these areas were the focus of this study. The urban communities (e.g. Techiman Township, Kenten etc) were excluded because there are no farming related activities in these areas. The next stage in the sampling process involved the sampling of the communities stratified as either rural or peri-urban in the TTA. A list of the communities was generated from the GSS 2010 census data for the area which then provided a sample frame. The communities were then numbered and a table of random numbers used to select the communities to be covered. In all, a total of twenty (20) made up of 9 peri-urban and 11 rural settlements were sampled for field investigation (See Table 1). The youth respondents who are the primary unit of analysis in this study were sampled at the household level. Households provide appropriate means of identifying and selecting subsets of the population to whom a research is addressed (Casley and Lury, 1987). In locating the households, houses were used as the reference point. Houses were randomly sampled in the sampled towns by moving along the settlement patterns and streets. The youth respondents were then purposively sampled based on the age range of 15–34 years and involvement in on-farm agricultural activities at the household level. To investigate youth land access and understand the challenges, the study targeted the youth who had accessed land for agricultural activities and had been exposed to the land access processes. Additionally, purposive sampling was used to select elders for the IDIs who were identified during the first stage survey with the youth to be in a position to provide the needed information. In all 455 youth, and 23 elders and family heads were covered in the survey of 20 communities (see Table 1). Data from the questionnaires was analyzed using the SPSS software (version 16) after coding and inputting responses from quantitative data into the software. Interview data from the elders which was audio-recorded was transcribed, summarized for relevant themes and patterns and then used to triangulate the findings from the youth respondents. Also, the quantitative data from the youth respondents was also to triangulate the qualitative data from the elders to appreciate the issues from different perspectives.

Table 2 Demographic characteristics of the respondents. Characteristics Gender Male Female Total Age 15–19 years 20–24 years 25–29 years 30–34 years Total Marital Status Married Single Divorced/separated Widowed Total Level of Education Never been to school Primary School Junior High School Senior High School Diploma Degree & more Total Primary Occupation Farmer Agricultural wage labourer Non-agricultural wage labourer Self-employed outside farm work Student Public/Civil Servant Others Total Community Membership Status Indigene Migrant Total

No. of Respondents

Percentage (%)

299 156 455

65.7 34.3 100

24 88 157 186 455

5.3 19.3 34.5 40.9 100

268 176 9 2 455

58.9 38.7 2 0.4 100

35 78 240 94 7 1 455

7.7 17.1 52.7 20.7 1.5 0.2 100

410 4 5 23 7 4 2 455

90.1 0.9 1.1 5.1 1.5 0.9 0.4 100

287 168 455

63.1 36.9 100

6. Results and discussions This section presents and discusses the results of the research. This is done along key thematic areas as follows. 6.1. Demographic characteristics of the youth respondents Table 2 shows the demographic characteristics of the youth respondents. Of the 455 youth respondents, 299 (65.7%) were male and 156 (34.3%) female. Majority of the respondents (40.9%) fell within the upper limit age group (30–34 years). Those in the lower limit age category (15–19 years) constituted the least representing 5.3%. It is important to indicate that, 90.1% of the respondents were involved in farming as their primary occupation. The remaining respondents were into other livelihood activities such as running non-agricultural businesses, labourer work and public services as their primary occupation and only involved in farming as their secondary occupation. In terms of marital status of the respondents, majority 268 (58.9%) were married whereas 176 (38.7%) were single. Only 9 respondents reported they were divorced or separated and 2 respondents were widowed. As agricultural activities require support in the form of finance and labour, that the majority of the youth were married was not surprising. Married partners are able to support each other (both labour and finance) in their farming activities. Again, social pressure on the youth to get married as they transit into adulthood is high in traditional settings in Ghana. Majority of the youth respondents were educated only up to the Junior and Senior School levels. As depicted in Table 2, the majority 240 (52.7%) completed Junior High School while 94 respondents

J.K. Kidido et al. / Land Use Policy 60 (2017) 254–266

representing (20.7%) had Senior High School education. A few respondents, 8 (1.7%) had tertiary education with either a diploma or degree. Primary school leavers were 78 (17.%) and those who never went to school were 35 (7.7%). Given that the majority of the youth respondents had low education, their access to land for farming is crucial. This is because their inability to progress on the educational ladder makes farming indispensable to them. This is corroborated by the fact that 90.5% of the respondents belonged to this category of low level of education and also by the fact that farming was the primary occupation for an overwhelming number (90.1%) of the respondents. Community membership is a key determinant of access to land under customary tenure system (see Berry, 2009, 1993; Bugri, 2008). Community membership status of the respondents is depicted in Table 2. From the data, the majority 287 (63.1%) of the respondents were indigenes while 168 (36.9%) were migrants. Though the indigenes were in the majority, the data shows a substantial number of migrants in the TTA taking advantage of the fertile arable land and the prosperous agricultural market in the area. Data on youth land access based on community membership status is presented in Section 6.4. 6.2. Customary land ownership in the Techiman area Ownership of land in the TTA reflects the traditional power structure. The ultimate authority (allodial) title is vested in the Omanhene (Paramount chief) who is the traditional head of the TTA. The Omanhene of TTA combines the roles of political leader and landowner. In practice, however, the divisional and sub-divisional chiefs are in charge of the daily management and control over land (mainly residential lands and large allocations) on behalf of the Omanhene. Service chiefs and odikro also act as caretakers of land on behalf of the divisional and sub-divisional chiefs in towns and villages where these chiefs are not physically present. Families and individuals hold usufructurary interest and other lesser interests acquired by their ancestors in the past mainly for agricultural purposes. Authority to allocate agricultural land is vested in the senior family members and family heads in particular. An elder summarized the land ownership arrangement in the area as follows; Land ownership in this area exists under three layers. The whole of the TTA is under the ownership of the Techimanhene. For instance, the land here (Bamiri) is under the care of Bamirihene who is the Tuntuhene of the TTA. Besides this, we also have where our ancestors have appropriated for farming which is now under the care of the various families. If you do not belong to any of the families you cannot just get into any land and start using it. (Elder 65 years, IDI, Bamiri, 2015) The land ownership arrangement in the TTA is thus similar to the system in Ashanti (see Benneh et al., 1995; Gildea, 1964: 102) where chiefs are regarded as ultimate ‘owners’ of land. 6.3. Youth modes of land access and type of considerations made From the results in Table 3, all the youth respondents were in occupation of land. However, only 74 (16.3%) out of the 455 respondents owned the lands they occupied at the time of the survey. The rest of the respondents held their lands on rental, shared tenancy and customary licence terms. To better understand the dynamics of youth agricultural land access in the TTA, it was useful to investigate the various modes of land access. These can be broadly grouped into two: non-market and market land access modes. Under the nonmarket mode, usually no monetary considerations are provided in the granting of land. Where money is provided, it is not construed as the market value of land, but rather money equivalent for the

259

Table 3 Land ownership and modes of access among the youth respondents. Item Own Land No Yes Total In Occupation of Land Yes No Total Land Holding Terms Usufruct Rental rights Customary Licence Shared Tenancy Total Mode of Land Access Purchased Gift Sharecropping Inherited Customary Licence Pledged Rented Total Source of Accessed Land Community elders In-law Chief/Queen mother Father/Mother Government Family head Household head Other land owners/Usufructs Grand Father/Mother Uncle Others Total

Responses

Percentages (%)

381 74 455

83.7 16.3 100

455 0 455

100 0 100

74 97 224 60 455

16.3 21.3 49.2 13.2 100

1 53 60 20 224 1 96 455

0.2 11.6 13.2 4.4 49.2 0.2 21.1 100

1 11 4 204 1 18 6 166 22 5 17 455

0.3 2.4 0.9 44.8 0.2 4 1.3 36.5 4.8 1.1 3.7 100

purposes of satisfying customary requirements which could have been in-kind considerations. Examples of this mode of land access were the customary licence, gift or inheritance of land. On the other hand, the market land access mode is based largely on monetary consideration and this consideration reflects the market value of the land in the form of capital or rental land value as determined by the forces of demand and supply in the land market. Examples of this mode of land access were rental or purchase of land. A hybrid of the non-market and market mechanisms was the sharecropping arrangement. Depending on the transacting parties, monetary or in-kind considerations were charged for the granting of land under sharecropping arrangement. As depicted in Table 3, the dominant mode of agricultural land access among the youth was through the customary licence, a nonmarket access mode. The respondents who accessed their farm lands through the customary licence were 223 (49.2%). Accessing agricultural land under customary licence permits the licensee to occupy and cultivate crops for food and most often without paying any consideration or sharing the produce with the land owner (licensor). It could be for a defined duration such as a cropping season or the licence duration could be indeterminate especially if the licence is over family or household land. Landholding under customary licence arrangement has restrictions and subsists at the whims and caprices of the licensor. Again, a considerable number of the youth respondents 96 (21.1%), accessed their agricultural lands through rental, a market mode of land access. This mechanism emerged as the second dominant agricultural land access mode among the youth. Besides customary licence and rental land access, sharecropping a hybrid of market and non-market access route was the next most common mode of land access, representing 60 (13.2%) respondents.

260

J.K. Kidido et al. / Land Use Policy 60 (2017) 254–266

Table 4 Mode of land access and consideration provided by the youth. Item

Land Access Mechanism

Nature of Consideration

Purchase

Gift

Sharecropping

Inherited

Monetary In-kind/material Monetary & In-kind Yet to provide None Total Monetary Consideration

1 0 0 0 0 1 Purchase

3 25 14 0 11 53 Gift

13 5 5 2 35 60 Sharecropping

1 3 1 0 15 20 Inherited

Below 50 GHC7 50–100 GHC 101–200 GHC 201–300 GHC 301–400 GHC 401–500 GHC Above 500 GHC Total

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

7 8 2 0 0 0 0 17

0 0 1 2 2 2 11 18

0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2

Non-market modes of land access such as gift and inheritance were limited among the youth as shown in Table 3. Majority of the youth respondents in the face of this limitation rather accessed land on customary licence basis with limited use right. Outright purchase and pledge which are market access mechanisms were very uncommon among the youth. Only one incidence each was recorded for purchase and pledge from the youth respondents. There are some plausible reasons which account for the low incidence of purchase as a mode of land access by the youth in the TTA. According to the elders, land sales are not encouraged under the customary tenure system. One elder remarked during the survey that: “Selling land outright (tamma) is not done; we don’t sell land for good. It is inconsistent with our custom” (Elder 66 years, IDI, Tanoso, 2015). This also affirms claims by some researchers that customary tenure system abhors outright disposition of land through sale (see Asiama, 2008; Agbosu, 2000; Gildea 1964). Despite these claims, the reality as supported by evidence in Table 3 and also in literature is that, outright disposition of interests in land do take place under the customary tenure system in Ghana. Indeed, the practice of outright sale of interest in land has for long been tolerated under customary system in many parts of Ghana (Woodman, 1996; Hill, 1970). According to Amanor, land market was already active in Ghana during the early part of the nineteenth century especially in the southeast coast of the Gold Coast “as Krobo and Akwapem farmers expanded their territories beyond their boundaries into land under the Akyem” (Amanor, 2008: 62–63). Land sales only declined in Ghana due to increased scarcity of land (Amanor, 2010) which makes land owners more unwilling to dispose of their land in the nature of sale. Yet, where land sales are available, the consideration sum could be an inhibiting factor to the youth. As shown in Table 4, the consideration sum for the recorded purchase was above GHC 500.00. As young people beginning life, majority of them do not have the financial wherewithal to access land through purchase. Thus, the low incidence of land purchases among the youth respondents could be attributed to issues of scarcity and cost and not necessarily customary abhorrence of land sale as claimed by some elders interviewed. With regard to pledge, the practice is generally rare as it is only granted under extreme financial hardship where the land owner has no other alternative avenues to financial resources. Only one incidence of pledging was recorded in Nsuta community, where an old lady pledged her one (1) acre cocoa farm for seven years to a youth farmer who was also a teacher in the community. In fact customary pledge of farm or land has been statutorily abolished by the promulgation of the Mortgages (Amendment) Decree, 1979 (AFRCD 37). AFRCD 37 now requires all customary loan transactions

Customary Licence 9 4 0 1 210 224 Customary Licence 2 2 4 0 1 0 0 9

Pledged

Rented

Total

1 0 0 0 0 1 Pledged

95 0 1 0 0 96 Rented

123 37 21 3 271 455 Total

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

2 27 16 22 11 5 13 96

11 38 23 24 15 7 26 144

(pledges) to be done in accordance with the Mortgages Decree 1972 (NRCD, 96). However, in rural areas as noted in this study, though not wide spread, farms or lands are still pledged where possession is passed onto the creditor until redemption contrary to the statutory prohibition. This is largely due to ignorance of the statutory regulations on such land transactions. In terms of the sources of land to the youth, immediate parents of the youth tend to be the principal source. As shown in Table 3, 210 (46%) of youth respondents accessed land from their ‘Fathers/Mother’ who were mostly their household heads. Again, a considerable number of the youth also depended on other people outside their immediate household or family members for land. From Table 3, 166 (37%) accessed their lands from other land owners or usufructs in the form of rentals and sharecropping. Community elders, in-laws, chiefs/Queen mothers, grandparents among others were all sources where the youth depended on for agricultural land. The use of monetary consideration in land access is alien to customary tenure in Ghana. It was worth investigating the emergence of this practice and its implications for land access by the youth for agricultural purposes. The specific considerations the youth provided during their land access process and under the various modes of land access are presented in Table 4. The non-market access mode mostly came with no consideration. For instance, in the case of the customary licence, an overwhelming number 210 (93.8%) out of the 224 youth respondents who accessed their lands under this mode provided no form of consideration. A few respondents provided monetary considerations under non-market access modes such as gift and inheritance and these served as aseda (thanksgiving) to show appreciation to the land grantor. In some other occasions as revealed in Table 4, In-kind considerations or a combination of both In-kind and Monetary consideration were also provided. In the case of market access mode i.e. rentals, purchase and pledges, the considerations provided were mainly monetary. For the youth respondents who rented their parcels, 95 (99%) out of the 96 paid monetary consideration. In terms of the specific rental charges, the amounts of consideration ranged from below GHC 50.00 to above GHC 500.00 as a function of size, quality and location. Majority of the sharecroppers, 35 (58.3%) out of the 60 did not provide any consideration, while 2 respondents were yet to provide some consideration. Those who did not provide any consideration were engaged in mainly food crops such as maize. Interviews with the elders and family heads who control lands revealed that, normally with food crops, no consideration is demanded. Where consideration is even demanded and the young farmer is unable to

J.K. Kidido et al. / Land Use Policy 60 (2017) 254–266

261

Fig. 2. Youth land sizes in the Techiman area.

pay upfront before farming on the land, payment of the consideration is deferred until after the harvest for the farmer to pay from sale of the produce. In contrast to sharecropping involving cash crops such as cocoa or cashew, consideration was demanded upfront to safeguard the investment according to the elders interviewed. An elder opined: If youth want land for food crops sharecropping, consideration is not required as it is in the case of cash crops. Consideration serves as evidence of land grant so that nobody will one day come and deprive you of your investment on the land. Food crops do not last on the land because of this we don’t normally insist on consideration before giving out land on sharecropping terms. (Elder 76 years, IDI, Buoyem, 2015) There appears to be some flexibility under the food crops sharecropping arrangement as consideration is not insisted. This is good news for the youth whose households do not own land such as migrants. However, the sharecropping land access mode constituted only 13.2% of the youth respondents. It was therefore not a widespread land access mode among the youth respondents. Again, where considerations were provided, in the majority of the cases as depicted in Table 4, these were high amounts above GHC 500.00 (US$127.55). This happens normally under cash crop arrangements as testified by the elders. The situation potentially excludes youth who lack resources to meet this land access requirement to access land for cash crops sharecropping

6.4. Land sizes of youth respondents The study showed that majority of the youth held land sizes below 3 acres. As shown in Fig. 2 below, 154 (33.8%) out of the 455 youth interviewed held land units below 2 acres. Another 142 (31.2%) also had land of sizes between 2 and 3 acres. For larger land sizes, only 14 respondents representing 3.1% held land sizes between 13 and 15 acres, while 13 respondents (2.9%) also had land above 15 acres. Clearly, the majority of the youth respondents, 296 (65%) had land sizes from 1 to 3 acres. These land sizes can be described as small and unviable for commercial agricultural activities. Sadly, it is the case among the youth in the TTA where most (90.1%) engage in farming as their primary occupation. They expect

to fulfil their life dreams and support their families from these farming operations, yet land access presents a challenge given these small land sizes. Majority of the youth respondents 353 (77.6%) out of the 455 indicated they were not pleased with their land sizes. The dominant reason underlying their dissatisfaction was the fact that their land sizes were small and therefore unviable for farming. This finding is consistent with the observation by the World Bank (2014) and Bennell (2007) that, youth in Sub-Saharan Africa hold small and unviable land sizes. Again, Bezu and Holden (2014), found a similar situation in southern Ethiopia, where the youth in that area hold small land sizes occasioned by high rental cost, lack of negotiation skills and inability to inherit from their parents. It was instructive to investigate any causal relations between land sizes of the youth and factors such as gender, location, community membership status and age variation. The results are shown in Table 5. There was no marked difference between the migrant and indigenous youth in terms of their land size. Majority 185 (64.5%) out of 287 indigenous youth respondents held lands not more than 3 acres, while 111 (66.1%) out of the 168 migrant youth also held lands not more than 3 acres. Among both male and female respondents, the problem of small land sizes became more acute with the female. While 182 (60.9%) out of the 299 male respondents held land areas not exceeding 3 acres, of their female counterparts, 114 (73.1%) out of the 156 female respondents held the same land size. This finding on land size of the female youth relative to their male counterparts in the TTA affirms the claim that women generally lack better access to land in terms of size and quality of rights under customary tenure regime (see Toulmin, 1999). Small land sizes as a feature among the youth in the study area was more pronounced among the peri-urban youth respondents. For instance, 158 (71.2%) out of the 222 peri-urban youth respondents had land sizes not exceeding 3 acres compared to 138 (59.2%) out of the 233 rural youth respondents. Among the various age categories of the youth, small land sizes generally cut across. However, there was a variation as one moved up the age ladder. As shown in Table 5, the proportion of the youth respondents with appreciable land sizes increases with increase in age of the respondents. For instance, among the respondents within the age range of 30–34, 85 (45.7%) out of 186 held land sizes above 3

262

J.K. Kidido et al. / Land Use Policy 60 (2017) 254–266

Table 5 Land sizes among the youth categories. 2The service chiefs render some special traditional services such as taking care of power deities in the TTA (see Botchway, 2014). 3 It is an Akan terminology for a village chief or a head of village. 4Akyede is an Akan term for a gift. 5Family issues such as funerals, construction or renovation of family houses, medical expenses and as well as family debts are handled from family resources. Family lands tend to provide a reliable means through which family elders raise resources to meet family needs. Family elders especially the Abusuapanin (family head) steers the affairs of the wider family and common needs of the extended are under the domain of the head. 6 US $ 1 was equivalent to GHC 3.92 on average over the period from May to July 2015 when data on land transaction costs was collected from the youth respondents. Category

Land size (acre)

Gender Male Female Total Residence Peri-urban Rural Total Community Membership Indigene Migrant Total Age 15–19 years 20–24 years 25–29 years 30–34 years Total

Below 2 acres 86 68 154 Below 2 acre 85 69 154 Below 2 acres 99 55 154 Below 2 acres 16 41 57 40 154

2–3 acres 96 46 142 2–3 acres 73 69 142 2–3 acres 86 56 142 2–3 acres 5 28 48 61 142

4–5 Acres 55 20 75 4–5 Acres 30 45 75 4–5 Acres 47 28 75 4–5 Acres 2 14 17 42 75

6–8 acres 25 12 37 6–8 acres 16 21 37 6–8 acres 22 15 37 6–8 acres 0 3 12 22 37

9–12 acres 15 4 19 9–12 acres 7 12 19 9–12 acres 11 8 19 9–12 acres 1 0 11 7 19

13–15 acres 14 0 14 13–15 acres 7 7 14 13–15 acres 10 4 14 13–15 acres 0 1 6 7 14

Above 15 acres 8 6 14 Above 15 acres 4 10 14 Above 15 acres 12 2 14 Above 15 acres 0 1 6 7 14

Total 299 156 455 Total 222 233 455 Total 287 168 455 Total 24 88 157 186 455

1The Act under section 91 however extends the minimum age requirement to 18 in the case of hazardous work e.g. going to the sea, working in the manufactory industries, mining and quarrying and places where machines are used. 2The service chiefs render some special traditional services such as taking care of power deities in the TTA (see Botchway, 2014). 3 It is an Akan terminology for a village chief or a head of village. 4Akyede is an Akan term for a gift. 5Family issues such as funerals, construction or renovation of family houses, medical expenses and as well as family debts are handled from family resources. Family lands tend to provide a reliable means through which family elders raise resources to meet family needs. Family elders especially the Abusuapanin (family head) steers the affairs of the wider family and common needs of the extended are under the domain of the head. 6 US $ 1 was equivalent to GHC 3.92 on average over the period from May to July 2015 when data on land transaction costs was collected from the youth respondents.

acres, while 19 (21.6%) out of 88 respondents within the age range of 20–24 also held the same land size. This result reinforces the claim that land rights are influenced by many factors including age (see Boni, 2008; Kameri-Mbote, 2005; Daley and Hobley, 2005) and land becomes more accessible as people age. These results clearly indicate that the youth in the TTA were only able to access small landholdings. The small land sizes of the youth are partly attributable to increasing population and land scarcity. During the interview with the elders, some of them acknowledged that given the increase in population, it has become practically difficult to allocate the youth with large land units. This elder remarked that: People are adding to the land and the land is not adding to the people. It is the population which has increased and not selfishness on our part us elders. That is why the young people are allocated small land size. We were three siblings when our father gave us land; the portion I received is now distributed to six (6) children). How can the land be large? (Elder, 68 years old, IDI, Buoyem, 2015) As noted by Bennell, (2007), in many developing countries, the on-going subdivisions and fragmentation of land through inheritance have created unviable land parcels and making youth increasingly landless. The results of this study corroborate these findings. The increasing population is compounding the land problem and obstructing young people’s land access prospects. Land units are subdivided among many more people under the inheritance arrangement. Increasing population and family sizes are reducing land units available to each member of the family and even strangers who need land. Population increase as a constraint on the youth land access is outside the control of customary tenure system. However, there are

other issues besides population increase which impede youth land access and holding size that are tenure induced. These issues are captured by the challenges facing the youth respondents and the assertions by their elders interviewed in TTA.

6.5. Challenges the youth face in their land access The study asked the respondents to indicate key challenges they face in their land access process. Fig. 3 presents these challenges the youth face in accessing agricultural land in the TTA. Out of the 455 respondents, 209 (46%) mentioned ‘High rental/acquisition cost’ as a key challenge they face in their access to land. The youth respondents especially the migrants who depend more on market land access mechanisms such as rental considered cost as a key challenge. As indicated elsewhere, the cost especially under rental mode was described as expensive by most of the respondents and this inhibits their land access effort. While competition from property developers and general land scarcity might be responsible for the high cost of accessing land in the periurban areas, in the case of rural areas, land access cost is attributable in part to competition from large scale farmers and other wealthy adult farmers. The high cost of land access limits the land size of the youth as they lack resources to effectively participate in the land market (especially through rentals) to access viable land units. This confirms observation by Kasanga (1988) that where monetary payments are involved in land access, size of holding is related to ability to pay. Moreover, a considerable number of the respondents, 190 (42%) out of the 455 also mentioned ‘Productive family land fully occupied’ as a key challenge in accessing agricultural land. As early ‘comers’, family elders were privileged to accumulate land and assume authority over land creating land shortage for the younger

J.K. Kidido et al. / Land Use Policy 60 (2017) 254–266

263

Fig. 3. Key Land Access Challenges Facing the Youth in the Techiman Traditional Area.

generation. Boni (2008) similarly found that in Sefwi area of Ghana, the elders through forest clearing in the previous decades accumulated prerogatives over large tracts of land while the youth faced land shortages. Again, 193 (42%) also considered ‘Competition from the residential developers’ as the key challenge confronting their land access effort. The rapid expansion of the city of Techiman is affecting agricultural land access of the youth in the peri-urban areas. Property developers (residential, commercial and industrial) who are comparatively better resourced compete out the youth from the peri-urban agricultural lands. High monetary offers from property developers influence the customary authorities such as family heads and chiefs to grant land to the property developers and wealthy adult farmers. It is therefore not surprising that, 141 (31%) of the youth respondents noted ‘Land is rather given out to outsiders’ as the key challenge undermining their access to land. This challenge arises from land grants by the elders to residential developers in the peri-urban communities such as Tuobodom, Hansua, Krobo among others and land grants to wealthy adult farmers and large scale farmers for the purpose of farming in the rural areas. The survey data as depicted in Fig. 3 further revealed that, a considerable number of the youth respondents (25%) also mentioned ‘Unwillingness of elders to release land’ as one of their key challenges. The family elders of the youth respondents are unwilling to allocate them land but prefer to give land to ‘outsiders’ who can afford to offer higher monetary considerations. However, the elders also noted that, the youth do not support them (elders) with their earnings from land allocated to them. The elders opined that, the responsibility towards the welfare of the family also rest on their hands, and as such, more land is retained or allocated to outsiders to raise money to take care of family responsibilities which the youth were less concerned about. One of the elders interviewed disclosed that: It is the responsibility of the family head and elders to handle family issues so if more land is rather given to the youth, we (elders) will lack resources to be able to meet family needs or handle family crisis. When land is given to the young ones, they keep all their earnings without supporting the family or assisting the elders in the family. As an abusuapanin (family head) I will rather rent or

give out land to other people to raise resources to support the family (Kontihene, Nkwaeso, IDS, 2015) The youth who depend largely on non-market mechanisms for land from their families were more affected by the actions of their family elders who were unwilling to allocate them land. This explains why access mechanisms such as gift (akyedee), an important customary mode of transferring land from the older generation to the younger generation was limited among the youth respondents as recorded in Table 3. The youth appear to focus more on their own economic welfare and that of their immediate households than the extended family needs. This leaves the family elders to cater for the larger family issues alone. The elders claimed the responsibility towards the welfare of the extended family rests in their hands and as such they retained more land or allocate land to ‘outsiders’ to raise money to discharges those responsibilities which the youth are not interested in. This retention of land by the elders is creating land shortage for the youth. According to Quan (2007), the significance of the wider family as a source of land is diminishing for the youth, and the results of this study affirm this observation. Attempts by the youth to maintain independent economic unit and at the same time depend on extended family land stock is proving unreliable for them. The customary channel of accessing land especially through inheritance and gift are limited (see Table 3) and where available, unviable land parcels are offered to the youth (see Fig. 2 and Table 5). On the other hand, market land access mechanisms are also prohibitive to the youth due to rising cost of access driven largely by growing demand from land-based investors. As revealed in this study, the market land mechanisms (through purchases and rentals) also limited the land size of the youth as they lack resources to effectively participate in the land market. These land access challenges facing the youth reflect complex network of issues defining their access to land under the customary tenure regime in Ghana. There is a growing scarcity of land driven in part by demographic pressures and urbanisation. As revealed in this study, a considerable number of youth respondents faced land shortage within their families due to appropriation by senior lineage members and land grants to ‘outsiders’ especially residential property developers as well as large scale farmers. However, the challenges reflect more than just the demographic pressures and

264

J.K. Kidido et al. / Land Use Policy 60 (2017) 254–266

land scarcity. Power relations and changing family system are at the centre of this dynamics. The elders wield significant authority over land under the customary tenure system. The local structure of patriarchal society gives the older generation control of land resources (White, 2011). Land is often owned and controlled by the elderly in traditional African societies (World Bank, 2014; FAO, 1999) and clothed with a myriad of prerogatives over land. Elders attempt to gain control over youth access to land (Amanor, 2010) to maintain their authority. They see the economic success of the youth through land investments as a threat to their political and social status and respect. The elders interviewed, among other issues, accused the youth of showing pride, arrogance and disrespect towards them (elders) for which reason they were unwilling to allocate more land to them. As one elder noted: These days, the young ones do not respect us (elders). So we also don’t care about their economic welfare. I will give my land to the person who respects me. (Elder Adomako, 71 years old, IDI, Offuman, 2015) Another elder also opined; In this community, I have given land to over 10 young people who were hitherto very poor. They have cultivated tomatoes and are now rich. They don’t take me for anything again. They meet me and ride pass without even greeting. I am compelled to take back my land. . .. (Elder, 78 years old, IDI, Buoyem, 2015) Additionally, the elders also feared handing over power to the youth if more land was released to the youth. As noted by Berry (2008), land is a source of power and those who control it have leverage over other people. According to the elders, if you control land it gives you power and if more land is given to the youth, power is being handed over to the youth. They as elders will become subservient to their own youth if they hand over more land to them. One elder noted as follows during interview: If you give the youth land, you give them power and they will not respect you. If you give them more land, they will get money and will no longer take you for anything. They will meet you and refuse to greet you and even accuse you (the elderly person) of being lazy because you don’t have that money. With this attitude and mindset why should I give the youth more land to farm? (Elder 75 years old, IDI, Nkwaeso, 2015) Land is used as bargaining chip for power and respect by the elders from their youth. The elders who control land expect respect and reciprocal gesture from the youth when land is allocated to them. Respect for the elderly is a cherished virtue under the Ghanaian traditional system. This appears to have been used as a condition in the allocation of land to the youth in this study. As expressed by these elders, it is mostly when the youth become rich from their farming activities that, they (the elders) were disrespected, so by not offering the youth enough land it will curtail their financial standing. Salamon and Lockhart (1980) conceptualize this as a ‘game’ where the elderly gradually hand over resources to create intergenerational exchanges and at the same time hold back enough to ensure that the process continues and the quality of life in their ageing period will not be sacrificed. This ‘game’ tactics is anchored on the supposed loss of power and service benefits when unfettered transfer of land is made to the younger generation. Arensberg and Kimball (1968) cited by White (2012: 18) noted for Ireland that: “at the transfer of land, all vestiges of strict parental control are destroyed. . .parents can no longer demand the services of their children”. This fear was expressed by some elders in the TTA and featured as one of the reasons the youth were not allocated enough land units and also restricted in terms of landholding

rights. This was evidently manifested by the sheer number of the youth licensees in relation to those who held permanent ownership rights through gift. The reasons proffered by the elders for retaining more land were anchored on social and cultural norms which are quite counterproductive in modern economic environment. They suffocate the energies and enthusiasm of the youth towards productive use of land for economic growth and development as they are constrained with small land parcels. Underlying these challenges confronting the youth in their access to agricultural as revealed in this study, is the customary tenure system. The system was reputed in the past as ensuring equitable land access. As noted by Ensminger (1997:169), there was the tendency for land to be relatively efficiently matched in people-land ratio under the customary system with lineage heads allocating land to those in need. “Each headsman (saw) to it that all members of his lineage (had) portions to farm”. Under Ghanaian customary tenurial systems, Kasanga, 1999 Kasanga (1999:14) observed that, “in regard to land, no man (was) ‘big’ or ‘small’ in his own village or town”. However, these equitable land access arrangements under the customary tenure regime have been eroded considerably as revealed by the results of this study in relation to youth access to land. The youth as a segment of the society are vulnerable in the hands of their elders as far as agricultural land access is concerned. Their inability to establish and maintain healthy social relationship and networks with their elders is impeding their access to land under the customary system. Family elders vested with authority over land, control youth land access to among other things, maintain their authority and respect, and to some extent profit from the emerging high monetary returns from the land market occasioned by urbanisation and increasing demand from wealthy and large scale farmers. Clearly, land tenure cannot increase the physical supply of land as noted by Benneh et al. (1995), it can, however, create artificial land shortage where those vested with power over land withhold it from other members as noted in this study. The youth land access limitations under the customary tenure system as revealed in this study is telling. Yet, the youth are source of labour which if properly directed to agricultural production, has potential for increased agricultural production for Ghana’s economic progress.

7. Conclusion and recommendations As found in this study, youth land ownership is limited and access equally constrained under the customary tenure regime in the TTA. The ability of youth to access viable land sizes and on favourable terms is mediated by many variables including cost and socio- cultural factors. The moral and social obligation of the elders to support the younger ones with adequate land to start independent economic life is fading in the face of increasing land scarcity and an emerging high demand from the land market by both residential property developers and wealthy adult farmers. This is to the disadvantage of the youth who lack financial resources to compete in the land market, and do not also find favour with their elders who control the customary tenure regime and favour this emerging land market. Youth access to land for agricultural purposes is essential for their self-empowerment and attaining independent economic life. It is also critical to economic progress in an agrarian economy such as Ghana. As noted by Munthali (2010), the youth can be seen as a double-edged sword; despite the demographic dividend they present, it could turn tragic if young people are not given the right skills and offered opportunities. Agriculture has vast employment potentials for the youth. The energies and sheer numbers of youth also provide a great opportunity for increased agricultural produc-

J.K. Kidido et al. / Land Use Policy 60 (2017) 254–266

tivity (MoFA, 2011). Land as a primary factor in this sector should be accessible to the youth on viable sizes and secure terms. The paper recommends a targeted youth agricultural land policy by Government that will leverage the potential of the youth for increased agricultural production in the country. For this to take place effectively, it is recommended that further research be conducted across the country into youth access to agricultural land under the main customary tenure regimes as a means of formulating an evidence-based youth agricultural land access policy. Also attention needs to be paid to the emerging phenomenon of large scale farmers and property developers who compete out the youth from the land market with resources. In this regard, there is the need for public education of customary authorities to sensitize them on the need for making land accessible to the youth for agricultural purpose. This sensitization should also focus on enabling the customary authorities to appreciate the inherent dangers in denying the youth agricultural land, for example, lack of social cohesion and potential conflicts. Acknowledgement The financial support from the IRE/BS Foundation for African Real Estate Research in the collection of data for this research is deeply appreciated. References Adiaba, S.Y., 2006. Gender disparity with respect to access and ownership of land: a myth or a reality? a case study of the gurunsi in the upper east region, a paper prepared for the Ghana institution of surveyors. Accra. African Union, 2006. African Youth Charter. Addis Ababa. Agbosu, L.K., 2000. Land Law in Ghana: Contradiction Between Anglo-American and Customary Conceptions of Tenure and Practices, Working Paper No. 33. Land Tenure Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Ahene, R.A., 2009. Measures to Improve Access to Land Resources and Related Benefits in Uganda. Lafayette College, Easton PA, pp. 18017. Amanor, K.S., 1999. Global Restructuring and Land Rights in Ghana: Forest Food Chains, Timber and Rural Livelihoods. Scandinavian Institute of African Studies, Uppsala. Amanor, K.S., 2001. Land, labour and the family in southern Ghana: a critique of land policy under neo-Liberalisation. Uppsala, Nordiska Afrikainstitutet, 127. Amanor, K.S., 2008. The changing face of customary land tenure. In: Ubink, J., Amanor, K.S. (Eds.), Contesting Land, Custom in Ghana, State, Chief And, the Citizen. Leiden University Press, Amsterdam. Amanor, K.S., 2010. ‘Family values, land sales and agricultural commodification in south-eastern Ghana. Africa 80 (No.1), 104–125. André, C., Platteau, J., 1998. Land relations under unbearable stress: Rwanda caught in the malthusian trap. J. Econ. Behav. Org. 34 (1), 1–47. Arensberg, C., Kimball, S., 1968. Family and Community in Ireland, 2nd ed. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Asiama, S.O., 2008. Land administration and security of tenure in Ghana- the legal framework. J. Ghana Inst. Surv. 1 (No.1), 76–84. Benneh, G., Kasanga, R.K., Amoyaw, D., 1995. Women’s Access to Agricultural Land in the Household: A Case Study of Three Selected Districts in Ghana. Fadep Technical Series, No. 8. University of Ghana. Bennell P., 2000. Improving Youth Livelihood in Sub-Saharan Africa; A Review of Policies and Programmes with Particular Reference to the Link Between Sexual Behaviour and Economic Well Being. Bennell, P., 2007. Promoting Livelihood Opportunities for Rural Youth. Paper Prepared for IFAD Governing Council Roundtable: Generating Remunerative Livelihood Opportunities for Rural Youth. Knowledge and Skills for Development, UK. Berry, S., 1993. No Condition Is Permanent: The Social Dynamics of Agrarian Change in Sub-Saharan Africa Madison. The University of Wisconsin Press. Berry, S., 2008. Ancestral property: land, politics and ‘the deeds of the ancestors’ in Ghana and Coˆte d’Ivoire. In: Ubink, J., Amanor, K.S. (Eds.), Contesting Land and Custom in Ghana, State, Chief and the Citizen. Leiden University Press, Amsterdam. Berry, S., 2009. Property, authority and citiznship: land claims, politics and the dynamics of social division in west africa. Development and Change, No. 1, vol 40. Institute of Social Studies, pp. 23–45. Bezu, S., Holden, S., 2014. Land Access and Youth Livelihood Opportunities in Southern Ethiopia: Summary Report. Report No. 3. United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat), Nairobi. Boni, S., 2008. In: Ubink, J., Amanor, K.S. (Eds.), Traditional Ambiguities and Authoritarian Interpretations in Sefwi Land Disputes, In Contesting Land and Custom in Ghana, State, Chief and the Citizen. Leiden University Press, Amsterdam.

265

Bortei-Doku, A.E., Lavigne Delville, Phillippe, Traore, Samba, 1997. Behind the norms: women’s access to land in Ghana. In: Toulmin, C. (Ed.), The Dynamics of Resource. Tenure in West Africa. IIED, pp. 86–97. Botchway, I. (Ed.), 2014. Takyiman State Book. , 1st ed. States-Book Ghana and Takyiman Traditional Council, Techiman. Bugri, J.T., 2008. Gender issues in african land tenure: findings from a study of north-East Ghana. Ghana Surv. 5 (No. 1), 44–73. Bugri, J.T., 2013. Issues and options for improved land sector governance in Ghana: application of the land governance assessment framework (LGAF). Ghana Surv. 1 (No. 1), 21–35. Casley, D.J., Lury, D.A., 1987. Data Collection in Developing Countries, 2nd ed. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Chauveau, J.-P., Colin, J-Ph., Jacob, J.-P., Lavigne Delville, Ph., Le Meur, P.-Y., 2006. Changes in Land Access and Governance in West Africa: Markets, Social Mediations and Public Policies: Results of the CLAIMS Research Project. IIED, London. Creswell, J.W., 2003. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches, 2nd ed. Sage Publications, Inc., London. Creswell, J.W., Clark, P.V.L., 2011. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, 2nd ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Creswell, J.W., Garrett, A.L., 2008. The movement of mixed methods research and the role of educators. South Afr. J. Educ. 28 (3), 321–333. Daley, E., Hobley, M., 2005. Land: Changing Contexts, Changing Relationships, Changing Rights Paper for the Urban-Rural Change Team, DFID. (Available at:) http://www.sarpn.org/documents/d0001801/Land changing Sept2005.pdf. Deininger, K., 2003. Land Policies for Growth and Poverty Reduction, a World Bank Policy Research Report. World Bank and Oxford University Press, Washington DC and Oxford. Dowuona-Hammond, C., 2003. Report on State Land Management and Its Impact on Women and the Poor in Ghana. GTZ Legal Pluralism and Gender Project (Land Law Focal Area), Accra, Ghana. Drobak, John N., Nye, John V.C. (Eds.), 1997. The Frontiers of the New Institutional Economics. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 165–196. FAO, 1999. Linkages between rural population aging, intergenerational transfers of land and agricultural production: are they important? In: Sustainable Development Department (SD). Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) (accessed: August 28, 2012) http://www.fao.org/sd/ WPdirect/WPan0039.htm. Future Agricultures Consortium, 2010. Future Farmers? Exploring Youth Aspirations For. African Agriculture”. FAC Policy Brief 037 (Available at) www.future-agricultures.org. GSS, 2012. Population and Housing Census, Summary Report of Final Results. Ghana Statistical Service, Accra. Ganle, J.K., 2013. Free but Not Accessible to All: Free Maternity Care, Access, Equity of Access, and Barriers to Accessing and Using Skilled Maternal and Newborns Healthcare Services in Ghana (Unpublished PhD Thesis). Nuffield Department of Population Health University of Oxford, St Cross Colleg. Gildea Jr., R.Y., 1964. Culture and land tenure in Ghana. Land Econ. 40 (No. 1), 102–104. GoG, 1999. National Land Policy, Government of Ghana (GoG). Ministry of Lands & Forestry, Accra. GoG, 2002. Government of Ghana (GoG) Land Policy Statement. Accra, Ghana. Hill, P., 1970. The Migrant Cocoa-Farmers of Southern Ghana, A Study Rural Capitalism, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press. ISSER, 2003. Land Ownership Systems and Security of Tenure and Rights Associated with Customary Grants in Ghana. ISSER, Accra. Kameri-Mbote, P., 2005. The land has its owners!; gender issues in law tenure under Kenya customary law. In: International Environmental Law Research Centre Working Paper., pp. 2005–2009 (accessed August 28, 2012) http:// www.ielrc.org/content/w0509. pdf. Kasanga, R.K., Avis, M.R., 1988. Internal migration and urbanisation in developing countries−findings from a study of Ghana. Environ. Policy (March 1998). Kasanga, R.K., 1988. Land Tenure and the Development Dialogue, The Myth Concerning Communal Landholding in Ghana, Occasional Paper 19. Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge, Granta Editions Ltd. Kasanga, K., 1999. Land tenure and regional investment prospects: the case of the tenurial systems of northern Ghana. Land Management and Environmental Policy Series, No. 1, Vol. 1. Institute of Land Management and Development (ILMAD), University of Science and Technology, Kumasi-Ghana. Kotey, E.N.A., Tsikata, D., 1990. Women and land rights in Ghana in kuenyehia. In: Kuenyehia, A. (Ed.), Women and Law in West Africa: Situational Analysis of Some Key Issues Affecting Women. WaLWA, Accra, pp. 203–216. ˙ G., 2010. Intra-family and socio-political dimensions of land markets and Kouame, land. conflicts: the case of the Abure, Côte d’Ivoire" Africa. J. Int. Afr. Inst. 80 (1), 126–146. Kuusaana, E.D., Kidido, J.K., Halidu-Adam, E., 2013. Customary land ownership and gender disparity- evidence from the wa municipality of Ghana. Ghana J. Dev. Stud. 10 (No. 1–2), 63–80. Kwapong, O., 2009. The poor and land: a situational analysis of access to land by poor land users in Ghana. J. Rural Commun. Dev. 4, 51–66. Larbi, W.O., 2008. Compulsory land acquisition and compensation in Ghana: searching for alternative policies and strategies. In: FIG/FAO/CNG International Seminar on State and Public Sector Land Management, Verona, Italy, S eptember 9–10, 2008. Leavy, J., Smith, S., 2010. Future Farmers: Youth Aspirations, Expectations and Life Choices. FAC Discussion Paper 013. Future Agricultures Consortium, Brighton.

266

J.K. Kidido et al. / Land Use Policy 60 (2017) 254–266

Lintelo, D., 2011. Youth and Policy Processes, Future Agricultures, Working Paper 025. Lisle, J.D., 2011. The benefits and challenges of mixing methods and methodologies: lessons learnt from implementing qualitatively led mixed methods research designs in Trinidad and Tobago. Caribbean Curriculum 18, 87–120. MYS, 2010. National Youth Policy of Ghana. Ministry of Youth and Sports (MYS), Accra. Munthali, T., 2010. Effective job creation strategies for developing economies with bulging youth populations. In: Discussion Paper for the World Bank/IMF Annual Meetings, Washington DC. MoFA, 2011. Youth in Agriculture Programme: Policy, Strategy and Sustainability. Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA), Accra. Oomen, B., 2002. Chiefs! Law, Power and Culture in Contemporary South Africa Dissertation. Leiden University. Oxfam, G.B., 2007. ‘Key principles on land rights’. In: Land Rights in Africa. Oxford http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what we do/issues/livelihoods/landrights/key principles.htm. Quan, J., 2007. Changes in intra-family land relations. In: Lorenzo Cotula Changes in Customary Land Tenure Systems in Africa. IIED, London, pp. 51–63. Richards, P., 2005. To fight or to farm? Agrarian dimensions of the Mano River conflicts (Liberia and Sierra Leone). Afr. Affairs 104/417, 517–590. Salamon, S., Lockhart, V., 1980. ‘Land ownership and the position of elderly in farm families’. Hum. Organ. 39 (4), 324–331. Sulemana, M., 2011. Some impacts of Judicial decisions on urban land administration in Greater Accra). In: Paper Presented at a Conference of Africa Real Estate Society (West Africa Chapter) at Noda Hotel, Kumasi-Ghana, August 10–11, 2011.

Sumberg, J., Anyidoho, N.A., Leavy, J., Lintelo, D., Wellard, K., 2012. The Young People and Agriculture ‘Problem’ in Africa. IDS Bull. 43 (6), Institute of Development Studies. TENDA, 2013. Profile of techiman north district assembly, Tuobodom. Techiman. Tashakkori, A., Creswell, J.W., 2007. Exploring the nature of research questions in mixed methods research. J. Mixed Methods Res. 1 (3), 207–211. Toulmin, C., 1999. Land tenure and resource access in west africa: issues and opportunities for the next twenty five years. In: Working Paper Presented to DFID. IIED, UK, Available: http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/G00460. pdf. UN-HABITAT, 2011. Towards a Youth Agenda for the Global Land Tool Network: A Scoping Study. United Nations Human Settlements Programme, Nairobi Kenya. UNESCO, 2004. Empowering Youth Through National Policies. UNESCO. White, B., 2011. Who will own the countryside? Dispossession, rural youth and the future of farming, Valedictory Lecture on 13 October on the occasion of the 59th Dies Natalis of International Institute of Social Studies (ISS). Hague. White, B., 2012. Agriculture and the generation problem: rural youth, employment and the future of farming. In: FAC- ISSER Conference ‘Young People, Farming and Food’, Accra, 19–21 March, 2012. Woodman, G.R., 1996. Customary Land Law in the Ghanaian Courts Accra. Ghana Universities Press. World Bank, 2007. Development and the Next Generation: World Development Report. The World Bank, Washington DC. World Bank, 2012. ‘Land Administration and Reform in Sub-Saharan Africa: From Piloting to Scaling Up.’. World Bank, Washington DC. World Bank, 2014. Youth employment in sub-Saharan africa. In: Africa Development Forum. The World Bank, Washington DC. Wyn, J., White, R., 1997. Rethinking Youth. Sage, London.