What lies beneath: Climate change, land expropriation, and zaï agroecological innovations by smallholder farmers in Northern Ghana

Land Use Policy 92 (2020) 104469

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

What lies beneath: Climate change, land expropriation, and zaï agroecological innovations by smallholder farmers in Northern Ghana

T

Hanson Nyantakyi-Frimpong University of Denver Department of Geography & the Environment 2050 East Iliff Avenue Denver, CO 80210, United States

A R T I C LE I N FO

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Eminent domain Land tenure Large-scale land acquisitions Zaï Farmer innovations Social barriers to adaptation Ghana

Large-scale land acquisitions (LSLAs) are increasing in Ghana amid a weak legal and regulatory framework. This paper explores the impacts of this phenomenon on farmer innovations under recurrent environmental changes. Using a case study of zaï, an indigenous innovative farming practice, the paper makes two interrelated arguments. Firstly, it shows that the pervasive enclosures coerced by the Ghanaian state undermine how indigenous knowledge could be proactively deployed for climate risk management. Secondly, LSLAs produce a social barrier to climate change adaptation, as they lead to heightened uncertainty and apprehension among farmers, which affects decisions on climate risk management. More specifically, land expropriation is an example of how adaptation could be hindered by governance, institutions, and policy at the extra-local scale, including not only existing land use laws, but also the constitutional guarantee of private property. The evidence supporting these arguments come from survey data on 619 plots, 70 in-depth interviews, village-level transect walks, and participant observations. Overall, the paper contributes to emerging debates at the interface of land use policy, climate justice, and sustainable adaptation. Theoretically, it also contributes to understanding State-society relations, as well as the political economy of eminent domain, often justified through discourses of “public benefits.”

1. Introduction “It’s very frustrating that the land surface is for the farmer, but what lies beneath is for the State. Can the top stand on its own without the bottom? What I mean is how can you improve a land if the topsoil is for you, but the subsoil is for the President?”- A Female Farmer in Northwestern Ghana. The above epigraph reflects one of the acute frustrations brought into play as farmers consider land tenure security and how to optimize crop production in precarious environments. Over the last decade, profound concerns have been raised about the prospects of smallholder agriculture in the face of rising transformations in land tenure security (HLPE (High Level Panel of Experts), 2011). Land tenure security is an individual’s perception of his or her rights to land, free from imposition or interference from outside sources, as well as the ability to reap the benefits of investments in that land (Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2002). It could be legally or customarily defined, and is generally disaggregated into three key dimensions, namely: breadth, such as the bundle of rights held, or possession of key rights if certain ones are more important than others; duration, that is, the length of time a

given right is customarily and legally valid; and assurance, including the certainty with which a right is held (Place et al., 1994). Other scholars have also outlined additional legal, economic, and social interpretations of land tenure security, especially mechanisms that go beyond land titling, registration, and formalization (Bruce et al., 2010). Examples include continuing physical occupation, as well as communitarian use and ownership, among others (e.g., see Amanor, 2010; Obeng-Odoom and Stilwell, 2013). The relationship between land tenure security and farmland improvements has been a longstanding focus of theoretical and empirical research in land use policy (e.g., Aha and Ayitey, 2017; Antwi-Agyei et al., 2015; Lambrecht and Asare, 2016; Moreda, 2018). Empirical research has particularly focused on whether and how the security of tenure influences the adoption of innovative agricultural practices, particularly those with significant investments in capital and labor. Tree planting, soil erosion control measures, the application of manure, and the rehabilitation of crusted and abandoned fields have all been studied extensively (Fenske, 2011; Higgins et al., 2018). With some few notable exceptions (e.g., Brasselle et al., 2002; Place and Hazell, 1993)1, a general consensus from these studies is that if land tenure

E-mail address: [email protected]. Some analysts (e.g., Fenske, 2011; Kabubo-Mariara, 2007) suggest that the different findings stem from differences in the definition and measurement of property rights and tenure security, as well as the methodological approaches employed. 1

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104469 Received 29 July 2019; Received in revised form 19 December 2019; Accepted 10 January 2020 0264-8377/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Land Use Policy 92 (2020) 104469

H. Nyantakyi-Frimpong

from one generation to another (Yaro, 2010). Under customary laws, allodial rights are held by representatives such as chiefs, earth priests, or family heads, who hold land in trust for their people (Kasanga and Kotey, 2001; Yaro, 2010). Land ownership in this title is a collective possession and cannot be used in the will of one individual. Approximately 80% of the land in Ghana is managed under customary governance, with the remaining 20% held through statutory governance (Kasanga and Kotey, 2001). While the bulk of the country’s land is managed under customary law, the Ghanaian 1992 Constitution gives power to the government to take customary land for public use, subject to just and adequate compensation (Larbi et al., 2004). This power for compulsory land acquisition is called eminent domain (Obeng-Odoom, 2012). For mineral extraction, one of the main subjects of attention in this paper, the national Constitution stipulates that ‘every mineral in its natural state in, under or upon any land in Ghana, rivers, streams, watercourses throughout Ghana, the exclusive economic zone and any area covered by the territorial sea or continental shelf is the property of the Republic of Ghana and shall be vested in the President on behalf of, and in trust for the people of Ghana.’2 Most Ghanaians interpret this Constitutional provision colloquially as ‘what lies beneath the soil belongs to the government or the president.’ A number of legislative instruments govern the exercise of eminent domain in Ghana. These legislative instruments cover key aspects of the compulsory land acquisition process, including informed consent, the payment of compensation, land valuation for compensation, and procedures for seeking redress. Informed consent is governed by at least three legislative instruments, namely the State Lands Act, 1962 (Act 125); the National Land Policy, 1999; and Environmental Assessment Regulation, 1999. For example, Act 125, Sections 2(a–d) provide that any compulsory land acquisition should be published, with all affected persons served with a notice. The notice must state the area of the taking, the purposes for the taking, and the names of all parties with an interest in the parcel to be taken. A copy of this notice should be affixed at a visible place on the land in question, or published in local newspapers. The National Land Policy 1999 also stipulates that there shall be no land dispossession without consultation of those occupying the land. When there is an Environmental Impact Assessment on land acquired through eminent domain or other processes, the Environmental Assessment Regulation, 1999 provides for a compulsory public hearing. Compensation is governed by four provisions, including the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, Article 20 (2a); the National Land Policy 1999; The State Lands Act, 1962 (Act 125), Section 4(1); and the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006, Act 703, Sections 73–74. More specifically, the 1992 Constitution provides for the compulsory acquisition of land for public purposes subject to fair, prompt, and adequate compensation. The National Land Policy 1999 provides for mandatory compensation if land acquisition displaces land users. The policy states that compensation should be paid to displaced people and those affected directly. The State Lands Act, 1962 (Act 125), Section 4(1) provides that compensation should be paid for all compulsory land acquisitions or affected persons should be offered a land of equivalent value. In the case of land under cultivation, the Minerals and Mining Act 703, Sections 73–74 provide that compensation should be paid for loss of earnings or sustenance suffered by the rightful owner, as well as the loss of expected income. With respect to how the value of land is estimated for compensation, two instruments are key. The first is the State Lands Act 125, where Section 7 provides that compensation should account for deprival value, including the ‘cost of disturbance,’ such as a change of residence or place of business by any person with a right to the land being expropriated. The second instrument is the Minerals and Mining Act 703,

security is both durable and assured, this could lead to increased investments in land improvement and agricultural innovations (e.g., Aha and Ayitey, 2017; Antwi-Agyei et al., 2015). Yet, others have also shown that the correlation between land tenure security and conservation practices is not necessarily unidirectional as is often argued. In some cases, causality may be reversed in the tenure-investment decision, such that investments into land (e.g., tree planting) may actually increase farmers’ tenure security (e.g., Moreda, 2018; Place and Hazell, 1993). This reversed causality is more common in areas where tenure security is enforced informally, with fragile claims to land (Brasselle et al., 2002). In this growing literature, however, relatively limited attention has been paid to whether and how land tenure security shapes agricultural innovations in the context of the recent surge in large-scale land acquisitions (LSLA) (Aha and Ayitey, 2017). Across Africa, a burgeoning literature documents recent development where smallholder farmlands are being expropriated for large-scale mining, tourism, forestry plantations, industrial agriculture, and biofuel feedstocks (Aha and Ayitey, 2017; Ahmed et al., 2018; Bukari and Kuusaana, 2018; Fairbairn, 2013; Hall, 2011; Hausermann et al., 2018; Vermeulen and Cotula, 2010). These LSLAs have often been accompanied by resistance due to displacement and land-use changes (Ahmed et al., 2018; Bukari and Kuusaana, 2018; Musah, 2017; Yangmaadome et al., 2012). With the rise in LSLAs, access to land has not only become contentious, but also increasingly constricted in settings that were formerly land abundant (Ahmed et al., 2018; Nyantakyi-Frimpong and Bezner-Kerr, 2017). While LSLAs have increased considerably, farmers are simultaneously facing climate variability and change, with projections showing negative impacts on future crop yield in Africa (Niang et al., 2014). To counteract the negative effects of climate on agriculture, various agroecological innovations have been devised by farmers to improve adaptive capacity (Partey et al., 2018; Reij and Waters-Bayer, 2001). Given what could be termed ‘double exposure’ (Leichenko and O’Brien, 2008) to LSLAs and climate change, there is a pressing need to understand tenure transformations and agricultural innovations, particularly in regions where this twin-challenge is being manifested. Based on research in drought-prone northern Ghana, this paper addresses this knowledge gap by asking: (1) How are smallholder farmers adapting to climate change in geographical regions where LSLAs are occurring? (2) Does the threat of land expropriation affect climate adaptations and agricultural innovations? By answering these questions, this paper provides insights into the dynamics of adapting agriculture to climate change when sudden political-economic shifts occur. It also contributes to emerging debates at the interface of land use policy, climate justice, and sustainable adaptation (Antwi-Agyei et al., 2015; HLPE (High Level Panel of Experts), 2011). Furthermore, by focusing on everyday practices around LSLAs in rural environments, the paper offers a lens to understanding State-society relations at the “margins,” in those liminal spaces where State practices are less apparent. There are six sections to the paper. The next section provides a brief background to land governance and the execution of compulsory land acquisitions in Ghana. Then, the case study area is introduced before presenting the research methodology. This is followed by a presentation and discussion of findings from research undertaken in two villages. The paper concludes by examining what the findings mean for land use policy in agrarian settings confronting climate change and resource scrambles. 2. What lies beneath: land governance and the execution of compulsory land acquisitions in ghana Land governance in Ghana is marked by the coexistence of statutory and customary laws. Statutory land governance is based on enacted legislation, especially the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana (Kasanga and Kotey, 2001). Customary land governance is administered through unwritten traditional norms and practices passed down

2 The 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana (1992), Article 257(6); see also the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), Section 1.

2

Land Use Policy 92 (2020) 104469

H. Nyantakyi-Frimpong

3. The study setting

where Section 73(3) provides that in the event of compulsory land acquisition, the amount of compensation payable should be determined by an agreement between all parties involved. Finally, there are legislative instruments governing how one can seek redress when there is a dispute emanating from the dissatisfaction of compensation or land expropriation. These instruments include the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, Article 20 (2b), which provides that any person experiencing land expropriation shall have the liberty to question the acquisition in the High Court. As well, the State Lands Act 125, Section 4(2) provides that if a person is not satisfied with any paid compensation, a Tribunal would adjudicate the case. Similarly, the Minerals and Mining Act 703, Section 75(1–3) provides that if a lawful landowner is dissatisfied with the terms of compensation, the case might be taken to the High Court. Research has consistently shown that for the most part, compulsory land acquisitions are executed without following these national laws in Ghana. There have been concerns that the process is often manipulated in subtle ways, with a lack of transparency, the abuse of power by government officials and elites, and little information sharing with marginalized stakeholders (Adams et al., 2019; Ahmed et al., 2019; Hausermann et al., 2018; Larbi et al., 2004; Obeng-Odoom, 2012). The present paper particularly unveils the everyday experiences of smallholder farmers, with a focus on how the politics of eminent domain undermine the certainty of tenure security and climate risk management. The case study setting is semi-arid Ghana, a region where recent compulsory LSLAs have deeply reconfigured agricultural land relations (Akologo and Guri, 2016; Musah, 2017; Yangmaadome et al., 2012).

This study was conducted in Ghana’s Upper West Region (Fig. 1), an area covering 18,476 km2 with a population of 702,110 people (Ghana Statistical Service, 2013). The region is the most impoverished and food insecure part of Ghana. According to current national census data, 70.7% of the population lives in chronic poverty (Ghana Statistical Service, 2014). Vegetation in the area consists of Sudano-savanna, with a semi-arid climate and a long dry season (∼ 6 8 months) (Beyuo, 2018; Dapilah et al., 2019). One distinct rainy season determines the cropping calendar, from April to September. With an average landholding of 2.7 ha, farmers in the region engage in crop cultivation and livestock keeping, mostly for subsistence but partly also for sale in local markets (Beyuo, 2018; Dapilah et al., 2019). Agriculture is almost exclusively rain-fed. The six leading crops by harvested area are corn, millet, sorghum, yam, cowpea, and groundnuts. Over the past three decades, this study region has undergone longterm changes in its climate patterns, including exceedingly shorter growing seasons, with negative effects on income and food security (Beyuo, 2018; Dapilah et al., 2019). With annual rainfall ranging from 510 to 1500 mm, extreme variations often leave farm fields parched in some years and flooded in others (Nyantakyi-Frimpong and BeznerKerr, 2015). In general, the region’s soils have poor water-holding and drainage capacity and are prone to extreme runoff (Buah and Opoku, 2013). Increased run-off frequency and soil erosion have rendered many agricultural lands degraded. This has necessitated the adoption of agricultural innovations that improve soil productivity and mitigate climate-related risks. Despite efforts by the Ghanaian government to encourage formal land titling, customary tenure prevails. Customarily, land rights are

Fig. 1. Map showing the location of Ghana’s Upper West Region. 3

Land Use Policy 92 (2020) 104469

H. Nyantakyi-Frimpong

Qualitative in-depth interviews were used to add depth to insights hidden from the statistical analysis. During the interviews, participants answered open-ended questions about their views and experiences with land tenure and climate risk management. Interview questions included the impacts of droughts on local agriculture in historical periods, specific innovations taken to address these impacts, and local land-use change in recent decades. Other questions included LSLA processes in the region, as well as farmers’ awareness of the legislative provisions governing the execution of eminent domain. Participants were selected using maximum variation sampling (Patton, 2014). Care was taken to include in this non-probability sample a range of respondents. Overall, 70 in-depth interviews were conducted with various actors, including smallholder farmers (n = 54), villages chiefs (n = 3), Tengdaamba or Earth Priests (n = 2), field staff of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) (n = 5), and mining personnel (n = 1). Other key informants from government institutions were also interviewed (n = 5), including from Ghana’s Lands Commission, Minerals Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, and the Ministry of Food and Agriculture. The analysis was completed through line-by-line thematic coding, following analytical procedures suggested by Miles et al. (2014). The in-depth interviews were complemented with participant observations and transect walks with farmers and other key informants. Participant observations were completed over a period of 8 months and involved providing assisted labor to farm households in their fields. These immersed observations provided valuable information on the rationale behind farmer innovations and everyday soil management decisions. Moreover, the observations provided a window to triangulate survey findings and claims made by farmers during the in-depth interviews. Relevant notes from the observations were added to interview transcripts as well as field notes and analyzed together. A transect walk was also completed in each study village. The main purpose was to obtain a first-hand account of village land expropriation and land-use changes. Transect routes were identified with the help of village elders, Tengdaamba, and other long-time elderly residents. On average, each transect walk took 2 h to complete. The findings were recorded as handwritten field notes and analyzed together with interview transcripts. The original primary dataset was augmented with a review of legal and other documents related to Ghana’s land use policy. These documents included the 1992 Constitution of Ghana; The States Land Act, 1962 (Act 125); National Land Policy, 1999; Environmental Assessment Regulation, 1999; and the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703).

vested in individuals called Tengdaana (English translation: Earth Priest), following ancestral rights as first settlers or cultivators (Kuusaana and Eledi, 2015; Yaro, 2010). Over the last fifteen years or so, these customary land rights have come under severe pressure, due mainly to increased LSLAs for food and non-food purposes (Akologo and Guri, 2016; Moomen et al., 2016; Nyantakyi-Frimpong and BeznerKerr, 2017). The Upper West Region has a reputation for being landrich, sparsely populated, and ‘deep rural,’ in the sense that it is characterized by poor physical, economic, and social infrastructure (Ghana Statistical Service, 2013). Thus, land-based investments by local and foreign entities are seen as a way of modernizing the region, solving rural poverty, and integrating small farmers in global value chains (Alhassan, 2013;Nyantakyi-Frimpong and Bezner-Kerr, 2017). Among the recent LSLAs in the region, the most prominent one is a gold mining project covering an area of 316,400 ha (Warries et al., 2012). Through the power of an eminent domain, the Ghanaian government has granted mining prospecting licenses to an Australian company, Azumah Resources Limited, for gold prospecting and extraction. Gold prospecting started in 2004 (Musah, 2017; Yangmaadome et al., 2012). Details about the prospecting licenses, including the dates granted, renewals, land registry numbers, and expiration dates, have all been documented in Warries et al. (2012, p. 21). This compulsory land acquisition stretches across seven of the region’s eleven districts, including Wa West, Wa East, Nadowli-Kaleo, Jirapa, Lambussie Karni, Lawra, and Nandom (Moomen et al., 2016). It covers a land area that used to be agricultural fields for thousands of smallholder subsistence farmers. Several scholarly research has shown that informed consent was shady (e.g., Moomen and Dewan, 2016; Musah, 2017). Following (Hall, 2011, p. 204), this could be classified as ‘food to non-food’ land grabbing, involving forced enclosure and land-use change from subsistence agriculture to large-scale mining. The mining project has already accelerated the demise of the peasantry, decimated habitats, aggravated poverty, and threatened public health as well as household food security (Antabe et al., 2017; Akologo and Guri, 2016; Musah, 2017; Nyantakyi-Frimpong and Bezner-Kerr, 2017; Yangmaadome et al., 2012). As this paper would further demonstrate, this LSLA has also affected indigenous agricultural innovations, including soil and water conservation techniques. Before turning to the empirical findings and discussions, the next section describes the research methodology. 4. Methodology

5. Results and discussion

This study was conducted by using a multi-method triangulation technique: quantitative findings informed qualitative data collection. The aim was to maximize the credibility of the results by gathering complementary evidence that accounts for both subjective and objective views. Fieldwork included a household survey, in‐depth interviews, participant observations, and transact walks. The fieldwork started with a household survey to understand broader patterns of land use and agrarian change in the study region. The survey included questions on household demographics, agricultural production, gender relations, land tenure, food security, farmer perceptions of extreme weather events, and changes in climate over the years. The sample was selected randomly from two villages representative of farming systems in the study area. This paper specifically uses plot-level as the unit of analysis, with information collected from 404 households. After missing data were discarded, a total of 619 plots were retained for analysis.3 A plot is defined here as a clearly identifiable piece of land, as demarcated by farmers themselves. The survey data were analyzed descriptively, with statistical analysis focusing on frequencies and cross-tabulations.

5.1. Description of plot-level characteristics A total of 619 plots are analyzed in this paper. These plots were being cultivated in 311 households. Table 1 provides descriptive statistics of plot-level characteristics. The majority of plots (93%) were owned by men. No woman reported owing a plot on her own. This finding reflects the patrilineal pattern of property rights and land-based inheritance in the region (Kuusaana and Eledi, 2015). The average plot size was 0.5 ha, and the greatest majority (97%) were acquired through the family. Farmers characterized plot-level soil fertility as very good (6%), average (8%), and very poor (86%). These soil characteristics suggest the need for improved fertility management and are in line with the region’s soil properties as assessed by Ghana’s Savannah Agriculture Research Institute (Buah and Opoku, 2013). The following sections describe two sets of findings from the analysis. The first focuses on farmer-led agroecological innovations to address climate variability and change. The second examines the ways in which land expropriation undermines land tenure security and farmerled agroecological innovations. This section also shows aspects of land expropriation that are particularly problematic for smallholder farmer innovations.

3 Out of the 404 households, 93 were completely landless due to LSLAs and have been removed from this analysis.

4

Land Use Policy 92 (2020) 104469

H. Nyantakyi-Frimpong

tree leaves, and other biodegradable waste (Fig. 2A). After the first rains in the planting season, each pit is sown with seeds such as millet, sorghum, corn, and groundnuts. Field observations revealed that zaï pit dimensions vary depending on soil type, but typically measure between 10−20 cm in depth, and 20−40 cm in diameter. They are spaced approximately 100 cm apart. When excavating the pits, the excess soil is embanked downslope in a semi-circle. This earth ridge (Fig. 2B) helps to improve rainwater retention capacity and further holds back eroded soil. Where rainfall and runoff are both intense, earth ridges are strengthened by stone walls to decrease the energy of escaping water. Typically, one handful of organic manure is placed in each pit. The organic manure is mixed with approximately 5 cm of soil (Fig. 2C). This provides not only a favorable seedbed, but also leads to increased termite (Trinervitermes trinervoides) attraction. The attracted termites dig galleries at the bottom of the zaï pits, which are then transformed into funnels to enhance rainwater infiltration (Fig. 2D). As one smallholder farmer indicated, “the termites also digest the organic manure, making nutrients more easily available to crops planted in the pits.” In addition to these functions, the manure also captures wind-blown soil and litter. Reij et al. (2009) have described the zaï innovation as a form of ‘barefoot science.’ Based upon interviews with farmers, it was revealed that the zaï pits prevent rainwater from being lost as runoff. As well, the pits ensure that water and manure stay near the plant rooting zone where they are needed the most, rather than spread throughout the field (Fig. 2C). English terms used to describe zaï include planting pockets, planting basins, micro pits, and small water harvesting pits (Mati, 2006).

Table 1 Plot-Level Characteristics (n = 619 plots). Variable

n (%)

Reported ownership by gender Sole male Sole female Joint (husband and wife) Mode of plot acquisition Family-owned Borrowed Average plot size Average number of years plot owned Perceived plot-level soil fertility Plot with very good soil fertility Plot with average soil fertility Plot with very poor soil fertility Perceived land tenure security Strong Weak Number of plots with zaï only Number of plots with zaï and other SLM practices Number of plots with no zaï or other SLM practices

576 (93%)– 43 (7%)

600 (97%) 19 (3%) 0.5 ha 14 years 37 (6%) 50 (8%) 532 (86%) 563 (91%) 56 (9%) 62 (10%) 130 (21%) 427 (69%)

Note: SLM = sustainable land management. Data Source: Author’s Fieldwork and Household Survey.

5.2. Zaï agroecological innovations in response to climate variability and change 5.2.1. Harvesting rainwater, increasing soil infiltration, and optimizing crop production The fieldwork revealed that farmers have developed several innovations to buffer against growing climatic variability and yield losses. These innovations are aimed at increasing crop yield without degrading soil and water resources. They include practices such as water harvesting, soil and water conservation, soil fertility management, and savannah agroforestry. Among these farmer innovations, the most notable was zaï, a simple technique used to harvest rainwater, increase soil infiltration, and optimize crop production (Fig. 2). Zaï consists of digging pits at the beginning of the dry season, and filling them with organic manure including cow dung, crop residues,

5.2.2. The sources of inspiration for farmer innovations and experimentation During field interviews and observations, farmers described the sources of inspiration for this innovation. The majority said they adapted zaï from colleague farmers in Burkina Faso, where the technique was first developed based on indigenous knowledge in the Yatenga Province (Reij and Waters-Bayer, 2001). As one male farmer remarked, “Burkina Faso is much drier than northern Ghana, but the farmers there were producing more millet and red and white sorghum. So, we decided to learn what they were doing differently. That’s how I first got to

Fig. 2. A Detailed Illustration of the Zaï Innovation. Source: Figure drawn based on author’s field notes and observations. 5

Land Use Policy 92 (2020) 104469

H. Nyantakyi-Frimpong

2012). This institutional environment within which agricultural innovations are developed and promoted is the subject of the emergent academic field called ‘political agronomy’ (Sumberg and Thompson, 2012). Ideally, government policies will assist farmers in implementing strategies to mitigate some of the risks posed by climatic variability. In the context of this study, however, government policies on land use were said to inhibit adaptation and innovative strategies being implemented by smallholder farmers. Out of the 619 plots included in the analysis, only 10% were treated with zaï only, while 21% were treated with zaï together with other sustainable land management (SLM) practices (Table 1). As many as 69% of plots were not treated with zaï or other SLM practices, with some fields even lying idle, despite farmer awareness of the benefits of conservation farming practices. Farmer’s disinterest in conservation agricultural practice was assessed during the in-depth interviews, transect walks, and field observations. Primary among the concerns raised by respondents included the politics around which eminent domain is executed, a subject that has received critical analysis in Ghana’s land use policy (DowuonaHammond, 2019; Larbi et al., 2004; Obeng-Odoom, 2012). The interviews, in particular, provided strong evidence suggesting that the expectations of losing land in the near future, due mainly to LSLAs, reduce farmer interests in zaï or other SLM investments. This sentiment was expressed repeatedly by all respondents, including agricultural extension agents, land use policy experts, and smallholder farmers themselves. For example, as a 46-year old male farmer narrated, “it’s your own family’s land. You’ve all the rights to the land, but you don’t have the freedom to innovate. You’re always afraid that the land would end up being forcefully taken for mining without your knowledge. So why should I spend my energy improving the land, although I know that zaï is great and more than double the yield is worth something?” During participant observations and interviews, interests in zaï and other SLM practices were found to be especially minimal among those farmers who had already lost part of their farmlands to mining. There were also several feelings of apprehension, where farmers who have not yet lost any land still feared future expropriation. There was thus evidence of what could be termed potential land tenure insecurity (Aha and Ayitey, 2017; ObengOdoom and Stilwell, 2013), which reflects the perceived risk of expropriation. In describing how eminent domain undermines the adoption of zaï and other SLM practices, a key informant with expertise on land use policy said: “the 1992 constitution provides the State with the overriding power of eminent domain. What lies on top of the land is for the farmer, but what lies beneath is for the government. This overriding power allows the state to access any land irrespective of the tenure category. But this blanket land use policy undermines any incentives for farmer innovation and sustainable adaptation. Here in the dry north, we keep hearing on the radio that farmers should adapt to climate change, but it’s like tying someone’s hands at their back and telling them to run.” Other studies have reported similar findings, showing how Ghanaian LSLAs force smallholders to engage in unsustainable farming practices (Aha and Ayitey, 2017). There is a vast literature showing that ownership of land gives farmers a sense of exclusive rights to the property (Brasselle et al., 2002; Fenske, 2011; Higgins et al., 2018). Farmers, therefore, take responsibility to improve SLM practices, particularly when these techniques pertain to long-term investment (Aha and Ayitey, 2017; AntwiAgyei et al., 2015; Lambrecht and Asare, 2016; Moreda, 2018). Among the farmers interviewed in this study, however, even those with secure land tenure were reluctant to innovate with zaï or use other SLM practices. These farmers included even those with recognized customary ‘bundle of rights’ over land, including the rights of access, withdrawal, management, exclusion, and alienation (Schlager and Ostrom, 1992). For example, many farmers made comments about having land use rights, or control and decision-making rights, which are all defining characteristics of land ownership and tenure security (Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2002; Place et al., 1994). Yet, these same farmers expressed a greater lack of interest in zaï or other

know zaï. I got the knowledge from friends across the border.” A report by Millar (1999) also confirms how this type of farmer-to-farmer knowledge exchange started as far back as 1997 between Ghanaian and Burkinabe peasants (see also Reij and Waters-Bayer, 2001). While Ghanaian farmers have adapted the zaï practice from Burkina Faso, however, they have added their own innovations to suit existing conditions in the Upper West Region. For example, poor nitrogen and phosphorus contents are among the limiting factors affecting soils in the study area (Buah and Opoku, 2013). To address this limitation, some farmers usually introduce legumes into intercropping systems, while others add grounded phosphorus carbonate rocks into the zaï pits. Additionally, farmers have noticed that with enhanced water-retention in zaï pits, organic matter decomposition occurs whilst crops are still quite young and unable to fully utilize nutrients below the rooting zone. Based on this observation, farmers tend to split organic amendments into two applications. The first application is one month before planting, while the second application is two months after planting. Farmers have observed that splitting organic amendments in this manner has the effect of extending the availability of soil nutrients in the zaï pits. Similarly, the planting pits can easily be destroyed by runoff during rainstorms, resulting in the loss of manure. To reduce this effect, farmers combine zaï with other techniques, including stone bunds, grass and tree strips, and earth bunds. Overall, the whole zaï innovation process is farmer-led, rather than researcher- or NGOdriven. An agriculture extension agent described this process as “a chain of innovations, where one innovation triggers another.” Due to growing interests in zaï, however, NGOs, researchers, and agricultural extension agents are beginning to use participatory approaches for joint experimentation (Beyuo, 2018; Danso-Abbeam et al., 2019; World Vision International, 2016). As shown later in the paper, however, there are several land use policy-related challenges that hinder this scaling-up process. 5.2.3. The impacts of zaï innovations in a context of climate change Evidence gathered from the study revealed that combined, these innovations have several benefits, including improved seed germination, crop yield, food security, vegetation cover, and plant biomass diversity. Other benefits include enhanced soil fertility, water conservation, and the restoration of degraded lands. For example, among farmers who use zaï on degraded lands, they largely endorsed the view that yields are quickly increasing, as is clear in the following comment: “[…] we started the innovation on our own, but it was small-scale. So, one of the NGOs helped us to track change to see how to make the zaï process big. On my own farm, I observed that on severely degraded land, crop yields were 0 kg/ha without zaï pits; 200–300 kg/ha in a year of low rainfall with zaï pits; and about 1,000–1,200 kg/ha in a year of good rainfall with zaï pits. These figures are all for maize and I measured for 3 years.” Farmers also indicated that zaï pits encourage crop-livestock integration, a system that forms one of the foundations of sustainable agriculture intensification (HLPE (High Level Panel of Experts), 2019; Pretty et al., 2011). More specifically, the farmers said zaï pits substantially increase the production of fodder, making it possible to increase livestock numbers. All these findings are consistent with the documented impacts of zaï in different parts of Africa’s drylands, including in Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Kenya, Mali, and Niger (Table 2). However, despite the widely recognized positive effects of zaï, many study respondents indicated a growing reluctance to adopt this innovation on a large scale. Their reasons were mainly due to recent LSLAs and how the Ghanaian government exercises the power of eminent domain. 5.3. Compulsory land acquisitions and effects on zaï innovations 5.3.1. Farmers with secure land tenure, but reluctant to innovate The response strategy a farmer will select for climate risk management depends, in part, on the institutional context in which decisions are being made (Leichenko and O’Brien, 2008; Sumberg and Thompson, 6

Land Use Policy 92 (2020) 104469

H. Nyantakyi-Frimpong

Table 2 The impacts of zaï in northern Ghana and other African drylands. Source: Table prepared by the author through a systematic literature review of the literature on zaï. Type of impact

No of plots on which impact was reported in this study (n = 192)

Similar results from other African dryland environments

Enhanced seed germination

192 (100%)

Positive effects on crop yield and food security

189 (98%)

Improved vegetation cover and plant biomass diversity

187 (97%)

Improved soil fertility, water conservation, and the restoration of degraded lands

175 (91%)

Roose et al. (1999)- the pits improved seed germination (Burkina Faso). Koome (2017) - zaï reduced the risk of crop failure (Kenya). Amede et al. (2011) - combined with nitrogen fertilizer, zaï increased potato yields between 500% and 2000%, and beans yield by 250% (Ethiopia). Fatondji et al. (2006) - when combined with manure and crop residues, zaï increased millet yield by 2 to 7 times (Niger). Koome (2017) - increased maize yield, income earnings, and food security (Kenya). Moussa et al. (2016) - zaï improved millet yield significantly (Niger). Roose et al. (1999)- zaï fields had relatively higher grain production (Burkina Faso). Sawadodo et al. (2001) - zaï helped to produce 80,000 tons of food per year (Burkina Faso). Wildemeersch et al. (2015) – zaï increased grain yields on degraded, marginal lands (Niger). World Vision International (2016) – improved household food production (Ghana) Koome (2017) - enhanced intercropping of maize, watermelons and cowpea (Kenya). Roose et al. (1999)- increased growth of legume-fixing trees (e.g., Acacia albida) and herbs (Burkina Faso). Sawadogo et al. (2001) – diversified plant biomass (Burkina Faso). Fatondji et al. (2006) - improved water use efficiency of millet (Niger). Kaiser et al. (2017) - Through the attraction of termites, zaï pits increase water infiltration and air aeration in soils. It also maintained long-term soil productivity (Burkina Faso). Reij et al. (2009) - helped to rehabilitate between 200,000 and 300,000 ha of degraded lands (Burkina Faso). Sawadodo et al. (2001) - enhanced soil fertility in crusted fields (Burkina Faso). Yegon et al. (2016) - planting pits significantly increased soil chemical properties, including total organic carbon, nitrogen, soil phosphorus, calcium, magnesium and sodium content (Kenya). Moussa et al. (2016) - zaï significantly improved soil fertility parameters, including phosphorus and organic carbon content (Niger).

where they were asked to vacate a parcel without any prior notice, a violation of the State Lands Act 125. For those who had already invested heavy labor in soil fertility management like zaï, such force evictions meant an inability to reap any benefits from their investments. Women particularly complained that in the case of the mining project in the region, the consultation was gender-biased and not a more inclusive decision-making process. They reported many cases of losing vegetable plots to mining without any prior notice. Upon inquiries, these women were told that informed consent had already been negotiated with the ‘rightful landowners,’ that is, village chiefs, Tengdaamba, and other male elders (see also Adams et al., 2019). In their analysis of the gender implications of LSLAs, Behrman et al. (2012) show how such gender-biased negotiations could be deeply problematic in areas where customary, usufruct rights prevail. Further, some men in the study highlighted the view that consultation was used as a mechanism mainly to legitimize, but not to challenge, the land acquisition process (Table 3). More importantly, the consultation was not a process designed to help farmers in assessing how the project presents them with more risks than benefits, or vice versa. Additional evidence is provided in Table 3 showing the politics of expropriation, compensation claims, and access to justice in appeal courts. The concerns raised by the farmers in this study are supported by evidence from other scholarly research (see Table 3, Column 4). Further analysis of the interview data revealed a striking finding where most farmers were even unaware of their constitutional rights in terms of compulsory land acquisitions. The greatest majority of respondents had no knowledge about the fact that all compulsory land acquisitions needed to be published, or that fair and just compensation should be paid, including the cost of disturbance, as well as the loss of expected income (Table 4). Perhaps, these results reflect the rather high adult illiteracy rate in the region, which has been estimated to be 78.3% (Guvele et al., 2016, p.8). Thus, in a higher illiteracy context where farmers are unaware of their constitutional and legal rights, the result

SLM practices. Research by Aha and Ayitey (2017) shows very similar findings from Yeji, a prominent farming area in Ghana’s Brong-Ahafo Region. In the present study, farmers revealed that the fear of expropriation and disinterests in SLM practices was a problem even for male patriarchs, often known to have secure land tenure in the study area (Kuusaana and Eledi, 2015). One farmer articulated this point quite forcefully by saying, “everyone is afraid to improve the land because they fear it can be taken anytime with little or no compensation. This includes even elderly men. The government can always take what lies beneath your farm. How can the top stand when there is no bottom? Stressing similar concerns like the foregoing, a key informant with expertise on food and agriculture also stressed that “over the last few years, we’ve seen that even those farmers who have land tenure security under customary conditions still fear the risk of expropriation by the government. Men and women, they are all afraid.” These findings do confirm the notion that customary land systems do not provide the necessary security to ensure agricultural investment and productive use of land (Brasselle et al., 2002; Fenske, 2011).

5.3.2. The roots of apprehension: politics around expropriation, consultation, and compensation For landowners, particularly those with livelihoods intimately tied to agriculture, learning that the government intends to take their property can be an uneasy awakening. In the case of northern Ghana, the sources of farmers’ apprehension stem from past and ongoing experiences regarding informed consent, compensation claims, and access to justice in appeal courts. Table 3 provides a comparative analysis of legislative provisions on land expropriation and the everyday farmer experiences on the ground. Indeed, the accounts by farmers vividly revealed the subtle ways in which compulsory land acquisition processes are manipulated, thereby undermining any incentives to improve soil fertility management. For example, farmers mentioned instances 7

Land Use Policy 92 (2020) 104469

H. Nyantakyi-Frimpong

Table 3 Legislative provisions on compulsory land acquisition, compared to actual farmer realities on the ground. Issue

Legislative provisions

Exemplary interview findings on realities on the ground, that discourage land investments

Other studies reporting similar concerns

Informed Consent

The State Lands Act, 1962 (Act 125), Sections 2(a-d): Provides that any compulsory land acquisition should be published, with affected persons served personally with a notice, or a notice fixed at a convenient place on the land or published at least three times in relevant local newspapers. National Land Policy, 1999: provides that there shall be no land dispossession without the consultation of those occupying the land in question. Environmental Assessment Regulation, 1999: Provides for a compulsory public hearing during Environmental Impact Assessments.

Adams et al. (2019); Ahmed et al. (2018); Hausermann and Ferring (2018); Moomen and Dewan (2016); Musah, 2017; Yangmaadome et al. (2012).

Compensation

The 1992 Constitution of Ghana, Article 20 (2a): Provides for the compulsory acquisition of land for public purposes (eminent domain), subject to the payment of fair, prompt and adequate compensation. National Land Policy, 1999: Provides for mandatory compensation if land acquisition displaces land users or other beneficiaries. Compensation should be paid to displaced people and those affected directly. The State Lands Act, 1962 (Act 125), Section 4(1): Provides that compensation should be paid for all compulsory land acquisitions or affected persons should be offered a land of equivalent value. The Minerals and Mining Act, 2006, Act 703, Sections 73–74: Provides that in the case of land under cultivation, compensation should be paid for loss of earnings or sustenance suffered by the rightful owner, as well as the loss of expected income. The State Lands Act, 1962 (Act 125), Section 7: Provides that compensation should account for deprival value, including the ‘cost of disturbance,’ such as a change of residence or place of business by any person with a right to the land. The Minerals and Mining Act, 2006, Act 703, Section 73(3): Provides that the amount of compensation payable shall be determined by agreement between the parties involved. The 1992 Constitution of Ghana, Article 20 (2b): Provides that any person experiencing land expropriation shall have the liberty to question the acquisition in the High Court. The State Lands Act, 1962 (Act 125), Section 4(2): Provides that if a person is not satisfied with any paid compensation, a Tribunal would adjudicate the case. The Minerals and Mining Act, 2006, Act 703, Section 75(1–3): Provides that if a lawful landowner is dissatisfied with the terms of compensation, the case might be taken to the High Court.

“I used to own a piece of land where the mine is now located. This was my own land. It was 5.5 hectares given to me by my late father. I farmed it for 25 years until last year when I was told that the government has given my land up for mining. When I was invited to a village elders’ meeting where I got this information, the decision had already been taken […]. That meeting was not about saying yes or no - I want to give up my land (repeated 2x). It was about telling us what the government has already decided to do” (Male Farmer, Age 68). “I didn’t see any woman or young man in the initial consultations. The reason behind this is that elderly men are more respected. They speak for us and the less we see and ask, the better for the company” (Female Farmer, Age 34). “By custom, women and the youth are not permitted to ask questions when elders complete a deal. So, I don’t know how the compensation was calculated” (Female Farmer, Age 44). “I’m very, very upset about what’s going on with the land. I don’t want to say anything bad about the chief, but he is the one who can answer all your questions about compensation. Please talk to him. I feel cheated that’s why I don’t want to invest in any more land in this village” (Male Farmer, Age 39).

Methods of Land Valuation for Compensation

Seeking Redress

“While the whole land has been seized for mining, my compensation was based on the crops destroyed, rather than the value of the total land seized. That’s why I’ve decided not to improve the other lands. Because these lands would be taken anyway” (Male, Farmer, Age 43). “Rather than compensating me for the whole land taken for mining, they just counted how many crops were destroyed” (Male Farmer, Age 39). “I feel cheated, but if I take the case to court, it’s going to take 5 years. As a poor woman, I can’t pay for a lawyer when my family is already hungry […]. The poor can’t fight the rich. I’m not going to farm on the remaining land because I fear mining would be extended to that area” (Female Farmer, Age 49). “The miners entered my farm and destroyed my crops while conducting their testing and mapping. I can take the company to court but I know it’s time-wasting […] because courts in Ghana delay passing judgment on land disputes. I’m aware of a pending land issue that has been in court for 10 years” (Male Farmer, Age 67).

Adams et al. (2019); Ahmed et al. (2018); Brobby (1991); Hausermann, 2018; Hausermann et al. (2018); German et al. (2013); Kidido et al. (2015); Larbi et al. (2004); Obeng-Odoom (2016).

Brobby (1991); Hausermann, 2018; Larbi et al. (2004); Obeng-Odoom (2016); Vermeulen and Cotula (2010)

Bugri (2012); Crook (2004); Obeng-Odoom and Gyampo (2017); Ubink (2008).

manage climate risks, particularly through innovative farming practices. The analysis has revealed that in Ghana’s Upper West Region, smallholder farmers are attempting to innovate in response to climate variability and change. Increased temperature and water availability in the region remain key factors in determining crop growth and productivity. Through indigenous knowledge exchanges, farmers have devised several agroecological innovations to counteract these challenges. However, current LSLAs, together with the fear of immediate expropriation by the government, serve to hinder these innovations. Four key insights are particularly important from the findings presented here.

has been a growing level of apprehension concerning land expropriation, thereby undermining incentives to invest labor in SLM. 6. Concluding discussion and land use policy implications Although a variety of agricultural adaptations to climate change have been studied in the literature (Niang et al., 2014; Partey et al., 2018), few studies have examined whether and how LSLAs affect these adaptation measures, especially agroecological innovations that are knowledge- and labor-intensive (Aha and Ayitey, 2017). This study set out to investigate how contemporary LSLAs shape farmers’ ability to 8

Land Use Policy 92 (2020) 104469

H. Nyantakyi-Frimpong

processes and the State (Fairbairn, 2013; Hausermann and Ferring, 2018; Wolford et al., 2013). Eminent domain is typically justified through discourses of development for “public benefits” (Larbi et al., 2004). Rather than benefiting the public, however, it consolidates land in the hands of powerful actors and institutions (Hausermann, 2018; Obeng-Odoom, 2012; Tsikata and Yaro, 2014). This shows how Stateled development, often framed in “beneficial” terms, facilitates land grabbing and exacerbates inequality (Fairbairn, 2013; Musah, 2017). As Wolford et al. (2013, p. 192) argue, “states are not simply passive victims in these deals: they are not coerced into accessing foreign capital by selling off pieces of their national territory to more powerful economic or political players. State actors are active, calculating partners in land deals.” Similarly, the findings also speak to the complex dynamics of State-society relations in Ghana, including democratic participation, forms of accountability, and citizens’ trust in the government. An important aspect of this paper’s findings is that, in speaking about an issue as banal as zaï and land tenure, farmers are at once addressing larger questions of what enables citizens to recognize State institutions as trustworthy. More specifically, the findings in Table 3, which corroborate existing research (e.g., Boamah, 2014; Hausermann, 2018; Hausermann and Ferring, 2018; Obeng-Odoom and Gyampo, 2017), contrast sharply with Ghana’s heralded democratic ideals of transparency, public accountability, citizen participation, and good governance (Siakwah, 2017; Transparency International, 2018). Given that these findings come from the poorest part of Ghana, this study also helps to understand the “State” from its “margins,” It offers a lens to consider the ways that everyday practices around eminent domain impinge on trust in government, as one facet of State–society relations. Finally, the points discussed above have several implications for land use policy. Compulsory land acquisition is a tool that should be used in ways that bring optimum benefits particularly to the poor in society. A proper policy environment needs to ensure that sustainable agriculture and livelihoods are not compromised at the expense of enhancing development for the broader public good. Based upon the findings of this study, it could be concluded that there is weak enforcement of legislative provisions governing eminent domain in Ghana. In this vein, more inclusive measures must be taken by the State to address the negative impacts of land expropriation and to ensure equity and improved socio-economic conditions. For example, there should be strategies for transparent enforcement of all requirements that should be met before executing eminent domain. Within the land governance system, local chiefs should also not be allowed to use their privileged position for their own benefit (Ahmed et al., 2018; Boamah, 2014). The current Ghanaian Land Bill provides hope for addressing some of these issues. This Land Bill has introduced some progressive and innovative measures designed to regulate the State’s compulsory acquisition of land (Dowuona-Hammond, 2019). It is hoped that compliance with provisions in the Land Bill will substantially reduce the existing anxiety among indigenous farmers, particularly the negative consequences associated with LSLAs. Until those in power learn to respect customary land rights and the laws governing eminent domain, it would be difficult to overcome what lies beneath farmers’ inability to improve their lands in a changing climate.

Table 4 Smallholder farmers’ awareness of legislative provisions governing compulsory land acquisitions in Ghana (n = 54). Question

Response n (%)

Are you aware of the legislative provisions on informed consent? Yes No Are you aware of the legislative provisions on prompt, fair, and just compensation? Yes No Are you aware of the legislative provisions on how land should be valued for compensation? Yes No Are you aware of the legislative provisions on how to seek redress when eminent domain is executed to your dissatisfaction? Yes No

5 (9%) 49 (91%) 7 (13%) 47 (87%)

2 (4%) 52 (96%)

4 (7%) 50 (93%)

Data Source: Author’s fieldwork.

Firstly, there are several socio-ecological reasons why a farming system like zaï should be supported. A number of studies have documented the extent to which such agroecological practices increase resilience in the face of climate change. More specifically, these agroecological practices conserve water and land, help to manage plant pests and diseases, and increase the efficient use of limited farming resources (Altieri and Nicholls, 2017; Reij and Waters-Bayer, 2001; Table 2). For the most part, socio-ecological risks are minimized and resilience maximized in agricultural systems that are characterized by high levels of indigenous innovations (Nyong et al., 2007; Reij and Waters-Bayer, 2001). Within the last ten years, there have been persistent calls, including from high-level panel of international experts, to support agroecological innovations that can boost food production without incurring undue risks on human and environmental health (HLPE (High Level Panel of Experts), 2019; IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development), 2009). As Nyong et al. (2007), and Altieri and Nicholls (2017) have all argued, climate adaptive capacity could be significantly strengthened if more support is targeted at local forms of agency and ingenuity. Secondly, this paper highlights how land expropriation acts as a social barrier to farmer innovations as a form of adaptation to climate change. The implications of LSLAs are diverse. In many cases, land expropriation has affected food and livelihood security, income sources, and further marginalization of indigenous farmers (Aha and Ayitey, 2017; Bukari and Kuusaana, 2018; Hausermann et al., 2018; Tsikata and Yaro, 2014). The findings presented here add to this fast-growing body of scholarship, by revealing further impacts on farmer apprehension, tenure security, and incentives to innovate in response to climate risks. In the case study analyzed here, farmers’ apprehension stems from the politics of informed consent, compensation payment, and deprivation of indigenous communities of their land rights. Based on past experiences, there is growing uncertainty on how the politics of future expropriation would play out. Consequently, farmers do not want to risk spending their labor in climate risk management. This includes even those with land tenure security; indeed, while many previous studies have hypothesized that security of tenure encourages agricultural investments (Fenske, 2011; Higgins et al., 2018), this was not the case in the current study. The findings here could be classified as an example of how adaptation could be hindered by governance, institutions, and policy at the extra-local scale, including not only existing land use laws, but also the constitutional guarantee of private property (Biesbroek et al., 2013; Klein et al., 2014; Obeng-Odoom, 2012). Thirdly, the findings here speak to the political economy of eminent domain and the contradictory relationship between land grabbing

Funding This paper is based on long-term fieldwork that has been supported by different organizations. Early stages of the fieldwork were funded by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Canada [Grant # 106690-99906075-013]; the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), Canada; and the Land Deal Politics Initiative (LDPI), International Institute of Social Studies, The Netherlands. More recent fieldwork activities and data analyses have been funded by the University of Denver’s Faculty Research Fund [Grant # 86906-145015]; the Department of Geography and the Environment, University of 9

Land Use Policy 92 (2020) 104469

H. Nyantakyi-Frimpong

Denver; and a Public Good Fund from the University of Denver’s Center for Community Engagement to advance Scholarship and Learning (CCESL) [Grant # 86847].

pastoralists’ in the Agogo Traditional Area of Ghana. Land Use Policy 79, 748–758. Crook, R.C., 2004. Access to justice and land disputes in Ghana’s state courts: the litigants’ perspective. J. Leg. Plur. Unoff. Law 36 (50), 1–28. Danso-Abbeam, G., Dagunga, G., Ehiakpor, D.S., 2019. Adoption of Zai technology for soil fertility management: evidence from Upper East region, Ghana. J. Econ. Struct. 8 (1), 32. Dapilah, F., Nielsen, J., Friis, C., 2019. The role of social networks in building adaptive capacity and resilience to climate change: a case study from northern Ghana. Clim. Dev. 1–15. Dowuona-Hammond, C., 2019. Rationalising the basis for utilization of compulsorily acquired property in Ghana: issues arising. Land Use Policy 81, 546–552. Fairbairn, M., 2013. Indirect dispossession: domestic power imbalances and foreign access to land in Mozambique. Dev. Change 44 (2), 335–356. Fatondji, D., Martius, C., Bielders, C.L., Vlek, P.L., Bationo, A., Gerard, B., 2006. Effect of planting technique and amendment type on pearl millet yield, nutrient uptake, and water use on degraded land in Niger. Nutrient Cycl. Agroecosyst 76 (2e3), e203–e217. Fenske, J., 2011. Land tenure and investment incentives: evidence from West Africa. J. Dev. Econ. 95 (2), 137–156. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2002. Land Tenure and Rural Development. FAO Land Tenure Studies No. 3. German, L., Schoneveld, G., Mwangi, E., 2013. Contemporary processes of large-scale land acquisition in Sub-Saharan Africa: legal deficiency or elite capture of the rule of law? World Dev. 48, 1–18. Ghana Statistical Service, 2013. The 2010 Population and Housing Census: Regional Analytical Report for the Upper West Region. Ghana Statistical Service, Accra, Ghana. Ghana Statistical Service, 2014. Ghana Living Standards Survey Round 6 (GLSS6): Poverty Profile in Ghana (2005–2013). Accra, Ghana. Guvele, C., Zereyesus, Y.A., Ross, K.L., Gutierrez, E.G., Mzyece, A., Amanor-Boadu, V., 2016. Feed the Future Indicators for Upper West Region, Ghana 2015 District Baseline Estimates. Department of Agricultural Economics, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA. Hall, R., 2011. Land grabbing in Southern Africa: the many faces of the investor rush. Rev. Afr. Polit. Econ. 38 (128), 193–214. Hausermann, H., 2018. “Ghana must progress, but we are really suffering”: bui dam, antipolitics development, and the livelihood implications for rural people. Soc. Nat. Resour. 31 (6), 633–648. Hausermann, H., Ferring, D., 2018. Unpacking land grabs: subjects, performances and the state in Ghana’s ‘Small‐scale’ gold mining sector. Dev. Change 49 (4), 1010–1033. Hausermann, H., Ferring, D., Atosona, B., Mentz, G., Amankwah, R., Chang, A., Sastri, N., 2018. Land-grabbing, land-use transformation and social differentiation: deconstructing “small-scale” in Ghana’s recent gold rush. World Dev. 108, 103–114. Higgins, D., Balint, T., Liversage, H., Winters, P., 2018. Investigating the impacts of increased rural land tenure security: a systematic review of the evidence. J. Rural Stud. 61, 34–62. HLPE (High Level Panel of Experts), 2011. Land Tenure and International Investments in Agriculture. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome, Italy. HLPE (High Level Panel of Experts), 2019. Agroecological and Other Innovative Approaches for Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems That Enhance Food Security and Nutrition. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. Rome, Italy. IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development), 2009. In: MacIntyre, B.D., Herren, H.R., Wakhungu, J., Watson, R.T. (Eds.), Agriculture at a Crossroads: Global Report. Island Press, Washington, DC. Kaiser, D., Lepage, M., Konaté, S., Linsenmair, K.E., 2017. Ecosystem services of termites (Blattoidea: termitoidae) in the traditional soil restoration and cropping system Zaï in northern Burkina Faso (West Africa). Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 236, 198–211. Kasanga, R.K., Kotey, N.A., 2001. Land Management in Ghana: Building on Tradition and Modernity. Kidido, J.K., Ayitey, J.Z., Kuusaana, E.D., Gavu, E.K., 2015. Who is the rightful recipient of mining compensation for land use deprivation in Ghana? Resour. Policy 43, 19–27. Klein, R.J.T., Midgley, G.F., Preston, B.L., Alam, M., Berkhout, F.G.H., Dow, K., Shaw, M.R., 2014. Adaptation opportunities, constraints, and limits. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 899–943. Koome, D.N., 2017. Factors Influencing the Adoption of Zaï Pit Farming Technology to Enhance Food Security: the Case of Makueni County, Kenya. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. University of Nairobi. Kuusaana, E.D., Eledi, J.A., 2015. Customary land allocation, urbanization and land use planning in Ghana: implications for food systems in the Wa Municipality. Land Use Policy 48, 454–466. Lambrecht, I., Asare, S., 2016. The complexity of local tenure systems: a smallholders’ perspective on tenure in Ghana. Land Use Policy 58, 251–263. Larbi, W.O., Antwi, A., Olomolaiye, P., 2004. Compulsory land acquisition in Ghana—policy and praxis. Land Use Policy 21 (2), 115–127. Leichenko, R., O’Brien, K., 2008. Environmental Change and Globalization: Double Exposures. Oxford University Press. Mati, B.M., 2006. Overview of Water and Soil Nutrient Management Under Smallholder Rain-fed Agriculture in East Africa(Vol. 105). IWMI. Miles, M.B., Huberman, M., Saldana, J., 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. SAGE, Thousand Oaks. Millar, D., 1999. Farmers’ paths of experimentation: the PTD process in northern ghana. ILEIA Newsletter 15 (1/2), 43–45.

Declaration of Competing Interest None. Acknowledgements This project would not have been possible without the cooperation of smallholder farmers in Ghana’s Upper West Region. I am particularly indebted to Sheila Badong who has always pointed me to key sources of information crucial for my research. Thanks to Karen Van Kerkoerle for preparing all figures in the paper, and also to Dinko Hanaan Dinko for research assistance. A preliminary draft of this paper was presented at a symposium on Water Conservation in Africa, organized by The Africa Center at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado (April 2019). Thanks to Kathleen Galvin and all the symposium participants for critical feedback. The final article benefited substantially from constructive feedback given by two anonymous reviewers. References Adams, E.A., Kuusaana, E.D., Ahmed, A., Campion, B.B., 2019. Land dispossessions and water appropriations: Political ecology of land and water grabs in Ghana. Land Use Policy 87, 104068. Aha, B., Ayitey, J.Z., 2017. Biofuels and the hazards of land grabbing: tenure (in) security and indigenous farmers’ investment decisions in Ghana. Land Use Policy 60, 48–59. Ahmed, A., Abubakari, Z., Gasparatos, A., 2019. Labelling large-scale land acquisitions as land grabs: procedural and distributional considerations from two cases in Ghana. Geoforum 105, 191–205. Ahmed, A., Kuusaana, E.D., Gasparatos, A., 2018. The role of chiefs in large-scale land acquisitions for jatropha production in Ghana: insights from agrarian political economy. Land Use Policy 75, 570–582. Akologo, S.Z., Guri, B.Y., 2016. Unmasking Land Grabbing in Ghana: Restoring Livelihoods; Paving the Way for Sustainable Development Goals. A Report of CARITAS Ghana. Al-hassan, S., 2013. Reducing poverty in northern Ghana through the Savannah accelerated development authority: what do people expect? In: Yaro, J.A. (Ed.), Rural Development in Northern Ghana. Nova Science Publishers, New York, NY, pp. 249–252. Altieri, M.A., Nicholls, C.I., 2017. The adaptation and mitigation potential of traditional agriculture in a changing climate. Clim. Change 140 (1), 33–45. Amanor, K.S., 2010. Family values, land sales and agricultural commodification in SouthEastern Ghana. Africa 80 (1), 104–125. Amede, T., Menza, M., Awlachew, S.B., 2011. Zai improves nutrient and water productivity in the Ethiopian highlands. Exp. Agric. 47 (S1), 7–20. Antabe, R., Atuoye, K.N., Kuuire, V.Z., Sano, Y., Arku, G., Luginaah, I., 2017. Community health impacts of surface mining in the Upper West Region of Ghana: the roles of mining odors and dust. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 23 (4), 798–813. Antwi-Agyei, P., Dougill, A.J., Stringer, L.C., 2015. Impacts of land tenure arrangements on the adaptive capacity of marginalized groups: the case of Ghana’s Ejura Sekyedumase and Bongo districts. Land Use Policy 49, 203–212. Behrman, J., Meinzen-Dick, R., Quisumbing, A., 2012. The gender implications of largescale land deals. J. Peasant Stud. 39 (1), 49–79. Beyuo, A., 2018. NGO grassroots participatory approaches to promoting sustainable agriculture: reality or Myth in Ghana’s Upper-West Region? Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 1–11. Biesbroek, G.R., Klostermann, J.E., Termeer, C.J., Kabat, P., 2013. On the nature of barriers to climate change adaptation. Reg. Environ. Change 13 (5), 1119–1129. Boamah, F., 2014. How and why chiefs formalise land use in recent times: the politics of land dispossession through biofuels investments in Ghana. Rev. Afr. Polit. Econ. 41 (141), 406–423. Brasselle, A.S., Gaspart, F., Platteau, J.P., 2002. Land tenure security and investment incentives: puzzling evidence from Burkina Faso. J. Dev. Econ. 67 (2), 373–418. Brobby, K.W., 1991. Customary tenure and locus standi in compensation claims in Ghana. J. Prop. Valuat. Invest. 9 (4), 313–322. Bruce, J., Wendland, K.J., Naughton-Treves, L., 2010. Whom to Pay? Key Concepts and Terms Regarding Tenure and Property Rights in Payment-based Forest Ecosystem Conservation. Land Tenure Center Policy Brief, University of Wisconsin - Madison, USA. Buah, S.S., Opoku, G., 2013. Report on Soil Physical and Chemical Properties for Soybean Production in Upper West Region of Ghana. Savanna Agricultural Research Institute, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Wa, Ghana. Bugri, J.T., 2012. Improving Land Sector Governance in Ghana: Implementation of the Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF). Washington, DC: The World Bank. Bukari, K.N., Kuusaana, E.D., 2018. Impacts of large-scale land holdings on Fulani

10

Land Use Policy 92 (2020) 104469

H. Nyantakyi-Frimpong

Agricultural Development. Routledge. Reij, C., Tappan, G., Smale, M., 2009. Agroenvironmental Transformation in the Sahel. Another Kind of Green Revolution. International Food Policy Research Institute., Washington, DC. Republic of Ghana, 1992. The 1992 Constitution. Roose, E., Kabore, V., Guenat, C., 1999. Zaï practice: a West African traditional rehabilitation system for semiarid degraded lands, a case study in Burkina Faso. Arid. Soil Res. Rehabil. 13 (4), 343–355. Sawadogo, H., Hien, F., Sohoro, A., Kambou, F., 2001. Pits for Trees: How Farmers in Semiarid Burkina Faso Increase and Diversify Plant Biomass. Farmer Innovation in Africa: a Source of Inspiration for Agricultural Development. Schlager, E., Ostrom, E., 1992. Property-rights regimes and natural resources: a conceptual analysis. Land Econ. 249–262. Siakwah, P., 2017. Are natural resource windfalls a blessing or a curse in democratic settings? Globalized assemblages and the problematic impacts of oil on Ghana’s development. Resour. Policy 52, 122–133. Sumberg, J., Thompson, J. (Eds.), 2012. Contested Agronomy: Agricultural Research in a Changing World. Routledge, London. Transparency International, 2018. Corruption Perception Index 2018. Berlin, Germany. Available at https://www.transparency.org/cpi2018. Accessed on December 12, 2019. . Tsikata, D., Yaro, J.F., 2014. When a good business model is not enough: land transactions and gendered livelihood prospects in rural Ghana. Fem. Econ. 20 (1), 202–226. Ubink, J., 2008. In the Land of the Chiefs: Customary Law, Land Conflicts and the Role of the State in Peri-Urban Ghana. Leiden: University of Leiden Press. Vermeulen, S., Cotula, L., 2010. Over the heads of local people: consultation, consent, and recompense in large-scale land deals for biofuels projects in Africa. J. Peasant Stud. 37 (4), 899–916. Warries, H., Hodgson, S., William, D., Widenbar, L., Neeling, G., 2012. Wa Gold Project, Ghana, 43-101. Technical Report. Azumah Resources Limited. < http://www. azumahresources.com.au/documents/NI43-101_Aug2012.pdf > (Accessed on July 19, 2019). . Wildemeersch, J.C., Garba, M., Sabiou, M., Sleutel, S., Cornelis, W., 2015. The effect of water and soil conservation (WSC) on the soil chemical, biological, and physical quality of a Plinthosol in Niger. Land Degrad. Dev. 26 (7), 773–783. Wolford, W., Borras Jr., S.M., Hall, R., Scoones, I., White, B., 2013. Governing global land deals: the role of the state in the rush for land. Dev. Change 44 (2), 189–210. World Vision International, 2016. Talensi Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration Project. Third Quarter Report. World Vision Ghana. Yangmaadome, B.G., Faabelangne, D.B., Derbile, E.K., Hiemstra, W., Verschuuren, B., 2012. Sacred groves versus gold mines: biocultural community protocols in Ghana. In: Swiderska, K., Milligan, A., Kohli, K., Jonas, H., Shrumm, H., Hiemstra, W., Oliva, M.J. (Eds.), Biodiversity and Culture: Exploring Community Protocols, Rights and Consent. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, United Kingdom, pp. 121–130. Yaro, J.A., 2010. Customary tenure systems under siege: contemporary access to land in Northern Ghana. GeoJournal 75 (2), 199–214. Yegon, R., Mtakwa, P.W., Mrema, G.C., Ngetich, F.K., 2016. Planting Pits’ Effects on Soil Nutrients in a Sorghum and Pigeon Pea Rotation in Semi-Arid Areas of Eastern Kenya.

Moomen, A.W., Dewan, A., 2016. Analysis of spatial interactions between the Shea industry and mining sector activities in the emerging north-west gold province of Ghana. Resour. Policy 48, 104–111. Moomen, A.W., Dewan, A., Corner, R., 2016. Landscape assessment for sustainable resettlement of potentially displaced communities in Ghana’s emerging northwest gold province. J. Clean. Prod. 133, 701–711. Moreda, T., 2018. Contesting conventional wisdom on the links between land tenure security and land degradation: evidence from Ethiopia. Land Use Policy 77, 75–83. Moussa, B.M., Diouf, A., Abdourahamane, S.I., Axelsen, J.A., Ambouta, K.J., Mahamane, A., 2016. Combined traditional water harvesting (Zaï) and mulching techniques increase available Soil phosphorus content and millet yield. J. Agric. Sci. 8 (4). Musah, M.V., 2017. State, Community and Environmentalism: a Comparative Study of Tanchara and Cherikpong in Resisting Mining Operations in the Upper West Region of Ghana. Master’s Thesis. International Institute of Social Studies, The Netherlands. Niang, I., Ruppel, O.C., Abdrabo, M.A., Essel, A., Lennard, C., Padgham, J., Urquhart, P., 2014. Africa. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Nyantakyi-Frimpong, H., Bezner-Kerr, R., 2015. The relative importance of climate change in the context of multiple stressors in semi-arid Ghana. Glob. Environ. Chang. Part A 32, 40–56. Nyantakyi-Frimpong, H., Bezner-Kerr, R., 2017. Land grabbing, social differentiation, intensified migration and food security in northern Ghana. J. Peasant Stud. 44 (2), 421–444. Nyong, A., Adesina, F., Elasha, B.O., 2007. The value of indigenous knowledge in climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies in the African Sahel. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 12 (5), 787–797. Obeng-Odoom, F., 2012. Natural resource abundance and eminent domain: a case study from Africa. Local Econ. 27 (4), 319–325. Obeng-Odoom, F., 2016. Understanding land reform in Ghana: a critical postcolonial institutional approach. Rev. Radic. Polit. Econ. 48 (4), 661–680. Obeng-Odoom, F., Gyampo, R.E.V., 2017. Land Grabbing, Land Rights, and the Role of the Courts. Geography Research Forum. Obeng-Odoom, F., Stilwell, F., 2013. Security of tenure in international development discourse. Int. Dev. Plan. Rev. 35 (4), 315–333. Partey, S.T., Zougmoré, R.B., Ouédraogo, M., Campbell, B.M., 2018. Developing climatesmart agriculture to face climate variability in West Africa: challenges and lessons learnt. J. Clean. Prod. 187, 285–295. Patton, M.Q., 2014. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice, 4th ed. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA. Place, F., Hazell, P., 1993. Productivity effects of indigenous land tenure systems in subSaharan Africa. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 75 (1), 10–19. Place, F., Roth, M., Hazell, P., 1994. Land tenure security and agricultural performance in Africa: overview of research methodology. In: Bruce, J., Migot-Adholla, S. (Eds.), Searching for Land Tenure Security in Africa. Kendall/Hunt., Dubuque, IA. Pretty, J., Toulmin, C., Williams, S., 2011. Sustainable intensification in African agriculture. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 9 (1), 5–24. Reij, C., Waters-Bayer, A., 2001. Farmer Innovation in Africa: a Source of Inspiration for

11