Drought and Migration in Northern Ghana

Abstract

Drought is one of the leading environmental challenges to farmers worldwide. Research has shown several response strategies to this challenge but little is known of its relationship to migration. Moreso studies have had little to say of the mediating circumstances leading to drought-induced migration. The research investigates the relationship between drought and migration and how migration decisions are mediated and reflected under drought-induced conditions among households in the villages of Kpalung, Laligu, Tunaayili, Libga and Zaazi in the Savelugu/ Nanton district in northern Ghana. The study does this by examining farmer‟s perception of drought, the reasons for migration, and the various manifestations of drought-related migration and the processes involved in the decision to migrate under drought-vulnerability circumstances. Results show that farmers perceive drought as generally the lack of rain accompanied by heat which together last long enough to constrain plant growth and result in lower yields or total crop failure. Farmers attributed drought to three main factors; human activities, natural causes and super natural reasons. Generally, farmers see drought as the most important constraining factor to agricultural production. The perception of the phenomenon is therefore largely contingent on the economic, social and cultural circumstances within which people experience it. Farmers‟ perceptions of drought influence the adoption of migration as a livelihood strategy. The study finds a significant relationship between drought and migration. About fifty one percent of the people who have experienced migration at one time or another mentioned drought as a reason for their migrations. In addition, through a binary logistic regression, the study finds out that drought-related migration is generally determined by sex, availability of irrigation facility in the village and having more land in drought prone area. Males other than females, people whose villages do not have irrigation schemes and people from households with more land in drought prone area are more likely to migrate because of drought. Migration is used as a coping and adaptation strategy to drought. The study also found that in addition to out-migration, drought also influences return migration. Furthermore, migration experiences may result in immobility during subsequent droughts. Migration responses to drought-vulnerability, however, are mediated by a multiplicity of non drought-related factors. Multiple migration decision-making pathways are encountered by households that consider the general socio-economic and environmental conditions of both sending and destination areas. Drought vulnerability is therefore not a sufficient condition for migration. The study recommends that policies ensure rural farmers have multiple response capabilities to drought vulnerability. Livelihood adaptation or diversification through irrigation schemes is one of the best options to consider given the agrarian nature of the rural communities in northern Ghana. It is also important to enhance the ability of rural communities to conduct agricultural extensification (bush-farming) as it is one of the effective response strategies to recurrent drought. Enhancing bush-farming will involve improvement in transportation between rural villages and also the construction of roads connecting major interior farm-settlements to the nearest villages. Enhancing local coping and adaptation abilities of rural people will remove or reduce the possibilities of households being compelled to rely on migration and make the strategy a choice. It is also imperative to enhance the benefits of migration as a livelihood strategy by ensuring the safe flow of remittances to the origin through establishment of more rural banks for example. The revelations from the study villages of the importance of rural-rural migration as a strategy to deal with drought suggest that rural-rural migration deserves some more attention particularly from migration scholars. This is imperative as farm-livelihood systems are still dominant contrary to the expectations of some scholars in the 1980s and early 1990s.