UNIVERSITY OF GHANA DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT THE MINING-AGRICULTURE NEXUS AND FOOD SECURITY IN KENYASI, AHAFO REGION. BY FRANK BOACHIE-MENSAH (10277652) THIS THESIS IS SUBMITTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF GHANA, LEGON IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF MPHIL GEOGRAPHY AND RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEGREE DECEMBER, 2021 BY BUDUAN YAKUBU DIMMIE (10441832) University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh ii DECLARATION I, Frank Boachie-Mensah, declare that except for references to works which have been duly cited and acknowledged, this thesis is the result of my own original research carried out under the guidance of my supervisors, Professor Joseph Awetori Yaro and Dr. Lydia Osei of the Department of Geography and Resource Development, University of Ghana, Legon. I also certify that this thesis has not been submitted ln part or whole for the award of any degree elsewhere. The names of individuals cited in this thesis are fictional. Any resemblance thereof to any existing name is unintentional. December 8, 2021 December 8, 2021 Frank Boachie-Mensah (Candidate’s Name) Date …………………………… Prof. Joseph Awetori Yaro (Principal Supervisor) …………………………… Date ………………………….. Dr. Lydia Osei (Co-Supervisor) …………………………. Date University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh iii DEDICATION I dedicate this work to my late father, Gareth Boachie-Mensah, mother, siblings, my wife Barbara Donkor and all my colleagues for their immense support. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to offer my heartfelt thanks and appreciation to God Almighty and the following people who gave their help and time to make this study possible. I am very grateful to my supervisors, Professor Joseph Awetori Yaro and Dr Lydia Osei for their invaluable advice and encouragement throughout this study and for their patience in correcting and commenting on the various drafts. I extend my gratitude to all my lecturers, the farmers, MOFA officials, my colleague MPhil students of the above-mentioned department, and other important people I spent the period with and without whom many things of relevance to this study may never have been revealed. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh v TABLE OF CONTENTS DECLARATION ....................................................................................................................... ii DEDICATION ......................................................................................................................... iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................... iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... v LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................... x LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................. xi ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................... xiii CHAPTER ONE ........................................................................................................................ 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Problem Statement ...................................................................................................... 5 1.3 Research Objectives .................................................................................................... 8 1.3.1 Specific Research Objectives ............................................................................... 8 1.4 Research questions ...................................................................................................... 9 1.5 Significance ................................................................................................................. 9 1.6 The organization of the study .................................................................................... 10 CHAPTER TWO……………………………………………………………………………..11 LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………………………………….11 2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 11 2.2 Concept of livelihood ................................................................................................ 11 2.3 Changing livelihoods in rural Africa ................................................................... 11-12 2.4 The agricultural sector in Ghana ......................................................................... 13-14 2.5 Challenges in the agricultural sector and implications on livelihood strategies . 14-16 2.6 2.5 Rural livelihood diversification into non-farm ventures ............................... 16-18 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh vi 2.7 Rural diversification into non-farm ventures ...................................................... 19-21 2.8 Small-scale mining .............................................................................................. 21-24 2.9 Food security ............................................................................................................. 24 2.9.1 SSM and Food Security ............................................................................... 24-26 2.10 Agriculture and food security .............................................................................. 26-28 2.10.1 The synergy between agriculture and SSM and its impact on food security .. 28-30 2.11 Trade-offs and their impact on food security ...................................................... 30-32 2.12 Conceptual framework .............................................................................................. 32 2.12.1 Sustainable Livelihood Framework ............................................................. 32-34 2.12.2 Conceptualization of Food Security............................................................. 35-41 2.13 Critiques…………………………………………………………………….42-43 STUDY AREA AND METHODOLOGY ............................................................................... 44 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 44 3.2 The profile of the study district ........................................................................... 44-45 3.2.1 The population and economic activities ...................................................... 45-46 3.3 Research Design and Data Sources ..................................................................... 46-47 3.4 The survey and its sampling ................................................................................ 48-51 3.5 Data collection........................................................................................................... 51 3.5.1 Data collection procedures ........................................................................... 51-53 3.6 Data analysis ............................................................................................................. 53 3.6.1 Quantitative Analysis ................................................................................... 53-54 3.6.2 Qualitative Analysis……………………………………………………………….54 3.7 Challenges during the research ................................................................................. 54 3.8 Ethical considerations ............................................................................................... 55 CHAPTER FOUR .................................................................................................................... 56 FARMING AND MINING LIVELIHOODS IN THE KENYASI ......................................... 56 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 56 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh vii 4.2 Socio-economic and demographic profiles ......................................................... 56-59 4.3 Livelihoods in the communities .......................................................................... 59-60 4.3.1 Income levels ............................................................................................... 60-61 4.3.2 Duration of work in chosen livelihood ........................................................ 61-62 4.4 Farming livelihoods in Kenyasi ................................................................................ 62 4.4.1 Participation in farming ............................................................................... 62-63 4.4.2 Crops grown and farm sizes ......................................................................... 63-67 4.4.3 Access to Land for farming.......................................................................... 67-68 4.4.4 Sources of labour ......................................................................................... 68-70 4.4.5 Motivations for involvement in farming ...................................................... 70-71 4.4.5.1 Food for the family…………………………………………………………….71 4.4.5.2 Income generation…………………………………………………………..71-72 4.4.5.3 Inheritance…………………………………………………………………..72-73 4.4.5.4 Prestige…………………………………………………………………………73 4.5 Determinants of success in farming .......................................................................... 73 4.5.1 Farmland availability ................................................................................... 73-74 4.5.2 Soil Fertility ....................................................................................................... 74 4.6 Challenges in farming ......................................................................................... 75-77 4.6.1 Falling farm yields and profitability .................................................................. 77 4.6.2 Financial challenges ..................................................................................... 77-78 4.6.3 Dwindling labour ............................................................................................... 78 4.6.4 Labour Availability ............................................................................................ 79 4.7 Mining livelihoods in Kenyasi ............................................................................ 79-80 4.7.1 Participation in mining ................................................................................. 80-83 4.7.2 Access to mining lands or concessions ........................................................ 83-85 4.7.3 Indirect employment – food vendors, suppliers, traders .............................. 85-86 4.8 Motivations for involvement in mining .................................................................... 86 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh viii 4.8.1 Income generation and high prices .............................................................. 86-87 4.8.2 Prestige ............................................................................................................... 87 4.9 Determinants of entry and success in mining............................................................ 87 4.9.1 Capital availability and access ........................................................................... 88 4.9.2 Skills .................................................................................................................. 88 4.9.3 Access to mining land .................................................................................. 89-90 4.10 General challenges facing mining livelihoods .......................................................... 90 4.10.1 Regulations from environmental authorities ...................................................... 90 4.10.2 Dangers to mining – pit collapses ...................................................................... 91 4.11 LINKAGES BETWEEN FARM AND MINING ............................................... 91-95 4.12 Chapter conclusions/discussions ......................................................................... 95-96 CHAPTER FIVE...................................................................................................................... 97 THE RELATIVE CONTRIBUTION OF SMALL-SCALE MINING AND FARMING TO FOOD SECURITY .................................................................................................................. 97 5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 97 5.2 The contribution of farming to food security ...................................................... 97-98 5.2.1 Farm incomes ............................................................................................... 98-99 The contribution of mining to food security ................................................................ 99-100 5.2.2 Incomes from mining ....................................................................................... 100 5.3 The food security status of households ........................................................... 101-102 5.4 The synergies and trade-offs between small-scale mining and farming ................. 102 5.4.1 Synergies between mining and farming in achieving food security ........ 102-103 5.4.1.1 Capital for investment……………………………………………………103-104 5.4.1.2 Employment……………………………………………………………..........105 5.4.1.3 The family division of labour…………………………………………………106 5.4.2 Contradictions and challenges integrating farming and mining ...................... 106 5.4.2.1 Challenges posed by mining to farmers………………………………………106 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh ix 5.4.2.2 Land degradation…………………………………………………………….107 5.4.2.3 Labour shortages…………………………………………………………….107 5.4.2.4 Increased prices of basic commodities………………………………………108 5.4.2.5 Difficult access to land……………………………………………………….108 5.5 Challenges posed by farmers to miners…………………………………………….109 5.5.1 Competition for land ................................................................................ 109-110 5.5.2 Competition for labour ..................................................................................... 110 5.5.3 Competition for capital ............................................................................ 110-111 5.6 Chapter conclusions/discussion ...................................................................... 111-113 CHAPTER SIX ...................................................................................................................... 114 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................... 114 6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 114 6.2 Summary of findings ............................................................................................... 114 6.2.1 Farming livelihoods in Kenyasi ............................................................... 114-115 6.2.2 Mining livelihoods in Kenyasi ................................................................. 115-116 6.2.3 Determinants/motivations of household choice of the two livelihood systems. 116 6.2.4 Contribution of small-scale mining and farming to the food security status of households...................................................................................................................... 116 6.2.5 Synergies and contradictions between mining and farming .................... 116-117 6.3 Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 117-119 6.4 Recommendations ........................................................................................... 119-120 REFERENCES............................................................................................................... 121-138 APPENDICES ....................................................................................................................... 139 APPENDIX 1 ......................................................................................................................... 139 RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE.................................................................................. 139-151 APPENDIX 2 ......................................................................................................................... 152 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh x INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR FARMERS AND MINERS .............................................. 152-153 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Demographics ............................................................................................................. 45 Table 2 Diversification of livelihoods ..................................................................................... 49 Table 3 Duration of work in chosen livelihood....................................................................... 50 Table 4 Farm sizes cultivated by participants.......................................................................... 55 Table 5 Nature Farm Labour .................................................................................................... 57 Table 6 Origin of small-scale miners ....................................................................................... 68 Table 7 Demographic Profile of Small Scale Miners.............................................................. 69 Table 8 Mining License Status of Miners................................................................................ 70 Table 9 Income from crop farming .......................................................................................... 83 Table 10 Income from mining ................................................................................................. 85 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh xi Table 12 Livelihood activity and household food security status............................................ 86 Table 13 Utilization of mining income in farming .................................................................. 89 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Sustainable Livelihoods Framework, Department for International Development (DFID, 2000)............................................................................................................................ 29 Figure 2: Conceptual Framework: Adaptation of the SLF, Researcher’s Construct, 2020..... 30 Figure 3 Food and Nutrition Security Conceptual Framework………………………………33 Figure 4 Asutifi North District Map ........................................................................................ 36 Figure 5 A female farmer in Kenyasi...................................................................................... 51 Figure 6 A maize farm (Asutifi North District, 2020) ............................................................. 53 Figure7: Main crops are grown...............................................................................................53 Figure 8: Reasons for involvement in farming ........................................................................ 59 Figure 9 Farming Challenges ................................................................................................... 63 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh xii Figure 10 Small-scale mining activities....................................................................................67 Figure 11 A female miner........................................................................................................ 68 Figure 12 A mining site........................................................................................................... 70 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh xiii ABSTRACT Food security has been of paramount importance since time immemorial considering the crucial role of food in the survival of human beings. Food security is one of the Sustainable Development Goals. Despite all the global efforts toward ensuring food security, food security in sub-Saharan Africa (especially the rural parts) still ought to be attended to. Livelihood diversification has become very crucial in the face of the rapid challenges engulfing the agricultural sector. Small-scale mining has become an option for rural dwellers in mineral-rich areas in Ghana. This study, therefore, seeks to investigate the relative contribution of farming and mining livelihoods to food security. This study adopted a case study descriptive design and made use of the mixed-method approach. The findings of the study were about the objectives of study which are to assess the nature and level of usage of the two major livelihood strategies, to examine the determinants/motivations of household choice of the two livelihood systems, to discuss the relative contribution of small-scale mining and farming to the food security status of households and finally, to analyse the challenges of employing small-scale mining and farming activities in terms of contradictions and synergies. Following the first objective, the study shows that a majority of the inhabitants were into farming and mining, with farming being the dominant occupation amongst the residents of Kenyasi. The study also observed that a majority of the inhabitants earned relatively lower incomes (usually less than 1,000 cedis per month). This could be attributed to the fact that most of the farmers were only engaged in subsistence farming and only sold their produce when they had a surplus. Despite being a farming community, it was surprisingly identified that food shortage was prevalent in Kenyasi as most households indicated that there was not enough food for them throughout the year. For the second objective, the study found that farmers ventured into farming to be able to provide food for their consumption and sell the surplus to local markets. Those engaged in mining, it was mainly motivated by the higher income levels. The results from the fourth objective show that the synergies and trade-offs between mining and farming in contributing to livelihoods and food security were complementary. However, the operation of mining activities led to the destruction of farmlands within the community. The third objective centred mainly around contributions found that mining had also reduced the labour for farming by attracting farmers and casual potential labourers given the high wages in mining. The study recommended that it is therefore important to streamline the operations of both livelihood activities to harness their relative direct and indirect contributions to achieving food security. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 1 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background Food security is a key developmental concern in many parts of the world, with the phenomenon being a key challenge in sub-Saharan Africa. Food security is a situation in which people have the economic means and physical access to food in adequate quantity and nutritious value, to meet their dietary and food needs required for a healthy life (FAO, 2015). As food is basic to human survival and well-being, food security is seen as a basic human right. Currently, food security is one of the central benchmarks of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 2; Zero hunger), which requires nations to ensure its accomplishment (Fanzo, 2019; UNESCAP, 2020). Hence, activities that promote food security are of the essence across the globe. Nevertheless, sub-Sahara Africa (SSA) is yet to catch up with the rest of the world in terms of ensuring food security. In recent times, there have been debates on the impact of the relationship between mining and agriculture activities on food security in SSA, especially in the rural parts where both activities are key livelihood forms. This study adds to the discussion, exploring the relative effects of both agriculture and mining on food security, as well as the relationship between these livelihood options and how that impacts food security in Ghana. In a recent survey in Ghana, it was revealed that food security has worsened in the country, with a five percent increase in the total number of people deemed as food insecure (Asare, 2022). As of the end of 2020, therefore, over 3.6 million Ghanaians were deemed experiencing food insecurity, as they had very limited access to sufficient and nutritious food for active and healthy life (Asare, 2022). Food University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 2 insecurity was seen to be higher in Ghana’s more rural north than the more urban south, with 2.8 million (78%) and 800,000 (22%) respectively (Asare, 2022). Moreno (2022) reports that food insecurity is worse in northern parts of Ghana, compared to the southern regions. It is noted that while these regions depend primarily on agriculture for livelihood, the dependence on climate (specifically rains) makes the livelihood challenging. It is explained that towards the southern parts of Ghana, two rainy seasons occur, compared to one season in the northern parts (Moreno, 2022). Consequently food insecurity characterises about 90% of northern Ghana. Food security depends massively on the economic means of an individual. Hence, the economic activities of rural Ghanaians are important in the food security discussion. In Ghana, farming and mining are major economic activities and serve as the livelihood of many. In recent times, however, there have been concerns about the roles both agriculture and mining play in ensuring the continuous provision of food, especially in rural parts where poverty and food insecurity are key issues for rural households (Amponsah-Tawiah & Dartey-Baah, 2011). Agriculture remains the main form of livelihood in sub-Sahara Africa (SSA), employing more people than any other sector (Osabohien, et al., 2020). The agricultural sector in SSA is characterised mostly by small-holder farming, which serves as the main source of income for the people (Kamara et al., 2019). It is observed that smallholder farms account for 80% of food produced in sub-Saharan Africa (Paloma et al., 2020). In Ghana, for instance, smallholder farmers produce a quarter of the world’s cocoa (Maguire-Rajpaul et al., 2020). Again, much of the food urban dwellers consume is grown by small-holder farmers in rural areas who transport their produce from the hinterlands weekly to the cities. Rural farmers are therefore vital to food security in SSA. However, the agricultural sector in SSA has University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 3 some challenges which threaten food security. Population sizes keep increasing while farm size in the inverse is rather decreasing (Djurfeldt & Jirström, 2013). Dzanku et al. (2015) explained that smallholder farmers in SSA fail to increase their yield or expand their farms, leading to a cycle of poverty and food insecurity. With the lack of capacity to expand, smallholder farmers tend to overuse the land, leading to overexploitation of land. Consequently, the land loses much of its nutrients (Headey & Jayne, 2014; Tittonell & Giller, 2013). Ghana shares in the agricultural challenges faced by other SSA countries. Decreasing farm sizes (Djurfeldt & Jirström, 2013), over-exploitation of already nutrient deficient lands (Headey & Jayne, 2014), and lack of access to necessary inputs (Konja et al., 2019) form part of the challenges. Consequently, smallholder farming in much of Ghana is characterised by low yield (Konja et al., 2019) leading to a cycle of poverty and food insecurity (Dzanku et al., 2015). Smallholder farming as a livelihood strategy is therefore incapable of reducing the rates of poverty in SSA, particularly in Ghana (Aniah et al., 2019). For instance, a study by Agariga et al. (2021) which was carried out in the Asutifi North district showed that an overwhelming (95.5%) of farmers reported they were relocated as a result of mining activity in their farming areas. Whereas only 4.5% of the people were not displaced. All respondents reported that agricultural areas were being sold off and transformed into mining concessions at an increasing rate. The majority of the 44 farmers who provided credible information had lost between 3 and 4 bags of cocoa production due to the loss of land to mining operations. The overuse of land for agricultural activities, as noted earlier, gives rise to two main issues. Firstly, the loss of soil fertility throws rural farmers out of agricultural economic activities, at least temporarily, which leads to poor yields and wasted University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4 efforts. The implication is that food production is reduced. The second implication is that rural dwellers would need to re-strategize how to survive, in terms of income generation and securing food. Consequently, rural dwellers realise farming is not enough to sustain their welfare and improve their lifestyles. Agriculture, particularly small-holder farming as a livelihood, therefore becomes insufficient. Livelihood diversification, therefore, becomes necessary (Adepoju & Oyewole, 2014; Mahama & Maharjan, 2017). Rural dwellers have had to look to other forms of livelihoods off the farm or aside from agriculture to survive. Specifically, non- farm jobs have been suggested as an atypical form of livelihood diversification for rural dwellers (Kuwornu et al., 2014; Assan, 2014). In diversifying into non-farm areas, mining has become one of the dominant economic activities in some parts of rural SSA. Therefore, in the search for other livelihood strategies, small-scale mining has become an option for rural dwellers in mineral-rich areas in Ghana. Hilson (2016) observes that the era of structural adjustment was a point of crossover for rural livelihoods and the re-emergence of artisanal mining. This period, between the 1980s and 1990s, which was unbearable for rural farmers, was characterised by poor yield, shortage of farm inputs, low prices for crops and devaluation of domestic currencies. As a result, small-scale mining re-emerged as the most viable non-farm venture, attracting farmers to it today (Hilson, 2016). Small-scale mining is a proven livelihood form. However, there is still debate on how mining activities facilitate or impede food security. Whiles critics argue that agriculture promotes food security better, there are some grey areas between the two livelihood activities, i.e. mining and agriculture. This study seeks to add to this debate, investigating the relative effects of these livelihood forms on food security, the synergies, and trade-offs. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 5 1.2 Problem Statement Rural dwellers have predominantly been immersed in small-holder farming as the main source of livelihood for centuries. In Ghana, for instance, agriculture employs the majority of rural households and is the primary livelihood choice. Agriculture employs 52% of Ghana’s labour force (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2019). Small-holder farming is capable of ensuring food security since it is basically about food production. However, poor yield and the need for additional income have necessitated livelihood diversification, with small-scale mining becoming a preferred alternative. Small-scale miners contribute immensely to gold production, providing about 30-40% of Ghana’s total, employing over 5 million people. Additionally, small-scale miners are heavily involved in the production of other minerals, including diamonds (Hilson, 2016). Both livelihood forms have become the main income earners for rural dwellers in Ghana. Recent developments in small-scale mining have raised concerns about its importance to food security. Laari (2018) argued that the rise of small-scale mining activities in rural Ghana leads to a reduction in labour for agricultural purposes. Laari adds that abandoned mining sites become breeding grounds for harmful insects, including pests that destroy crops. Nukpezah et al. (2017) also contend that small- scale mining activities make the environment harmful to farming activities. The writers explain that in certain parts of Ghana, high levels of heavy metals have been found in irrigation water. Food produced under such circumstances will, therefore, have traces of heavy metals in them since these will be transferred from the water into the crops produced. This impedes the drive to attain food security. A similar observation is made by Baah-Ennumh and Forson (2017), who noted that small-scale University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 6 mining activities in Nsuaem in western Ghana render the land unproductive, making it difficult to cultivate food crops on it. Small-scale mining was therefore deemed an unsustainable activity due to its operations and the harm it causes to the environment and its impact on food production. To these writers, therefore, small-scale mining may not be a viable promoter of food security. However, it has been acknowledged that small-scale mining gives individuals the economic capacity to venture into farming or revamp agricultural activities (Hilson & Garforth, 2012; Goumandakoye, 2017). Since small-scale mining can positively influence agriculture, both activities may be deemed as playing a complementary role in ensuring food security. Whiles Nukpezah et al., (2017), Laari (2018) and Mabey et al., (2020) for instance highlight the harm small-scale mining pose to agriculture, other writers have expressed contrary views. Hilson (2016), for instance, observes how small-scale mining employs many rural dwellers in Ghana and other mineral- rich countries in West Africa. Bansah et al., (2018) support this view, stressing that small-scale mining perpetuates in Ghana due to several benefits and factors, including economic reasons. Nonetheless, it is worthy of note that mining activities can permanently alter natural landscapes, disrupt animals and habitats, contaminate air and drinking water, and damage wildlife which intends will affect food security in the long run as fishes continue to while lands become desolate. It is noted that rural communities are largely poor, hence, small-scale mining is deemed an economically viable venture for rural dwellers. For the fact that poverty is a key factor to address in the quest to enhance food security, it is quite logical to assume that the benefits of small-scale mining are enough reason for these activities to be encouraged. This is buttressed by the evidence that small-scale mining helps farmers earn cash during the off-season, which is then re-invested in agriculture in several ways as seen in several University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 7 areas in Ghana (Hilson, 2016; Danquah et al. 2017; Asare, 2018; Ntiamoah, 2019). Consequently, it has been found that failure to ensure food security can have diverse socioeconomic effects on individuals in Ghana. For instance, studies found that food- insecure children are at least twice as likely to experience poor health and at least 1.4 times more likely to have asthma than food-secure children; and food-insecure seniors have constraints in activities of daily livelihood comparable to that of food- secure persons 14 years older (Gundersen & Ziliak, 2015). Furthermore, failure to address the issue of food security can lead to a shortage which intends can lead to an excessive rise in prices for food as well as discrimination (Seivwright et al., 2020). Also, food insecurity often leads to stress, cycles of fasting and binge eating, and the substitution of comparatively higher cost, higher nutrition food with lower cost, higher energy food, resulting in nutrient deficiencies, metabolic changes, weight loss or, seemingly paradoxically, overweight and obesity. Adults who are food insecure are more likely to have poorer health status according to their assessments, more chronic diseases like diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and depression, as well as lower rates of social and economic participation (Seivwright et al., 2020). The discussion so far places rural dwellers and policymakers in a conundrum, as it is difficult to settle on the livelihood system which would benefit individuals and the society at large in terms of achieving food security. This problem gives rise to the consideration of combining both livelihood forms in the best ways; giving credence to exploring the synergies between the two for food security. Moomen et al., (2019) argue that it is important to focus on the synergies between both livelihood forms, as there is evidence to show the benefits of such symbiosis between them in Northern Ghana. It is argued that encouraging the existence of both livelihoods is necessary, as the synergy is vital in poverty alleviation, income generation and overall University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 8 sustainable development (Moomen et al., 2019). This view is shared by Mkodzongi and Spiegel (2019), who argue that based on evidence in Zimbabwe, efforts must be focused on drawing from the linkages between both livelihood systems. Further, the African Centre for Economic Transformation (2017) also highlighted the fruitful impact of the synergies between small-scale mining and farming in ensuring food security in other areas in sub-Saharan Africa. These arguments suggest that both livelihood systems play complementary roles in ensuring food security. The problem, however, is how much of this complementary situation takes place, and how does this promote or hamper food security? This requires deeper enquiry and efforts to replicate evidence of synergies in different settings. The potency of the synergy rides on the extent of replicability of such findings in different contexts. Scarce evidence exists to prove the replicability of the synergy. This study sees the limited evidence as worthy of being addressed. This study seeks to answer the question: How do mining and farming together facilitate food security in Ghana? Does indulging in both livelihood strategies lead to more disposable income? How do farmers and miners use their income to ensure food security? 1.3 Research Objectives The main objective of the study is to assess the relative contribution of small-scale mining and agriculture as livelihood strategies to food security in rural Ghana. 1.3.1 Specific Research Objectives 1 Assess the nature and level of usage of the two major livelihood strategies (agriculture and small-scale mining) in the community. 2 Examine the determinants/motivations of household choice of the two livelihood systems. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 9 3 Discuss the relative contribution of small-scale mining and farming to the food security status of households. 4 Analyse the challenges of employing small-scale mining and farming activities in terms of contradictions and synergies. 1.4 Research questions 1. What is the extent of rural dwellers’ involvement in agriculture and small- scale mining activities? 2. What is the motivation for the adoption of small-scale mining livelihood activities? 3. In what ways does small-scale mining facilitate food security directly or indirectly? 4. What is the changing contribution of farming to food security? 5. What are the downsides of choosing one livelihood system over the other? 6. How does the performance of both livelihood forms negatively affect food security? 1.5 Significance On a theoretical level, this study contributes to the debates on small-scale mining, livelihood diversification and multi-livelihood strategies and food security outcomes. Essentially, it would contribute to the debate on the mining-agriculture nexus. It is anticipated that the findings from this research would contribute to governments’ policy frameworks on the development of the agricultural and mining sectors. This study will throw more light on the essence of non-farm ventures in the development University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 10 of the Ghanaian economy. The study provides a detailed discussion that would assist policymakers to design policies that see complementarities between small-scale mining and farming. The study will seek to showcase the benefits of the joint livelihood strategy and promote livelihood diversification as a means for poverty alleviation and women empowerment. 1.6 The organization of the study The current study was divided into six chapters. The first chapter presented the context of the study, the statement of the research problem, the significance of the study, the research objectives and questions and how the chapters are organized in this research. Chapter two provided the literature review, key concepts and the conceptual framework utilized. The chapter also discussed the relevance to the topic under study. Chapter three described the research area and methodology used in conducting this study. It provided a profile of the research area, the data collection procedures the demographics of the research participants and the type of research design used in this study. It also highlighted the data analysis procedures, the limitations of the research as well as the ethical framework utilized. Subsequently, the findings of the research were presented in chapters four and five, highlighting the results of the statistical analysis of data gathered from the participants as well as a discussion of the results concerning relevant literature. Specifically, chapter four presents a characterisation of agricultural and mining livelihoods in Kenyasi, whiles chapter five presents ‘Determinants of choice of livelihood mix and synergies’. Finally, chapter six presented a discussion of the findings and a summary of the whole study. Also, this chapter provided the conclusions of the research and recommendations for future research. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 11 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Introduction This chapter presents a review of the literature as well as the conceptual framework for the study. The chapter discusses the relevant concepts such as livelihood and rural livelihood, agriculture, small-scale mining, and food security. The chapter looks at the conceptual framework of the study, which hinges on the Sustainable Livelihood framework. 2.2 Concept of livelihood Livelihood has been defined as the various activities individuals or households engage in, in the food search, for water, shelter, clothing as well as any other necessities required for human survival (Mphande, 2016). Livelihood also involves all the benefits individuals derive from the economic activities they are involved in. Mariwah et al. (2013) and Abdul-Kabiru (2017) note that the nature of livelihood individuals and households engage in is dependent on their location as well as the assets available to them. 2.3 Changing livelihoods in rural Africa Rural households are known for engaging mainly in agricultural activities. Agriculture can be said to be the default economic and livelihood strategy in rural settings, possibly due to the immediate need for survival and subsistence. This implies that agriculture remains the dominant activity of most of the world’s poor. In sub-Saharan Africa, agriculture is the principal employer of the rural folk, thereby being the highest contributor to the income or earnings of the people (Danso-Abbeam University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 12 et al., 2018). In South Africa for instance, it is observed that farming is a rural affair in most households in the rural areas, and is the main income-producing activity (Rantso, 2016). Nkoana (2014) supports this observation, commenting that rural households in South Africa and much of SSA are mostly engaged in livestock rearing and crop production as the main economic livelihood strategy. In Ghana, for instance, agriculture is dominated by smallholder farmers or subsistence farming (Dzanku, 2015; Abdul-Kabiru & Maharjan, 2017). Much of the farming is meant to primarily provide food for domestic consumption, with surplus sold for income. Even with those who intend to produce on relatively larger scales for sale, the lack of adequate agricultural inputs and mechanization threatens farm yield (Diao et al., 2017). Again, rural farmers face issues of increasing population, unpredictable and unfavourable weather conditions, soil erosion and poor or diminishing soil fertility. As a result, household income is strained and production increasingly becomes insufficient (Asare, 2018). Therefore, rural agriculture is characterised by low productivity. Coupled with the limited accessibility to non-farm income sources, poverty among rural folk seems to be constant despite their activities, depriving households of the appropriate standard of living (Loison, 2015; Bryceson, 2018). Consequently, Dzanku (2015) observes that livelihood diversification is expected and has become a custom in rural areas in Ghana. This buttresses the point that the trend of agricultural productivity in rural Africa culminates in the diversification of rural livelihood systems. The need to access other forms of livelihood to improve their income levels and standard of living means rural folk would have to engage in other economic activities. What remains to be seen is the extent to which other livelihood forms can help rural folks attain food security (Lang & Barling, 2012; Manlosa et al. 2019). What then are the dynamics in rural University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 13 diversification? Which other forms of livelihood have emerged, and how do they affect food security in rural Ghana? 2.4 The agricultural sector in Ghana Agriculture is a vital economic sector in Ghana, contributing immensely to the GDP of the country. For a long time, agriculture remained the largest sector of Ghana's economy, with a 36% share contribution to the GDP as of 2016 (Darfour & Rosentrater, 2016). Currently, statistics indicate that the contribution of agriculture to the GDP of Ghana declined from 21.1% in 2017 to 19.7% in 2018 (Ghana Statistical Service, 2019). Nevertheless, the sector remains the most vibrant economic sector, employing about one-third of the labour force in Ghana (Oxford Business Group, 2020). The Ghana Statistical Service (GSS) indicates that crop production is the second- largest economic activity in the Ghanaian economy and number one in the agricultural sector. Crop production activities made up 14.5% of GDP in 2018. The nature or types of crops produced largely depend on agro ecological zones, though certain crops are cultivated in almost every part of the country. Whiles tree crops like oil palm, cocoa and coffee are dominant, there are some food crops as well, including cassava, plantain and cocoyam (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2019). However, in the middle belt of the nation, agricultural activities are characterised mainly by the cultivation of food crops like maize, yam, and legumes, as well as cash crops like cocoa, coffee, cotton and tobacco. Rice, a national staple is cultivated in all ecological zones in Ghana, whiles millet, cowpeas, groundnut, yam and maize are the predominant crops in the northern agricultural zones. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 14 Apart from crop cultivation, another sector in Ghana’s agriculture is livestock production (Baidoo, et al., 2016; Asamoah, 2019; FAO, 2019). The livestock sector contributes 6.7% of GDP in 2015 (GSS, 2016). It is estimated that about 40.5% of rural households in Ghana are into livestock production, with the majority of them in the northern part of Ghana (Seglah et al., 2019). Farmers in this subsector deal with livestock including cattle, sheep, goats and pigs, while poultry production is the commonest form of livestock production in Ghana. Livestock production and crop cultivation have a converging point. Farm animals depend on food crops for feed. Poultry, for instance, survives mainly on cereals and grains as feed. Again, cattle also rely on farmland as grazing areas. Hence, the progress of the crop cultivation subsector is essential for the growth of livestock production due to these complementary functions. The agricultural sector is the key to ensuring food security and alleviating hunger, especially in rural, impoverished areas of Ghana and the whole SSA. 2.5 Challenges in the agricultural sector and implications on livelihood strategies It has been observed that there is a decline in agricultural activities and therefore the contribution to GDP as a result of the increasing migration of labour from agriculture to other sectors of the economy (Diao et al., 2017; Rodrik, 2018). Experts have noted that due to urbanization and the development of cities in Africa, other forms of higher income-earning avenues have sprung up, attracting rural dwellers who are mainly farmers to pursue other ventures (Gollin et al., 2016; Hilson, 2016). Ordinarily, population growth and rapid urbanization should mean new market opportunities for rural farmers, as it implies a higher demand for food. However, the growing demand is beyond the existing food production capacity of existing farmers. Population University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 15 growth and urbanization turn out to be a bane, instead of a blessing, for local farmers and food production. With emerging markets and the commercialization of agricultural products, farming systems experience alarming levels of usage and stress. Consequently, rural farmers have no time for fallow periods, and farm sizes keep reducing amidst the loss of soil fertility. Furthermore, with the commercialization of agricultural products, farmers focus their attention on specializing in the production of a few high-selling crops, in a bid to take advantage of the emerging market (Ecker, 2018). Though this boosts income levels, it affects the availability of food for rural households, and even the amount of food that is transported to urban centres for the growing population. Ecker (2018) cautions that this situation poses a threat to the state of food security. Again, rural farmers fail to fully exploit these burgeoning markets in the urban centres, due to impediments such as poor transportation and unavailability of storage centres (Darfour & Rosentrater, 2016). Though the market may be available, a poor road network makes it difficult to convey farm produce to central markets and town centres. Again, with the inadequacy of storage facilities, much of this farm produce perishes; farmers lose their capital as well as the possible earnings they could have made if the product can be stored. Additionally, one key challenge of rural smallholder farmers is finance. Credit facilities are hardly available to rural farmers (Awunyo-Vitor & Al-Hassan, 2014; Denkyirah et al., 2016). In a study by Aidoo-Acquah (2015), after examining the accessibility of credit facilities among small-scale farmers in the Western Region of Ghana, it was found that the high-interest rates on loans charged by banks and financial institutions made it unfavourable for farmers to access the facilities. The University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 16 banks also saw agriculture as a high-risk business. In a similar study, Alhassan et al. (2020) examined how credit facilities impact productivity and how productivity, in turn, affects market participation. The study revealed that credit positively impacts productivity, which in turn positively impacts market participation. The study also stressed that factors such as transport network information access also played an essential role in farmers’ capacity to produce food to meet the required capacity. Indeed, access to financing, through credit was deemed as key in transforming subsistence farming. With the difficulty in accessing credit, therefore, the capacity of smallholder farming to boost food security cannot be reliable. Per the discussion, agriculture cannot be sufficient for food security. Finance, for instance, is vital for farmers to have the needed capacity to improve yield and take advantage of new markets whiles enhancing food security. Hence, there is a need for farmers to seek alternative sources of finance, as credit facilities are almost non-existent. Consequently, rural households migrate into other livelihood forms to augment their income. One question which arises, at this point is, which livelihood form can provide the needed alternative income for rural farmers? How does the alternative livelihood strategy adopt a link with farming to ensure food security? Though mining, specifically small-scale mining has been identified as an alternative livelihood, these questions need to be answered. 2.6 2.5 Rural livelihood diversification into non-farm ventures The issues raised so far form the basis of rural livelihood diversification in much of Africa, especially Ghana. Ellis (2000) defined diversification of livelihood as a process by which rural households generate a varied collection of activities and social University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 17 support capabilities in their strife for survival and improvement in their standards of living. According to Gebru et al. (2018), livelihood diversification is explained as the upkeep and constant adjustment of a highly varied array of activities and works to curtail household income variability, lessen the hostile impacts of seasonality, and offer occupation or additional income. Rural livelihood diversification, therefore, concerns the different forms of activities rural dwellers engage in at various times, with the intent of enhancing their standard of living. Kuwornu et al., (2014) observe that the key objective for rural diversification is to create other or multiple sources of income. Ellis and Allison (2004) had earlier established the need for diversification, noting that overdependence on (subsistence) agriculture as a livelihood form (in rural SSA and specifically Ghana) is a recipe for heightened vulnerability and poverty, which are cases of food insecurity. Livelihood diversification enables rural household farmers to devise other means to promote their level of income and minimize susceptibility to different livelihood shocks (USAID, 2017). Indeed, rural livelihood diversification is encouraged by governments in SSA, as it is seen as promoting food security and economic growth (Manlosa et al., 2019). Governments in SSA, including Ghana, see rural diversification as a plausible way of dealing with the hardships rural dwellers face. As explained earlier, rural livelihood diversification occurs in two broad forms, which are farm (agricultural activities) and non-farm (non-agricultural economic activities) or off-farm activities where other activities which have no relation to farming are pursued (Ellis, 2000 Khatun & Roy, 2012). According to Khatun and Roy (2012), livelihood diversification attempts include the engagement of rural folk in agriculture-related ventures but not farming. Such activities include the production of oil and food processing (i.e gari). Households also move into other ventures which University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 18 are not related to agriculture in any way; this may involve migration into other activities such as carpentry. Mahama and Maharjan (2017) comment that households’ choice of non-farm activities depends on household or individual preferences. As indicated earlier, rural dwellers in Ghana engage in small-scale mining as the main non-farm livelihood strategy (Asare, 2018). In Ghana, livelihood diversification has been a feature of the rural economy for many years, notably since the 1980’s when the nation experienced an economic meltdown (Abdul-Kabiru & Maharjan, 2017). This implies that livelihood changes have been a regular pattern of rural life in Ghana for the past three decades. Smallholder farmers have been observed to be migrating into non-farm activities (Kuwornu et al., 2014). This phenomenon has received the support of the state as a means of poverty alleviation in rural Ghana (Abdul-Kabiru & Maharjan, 2017). Governments and support agencies in SSA have over the years designed poverty alleviation programmes and interventions around livelihood diversification (Asare, 2018). However, according to Yaro (2006) diversification to new or secondary livelihood activities and changing the form, nature and content of the farm sector, characterised rural livelihoods in the rural areas. The adaptation process involves not just a move from the farm to the non-farm sector, but also an intensification of efforts in the farm sector with seasonal diversification into other livelihood activities. The idea is to promote and assist households in rural areas to be more innovative in finding more non-farm ways to engage in. Farming households are being encouraged to set up small-scale businesses in their home areas. Governments are also facilitating agricultural transformation among rural dwellers, as well as promoting an expansion of the agricultural value chain (Dzanku, 2015; ACET, 2017; AbdulKabiru & Maharjan, 2017). An expanded value chain implies more players will be needed in University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 19 the production and distribution of agricultural produce (Mahama & Maharjan, 2017; Alhassan et al., 2020). This comes with the creation of new roles for individuals to venture into. Again, this would require the shift from the traditional, archaic forms of farming to a more modern approach, with the introduction of new technologies, agricultural inputs and expanded market 2.7 Rural diversification into non-farm ventures Much of the literature depicts that non-farm ventures have been identified as providing an avenue for rural dwellers to expand their income, culminating in a situation of income equality (Loison, 2015; Bryceson, 2018; USAID, 2017). Again, it is seen as curbing rural-urban migration, thereby reducing the stress in urban areas. Employment opportunities are provided for rural dwellers, who may be disadvantaged due to low earnings in farming (Asare, 2018). Further, non-farm activities enhance female empowerment, thereby contributing to gender parity (Galiè et al., 2019) Advocates of non-farm livelihood change argue, therefore, that it should be encouraged due to the positive impact it poses on the growth of rural economies in SSA (Bezu & Barrett, 2013). Overall, the national economies of nations in SSA are boosted when these livelihood changes take place (USAID, 2017). It has been observed that though the thought behind livelihood changes in rural areas is great, one key challenge is the lack of capacity of rural households to enable them to take up more non-farm engagements (Ecker, 2018). Hence, though it is commendable that development strategies are being designed around non-farm ventures, it has been observed that this might serve as a disadvantage to a relatively larger population of rural dwellers. Critics argue that rural dwellers lack the requisite education, skills, financial capital, and technical expertise to exploit the opportunities University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 20 being offered by the promotion of non-farm diversification (Kyeremeh, 2014). Though governments in SSA are looking at ways of making these livelihood changes beneficial, there is no consensus on the impact of non-farm livelihood on the economy (USAID, 2017). Nevertheless, many studies point out that livelihood diversification produces immense benefits for rural dwellers (Assan, 2014; Dzanku, 2015; Gautam & Andersen, 2016; Diao, et al., 2017; Asare, 2018; Yaro, 2006). Yet, though non-farm activities have been seen to support economic growth, agricultural activities still lead the way in enhancing rural economies. Therefore, to Dorosh and Thurlow (2016), though there is a concentration on the expansion of non-farm activities, with developmental programmes being framed around it, caution must be exercised. The observation is that it is safe to say that both livelihood options may be more effective in different circumstances. For instance, in a rural setting where households’ low levels of education and skillset exist, it may not be prudent introducing more non- farm activities which may require people with higher levels of education. Development programmes structured around such non-farm ventures may not be impactful for rural dwellers in such cases. To make developmental programmes more effective, therefore, certain factors such as level of education, financial capacity, familiarity with technology and age of the labour force in rural areas ought to be considered. Senadza (2012) observed that non-farm activities were more favourable to rural dwellers in Ghana, only when households had electricity (relevant technology) and access to credit. One form of non-farm livelihood which may require minimal technology and credit yet produces immense gains for rural folks in Ghana is small- scale mining. The most basic requirement needed to begin small-scale mining is the University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 21 availability of minerals. As a result, rural dwellers in areas identified as having minerals are attracted to small-scale mining as a livelihood choice. Nevertheless, some studies in Ghana have raised concerns about small-scale mining as a livelihood choice (Mumuni, et al., 2012; ACET, 2017; Kutah & Matsui, 2018). Critics believe every form of livelihood choice must produce more positive results than negative ones on the environment. However, it is argued that small-scale mining as a livelihood choice by rural households poses a threat to the environment (Danyo & Osei-Bonsu, 2016; Attiogbe & Nkansah, 2017; Kutah & Matsui, 2018). Yet, to rural dwellers in mineral-rich areas in Ghana, small-scale mining is a key income generator and economic tool for their progress. In conclusion, livelihood changes in rural Africa are mainly a switch from agricultural or farm activities to non-farm activities. In the case of rural Ghana, rural farmers enter small-scale mining. There is however no agreement on which of these livelihood forms is beneficial to rural dwellers in terms of food security, though evidence exists to support either side in different contexts. However, Yaro (2006) asserts that the supposedly ‘booming non-farm sector’ is not entirely real, for reasons of marginalisation and exclusion of the poor peasantry, resulting from spatial, capital, infrastructural and market limitations. 2.8 Small-scale mining Another phenomenon that has emerged as an alternative livelihood strategy is small- scale mining (Hilson 2016; Iddriss, 2017). Small-scale mining (SSM) is a popular livelihood activity in mineral-rich countries in SSA, and its popularity is evidenced in the different names by which it is called in the sub-region. In Burkina Faso, the phenomenon is known as ‘orpaillage’ and diggers in Sierra Leone (ACET, 2017). In University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 22 Ghana, small-scale mining is popularly known as galamsey (Barenblitt et al., 2021; Eduful et al., 2020). However, the term galamsey is now used in reference to illegal mining (Barenblitt et al., 2021; Eduful et al., 2020). Bansah (2017) observes that in Ghana, SSM is often a term used interchangeably with artisanal mining or artisanal small-scale mining. Laari (2018) adds that the definition of SSM or galamsey has evolved, expanding the scope of the activities of small-scale miners. Hence, SSM may refer to both legal and illegal or informal mining activities. Though it has been noted that SSM in SSA is largely an illegal activity, in recent years, governments in SSA have made efforts to legalise activities (Hilson, 2016). Efforts to regularise the activities of SSM activities have led to the identification of various categories of miners based on their level of formality or legality, which is determined by the issuance of mining licences (Adjei et al., 2012). These categorizations are as follows: • Miners operating illegally; without licenses • Miners with licenses/permits, but using unapproved mining methods • Licensed miners whose activities do not reclaim land • Licensed miners who sub-let their mining license to foreign miners (mining companies) Hilson (2016) mentions that SSM has been a livelihood strategy of rural dwellers in SSA long before the arrival of multinational mining companies. SSM is the main non- agricultural livelihood strategy by rural households in recent times (Hilson, 2016). Though agriculture maintains its place as the key employer and income earner for many rural households in rural SSA, the contribution of the sector to the national economy took a nosedive due to structural transformation and rising urbanization (Ecker, 2018). The need for livelihood diversification has seen farmers get into other University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 23 forms of livelihood to improve their earnings. SSM emerged as a response to unfavourable conditions, which made agricultural activities less profitable. Some of the unfavourable conditions include farm labour shortages (Asare, 2018), rising prices of minerals against the falling prices of agricultural produce (ACET, 2017), climate variability (Vorsah, 2015), failure of rural farmers to capitalise on emerging markets in urban areas (Diao et al., 2017) and destruction of farmland by heavy mining activities (Assan & Muhammed, 2018). A study conducted by Osei et al. (2021) concluded that ASM is a key sector that allows young people to build their livelihoods (earn income and accumulate assets) (Osei et al., 2021). However, there are fears that whiles providing a source of livelihood for millions of people, SSM threatens farmlands and water bodies (Owusu- Nimo et al., 2018). Again, other studies (Babut et al., 2003; Bagah et al., 2016) have noted that the chemicals used in SSM such as cyanide, arsenic and mercury are harmful to the environment. Households in these mining areas are therefore at the risk of diseases like lung cancer, while other living organisms like plants, animals and aquatic life are also at risk of extinction if SSM activities are not checked, or ultimately halted (Attiogbe & Nkansah, 2017). Though there have been calls on the government to halt operations of small-scale miners in Ghana, the nation has made efforts to ensure activities are controlled. The state acknowledges the impact of the sector on the economy as well as the potential it wields. To streamline SSM activities and provide checks, Small-Scale Gold Mining Act (PNDC Law 218) was passed in 1989 to provide for the licensing of such operations in Ghana (Yankson & Gough, 2019). This law failed to help deal with the issues in the SSM sector, leading to the promulgation of Mineral and Mining Law, ACT 709 of 2006. With this, the government intends to make SSM a more formal University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 24 venture, therefore calling SSM businesses to register their ventures. This will enable the state to generate more revenue from the sector through taxes. Despite the progress the nation has made in the fight against illegal SSM and the efforts to formalize these businesses, the relationship between SSM as a livelihood form and food security remains an issue of concern to rural dwellers and the nation as a whole. 2.9 Food security According to the United Nations (UN), food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life (FAO, 2008). The Food Security Network expands on this definition by explaining food security as a situation when all people at all times have physical and economic access to adequate amounts of nutritious, safe, and culturally appropriate foods, which are produced in an environmentally sustainable and socially just manner, and that people can make informed decisions about their food choices(Laari, 2018). This definition reveals the key dimensions of food security as a construct which include the physical accessibility and availability of food, economic accessibility to food and adequate food utilization. Adequate food utilisation encompasses the ability of the body to process and use nutrients as well as the dietary quality and the safety of the foods consumed. 2.9.1 SSM and Food Security Small-scale mining (SSM), as has already been discussed, has been beneficial to the economy of Ghana, as well as other nations in SSA. In Ghana and other places in SSA, studies have found that SSM is a source of employment and income for many households, thereby alleviating poverty (Ulrike et al. 2012; Assan & Muhammed, University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 25 2018). However, in terms of food security, several studies have mentioned that SSM is detrimental (Mzembe, 2012; Iddriss, 2017). SSM has enormous negative implications on the environment and by extension, the livelihoods of people. . To Zolnikov (2012), SSM is the most environmentally destructive livelihood strategy. What makes SSM detrimental to the environment and food production is the introduction and use of heavy machinery like excavators by small-scale miners. Crawford and Botchwey (2016) argue that though this helps miners more to be productive, it makes the environment less productive for food production. According to Ocansey (2013), Adu Yeboah et al (2008) discovered that one of the major negative effects of mining is the high cost of living in communities near mining sites. Most necessities, such as food, shelter, water, and other necessities, are prohibitively expensive for ordinary people to purchase. He stated once more that there are two major reasons for this situation. For starters, mining companies employ the majority of the strong and able-bodied young men in the mining industry, diverting them from the farms. Second, mining companies have taken over the majority of the farmlands in those communities. As a result, there is always a decrease in food production in those areas, as well as a need for food to be brought in from distant areas at exorbitant prices. According to Ocansey (2013), the release of chemical substances into the soil by mining processes discourages and destroys crops. He also stated that environmental pollution in the mining area has had an impact on farming in general. According to the data analysis, mining for natural resources in the area has contributed to the loss of farming businesses, resulting in food insecurity in the area. This is due to mining activities consuming some of the fertile lands used for farming. As a result, there are not many crops grown in the area, and food is scarce as a result of the mining activities. Food production levels fall as more people choose University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 26 mining jobs over farming, resulting in low food production levels in farming communities. Ocansey (2013) documented in his analysis that the majority of participants in his study area owned only a few small hectares of farmland, implying that they were mostly engaged in subsistence farming and that the introduction of mining operations rendered their farming activities ineffective. The majority of these poor farmers made a living from their farming practices. As a result of the mining activities, they are unable to produce as much food as they once did, resulting in food shortages and price increases. He went on to say that high labour and input costs contributed to community food shortages. According to Tsuma (2010), land acquisition remains a major threat to food security and livelihood security in most mining areas. According to Tsuma (2010), mining investments are by definition located in rural areas where residents rely on healthy land systems for a living. Surface gold mining is encroaching on these areas, which are characterized by hilly- forested and fertile land suitable for food production. As a result of this situation, communities abandon farm-based activities in favour of more lucrative mining. This situation also has dire consequences, such as low food production, rising food prices, and an increase in illegal small-scale mining by rural residents. 2.10 Agriculture and food security According to MoFA (2007), agriculture was primarily practised on a smallholder level using simple technology, accounting for approximately 80% of total agricultural output in Ghana. According to the report, approximately 2.74 million households own a farm or raise livestock. According to the 2000 census, agriculture employed 50.6 % (4.2 million people) of the labour force. According to the census, approximately 90% of farmlands are not larger than 2 ha, and the majority of oil palm, rubber, coconut, maize, rice, University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 27 and pineapple farms are very large. In general, agriculture in Ghana is rain-dependent, though an estimated 6,000 farm enterprises in Ghana used some form of irrigation in 1999. In general, agriculture in Ghana is rain-dependent, though an estimated 6,000 farm enterprises in Ghana used some form of irrigation in 1999. According to reports, the average farmland irrigated in 2002 was around 11,000 ha, with a potential area for irrigation of 500,000 ha. Rural households are the main food producers in Ghana, as much farming is done in rural areas. Smallholder farmers in rural areas across the country have been involved in the cultivation of food crops and livestock production as the main livelihood strategy for many centuries. Indeed, the rural households feed the nation, providing the bulk of the food the urban population need. The sector produces 51% of Ghana’s cereal needs, 60% of fish and half of the meat products consumed in the country. Also, the sector provides the raw materials for the food processing sector in Ghana, notably cocoa, coffee, fruits and vegetables. With the huge labour force sector employs and the availability of land for farming, it is no surprise that Ghana is among the few African nations that achieved the Millennium Development Goal target 1C, which is the reduction of the number of hungry people (Darfour & Rosentrater, 2016). The agricultural sector remains the largest and fastest-growing sector in Ghana, growing at a rate of 5.5% annually (Darfour & Rosentrater, 2016). The agricultural sector produces food to ensure food security in Ghana. However, it is common to have food shortages and malnutrition in most of the rural parts of Ghana (Ecker, 2018). Darfour and Rosentrater (2016) mentioned an estimated 1.5 million people are food insecure, representing 5% of the nation's population. Though food insecurity affects both urban and rural populations, rural populations are the worst affected. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 28 Experts have identified some reasons why food insecurity seems to be lurking despite the contribution of farmers in Ghana. Lam et al. (2017) observe that one factor hindering Ghana’s quest to attain optimum food security is poverty. It is explained that due to poverty, rural households barely feed appropriately which negatively affects their energy levels. This makes it difficult for them to produce on the farm, as rural agriculture is mostly non-mechanized. Again, farmers are seen to lack the necessary inputs to facilitate large-scale production. However, the population keeps increasing, hence, the nutritional needs of some people are not met due to the deficit (FAO, 2015). Schoneveld (2015) also noted that rural farmers are moving towards the cultivation of industrial crops (notably rubber, cotton, and jatropha) other than food crops. Hence, land for food cultivation has reduced in recent times. Furthermore, livelihood diversification, in this case, the migration of farmers into non-agricultural livelihoods, especially mining, has contributed to the low production of food crops. This situation also affects the quest to attain food security. 2.10.1 The synergy between agriculture and SSM and its impact on food security Several writers note that SSM and agriculture are more similar than different (Urama, 2013; Hilson, 2016; Assan & Muhammed, 2018). This means both livelihoods act together in various capacities to enhance food security in rural areas (Hilson, 2016). Both livelihoods function together to have an impact on food security through income and capital generation and employment/labour. Popular in food security literature is the essence of income in the quest to secure food. One way rural households earn an income is through the economic activities they are involved in. Hence, the economic activities they pursue are very important. Ordinarily, farmers earn income from their activities of food crop production. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 29 However, food crops are highly perishable and tend to lose value as a result. Therefore, farming incomes may not be enough to ensure food security. This is a threat to households’ food security. How does SSM come in to achieve food security? Small-scale mining offers farmers alternative employment which helps them earn an income, hence making food security possible despite perishability and season. Both SSM and farming, therefore, create a seamless flow of income by creating employment, thereby helping income generation constant secure food. Closely related to the previous point, SSM as a livelihood strategy is helpful for farming activities as it helps provide capital for investment into food production. Hilson (2016) asserts that in Ghana and other countries in the SSA, farmers undertake SSM to obtain capital to reinvest into their farming. Through their off-season mining activities, farmers acquire fertilizer, farming equipment geared towards mechanization, irrigation systems and extension services which boost farming as a livelihood. In a study by Ombeni (2015), it was found that SSM has facilitated the construction of feeder roads, and the provision of water for agriculture irrigation to boost food production. Again, both agriculture and SSM use a common labour force. Both livelihood forms are affected by seasonality (Karaki, 2018). Hence, whiles the wet season may be a great time for farming, it puts miners on holiday. Such miners lend their time to crop production. In the dry season, when farming is also less intensive, farmers also get into mining fields. This complementary activity ensures food security in both ways. Miners helping on the farm boost food production make food available and help take advantage of larger markets, whiles farmers adopting SSM also help them acquire income and capital, whiles increasing mineral production. This complementary University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 30 labour relationship between SSM and agriculture is a regular trend in much of SSA and has been seen to be extremely helpful for food security (Urama, 2013). Hilson (2016) for instance found this synergy in various parts of Northern and Eastern Ghana, whiles Bakia (2014) and Hilson and van Bockstael (2012) saw this in Cameroun and Liberia respectively. Dondeyne and Ndunguru (2014) note that in Mozambique, off-season mining helps farmers make money to buy cattle. Hilson and Garforth (2013) realised farmers in southern Ghana get involved in SSM to generate funds that assist them in the management of their farms. Furthermore, farming as a livelihood also provides miners with food. Mining requires so much physical activity, and the miners must have the right nutrition. Farmers provide miners with their food needs. Hilson and van Bockstael (2012) observed this in Liberia where rice farmers attract and feed miners. With these observations, can it be said that agriculture and SSM always converge to ensure food security? Are there instances of divergence? And how does tension from this divergence impact food security? 2.11 Trade-offs and their impact on food security Agriculture and SSM as livelihood strategies in rural areas are characterised by trade- offs. Urama, (2013) observes that though farming and SSM have a synergistic relationship that positively affects food security, they also have a competitive relationship, which often causes tension. Again, it is explained that though in more developed places like Australia the synergistic relationship seems to be growing, the opposite pertains in SSA, with tension resulting in trade-offs (Urama, 2013). University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 31 In recent times, it has been observed that labour is not necessarily a point of convergence for SSM and agriculture. SSM in rural Ghana, for instance, attract other nationalities, notably, people from other nations in SSA and the Chinese. As a result, the extra opportunities off-season farmers would have had in mining are diminishing. Whiles SSM activities are on the rise due to the availability of labour (throughout the year), agriculture is affected negatively as farmers do not get the chance to work for extra income from the mining sector. Food production therefore suffers. Though miners may make economic gains, these gains are hardly reflected in farming, hence food security is threatened. Further, mining is not affected by issues of perishability or low yield like in the case of food crops. Hence, as farm produce loses value, the income levels of farmers fall. SSM offers alternative income due to the high prices of minerals. Eventually, farming labour is lost to SSM, where the economic gains look promising. Youthful rural dwellers who could have been helpful on the farm switched from farming to focus on mining due to the higher economic gains. In the long run, this affects food production as farming activities decline, putting food availability in jeopardy. Though the economic means to secure food is made possible through mining, the availability of food becomes a problem. Again, it has been observed that in rural mineral-rich areas of SSA, as land for mining is increasing, that agriculture is on the decline (Urama, 2013; African Centre for Economic Transformation, 2017). This phenomenon occurs as a result of landowners giving their land to SSM companies for some amount of money. Indeed, a report indicated the majority of farmers involved in studies in Ghana and Burkina Faso were ready to sell their farmlands to miners (ACET, 2017). Again, some farmers have been forced University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 32 off their farmland and compensated by SSM companies. This situation produces a positive effect on the growth of SSM, whiles stifling the growth of agriculture. This threatens the already delicate food security situation in rural Ghana (Darfour & Rosentrater, 2016). 2.12 Conceptual framework A conceptual framework is a blueprint or guide for a research study (Grant & Osanloo, 2014). The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework serves as the conceptual framework for this study. 2.12.1 Sustainable Livelihood Framework The SLF is a way of identifying the needs and concerns of the populace and aligning them with the development interests of the nation. It simply harmonizes the environment and the people’s skills, access to resources and social networks, to facilitate the productive outcome of their livelihood strategies. Serrat (2017) suggests that the SLF guides the formulation of development policies and activities that are: people-centred, responsive and participatory, multilevel, conducted in partnership with the public and private sectors, dynamic and sustainable. SLF postulates that the outcome of rural livelihood strategies is determined by three elements (DFID, 2000). These elements are households’ capital stock, which includes natural, physical, human, financial and social capital, the household choice of livelihood activity, based on their capital stock capacity and external factors or environmental factors, which is the culmination of institutional and policy arrangements, exposure to shocks, economic trends. The framework, depicted in Figure 1, suggests that the success or failure of livelihood forms depends on these three factors. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 33 Figure 1: Sustainable Livelihoods Framework, Department for International Development (DFID, 2000) University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 34 In the context of this study, the SLF is applied and captured in the figure as follows: Figure 2: Conceptual Framework: Adaptation of the SLF, Researcher’s Construct, 2020 CONTEXT LIVELIHOOOD CONTEXT University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 35 2.12.2 Conceptualization of Food Security Figure 3: Food and Nutrition Security Conceptual Framework, World Food Programme (2022) A specific understanding of food security and risk served as the foundation for Ghana's Comprehensive Food Security & Vulnerability Analysis (CFSVA). The development of field assessment instruments and the structuring of standardised reporting formats are all influenced by the Food and Nutrition Security Conceptual Framework. It also guides the choice of indicators for analysis and uses in geographic targeting. The Food and Nutrition Security Conceptual Framework, which CFSVAs have adopted, links households' asset endowments, livelihood strategies, and University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 36 social, political, institutional, and economic environments to the availability, access, and utilisation of food as the three fundamental components of food security. The key feature of the household livelihoods method is its capacity to produce a comprehensive and multifaceted profile of a micro-level context, including food, nutrition, livelihood, and rights-realization, with strong regional and national underpinnings. This framework serves two functions during a CFSVA by offering: • a basis for formulating initial hypotheses on the degree of vulnerability and food insecurity, as well as the causes and effects of both; and • a brief method of visually representing the relationships among variables that affect food and nutrition security, which is useful during data collection and analysis. The UNICEF Nutrition Framework and the (DFID) Sustainable Livelihoods Framework served as the foundation for the Food and Nutrition Security Conceptual Framework contextualization, which permits expanding interventions (CARE, 2002). The evaluation of livelihood resources, the local agro ecological, political, and institutional context, and the ensuing livelihood options implemented by the population that may result in food security are the first steps in the analysis of food security. Numerous risks and more subtle changes have an impact on the macro environment, family-level resources, and household food security. Any household's or person's level of food security is often influenced by the interactions of a wide variety of agro-environmental, socioeconomic, and biological factors. There isn't a single, objective way to quantify food security, just like there isn't one for social University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 37 welfare or health. However, by concentrating on three different but connected dimensions (aggregate food availability, household food access, and individual food utilization) the complexity of the food security challenge can be reduced. To achieve food security, it is necessary to address each of these individual aspects, making sure that: • the aggregate availability of physical food supplies from domestic production, commercial imports, food aid, and national stocks is sufficient; • household livelihoods provide adequate access for all household members to those food supplies through home production, market purchases, or transfers from other sources; and • the utilisation of those food supplies. A notion called vulnerability evaluates how exposed and sensitive a community or a home is to potential shocks in the future. The capacity of a household or community to manage the risk posed by shocks like droughts, floods, crop blight or infestation, economic volatility, and violence ultimately determines how vulnerable they are. This capacity is mostly determined by features of the home and the community, particularly the asset base and livelihood and food security policies of the household or community. The concept demonstrates that risk exposure is influenced by the frequency, seriousness, and geographic and socioeconomic reach of natural and man-made disasters. The amount of natural, physical, economic, human, social, and political assets a household has, its level of production, its level of income and consumption, and its capacity to diversify its sources of income and consumption to lessen the effects of any risks it faces are all factors that affect coping capacity. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 38 Rural households in Ghana face various forms of challenges which make them vulnerable in terms of food security. Food security, as noted earlier, comprises four pillars, which are accessibility, availability, utilization and stability. However, the vulnerability of rural dwellers means these pillars are affected in various ways, threatening food security (Ellis, 2000; Danquah et al., 2017). The vulnerability context has three components, as seen in the figure; namely shocks (erratic rainfall patterns, drought), seasonality (farming cycles, falling prices of crops, off-season unemployment) and trends (migration, land tenure, growing national interest in non- farm ventures). These elements affect the livelihood assets rural households possess, and how these assets are used to produce sustainable livelihoods (Ellis, 2000). In rural Ghana, shocks like erratic rainfall and flood have the propensity of destroying the assets of rural folks. Agriculture, which is the primary economic activity in such areas is hugely affected by poor rainfall, drought and floods. Food production is therefore affected negatively in such situations. Another form of shock that is prevalent in some rural areas in Ghana is tribal and ethnic conflicts. A notable one is the Guinea Fowl conflict between the Konkomba and Nanumba people of Northern Ghana, a place noted for massive food production in Ghana (Debrah et al., 2016). Such a situation leads to the destruction of property, including farms. In some cases, these shocks displace rural dwellers, having them change locations and lose their investments and assets. Again, other trends, such as the discovery of mineral resources in rural areas threaten the primary livelihood of rural dwellers. These minerals attract multinational companies, who troop to such areas to obtain land to set up mining firms and other institutions. In Ghana, places like Obuasi and Kenyasi depict such discoveries and the corporate land grabbing it comes with. Another issue of vulnerability is the University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 39 seasonality of agriculture as a primary livelihood. One significant challenge is seasonal unemployment among rural farmers. With these challenges, people in rural areas would have to find ways to withstand and progress despite the vulnerabilities. Consequently, rural folk needs to increase their capacity by engaging in activities that would help them deal with the risks and vulnerabilities to ensure food security. The capacity of rural dwellers refers to capital or assets available to them. These include the capital stock or livelihood assets made up of natural, physical, human, financial and social capital. In Ghana, rural areas have youth who can work. Again, the people possess the knowledge and skill needed for economic activities such as farming. Other aspects of their human capital include their levels of education and capacity to adapt. Also, they make use of natural assets, which include farmland and water bodies, which have a direct impact on farming activities. Certain parts of Ghana are blessed with mineral resources and this offers another avenue other than farming as a means of livelihood. Small-scale mining is therefore rife in areas that have mineral deposits in the land. The physical capital, which includes roads, technology or mechanization of agriculture, to a large extent, is inadequate in rural Ghana due to low levels of development. There is also the social capital available to rural dwellers, notably the social setting, chiefdoms and formal and informal relationships between the inhabitants as well as kinship ties. In rural Ghana, kinship ties are relevant in the allocation of land for farming activities, as land is usually owned by the family, tribe or community. Chiefs and leadership in such areas are therefore important in this mix, as they are the key adjudicating bodies in such areas. Issues of land tenure and their resolution are handled by chiefs and community elders. Again, due to the communal ties and norms, farmers can operate University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 40 sharecropping and mutual farming assistance (Noboa) (Afriyie et al., 2015). These communal ties also factor in virtually all economic activities rural dwellers engage in. Another category of capital, known as financial capital, refers to the wages earned, capital accumulated and credit facilities available to rural dwellers. Financial capital refers to the availability of credit facilities or loans, aids and grants to rural dwellers to pursue or enhance any livelihood strategy or activities they are involved in. Rural folk in Ghana are particularly handicapped when it comes to financial capital. The framework assumes that at every point in time, these assets would be available to the poor in different measures. Hence, all of these would not be available in equal measure. For some assets, therefore, their effectiveness in producing value will depend on how it is combined with other assets. For rural dwellers to achieve sustainable livelihood outcomes, a range of capital would have to be combined. A successful livelihood outcome, in this case, food security, depends on a combination of factors and livelihood assets. For instance, though an individual may have mineral- rich land, the appropriate technology, knowledge and skills would be required to mine. Similarly, a farmer may have to rely on relatives to help sell farm produce to make a meaningful income. It must be emphasized that the use of capital and its outcome, in efforts to address the vulnerability of food insecurity, is regulated by the structures and policies, institutions and processes. They are vital in the quest to transform a certain range of assets into viable outcomes. In Ghana, a policy like the Planting for Food and Jobs which was introduced by the state is one of the policies which influences the vulnerability context and the use and availability of assets. It communicates the state’s support for agricultural activities. The policy’s execution is overseen by the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, through sub-agencies. Again, University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 41 intervention by donor agencies and institutions like DFID, and the World Bank as well as the role of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture also influences the vulnerability context of the rural poor. Also, mention can be made of the processes, such legislation of SSM and the fight against galamsey, which also influence the asset pentagon, whiles influencing the kind of livelihood strategy rural households undertake. These processes, institutions and policies are vital to every aspect of livelihoods. On one hand, they grant or deny access to assets (Serrat, 2017), and incentivise people to make the right livelihood choices. For rural dwellers to be able to transform their assets into productive ventures, the appropriate legislation and licence