UNIVERSITY OF GHANA 
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES 
 
CUSTOMARY LAND TENURE PRACTICES AND THE LIVELIHOODS OF 
PEASANTS IN THE NANUMBA TRADITIONAL AREA 
 
YAMBOAR LAARBIK 
(10551396) 
 
THIS THESIS IS SUBMITTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF GHANA, LEGON IN 
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF MPHIL 
GEOGRAPHY AND RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT 
 
 
July, 2017 
 
 
 
i 
 
Declaration  
I hereby declare that this submission is my own work towards the M.  Phil. in Geography and 
Resource Development, and that, with the exception of information to which due 
acknowledgement has been made in the text; it contains neither material previously published by 
another person nor material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree of the 
University, to the best of my knowledge. 
Yamboar Laarbik ………………………                  .................................. 
(10551396)       Signature        Date 
Certified by: 
Professor P. W. K. Yankson ……………………. …………………….. 
(Lead supervisor)      Signature          Date 
Professor Emmanuel Morgan Attua ……………………..       ………………………. 
(Co-supervisor)                                    Signature                                     Date  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ii 
 
Abstract  
It is mind bothering if few people inhabiting a vast area of a region should have issues with 
livelihoods due to access to land. Livelihoods of people in the three northern regions of Ghana 
depend largely on the availability and ease of access to land. On the other hand land in the 
Nanumba traditional area is under the allodial hold of the overlord and overseen by the sub and 
divisional chiefs. The indigenes within the royal families are entitled to usufruct rights in the 
communally held land. The customary practices of farmland allocation, determination of 
interests and rules of engagement in land deals possibly leave behind issues of discrimination, 
inequality and deprivation with livelihoods consequences. 
This study adopted a case study design and mixed methods of data collection with questionnaire, 
FGDs and in-depth interviews as instruments of data collection. It gathered both qualitative and 
quantitative data on modes of land allocation, gendered issues in land allocation, access to 
farmland and livelihood outcomes, and the state of food security. Descriptive techniques like 
frequency and tabulations were adopted to analyse the data. It therefore observed that access to 
farmland was predominantly through free gifts and inheritance, with incidence of land sales 
around urbanizing areas like Bimbilla sub-traditional area. The inequality, discrimination and 
exclusions in gendered land access were socially constructed. It also observed low income 
earnings with widespread household food insecurity across the study sites. The study observed 
that peasants borrowed food stuff and also sold labour predominantly as mitigation measures. It 
therefore recommended participatory stakeholder interventions involving the chiefs, gender desk 
officers, local NGOs and the local government in formulating effective agrarian land reforms to 
enhance real access to farmland, especially by females in the area; while taking steps to diversify 
livelihoods of households in the traditional area. 
iii 
 
Dedication  
I dedicate this work to my late mother, Yamboar Lucy Tanjon, for her efforts in my life, and for 
her steadfast spiritual backings. I thank God for her life and wish her befitting reception at the 
Lord‟s throne of mercy. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
iv 
 
Acknowledgement  
I thank God for allowing my admission into the University of Ghana in the first place, and for 
championing my pursuits in the study. I again thank God for selecting my supervisors who, aside 
dedicating themselves to my work and being meticulous in ensuring the right processes are 
followed, have provided a fatherly model I so much desired in life. It is my wish for God to 
constantly keep Professors P. W. K. Yankson and Emmanuel Morgan Attua healthy and fulfilled, 
for others to benefit from them.  
I would like to also acknowledge the efforts of Mr. Buadu Karim, Abarika Yussif, Ziblila Hardi, 
Adam Faizu, Attah Suale, and Alhassan A. Abdul-Rahman for their tireless efforts in gathering 
th
the data for the study. But for their efforts and commitment, the erupted conflict on the 11  
February, 2017 would have disrupted the data gathering processes. I pray for your lives and your 
continuous progress in life. 
I want to specially acknowledge Mr. Buadu Karim and Mr. Abarika Yussif for their roles in 
feeding the study with detailed information about the traditional area, and for offering their time 
at any of my calls on them both for clarifications and further guidance throughout the study. I 
appreciate your efforts very well. 
While I acknowledge the contributions of my family, I stand with them to thank all who have 
impacted in my life in any way throughout this course. This long list include all, but not limiting 
to my lecturers, St Thomas Aquinas Parish Choir, colleague students, the staff of geography 
department and personal friends, especially Laar Kingsley. You laid the foundation environment 
for my comfortable and peaceful stay on Legon Campus. 
v 
 
Table of Contents 
Declaration ...................................................................................................................................... ii 
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iii 
Dedication ...................................................................................................................................... iv 
Acknowledgement .......................................................................................................................... v 
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 
1.0 Chapter Overview ..................................................................................................................... 1 
1.1 Background to the Study ........................................................................................................... 2 
1.2 Problem Statement .................................................................................................................... 9 
1.3 Research Questions ................................................................................................................. 14 
1.4 Specific Objectives ................................................................................................................. 14 
1.5 Significance of the Study ........................................................................................................ 15 
1.6 Scope of the Study .................................................................................................................. 15 
1.7 Limitations of the Study.......................................................................................................... 16 
1.8 Organization of the Study ....................................................................................................... 17 
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 
2.0 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 19 
2.1 Livelihoods ............................................................................................................................. 19 
2.2 Customary Authority in Perspectives ..................................................................................... 22 
2.3 Customary Land Tenure Practices in the Northern Regions .................................................. 23 
vi 
 
2.4.0 Customary Land Tenure Rights and Interests ...................................................................... 24 
2.4.1 Usufruct Rights or Interest in Customary Land .............................................................. 25 
2.5.0 Land Tenure Security in the Context of Gender .................................................................. 27 
2.5.1 Lineage Systems and Gender Land Interests .................................................................. 29 
2.5.2 Gender and Equity in Family Land Deals ....................................................................... 31 
2.6 Access to Farmland and Peasant Livelihoods ......................................................................... 32 
2.7.0 Conceptual Framework ........................................................................................................ 35 
2.7.1 The Elements of the Framework ..................................................................................... 36 
2.7.2 The Linkages among the Elements ................................................................................. 38 
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 
3.0 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 42 
3.0.1 Geographical Location .................................................................................................... 42 
3.0.2 Socio-Economic Data of the Area ................................................................................... 42 
3.0.3 Climate and Vegetation ................................................................................................... 43 
3.1 Research Design...................................................................................................................... 47 
3.2. Population of Study................................................................................................................ 49 
3.3 Sampling Size ......................................................................................................................... 49 
3.4.0 Sample Selection techniques ................................................................................................ 50 
3.4.1 Stratified Sampling .......................................................................................................... 50 
3.4.2 Purposive Sampling ......................................................................................................... 52 
vii 
 
3.4.3 Selecting Respondents ..................................................................................................... 52 
3.5.0 Data Collection Instruments ................................................................................................ 53 
3.5.1 Interview .......................................................................................................................... 53 
3.5.2 Questionnaire ................................................................................................................... 55 
3.5.3 Focus Group Discussions FGDs...................................................................................... 57 
3.5.4 Secondary Data ................................................................................................................ 58 
3.6 Research Assistants ................................................................................................................. 58 
3.7.0 Analytical Framework ......................................................................................................... 59 
3.7.1 Data Procession and Analysis ......................................................................................... 59 
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS, ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION 
4.0 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 62 
4.0.1 Study Site and Designation of Respondent ..................................................................... 63 
4.0.2 Sex and Origin of Respondent by Locality ..................................................................... 64 
4.0.3 Age Distribution and Marital Status of Respondent by Locality ......................................... 65 
4.0.4 Marital and Residential Status of Respondent ................................................................ 66 
4.0.5 Household Size and Residential Status of Respondent by Localities ............................. 67 
4.1.0 Objective One: Land Allocation in the Nanumba Traditional Area .................................... 69 
4.1.1 Mode of Access to Land .................................................................................................. 70 
4.1.2 Locality and Mode of Access to Farmlands .................................................................... 71 
4.1.3 Demand for Compensation by Locality .......................................................................... 72 
viii 
 
4.1.4 Mode of Access and claim of Ownership of farmland by Locality ................................ 74 
4.2.0 Objective Two: Gender or Nativity of Peasants as Factors of Land Access ....................... 77 
4.2.1 Gender and Access to Land by Localities ....................................................................... 79 
4.2.3 Gendered Views on Customary Land Allocations .......................................................... 82 
4.2.4 Views of Natives and Settlers on Whether Custom Discriminate against Women ......... 83 
4.2.5 Sex of Respondents and Mode of Access by Locality .................................................... 84 
4.2.6 Origin of Respondent and Mode of Land Access by Locality ........................................ 85 
4.3.0 Objective Three: Land Tenure Practices and Livelihoods of Peasants ................................ 87 
4.3.1 Origin of Respondent and Farmland Size by Study Sites/Locality ................................. 87 
4.3.2 Gender and Farmland Size by Locality ........................................................................... 89 
4.3.3 Origin of Respondent and Estimated Annual Income from Farming by Locality .......... 90 
4.3.4 Size of Personal Land Assets among Income Groupings of Peasants by Locality ......... 91 
4.4. Policy Implications: Prevalence of Households Food Security ............................................. 95 
4.4.1 Prevalence of Food Sales in Response to Household Financial Needs ........................... 95 
4.4.2 Prevalence of Food Shortages in Households of Peasants by Locality ........................... 96 
4.4.3 Nature of Food Shortage in Neighbourhoods of Respondents ........................................ 97 
4.4.4 Mitigation strategies by Peasants during Food Shortages ............................................... 98 
4.4.5 Whether Activities of Herdsmen Disturb Farmers ........................................................ 101 
4.4.6 Land Sales and Peasant Works ...................................................................................... 101 
 
ix 
 
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSIONS OF FINDINGS 
5.0 Overview ............................................................................................................................... 103 
5.0.1 Sex and Origin of Respondents by Locality .................................................................. 103 
5.0.2 Age and Marital Statue of Respondents and Locality ................................................... 105 
5.0.3 Respondents‟ Marital, Household size and Residential Status ..................................... 106 
5.1.0 Objective One: The Nature of Land Allocation in the Nanumba Traditional Area ........... 108 
5.1.1 Land Tenure Practices in Nanumba Traditional Area ................................................... 108 
5.1.2 Mode of Land Allocation in the Nanumba Traditional Area ........................................ 110 
5.1.3 Mode of Allocation and Ownership of Farmland by Locality ...................................... 113 
5.2.0 Objective 2: Gender and Nativity in Land Allocation in Nanumba Traditional Area ....... 115 
5.2.1 Origin and Mode of Access by Locality ....................................................................... 115 
5.2.2 The Prevalence of Gender or Settler Issues in Land Allocation ................................... 116 
5.2.3 Gender and Access to Land by Locality ....................................................................... 118 
5.2.4 Views of Natives and Settlers on the Perceived Discriminations ................................. 119 
5.2.5 Origin of Peasants and Land Access in the Traditional Area ........................................ 120 
5.2.6 Settler Land Access Challenges in the Traditional Area ............................................... 122 
5.3.0 Objective 3: Land Tenure Practices and Livelihoods of Peasants ..................................... 123 
5.3.1 Farmland Sizes of Peasants by Locality ........................................................................ 123 
5.3.2 Gender of Peasants and Farmland Sizes ........................................................................ 125 
5.3.3 Origin of Peasants and Output from Farm by Locality ................................................. 125 
x 
 
5.3.4 Sizes of Personal Land Assets of Peasants by Locality ................................................ 126 
5.3.5 Mode of Access and Income of Peasants by Locality ................................................... 127 
5.4 Objective Four: Issues of Household Food Security in the Nanumba Traditional Area and 
Policy Issues................................................................................................................................ 129 
5.4.1 Peasants‟ Farm Output Levels and Household Food Requirement ............................... 129 
5.4.2 Nature of Household Food Insecurity among Peasants ................................................. 130 
5.4.3 Prevalence of Food Shortage in Households of Peasants‟ Neighbourhoods................. 131 
5.4.4 Timing of the Food Shortages and Mitigation Measure Peasants Adopted .................. 131 
5.4.5 The Role of Women during Food Shortages ................................................................. 132 
5.4.6 Policy Implications of Customary Decisions in the Area. ................................................. 134 
CHAPTER SIX: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
6.0 Overview ............................................................................................................................... 136 
6.1 Summary of the Study .......................................................................................................... 136 
6.2 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 139 
6.3 Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 140 
BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................... 142 
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 156 
 
 
 
 
xi 
 
List of Tables 
Table 1: Population of Nanumba North District by Sex and Locality .......................................... 44 
Table 2 Demographic Characteristics of the Study Sites ............................................................. 50 
Table 3: Sex and Origin of Respondent by Locality .................................................................... 64 
Table 4: Age Distribution and Marital Status of Respondent by Locality ................................... 66 
Table 5: Household Size and Residential Status by Locality ....................................................... 68 
Table 6: Opinions on Land Allocation and Land Deals ............................................................... 71 
Table 7: Mode of Access and Ownership by Locality .................................................................. 75 
Table 8: Opinions of Peasants on Land Allocations ..................................................................... 77 
Table 9: Gender and Mode of Access to Farmland by Locality ................................................... 80 
Table 10: Sex of Respondent and Mode of Access by Locality ................................................... 85 
Table 11: Origin of Respondent and Mode of Land Access by Locality ..................................... 86 
Table 12: Origin of Respondent and Farmland Size by Locality ................................................. 88 
Table 13: Sex of Respondent and Farmland Size by Locality ...................................................... 89 
Table 14: Origin of Respondent and Estimated Annual income from Farming by Locality ........ 91 
Table 15: Size of Personal Land Asset among Income Groupings Peasants by Locality ............ 92 
Table 16 Mode of Access and Estimated Income by Locality ..................................................... 94 
Table 17: Prevalence of Food Sales among Peasants by Localities ............................................. 96 
Table 18: Prevalence of Food Shortages in Households of Peasants by Locality ........................ 97 
Table 19: Nature of Food Shortage in neighbourhoods of respondents by Study Area ............... 98 
Table 20: Mitigation of Peasants during Food Shortages ............................................................. 99 
Table 21: Dominant Suggestions of Peasants on Building Resilience of Peasants .................... 100 
Table 22: Whether Activities of Herdsmen Disturb Farmers ..................................................... 101 
xii 
 
Table 23: Land Sales and Peasantry by Study Site ..................................................................... 102 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
xiii 
 
List of Figures 
Figure 1: DFID‟s Sustainable Livelihoods Framework ................................................................ 36 
Figure 2: DFID Conceptual Framework for Sustainable Livelihood Studies (1999); Modified by 
the Study ....................................................................................................................................... 39 
Figure 3: Map of Nanumba North District (GSS, 2014) Adopted ................................................ 45 
Figure 4: Bar Chart of Title of Respondent by Locality ............................................................... 63 
Figure 5: Bar Chart of Sex and Locality of Respondents ............................................................. 65 
Figure 6: Bar Chart of Marital and Residential Status of Respondent ......................................... 67 
Figure 7: Bar Chart of Household Size of Respondent and Study Site ........................................ 69 
Figure 8: Bar Chart of Locality and Mode of Access to Farmlands ............................................. 72 
Figure 9: Bar Chart of Demand for Compensation by Locality ................................................... 73 
Figure 10: Bar Chart of Ownership (interests) in Farmland by Locality of Respondent ............. 74 
Figure 11: Bar Chart of Mode of Access and Ownership of Land ............................................... 76 
Figure 12: Bar Chart of Nature of Women Land Rights by Locality ........................................... 78 
Figure 13: Bar Chart of Land Transfer to Women by Locality .................................................... 79 
Figure 14: Bar Chart of Women's Land Inheritance by Localities ............................................... 81 
Figure 15: Bar Chart of Customs and Women in Land Allocation by Localities ........................ 82 
Figure 16:  Bar Chart of Gendered Views on Customs and Women‟s Access to Land ............... 83 
Figure 17: Bar Chart of Views of Natives/Settlers on whether Custom Discriminate against 
Women .......................................................................................................................................... 84 
Figure 18: Pie Chart of Periods of food Shortages ..................................................................... 100 
 
xiv 
 
CHAPTER ONE 
INTRODUCTION 
1.0 Chapter Overview  
Socio-economic development in rural areas is rooted in the livelihoods of the peasant 
households. Peasant Household referred to labour oriented family of persons that engages largely 
in agrarian activities for a living. Livelihood has been defined as the embodiment of people‟s 
capabilities, assets, and activities they required and engaged in for a means of living (Chambers 
and Conway, 1992). Livelihood is therefore, composition of a household‟s opportunities, assets 
and capabilities that it requires in order to make a living. It also refers to a household‟s portfolio 
of assets, capabilities and activity options required to enable it secure a decent living.  
Issues of livelihoods in rural areas are contingent on the availability of, and access to land. Land 
in the Nanumba traditional area is communally held with several land rights. The traditional 
authorities in other jurisdictions, who are mandated to hold and distribute land according to 
customarily laid down rules, were observed to have engaged in deals that inured to their benefits 
at the expense of the subjects (Yeboah and Shaw, 2013). These practices of land allocations 
within the traditional areas tend to pose livelihood challenges, with landless peasant households 
being worse affected. This study was intended to examine the land tenure practices by the 
customs of Nanumba traditional area and if their deals discriminate either by gender or nativity 
of the peasants. It was also to examine and explain any observed livelihood impact these 
practices may pose on households of peasants in the traditional area, as well as identify any 
policy implications emanating from the observed impacts. 
1 
 
1.1 Background to the Study 
Land and its resource endowment serve the livelihood needs of a majority of people worldwide 
(FAO, 1996). It remains a key source of survival to the poor and the marginalized in societies 
across the globe. It further constitutes an asset, a store of value, and upon which wealth of the 
ethnic groups is determined (Lastarria-Cornhiel and Frais, 1992; cited in Quansah, 2012). Dittoh, 
(2002) thinks that land plays significant roles in supporting livelihoods among rural households, 
except that chiefs are becoming perpetuators of access denials and restrictions to land interests 
and access. Land is therefore, an indispensable resource for survival for multitudes of people. 
However, this gift of nature has been under the control of a few privileged people in the societies 
across nations. In Africa there are uncertainties surrounding the nature of its management and 
distribution to those who really need it in each society. In most societies in the Sub-Saharan 
Africa, land is controlled by the states and royal classes of indigenes.  
In Ghana and some other countries, chiefs and clan or family heads are in control of about 80% 
of the land (Kunbun-Naa Yiri II, 2006), while the state controls the rest. In northern Ghana, and 
especially, in the Dagbon traditional area, the chiefs, clan or family heads and private individuals 
play the leading roles in land management, control and distributions. Land Tenure refers to sets 
of rules and regulations incorporated into a society‟s customs to regulate how its members as 
well as strangers should be allocated with land rights within the society in the pursuit of their 
livelihoods. Customary Land Tenure Practices include the traditional authority‟s exercise of the 
obligatory roles (Article 36(8) of the 1992 republican constitution of Ghana) in determining 
ownership interests in land, allocating land to natives and strangers, regulating land use rights, 
and ensuring the perpetuation of land to unborn generations (Yeboah and Shaw,2013).  
2 
 
Customary land tenure system has maintained its control over land as communal property over 
centuries amidst several challenges of social, economic and political orientations (Kasanga et al, 
1996: Woodman, 1996). According to Pomevor, (2014), communal heads like chiefs, family 
and clan heads in the communities assume allodial rights over communal lands while members 
of the communities hold usufruct rights. Usufruct is a form of right or interest in land held by a 
member of landowning family, or a stranger who has been granted such an interest, to make a 
living from the use of the land. Pomevor, (2014) described this right held by members of the 
communities as derived rights in land. In referring to judgment passed by Ollenu in law suits, he 
enumerated four modes of allodial land acquisition – by purchase, gift to the stool or skin, 
pioneer settlement and conquest.  
Chiefs are empowered constitutionally to assume allodial interest holdings to lands in trust for 
their subjects. Yeboah and Shaw, (2013), in reference to Article 36(8) of the 1992 Ghanaian 
republican constitution, highlighted the constitutionally mandated roles bestowed on traditional 
authorities and declared that there had been a dilution per their observations. The article 36(8) 
recognized the social obligatory roles of traditional authorities in the service of their 
communities and the state in land ownership and possession for the utmost benefit of their 
subjects. These communal leaders formulate rules to govern the land under their customary 
tenure and to determine how land should be retained within the communities as heritage. These 
rules regulated how the junior members of the community relate with the land, but they vary 
from one tenure system to another, and also, across management systems.  
Likewise, Yeboah and Shaw acknowledged that customary land tenure practices vary in space 
and tenure regime. Chiefs preside over land and allocate land to meet livelihood needs of the 
subjects, and also settle disputes and other issues relating to land allocations, ownership, use and 
3 
 
transfer. These practices of the traditional authorizes are meant to ensure enhanced livelihoods 
and development at the rural and peri-urban communities. On the contrary, Yeboah and Shaw, 
(2013) noted that the traditional authorities rather benefit from land deals at the expense of the 
subjects.  
Customary tenure rights held by members of the communities have undergone some changes 
over years. Initially, stools or skins held lands absolutely. Members only had usufruct rights of 
gathering resources of the land. Hardly was it possible for individual members of the 
communities to claim rights of permission over parcels of communal land (Pomevor, 2014). This 
gave all persons in the community equal rights of access to the resources of the communal lands 
(Agidi, 1976). Mabogunje (1980) noted that land under customary tenure in Africa; especially 
Nigeria served the communal needs of members of the communities and was not subject to being 
alienated through sale. According to Lentz, (2010), the traditions of the ethnic groups in the 
Sisala traditional area outlawed land sales for fear of alienating their ancestral links. According 
to Pomevor, (2014) usufruct rights held by indigenes was indefinite, and only reverted to the 
stool or skin upon abandonment. He observed that families and individuals could hold this rights 
and transfer to their lineages.   
On the other hand, studies have observed changes in the land ownerships, distributions and 
disbursement within societies. These changes were observed to result from scarcity due to 
population explosion (Yeboah and Shaw, 2013). This phenomenon led to changes in the rights 
the community members had in the use of the skin or stool lands held in common (Agidi, 1976; 
cited in Pomevor, 2014). Pressures from commercial agriculture and urbanization brought about 
land markets and the consequent crowding out of small scale peasantry, especially around the 
suburbs of larger towns (Yeboar and Shaw, 2013: Pomevor, 2014). Likewise, extensive 
4 
 
participation in agriculture came with its attendant competitions for fertile land. Also, the growth 
in settlement again inflamed the evolution of land markets (Yaro, 2012: Senu, 2016). Therefore, 
population growth as noted is a key factor to increasing demand for land (Yeboah and Shaw, 
2013) both for agricultural activities or for estate development. They held that population growth 
causes derived demand for housing, recreational fields, infrastructural development and rising 
drive for arable land for food production. Meanwhile, Dittoh, (2002) had noted this earlier on 
when he called for stronger policy measures to shape land management in line with the 
increasing population growth. Peasants are the worst affected by the consequences of these 
developments. This is because when land attracts high prices, landlords would not hesitate to 
evict peasants to make land available for commercial agricultural and estate development 
(Devendra & Chantalakhana, 2002). 
Another changing trend that mounts stress to land availability and accessibility is the diversion of 
communal land to private interest holdings.  This practice has likely impact of weaning off 
landless peasant households from decent livelihoods. The act threatens livelihoods of the 
landless members of the communities. In the midst of this scarcity, members of landowning 
families with usufruct interests in communal lands gradually turned such lands into family, clan 
and individual lands (Dittoh, 2002: Pomevor, 2014). Likewise, the phenomena also turned land 
previously held in allodial interest by families and clans into individual land holding interests 
(Pomevor, 2014). In effect, usufruct rights holders have entrenched their holds onto such lands to 
ensure tenure security.  
However, there are noted schools of thought espousing two viewpoints that counter each other‟s 
position of land interest holdings (Chimhowu and Woodhouse, 2006). While one proposes 
individualization of land rights for the purpose of enhancing productivity and clarity in title 
5 
 
registration (World Bank, 1975: de Soto, 2000), the other thinks that promoting communal 
interests in land will guarantee the secondary rights of landless poor people (IIED, 1999: 
Toulmin and Quan, 2000; Toulmin et al, 2002; cited in Chimhowu and Woodhouse, 2006). 
These families or individuals can only pass on these lands to their lineages as heritage. Peasants 
that are not related to landowning families would have to depend on the goodwill of these 
families for farmlands. Dittoh (2002) also put forward that families held and gave land under 
their use to strangers even without consulting the chiefs while chiefs preside over uncultivated 
lands.  Chiefs could only give out unoccupied land to settlers who request for land. 
As noted above, settlers and other landless categories of peasants had to access land for 
livelihoods through these sets of interest holders in the community. Settlers, strangers and other 
landless people within the community would enjoy only secondary usufructory rights to land in 
the community through gifts, tenancy or if they can, purchase. These modes of access vary 
among traditions and between lineage systems, and falls short of ensuring peasants‟ tenure 
security.  
The access of these peasants would be subject to the set of customary rules governing their 
relationships with the farmlands. According to Dittoh, (2002), families could give conditions 
attached to the benevolent gestures, mindful of the traditional or customary rules of the areas. 
This implies that customs and traditions construct rules and regulations to govern land deals 
within the traditional areas. He however ruled out any direct demands from the landowning 
families as compensations for giving land out to landless people in the northern regions of 
Ghana. However, Lentz, (2010) noted a demand by Tindamba in the Lambunssie district for 
Dagaba settlers to supply animals meant for pacification of the earth-gods on lands under their 
6 
 
usufruct interests. The payment of compensation is likely to constitute leakage from the 
peasants‟ meager capital. 
However, share tenancy is a structured compensatory mode used by landlords in most southern 
communities to benefit from the use of their land. Share tenancy is a rental status depicting 
landlord-tenant relations under customary law, containing the contract between landlord and the 
tenant (Pomevor, 2014). The most widely used forms of shared tenancy are the Abusa (1/3) and 
Abunu (1/2). In the case of Abusa (1/3), the tenant bears the cost of production and so the 
landlord is entitled to only one-third of the profit accruing from the output. In the other case the 
landlord bears the cost while the tenant only manages the farm. In sharing the proceeds, they 
both part with one-half (1/2) of the profit (Pomevor, 2014). These tenancy agreements are a 
predominant practice in the southern Ghana, among the Akan ethnic communities (Appiah, 
2012).  
Landless peasants will only take whichever tenancy regime between the two, that the landlords 
decide to practice. Research shows that Abusa is the dominant practice in these communities 
(Agidi, 1976: Appiah, 2012). The studies observed that most landlords are not capable of 
prefinancing the contractual demands required under the Abunu share tenancy. Landlords rather 
preferred that peasant tenants take the risks involved in production. They therefore opt for the 
contructual agreement of Abusa. This pushes the peasants into taking the risks of farming, 
mindful of the share acruing to the landlords. 
Gender could be a key factor in determining allocations of land rights in African societies. 
Socially constructed roles for men and women in a society in themselves constitute a violation of 
land rights of women (Tsikata and Yaro, 2014). Women only get access to land through their 
children, especially male children. In Sisala land, women who gave birth to many male children 
7 
 
assume greater access to land than those who give birth to females (Adolwine and Dudima, 
2010). In patriarchal lineage system, customs and traditions determine land access, use and 
transfer. This creates unequal access to land by a majority of female members of a traditional 
area. The biases emanating from the customs do not only seek exclusion of females from land 
inheritance and land title holdings, but seek to define subordinating roles for women in families 
(Agbosu et al, 2007).  
Unfortunately, women constitute the larger segment of world‟s population, as much as in all 
African countries. This lack of equity in land distribution creates livelihood challenges to 
women, youth and strangers in societies. These categories of the landless groups within the 
traditional areas, whose livelihoods are likely to suffer from the decisions of the customary 
authorities, are liable to suffering from hunger, poverty and deprivation.  
In summary, land issues cannot be ignored in the fight against underdevelopment in rural Ghana. 
Deducing from the aforementioned impacts, these issues affect, in greater measures, the land 
holdings of the largely agrarian society and ultimately determine the levels of output and 
incomes of the people. The interrelationships among the customary tenure interest holders in 
land, the rules and regulations that the customs formulate to govern how people relate with land, 
including the lineage systems, as well as the interest bestowed in settlers and landless people and 
the usufruct rights held by indigenes must be looked at seriously if livelihoods must be attended 
to. Most especially, gender issues and poor people‟s secondary rights to community resources 
need to be catered for.  
Studies show that when large sections of people are excluded from land access it creates negative 
conditions like poverty, dependence, conflicts and even migration. Despite the extensive 
8 
 
literature on land tenure systems or practices there is a gap in examining the impacts of the 
tenure practices on peasants with comparative analysis of the variations of the impacts on settlers 
and natives, as well as intra native gender variations. This study will examine the variations 
between peasants by nativity and intra-native gendered impacts of the customary practices to 
arrive at the level and extent of inequality and deprivations enshrined in the practices.  
1.2 Problem Statement 
This study seeks to examine the customary land tenure practices of the Nanumba traditional area 
and how the livelihoods of the settlers and other landless peasants are impacted on by the tenure 
practices. This traditional area has Bimbilla as the traditional capital and two key areas aligned to 
the two gates of the traditional area. The people of this area are predominantly farmers and rely 
on land to a larger extend for livelihoods. Land as a factor of production constitutes the bedrock 
of livelihoods in Nanumba traditional area. Three quarters (88.2%) of households in the district 
are into agriculture, while 97.7 percent of peasant households in the area are into crop farming 
(Ghana Statistical Service, 2014). Yam, maize, groundnuts, cassava and beans production require 
good soil for bumper outputs. Nanumba traditional area is well noted for its contributions to food 
supply in Ghana.  
Despite the high expectations that Ghana entrust in the traditional area to salvaging her from 
threats of food insecurity issues, lots of the farmers in this area operate on subsistence basis due 
to land tenure issues based on customs, litigations and conflicts. Land commoditization is 
emerging within the area and this has served to heighten issues of ownership and control to land. 
Even within family levels, there are issues of alienations and exclusions to land access. This 
appears more serious when females within land owning families are denied direct access to 
9 
 
landed assets of families. Settlers and females as well as males from landless families seem to 
suffer same fates of difficult access to farmlands.  
It is fast becoming a history on how allodial holders of land acted in the interest of their subjects 
in the traditional area. Chiefs, tindamba, and heads of families serve as dominant actors in the 
customary land deals in the Nanumba traditional area. These customary authorities have 
controlled and managed land and its resources equitably in the past. Their tenure deals put the 
communal interests of the people first, and their adherence to cultural heritages of the 
community they represented made land inalienable (Kumbun-Naa Yiri II, 2006). This communal 
role by the traditional authorities in the area was also observed elsewhere in Nigeria and Ghana 
(Mabogunje, 1980: Lentz, 2010). The unused or unoccupied and unallocated lands were 
reallocated to growing or larger families, and strangers to help them adjust to their changing 
livelihood needs (Mabogunje, 1980).  It will interest the study to ascertain if rural and small town 
communities of the study area uphold this custom.  
There had been customarily laid down rules and regulations on how land is owned, allocated, 
used and transferred within subgroups in the traditional area. Land tenure practices in the 
traditional area cannot be said to be guided by uniform rules, and so different communities in the 
traditional area operate on different customary rules. For instance, while some communities 
within the traditional area include females‟ land interests, others thought that females had no 
place in land rights.  
Likewise, some think that the interests females should hold must be subordinated to interests of 
male members of the families. This category of thinkers share property like houses and entrust 
those of females in the males as care takers. The silent questions could be on how widespread is 
the phenomenon? And whether females suffer adversely due to these dispositions by the 
10 
 
patriarchal society? This is likely the manifestation of the impacts of the socially constructed oral 
rules and regulations.  
The emergence of land sales creates and strengthens exclusionist customs, though they vary 
across the traditional areas depending on the level at which the inequalities are perpetuated. For 
instance, areas that experienced the emerging urbanization have continued to indulge in land 
sales and partitioning of communally held lands into individual ownership. Land sales are 
emerging in the bigger towns within the traditional area, while influential members of the 
families wield interests of usufruct to their nuclear families. Consequently, family members are 
excluded base on gender due to the high monetary value placed on land pressured by high 
demand for building plots. However, settler peasants whose farmlands are demarcated for sale 
might be given some compensatory recognition in the process. Such farmers are given some 
plots free of charge, and also given opportunity to express demand for the rest of the parcels 
demarcated for sale. If such persons could afford they bought the rest of the farmland, else, it 
was sold out. 
The conflict situation in the area makes individuals within the communities to also sell 
communal lands without consultations with the rest of the interest holders in the land. This 
phenomenon was is prevalent in most conflicting community (Dittoh, 2002). Some of these deals 
have led to prospective buyers losing their moneys. The developments have brought about lots of 
land litigations, inter and intra family and tribal conflicts, leading to seizure of portions of land 
under usufruct usage.  
The devastating impact of this is that, while such lands are under contention, peasants are 
automatically evicted from their farmlands. The litigations on land hitherto used as farmlands 
11 
 
have limited the access of poor people to resources of the said land parcels. These issues have 
actually questioned the poor people‟s access to farmland, and pose as threats to improved 
productivity and livelihoods in the agrarian economy (Okojie & Shimeles, 2006). Any disregard 
for peasants‟ livelihoods is a recipe for widespread hunger, inequality and deprivations in 
communities of the northern Ghana (Yaro, 2012). The prevalence of these ills in Nanumba 
traditional area constitutes an affront to rural development as they impact on the livelihood 
sustenance of the peasants in the traditional area.  
Settlers in the traditional area depend on secondary usufruct rights out of the benevolence of the 
individual and family or clan heads. However, realities of non-documentation of land deals in the 
area have left behind issues of trust among the settler communities and the land owners.  This 
occurs largely among the second or third generations of the parties that contracted the land deals. 
Landowners preferred to keep their lands than to give out to persons they do not fully trust. 
However, the issues of trust seemed to be changing in favour of the peasants to the disadvantage 
of the landless natives. The current intra-ethnic conflicts seemed to scare landless peasants from 
requesting for farmlands from native landowners. This situation could be devastating to native 
peasants and settlers alike. The contention yet to be considered in another study is to determine 
the extent to which this waning trust affected peasantry in the traditional area.  
Another key issue that gives basis to gendered discriminations in land allocation is the lineage 
system practiced by the traditional area. Right to inherit is vested in the male members of the 
families. Because females are given out in marriage, they are not considered permanent members 
of the family. As noted by Kuusaana et al, (2016), females have no permanent membership right 
to either the natal family or marital family. This limits their ability to inherit from either their 
natal or marital families. In terms of property transfer, customs does not support female interests 
12 
 
for fear of alienating family assets held in trust for the families. Any transfer of family asset to a 
female constitutes automatic grant of rights to an outside family.  
Upon the death of male spouse, females are not allowed to take over the assets of their nuclear 
families. Female enjoy land rights through their children, especially male children. However, 
women function alongside their husbands in fending for the households. Juxtaposing the state of 
women on the socially constructed roles and the inequalities, then there could be lots of 
livelihoods issues, given the size of women in the traditional area.  
Equally discriminating was the marriage institutions and the customs on property inheritance 
among spouses. The system of marriage among the Nanumbas required the woman to move 
permanently to the husband‟s family, and all her belongings are at the disposal of the spouse and 
her children. She registers her assets in the care of her husband as a show of complete 
submissiveness to the marital agreement. The husband will consult her before taking a major 
decision on such assets. But the assets of the husband remain the sole property of the husband 
and the woman has no control over them. The use of such assets does not require the approval of 
the woman. Women were therefore culturally prepared to play secondary subordinating functions 
in the traditional area. 
In short, the rules and regulations governing land ownership, access, control and transfer in the 
Nanumba traditional area, coupled with how they are appropriated, form the basis for the 
exclusion of women and other landless groups in land deals. There is therefore a need for proper 
assessment and evaluation of the customary land tenure practices in the NTA, and how it impacts 
on the land holdings, levels of livelihood outputs and incomes of the peasants in the traditional 
area. It is therefore, of paramount necessity that a study be conducted in the traditional area to set 
13 
 
issues of intra- native gendered inequality, exclusion and deprivation of settlers and females on 
land deals in the traditional area straight.   
1.3 Research Questions 
This study is, therefore, required to find responses to the following questions:  
1. What is the mode of land distribution in the Nanumba traditional area? 
2. Are there significant differences in the land rights of these vulnerable groups by nativity or 
gender?  
3. To what extent do the customary tenure practices impacts on the vulnerable peasants‟ land 
holdings, livelihood activities and output, and income levels?  
4. What are the policy implications of these impacts on food security in the traditional area? 
1.4 Specific Objectives 
1. To determine and explain how land is allocated to persons for settlement or farming in the 
traditional area. 
2. To describe any differences in the land rights of the vulnerable groups by gender or 
nativity? 
3. To determine and explain if, and the extent to which customary practices influence 
vulnerable people‟s land holdings, livelihood choices, livelihood outcomes and income 
levels. 
4. To examine the policy implications of the plights of peasants in the land deals on food 
security situation in the Nanumba traditional area 
14 
 
1.5 Significance of the Study 
It was the intent of the study to determine and explain the various ways in which the customary 
authorities interact with subjects in terms of land allocations, transfers, and use.  It considered 
land tenure practices and how it affected the livelihood struggles of landless peasants as they 
desire to own land, decide on livelihood strategies, improve their outputs and acquire landed 
assets. The traditional area stood to benefit from the study as it constituted appraisal of its 
changing functions. This would inform further research as it constitutes a rich source of 
information to both development agencies and scholars. Lastly, it will inform policy on the fight 
against the ills of poverty, hunger and inequality of all forms in the Nanumba traditional area.  
1.6 Scope of the Study 
This study is of paramount necessity for the Nanumba traditional area, despite some other studies 
in northern Ghana. In terms of coverage, this study looked at the customary land tenure practices 
in the Nanumba traditional area, and whether it affects the livelihoods of vulnerable people in the 
traditional area. Specifically, the study focused on how customary tenure practices influenced 
equitable land deals. It focused on land allocations within natives and if there were gendered 
exclusions and inequality in allocating farmland. Likewise, it explored land allocations between 
natives and settlers across study sites.  
In furtherance, it examined the relationships between peasants and land they work on for their 
livelihoods. It sought to ascertain whether there was adequate allocation of farmland, and how it 
affected livelihoods of peasants in the traditional area. By this, the study compared farmland 
sizes of peasants across study sites and further compared the farmland sizes with income 
earnings of peasants across study sites. It also compared earnings of males and females to see if 
15 
 
there were significant variations. Also, it compared the incomes of peasants with their assets 
holding to also ascertain if there were links. Lastly the study examined the state of food security 
of the district, as well as the mitigation strategies peasants adopted. 
Livelihood is a complex concept encompassing lots of issues that come together to define the life 
of an individual. This study examined the land holdings, livelihood activities and output, and the 
income levels of the targeted population and how these connect with customary practices of the 
traditional area.  
In terms of space, the Nanumba traditional area stretches across the Nanumba North and South, 
both districts in the northern region, Ghana. The study is delimited to the Nanumba North 
district, and further to Bimbilla and two traditional towns, Bakpaba and Dokpam, in the district. 
The study area shall be referred to as Nanumba Traditional Area (NTA). 
1.7 Limitations of the Study  
Challenges and research are comparable to a hymn and its chorus, and so it sometime looks odd 
when researchers complained of challenges. However, it becomes valid if the mention of 
challenges is to ensure that further studies appreciate the level of preparedness required.  
Some of the issues that threatened this study included the outbreak of the conflict in Bimbilla just 
th
a week after the data collection exercise. The conflict broke out on the 11  of February, 2017 
with devastating consequences. One of the areas – Allurani – where data collection took place 
was the centre of gun battle. The next area around the old market was only slightly better 
comparatively. In view of this, some of the data had to be excluded from analysis because the 
missing items from the area could not be supplied through mop up. For instance issues like 
16 
 
cropping systems, faming systems, reasons for ejections and others were left out, however, the 
study was not affected any much. 
There were also issues of empty stools at key study sites and the resistance of females to 
volunteer information due to customs. For instance, the study could not get into contact with any 
traditional head in Dokpam because the skin was vacant. Also, the women in the traditional area 
could not be contacted due to customary related reasons. In the case of vacant skin, it relied on 
the household heads for the data and some of the questions had to be asked more skillfully in 
order not to introduce arguments on leadership of the area.  
The study could not actually gather detail data on gender land access in the traditional area. 
There is the need for a further and detailed look at the issue. The results could have been 
analyzed in a more detailed manner, but for the inadequacy of analytical skills of the researcher.  
1.8 Organization of the Study  
The study was structured into six chapters with each chapter dealing with a major theme that 
constituted the chapter. Chapter one looked at the background to the study, the problem 
statement, study questions and objectives that aroused from the pertinent questions. It again 
contained the delimitation or scope and limitations of the study. The second chapter looked at the 
conceptual and empirical evidences that gave the study its grounds and relevance. It also 
considered some other themes that were of relevance to the study. It ended up with the 
conceptual framework that sets the basis for the study.  
Chapter three constituted the study area, the study design and other methodological concepts 
such as the population and sampling techniques. It continued with the instruments of data 
collection and sets the stage of how data were analyzed, focusing of relevant tools of analysis. 
17 
 
The chapters four and five looked at the results of findings from the research instruments, their 
analysis, presentations and discussions. Chapter four therefore looked at results presentation and 
findings, while chapter five discusses the findings. Finally, chapter six dealt solely with summary 
of the findings, conclusions and recommendation emanating from the key findings. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
18 
 
CHAPTER TWO 
LITERATURE REVIEW 
2.0 Overview 
This chapter looked at the works of other scholars in journal articles, books, reports, and on the 
internet sources that relate with the key concepts in this study. It considered how these findings 
provide basis for the study and how they serve to answer the questions raised in the study. It also 
considered the experiences of the world forming the empirical knowledge base that give further 
backing to the discussions in the study. Basically, it looked at the concept of livelihood, 
customary authority in Perspectives, land Ownership in Context, land Titles and Allocations, 
customary Land Tenure Practices in the regions of Northern Ghana, forms of land tenure, land 
Tenure Security in the Context of Gender, gender and Equity in Family Land Deals, access to 
land and livelihoods, issues of land markets and eviction of peasants, and the conceptual 
Framework. 
2.1 Livelihoods  
Livelihoods of a people have very strong bond with the environment within which they live and 
subsist. The Malthusian theory posits that peasants in least developed nations exhaust the 
resources of their environment because of the demands of the expanding populations, and this 
could have eminent impacts on the future of those resources. Even though this position was 
flawed, it constituted a standpoint that called for integrated approaches to tackling the impending 
threats. The notion one gets is that poverty, hunger and malnutrition could be reduced by 
improving upon the environment (Sunderlin et al, 2005). Environment has series of components 
19 
 
including the physical, social and the cultural aspects of it. The natural environment refers to 
land and its associated resources that serve the purpose of human survival worldwide.  
Land as a major component of the natural environment is also beset with ownership challenges. 
The customary ownership of land poses problems as it undergoes changes from its known role as 
a social safety net for women, youth, migrant and settlers alike (Sunderlin et al, 2005). Some of 
the known changes include commoditization of customarily owned lands, rising prices of 
agricultural land (Yaro, 2012), declining trends of share cropping in areas known for such 
practices and increased use of land sales as the main modes of land deals. These practices of the 
customs entail livelihood implications with time. These bring in their wake, rising tenure 
insecurity and crowd out women, youth, migrant and settlers, as well as other low-income 
individuals from farming opportunities (Carter and May, 1999). The only opportunity for these 
peasants to make living meaningful rests with their access to land and its associated resources.  
Issues of making livelihoods sustainable call for more attention on the various factors and 
processes which either constrain or enhance poor people‟s ability to make a living in an 
economically, ecologically, and socially sustainable manner (Krantz, 2001). Carter and May, 
(1999) noted that the prevalence of limited assets and constrains to effective usage of such assets 
make poverty a reality. Approaches to sustainable livelihoods therefore seek to address the 
linkages between poverty, the environment and other structures, thereby resolving the shortfalls 
that have characterised poverty analyses (Sporton 1998).  
The concept of sustainable livelihoods evolved under the auspices of Brundtland Commission on 
Environment and Development and was later on expanded by the United Nation conference on 
environment and development in 1992, where they advocated for the achievement of sustainable 
20 
 
livelihoods as a broad goal for poverty eradication (Krantz, 2001). As stated earlier, it was 
deemed to play a pivotal role by aiding planned policies to achieve development in rural 
economies while managing resources sustainably and reducing poverty at the same time. It 
therefore concerns with the rural economies where majority of the dwellers are in peasantry 
productions (Krantz, 2001).  
The fear of the unknown future and what it brings to bear on livelihoods prompted calls for 
livelihood sustainability (Chambers and Conway, 1991).  This fear is much more frustrating, 
thinking for developing countries in the Sub-Saharan Africa where rural poverty is on the 
ascendency. According to Conway and Chambers (1991) the future of rural poor is bleak with 
„no one to turn to‟. Livelihood as seen by chambers and Conway, (1998) is a means to earning a 
living. Studies hold that the poor can increase their incomes by increasing their productivity 
(Lele, 1975) through mainly agricultural activities. Previous interventions rooted their efforts 
through agriculture by providing inputs and subsidies aside training of farmers. These efforts 
failed to meet the desired outcomes because land and human related challenges were not targeted 
and resolved. The cultural practices of societies, together with land issues need to be factored in 
when planning interventions.   
Chambers and Conway (1998) gave a tentative explanation of sustainable livelihood, which the 
Danish Department for International Development (DFID) adopted and modified as follows;  
“A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets and activities required for a means of living. 
A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks and 
maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in the future, while not 
undermining the natural resource base.” (DFID, 2000) 
21 
 
Livelihood sustainability revolves around people, their life and threats to their lives as they hope 
for the unknown future. The DFID framework for sustainable livelihoods highlighted the assets, 
vulnerabilities, structures and institutions, livelihoods strategies and outcomes of peasants in an 
attempt to develop a guide for all development agencies that seek to empower rural development. 
It therefore forms the basis for this study because it emphasizes people as a focal entity.  
2.2 Customary Authority in Perspectives  
Customary lands are lands owned by stools, skins, clans and families and tindamba in Ghana. 
Customary lands covers around 80% of all lands in Ghana (Kumbun-Naa yili II, 2006), largely 
rural lands and some urban lands. According to Kumbun-Naa yili II, (2006) traditional leaders 
are life line drivers of customs and could play complementary roles in the government‟s desire 
for good governance and poverty reduction among the people. Yeboah and Shaw, (2013) 
acknowledged this viewpoint as they quoted Article 36(8) of the 1992 constitution of Ghana. As 
allodial title holders or custodians of stool and skin lands, they are capable of ensuring real 
access to land, security of tenure and wise use of land resources. These constitute the mandatory 
practices expected of customary authorities by law (Yeboah and Shaw, 2013). 
The roles of customary authorities are much more decentralized compared to the state influence 
in land deals. By its structure, it has the tendency to serve as safety-net (Thoms, 2008) for the 
food insecure households. Customary authorities serve to uplift the quality of life and livelihood 
status of rural households by offering secondary rights to landless peasant households to farm, 
graze farm animals, gather firewood, crops and fruits that grow in the wild (Thoms, 2008). 
Traditional leaders are therefore, life-line drivers of customs, and could play complementary 
roles in the government‟s desire for good governance and poverty reduction among the people 
(Kumbun-Naa Yiri II, 2006: Scoones, 2009). As allodial title holders or custodians of stool and 
22 
 
skin lands, they are capable of ensuring real access to land, security of tenure and wise use of 
land resources (Kumbun-Naa Yiri II, 2006).  
However, the roles expected of the traditional authorities vary across regions and traditional 
areas. In most jurisdictions land allocation is specified under the customs and traditions of the 
areas. The traditions and the customs of these areas prescribe such dispositions (Yaro, 2012), 
which do not actually serve to mitigate the inequalities among subjects in their allocation of land 
rights in families. As noted earlier, Yeboah and Shaw, (2013) pointed out how traditional 
authorities in Kumasi and its environs as well as Tamale and Savelugu actually appropriate land 
in their allodial tenure to their benefit at the expense of the subjects. This disposition of chiefs 
creates equity challenges in land distribution and affects landless peasants in societies. Due to the 
arbitrariness of the way traditional authorities exercise and apply customary laws regarding the 
use of customary lands, influential members of the landowning families join in to divert 
communal lands to themselves.  
Adhikari et al (2004) examined this issue of equity on communally held forest resources in 
Nepal and concluded that poorer people rather had limited access to such community assets. It is 
therefore in evidence that traditional heads are capable of mitigating livelihood challenges of 
subjects. However, they are largely responsible for land resource denials and diversions, per their 
core roles in land allocations, control, inheritance and land use as custodians.  
2.3 Customary Land Tenure Practices in the Northern Regions 
In northern Ghana, customary tenure lands are vested in the skins, clans and families and 
Tindamba. Land allocation in the three northern regions is primarily by inheritance (ISSER, 
2003: Kuusaana et al, 2010), followed by free gift and outright purchases. Due to patriachal 
23 
 
nature of lineage system, males assume dominance in land trasfer or inheritance. In Upper West 
Region for instance, 41 percent of land is controlled by the family, 35 percent by individuals and 
23 percent by tindamba (Kuusaana et al, 2010). Even though land is vested in the chiefs and 
tindamba, families constituted largest interest holders of land, with tindamba representing the 
least. In northern Ghana, land allocation is through patrilineal inheritance (ISSER, 2003). 
However, there are noted drifts of land ownership from the communal modes as held by chiefs 
towards individualized modes such as family and individuals across Ghana.  
The Global Land Tool Network at UN-Habitat defines land tenure as “the relationship, whether 
legally or customarily defined, among people, as individuals or groups, with respect to land” 
(UN-Habitat, 2010c). Payne et al preferred an earlier explanation of land tenure given by the 
UN-Habitat report (2008) which defined it as “the way land is held or owned by individuals and 
groups, or the set of relationships legally or customarily defined amongst people with respect to 
land”. They therefore perceived land tenure as a social relation comprising of interwoven sets of 
rules governing the use of land and how land is owned. This befits the expectations of this study 
as it makes clear the role of customs and state in establishing policies to guide how members 
relate with land in terms of acquisition, ownership, use, control and transfer within the 
communities (Payne and Durand-Lasserve, 2012). It again brought out the two main interests 
recognized in land ownership – customary and statutory. According to Payne and Durand-
Lasserve, (2012), tenure refers to processes of land holding, while property tights deals with 
those who exercise authority over the uses to which land can be put.  
2.4.0 Customary Land Tenure Rights and Interests  
Customary land tenure system is widely recognized to be the largest tenure sector of land 
holding in Africa (Devendra & Chantalakhana, 2002). Statutory tenure is assumed to be foreign 
24 
 
and unknown to the continent from inception of land holding system. According to this 
viewpoint, statutory system of land holding first entered the cities of Africa through colonialism 
and spread to remote areas through urban sprawl into adjoining peri-urban centres (Payne and 
Durand-Lasserve, 2012). Some earlier studies have described the statutory land tenure system as 
centralized and remote to locals (Kumbun-Naa Yili, 2006) Rights of individuals to land under 
customary land tenure system is determined by customary authorities at the community levels.  
The ministry of food and agriculture has categorized these rights into use, control, and transfer 
rights. Studies show that the flexibility in the customary mode of land management is the source 
of its weakness (Devendra & Chantalakhana, 2002). Other studies have noted that the rights of 
individuals that guarantee access to land takes the form of use right, control and transfer rights 
(Ostrom and Hess, 2007).  
2.4.1 Usufruct Rights or Interest in Customary Land 
The dominant interest in land recognized under the customary tenure is usufruct interest in land. 
Pomevor, (2014) interchangeably used usufruct title for a type of land ownership bestowed on 
subordinate member of a family, clan or community by the customs. The use rights only permit 
the peasant to benefit financially or otherwise from extracting the resources of land. Peasants 
with use rights are normally settlers or junior members of landowning families (Devendra, & 
Chantalakhana, 2002). In most communities in Ghana, women or female members of the 
landowning families and settlers can only have use rights to land through secondary ownership.  
Peasants with use rights to land are normally settlers or junior members of landowning families. 
Other studies noted that these settlers and junior members of the community acknowledge the 
allodial ownership of land by traditional authority under which they pay allegiance (Pomevor, 
2014). Some other studies refer to it as determinate estate or title by (Ollenu et al 1985) since its 
25 
 
conferment to the subordinate members of the customs of the community does not in any way 
affect the interest the community holds in the land (Pomevor, 2014). As held by Ollenu, (1962) 
and Woodman, (1996), indigenes of the traditional area could use any land not occupied within 
the community, with the permission of the head of the clan or family, in the case of family or 
clan land. These rights of access which indigenes and other people have do not alienate the 
allodial interest the skin or stool holds to the land.  
The settlers and native peasants who rely on secondary rights to land face the risk of falling into 
circles of food insecurity, malnutrition and the perpetual poverty brackets. Poor people have 
been described by Beuchelt, and Virchow (2012), as the marginalized groups of people 
constituting women, youth, landless peasants and migrant workers. Likewise, poor peasants 
consist of a category of people whose chances of survival are likely to be affected by the actions 
or inactions of customary authorities in the society.  
Poverty in this case refers to lack or inadequacy in the access to land, and the lack of inadequacy 
in the capacity to manage available resources in the community. Landed resources constitute a 
safety net for the livelihoods sustenance of these groups of people in a society. There is a link 
between the survival of these people and the nature of rules and regulations set up by customs 
and traditions with regards to land deals (Devendra & Chantalakhana, 2002). The ways the rules 
are applied determine the nature of exclusions these people will suffer from. 
The control rights are on the other hand is limited to the allodial title holders or senior members 
of the families. By way of order, use rights holders of land obtain their rights from those with 
control rights. The third rights – transfer rights – empower the holder to alienate the land and its 
resources. These are done through land sales, mortgaging or allocations to others (Ostrom and 
26 
 
Hess, 2007). Someone with transfer rights has the authority to change ownership of the land 
completely from the original ownership by transferring both use rights and control rights to the 
third party.  
2.5.0 Land Tenure Security in the Context of Gender 
Land tenure security in most cases refers to a guarantee a farmer has to use land continually 
without interference from other persons (Bugri, 2008: cited in Kuusaana et al 2010). This 
conception best describes the tenure security of usufruct users like women and settlers mostly. In 
most traditional areas the peasants who are not from the landowning families require renewals of 
their requests for land (Kuusaana et al, 2010). Creating firm and honest relationships as well as 
being appreciative to the landowners‟ gestures cement the tenancy and guarantee the use right. 
Payne and Durand-Lasserve, (2012) described tenure security as;  
“a perception, a subjective appreciation of a tenure status in a given time and place, by both 
people concerned, observers, decision makers and experts. It depends also on policy and political 
factors that may evolve rapidly overtime”.  
Payne and Durand-Lasserve, (2012) sounded emphatic in alluding that land users suffer from 
insecure tenure due to a noted conspiracy among issues such as “high price of land, inappropriate 
regulatory frameworks, bureaucratic inertia and political exploitations”. To a larger extent, poor 
people also suffer from the pressure of demand for land amidst inadequate policy provisions in 
urban settings (World Bank, 2004). These incidences manifest pronouncedly during land 
commoditization, prevalence of land speculation and increased land prices due to pressures from 
investors and developers, and when no alternative relocation within the town. The eminent and 
often times compulsory relocations move the affected people to remote locations (Payne and 
27 
 
Durand-Lasserve, 2012). Likewise, the settler peasant risk being evicted from their farmlands 
anytime expansions in estate development gets closer.   
Studies have identified communal or public land as one main pool of land for the poor‟s current 
and future needs of land. But the poor encounters access challenges to this resource, especially in 
urban centres due to centralized nature of decisions on access, inefficient use of urban space and 
poor land governance that set the basis for corruption and nepotism (Payne and Durand-
Lasserve, 2012). The emphasis of Habitat agenda views the role of central government as an 
enabler and not active participant in land allocations (Payne and Durand-Lasserve, 2012). It did 
not, however, rule out the need for government‟s interventions in protecting the interest of the 
poor in land needs. However, the customary tenure ownership tends to have much poor-friendly 
policies due to its decentralized nature (IIED, 1999: Toulmin and Quan, 2000: Toulmin et al, 
2002; Chimhowu and Woodhouse, 2006: Kumbun-Naa Yiri II, 2006).  
Despite this posture, the customary practices tend to limit the rights of the female members of 
the communities by its guiding rules and regulations (Agbosu et al, 2007). Guidelines on land 
ownership and transfer are always the manifestations of the customs and traditions of societies 
(Migot-Adholla et al, 1994).  
The tenure systems differ according to lineage areas and location (Pomevor, 2014: citing 
Kasanga and Kotey, 2001; Agbosu et al, 2007). Agbosu and others have noted that indigenous 
individuals have inherent rights to land held in common. Some other internal arrangements they 
found to be common across tribes were the recognition of a community‟s control rights over the 
land, and the conviction held by all individuals on usufruct rights holds, that the ownership of the 
soil is vested in the communal heads (Agbosu et al, 2007; cited in Pomevor, 2014).  
28 
 
2.5.1 Lineage Systems and Gender Land Interests   
The lineage systems of the customs of each community seem to underpin gendered land 
alienation. Two lineage systems have been identified, as patrilineal and matrilineal systems of 
inheritance practiced in Ghana (Pomevor, 2014). These systems of lineage influence land interest 
access within communities (Owusu et al, 2008). The lands within the communities that have not 
been occupied were put under the control of skin or stool.  
However, all allocated lands either come under the control of maternal lineage in matrilineal 
system or in paternal lineage in the case of patrilineal system (Agbosu et al, 2007). A critical and 
empirical look at the customary practices on land inheritance shows that there is no intent to 
alienate some categories of family members from access to and control over stool or skin lands 
or family lands (Agbosu et al, 2007). The purported discrimination by gender on land deals is 
attributable to the customary criteria for determining rightful heirs in the lineages (Owusu et al, 
2008). 
Matrilineal Lineage System 
While matrilineal system practices of southern Ghana vest land in the stool, the patrilineal 
lineage system vest land in families (Pomevor, 2014). Owusu and others posit that the society 
construct its modes of succession in the allodial tenure of customary lands based on who 
constitutes the lineage of the system of inheritance in either a patrilineal or matrilineal traditions. 
In the case of matrilineal system of inheritance as widely practiced in the southern Ghana, 
females are given much better access to and control over customary lands than their male 
counterparts (Agbosu et al, 2007). The reverse is practiced in the largely patrilineal northern 
customary tenure system. The underpinning verdict is that the customs in both systems have no 
intent to discriminate against family members, by whether one is male or female. Studies also 
29 
 
suggest marital residence and marital responsibilities as factors that sort to deny females their 
entitlements to lineage lands (Owusu et al, 2008). Others think that customs in the form of 
marriage systems, bride price or wealth, and lineage are the most determining factors of 
women‟s alienation to land (Rugadya et al, 2004).   
Patrilineal Lineage System 
However, the predominantly patrilineal lineage system of the northern Ghana vest allodial 
interest in land in skins as in Northern Region and tindamba or earth priests as in the Upper East 
and Upper West Regions of Ghana (Kasanga et al, 1996) (Kasanga and Kotey, 2001). In northern 
Ghana land is communally owned and controlled by the chiefs on behalf of the people. These 
traditional authorities make and uphold customs and traditions that govern land allocations and 
use in the communities. Traditionally, women‟s rights to land are recognized through their male 
counterparts (Kameri-Mbote, 2005-9). Studies have described women‟s use right as restricted 
and with inadequate tenure security (Kuusaana et al, 2010). Studies show that women‟s inability 
to perform some of the major customary roles of pacifying earth gods and leading some other 
key ritual performances as expected of leaders of clans and families constitute the bases of their 
exclusion from land ownership (Kuusaana et al, 2010).  
In some societies as in most parts of northern Ghana, willingness to marry from the ex-husband‟s 
family determine women‟s access to land for farming. While in other communities outside 
Dagbon women had to remarry from the ex-husband‟s family in order to maintain her access to 
family land (Kuusaana et al, 2010), communities in Dagbon forbid such practice of remarriage 
but recognize women‟s access to family land through their children. 
The customary structures of this nature tend to exhibit series of inequalities among the 
landowning families (Pomevor, 2014). For instance, Tonah (2008) noted that customs in the 
30 
 
Kasina-Nankana traditional area does not recognize female land interest, not even the usufruct 
interest. This observation was also made among the Kusasis in the Upper East Region due to 
lineage system of the customs. Some studies also opined that women do not actually have firm 
identity with wither the natal or matrimonial homes, and so lack any opportunity to own and 
control land from these families (Niesssen, 1985). Public opinion in the upper West region also 
has it that married women are assets and aids to their spouses and so cannot own land because 
asset could not own itself (Kuusaana et al, 2010). These actions impact on women‟s ability to 
fend for their needs. Some women had to migrate elsewhere distant in search for life supporting 
wealth. Others are forced into prostitution and other forms of social vices.  
In most societies, female household heads suffer more incidences of evictions than male 
household heads due to gender inequality in access to land, economic opportunities and decision 
making bodies Durand-Lasserve 2005). Female always depend of natal family relations, male 
spouses and sons for their access to land, even in the midst of protective laws on non-
discriminations in property rights in buying, inheritance, leasing and land allocations (Payne and 
Durand-Lasserve, 2012). According to UN-Habitat (2008), female household heads constitute 
the proportion of population with low income earnings in urban centres, despite low risk levels 
the pose on issues of non-performing loans.   
2.5.2 Gender and Equity in Family Land Deals  
There is a noted likely rise in married women‟s involvement in household decision making on 
limited issues. It is also noted that households that allow women to participate in deciding on 
expenditures tend to spend to the benefit of women and children (Ion, 2015: Poudel, 2015). 
These phenomena of women‟s participation in decision making are noted to be on the increase in 
31 
 
Nepal and Zambia (Ion, 2015: Fund, 2015). Do customs ensure equity in decision making on 
deals of family lands?  
In some African countries especially in Uganda, traditional practices and norms on divorce, 
inheritance and property rights form the basis for discrimination against women on land deals 
(Rugadya et al, 2004) cited in (Owusu et al, 2008). Social disapproval of women property 
owning discourages women from striving to accumulate landed assets in Uganda (Owusu et al, 
2008). Women lack access to and control over farm proceeds, though they constitute a 
substantial proportion of the labour force on household farms (Rugadya et al, 2004). Above all, 
the legislative authorities determining the basis of access communal lands are male family heads 
of the communities (Kotey & Tsikata, 1998). How do societal constructions contribute in 
alienating women from land rights? What are the likely impacts of this alienation on women‟s 
rights to assets accumulation (land and housing), income and health? 
2.6 Access to Farmland and Peasant Livelihoods 
Land is both a platform and direct factor for livelihoods. Land is required for both settlement and 
for agrarian purposes. The opportunity cost of land used for settlement could ultimately include 
the parcels of farmland forgone. In other words the development of settlement had the tendency 
of crowding out peasant businesses (Kasanga et al, 1996). This scenario has medium and long 
term food insecurity consequences (Aryeetey et al, 2007). Any form of alienating land from 
usufruct users constitutes an affront on peasants‟ livelihoods. Expansions in rural settlement 
patterns require alternative livelihood avenues for the usufruct right users, but this seemed 
unattended to (Pomevor, 2014). Rural settlement expansions have claimed several farmlands 
with affected farmers only being compensated with building plots (Field Data, 2016). 
32 
 
Each member within the customary area access and owns land primarily by being a member of 
the landowning community. This literature emphasizes that a member must be related to the land 
by birth or any form of adoption in order to claim ownership to land. Women and settlers lack 
access to land and its resources from which they depend largely for survival (Sunderlin et al, 
2005). While some studies show inclusiveness in access to land by all members of the 
community (Pottier, 2005), similar ones reveal that women only had secondary rights to land 
through their spouses and male children (Kameri-Mbote, 2005). A similar study in the Wa 
Municipality revealed gender disparity of 68% and 38% in access to land and ownership of land 
for male and females respectively (Kuusaana et al, 2010).  
A study by ISSER, noted a wider disparity in inheritance of family land by gender (64% for 
males as against 14% for females). The disparity, according to the studies, was largely due to the 
patrilineal system of inheritance practiced in the area. Women‟s land ownership through this 
same mode of access has several limiting obstackes ranging from traditional roles attached to 
land holding, patriacal nature of inheritance and marital customs (Kuusaana et al, 2010).   
Other studies even noted some forms of gender discriminations within the financial institutions 
when it comes to women and credit facility (FAO , 2005): cited in Owusu et al, 2007). These 
findings indicate how milder it has been in the past compared to the current situation of women‟s 
plight as revealed by Yaro, (2012), USAID, (2013) and Tsikata and Yaro, (2014).  
Earlier studies attributed worsening exclusions of women to resources they have secondary right 
to situations of dwindling supply of such resources or rising values attached to the resources 
(Agarwal, 1989). It means that when resources are in abundance or do not have much value 
associated with their use, male members of the community do not exercise their domineering 
controls at the expense of their female spouses (Adiaba, 2006). These studies reveal much clearer 
33 
 
forms of discriminations due to the changes of the times. The assets have become more valuable 
and much sensitive due to increasing demand for it as a commodity. Investors prefer to hold their 
cash in the form of landed assets due to returns such options have as a store of value (Barrett et 
al, 2004). Ownership becomes clearer due to the returns accruing from land, hence the relegation 
of partners – women – from ownership responsibility (Agarwal, 1989).  
However, denying women access to land frustrates their strife for wealth creation denies them 
ability to provide their basic livelihood needs and excludes their quotas to community 
development (Kameri-Mbote, 2005). Women‟s access to land lacks tenure security because their 
use right depends on the willingness of the male relatives to spare land parcels for them (Bugri, 
2008). In the light of this growing challenge, women find it difficult to initiate projects to better 
their lots because they do not have direct access to resources of the community. Women‟s access 
to land would improve their livelihoods and add extensively to the growth of their contributions 
to national development.  
Access to land serves as one of the main determinants of women‟s choice of crops they grow 
(Prasad, 1998). According to Kuusaana et al, (2010), women hardly grow longer term maturing 
crops due to the high risk of loses therein. Women play largely complementary roles in the 
economies of rural households in northern Ghana (Levin, et al 1999). Households in northern 
Ghana are largely agrarian and land dependent (Yaro, 2012: Tsikata and Yaro, 2014). Men 
engage in farming while women gather off-farm resources like sheanut, dawadawa, baobab 
leaves, wild vegetables and hardwood for home use and also for sale to supplement farm 
products (Yaro, 2012).   
34 
 
Actual livelihoods of these vulnerable people therefore, primarily dependent on the availability 
of, access to and control over land (Schoneveld et al. 2011), and their ability to expand output 
from the land (Sunderlin et al, 2005). But, access to land for females goes beyond the decisions 
of landowners and rest largely on the social constructions of the traditional areas of the rural 
economies (Yaro, 2012: Tsikata and Yaro, 2014). Access to land, Water, forest, and other 
minerals that form inseparable constituents of land depend on the customs and traditions that 
govern the land (Devendra & Chantalakhana, 2002).  While the socially constructed roles make 
women‟s contributions to production highly infinitesimal, it constitutes the basis for denying 
women access to land right in families. As women‟s responsibilities in the family continue to 
grow, especially during conflict situations, the society continue to push females to the rear in 
both asset allocation and decision making (Sunderlin et al, 2005).   
2.7.0 Conceptual Framework 
The study adopted and modified the DFID framework for sustainable livelihoods to suit its 
variables of interests. The framework is the most appropriate instrument for assessing the 
impacts of land tenure system on the vulnerable groups in a society (Carney, 1998). A 
framework refers to an analytical device that is employed to enhance the understanding of 
livelihoods and poverty of, especially, vulnerable groups in a society (DFID, 2000). The Danish 
Department for International Development (DFID) developed the framework to support poverty 
eradication projects among people living under extreme poverty. The rationale for the framework 
is to empower these people by enhancing the poor people‟s livelihoods.  
35 
 
 
 
Figure 1: DFID’s Sustainable Livelihoods Framework  
Source: (Ashley & Carney 1999)  
2.7.1 The Elements of the Framework 
This framework stands tall among several others like UNDP‟s, Oxfam‟s and CARE‟s as it 
emphasizes holistic and integrated approaches to fighting poverty among the rural poor. It 
considers five thematic spheres that underpin a livelihood of an individual. These include the 
vulnerabilities, assets, structures and processes, livelihood strategies and outcomes. These factors 
function individually and in consequents of one another in determining the livelihoods of the 
36 
 
individuals in a society. It considers shocks, trends and seasonality as sub themes under 
vulnerability whose occurrences pose threats to an individual‟s attempt to build resilience in life. 
It suggested empowerment through external interventions as ways of mitigating the impacts or 
obtaining foreknowledge of the shocks, trends and seasonal events so as to prepare in advance. 
On the livelihood assets, the framework considers them in bulks of five, Vis natural, human, 
financial, physical and social capitals. They are the main factors of effective production in any 
economy. The level of accessibility of these factors to all categories of the membership of a 
society is very vital for the livelihood sustenance of the people. The framework posits that an 
individual‟s access to some of the assets, say land, is a necessary condition for further 
accumulation of other assets, say finance in the form of savings, and human capital as in 
education and capacity building. Studies show that households with extensive access to 
productive assets are predisposed to several livelihood choices and therefore, are better off than 
households with limited access. However, the worst state a household can be is to be without 
access to any of the assets (Devendra & Chantalakhana, 2002).  
These vital assets are controlled by the structures and processes established in the society. The 
processes according to the framework refer to the policies, rules and regulations that a society 
puts in place to guide its operations. The structures are seen as the bodies that are charged with 
the responsibility of making and enforcing decisions of the society. The functions of these 
structures are guided by the processes. The framework holds that the structures and processes are 
capable of enhancing or obstructing the vulnerable people‟s access to the assets of the society. 
The type of livelihood strategy these people adopt is partly influenced by the conditions put in 
place by the functions of these structures and processes. The framework advises approaches that 
target reshaping the society‟s structures and processes in a participatory manner if their current 
37 
 
actions do not favour diversified livelihood activities of the vulnerable people. It holds that more 
diversified livelihood strategies allow for improved livelihood outcomes, even in the midst of 
vulnerabilities like rainfall pattern variability and disease infestation. Ultimately, improved 
livelihood outcomes boost food security, increased incomes and savings, asset accumulation and 
improved wellbeing.  
However, the inability of households to improve upon their livelihoods increases the levels of 
their vulnerabilities leading to prevalence of poverty, malnutrition and disease among 
households(Carter & May, 1999). Illiteracy rates increases because human capital improvement 
dwindles. Likewise over reliance of households on landed community assets results in 
deterioration of the asset and low returns, and causes livelihoods to stagnate. The framework 
therefore admonishes diversification of livelihoods through proper analysis of varied community 
assets.  
2.7.2 The Linkages among the Elements 
A livelihood is an embodiment of the assets, capabilities and activities required by an individual 
or household for a means of living (DFID, 1999). The framework is very appropriate for 
assessing the works of public institutions and their likely impact on people‟s asset status. The 
vulnerable people‟s access to capital assets, credit facility, and social capital like network of 
social relations are indicators to their livelihood status. The narrative shows that some of the 
resources can influence the availability of others.  For instance, social relations serve as safety 
net in times of shocks and disaster, and so relieve the level of vulnerability of a household, 
thereby building the household‟s resilience.  
For this study, natural, financial, human and social capitals have been highlighted for their 
relevance to the study. The influences of physical capital shall be deactivated or held constant 
38 
 
because the study is focusing on customary tenure practices and how they impacts on livelihoods 
in a society. Peasants require real access to available and accessible land, credit, human and 
social assets to ensure more significant household livelihoods. These essential elements of rural 
livelihoods like land, social relations and credit or income sources are not easily accessed by the 
poor and strangers in society.   
 
Figure 2: DFID Conceptual Framework for Sustainable Livelihood Studies (1999); 
Modified by the Study 
The vulnerabilities with regards to this modified framework include the shocks and disasters in 
the form of sickness, death, or any casualty of family members of peasants. It also includes 
conventional levies in support of family ties in the form of outdooring, wedding and funeral in 
39 
 
the traditional area. These are leakages on household resources that are recurrent in trends. 
Lastly, the vulnerabilities of the traditional area captured in the framework involve the climatic 
conditions and how it limits outputs or working periods. The rainfall patterns are erratic and can 
cause crop failure. Also, the single maxima rainfall pattern leads to only short season of farming 
activities. The vulnerabilities affect all variables in the framework, most especially, the 
livelihood outcomes of the peasants. 
This modified livelihood framework also takes note of the other influences like those of 
institutions and processes on the vulnerable people‟s access to assets of the community. Customs 
of each traditional area has structures in the form of clan and family heads, chiefs and tindamba 
who make and implement decisions regarding access to these resources. The processes like 
customary laws, policies and norms in the traditional areas serve as guiding principles to the 
decisions and actions of the customary authorities. There are variations in how customary 
practices in the traditional areas influence the availability and accessibility of these assets to less 
privileged women, men and strangers in society (Yaro, 2012). The actions or inactions of the 
local government agencies at the district, municipal and metropolitan assemblies on land reforms 
or the absence of it can enhance or exacerbate the plights of these poor peasants in the society. 
Two issues that call for proactive work are whether there is a link between customary tenure 
practices and local government policies that together impact on livelihood strategies of peasants. 
This study targeted peasants who are natives (men and women) and settlers. They largely depend 
on the assets of the community (land resources) for their livelihoods. They equally need a secure 
financial support to supplement or complement the accessible productive resources in order to 
build resilience on food and income supplies as well as improve upon their wealth accumulation. 
40 
 
There is the need for information on their social relations, land holdings, main livelihood 
activities and output, income levels and support systems available to them (LEAP). 
The modified framework shows that the vulnerable peasants would require a favourable 
customary policy in order to gain access to community assets in the case of Nanumba traditional 
area. This access could enable their livelihood strategies leading to favourable outcomes by way 
of increase food products, improved incomes and wealth accumulation through savings. This 
state then increases their resilience against the vulnerabilities of the area. However, some of the 
peasants who are natives might not require customary favours, since they preside over family 
lands. Meanwhile, they are prone to the vulnerabilities of the area.  
Conversely, the customary policies of the area are capable of alienating peasants from 
community assets. This could be the worst state peasants can ever be, given the impacts of the 
prevalent vulnerabilities. This study was intended to examine these linkages as against the 
livelihoods of the peasants in the Nanumba traditional area.    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
41 
 
CHAPTER THREE 
METHODOLOGY 
3.0 Overview  
This chapter looks at the study area with regards to its agricultural potential vis-à-vis its 
economic and social opportunities and challenges. It also considers the entirety of the 
methodologies adopted by the study to arrive at the data as well as processes of analysis, 
interpretations and display of the findings. Though it adopts a mixed method of data collection, it 
is largely a qualitative study. 
3.0.1 Geographical Location 
Nanumba North district is located in the South-Eastern part of the Northern Region. It has a total 
land size of 2,260.8 sq./km, stretching latitudinally from 8.5º N to 9.25º N and spreads along 
longitudes 0.57º E to 0.5ºE (Ghana Statistical Service, 2014). The district shares boundaries with 
East Gonja to the west, Yendi Municipality to the north, and Zabzugu District to the East. 
Kpandai district to the west and Nanumba South District to the east constituted the southern 
boundaries to Nanumba north district.  
3.0.2 Socio-Economic Data of the Area 
It is predominantly an extended household type of locality. The district has a total population of 
141,584, with 69,997 males and 71,587 females. The estimated population density stands at 71 
persons per square kilometer (Ghana Statistical Service, 2014). Comparing by locality, the 
district has 40,000 urban dwellers and 101,584 rural dwellers (Ghana Statistical Service, 2014). 
The majority of the households comprise of household head with spouse, biological or adopted, 
and the spouse‟s parents and siblings (Ghana Statistical Service, 2014).  
42 
 
About 51.7 percent of the total population falls outside the working age group, excluding the 
unemployed category of the labour force. This presents a very high dependency ratio of about 
107 (Ghana Statistical Service, 2014). It implies that every 100 workers were feeding 107 people 
within the district. Males are best known to engage in farming activities while women only assist 
in the auxiliary farming practices like sowing, harvesting, thrusting and winnowing. They 
sometimes assist in carting the food to house where the distances are manageable.   
As pointed out earlier in the literature, women in the traditional area are largely into sales of 
agricultural products unlike their counterparts in other traditional areas in the northern Ghana 
who engage in active farm businesses (Ghana Statistical Service, 2014). Some of the major 
towns beside Bimbilla in the district include Taali, Dokpam, Chamba, Sabonjida, to the West; 
and to the North, Makayili, Lepusi, Binchera-Tanga, Lanja and Bakpaba. The district capital is 
dominated by Nanumba who are predominantly Muslims.   
The district has relatively a youthful population with rural dwellers constituting over three times 
those living in urban centres. With regard to the working population, close to 52 percent (35,606) 
of them (68,449) are females. This number (46,953) largely dwells in the rural economies (see 
table 1). 
3.0.3 Climate and Vegetation  
The District is located within the tropical climatic zone, along the transitional belt between the 
northern and southern vegetation. The weather in the district is characterized by high 
temperatures throughout the year. Temperatures range from 29º C to 41ºC (Ghana Statistical 
Service, 2014). Annual rainfall amounts averaged 1268 mm with most of it lasting for six 
months– April to September (Ghana Statistical Service, 2014) yearly. This situation has been 
dwindling yearly, leading to serious consequences on the vegetation growth and also crop yield.  
43 
 
Table 1: Population of Nanumba North District by Sex and Locality 
Age groups   Sex  Ratio  Locality  
Both Sexes Male  Female Sex Ratio Urban Rural 
All Ages  141,584  69,997  71,587  97.8  40,000  101,584  
0-14  67,452  34,348  33,104  103.8  16,501  50,951  
15-64  68,449  32,843  35,606  92.2  21,496  46,953  
65+  5,683  2,806  2,877  97.5  2,003  3,680  
Age-dep. Ratio 106.9  113.1  101.1   86.1  116.4  
Source: GSS, 2014, Modified by the Study 
3.0.4 Study Sites 
With reference to figure 2 above, the study selected three areas within the traditional area for 
data collection. These areas were purposively selected because they represent the traditional 
headships for the two gates.  
Bimbilla is the seat of the overlord of the traditional area. The paramontcy is located in Bimbilla 
and the rest of the traditional area is administered by the directives of the overlord. It therefore 
serves as traditional home of the Nanumba ethnic group. Bimbilla also doubles as the district 
capital of the Nanumba North District. The traditional area of Nanumba ethnic group covers 
Nanumba North and South Districts. 
 
 
44 
 
Bakpaba 
Bimbilla 
Dokpam 
 
Figure 3: Map of Nanumba North District (GSS, 2014) Adopted 
The ascendants to the throne at Bimbilla are from the two gates – Gbogma-Yili and Bangdi-Yili. 
Each of these gates has a line of rotation in ascending order to the apex skin in each gate. 
Progression along the skins in the lineage is by observing the anscestral lineage of each occupant 
of the seats that seemed to be of the same rank. Someone (son) whose immediate parent was a 
chief is catered for first before a grandson of a chief. Also, if it was observed that the lineage of a 
chief of a lower skin has been neglected for long, such an occupant could be made to ascend to 
the higher seat ahead of the senior skins. The purpose was to avoid extinting such a lineage from 
45 
 
occupation of the paramountcy at Bimbilla. Conflicts results when these laid down procedures 
are not followed in a more transparent manner. 
Bimbilla has a household population of three thousand nine hundred and fifteen (3,915) 
households, with three thousand three hundred and eighty five houses. the report of the Ghana 
statistical serve on the 2010 population and housing census (2014) contained a total population 
for the study site as thirty one thousand, four hundred (31,400), with a dominant female 
population of sixteen thoudand, and seventy-five (16,075). 
Bakpaba is a high skin for the Gbogma-Yili (Gbogma – Lions; Yili - village or settlement) gate. 
Bakpaba is about 18 km north of Bimbilla, towards Yendi, with a population of two thousand 
eight hundred and eighty-three (2,883) people. It has a total household population of three 
hundred and eighty (280). Female population is about 51.4 percent of the total population of the 
community (Ghana Statistical Service, 2014). Bakpaba was selected because the apex skin at 
Nakpa was yet empty. This area is predominantly a peasant community. Bakpaba is 
predominantly integrated with Konkomba settler ethnic group, however, there were other 
minority ethnic groups. 
Dopkam is among the seats of the highest skin in the gate of Bangdi-Yili (Bang – Wrist-
ring/bangle) family. located about 17 km along Salaga road from Bimbilla. It has a total 
population of one thousand six hundred and ninety-one (1,691) with male population of 52.6 
percent (Ghana Statistical Service, 2014)).  According to Ghana statistic service report, (2014), 
the household population is about one hundred and eighty-eight, with two hundred and eighty-
nine (188) houdes. Dokpam seat is yet empty and awaiting a substentive occupant. This 
community is well integrated with settlers for centuries. The major settler communities are the 
Konkomba, Basare and some smaller ethnic compositions. 
46 
 
The chatacteristics of the study areas include being the holders and pepertuators of n 
Nanumba traditions, that includes land tenure practices, customs and traditions and symbols of 
identity to the rulership of the traditional area. Land owing decisions are formulated and 
implemented by headships of these sub-traditional areas. Also, they would have also contributed 
to the prevailing inequalities, deprivations or alienations in land allocations. These communities 
therefore serve as information hubs to the data needs of the study. 
3.1 Research Design 
This study adopted a case study design. Case study is a type of design used in research to do 
detailed and focused examination of a single phenomenon within a specified coverage (Rubin, & 
Babbie, 2007). There are variations in the ways scholars perceive qualitative studies that employ 
case study designs. Due to that, different interpretations have been given to what case study 
actually entails. Some defined case study as an in-depth study of a social phenomenon within a 
limited scope (Study, 1979). According to Abbey, & Eckstein, (2002), a case study is a technical 
issue on which researchers concentrate on some aspects of it to report and interpret the 
observations. For Yin, (2003), it is an empirical study on contemporary issue within its real-life 
context. These scholars viewed case studies in a single theme context, while emphasizing the 
narrowness of scope but with intensity or in-depth of findings (Wynsberghe and Khan,, 2007). A 
„Case‟ as a concept originates from Latin vocabulary „casus‟, which means „event‟, „situation‟ or 
„condition‟. By implication, it deals with a cross-section of issues and lacks full coverage of the 
phenomena in space. Consequently, outcomes from case studies, therefore, cannot be generalized 
on the entirety of the population. However, it allows the researcher to formulate very interesting 
conclusions on the cases studied and on the selected areas. 
47 
 
In contrast, surveys are best known for aggregated data collection from several respondents that 
seek to infer outcomes on the entirety of the population under study. Surveys are therefore noted 
for their extensive coverage and large sample sizes. In comparison with qualitative studies or 
largely qualitative case studies, case studies focus on in-depth studies of phenomena by 
employing intensive approaches with relatively smaller samples (Study, 1979), while 
compromising on the scope and generalization.   
Some of the short falls of case studies emanates from its limited capacity to generalize its 
outcomes due to issues of representativeness of the entire population. As the case study adopts an 
intensive approach it is capable of providing the study with tentative ideas about the social issues 
studied and the knowledge gathered on those issues. Invariably, a case study provide avenues for 
answering complex research questions by adopting thorough and intensive approaches using 
limited sample sizes.  
This study adopted a blend of qualitative and quantitative approaches to describe and interpret 
the customary land tenure practices in the Nanumba traditional area and its influences on 
peasants‟ livelihoods.  The essence of this combination was to compensate for the inadequacies 
of each technique, and also for the fact that a mixture of descriptive or attribute and numerical 
data will serve to triangulate findings emerging from each method. It collected data using 
multiple sources and techniques of data collection. The techniques include questionnaire, 
interview and focused group discussions (FGDs). The use of case study enabled the collection of 
data with different instruments to enhance analysis and interpretation of phenomena from the 
worldview of respondents. 
48 
 
3.2. Population of Study  
The population of reference for the study was the Nanumba traditional area, but the focal area 
was the Nanumba north district, Bimbilla. This study gathered data from the Nanumba 
traditional area, specifically Bimbilla and two of its suburb communities (see table 2). Findings 
from this study and the consequent interpretations shall be inferred on the traditional area. These 
study areas were Bimbilla, Bakpaba and Dokpam. They constitute the target population for the 
study. In specifics, the study considers the peasant households within the traditional area. 
3.3 Sampling Size 
Scholars have proposed measures of ensuring that researchers adopt representative sample sizes 
to avoid the issues of biases or errors in study outcomes. Issues of this nature reduce the 
confidence of readers in research works. As submitted earlier, a case study that adopts a mixed 
method of data could use sample size relatively lower than that prescribed by Krejcie & Morgan, 
(1979) and Yamane, (1967). Yamane proposed a formula for determining sample size as 
 
   , where n is the sample size, N is the households in the study communities, and e is    N( )
the level of precision. Going by the formula by Yamane, the sample size of 400 (n= 4483/1+ 
2
4483(0.05)  = 399.9 = 400) would have been used for this study. In variance to this, Krejcie and 
Morgan, (1979) suggested a sample size of 351 households from a population of 4500 
households from a predetermined table, all with 5% margin of error and 95% confidence level.  
The researcher sees no substantial difference in using a little smaller sample size, since it adopts 
a case study design. This study therefore opted for sample size of 250 households. Among the 
reasons for this option includes the sensitivity of the information required – land ownership. 
Given the prevalence of conflicts within the traditional area, it was not sure many peasants would 
like to delve so much deep into issues of landownership and traditional practices of the area. The 
49 
 
study feared there would be challenges with the willingness of peasants to divorce information 
on such issues.  
There were also some portions of the study sites like Dokpam, which the research could not 
easily get responses on issues of leadership due to the chieftaincy crises among the major 
chieftaincy gates. The study selected 250 respondents from all the three study sites to constitute 
the sample size. After categorizing the study area into strata, the study used proportionate 
representative technique to determine the size of participants per stratum. It was guided by the 
number of households in each of the study sites (see table 2).  
Table 2 Demographic Characteristics of the Study Sites 
Strata  Population Housing Sample From Strata 
 Total Male Female Houses Households Proportion of 250 
Bimbilla 31,400 15,325 16,075 3,385 3,915 218 
Bakpaba 2,883 1,402 1,481 321 380 21 
Dokpam 1,691 890 801 289 188 11 
Total 35,974 17,617 18,357 3,995 4,483 Sample size = 250 
Source: GSS 2014 PHC – Modified by the Study  
3.4.0 Sample Selection techniques 
The study employed a mixed sample design to cater for the varied interests of design. It therefore 
selected myriad of techniques in deciding for the study sites, the sample units and in selecting 
respondents within the units for the instruments used in collecting the data. The essence was to 
ensure that the study area was covered, and the participants selected represent the population 
adequately.  
3.4.1 Stratified Sampling   
Stratified sampling is a technique of organizing sample frame into sub-groupings that are 
internally homogeneous and externally heterogeneous to ensure sample selection is “spread” 
50 
 
properly across important population sub-groups. Research admonishes the use of stage-wise 
selection of samples on the views that it specifically indicates the actual study sites and the 
selected households. The study thus, zoned the study sites into three sub-traditional areas (strata), 
and selected participants from each stratum to constitute the sample size for the study. The strata 
included Bimbilla, Dokpam and Bakpaba sub-traditional areas.  
There were two gates (Bangdi-Yili and Gbogma-Yili), with several stools ranging from lowest to 
the highest in each of the gates and the paramount seat at Bimbilla.  The strata included Bimbilla, 
the traditional area controlled by Gbogma-Yili gate and those under the control by the Bangdi-
Yili gate. These constituted the sub-groups within the study area. The study later focused on 
households within these areas as basic units.  
Stratified technique was deemed appropriate because the study covers a wider geographical area, 
which had to be divided into strata as sub-groups with sub-populations. It was also used because 
the characteristics of these sub-traditional areas were distinct and non-overlapping. For instance, 
each gate has a distinctively structured line of lower skins to go through in rotation. The royal 
gates were Bangdi-Yili and Gbogma-Yili. The highest seat in the line of Bangdi-Yili gate is 
Dokpam stool, while Bakpaba is the third highest to Nakpa, for the Gbogma-Yili gate. The 
research chose Bakpaba instead of Nakpa because it has a seating chief. Both Dokpam and 
Nakpa seats were yet empty. Bimbilla, by its traditional role, constitutes the convergent seat for 
the two gates in the management of the Nanumba traditional area.    
By zoning the study area into strata, it reduces the error of estimation since the number of 
households sampled from each stratum (study site) was determined in proportion with the size of 
household population. Also, it reduces the level of cost when dealing with sample selection and 
51 
 
data collection. Lastly, it helps to choose households to reflect each population, while noting 
variations in the household population of each stratum.  
3.4.2 Purposive Sampling  
After grouping the study sites, purposive sample selection was used to select three communities 
within the three strata. The researcher deliberately selected the highest seats in the lineage of 
each gate as the focal community for the study. It therefore selected Dokpam and Bakpaba in 
addition to Bimbilla to constitute the three communities, where it then decided on the 
participants for the interview and focus group discussions as well as the actual respondents to the 
questionnaire.  
Purposive technique of selecting participants is mostly used in case study researches. It is also 
known as deliberate sample selection. Here, the researcher deliberately selects particular units of 
the population to constitute a sample to represent the entire population under study. According to 
Jawale, (2012), theoretical saturation forms the basis for determining sample sizes in purposive 
sampling. He explained theoretical saturation as an act of data collection which continues until a 
point where no new data is comes forth for the research questions.  
3.4.3 Selecting Respondents 
The study adopted the procedure of household sampling by the Expanded Programme on 
Immunization (EPI) developed in the late 1970s to help select the specific households in each of 
the three communities to constitute respondents to the questionnaire instruments. It is mostly 
useful when the study finds it difficult to use either simple random or systematic random 
sampling techniques (UN-Habitat, 2012). The communities in question have not been planned 
and so the layout of the towns does not follow any particular order. Even service poles are in 
people‟s houses. The researcher therefore located the centre of each town and chose at random 
52 
 
houses along major routes at regular intervals until he gets to the outskirt of the community. The 
chosen houses were numbered from either side of the route. This exercise was repeated until the 
entire community was exhausted. The labeling of the houses was guided by the number of 
households expected from each community. This shows the format that used for the selection of 
households in the communities for administration of the questionnaire. 
Even though this procedure was least recommended among the probability sampling techniques 
of sample selecting, it became most convenient since it offers a comparatively more 
representative sample that is less bias than the non-probability sampling techniques. One source 
of bias is that the selection of the subsequent households depended on the selection of the 
previous households. Also, in choosing households by proximity there was a tendency of 
choosing households more closer to one another, and with similar characteristics. These were 
avoided to a larger extent by giving spaces between lanes used for the selection. 
3.5.0 Data Collection Instruments 
The research used instruments like questionnaire, focus group intervention and personal in-depth 
interview to gather the opinions and viewpoints of participants. The focus group discussions and 
individual in-depth interviews were used to gather solely qualitative data, while questionnaire 
was used to gather both numeric and non-numeric data. Secondary sources of data included 
reviews of related literature from scholarly articles, books, journals, internet sources and any 
archival documentation.  
3.5.1 Interview 
In-depth interview is one of the strategies for gathering data. Interview involves the use of verbal 
or oral stimulus to solicit responses from participants on issues. It is very useful for collecting 
descriptive or attributes data because it affords the participants opportunity to describe the world 
53 
 
of issues from their perspectives (Wynsberghe and Khan, 2017). This method is best used widely 
in most developing countries. It is appropriate for collecting data among predominantly illiterate 
communities (UN-Habitat, 2010c: Wynsberghe and Khan, 2017). It uses questions to solicit data 
through one-on-one interaction between interviewer and an interviewee.  
Its main advantage is when it offers interviewer the opportunity to persuade respondents to 
volunteer answers to questions in line with study interests.  It is also efficient in gathering 
numeric data that hitherto would not have been possible with questionnaire (UN-Habitat, 2010c: 
Wynsberghe and Khan, 2017). The use of this instrument afforded the interviewer the 
opportunity to probe further on unsatisfactory responses from participants. It ensured that the 
interviewees‟ responses reflected their experiences, and realities of issues on the ground. 
However, according to a study by the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United 
Nations Secretariat, the used of personal interviews has tendency of introducing biases due to 
different interpretations given by respondents on the same questions (Wynsberghe and Khan, 
2017). The study always referred to the interview manual to avoid its occurrences. Also, there is 
likelihood of interviewers suggesting answers during questioning, or the interviewer‟s mood and 
dispositions influencing the attitudes of the respondents. The issues were considered at the 
training level, to hint the interviewers. There were limited biases with regards to the above listed 
issues with the use of the instrument. 
Respondents were settler household heads and traditional heads of the area. The interviews were 
conducted to gather qualitative data on household demographics. It was used to pool the 
viewpoints of participants on how peasants accessed the farmlands they used, the modes of 
54 
 
access and rights the peasants had to land they used for farming activities. This allowed for the 
assessment of the level of equity in land allocations in the district.  
More detailed questions were designed to guide in the interview process. Respondents answered 
questions on if there were significant challenges in land acquisition and whether the difficulties 
varied from person to person based on gender or nativity of the peasant. On the third objective, 
interviewees were given the chance to narrate from their experiences how the customary tenure 
practices in the traditional area influenced their ability to acquire land, their choice of livelihood 
activity, the output of their livelihood activities and how the households generated their incomes. 
Participants were also allowed to share their views as to whether the customary authority plays a 
role in entrenching or ameliorating poverty, hunger and inequality in their jurisdictions. 
Interviews continued in every study site until no new information was emerging from further 
interviews. In all, five in-depth individual interviews were conducted. 
3.5.2 Questionnaire 
Questionnaire is an instrument for data collection comprising set of questions of varying forms 
which are organized in a single document for the respondent to express his or her opinion on 
each of them at a more convenient time. Researchers have defined questionnaire as a tool for 
expressing the information needs of researchers and a basis for data procession planning (UN-
Habitat, 2005: Wynsberghe and Khan, 2017). This viewpoint stresses the influence of 
questionnaire on the design of data analysis plan. Some emphasized on the openness or closeness 
of the questionnaire instruments (UN-Habitat, 2005), while other studies described it as 
structured or unstructured (Cobbinah et al, 2015). It could be structured where there are 
predetermined responses for the respondent to choose, or semi-structured in which both 
predetermined and open questions are contained on the document. Respondents could express 
55 
 
themselves with regards to the issues raised on the questionnaire. This enables systematic use of 
descriptive and numeric data to measure people‟s opinions on issues.  
The study opted for the use of semi-structured questionnaire format because it required both 
qualitative opinions and perceptions of peasants on customary practices of the area, as well as 
some quantitative data with regards to farm size and outputs, income earned and personal land 
holdings of peasants. The questionnaire consists of both open and closed-ended questions. The 
open-ended questions allowed the respondents to give their own answers to the questions 
(Wynsberghe and Khan, 2017). These were used to measure the perceptions and opinions of 
peasants on the customary tenure practices and how it affects the lives of peasants.  
Likewise, the closed-ended questions restricted the respondents to issues that the study intended 
them to express opinions on. Closed-ended questions helped to yield more uniform information 
and were easy to process. The study used the two sets of techniques of question design to avoid 
overlooking the sensitive and relevant information required for the study. Studies posit that 
closed-ended questions are best suited for complex issues regarding attitudes and perceptions. 
Questionnaire document could be given out electronically by mail or in hard copy. This study 
delivered the questionnaire documents personally to respondents in hard copy. A total of two 
hundred and fifty (250) copies of the documents were issued to respondents in all the study sites. 
The retrieval rate was 94%, implying that 235 questionnaires were responded to by the 
participants.   
On the quantitative data of respondents, questions bothered largely on the land holdings (size), 
number of livelihood activities, level of output in each enterprise, and the levels of incomes 
generated by each household annually. Other questions considered size of plot of land as 
56 
 
personal asset and acreage of land for farming. This was used to measure the level of 
accessibility in terms of land allocation to the vulnerable groups in the traditional area. It also 
gathered data on other sources of income available to peasants such as LEAP assistance and 
whether peasants had social relations who sometimes give support in times of need. These data 
on their social relations, land holdings, main livelihood activities and output, income levels and 
support systems available to them (LEAP) assisted in measuring relationships and determining 
the extent of correlations between or among variables of study.  
Participants were asked to express their views on possible shocks, trends and seasonal issues that 
threaten their attempts to build their level of resilience. This bothered on food security issues and 
how they maneuvered to sustain themselves through those periods. The study then determines 
the extent of equity in land deals, or impacts the absence of it can have on the livelihoods of the 
peasants in the Nanumba traditional area. The questionnaire was actually designed to provide a 
wide variety of data for the study. These were largely qualitative as the technique appeared to be 
the most convenient tool for gathering data. 
3.5.3 Focus Group Discussions FGDs 
Focus group discussion is another qualitative data collection strategy where specific persons with 
perceived expertise on some key issues of interest were grouped to deliberate on such issues. As 
the definition highlighted, the participants were selected deliberately, based on their knowledge 
and experiences on the issues under consideration. It also needed women only to constitute one 
of such groupings because if they were mixed with men, they might not express their opinions 
and viewpoints freely. The choice of the mode of selection was guided by the interest of the 
research to derive specific responses in line with the study objectives. 
57 
 
The focus group discussions were organized as follow-ups on the feedback from the use of 
interviews and questionnaire. The groups were also made to share their opinions on whether the 
actions and inactions of customary authority as they deal with land needs of peasants had any 
impact on poverty eradication, and reduction of hunger and inequality of all forms. Key 
informants ranging between 5 and 7 persons were selected across the study sites and used for the 
focused group discussions. Three focus group discussions were organized in all three study sites, 
one in each study site. Two groups of men and one group of women were organized in all.  
3.5.4 Secondary Data 
The literature was reviewed on major themes of interest to the study. It dwelt largely on key 
variables on the framework and those mentioned in the narratives to establish relationships 
among them. It also explored the land deals of customary authorities, land allocations, gendered 
issues in land allocation, essence of landed assets like land and its resources in ensuring 
improved livelihoods of landless peasants, land deals in the society, and whether there were links 
with the peasants‟ ability to own land, make livelihood choices, and improve output and 
incomes. The study also reviewed literature on other thematic variables mentioned in the 
narratives, as well as the key issues expressed under the research questions.  
3.6 Research Assistants  
The study selected and trained five research assistants as facilitators and interpreters. The 
research did the recordings, both audio and in writing, and probed further on unsatisfactory 
responses. The duration of each interview and discussions depended on the amount of new 
responses that continued to emerge, and whether or not there was need for clarifications. It used 
three months to pick data and did the follow ups for supplementary data after going through it. 
58 
 
The conflict situation in February 11, 2017 disrupted the mop-up processes in Bimbilla township 
causing it to prolong.  
3.7.0 Analytical Framework  
This section of the study gives vivid but brief explanations of the processes leading to data 
analysis, compilation of results and discussions of key emerging issues. The major activities here 
concerned data procession and techniques or tools of analysis. The study used questionnaire, 
FGDs and key individual interviews to gather both qualitative and quantitative data in relation to 
the study questions or objectives. Initially the questionnaire instrument contained missing items 
and unnecessary entries. The missing items related with unanswered questions on the 
questionnaire documents presented to the respondents. The unnecessary entries refer to options 
the respondents were not to respond to, but which they did. Also, some items were not responded 
to appropriately. These anomalies were attended to during the procession exercises.  
3.7.1 Data Procession and Analysis 
The processing included editing, coding of the data and reclassifying some of the codes with 
redundant responses to make it easy for analysis. The guides for FGDs and interviews, and the 
questionnaire items were edited of irregularities and inconsistencies, as well as ambiguities in the 
questions and responses before actual data collection in the field. This became necessary after 
testing the items on the field. Central editing continued up till the running of analysis as soon as 
data was compiled from the field.  
The study examined the raw data to detect errors and omissions and to correct them when 
possible. The editor did this with the objectives of the study in mind to avoid contradicting the 
study. The researcher went back to the field to resolve some peculiar omissions on the 
questionnaire items. The study also resorted to standardized market prices of yam and maize to 
59 
 
help estimate the expected earnings of the peasants (estimated annual incomes), since they 
quoted the farm outputs in bags of maize and tubers of yam.  
As at this time, two of the study sections in the Bimbilla township could not be revisited due to 
th
the erupted conflict situation on the 11  of February, 2017. The areas in question were burnt 
during the conflict in the area and so it was not advisable for the research to table such topic like 
landownership. A majority of them had also left their homes as at the time of the mop up. The 
study therefore relied on the research assistants from the two adjoining communities for the 
missing data.  
The research adopted the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software to analyze the 
data from the questionnaire. The responses from the interviews and the focus group discussions 
were transcribed and used to interpret the opinions and viewpoints of the participants. Some vital 
viewpoints were also quoted to support earlier findings with the questionnaire. Specifically, the 
study analyzed the data using descriptive statistics. Analytical tools under this technique 
included frequency and cross tabulations. The research used frequency distribution tables to 
organize questionnaire items that measured the opinions of peasants on key issues relating to 
each of the four study objectives. The frequency distribution tables enabled the study obtain 
fairer understanding on those issues and also informed the choice of much higher analytical tools 
for the study.  
Cross tabulations were also used to examine some key background issues on peasants that 
formed basis for the subsequent analysis of the data. These included the study site and the 
designation of peasant respondents, the sex and nativity of peasant respondents, age distribution 
and marital status of respondents. It also considered the marital and residential status of 
60 
 
respondents, and the household sizes of peasants and whether they engage in extra income 
generation activity. Likewise, the cross tabulations were used to examine the relationships 
between and among variables of interests, and to analyse the data across study sites. The study 
used tables, charts and maps to display findings, and to assist analysis. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
61 
 
CHAPTER FOUR 
FINDINGS, ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION 
4.0 Overview  
The study was purposed to examine land allocations in the Nanumba traditional area and how 
equitable it had been from the perspectives of peasants. It sought to identify and explain if the 
allocations posed some biases in terms of gender or nativity of peasants, and to determine and 
explain if there were livelihood issues emanating from the land deals. Lastly, it sought to identify 
policy issues of inequalities, hunger and poverty situations in the traditional area. The study 
examined the backgrounds of respondents focusing on the key variables of interest to the study. 
This preceded the discussions of the chapter to provide basis for certain discussions later in the 
study. 
The analysis was largely descriptive, basing emerging arguments on issues on the opinions and 
viewpoints of respondents as they were displayed on tables of frequencies and percentages, and 
figures. The study adopted statistical analytical techniques like descriptive statistics, using tools 
like frequencies and cross tabulations to establish and discuss the relationships among variables 
of quantitative nature as well as a blend of qualitative and quantitative variables.  
The study looked at some demographic data of respondents as obtained from the questionnaire 
instrument. The essence of this data was to give the study a clearer understanding of the 
background of the respondents in terms of study sites and designation, mode of access and 
ownership of land, mode of Access to Farmlands by locality (study sites) and, demand for 
compensation by locality, ownership of farmland by Locality of respondent, mode of access to 
land by gender, household size and residential status, and several other parameters. It was also to 
62 
 
look at the relationships that existed among the parameters and how these relationships helped to 
explain the livelihood status of the respondents. These were also to assist in further discussions 
along the study.  
4.0.1 Study Site and Designation of Respondent 
The study captured largely household heads and representatives as respondents to the 
questionnaire.  Most of the respondents were from Bimbilla sub-traditional area (see figure 4). 
The figure 4 also shows that traditional leaders like clan heads, tindamba and chiefs participated 
in the study. Some other representatives of the households were allowed to present the views of 
the households.  
 
Figure 4: Bar Chart of Title of Respondent by Locality 
 
The study could not get access to any of the traditional leaders in Dokpam because the seat was 
vacant and per the advice from a concerned native, it was not advisable the study ventures into 
matters relating to leadership of the community. Household heads then emerged the most 
available respondents. 
63 
 
4.0.2 Sex and Origin of Respondent by Locality 
The study targeted 250 respondents in all as respondents to the questionnaire items. The table 3 
showed that the respondents were made of natives and settlers in all the study sites (Localities).  
Table 3: Sex and Origin of Respondent by Locality 
Origin of Respondent * Sex of respondent * Study Site Crosstabulation 
Study Site Sex of respondent Total 
Male Female 
Bimbilla Origin of Respondent Native Count 101 22 123 
 69.2% 38.6% 60.6% 
Settler Count 45 35 80 
 30.8% 61.4% 39.4% 
Total Count 146 57 203 
 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 
Bakpaba Origin of Respondent Native Count 9 3 12 
 52.9% 75.0% 57.1% 
Settler Count 8 1 9 
 47.1% 25.0% 42.9% 
Total Count 17 4 21 
 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 
Dokpam Origin of Respondent Native Count 6  6 
 54.5%  54.5% 
Settler Count 5  5 
 45.5%  45.5% 
Total Count 11  11 
 100.0%  100.0% 
The sample also comprised of both sexes from Bimbilla and Bakpaba. However, Dokpam 
traditional area was made of male respondents alone. Specifically, the sample included 60.6 
percent (123) natives from Bimbilla, 57.1 percent (12) from Bakpaba and 54.5 percent (6) from 
Dokpam. Likewise, the composition of settlers includes 39.4 percent (80) from Bimbilla, 42.9 
percent (9) from Bakpaba and 45.5 percent (5) from Dokpam study sites. A question arises with 
adequate representation of settler/native involvement? With the exception of Bimbilla sub-
traditional area, settler representation of the sample was adequate. 
64 
 
The gender representation in the entire study area stood as 146 males from Bimbilla, 17 from 
Bakpaba and 11 from Dokpam study sites (see table 3). Table 3 also showed a total of 61 female 
peasant respondents on the study. Within Bimbilla sub-traditional area, settlers dominated the 
female representation in the study. Female Settlers on the sample were 61.4 percent, while 
female native were 38.6 percent. However, natives in Bakpaba sub-traditional area constituted 75 
percent of the female representation.  
 
Figure 5: Bar Chart of Sex and Locality of Respondents 
The target peasants were both from within and without the traditional area. In assessing the 
representation of the peasant from the sub-traditional area by nativity, the figure 5 showed a 
fairer representation across all the study sites. However, the Dokpam sub-traditional area did not 
have a female peasant as respondent.  
4.0.3 Age Distribution and Marital Status of Respondent by Locality  
The study also looked at the ages of respondents as against their marital statuses. This was to 
help in understanding the stages at which individuals in the area assume responsibilities of 
household care. The results from table 4 show that the study captured largely (57.4%) a youthful 
65 
 
household head category. Out of this number, 75.5 percent were married, while 15.5 percent 
were single and 9 percent were divorced. 
Likewise, the respondents who were married dominated in the age categories. However, the 
number of participants reduces with the rise in ages. Unlike Bimbilla and Bakpaba, Dokpam had 
close to 73 percent of peasant respondent within the ages 41 and 60 years. Likewise, there was 
no divorced or unmarried person (see table 4).  
Table 4: Age Distribution and Marital Status of Respondent by Locality 
Marital Status and Age of Respondent by Locality 
Study Site Age of Respondent Total 
25 -40 41 - 60 60 Plus 
Bimbilla Marital status Never Count 21 0 0 21 
of respondent Married  17.2% .0% .0% 10.3% 
Married Count 94 64 17 175 
 77.0% 100.0% 100.0% 86.2% 
Divorced Count 7 0 0 7 
 5.7% .0% .0% 3.4% 
Total Count 122 64 17 203 
 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 
Bakpaba Marital status Never Count 5 0 0 5 
of respondent Married  50.0% .0% .0% 23.8% 
Married Count 5 2 7 14 
 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% 66.7% 
Divorced Count 0 2 0 2 
 .0% 50.0% .0% 9.5% 
Total Count 10 4 7 21 
 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 
Dokpam Marital status Married Count 3 8  11 
of respondent  100.0% 100.0%  100.0% 
Total Count 3 8  11 
 100.0% 100.0%  100.0% 
4.0.4 Marital and Residential Status of Respondent 
The study again examined the link between the respondents‟ marital status as against their 
residential status. The essence was to understand how respondents housed their households, and 
if their straggles to accommodating their households could impact on their livelihoods.  The 
66 
 
results showed that majority of the peasants lived in their own housing apartment, while a greater 
number of the remaining peasant reside in houses owned by their natal relations.   
 
Figure 6: Bar Chart of Marital and Residential Status of Respondent 
It was also worth noting that all those respondents who never married were within the youthful 
age categories, and resided in houses owned by family relations. Likewise, a majority of the 
divorced persons resided in houses owned by family members (see figure 6). 
4.0.5 Household Size and Residential Status of Respondent by Localities   
The study looked at the size of households of peasants from one locality to another. Table 5 
displays the results. The findings from table 5 point to the fact that the family sizes of 
respondents may have greater bearing on the housing needs of households, and the ability of 
household heads to ensure food security from peasantry businesses.  
Table 5 shows that rural dweller were fully accommodated in their own apartments, compared to 
town dwellers. The dominant household range is 6 to 10 membership, and they were housed in 
67 
 
either rented apartment or in family houses (see table 5). For instance, 93.3 percent of peasants 
who house their households in rented apartment had household sizes of between 6 and 10 
membership. 
Table 5: Household Size and Residential Status by Locality 
Study Site      Household (HH) Size  Residential Status of Respondent Total 
Rented Own Family Rent 
tenant house house free 
Bimbilla  HH of 5 0r Count 2 12 12 4 30 
Less  6.7% 17.4% 13.0% 33.3% 14.8% 
HH of 6 – 10 Count 28 32 51 8 119 
 93.3% 46.4% 55.4% 66.7% 58.6% 
HH Above 10 Count 0 25 29 0 54 
 .0% 36.2% 31.5% .0% 26.6% 
           Total Count 30 69 92 12 203 
 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 
Bakpaba  HH of 5 0r Count  2 5  7 
Less   20.0% 45.5%  33.3% 
HH of 6 – 10 Count  6 5  11 
  60.0% 45.5%  52.4% 
HH Above 10 Count  2 1  3 
  20.0% 9.1%  14.3% 
             Count  10 11  21 
Total   100.0% 100.0%  100.0% 
Dokpam  HH of 5 0r Count  3   3 
Less   27.3%   27.3% 
HH of 6 – 10 Count  3   3 
  27.3%   27.3% 
HH Above 10 Count  5   5 
  45.5%   45.5% 
 Total   Count  11   11 
  100.0%   100.0% 
This same household size category formed the majority (55.4%) of those residing in family 
houses (see table 5). Even though, the majority of the peasants had large household sizes they 
reside in their own residence. Rural peasants were capable of housing their household members, 
so rent payment would not constitute a leakage on their peasantry business capital. 
68 
 
Dokpam sub-traditional area recorded predominantly higher household sizes of more than ten 
(10) members of the households. However, the peasant households claimed they were capable of 
housing their members (see figure 7).  
 
Figure 7: Bar Chart of Household Size of Respondent and Study Site 
The results from figure 6 show that Bimbilla and Bakpaba sub-traditional areas have dominant 
household sizes ranging between 6 and 10 membership.  
4.1.0 Objective One: Land Allocation in the Nanumba Traditional Area 
The study intended to measure the level of equity in land distribution in the NTA. The variables 
of measure were the respondents‟ ownership to farmland, how it was access, whether the 
peasants who accessed their farmlands by inheritance could lease portions of the land to a third 
party, if those who begged for land paid compensations for using farmlands, and the level of 
relationship between the peasant respondents and the original landowners,  
69 
 
The research obtained information from respondents on the modes of land allocation to enable 
the study to measure and explain the level of accessibility to land in the area. This could also aid 
in the determination of equity in land distribution in the traditional area.  
4.1.1 Mode of Access to Land 
The research needed to understand the mode of land allocation in the area from the perspective 
of the participant. The essence of this move as stated above was to help describe the level of 
access to land by the peasants in the traditional area.  
The results on table 6 showed that the peasants have varied concerns on the way land is allocated 
in the traditional area. The mode of land allocation in the area was largely through inheritance 
within lineages as well as free gifts to landless people who desire land purposely for farming. Per 
the results of the analysis a majority (54.5%) of the peasants claimed ownership of their 
respective farmlands in their response to the questionnaire items.  
On how the peasants accessed their farmlands, only 42.1 percent of them indicated inheritance as 
the mode of access. About 57 (133) percent of the peasants were freely given the farmland, out 
of which only 24 peasants claimed they were charged to pay compensation on the parcels of 
farmlands given them. The table 6 also shows that even those who inherited their farmlands were 
not capable of leasing a portion of their farmland to a third party. Interestingly, land deals were 
barely recorded (95.7%) in the traditional area (see table 6). The claim by settlers to have 
inherited land or owned land is reflective of inheriting secondary usufructory interests held by 
their parents.  
 
 
 
 
 
70 
 
 
 
Table 6: Opinions on Land Allocation and Land Deals 
Real access to land  Responses Total Respondents 
 Yes % No %  
Ownership of Farmland 128 54.5 107 45.5 235 
Mode of access  Inherited 99 42.1  232 
Freely given 133 56.6 
If inherited, can your lease out? 87 37 15 6.4 102 
Any compensation, if freely given 24 9.8 109 46 133 
Recording of land deals 8 3.4 225 95.7 233 
Contrary to the claims of ownership and inheritance, farmlands in the traditional area were not 
sold out or shared to individuals in families as inheritance because the tradition of the people 
forbids it (field data, 2016). They held those farmlands in Nanumba traditional area currently 
belong to clans and families, and were collectively under the allodial ownership of the chiefs. As 
the main source of their unity and livelihood, the lands could not be alienated from the people 
through sales, but only be allocated to family members and usufruct users who needed to use it.   
 This predominant position land holding did not rule out minor prevalence of land sales and 
compartmentalization into private holdings. An interview with key individual in the traditional 
area in charge of culture and traditions at the District Assembly confirmed the above assertion 
when it revealed some modifications in the customs of the area that led to land being held by 
clans and families. According to the narrations, it was not until when chiefs begun to apportion 
parcels of land for exclusive use by their clans and nuclear families that land in the area shifted 
from communal interests to include clan and family head titles (field data, 2016).  
4.1.2 Locality and Mode of Access to Farmlands 
The study explored land allocation in the traditional area by looking at how native men and 
women, as well as settlers obtain farmlands to pursue their livelihood options.  
71 
 
 
 
Figure 8: Bar Chart of Locality and Mode of Access to Farmlands 
From figure 8, settlers‟ major access to land largely depended on the willingness of landowners 
to give land. Peasants within the Dokpam sub-traditional area have the opportunity to inherit 
land, despite ones‟ status as native or settler. However, the situation varied in the sub-traditional 
areas of Bimbilla and Bakpaba. It was also worth noting that land sales were observed only in 
Bimbilla sub-traditional area. Information shows that the sub-traditional areas of Bakpaba and 
Dokpam did not experience issues of land purchases. Prevalence of land sales varied with size of 
town, while settler integration has relevance in less developed rural areas comparatively.  
4.1.3 Demand for Compensation by Locality 
The study gathered the opinions of peasants who accessed their land through free gift on the 
issues of compensations as conditions for the use of the farmlands. Depending on the mode of 
compensations attached to land use, access to land could be hampered. From the results on figure 
72 
 
9, Bimbilla sub-traditional area was shown to have registered incidences of demand for 
compensation by the landlords. Was it a structured practice? The remaining areas had not 
experienced such practice.  
 
Figure 9: Bar Chart of Demand for Compensation by Locality 
The interest of the study was also to examine the kinds of land interests expressed among the 
claims of peasants in the three localities. Figure 9 displays these findings on the views of 
respondents. 
73 
 
 
Figure 10: Bar Chart of Ownership (interests) in Farmland by Locality of Respondent 
Figure 10 shows that all peasant respondents within the Dokpam sub-traditional area had some 
claim of their farmlands and could pass on to their lineages. However, native and settler peasants 
in the remaining two traditional areas had no form of ownership claims to their farmlands.   
4.1.4 Mode of Access and claim of Ownership of farmland by Locality 
Issues of land ownership claimed by both settlers and native seemed to lack clarity in terms of 
type of real interests. To pursue this issue further the study tabulated the mode of access and 
ownership claim to ascertain the level of ownership. The results on table 7 showed that not all 
those who inherited their farmlands could claim ownership to the farmland. It further shows that 
28 percent of peasants from Bimbilla who were freely given their farmlands could claim 
ownership of such lands. Is it natives alone who have rights to inherit land, or settlers too could 
inherit farmland?  
 
 
74 
 
Table 7: Mode of Access and Ownership by Locality 
Mode of access  and Ownership of Farmland  by Locality 
Study Site Ownership of Farmland  Total 
 Yes No 
Bimbilla Mode of access  Inherited Count  71 8 79 
  65.7% 8.4% 38.9% 
Freely Count  34 87 121 
given   31.5% 91.6% 59.6% 
Purchased Count  3 0 3 
  2.8% .0% 1.5% 
Total Count  108 95 203 
  100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 
Bakpaba Mode of access  Inherited Count  9 0 9 
  100.0% .0% 42.9% 
Freely Count  0 12 12 
given   .0% 100.0% 57.1% 
Total Count  9 12 21 
  100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 
Dokpam Mode of access  Inherited Count  11  11 
  100.0%  100.0% 
Total Count  11  11 
  100.0%  100.0% 
It must be made clear that not all who inherited their farmlands were natives. Likewise, those 
respondents who claimed they were freely given their farmlands included natives. Results from 
the interviews showed that settlers who maintained perfect relationship with their landlords had 
the opportunity of maintaining their use rights to lands given them, and even, passing on their 
usufruct rights to their descendants. A specific question was posed as to whether settlers who 
maintain good standing with their landlords have opportunity of holding such parcels of land as 
long as they can. In response he said,  
“It will not necessarily be declared to you a settler to own the land. The landlord will not disturb 
you, so far as you comport yourself by respecting the tenure agreement and also do not interfere 
in their internal affairs” (field data, 20 7). 
75 
 
 
Figure 11: Bar Chart of Mode of Access and Ownership of Land 
From figure 11, a majority of those who inherited their farmlands could claim ownership to such 
farmlands, while a huge majority of peasants who were freely given their farmlands could not lay 
any claim of inheritance. Settlers, as have been noted already, could only inherit the usufruct 
interest the traditional authority granted to the parents. 
During the interview sessions with a representative of the traditional authority of one of the 
gates, he indicated,  
“Landowners in this area will claim lands given to usufruct users if they must expand their farms, 
or cater for the request of a member of the landholding family (Field data, 2017).  
This statement bothers significantly on the tenure security of usufruct right users of land in the 
traditional area. It is probable that settlers‟ land sizes may continue to dwindle due to some of 
76 
 
these acts by landowners. It also proves the point that landowners can confiscate farmlands of 
strangers and give it to family members. 
4.2.0 Objective Two: Gender or Nativity of Peasants as Factors of Land Access 
The study was also purported to examine land allocations in the Nanumba traditional area in the 
context of nativity or origin and gender of the peasant respondents. It sought to ascertain if being 
a settler or female has any influence on a peasant‟s request for farmland. The interview and focus 
group discussions highlighted strongly that both settlers and natives were capable of accessing 
land in the traditional area. The study explored these tasks by comparing results from each sub-
traditional to another and later examined the issues as they pertain in the study area. 
Table 8: Opinions of Peasants on Land Allocations 
Questionnaire Item  OPINIONS TOTAL  
True % False % Not Sure % 
Access to land is based on relations 148 63 50 21.3 37 15.7 
Access does not depend on gender 117 49.8 105 44.7 13 5.5 
Natives have greater access than settlers 196 83.4 27 11.5 12 6.1 
Land owners prefer investors to settlers 159 67.7 49 20.9 27 11.5 
Natives have better tenure security 201 85.5 14 6 20 8.5 
Customs allow land transfer to females 76 32.3 114 48.6 45 19.1 
Women‟s land rights could be denied 166 70.6 69 29.4   
Customs does not permit  women to inherit 97 41.3 100 42.6 38 16.2 
land 
Customs discriminate against women 122 51.9 113 48.1   
The study explored the opinions of the peasants on issues relating to land allocations in the 
traditional area, and whether gender or nativity of the peasant affects access to farmland. From 
the table 8, peasants who were related to landowners were more likely get farmland than those 
who were not. It further shows that among natives, gender was not a barrier to access to land. 
However, the opinions on this issue were divided (49.8% “for” and 44.7% “against”). Why the 
dichotomy? Respondents (85.5%) also held the views that natives had greater tenure security to 
farmlands than settlers. However, the customs of the area does not allow land transfer to females 
77 
 
(48.6%), or permit women to inherit farmlands of spouses (97%), an issue that got respondents 
split (41% and 43%, see table 7).  
 
Figure 12: Bar Chart of Nature of Women Land Rights by Locality 
Communal system of landownership acknowledges the welfare of women than individualized 
system of landownership (Toulmin and Quan, 2000). Dokpam sub-traditional area differed in 
opinions on women‟s land rights than the other areas. (Niesssen, 1985).  
 
 
 
 
78 
 
 
Figure 13: Bar Chart of Land Transfer to Women by Locality 
As to whether the customs of the study area would allow transfer of family land to women, 
figure 13 shows that the majority of peasant households in Bimbilla and Dokpam had opinions in 
the contrary. However, a slight majority of peasant households in Bakpaba sub-traditional area 
held the views that female members of the household could be give parcels of family lands to 
control. What does the interview say? Could they be allowed to alienate such parcels of land, or 
will it to their children? On the issue of inheritance of land, which surfaced as the main mode of 
access to land among natives, the response varied across sub-traditional areas.  
4.2.1 Gender and Access to Land by Localities 
In exploring the gender access to farmland across the study area, the study compared the 
scenarios of the individual study sites. Table 9 showed that both females and males had some 
form of access to land. Both sexes could inherit land, especially in Bimbilla (male – 68, female – 
79 
 
11). Despite the inclusion, 28 percent female representation in the sub-traditional area was highly 
inadequate. However, all the females in Bakpaba could only access their farmlands through free 
gifts from land owners.  
Table 9: Gender and Mode of Access to Farmland by Locality 
Sex and Mode of Access to Farmland by Locality 
Study Site Sex of Respondent Total 
Male Female 
Bimbilla Mode of access  Inherited Count 68 11 79 
 46.6% 19.3% 38.9% 
Freely Count 78 43 121 
given  53.4% 75.4% 59.6% 
Purchased Count 0 3 3 
 .0% 5.3% 1.5% 
Total Count 146 57 203 
 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 
Bakpaba Mode of access  Inherited Count 9 0 9 
 52.9% .0% 42.9% 
Freely Count 8 4 12 
given  47.1% 100.0% 57.1% 
Total Count 17 4 21 
 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 
Dokpam Mode of access  Inherited Count 11  11 
 100.0%  100.0% 
Total Count 11  11 
 100.0%  100.0% 
The results on figure 13 show that women‟s right to inherit land as members of the family in the 
traditional area varied by locality. In Bimbilla sub-traditional area, the dominant opinions on the 
issue show that women could not inherit family land. However, the peasants in the two other 
localities thought otherwise. 
80 
 
 
Figure 14: Bar Chart of Women's Land Inheritance by Localities 
What really was the explanation to these variations in viewpoint on such major customary 
construct? Does the issue of land value influence the position of the viewpoints? Or, the right to 
inherit was with a difference in the two other areas?   
The study again examined the issues of discrimination against females on matters of land 
allocation in the entire traditional area. Figure 15 displays the opinions the peasant households. 
The peasants were not decisive on the issues of whether the customs of the traditional area 
discriminated against females in land allocation, except those from Bimbilla sub-traditional area. 
Figure 15 shows no clear cut differences in opinions by peasant households from Bakpaba and 
Dokpam. While a slight majority in Bakpaba acknowledged the incidence of discriminatory 
tendencies in the customs, those from Dokpam pooled a slight majority that denies the existence 
of discrimination in the customs of the area.  
81 
 
 
Figure 15: Bar Chart of Customs and Women in Land Allocation by Localities 
However, the peasant households from Bimbilla largely held the opinions that the customs do 
not give females equal access to family land as it does to males. Does the adherence to customs 
explain these dispositions of peasants? Or the exposure to issues of human rights information 
informs the dispositions of the peasants in the urban centre?  
4.2.3 Gendered Views on Customary Land Allocations  
The study further examined the opinions of both male and female peasant respondents on the 
gender issue in customary practices. Figure 16 shows the opinions of females and males on 
whether customs discriminated against women in land family allocation. 
82 
 
 
Figure 16:  Bar Chart of Gendered Views on Customs and Women’s Access to Land 
The results from figure 16 showed that there was no significant difference in the opinions and 
viewpoints of males on the issue. However, a very slight majority of the female peasants thought 
that the customs of the traditional area did not ensure equitable access to family land for male 
and female children. Does the level of attachment to customs influence this outcome? 
4.2.4 Views of Natives and Settlers on Whether Custom Discriminate against Women  
Similarly, when the study explored the opinions of peasant households among settlers and 
natives, the result was a mix-up. While the majority of the natives could not see tendencies of 
discriminations in the dealings of the customs of the traditional area, the settler peasants were of 
contrary opinions. The majority of the settler peasants thought that the customs of the traditional 
area had given male members of the traditional area dominant access to family lands (see figure 
83 
 
17). What informed these divergent dispositions? Maybe the settlers were never asked to see a 
female member of the family for land – men gave land out 
 
Figure 17: Bar Chart of Views of Natives/Settlers on whether Custom Discriminate against 
Women 
4.2.5 Sex of Respondents and Mode of Access by Locality  
The study intended to examine and explain if there were differences in how peasants got their 
farmland allocations, if gender of the peasant facilitated or inhibited the chances of the peasants. 
Table 10 displays the results of the findings.  
From table 10, the results showed a much wider variations in gendered land access in the 
Bimbilla and Bakpaba sub-traditional areas. However, the Dokpam sub-traditional area did not 
have female respondent, making it difficult for the study to comment on the issue in the study 
site. What explains the issue of no female peasant respondent? 
84 
 
Table 10: Sex of Respondent and Mode of Access by Locality 
Sex and Mode of Access  of Respondent * Study Site  
Study Site Mode of Access  Total 
Inherited Freely given Purchased 
Bimbilla Sex of Male  68 78 0 146 
respondent  46.6% 53.4% .0% 100.0% 
 Female  11 43 3 57 
 19.3% 75.4% 5.3% 100.0% 
Total  79 121 3 203 
 38.9% 59.6% 1.5% 100.0% 
Bakpaba Sex of Male   9 8  17 
respondent  52.9% 47.1%  100.0% 
Female  0 4  4 
 .0% 100.0%  100.0% 
Total  9 12  21 
 42.9% 57.1%  100.0% 
Dokpam Sex of Male  11   11 
respondent  100.0%   100.0% 
Total  11   11 
 100.0%   100.0% 
       
 
4.2.6 Origin of Respondent and Mode of Land Access by Locality  
The study also explored the mode of access to land by either native or settler respondents across 
localities. This was to examine the nature of access settlers have in their bid to improve upon 
their livelihoods. Table 11 shows the results of the findings from the peasant respondents. The 
issue of whether settlers inherited farmland and therefore could claim ownership was examined 
by the study. Table 11 revealed that about 29 percent of the 94 settler peasants inherited their 
farmlands from the parents. Likewise, out of the 99 peasants who claimed they inherited their 
farmland, only 72 of them were natives.  
 
 
 
 
85 
 
Table 11: Origin of Respondent and Mode of Land Access by Locality 
Origin and Mode of access  of Respondent by Locality  
Study Site Mode of Access  Total 
Inherited Freely given Purchased 
Bimbilla Origin of Native  60 63 0 123 
Respondent  48.8% 51.2% .0% 100.0% 
Settler  19 58 3 80 
 23.8% 72.5% 3.8% 100.0% 
Total  79 121 3 203 
 38.9% 59.6% 1.5% 100.0% 
Bakpaba Origin of Native  6 6  12 
Respondent  50.0% 50.0%  100.0% 
Settler  3 6  9 
 33.3% 66.7%  100.0% 
Total  9 12  21 
 42.9% 57.1%  100.0% 
Dokpam Origin of Native  6   6 
Respondent  100.0%   100.0% 
Settler  5   5 
 100.0%   100.0% 
Total  11   11 
 100.0%   100.0% 
 
From table 11, most settler peasants obtained their farmlands through free gifts by the 
landowners. This manifested in the cases of Bimbilla (72.5%) and Bakpaba (66.7) sub-traditional 
areas. However, the settler peasants (100%) from the Dokpam sub-traditional area had the 
opportunity to inherit their farmlands. Comparatively, few settler peasants from Bimbilla 
(23.8%) and Bakpaba (33.3%) could inherit their farmlands. Can the level of integration settlers 
have explain these variations in access to land?  
Though the interviews and FGDs alluded to some incidences of land sales, they were not able to 
confirm a fixed price for a piece of land in the traditional area. The respondents said the prices 
varied and depended on who was making the request, and how related the person was with the 
landowners. As for the smaller traditional areas like Dokpam and Bakpaba, land sales were yet 
86 
 
strange to them (field data, 2017). A 41 year old peasant in one of this traditional towns 
remarked; 
“Land belongs to families and no stranger is allowed to own any portion of it. If settlers own our 
land we cannot banish such persons if they are found to exhibit anti-social characters. We rather 
give the land free to the settlers” (Field Data, 20 7).  
The customary position at the rural settlement varied divergently from what pertained in semi-
urban areas where population growth drives settlement expansions.  
4.3.0 Objective Three: Land Tenure Practices and Livelihoods of Peasants 
It examined customary land tenure practices in the Nanumba traditional area and how it impacts 
on the livelihoods of peasants in the traditional area. It considered peasants‟ farmland sizes, 
income earnings and personal land holdings as variables that underpin the livelihood activities 
and outcomes of peasants. It explains the linkages among these variable from the perspectives of 
the peasant respondents (Myers, 1997: citing Kaplan & Maxwell, 1994).  
The analysis was largely a description of issues as tabled in the instruments from the viewpoints 
of respondents. It adopted descriptive statistical tools like frequency and cross tabulations.  
Tables of frequencies and simple percentages were used to display the results. It also used 
figures and graphs or charts to display pictorial data for further analysis.  
4.3.1 Origin of Respondent and Farmland Size by Study Sites/Locality 
The study explored the farmland sizes of native and settler respondents based on the study sites. 
The rationale was to compare the farmland sizes of both natives and settlers from the various 
study sites. Table 12 contains the results or the outcome of the exploration. Table 12 shows that 
65 percent of the native from Bimbilla claimed farmland sizes ranging from 1 acre to 4 acres. 
Likewise, 35 percent of native peasants could boast of farmland sizes ranging from 5 acres or 
87 
 
more. However, 81 percent of the settler peasants had farmland sizes ranges between 1 and 4 
acres. Meanwhile, both natives and settler peasants had fair share of farmland in the two other 
communities.  
Table 12: Origin of Respondent and Farmland Size by Locality 
Origin of Respondent * Farmland Size * Study 
Study Site Farmland Size Total 
1 - 4 Acres 5  Acres Plus 
Bimbilla Origin of Native  80 43 123 
Respondent  65.0% 35.0% 100.0% 
Settler  65 15 80 
 81.2% 18.8% 100.0% 
Total  145 58 203 
 71.4% 28.6% 100.0% 
Bakpaba Origin of Native  6 6 12 
Respondent  50.0% 50.0% 100.0% 
Settler  4 5 9 
 44.4% 55.6% 100.0% 
Total  10 11 21 
 47.6% 52.4% 100.0% 
Dokpam Origin of Native  4 2 6 
Respondent  66.7% 33.3% 100.0% 
Settler  4 1 5 
 80.0% 20.0% 100.0% 
Total  8 3 11 
 72.7% 27.3% 100.0% 
Table 12 also gives indications that settler peasant respondents had some farmland sizes to 
pursue their livelihood prospects. Both natives and settlers across the sub-traditional areas had 
predominantly 4 acres of farmland or less to do crop farming (see table 12). The analysis showed 
that settlers had fair share of farmlands as native, so there was no significant difference between 
settlers‟ access to farmland and those of natives. 
88 
 
4.3.2 Gender and Farmland Size by Locality 
The study also compared the gendered access to farmland across the localities under study. 
Similarly, the examination of farmland sizes by gender across the study sites shows that both 
sexes had farmland sizes ranging between 1 and 4 acres across the localities (see table 13). 
Table 13: Sex of Respondent and Farmland Size by Locality 
Sex  and Farmland Size of Respondent  by Locality 
Study Site Farmland Size Total 
1 - 4 Acres 5  Acres Plus 
Bimbilla Sex of respondent Male        94 52 146 
 64.4% 35.6% 100.0% 
Female         51 6 57 
 89.5% 10.5% 100.0% 
Total  145 58 203 
 71.4% 28.6% 100.0% 
Bakpaba Sex of respondent Male  6 11 17 
 35.3% 64.7% 100.0% 
Female        4 0 4 
 100.0% .0% 100.0% 
Total  10 11 21 
 47.6% 52.4% 100.0% 
Dokpam Sex of respondent Male  8 3 11 
 72.7% 27.3% 100.0% 
Total  8 3 11 
 72.7% 27.3% 100.0% 
From table 13, only 10.5 percent of female peasant respondents out the 57 from Bimbilla sub-
traditional area claimed having 5 acres of farmland or more to do crop farming, compared to 
Bakpaba sub-traditional area where all female peasant could boast of between 1 and 4 acres of 
farmland.  
Table 13 reveals that places that had some level of settler integration, like Bimbilla and Bakpaba 
sub-traditional areas, had female involvement in land related livelihoods. As noted earlier, native 
females barely engage in farming activities. In Dokpam sub-traditional area, no female 
responded to the instruments. Likewise, very few females had farmland sizes above five acres of 
89 
 
land. Juxtaposing this with the population structure of the traditional area, how does this 
influence the output of these peasants? 
4.3.3 Origin of Respondent and Estimated Annual Income from Farming by Locality  
In pursuing the relationships between the size of land and income generated from farmland, the 
study examined the estimated incomes of the peasants using tabulations. Studies showed that 
households‟ ability to diversify their income earning is a necessary condition to building 
resilience against external threats and shocks. The size of farmland enables households to engage 
in more than one crop production. It also allows for extensive farming of yam, a cash crop, most 
preferable in the area. This crop requires vast farmland size to allow for rotation yearly or 
biannually.  
Table 14 shows how income from farms relates with farmland size. Results from table 42 shows 
that peasants generally earn incomes far below GHS 2,800.00. For instance, 71.9 percent of the 
peasants in Bimbilla sub-traditional area earned incomes up to GHS 2,700.00 or less, with only 
28.1 percent of them earning estimated income up to GHS 2,800.00 or more (see table 14).  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
90 
 
 
 
Table 14: Origin of Respondent and Estimated Annual income from Farming by Locality 
Origin of Respondent and Estimated Annual Income from Farming by Locality 
Study Site Estimated Annual Income Total 
from Farming 
<=2700 >=2800 
Bimbilla Origin of Native Count 87 36 123 
Respondent  70.7% 29.3% 100.0% 
Settler Count 59 21 80 
 73.8% 26.2% 100.0% 
Total Count 146 57 203 
 71.9% 28.1% 100.0% 
Bakpaba Origin of Native Count 9 3 12 
Respondent  75.0% 25.0% 100.0% 
Settler Count 6 3 9 
 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% 
Total Count 15 6 21 
 71.4% 28.6% 100.0% 
Dokpam Origin of Native Count 5 1 6 
Respondent  83.3% 16.7% 100.0% 
Settler Count 2 3 5 
 40.0% 60.0% 100.0% 
Total Count 7 4 11 
 63.6% 36.4% 100.0% 
This percentage figures were not different from those peasants from Bakpaba (see table 14). 
Likewise, 63.6 percent of the peasants in Dokpam sub-traditional area earn incomes up to GHS 
2,700.00 or below. However, in Dokpam, settlers (60%) were seen to earn higher incomes than 
natives (16.7%) within the higher income categories (see table 14). Settler peasants in Bakpaba 
also constituted the majority peasants who earned higher incomes. In general, the low income 
earners constituted the majority of all respondents to the questionnaire. Comparatively, settlers 
earned better than natives in terms of farm outputs.  
4.3.4 Size of Personal Land Assets among Income Groupings of Peasants by Locality 
The study further explored the impact that the income level of a peasant could have on the ability 
of the peasant to secure landed assets. It aimed at understanding the land tenure practices in the 
91 
 
Nanumba traditional area in the context of its influence on landless people‟s ability to farm, 
increase income and secure assets for themselves.  
Though, land is held in common by allodial titles and is inalienable in the traditional area, land 
sales around the urbanizing towns are in operations. Peasants facing evictions sometimes had 
opportunities to express their interests in the land parcels. 
Table 15: Size of Personal Land Asset among Income Groupings Peasants by Locality 
Personal Land Assets  and Estimated Annual Income from Farming by Locality 
Estimated Annual Income from Study Site Total 
Farming Bimbilla Bakpaba Dokpam  
<=2700 Personal No Land  64 8 0 72 
land assets   88.9% 11.1% .0% 100.0% 
1 - 4 Acres  54 4 3 61 
 88.5% 6.6% 4.9% 100.0% 
5 - 10 Acres  20 2 4 26 
 76.9% 7.7% 15.4% 100.0% 
More than 10  8 1 0 9 
Acres  88.9% 11.1% .0% 100.0% 
Total  146 15 7 168 
 86.9% 8.9% 4.2% 100.0% 
>=2800 Personal No Land  20 3 2 25 
land assets   80.0% 12.0% 8.0% 100.0% 
1 - 4 Acres  19 2 0 21 
 90.5% 9.5% .0% 100.0% 
5 - 10 Acres  9 0 2 11 
 81.8% .0% 18.2% 100.0% 
More than 10  9 1 0 10 
Acres  90.0% 10.0% .0% 100.0% 
Total  57 6 4 67 
 85.1% 9.0% 6.0% 100.0% 
It therefore looked at the various income levels as against the size of landed assets of peasants by 
the study sites. Table 15 displays the results of the findings. In general, 41.3 percent (97) of 
peasants within the income groupings could not lay claim to any landed assets to their 
households. The study observed that up 74.2 percent of them (72) were peasants who earn 
incomes up to GHS 2,700.00 or below the annual minimum wage level as specified. However, 
92 
 
the remaining peasants whose incomes were higher failed to lay claim to any landed assets. The 
interview results showed that some of the peasants in this category were settlers who had just 
spent less than four years in the area. 
The table 15 also revealed that about 71.5 (168) percent of the peasants earn within the lower 
income ranges, out of which 36.4 percent (61) laid claim to 4 acres or less as personal asset, 
compared to 31.3 percent (21) of the 67 peasants who earned up to GHS 2, 800.00 as annual 
income. Examining those peasants who claimed they possess landed assets above 10 acres, the 
ratios were 5.4 percent as against 14.9 percent for lower and higher income earning peasants 
respectively.  
Observations point to the conclusions that incomes earned by peasants had influence on the asset 
holdings of peasants. It shows that peasants who earned higher incomes from their farms were 
likely to afford more assets than those who are not.  
The study further examined the issues of asset accumulation among peasants across the study 
sites.  For the 146 peasants in Bimbilla sub-traditional area who earned lower incomes, 43.8 
percent (64) could not lay claim to land as personal assets. However, only 5.5 percent (8) of the 
peasants from this could boast of 10 acres of land or more. In comparing these outcomes to those 
with higher incomes, about 35 percent of them did not have assets as against 33.3 and 15.8 
percent of the peasants who could lay claim to assets up to 4 or 10 acres respectively.  
The peasants from Bakpaba were worse off, as 53.3 percent of the peasants within lower income 
groups failed to lay claim to any landed assets, while only 26.7 and 13.3 percent of the peasants 
would claim assets up to 4 or 10 acres respectively. Similarly, about 50 percent of those in the 
93 
 
higher income categories still failed to lay claim to landed assets, while 33.3 percent of the 
remaining claimed they have up to 4 acres of landed assets to their households.  
Among the low income earner peasants in Dokpam, all 7 of them could lay claim to parcels of 
land as personal asset. Rather those within the higher income earners had challenges with asset 
holdings. About 50 percent of them (2) could not lay claim to landed assets. The remaining 2 
persons had land parcels ranging between 5 and 10 acres. Earlier on, it was deduced that settlers 
earned more than natives in Dokpam and Bakpaba sub-traditional areas. Likewise, sale of land 
was not known in these areas. This shows that those who are claiming landed assets were largely 
natives of the traditional area.  
Emerging concerns: Why couldn‟t people who inherited land claim land as assets? The situation 
here seemed bad, but could the impressions of communal land tenure interest holdings be the 
cause for them not claiming ownerships to land under their holdings? 
Table 16 Mode of Access and Estimated Income by Locality 
Mode of access  and Estimated Annual Income From Farming by Locality 
Estimated Annual Income from Farming study Site Total 
Bimbilla Bakpaba Dokpam 
<=2700 Mode of Inherited Count 51 6 7 64 
access   79.7% 9.4% 10.9% 100.0% 
Freely Count 92 9 0 101 
given  91.1% 8.9% .0% 100.0% 
Purchased Count 3 0 0 3 
 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% 
Total Count 146 15 7 168 
 86.9% 8.9% 4.2% 100.0% 
>=2800 Mode of Inherited Count 28 3 4 35 
access   80.0% 8.6% 11.4% 100.0% 
Freely Count 29 3 0 32 
given  90.6% 9.4% .0% 100.0% 
Total Count 57 6 4 67 
 85.1% 9.0% 6.0% 100.0% 
94 
 
The study also intended to examine the mode of access to land and income earned by peasants 
across the traditional area. Table 16 displays the information from the respondents.  From the 
results in table 16, the peasants within lower income (GHS 2,700.00) grouping were dominated 
by the peasants who had the farmlands through free gift. However, the result is different with 
those earning above lower income levels.  
4.4. Policy Implications: Prevalence of Households Food Security  
This requires the examination of several variables before coming to conclusions on the ability of 
the traditional area to provide food needs of the peasants across the farming seasons. The study 
therefore looked at how peasants managed farm products, whether households ran shortage of 
food, nature of the food shortage in the neighbourhoods of participants, and how they managed 
the shortages.  
4.4.1 Prevalence of Food Sales in Response to Household Financial Needs 
The study went ahead to examine the prevalence of food shortages among peasants. Table 17 
displays the results by study sites. The results showed that 95.3 percent of the peasants from 
Bimbilla sub-traditional area who claimed their farm output could feed their households all year 
round agreed to the proposition that most peasants had to sell their food crops in order to support 
the income needs of their households. Only 4 percent disagreed with the proposition. In the sub-
study areas of Bakpaba and Dokpam, there were 100 percent confirmations.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
95 
 
Table 17: Prevalence of Food Sales among Peasants by Localities 
Whether Households’ farm Output Most Households Sell Farm Products to Total 
able to Feed it Provide HH Needs 
 True False Not Sure 
Yes Study Bimbilla Count  143 6 1 150 
Site   95.3% 4.0% .7% 100.0% 
Bakpaba Count  11 0 0 11 
  100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% 
Dokpam Count  6 0 0 6 
  100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% 
Total Count  160 6 1 167 
  95.8% 3.6% .6% 100.0% 
No Study Bimbilla Count  51 2  53 
Site   96.2% 3.8%  100.0% 
Bakpaba Count  9 1  10 
  90.0% 10.0%  100.0% 
Dokpam Count  5 0  5 
  100.0% .0%  100.0% 
Total Count  65 3  68 
  95.6% 4.4%  100.0% 
On the other hand, peasants who said their farm outputs could not feed their households till next 
harvest were unanimous in confirming the prevalence of sales of farm outputs.  
4.4.2 Prevalence of Food Shortages in Households of Peasants by Locality  
To explore the prevalence of food shortage among peasant household in the study area, opinions 
of peasant were sought on such situations. Table 18 displays the outcome of the analysis. Table 
18 shows that peasants who claimed they could feed their households all year round from the 
produce of their farms consented to prevalence of seasonal food shortages in their households. 
Out of 150 peasants from Bimbilla, 64.7 percent claimed they experience food shortages from 
time to time in their households. However, 36.4 percent and 33.3 percent were the responses 
from Bakpaba and Dokpam respectively. 
 
 
 
96 
 
Table 18: Prevalence of Food Shortages in Households of Peasants by Locality 
Whether Household Farm Output Able Whether Household Experience Total 
to Feed It Food Shortage in a Year 
 Yes No 
Yes Study Site Bimbilla Count  97 53 150 
  64.7% 35.3% 100.0% 
Bakpaba Count  4 7 11 
  36.4% 63.6% 100.0% 
Dokpam Count  2 4 6 
  33.3% 66.7% 100.0% 
Total Count  103 64 167 
  61.7% 38.3% 100.0% 
No Study Site Bimbilla Count  37 16 53 
  69.8% 30.2% 100.0% 
Bakpaba Count  10 0 10 
  100.0% .0% 100.0% 
Dokpam Count  5 0 5 
  100.0% .0% 100.0% 
Total Count  52 16 68 
  76.5% 23.5% 100.0% 
On the other hand, 69.8 percent of peasant who said their farm outputs could not sustain the food 
needs of their households confirmed that they experiencing food shortages in their households. 
There was full confirmation in the cases of Dokpam and Bakpaba (see table 18).   
4.4.3 Nature of Food Shortage in Neighbourhoods of Respondents  
The study went further to verify if the neighbourhoods of peasants also experienced food 
shortages. Table 19 shows the results of the analysis. From the findings on table 19, there was 
unanimous confirmation of the widespread prevalence of food shortage in the study area by both 
peasants who experienced or did not experience food shortages. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
97 
 
Table 19: Nature of Food Shortage in neighbourhoods of respondents by Study Area 
Most Households Sell Farm Products to Incidence of Food Total 
Provide Household needs Shortages in 
Respondent's Neighbours  
 Yes No 
True Whether HH ever Yes   133 18 151 
experienced food shortage in   88.1% 11.9% 100.0% 
a year No   69 5 74 
  93.2% 6.8% 100.0% 
Total   202 23 225 
  89.8% 10.2% 100.0% 
False Whether HH ever Yes   3 1 4 
experienced food shortage in   75.0% 25.0% 100.0% 
a year No   5 0 5 
  100.0% .0% 100.0% 
Total   8 1 9 
  88.9% 11.1% 100.0% 
Not Whether HH ever No   1  1 
Sure experienced food shortage in   100.0%  100.0% 
a year 
Total   1  1 
  100.0%  100.0% 
Those peasants (225) who sold their food stuff to supplement other needs of the households 
confirmed (89.7%) that their neighbourhoods experienced food shortages. Likewise, 88.1 percent 
of these peasants consented to having experienced cases of food shortages in their households. 
The study needed to ascertain the mitigation measures these peasants adopt in situations of 
shortages. 
4.4.4 Mitigation strategies by Peasants during Food Shortages  
The study explored the mitigation measures peasants always adopted during the period of 
shortages. The most prominent mitigation strategies peasants adopted included borrowing food 
stuff from other peasants, seeking help from extended family members and friends, and sale of 
labour or farm animals to buy food (see table 20). 
 
 
98 
 
Table 20: Mitigation of Peasants during Food Shortages 
Incidence of Food Shortage in a Year and Mitigation Measures Adopted by Locality  
Study Site Incidence of Food Total 
Shortage in a Year 
    Yes         No  
Bimbilla Mitigation Borrow food  Count    21 24 45 
measures   46.7% 53.3% 100.0% 
adopted Help from family Count  35 16 51 
against food and friends   68.6% 31.4% 100.0% 
shortages Sell Count  62 19 81 
labour/Animals    76.5% 23.5% 100.0% 
Total Count  134 69 203 
  66.0% 34.0% 100.0% 
Bakpaba Mitigation Borrow food  Count  8 3 11 
measures   72.7% 27.3% 100.0% 
adopted Help from family Count  2 0 2 
against food and friends   100.0% .0% 100.0% 
shortages Sell Count  4 2 6 
labour/Animals    66.7% 33.3% 100.0% 
Total Count  14 7 21 
  66.7% 33.3% 100.0% 
Dokpam Mitigation Borrow food  Count  4 1 5 
measures   80.0% 20.0% 100.0% 
adopted Help from family Count  0 3 3 
against food and friends   .0% 100.0% 100.0% 
shortages Sell Count  3 0 3 
labour/Animals    100.0% .0% 100.0% 
Total Count  7 4 11 
  63.6% 36.4% 100.0% 
The intervention of family and friend (68.6%) as mitigation measure is only largely peculiar to 
peasant households from Bimbilla alone (see table 20). Borrowing food stuff and sale of labour 
and animals were the most prevalent measure peasants adopted across the study sites. However, 
the results from table 20 showed sale of labour by peasants was the most adopted strategy for 
survival during food shortages. 
99 
 
 
Figure 18: Pie Chart of Periods of food Shortages 
 
The months ranging from June to July had been memorable to peasant households due to the 
experiences of food shortages associated with the period (see figure 17). A majority of the 
peasants (52.7%) were of the view that their situations may improve if improved farm inputs 
were supplied to them. Likewise, others (35) suggested irrigation facility as a measure that can 
keep them busy after the main farming season. 
Table 21: Dominant Suggestions of Peasants on Building Resilience of Peasants 
Suggestions Frequency Percent 
Control animals            5 2.1 
Credit and inputs 24 10.1 
Empower women in animal rearing 10 4.2 
Irrigation Facilities 35 14.8 
Storage fertility 26 11.0 
Support with farm inputs 125 52.7 
Others 10 5.1 
Total 235 100.0 
100 
 
They thought it could provide them with alternative income sources to avoid the situation where 
peasants would be compelled to sell the meager farm produce to meet their household income 
needs. It was evident from the perspective of peasants that if they could diversify their income 
earning sources, it could lessen their ordeal of having to deplete their food banks. 
4.4.5 Whether Activities of Herdsmen Disturb Farmers 
There are some other practices or decisions of the customary authority that bother on the ability 
of the peasants to increase output from the farm activities. Table 23 contains some of the 
opinions of the peasant respondents on the impacts of the herdsmen on their farming endeavors.  
Table 22: Whether Activities of Herdsmen Disturb Farmers 
Herdsmen and farmers Study Site Total 
  Bimbilla Bakpaba Dokpam  
      
 Yes Count  160 12 10 182 
  87.9% 6.6% 5.5% 100.0% 
No Count  43 9 1 53 
  81.1% 17.0% 1.9% 100.0% 
Total Count  203 21 11 235 
  85.7% 8.9% 4.6% 100.0% 
From table 23, 182 peasants across the study sites confirmed that herdsmen devastate their 
farmlands and cause them to lose their investments on the farming businesses. However, there 
were some who thought the herdsmen had no impact of their endeavors as peasants. Could it be 
the case that some of the peasants had relations with cattle owners? Most of the kraals in the 
traditional area were largely owned by royals and influential persons (field Data, 2016).  
4.4.6 Land Sales and Peasant Works  
One other challenge was explored to understand the impact of customary decisions on the plight 
of peasants in the traditional area. Table 24 below shows the results of the views of peasant 
respondents on the issue of land sales. 
101 
 
Table 23: Land Sales and Peasantry by Study Site 
Whether Land Sale is a Problem Bimbilla Bakpaba Dokpam   Total 
 True Count 143 20 9 172 
   83.1% 11.6% 5.2% 100.0% 
False Count 60 1 2 63 
 95.2% 1.6% 3.2% 100.0% 
Total Count 203 21 11 235 
 85.7% 8.9% 4.6% 100.0% 
There were overwhelming confirmations of the evictions of peasants from their farmlands in 
favour of settlement expansion. For instance, 143 (83.1%), 20 and 9 peasants from Bimbilla, 
Bakpaba and Dokpam testified respectively to the issue. However, only 60 (29.6%) peasants 
from Bimbilla sub-traditional area refuted the prevalence of the issue of evictions of peasants on 
the farmlands. It was clear that external shocks include evictions, menace of cattle, etc aside the 
recurrent one like outdooring, funerals and marriage ceremonies serve as leakages to livelihoods 
of peasants. These occasions require monetary and material contributions, which drain the 
meager financial assets of peasants. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
102 
 
CHAPTER FIVE 
DISCUSSIONS OF FINDINGS 
5.0 Overview  
The study had targeted two hundred and fifty participants for the study. The success rate was 94 
percent, with two hundred and thirty-five (235) participants taking part in the study. Aside this 
number, twenty-one (21) participants were used for the focus group discussions and in-depth 
interviews. They were two groups (5 and 6 membership) of male participants and one group (7 
members) of female participants used for the focus group discussions. The study separated 
females from males because preliminary investigations showed that female participants would 
not express their views if they were mixed with males in same discussions. Five other key 
informants were used for the in-depth interview.  
5.0.1 Sex and Origin of Respondents by Locality 
The study was also very particular of the gender and nativity of peasants as variables of measure. 
The representation of this category of respondents on the sample was deemed paramount to the 
outcomes of the study. There were varying differences in the representations of women and 
settlers in the three study sites per the figures obtained. The representation of settlers in the 
sample was 40 percent (94), out of which 38 percent were females (see table 3).  On the other 
hand, natives constituted 141 on the sampled respondents. However, native female representation 
on the native peasant participants in the sample was only 18 percent. By gender, the study 
captured 26 percent of female peasants out of the 235 peasants who responded to the 
questionnaire instruments.  
103 
 
The variations in the settler and native female representation on the study posed a need for 
clarifications. The non-natives female peasants were more willing to take part in the study than 
the natives. Could it be fear on the part of native females, while non-natives were more willing 
due to anonymity of their personalities? From the in-depth interview, a 48 year female 
participant hinted that women require permission from their husbands or family members before 
they could grant interviews with strangers, especially on family matters.  
“If you own yourself, then you can go ahead to give any information out to strangers, after all, 
nobody would be bothered” (field data, 20 7). 
Another person participant in FGDs remarked; 
“Within the traditional area women require the permission of their husbands or heads of families 
before they could grant audience to a stranger” (Field work, 20 7). 
Females in the traditional family come second to the male spouses and therefore require their 
permission before relating with males from outside their families. Women on the other hand, 
value their allegiance to their husbands and would not mind willing the control of their personal 
property to their husbands. This could have influenced the unwillingness of most women to 
volunteer information for the study.  
Another reason why there was low patronage comes from the subject matter of the study. 
Women in the traditional area do not concern themselves on land issues or customary issues that 
seem to expose their household issues to the outside world. For fear of divulging sensitive 
information in line with the demands of the questions, they opted out of the study. As the 
participant was quoted above, women do not own themselves and so could not talk on certain 
matters of the household. This was corroborated by the opinions of men in the upper West 
Region, indicated that women were regarded as assets to their spouses (Kuusaana et al, 2010). 
104 
 
Studies have indeed showed that decision to take part in a (medical) study is influenced by 
anxiety, expected benefits, projected impending risks and the assurance the study gives on the 
safety of participation (Rothman, 2017).   
The representation of settlers was very adequate in the Dokpam and Bakpaba sub-traditional 
areas, unlike in Bimbilla area where the representation of settlers was only satisfactory. Some 
initially thought the study was a project that could stage some interventions by way of aid. On 
the whole there was fair representation of settlers compared to females. 
5.0.2 Age and Marital Statue of Respondents and Locality 
The study captured largely a young or youthful household head category in the sample of 
respondents to the questionnaire. Table 4 showed a reduction in the number of participants with 
increasing ages. The population structure of Nanumba north district, per Ghana Statistical 
Service, (2014) report, indicated a structure with broad base and a narrow conical peak. The 
report shows a population structure with about 51.7 percent of people within ages 0 – 14 and 
65+, while only 48.3 constitute people aged 15 and 64 years (Ghana Statistical Service, 2014). 
The district is therefore, made up of a predominantly youthful population. 
The marital status of the participants was not solely targeted, but the age at which participants 
assumed household responsibility. The study captured a minority of divorced respondents 
dominated in the age categories of 40 years or lower. The implications of this phenomenon 
bothered on single parenthood against the prevailing large household sizes of the district. The 
ability of these household categories to fend for the household members will largely depend on 
the livelihood outcomes of the peasant households. In the cases of these peasants the size of farm 
output was very relevant in determining the sustenance of the households. There were other 
105 
 
participants who were not married, but had assumed household responsibilities. Their ordeals 
could not have been different from those of the divorced household heads.  
5.0.3 Respondents’ Marital, Household size and Residential Status  
All respondents, except 15 percent, were married and faced the responsibility of fending for the 
housing needs of their households. The study showed that majority of the respondents had 
household sizes within the range of 6 to 10 membership. However, studies showed that majority 
of the people with large household sizes in the study area lived in three bedroom apartments 
(Ghana Statistical Service, 2014). The housing needs of the households were likely to be factored 
in the budget to be funded from farm businesses of peasants, causing leakages in the households‟ 
ability to maintain food security.   
The populous household sizes of peasants might experience future housing, and feeding issues if 
steps are not taken to empower the earnings and assets or wealth creation capacity of peasants. 
Likewise, renting of residential facility to accommodate household members was found to be 
associated with urban centres. For instance, in Bimbilla sub-traditional area this dominant 
household size category was largely housed either in family residence or in rented apartments. 
These phenomenon points to future land related challenges since these people will require larger 
farmland sizes to support the food needs of their households.  
But, studies have refuted similar projected threats like in the cases of Reverend Thomas Malthus 
in the past, citing the adoption of technology (Conway-Gomez et al, 2010). All other things 
equal, the peasant activities of the households might not be able to sustain the food requirement 
of the households with time if peasants are not able to create wealth from the current activities. 
Comparing the situations in Bimbilla with other study sites, all household size categories in 
Dokpam resided in their own residences. Even though, the majority of the peasants had large 
106 
 
household sizes they reside in their own apartments. The study revealed that rural peasants were 
capable of housing their household members. This further shows that rent payment did not 
constitute leakages on their peasantry business capital.  
All the respondents had some large membership of household sizes. This presupposes that even 
those respondents who were single had either children of their own or were caring for their 
extended family members. Extended family system was a dominant family practice in the 
Nanumba traditional area. This observation corroborated perfectly with the findings of the Ghana 
statistical services captured in the report (Ghana Statistical Service, 2014)). There were houses in 
which persons in the houses were supposed to be more than two households, but they related and 
functioned as single households. A twenty-eight year old household head in the FGDs stated 
thus; 
“I live in a family house with three of my younger brothers and their wives and children, together 
with our mother” (Field Data, 20 7).   
There were many of such compounds in the study sites with single household arrangements. 
According to Hausatu, a 51 year old woman in the FGDs, women in polygamous families cook 
food in turns in such households, where women are more than one. She went further to explain 
that the elderly women were spared by the daughters-in-law in the cooking roles. The view of the 
respondent only confirms the culture of polygamous or complex households in the traditional 
area in terms of feeding arrangements.  
However, Dokpam sub-traditional area had its largest household composition within the upper 
household membership ranges of 11 and 21 members. Size of Dokpam household population 
showcased the dominance of extended family practices, a custom that the rural areas still upheld. 
107 
 
Likewise, all the peasant respondents resided in their own housing apartment. The settlers 
equally did not have challenges with the accommodation as it pertained with natives in the 
Bimbilla sub-traditional area. Residential challenges therefore grow with urbanization (Ghana 
Statistical Service, 2014). 
5.1.0 Objective One: The Nature of Land Allocation in the Nanumba Traditional Area 
The study intended to examine the customary land tenure practices as holders of communal land 
interests preside over land deals in response to the needs of members of the indigenous members 
and those of settlers in peasantry. It therefore focuses on land tenure practices of the area in 
terms of interest on land and mode of allocation by gender and by nativity or origin of peasants. 
It compared these modes by study sites or locality of peasants and intra native gendered 
allocations. 
5.1.1 Land Tenure Practices in Nanumba Traditional Area  
Customary land tenure practices of the NTA are not so much different from those of other 
traditional areas in the northern Ghana as spelt out in the literature. The paramount chief at 
Bimbilla assumes the allodial title hold of all lands in Nanumba traditional area, while the sub-
chiefs and divisional chiefs assume customary freehold titles of land under their jurisdictions. 
They therefore managed land on behalf of the overlord at the paramountcy. The indigenes 
however claim usufructory titles to the land in the traditional area. Settlers and migrants as well 
as other persons not related to landowning families fall under the usufruct right users of land, but 
with secondary interests. These customary land tenure titles are also practiced by the traditions of 
the southern Ghana (Kumbun-Naa Yili II, 2006). 
The study showed that land in the traditional area was under the control of the chiefs, clan and 
family heads. However, 68.8 percent of the participants held the view that chiefs were in control 
108 
 
of the land in Nanumba traditional area. This viewpoint was corroborated by a narration by a 60 
year old Mohammed. According to him, land in Nanumba traditional area had from time 
immemorial been under the control of chiefs. Chiefs controlled land under their jurisdictions and 
passed on to their successors upon their deaths. He described acts of families and clans claiming 
allodial titles as exhibitions of greed, and blamed it on the current crises in the Nanumba land.  
“Clan heads owning land is an act of greed, and is diversionary”(Field Data, 20 6).  
Studies have also confirmed chiefs as real allodial title holders of land in the traditional area. A 
study by Maasole states:  
“in Nanumba, the Alhassan Committee upheld that the allodial title to land is vested in the Bimbilla 
Na. Strangers could be granted land subject to duties prescribed by custom”. (Maasole, 20 2) 
Likewise, a chief traces his authority and power from the lineage to land and the size of land 
under his control (Kunbun-Naa Yili II, 2006: Yahaya, A. B., 2016). Likewise, a study by 
Maasole, (2012) quoted Parker (1924) and Ollenu (1962) to lay emphasis on how certain ethnic 
groups (Konkomba) found it unthinkable granting land to strangers due to the value they attach 
to land, and held land in highest esteem.  
However, there were different viewpoints raised as to who exercises real control and manages 
land in the traditional area. While these viewpoints agreed with the former on chiefs being 
allodial interest holders of land, they disagreed on the grounds of who actually owns land and 
should really disburse land directly. In an in-depth one-on-one interview with one of the royals in 
the traditional area, he stated that chiefs lacked direct touch with lands under their jurisdictions. 
Per the traditions of the chiefdom, chiefs rotated along lines in succession from the least stool to 
109 
 
the highest stool in each of the gates (Bangdi-Yili or Gbogma-Yili) before ascending to the 
paramountcy at Bimbilla.  
The argument of this participant was that, chiefs rotated from one stool to another in different 
communities and so, were not necessarily indigenes of such communities. On that note chiefs 
had no direct link with the land and could not claim ownership of such lands. According to him 
he could not imagine such a chief appropriating land directly in those communities. He was not 
bothered about the chiefs holding customary freehold titles on behalf of the communities.   
“Chiefs only preside over land. They do not directly own it. As a royal in the settlement, I can 
give land under my control to my friend and not necessarily consult the chief. But I can inform 
them because anything can happen” (Field Data, 20 7).  
This viewpoint echoed in the responses gathered from the questionnaire instruments. The study 
solicited views of the participants on mode of access to their farmlands. The essence of this was 
to determine how land was allocated within land owning families, and also to settlers who 
needed land for livelihood endeavors. These outcomes confirmed the earlier observation by 
Dittoh (2002) that families could hold and give land under their use to strangers even without 
consulting the chiefs, while chiefs preside over uncultivated lands.  
5.1.2 Mode of Land Allocation in the Nanumba Traditional Area 
Mode of access to land was largely through free gift for settlers and inheritance for natives. 
However, the study showed that settlers could inherit farmlands under the usufruct usage of their 
parents, likewise landless natives. Also, most of the native relied on landowners for farmland, 
just like settlers would. These issues were highlighted further in the subsequent discussions.  
A greater percentage of peasant respondents (42.1%) claimed ownership of their farmlands while 
56.6 percent could only get access to farmland through the benevolence of the landowners. In the 
110 
 
FGDs, participants claimed friends led them to landowners to negotiate for farmlands for them. 
Only a few of the settlers contacted chiefs for their farmlands. Even with such moves, the chiefs 
contacted individuals who had land to spare. In reality, individual landowners granted land to 
landless people. Chiefs were made aware of the deals for safety reasons. A 48 year old peasant 
alluded to the phenomenon that the size of the land determines whether an individual could 
decide on its deals or the chiefs.  
According to a study by the Food and Agriculture Organization, chiefs gave land to investors for 
commercial agriculture and estate development at the expense of peasant activities (Devendra & 
Chantalakhana, 2002)). Likewise, chiefs had the authority to alienate communal land in their 
allodial ownership in consultation with the elders (Kumbun-Naa Yili II, 2006). Likewise, 
Yeboah and Shaw, (2013) acknowledged these obligatory roles of chiefs; however, they 
submitted that most of such practices of chiefs do not always benefit the indigenes.  
Emerging issues that seemed to bridge this gap of who appropriate land directly bothered with 
the size factor. Decisions on large parcels of land would ultimately require the authorization of 
the overlord since the chiefs managed land under their jurisdictions on behalf of the overlord, 
who in turns holds allodial title on behalf of his subjects. Chiefs therefore played oversight 
supervisory roles on land deals under their jurisdictions on behalf of the overlord at the 
paramountcy. Family and clan heads engaged in direst distribution or allocations of land for 
household livelihood pursuits.  
In response to a question whether family land are shared to member as inheritance, a 43 year old 
peasant in a FGD in Dokpam said;  
111 
 
“Land is not shared among family members, family head assumes control. Any member of the family 
who wants to farm will only see the elderly son, who in turn allocates some portions of the family 
land for him to farm. If anyone needs more land he has to consult some other persons who has land 
and can spare” (Field Data, 2017). 
As noted in other studies, the guidelines on land ownership and transfer were always the 
manifestations of the customs and traditions of societies (Magot-Adholla et al, 1994). Customs 
of the Nanumba traditional area did not encourage land sales. The claim of land ownership by 
peasants did not actually include rights to transfer. Land in the traditional area was communally 
owned and transfer of ownership was within clans and families, with most elderly male members 
assuming control. Individuals in the clans and families only had usufructory rights, with some 
level of control over farmland under their usage. Family and clan heads oversaw and regulated 
land distribution among members. This viewpoint was unanimously upheld by a 32 year old 
peasant participant in a FGD in Dokpam: 
“Individuals of the family maintain their lands and continue to farm on those lands. The first born 
male is made to preside over the entire family, including the family land. No person in the family can 
sell any portion of the family land for any reason. He can only give out to a settler for farming” 
(Field Data, 2017).  
Farmlands in the traditional area were not sold out or shared to individuals in families as 
inheritance because the tradition of the people forbids it (field data, 2016). They held that 
farmlands in Nanumba traditional area currently belonged to clans and families, but were 
collectively under the allodial ownership of the chiefs. As the main source of their unity and 
livelihood, the lands could not be alienated from the people through sales, but could only be 
allocated to family members and usufruct users who needed it for use.   
112 
 
5.1.3 Mode of Allocation and Ownership of Farmland by Locality 
The study compared the modes peasants used to access their farmlands across the three study 
sites, Bimbilla, Bakpaba and Dokpam. Unlike the findings of studies in Wa by Kuusaana and 
others, which identified patrilineal inheritance of land as the dominant mode (97.1%) of land 
acquisition, while land purchase constituted second dominant mode (Kuusaana et al, 2010), free 
gift is the most prevalent mode of land access among the peasants who participated in this study. 
However, in the Bimbilla sub-traditional area, land purchases were noted as a mode used by 
some peasants to acquire land. Further probes in the interviews and discussions revealed that 
such purchases pertained to the plots for settlement and not farmlands.  
Across the study sites, the study realized that land purchase was only sited in Bimbilla sub-
traditional area. A study by Dittoh (2002) observed land sales only in urban centres in the 
northern region of Ghana. While some 1.8% of the peasants claimed they purchased land, a 
majority of the peasants (59.6%) claimed they access their farmlands through free gifts. On the 
other hand, Dokpam and Bakpaba areas did not record incidence of land sales. While peasants in 
Bakpaba mentioned free gifts (57.1%) and inheritance (42.9%) as prevalent modes of access to 
farmlands, Dokpam sub-traditional area had all the peasant respondents (100%) claiming 
inheritance to farmlands as the only mode (see table 7). As noted earlier, peasants‟ claim of 
ownership to their farmlands could only show the level of security they had to the farmlands 
under their usufruct usage. 
On the other hand, settlers‟ access and claim of ownership to farmland have raised issues of size 
of community and the strength of customary practices. The study observed that smaller 
communities adhered to customs of the traditional area better than grown communities. The 
passions with which peasants from the various sites reacted with issues of land sales, 
113 
 
compensations on land leases and records of land deals gave the impression that peasants in the 
smaller communities like Dokpam and Bakpaba had much stronger ties with customs than their 
counterparts in larger communities like Bimbilla.  
On the issue of ownership of the farmlands under cultivation, the study observed that both those 
who inherited or were freely given the farmlands could claim ownerships to such farmlands. 
Comparatively, while only 31.5 percent of peasants in Bimbilla who freely had their farmlands 
could claim ownership to such farmlands, all the peasants (100%) in Dokpam who were freely 
given their farmlands claimed ownership to their farmlands.  
On the other hand, this group of people dominated the Bakpaba community and landowners did 
not give them free will over their farmlands. Even though they were given the farmlands free, 
they were not allowed to transfer the usufruct rights in the farmlands directly to their relations 
without prior consultation with landowners. However, Konkombas constitute the largest settler 
groups in Dokpam sub-traditional area. Could it be that the study did not capture many of them, 
or the ownership of land as claimed by these peasants in Dokpam area was in context, with lesser 
effect on actual rights of ownership?  
In summary, land in Nanumba traditional area is vested in the chiefs with allodial and customary 
freehold titles, while indigenes and settlers alike enjoy usufructory rights. The dominant modes 
of peasants‟ access to farmlands were free gift (56.6%) and inheritance (42.1%).  The study 
revealed that peasants who inherited their farmlands and those who were freely given could 
claim some form of ownership to the farmlands. However, the kind of ownership described here 
reflects the level of security of tenure such settlers had on the usufruct interests. In other words, 
the ownership claim reveals the prevalence of tenure security that those peasants had. Likewise, 
114 
 
about 82 percent of the peasants who were freely given their farmlands claimed they did not pay 
any compensation to the landowners. This is in contrast to the structured tenant arrangements of 
Abusa and Abunu as practiced in the Akan traditional areas of southern Ghana (Agbosu et al, 
2007; Appiah, 2012; Pomevor, 2014: Yeboah, 2015).  
Settler integration was also found to vary across the traditional area from one study site to 
another. Rural communities were found to show much greater integration of settlers into the 
indigenous community than the urban communities. All peasants had open access to farmland 
land and so access to land was seen to be generally relative. The challenge was with the size of 
farmland available to settlers. Natives differ from settlers in terms of size of farmland. 
5.2.0 Objective 2: Gender and Nativity in Land Allocation in Nanumba Traditional Area 
The task here was to examine the modes of land access by peasants based on their statuses as 
natives or settlers; or gender. It sought to further examine the variations in the access by study 
sites (localities) to ascertain the level of variations in tenure practices across the traditional area. 
5.2.1 Origin and Mode of Access by Locality 
As stated earlier, the study was also purported to examine land allocations in the Nanumba 
traditional area in the context of nativity or origin and gender of the peasant respondents. The 
study intended to identify if being a settler or female could serve as a drive to a peasant‟s access 
to farmland. The interview and focus group discussions hinted strongly that both settlers and 
natives were capable of accessing land in the traditional area. The study also intended to identify 
and explain the prevalence of gender issues in the process of farmland allocation among the 
indigenes.  
115 
 
5.2.2 The Prevalence of Gender or Settler Issues in Land Allocation 
The study first explored the viewpoints of respondents on whether land allocation in the 
traditional area depended on peasants‟ sex or origin as native or settler. General views gathered 
from the participants showed that a peasant‟s relationship with landowners had a stronger 
relationship with the level of success in land acquisition. 63 percent of the peasant respondents 
attested to this fact. Further analysis showed that natives had relatively larger farmland sizes than 
the settler peasants. As noted earlier, majority of natives inherited their farmlands compared to 
settlers. 
 However, in examining the chances of natives by gender on family land allocation, the customs 
was found to segregate in favour of males. A majority of the peasants (48.6%) objected to the 
assertion that customs allow land transfer to females in the landowning families. Likewise, 70.6 
percent of the peasants held the view that women were not entitled to land rights in the families. 
These views were upheld in all the interviews and FGDs sessions. The tradition of the area does 
not recognized woman as a full member of the natal family (Kuusaana et al, 2010). In most 
customs of the north when a birth of a female is to be distinguished from that of a male, a 
question is asked whether “bush or home”, implying female or male respectively.  
The study would like to unravel how societal constructions contribute in alienating women from 
land access. Or can the right to inherit be with a difference in the two other areas? The rights of 
women to land are recognized through their male counterparts (Kameri-Mbote, 2005-9). 
Women‟s land use right as is said to be restricted and with inadequate tenure security (Kuusaana 
et al, 2010). Studies also show that women‟s inability to perform some of the major customary 
roles of pacifying earth gods and leading some other key ritual performances in clans and 
families constitute the bases of their exclusion from land ownership (Kuusaana et al, 2010).  
116 
 
In some societies as in most parts of northern Ghana, willingness to marry from the ex-husband‟s 
family determine women‟s access to land for farming. Unlike the communities outside Dagbon 
traditional areas, where women had to remarry from the ex-husband‟s family in order to maintain 
her access to family land (Kuusaana et al, 2010), communities in Dagbon forbid such practice of 
remarriage but recognize women‟s access to family land through their children.  
Some studies also opined that women do not actually have firm identity with the natal or 
matrimonial homes, and so lack any opportunity to own and control land from these families 
(Niesssen, 1985). Public opinion in the upper West region also has it that married women are 
assets and aids to their spouses and so cannot own land because asset could not own itself 
(Kuusaana et al, 2010). These actions impact on women‟s ability to fend for their needs. Some 
women had to migrate elsewhere distant in search for life supporting wealth. Others are forced 
into prostitution and other forms of social vices.  
Observations from the presentations at the FGDs and the interviews revealed the passions with 
which the respondents espoused the supremacy of the cultural arrangements that underpin their 
lines of arguments on this matter. Indications were that there were serious issues with sidelining 
of women in terms of land control and allocations. Women‟s interests came after those of men in 
land allocations or land controls in families. The perpetrators and the victims were convergent in 
rationalizing the existence of the cultural underpinnings of these phenomena in defense of the 
cultural norms. For instance, a peasant remarked 
“Yes, for us, women cannot be entrusted with family property, no matter her age”.  
Another (woman) explained that they only rely on what the man says because we are aids.  
117 
 
“If a man can, he can gather as many women as he wants into his home, is it not their wish?” 
(“A yi mal yiiko, a ni tooi vaai ba ning a dundong-ni, ei banin-bola”) 
The indigenes were so much attached to the customs of the traditional area, and will not hesitate 
to compromise their rights as humans in defense of the customs. The study observed that this 
adherence to customs was much stronger at the rural communities than urbanizing localities like 
Bimbilla. 
5.2.3 Gender and Access to Land by Locality 
The results showed that women‟s right to inherit land as members of the family in the traditional 
area varied by locality. In Bimbilla, female representation was 28 percent (57) of the total 
participants from Bimbilla. Females‟ opportunity to inherit farmland was found to be with some 
challenges.  Of the 57 peasant representation on the sample, only 19.3 (11) percent of the female 
peasants claimed they inherited their farmlands. This figure, though inadequate, was far better 
than the 4 female (19%) representations in Bakpaba. However, there was no female 
representation on the sampled respondents in Dokpam area (see table 10).  
The study targeted household heads as respondents and all the households selected did not have 
female as head. In Bimbilla sub-traditional area, the dominant opinions on the issue show that 
women could not actually inherit family land. Similarly, the peasant households in the two other 
localities held the views that women‟s access to their farmlands could not be described as 
inheriting the land because land is not allocated to individuals as their share of inheritance. In the 
traditional area, if a man passes on the land reverts back to the family, unless the spouse has 
grown up children who intend to farm. Other studies elsewhere in the Upper regions of Ghana 
and Uganda confirmed the challenges females go through in securing land  
118 
 
5.2.4 Views of Natives and Settlers on the Perceived Discriminations   
The study observed issues of inequality inherent in the traditional area. Males in the traditional 
area did not see females as full members of the families in the communities. It was the customs 
of the traditional area that female members of the families must rely on their male siblings, while 
female spouses depend on their male spouses for all issues relating to the management of the 
family. The study tried to examine and compare the views of natives, settlers and females on the 
perceived inequality. The results showed natives rationalizing in defense of the customary 
constructions that laid down the guiding rules. However, settlers were eloquent in confirming the 
prevalence of gender inequalities in land deals in the traditional area.  
A slight majority of the females confirmed the prevalence of inequalities in land allocation in the 
families. This slight differences noted in the opinions of females could be from the views of 
female settlers, since female settlers were dominant in the female representation on the study. It 
seemed the attitudes and behaviours as well as mindsets which perpetuate these inequalities were 
structured into the culture and traditions of the traditional area.  
Implying, the actors like the chiefs, family heads, clan heads and other right users of land were 
not acting out of their own wills. For instance, Alpha Nuhu, a 56 year old participant, on a 
female child‟s eligibility to inherit land as her share of inheritance, responded thus; 
“No. the women have no hands on land issues. They can make request to use the land but are not 
eligible to inherit land” (Field Data, 20 7).  
This viewpoint was upheld in both the FGDs and interview sessions across the traditional area. 
However, participants recognized the right of females in the families and thought that male 
members of the families were by customs supposed to ensure their safety and livelihoods.  
119 
 
The findings of this study have been corroborated by earlier findings in literature. Agbosu and 
others observed that customary constructions, which guide the functioning of communities, must 
explain the perceived inequalities in land access between males and females in the communities 
(Agbosu et al, 2007). Their study points out that the society‟s bid to ensure that land remains 
with families specifies the modes of land allocations. Owusu, et al (2008) also alluded to this 
position when they laid the issue of the perceived discrimination in land allocations at the doors 
of customary systems of inheritance.  
Similarly, Ragadya et al, (2004) earlier on posited that the systems of marriage and the processes 
of bride price practiced in Uganda authenticated women‟s land alienation. The outcomes of these 
analyses were supported by the interview responses. In one of the interviews conducted, a non-
native peasant admitted that women were not actually taken seriously when it comes to farmland 
allocations. In responding to a question whether gender matters in land allocation, he said,  
“Yes, you may be surprise that they may give it to a man. They just do not consider woman as 
farmers”. 
5.2.5 Origin of Peasants and Land Access in the Traditional Area 
The study examined land allocation in the light of peasants‟ nativity. It sought to tease out any 
nuances with regards to land allocations, as to whether the peasant‟s access to land could be 
denied because he or she was not a native. It also looked at the modes of access the settler 
peasants had to their farmlands.  
The results (table 11) showed that settler peasants had barely any significant difficulty in 
accessing farmlands in the traditional area. The study showed settler peasants in all the study 
sites having the opportunity of inheriting farmlands from their relations. Those who claimed they 
lacked the rights to inherit farmlands were also given their farmlands freely without any 
120 
 
compensation to the land owners. From the analysis, settlers in Bakpaba and Dokpam sub-
traditional areas had no challenges with access to farmlands. Whereas 23.8 percent of settler in 
Bimbilla claimed to have inherited their farmlands, 33.3 percent were claiming rights of 
inheritance to their farmlands in Bakpaba. Meanwhile, all the peasants in Dokpam traditional 
area could claim to have inherited their farmlands. However, those in Bimbilla claimed they 
faced difficulties in land access compared to their counterparts in the other area.  
A specific question was posed as to whether settlers who maintain good standing with their 
landlords have opportunity of holding such parcels of land as long as they could. In response a 
key informant said;  
“It will not necessarily be declared to you a settler to own the land. The landlord will not disturb 
you, so far as you comport yourself by respecting the tenure agreement and also do not interfere 
in their internal affairs” (field data, 20 7). 
Settlers could claim ownership to under their usufruct rights or interests. The customs of the 
traditional area allowed land allocation to whoever needs land for survival, even for settlement. 
Most peasants claimed they only begged for plots of land to guild and were not charged any 
compensation. According to the interviews with key informants, land was given to strangers who 
intended to settle because they need communities to expand and grow. From the quote above, 
settler who were found to be industrious and beneficial to the community by way of their 
expertise were given recognition to the status of an indigene. Such persons continue to hold onto 
farmlands under their usage and could transfer such rights to their generations.  
121 
 
Results from the FGDs and the in-depth interviews have corroborated with these findings. In 
response to a question whether settlers could own farmlands and pass same to their generations 
as inheritance, a settler peasant‟s response was; 
“With trust from the land owners, a settler can hand over the gifted land to his children” (Field Data, 
2017). 
Studies have acknowledged that peasants with use rights were normally settlers or junior 
members of landowning families (Devendra & Chantalakhana, 2002)). Likewise, settlers in 
Nanumba traditional area could claim usufructory rights to land, and even, some rights of 
transfer to their relations. The study posed a question on whether landowners could assist a 
settler to secure farmland to feed his or her household, if they do not have one. Mr. John, a settler 
had this to say; 
“It depends on the relationship with the landowners. They are not greedy. They may assist you to 
get another plot elsewhere” (Field Data, 20 7). 
5.2.6 Settler Land Access Challenges in the Traditional Area 
However, there were limitations to what settlers could do with such farmlands. Aside growing 
food crops to feed their households, they were not allowed to grow long maturing crops (Yaro, 
2012). Setters must at all times seek the approval of landowners before growing tree crops in the 
traditional area. The landowners see any attempt by settler peasants to grow trees as a sign of 
future land ownership dispute. In the Lambunssie traditional area of the Upper West Region, the 
Sissalas evicted Dagaba settler peasants due to suspicions that they are claiming ownership of the 
lands (Lentz, 2010). Likewise, as noted earlier, the customs of the traditional area forbid land 
alienation in all its forms. For instance, a 41 year old peasant in one of these traditional towns 
remarked, in response to settlers owning land in the traditional area; 
122 
 
“Land belongs to families and no stranger is allowed to own any portion of it. If settlers own our 
land we cannot banish such persons if they are found to exhibit anti-social characters. We rather 
give the land free to the settlers”.  
This is one of the reasons why the customs gave land to strangers instead of selling to them. The 
traditional area was noted for its hospitality to settlers for they believe that strangers cause 
communities to grow. But, they value their customs beyond being hospitable. The study also 
realized that there were instances where settlers attempted claiming farmlands under their 
usufruct usage. In a focus group discussion, a participant acknowledged in affirmation, thus;  
“Yes. There were two instances where settlers planted trees and the owner claimed back his land. The 
settler wanted to claim the land with time. In another instance, the settler succeeded in claiming the 
land because he did a cashew plantation” (Field Data, 20 7). 
5.3.0 Objective 3: Land Tenure Practices and Livelihoods of Peasants 
The decisions chiefs, clan and family heads in the Nanumba traditional area take with regards to 
land ownership; control, use and transfer affect the livelihoods of peasants in the area. The 
import of this objective was to determine and explain these impacts in relation to peasants‟ 
ability to access farmlands, increase incomes and accumulate landed assets for themselves. It 
looked at the farmland sizes of peasants against the mode of access they had to the farmlands, the 
ability of the peasants to ensure increased outputs from farms, increase incomes thereof, and to 
secure landed assets.  
5.3.1 Farmland Sizes of Peasants by Locality 
The study showed a modal farmland size used by a peasant as 2 acres. Despite the prevalence of 
fair access to farmlands by all peasants, natives were observed to have better access to farmlands 
than settlers. The study showed that 77.7 percent of the settlers had access to a maximum of 4 
123 
 
acres of farmland for their farming businesses, compared to 63.8 percent of the natives. This had 
the tendency of limiting the livelihood choices of the peasants, given the modal farmland size 
observed among the peasants‟ farm sizes. As noted by Barrett et al, (2004), assets availability is 
a key factor to rural households‟ ability to diversify livelihoods. This affects the decisions of the 
peasants in deciding on what crop to grow, or type of animal to rear. For instance, the production 
of yams requires either rotation or shifting of farms to allow fallow periods. Even though all 
peasants suffer from these impacts, settlers dominated, as it was observed that settler could be 
evicted to allow landowner expand his farm. In effect, about 78 percent of the settlers could not 
make choices due to scarcity of farmland.  
The study further observed some slight variations in the impacts across localities (study sites). In 
Bimbilla sub-traditional area peasants were all affected, however, there were slight variations in 
the levels of impacts with regards to number of peasants involved. While 35 percent of natives 
could lay claim to 5 or more acres of farmland sizes, only 18.8 percent of settlers were observed. 
This situation was better in the Bakpaba sub-traditional area. While 50 percent of natives had 5 
or more acres of farmlands, settler peasants claiming similar farmland sizes were in the majority 
(55.6%). The Dokpam sub-traditional area observed a marginal difference in farmland sizes 
between settlers (33.3%) and natives (52.4%). 
The variations in the level of access peasants had to farmlands could be explained by availability 
of farmlands in the traditional area. According to the report of Ghana statistical service, rural 
areas in the Nanumba north district have more farmlands than the urban centres (Ghana 
Statistical Service, 2014)). In effect, peasants in the Bakpaba sub-traditional area had relatively 
better access to farmlands and stood greater chances of practicing fallow systems as is the norm 
in farming areas. 
124 
 
5.3.2 Gender of Peasants and Farmland Sizes    
The study examined the farmland sizes of peasants in relation to whether a peasant is male or 
female. From literature, females have equally greater responsibilities as the males in terms of 
household upkeep. Also, the background information of the peasants showed that females were 
household heads, and recorded large household sizes. The total of peasants who could farm up to 
4 acres of farmland was 163, constituting 69.4 percent of the peasants under the study. The study 
observed that 66.4 percent of this number was male peasants. However, among a total of 72 
peasants who claimed they had farmlands of sizes 5 or more acres, only 4.0 percent were females 
(see table 10). As corroborated by opinions of the participants of both in-depth interview and 
FGDs, the customary land tenure practices in the study area do not regard women on land deals 
(Field Data, 1917). This scenario was observed in other places in Ghana like the Upper East and 
West regions of Ghana (Agbosu et al, 2007; Owusu et al, 2008), and even in Uganda (Rugadya 
et al, 2004). 
Again, relating this observation to the modal farmland size observed, females were not better off 
in terms of livelihood struggles. It was further observed that no female in the Bakpaba and 
Dokpam sub-traditional area recorded farmland size in that range. Within the lower range of 
farmland sizes about 90 percent of the females were found, despite the enormity of their 
responsibility. This phenomenon puts the burden of women in a perpetual fix, with no or limited 
alternatives for their livelihoods.  
5.3.3 Origin of Peasants and Output from Farm by Locality 
The study also examined the outputs peasants derived from their engagement in the farming 
businesses in the traditional area. Livelihood of a peasant includes among other things, the output 
of a livelihood strategy adopted by the peasant. Generally, the study observed low output across 
125 
 
peasants and localities under study. It observed that 71.5 percent of the peasant earned income of 
GHS 2700.00 or lower. This seemed to reflect the size of farmlands the majority of the peasants 
used for the farming businesses. Natives dominated in this category of income earners with 51.8 
percent, while settlers constituted 35 percent. The difference was likely to be explained by the 
differences in the representations on the sample. The study observed that peasants from Bimbilla 
sub-traditional area constituted 86.9 percent of the low income earners.  
On the other hand, the study did not observed any significant difference in incomes earned by 
settlers and natives in the Bakpaba sub-traditional area. However, Dokpam sub-traditional area a 
majority of settlers were observed within that high income category. Juxtaposing the household 
sizes of a majority of the peasants observed to 6 and 10 members and the level of farm output 
recorded point to a prevalence of lack in a majority of the households of the peasants. Asset 
accumulation comes when savings occur in a society. What is the nature of asset formation 
among peasants in the light of low outputs from farms? 
5.3.4 Sizes of Personal Land Assets of Peasants by Locality    
The study further examined the land asset holdings of peasants in respect with their farm 
earnings. The essence was to ascertain if the willingness or otherwise of landowners to release 
land to peasants impacted on the asset holdings of peasants. It was observed that 41.3 percent 
(97) of the peasants had no claim to any land asset at all. Further checks showed that 74.2 
percent of those peasants earned incomes of GHS 2700.00 or lower.  
By study sites, all peasants in Dokpam with incomes of GHS 2700.00 had claims to land assets. 
However, those peasants who earned higher than GHS 2800.00 rather had challenges with asset 
holdings. The study observed that 50 percent of this income earning category could not claim 
126 
 
any land asset as having acquired. Meanwhile, the findings showed that all these peasants from 
Dokpam sub-traditional area inherited their farmlands.  
The study revealed that a majority of high income earners in Bakpaba and Dokpam sub-
traditional areas were settlers. This presupposes that this category of peasants would have 
challenges purchasing land since land sale was not practiced in the areas. This was different in 
the Bimbilla sub-traditional area, as sale of land was an emerging issue and farmer evictions 
70.4%) were gaining momentum due to urbanization issues.  
The UN human development index reports showed that increased income from livelihood 
strategies of households is capable of enhancing the asset holdings of households (UNDP, 1990; 
cited in Desai, 1991). The study showed that peasants whose farmlands were 5 acres or more 
dominated in the higher income categories of the peasants income classifications. These groups 
of peasants had much claims to wielding larger acreage of personal land assets. Farmland size 
therefore had significant linkages with higher incomes earned from farm outputs as well as asset 
holdings. 
5.3.5 Mode of Access and Income of Peasants by Locality 
The study went further to examine the mode of access peasants had as against the income levels 
of peasants. This was done to help identify if those who inherited their farmlands had any better 
chances of earning more from the farm businesses due to size and fertility of farmlands than 
those who were freely given the farmlands. Preliminary findings showed that 76.9 percent (101) 
of peasants who were freely given their farmlands (133) earned GHS 2700.00 annually from the 
farming businesses, as against 64.6 percent (64) of peasants who inherited their farmlands (99). 
In effect the low income earning peasants were dominated by those who could not inherit 
farmlands.  
127 
 
However, peasants who inherited their farmlands were observed to be in the majority of peasants 
earning more than GHS 2800.00 annually. They constituted 35 percent, while peasants who 
could not inherit farmland were only 15 percent. The observations propel a tentative conclusion 
that peasants with rights to inherit farmlands stood greater chances of earning more than those 
who could not. A contribution by Lele (1975) to reasons why interventions on rural 
developments failed to effect real change in the livelihoods of rural peasants acknowledged the 
impacts of farmland size on income earnings of peasants. She therefore suggested that rural 
development projects should inculcate land tenure issues on their policy plans to ensure peasants 
had adequate farmland sizes to work on. The study showed that land access is key to success of 
agricultural projects aimed at livelihoods enhancement. 
Further analysis showed that those whose farm output was GHS 2,800.00 or over were composed 
of 35.4 percent of those who had free gifts of their farmlands and 24 percent of those who 
inherited their farmlands. Still, in examining within income levels, out of the 168 peasants with 
low income, those who inherited their farmlands were 38 percent, while those with free gifts of 
farmlands constituted 60 percent. This shows that mode of land access has some form of 
relations with level of income earned, since the farmland size was slightly influenced by the 
mode of access. For instance peasants who had better relations with land owners had relatively 
larger farmland sizes, and in consequence, earned higher outputs from their farms. 
Comparing the earnings of the same categories of peasants, those who inherited their farmlands 
(52%) had dominated in the high income categories, while those who were given farmlands were 
only 47.8 percent in the high income category. The mode of access to farmland influenced the 
size of farmlands peasants could farm on. This might have explained the variations in the income 
levels of peasants. 
128 
 
5.4 Objective Four: Issues of Household Food Security in the Nanumba Traditional Area 
and Policy Issues  
The study earlier on observed that peasants had very large household sizes as against smaller 
farmland sizes. It also observed that peasants had to meet the education and health needs of the 
household members, aside the housing and nutritional needs of their households. It therefore 
intended to examine the capacity of peasants‟ farm outputs to sustain their households food 
needs till next season. This may impact on policy with regards to food security drive at the 
Nanumba traditional economy. 
5.4.1 Peasants’ Farm Output Levels and Household Food Requirement 
On the question of whether peasants‟ farm output could feed the households till next season, 71 
percent (167) of the peasants responded in affirmation. However, 95.7 percent of these peasants 
confirmed that they sold food stuff to supplement the income needs of the households. Aside 
school fees, they had to meet the clothing needs of the households especially children during 
festivals. Others cited hospital bills as some of the challenges that compel them to sell the food 
stuff. Likewise, the spirit of oneness that informs the extended family system of the area serves 
to compel peasants, just as other members of the community, into assisting one another in 
weddings, outdoorings, funerals and so on. These occasions require fervent monetary 
contributions from others as forms of support. According to the interview results, the prevalence 
of the occasions is the main drain of the finances of households (field data, 2016). 
Generally, 68.1 percent of the peasants confirmed the sale of farm products, which further 
reduces their resilience to food insecurity. By study sites, all peasants from Bakpaba and 
Dokpam sub-traditional areas engaged in the sales of food stuff for their income needs. Bimbilla 
sub-traditional area recorded 95.3 percent of peasants who claimed their farm output could 
129 
 
sustain the annual food requirement of their household also confirming the incidence of the acts. 
The study observed that live of peasants in urban centres is opened to diversified livelihood 
strategies especially in the off-farm sectors (Barrett et al, 2004). Those in Bimbilla could be 
opened to such opportunities. 
5.4.2 Nature of Household Food Insecurity among Peasants 
Earlier analysis showed that 71.1 percent of the peasants could sustain the food requirement of 
their households from the produce of the farms. However, 61.7 percent (103) of this number of 
peasants had challenges feeding their households successfully throughout the seasons. About 66 
percent of the total number of peasants confirmed ever experiencing shortages of food in the 
households. The outcome is confirming the earlier observation on the large household size nature 
of peasants and the expected stress on the nutrition of such households.  
In exploring the prevalence of this menace by localities, there was a general occurrence observed 
across the localities. The levels of prevalence in the sub-traditional areas were not different from 
the general observations made. 66 percent of the peasants from Bakpaba and Bimbilla sub areas 
confirmed their experience of food shortages in their households. About 63 percent confirmation 
was observed in the Dokpam sub-traditional area.  
The issues of food shortage in the traditional area seemed to contradict the facts that this area is a 
major food basket for the economy of Ghana. It is best known for its food crop production, 
especially yam. The Ghana statistical service report showed that a majority of the households in 
the traditional area engaged in food crop production (Ghana Statistical Service, 2014)). This 
incidence of food insecurity could be partly due to the sales of food crops. In the report of the 
Ghana statistical service, it recommended for the ministry of trade and industry to liaise with the 
district assembly to link farmers to industries to make the farming industry attractive. It therefore 
130 
 
highlighted the facts that peasants did not get actual value for their products and so had to sell so 
much of it in order to meet the income levels required.  
5.4.3 Prevalence of Food Shortage in Households of Peasants’ Neighbourhoods 
The study also examined the nature of food shortage among households within the 
neighbourhoods of peasants in the traditional area. The study showed that 155 (66%) of the 
peasants experienced food shortages in the households. 87.7 percent of this number of peasants 
confirmed of the prevalence of food shortage among the households of their neighbourhoods. 
Generally, the views of a majority of the peasants (89.8%) affirmed that their neighbours also 
had food security challenges. The widespread nature of the menace calls for further examinations 
as to the timing of the incidence and possible mitigation strategies the peasants normally adopted 
to ameliorate the impacts of the shortages.  
5.4.4 Timing of the Food Shortages and Mitigation Measure Peasants Adopted 
It was discovered that most peasants experienced the shortages in the months of June and July. 
This period of the farming season is when food crops like maize and cassava begin to form, 
provided they were planted with early rains in mid-April or early to mid-May. Most farms 
require second weeding at that period of the season. Some of the dominant measures adopted 
included sale of human labour at the expense of doing the second weeding on their own farms. 
Others borrowed food stuff to sustain the households, while some others relied on the extended 
family relations to solicit for food for their households. Despite the small farmland sizes, 
peasants could have maintained some level of resilience to threats of food shortages if they 
worked continuously on their farms to keep their farms clean of weeds.  
131 
 
5.4.5 The Role of Women during Food Shortages 
The women in the households played several roles in complement to the struggles of the male 
heads. Women served as aids to all major farming activity throughout the seasons. They helped 
to plant or sow, weed, harvest, transport and store the products. These were some of the main 
reasons why women do not have to make their own farms. The customs of the area recognized 
women in peasantry, but, in the production of minor crops like okra, pepper, beans and 
groundnut or soybeans. Likewise, females were not given large farmland sizes or fertile lands 
that could support yam or maize production. The study observed that women harvested resources 
from the wild to support the household in times of famine. These resources included dawadawa 
fruits, shea nuts, hardwood, some green leaves used as ingredients for soup, and many others. 
The proceeds also supported women‟s basic needs requirement, since they did not control the 
household farm produce. 
However, access to these varieties of resources was not open for all. Just like farmlands, trees 
that seemed to grow in the wild were also owned by the landowners. Landless peasants faced 
challenges accessing them. According to the study, some landowners do not care so much as 
they gave the land to usufruct users. These users assume automatic access to the resources within 
the farmland. However, some do not accept settlers picking shea nuts or harvesting dawadawa 
fruits in their farms without permission. From the interviews and FGDs, settlers lamented the 
way landowners deny them access to such resources.  
In response to a question of landowners allowing settlers or tenants to pick resources (shea 
nut/dawadawa or any economic tree) on the farms;  
One peasant responded: 
132 
 
“If the wives of the landowner have other areas elsewhere to harvest from, but if not they share 
with your wife” (Field Data, 2017). 
Another peasant: 
“Yes, sometimes the landlords allow us if we show them respect” (Field Data, 20 7).  
 But majority complained;  
“It all depends on the positions adopted by our landlords’ wives. They do not allow us access to 
such resources, sometimes they are just jealous. Other landladies share the shea trees with you, 
especially when their husbands no longer farm” (Field Data, 2017).  
The study intended to offer suggestions on the way forward to salvaging the menace of food 
insecurity among the peasants. It therefore sought the views of peasants on the best ways they 
thought their plights could be catered for. In exploring their participation in the FGDs and 
interviews by way of viewpoints, there were varied modes of solutions suggested by the 
peasants. The most recurring modes included requests for government and development partners 
to supply credit facility, ensure capacity building for women in animal rearing, and many others. 
The study observed that a majority of the peasants (52.7%) suggested that peasants be supported 
with farm inputs by the government and stakeholders. Likewise, 14.8 percent of the peasants 
thought that irrigation facility could help engage them during their off seasons (dry season). This 
seemed a re-echo of the suggestion given in the report of the Ghana Statistical Service (Ghana 
Statistical Service, 2014) on 2010 Population and Housing Census.  
 
 
133 
 
5.4.6 Policy Implications of Customary Decisions in the Area. 
Some of the policy implications observed by the study includes: 
 Women‟s access to productive assets wanes inversely with growing roles (Sunderlin et al, 
2005). Female natives had only secondary rights or interests in family land, and had to 
access land for farming through their maternal or paternal brothers. Meanwhile they 
constituted about 51 percent of the entire population of the traditional area.   
 The females in the area were convinced that males must dominate them as customs 
demand, while the males had no problem with the outcomes of the customary practices. 
This posed challenges to access to land and livelihoods of females as it signified 
inequalities which creates poverty real in the area (Carter & May, 1999).  
 There is the need for political will to streamline land registration in the traditional area. 
This may be done in line with the customary practices of the traditional area. This will 
improve upon land access, which impacts largely on peasants‟ farm outputs and 
consequently on incomes and asset holdings of households. 
 There was widespread prevalence of household food insecurity in the traditional area. 
This was made worse by the customary practices of contributing to funerals, weddings, 
outdooring and disaster reliefs of relations in the traditional area.  
 There were clear signals that households need irrigation projects and other assistance to 
help diversify their livelihoods. Peasants in turn requested for inputs supply, capacity 
building on animal care and irrigation for dry season gardening, etc. 
 Households were found to be large, while farmlands were very small. Family planning 
issues must be addressed to control the explosions in growths of household membership.  
134 
 
 Households sole their farm outputs in pursuance of household financial needs. Low food 
prices could have caused the households to sell more of the food products in order to 
meet the amount of money required. Increased food prices give value for products, and 
coupled with extended leap programme, households could maintain food security. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
135 
 
CHAPTER SIX 
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
6.0 Overview  
Livelihoods of rural economies hinge on availability of, and accessibility to land since rural areas 
are largely agrarian in occupations. Issues of land and its access to peasants need serious and 
concerted policy outlines through local level participation, championed by customary authorities. 
It is very difficult to determine the ideal access to land in societies with communal land 
ownership. The issues of conflicts, litigations and diversions which lead to discrimination, 
inequality and deprivation among peasant households cannot be tackled through top-down 
policies as witnessed these days. Likewise, livelihoods of peasants are not independent of 
landowners‟ willingness to give or not to give land, especially when land parcels are in 
communal ownership.  
6.1 Summary of the Study 
The conception that informed this study drew a linkage between people‟s livelihood struggles 
and access to community resources. The traditional authority in the Nanumba traditional area 
constituted the sole body which controlled land and decided on the mode of its access. Divisional 
chiefs were observed to exercise oversight control over land as customary freehold title holders, 
while the paramount chief in Bimbilla assumed the allodial title holder. However, clan and 
family heads were observed to deal directly with the peasants‟ farmland needs. Both natives and 
settlers were holder of usufruct right titles or interests on land because land in the traditional area 
was communally held. Unlike the tenancy deals of the southern ethnic traditions that practiced 
sharecropping in the forms of Abusa (1/3) and Abunu (1/2) as noted earlier (Yeboah, E. and 
136 
 
Shaw P. D., 2013: Pomevor, 2014), customs of the NTA gave land free to whoever needed it for 
farming, and even for settlement (Field Data, 2017). 
The study adopted a case study design and relied on both qualitative and quantitative data 
through a mixed method of data collection. It used questionnaire, in-depth interview and FGDs 
as instruments to gather the data. Two hundred and thirty-five (235) peasant households were 
used as respondents to the questionnaire. There were three FGDs and five individual in-depth 
interviews conducted across the study sites. The study adopted descriptive statistical techniques 
of data analysis, and relied heavily on frequency and cross tabulations as tools for the analysis of 
the data. Findings were displayed using frequency tables, cross tabulation tables, graphs and 
charts to display the relationships among variables. The discussions and interviews were 
transcribed and used mostly as quotes in the discussions of findings. 
Access to farmland for both natives and settlers was dominated by free gifts modes. Also, natives 
and settlers were observed to claim inheritance to their farmlands. This showed that access to 
land was opened to both natives and settlers alike. Likewise, compensation was not a known 
practice in land deals between peasants and landowners, a practice that is divergent to the Abusa 
or Abunu of the ethnic groups in Akan traditional areas (Appiah, 2012: Pomevor, 2014). The 
study rather noted some variations in the level of access in favour of natives in terms of farmland 
sizes, but thought it was normal. Access to land was therefore described as relative.  
The study also observed remarkable variations in the level of access females had to land, 
compared to their male counterparts in the families within the traditional area. Both males and 
females acknowledged and accepted these variations as masterminded by the customs and 
traditions of the traditional area. The inequalities were the dictates of the traditions and both 
males and females saw nothing ill about it. The study therefore concludes that the peasants‟ 
137 
 
allegiance to the customs and traditions constituted a major factor for the perpetuation of the 
inequalities (Rugadya et al, 2004: Owusu et al, 2007: and Agbosu et al, 2008 and Yaro, (2012). 
The study observed some significant impacts the peasants‟ access to land had on their 
livelihoods. It was observed that the peasants‟ ability to increase their earnings from farming 
activities lies in the kind of crop they produce. The availability and size of farmland as well as 
the quality of farmland dictated to some extent, the choice peasants made on the kind of crops to 
grow. There was therefore, a link between peasants‟ desire to increase incomes and the farmland 
sizes of peasants. Real access to land could trigger increased incomes of peasants, all things 
equal.  
Likewise, if peasants succeeded in increasing their earnings from farm activities, they stood 
better chances of securing land parcels for their households as wealth and store of value. It was 
observed that 41.2 percent of the peasants had no personal land at all. However the study noted 
that 74.2 percent of these peasants without personal land holdings earned incomes below 
incomes GHS 2800.00 annually. The study further observed positive links between peasants‟ 
mode of access to land and farmland size; and the size of farmland and annual incomes earned 
by peasants. As posited by UN human development index reports (1990), increased household 
earnings are a necessary condition for households‟ ability to expand asset holdings. 
Finally, the study observed a prevalence of household food insecurity across the study area, 
mostly within the months of June and July each year. The mitigation measures were observed to 
include peasants abandoning their farms to work on other people‟s farmlands to secure food for 
their household survival. Women were also observed to play very key roles in gathering forest 
resources like dawadawa, shea nuts, shrubs and hardwood for medicinal and charcoal burning 
138 
 
purposes. However, the peasants had challenges in accessing these landed resources from the 
society. 
6.2 Conclusions  
 Largely, peasants obtained farmlands from friends, clan heads and family heads. The 
predominant mode of access to land in the traditional area was free gifts, followed by 
inheritance. Those who inherited land or were freely given could claim ownership to 
such farmlands. However, land was communally owned and inalienable in the Nanumba 
traditional area. The study concludes that the inability of customs of the traditional area 
to regularize the modes of land allocations and to keep records on the land deals in the 
area breeds conflicting land interest challenges.  
 The study also observed that settlers and females had challenges accessing large sizes of 
farmlands for peasantry works. However, females were worse affected as they were 
discriminated in terms of land allocations within families. The study concludes that there 
were gendered inequality and deprivations in land allocation in the study area. It further 
concludes that the level of settlers and natives‟ access to farmlands had no significant 
difference. 
 Farmland sizes were observed to correspond positively with higher outputs leading in 
most case to peasants claiming some improvement in asset holdings. Peasants who were 
observed to have large farmland sizes had claims to higher returns from their farms. 
Higher incomes from livelihood strategies were also noted to enhance asset holdings of 
households. The research concludes, therefore, that farmland sizes have strong relation 
with enhanced asset holdings of peasants. 
139 
 
 More so, most peasants had large household sizes, but depended on smaller farmland 
sizes. They also sold their annual products from farms to meet income needs of their 
families. These compelled them to experience intermittent annual food shortages which 
were also widespread among their neighbourhoods. The study concludes that there was a 
prevalence of household food insecurity in the traditional area caused largely by 
farmland access challenges.  
6.3 Recommendations 
The study recommends the following: 
 Land registration should be considered by the office of the skin lands, the traditional 
authority and the district planning unit. The demarcation of clan, family and skin lands, 
will aid proper record keeping on all land deals in the traditional area. This will reduce 
issues of mistrust and improve land allocations in the area. 
 There is the need for stronger and purposeful collaboration and coordination among the 
gender desk office at the district assembly, the community based organizations and the 
traditional authority to initiate measures that improve upon female land rights or interests 
in the district, since females must contribute their quota to the development of the district. 
Also, the traditional area should unify customarily constructed regulations and rules 
governing landownership, control and allocations to serve the farmland needs of landless 
peasants in the area. 
 The government of Ghana, through the local governance system should make conscious 
policies to enhance farmland holdings of peasants. Similar agrarian land reforms have 
been pursued in other countries like Egypt (Margold, 1957) to assist peasants own 
140 
 
farmlands. This will improve upon land access, which impacts largely on peasants‟ farm 
outputs and consequently on incomes and asset holdings of households. 
 Lastly, the government of Ghana, through the district assembly, should device urgent and 
inclusive policies to end real food insecurity in the agrarian economy (Ghana Statistical 
Service, 2014).  
o The local authority in collaboration with development partners could provide 
Irrigation facilities, improved seeds and animal breed to help peasant diversify their 
livelihoods. For instance, some women in Punyoro, a community in the Kasina 
Nankana district of the Upper East Region were assisted by Canadian project “Feed 
the child” in animal husbandry. A similar project of loaning animals to females 
could be emulated in the district, aside irrigation projects, to help fight household 
poverty and malnutrition. 
o There is also the need for the Ghana health service to intensify its education 
campaign on family planning and birth control measures in the traditional area to 
help keep the growths of households in check. Large family sizes also put stress on 
the stock of household resources, leading to shortages of food within households. 
 
 
 
 
141 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
Adhikari, B., Di Falco, S., & Lovett, J. C. (2004). Household characteristics and forest 
dependency: evidence from common property forest management in Nepal. Ecological 
economics, 48(2), 245-257. 
Adiaba, S. Y. (2006). Gender Disparity with respect to Access and Ownership of Land: A Myth 
or a Reality? AC Study of the Gurunsi in the Upper East Region. A Paper prepared for 
the Ghana Institution of Surveyors, Accra. 
Adolwine, W. M., & Dudima, A. (2010). Women‟s Access to Emerging Urban Land in The 
Sissala East District in Northern Ghana. Journal of Science and Technology (Ghana), 
30(2). 
Agarwal, B. (1989). Rural women, poverty and natural resources: sustenance, sustainability and 
struggle for change. Economic and Political weekly, WS46-WS65. 
Agbosu, L., Awumbila, M., Dowuona-Hammond, C., & Tsikata, D. (2007). Customary and 
statutory land tenure and land policy in Ghana. 
Agidi, E. Y. (1976). Ewe Customary Land Law-It‟s Relationship and Interaction with Akan 
Customary Land Law, Unpublished BSc. Thesis Submitted to the Department of Land 
Economy, KNUST. 
Andoh, C. (2016, September 08). Govt announces new minimum wage . Retrieved JUly 19, 
2017, from www.graphic.com.gh: http://www.graphic.com.gh/news/general-news/govt-
announces-new-minimum-wage.html 
Appiah, D. (2012). The Politics of traditional-federal state formation and land administration 
reform in Ghana: 1821-2010 (Doctoral dissertation, University of York). 
142 
 
Ashley, C., & Carney, D. (1999). Sustainable livelihoods: Lessons from early experience (Vol. 7, 
No. 1). London: Department for International Development. 
Barrett, C. B., Bezuneh, M., Clay, D. C., & Reardon, T. (2004). Heterogeneous Constraints, 
Incentives and Income Diversification in Rural Africa. Mimeo, Cornell University. 
Beuchelt, T. D., & Virchow, D. (2012). Food sovereignty or the human right to adequate food: 
which concept serves better as international development policy for global hunger and 
poverty reduction?. Agriculture and Human Values, 29(2), 259-273. 
BMJ. (1998, November 28). Towards quality management of medical information on the 
internet: evaluation, labelling, and filtering of informationHallmarks for quality of 
informationQuality on the internetAssuring quality and relevance of internet information 
in the real world. Retrieved July 20, 2017, from  
Braimah, I., Dewi, Y. S., & Cedep, K. G. Conflict Sensitive Planning in the Nanumba North 
District of Ghana. 
Brasselle, A. S., Gaspart, F., & Platteau, J. P. (2002). Land tenure security and investment 
incentives: puzzling evidence from Burkina Faso. Journal of Development Economics, 
67(2), 373-418. 
Bugri, J. T. (2008). The dynamics of tenure security, agricultural production and environmental 
degradation in Africa: Evidence from stakeholders in north-east Ghana. Land Use Policy, 
25(2), 271-285. 
Butler, L. M., & Mazur, R. E. (2007). Principles and processes for enhancing sustainable rural 
livelihoods: Collaborative learning in Uganda. International Journal of Sustainable 
Development & World Ecology, 14(6), 604-617. 
143 
 
Carney, D. (1998). Sustainable rural livelihoods: What contribution can we make?. Department 
for International Development. 
Carter, M. R., & May, J. (1999). Poverty, livelihood and class in rural South Africa. World 
Development Vol. 27, No. 1, 27(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-
750X(98)00129-6 
Chambers, R., & Conway, G. (1992). Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts for the 
21st century. Institute of Development Studies (UK). 
Chambers, R., & Conway, G. (1998). Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Some Working Definitions. 
Development, 41(3), 25-49. 
Chambers, R., & Conway, G. R.(1991). Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts for the 
21st century. Institute of Development Studies, 296. 
Chen, F. (2017). An Alternative Pathway to College: A Qualitative Case Study of an Adult 
Learner in an Online Competency-Based Education (CBE) Bachelor's Degree Program 
(Doctoral dissertation, The University of New Mexico). 
Chimhowu, A., & Woodhouse, P. (2006). Customary vs private property rights? Dynamics and 
trajectories of vernacular land markets in Sub‐Saharan Africa. Journal of Agrarian 
Change, 6(3), 346-371. 
Cobbinah, P. B., Gaisie, E., & Owusu-Amponsah, L. (2015). Peri-urban morphology and 
indigenous livelihoods in Ghana. Habitat International, 50, 120-129. 
Conway-Gomez et al. (2010, January). Population and Natural Resources: Conceptual 
Framework. Retrieved July 04, 2017, from AAG Centre for Global Geography 
Education: 
144 
 
http://cgge.aag.org/PopulationandNaturalResources1e/CF_PopNatRes_Jan10/CF_PopNat
Res_Jan10_print.html 
Cotula, L., Toulmin, C., & Quan, J. (2006). Better land access for the rural poor: Lessons from 
experience and challenges ahead. IIED. 
Da Rocha, B. J., & Lodoh, C. H. K. (1999). Ghana land law and conveyancing. Dr & L Print. 
and Pub. Services. 
De Haan, L., & Zoomers, A. (2005). Exploring the frontier of livelihoods research. Development 
and change, 36(1), 27-47. 
De Soto, H. (2000). The mystery of capital: Why capitalism triumphs in the West and fails 
everywhere else. Basic Civitas Books. 
Declaration, R. (1996). Rome Declaration on World Food Security and World Food Summit Plan 
of Action. 
Delgado, C. L. (2012). Agricultural Transformation: the key to broad-based growth and poverty 
alleviation in Sub-Saharan Africa. 
Desai, M. (1991). Human development: concepts and measurement. European Economic 
Review, 35(2-3), 350-357. 
Devendra, C., & Chantalakhana, C. (2002). Animals, poor people and food insecurity: 
opportunities for improved livelihoods through efficient natural resource management. 
Outlook on Agriculture, 31(3), 161-175. 
DFID (2000) Sustainable Livelihood Guidance Sheets, http://www.livelihoods. 
org DFID Nepal (2000) Community Forestry and Sustainable Livelihoods: The 
Nepal-UK Community Forestry Project, DFID, London … 
145 
 
Diangha, M. N. PhD THESIS The effects of habitat heterogeneity and human influences on the 
diversity, abundance, and distribution of large mammals: the case of Deng Deng National 
Park, Cameroon. 
Dittoh, S. (2002). Land Tenure, Traditional Institutions and SD in N Ghana.pdf. 
Dittoh, S. (2004). Land tenure, traditional institutions and sustainable development in Northern 
Ghana within the context of the national land policy. Ghana Journal of Development 
Studies, 1(1), 61-71. 
Durand-Lasserve, A. (2005). Land for Housing the Poor in African Cities: Are Neo-Customary 
Processes an Effective Alternative to Formal Systems?'. Urban futures: Economic 
development and poverty reduction, 160-174. 
Ellis et al. (2015). Cronic Poverty in South Africa: Incidence, Causes and Policies. Mdurai 
Institute of Social Sciences , 315-331: Cited in Seekings, J., & Nattrass, N. (2008). Class, 
race, and inequality in South Africa. Yale University Press. 
Ellis, F., & Biggs, S. (2001). Evolving themes in rural development 1950s‐2000s. Development 
policy review, 19(4), 437-448. 
FAO . (2005). Land tenure studies. Access to rural land and administration after conflicts. Rome. 
Italy. http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/y9354e/y9354e00.htm 
FAO. (1996, November 13 - 17). Rome Declaration on World Food Security and World Food 
Summit Plan of Action . Retrieved July 21, 2017, from FAO Corporate Document 
Repository: http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/w3613e/w3613e00.htm ; cited in FAO. 
(2002). Land Tenure and Rural Development. Rome, Italy. 
Fund, G. G. (2015). Climate Justice and Women's Rights: A Guide to Supporting Grassroots 
Women's Action. 
146 
 
Ghana Statistical Service. (2014). 2010 Population and Housing Census: District Analytical 
Report; Nanumba North District. Ghana. Retrieved from www.statsghana.gov.gh. 
GOG. (2007). Guinea: Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper PRSP 2 (2007–2010). Ministry of 
Economy, Finance, and Planning. Accra: Government of Guinea. 
Grey, C., & Willmott, H. (Eds.). (2005). Critical management studies: A reader. Oxford 
University Press. 
GSS. (2014). 2010 Population and Housing Census: District Analytical Reports; Nanumba 
North District. Accra: Ghana Statistical Service. 
Habitat, U. N. (2008). State of the world‟s cities 2008/2009: Harmonious cities. Earthscan, 
London. 264pp. 
Habitat, U. N. (2010). The state of African cities 2010: Governance, inequality and urban land 
markets. United Nations Environment Programme, United Nations. 
Habitat, U. N. (2013). State of the world's cities 2012/2013: Prosperity of cities. Routledge. 
Habitat, U. N., & Network, G. L. T. (2008). Secure land rights for all. UN Habitat, Nairobi. 
http://www.bmj.com/content/317/7171/1496?variant=extract 
http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/3374/index.htm.2–4:  
https://uk.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/33607_Swanborn.pdf 
https://www.fig.net/resources/monthly.../2006/...2006/may_2006_kumbun_naa_yiri.p... 
https://www.fig.net/resources/proceedings/2008/verona_fao_2008.../4_1_larbi.pdf 
IFAD. (2016). Ghana: Improving women's access to Land in the Upper East. Retrieved JUly 20, 
2017, from https://www.ifad.org/asset?id=2102648: 
https://www.ifad.org/disclaimer/overview 
147 
 
IIED. (1999). Land Tenure and Resource Access in West Africa: Issues and Opportunities forthe 
Next Twenty-Five Years. London:. International Institute for Environment and 
Development; Ion, O. A. (2015). 2015 World Population Data Sheet: with a special focus 
on women’s empowerment, USAID; . Washington, DC 20009 USA: Population 
Reference Bureau.ISSN 0085-8315. 
Ion, O. A. T. (2015). 2015 World Population Data Sheet: with a special focus on women‟s 
empowerment. 
ISSER. (2003). Land Ownership Systems and Security of Tenure and Rights Associated with 
Customary Grants in Ghana,. ISSER, Accra. Cited in Kuusaana, E. D., Kidido, J. K., & 
Halidu-Adam, E. (2013). Customary land ownership and gender disparity-evidence from 
the Wa municipality of Ghana. Ghana Journal of Development Studies, 10(1-2), 63-80. 
Jawale, K. V. (2012). Methods of sampling design in the legal research: Advantages and 
disadvantages. Online International Interdisciplinary Research Journal, 2(6), 183-190. 
Kameri-Mbote, P. (2005). The land has its owners! gender issues in land tenure under customary 
law. http://www.ielrc.org/content/w0509.pdf , Accessed, August 28, 2012. 
Kaplan, B., & Maxwell, J. A. (1994). Evaluating health care information systems: Methods and 
applications. Qualitative Research Methods for Evaluating Computer Information 
Systems. JG Anderson, CE Ayden and SJ Jay. Thousand Oaks, Sage. 
Kasanga et al. (1996). Land Markets and Legal Contradictions in the Peri-Urban Area of Accra, 
Ghana. Informant Interview and Secondary DataInvestigation, Land Tenure Centre 
(LTC) Research Paper No.127, University of. Wisco. 
Kasanga, R. K., & Kotey, N. A. (2001). Land management in Ghana: Building on tradition and 
modernity.  International Institute for Environment and Development, London . 
148 
 
Kotey, N. A., & Tsikata, D. (1998), Women and land rights in Ghana. Women and Law in West 
Africa: Situational Analysis of Some Key Issues Affecting Women, Legon: WLWA. 
Krantz, S. G. (2001). Function theory of several complex variables (Vol. 340). American 
Mathematical Soc.. 
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. 
Educational and psychological measurement, 30(3), 607-610. 
Kumbun-Naa Yiri, I. I. (2006, March). Customary Lands Administration and Good Governance–
The State and the Traditional Rulers Interface 1. In 5th FIG Regional Conference-
Promoting Land Administration and Good Governance (pp. 1-17). 
Kuusaana, E. D. (2010). Land Ownership and Gender Disparity in Ghana; Evidence from the Wa 
Municipality. 
Kuusaana, E. D. (2010). Property Rating in Ghana: Procedure. Practice, Challenges and 
Prospects in the Framework of Good Governance-case of Wa Municipality, Upper West 
Region-Ghana. 
Kuusaana, E. D., Kidido, J. K., & Halidu-Adam, E. (2013). Customary land ownership and 
gender disparity-evidence from the wa municipality of Ghana. Ghana Journal of 
Development Studies, 10(1-2), 63-80. 
Larbi, W. O. (2008). Compulsory Land Acquisition and Compensation in Ghana: Searching for 
Alternative Policies and Strategies . A presentation at FIG/FAO/CNG International 
Seminar on State and Public Sector Land Management, . Verona, Italy: Mortigage & 
Real Estates . 
149 
 
Lastarria-Cornhiel and Frais, 1992; cited in Quansah, E. S. T. (2012), Land tenure system: 
Women‟s access to land in a cosmopolitan context. Ogirisi: A New Journal of African 
Studies, 9(1), 141-162. 
Lele, U. (1975). The design of rural development. Lessons from Africa. Johns Hopkins 
University Press. 
Lentz, C. (2010). Is Land Inalienable? Historical and Current Debates on Land Transfer in 
Northern Ghana. Africa , 65-80. 
Levin, C. E., Ruel, M. T., Morris, S. S., Maxwell, D. G., Armar-Klemesu, M., & Ahiadeke, C. 
(1999). Working women in an urban setting: traders, vendors and food security in Accra. 
World Development, 27(11), 1977-1991. 
Maasole, C. S. (2011). The Land Factor in the Konkomba-Nanumba Conflict of 1981, a 
Historical Perspective. Ghana Jornal of Development Studies , Vol. 8, No. 1, 33-49. 
Mabogunje, A. L. (1980). The dynamics of centre-periphery relations: the need for a new 
geography of resource development. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 
277-296. 
Margold, S. (1957). Agrarian Land Reform in Egypt‟. The American Journal of Economics and 
Sociology, 17(1), 9–19. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.orgAbbey, C. K., & Eckstein, 
M. P. (2002). Classification image analysis: Estimation and statistical inference for two-
alternative forced-choice experiments. Journal of vision, 2(1), 5-5. 
Migot-Adholla, S. E., Benneh, G., Place, F., Atsu, S., & Bruce, J. W. (1994). Land, security of 
tenure, and productivity in Ghana. Searching for land tenure security in Africa, 97-118. 
Morris, T. A., & KAYA, S. S. (1997). Approaching Equity in Consumer Health Information 
Delivery: Net Wellness. J Am Med Inform Assoc, 4, 6-13. 
150 
 
Mudenda, M. M. (2006). The challenges of customary land tenure in Zambia. 
Myers, M. D. (1997). Qualitative research in information systems. Management Information 
Systems Quarterly, 21(2), 241-242. 
Nielsen, P. G. (1985). Two different clinical and genetic forms of hereditary palmoplantar 
keratoderma in the northernmost county of Sweden. Clinical genetics, 28(5), 361-366. 
Niesssen, S. A. (1985). Motif of Life in Tobak Text and Textiles,. Foris Publications, Dordrecht, 
Holland.  Cited in Kuusaana, E. D., Kidido, J. K., & Halidu-Adam, E. (2013). Customary 
land ownership and gender disparity-evidence from the wa municipality of Ghana. Ghana 
Journal of Development Studies, 10(1-2), 63-80. 
Okojie, C., & Shimeles, A. (2006). Inequality in sub-Saharan Africa. The Inter-Regional 
Inequality Facility. Overseas Development Institute (ODI). London. 
Ollenu, N. A. (1962). Principles of customary land law. Law in Africa., 2, 153. 
Ollenu, N. A., & Woodman, G. R. (1985). Ollenu's Principles of Customary Land Law. 
Ostrom and Hess. (2007). Private and Common Property Rights. Workshop in Political Theory 
and Policy Analysis,. Indiana: Indiana University. 
Owusu, G. (2008). Indigenes' and migrants' access to land in peri-urban areas of Accra, Ghana. 
International Development Planning Review, 30(2), 177-198. 
Owusu, G. A. (2008). Gender, land tenure dynamics and livelihood: A comparison of the Central 
and Volta Regions of Ghana using logistic regression analysis. Studies in Gender and 
Development in Africa, 2(1). 
Payne, G., & Durand-Lasserve, A. (2012, October). Holding on: Security of tenure-types, 
policies, practices and challenges. In research paper prepared for an expert group 
meeting on Security of Tenure convened by the UN Special Rapporteur on Adequate 
151 
 
Housing, http://www. ohchr. org/Documents/Issues/Housing/SecurityTenure/Payne-
Durand-Lasserve-BackgroundPaper-JAN2013. pdf. 
Pomevor, S. M. (2014). Customary Land Tenure Practices And Land Markets In Ghana: A Case 
Study Of Odupong Ofaakor: Unpublished: Thesis submitted to the Kwame Nkrumah 
University of Science and Technology, KNUST. Kumasi. 
Pottier, J. (2006). Land reform for peace? Rwanda's 2005 land law in context. Journal of 
Agrarian Change, 6(4), 509-537. 
Poudel, A. (2015). A Study of Women Empowerment Among Nepalese War Widows 
“Participation in Decision Making” as an Indicator (Doctoral dissertation). 
Prasad, C. H. (1998). Implementation process of women Development Programme (IFAD): an 
experimental model. JOURNAL OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT-HYDERABAD-, 17, 777-
792. 
Quansah, E. S. T. (2012). Land tenure system: Women‟s access to land in a cosmopolitan 
context. Ogirisi: A New Journal of African Studies, 9(1), 141-162. 
Rothman, D. J. (2017). Strangers at the bedside: A history of how law and bioethics transformed 
medical decision making. Routledge. 
Rubin, A., & Babbie, E. (2007). Research methods for social work. Cengage Learning. 
Rugadya et al. (2004). "Gender and the Land Reform Process in Assessing Gains and Losses for 
Women in Uganda". ondon: Oxfam Publishing. 
Schoneveld, G., German, L., & Nutakor, E. (2011). Land-based investments for rural 
development? A grounded analysis of the local impacts of biofuel feedstock plantations 
in Ghana. Ecology and Society, 16(4). 
152 
 
Scoones, I. (2009). Livelihoods perspectives and rural development. The Journal of Peasant 
Studies, 36(1), 171-196. 
Sporton, D. (1998). Poverty and sustainable livelihoods. Department of Geography, University of 
Sheffield. 
Study, C. (1979). what is case study? SAGA Publications , 132-135. 
Sunderlin, W. D., Angelsen, A., Belcher, B., Burgers, P., Nasi, R., Santoso, L., & Wunder, S. 
(2005). Livelihoods, Forests, and Conservation in Developing Countries: An Overview. 
World Development, 33(9), 1383-1402. 
Thoms, C. A. (2008). Community control of resources and the challenge of improving local 
livelihoods: A critical examination of community forestry in Nepal. Geoforum, 39(3), 
1452-1465. 
Tonah, S. (1993). The Development of Agropastoral Households in Northern Ghana: Policy 
Analysis. Project Appraisal and Future Perspectives, Breitenbal. 
Tonah, S. (2008). Chiefs, earth priests and the state: Irrigation agriculture, competing institutions 
and the transformation of land tenure arrangements in Northeastern Ghana. Land and 
Custom in Ghana, 113. 
Toulmin, C., & Quan, J. (2000). Evolving land rights, policy and tenure in Africa. 
DFID/IIED/NRI. 
Toulmin, C., Delville, P. L., & Traore, S. (2002). The dynamics of resource tenure in West 
Africa. James Currey Ltd. 
Tsikata, D., & Yaro, J. A. (2014). When a good business model is not enough: Land transactions 
and gendered livelihood prospects in rural Ghana. Feminist economics, 20(1), 202-226. 
153 
 
Un-Habitat. (2012). Enhancing urban safety and security: Global report on human settlements 
2007. Routledge. 
University of Xhttp://www.netwellness.org/healthtopics/women/. (n.d.). Women's Health. 
Retrieved July 20, 2017, from Consumer Health Information: 
http://www.netwellness.org/healthtopics/women/ 
VanWynsberghe, R., & Khan, S. (2007). Redefining case study. International Journal of 
Qualitative Methods, 6(2), 80-94. 
Woodman, (1996) cited in Lentz, C. (2010), Is land inalienable? Historical and current debates 
on land transfers in Northern Ghana; Africa, 80(1 1), 56-80. 
World Bank Staff. (2004). World Development Report 2005: Investment Climate, Growth and 
Poverty. World Bank Publications. 
World Bank. (1975). Land reform. Sector policy paper. Washington DC ; World Bank. 
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/911161468153545471/Land-reform 
Yahaya, A. B. (2016), Ethnic Identity , Social Inequality , and Land Disputes in the Kpandai 
District of Northern Region. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 
6, No. 5; May; 109-118 
Yaro, Joseph A., (2012), Re-Inventing Traditional Land Tenure in the Era of Land 
Commoditization: Some Consequences in Periurban Northern Ghana. Geografiska 
Annaler, Series B: Human Geography, 94(4); 351-368 
Yeboah, E., & Shaw, D. (2013). Customary land tenure practices in ghana: examining the 
relationship with land-use planning delivery. International Development Planning 
Review, 35(1), 21-39.  
154 
 
Yin, R. K. (2003). Applications of case study research. Applied social research methods series. 
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Yu, KH (2013). Institutionalization in the context of 
institutional pluralism: Politics as a generative process, Organization Studies, 34(1), 
105-131. 
 
155 
 
APPENDICES 
Appendix A: Questionnaire for Peasant Respondents 
This questionnaire seeks to examine the customary land tenure practices in the Nanumba traditional area and to determine if and how 
these practices impact on the livelihoods of peasants in the traditional area. It considers how the actions and inactions of the customary 
authority in the control, allocation, and regulation of the use of community assets, especially land asset, influence the ability of 
women, men and settler peasants to own land, decide on livelihood strategy, to improve output and incomes. Your identity shall 
remain confidential, I assure you. Please answer this questionnaire as sincerely as it may apply to you. Thank you for contributing to 
knowledge, and also reshaping humanity. 
A. Demographic Data 
a. 0 1 2Study site …….Bimbilla  [    ],    Bakpaba  [    ],    Dokpam   [    ] 
b. 0 1 2 3 4Designation …chief  [    ], Clan head  [    ], Tindana  [    ], Household head  [    ], Other [    ]. 
c. Age …………..[         ] years. 
 0 1d. Gender*…………. Male  [     ],        Female  [     ] 
 0 1 2 3e. Educational level* ...Non-formal  [   ],  JHS/Middle level  [   ], SHS/Tech  [   ], Tertiary  [   ] 
0 1
f. Nativity* ……...................Native   [    ],  Settler/Stranger   [    ] {Native means a Nanumba}  
156 
 
0 1 2 3 4
g. Marital status ………Never Married  [    ],   Married  [    ], Divorced [    ],  Widowed  [    ]   other , specify 
…………………………………………………………………………………  
0 1 2 3 4
h. Residential status ……….RentedTenant  [    ], Own house  [    ] Family house  [    ], Rent free , [    ], percher/Squatters  [    ] 
0 1
i. Terms of tenancy ………... Limited period   [    ],   Unlimited   [    ]  
a. If limited, state number of years [      ],  
b. If rented, give estimate rent per year [GHS ……………]  
 0 1j. Do you engage in other works apart from farming? Yes  [    ],  No  [    ] 
k. 0 1 2If Yes, Specify work, ….. Civil/public sector , [    ], Sales in agri-products  [    ], Other , specify …………………………….. 
0 1 + 2 + 3 4
l. Estimate monthly extra earnings (GHS) from other works . 0 – 50  [    ], 51 – 100  [    ] 100 - 150  [    ], 150  - 200  [    ], 200+ [    
] 
m. How many people feed from your kitchen regularly ………[     ],  (HH size vs size of land) 
n. How many of them cannot fend for themselves ……[      ] 
o. How many are ……. in school [    ], in apprenticeship [    ], Others, specify ……………………………………………………… 
0 1
p. Are you being supported by any agency/project/society or individual eg LEAP? Yes  [    ], No  [    ] 
q. If yes, state amount ……….. [HGS …………]   
 
 
157 
 
TABLE 1: QUESTIONNAIRE        
S/N ITEMS REPONSES 
 Q1: Whether there is real access to land by all peasants in the traditional area 
1 What is the size of your farmland for the past five years? ………………… 
2 Do you own the land you are currently farming on? 0 1Yes  No  
3 How did you get access to the land?  0 1 2 Inherited   Freelygiven   Purchased  
4 If inherited, can you release it out to a third party temporary? 0 1Yes   No   
5 If freely given, are there any terms of engagement (any payment of compensation)? 0 1Yes  No  
0 1 2 
6 What is the nature of your relationship with the land owner? Family    Tribal   Not Related 
0 
7 How do you rate the land in terms of fertility for farming? Very fertile 1 2 3 Fertile Moderate Poor
8 Do you have any document covering the deal with (original) land owner? 0 1Yes  No  
9 If compensation was given, specify In Kind Crop/animal/labour No. or Duration ………… 
If Cash ……………. 
10 Do you think it is good a document covers the agreement with your landlord? 0 1Yes  No  
11 What is the size of land you can lay claim as your property?  ………………plots/acres 
12 Main crops you grow on the land  0 1 Cereals  Tubers
13 How long have you been using the land for farming?   …………years/months 
14 Are there occasions where your land was taken from you by the landlord? 0 1 Yes No
15 If Yes, explain ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
16 Do you make any attempts to improve the fertility of land? 0 1Yes   No   
17 Is it possible you can borrow resources to invest on the land to improve its fertility? 0 1 Yes No
18 What will motivate you to do that? To prevent degradation If I am sure of my tenure 
 Q2: whether access to land is influenced by gender or nativity of individuals 
1
19 Do land owners sell land in this traditional area?  Yes … No  
20 State one challenge to acquiring land in the traditional area.  
21 To get land you must relate to a family, household, clan of land owner 0True  False Not sure 
22 The females and males natives have equal chances to getting land     
23 Natives stand greater chance of accessing land than settlers     
24 Land owners will prefer releasing land to investors than giving it to settlers     
25 The natives have more secured tenure to land than non-natives     
1
26 Is there a situation where a woman can lose a parcel of land she uses? 0Yes  No  
27 Give an example of such situations? 1 
158 
 
28 Give two channels for addressing women‟s land problems   
29 Women must be part of those who sit to resolve such cases? 0 1 2 Yes Not necessarily No
30 Under what condition can a settler lose right to a land he/she uses?  
31 Give one channels for addressing settlers‟ land problems  
 Q3: Whether customary tenure practices impede vulnerable people’s livelihoods 
32 What is likely to motivate the decision of a landowner to give land to a foreign business 0 1Financial  Developmental  
person (an investor)? 
 0 1 2Item True  False  Not sure  
33 Access to land affect wellbeing of poor people     
34 Money is very key in helping a household to increase farm output    
35 I have friends who help me when my household is in need of food     
36 Traditional laws of this area forbid transfer of land to female daughters    
* 
37 Traditional laws of this area does not allow settler to own land    
** 
38 Traditional laws of this area allow women to inherit land of husbands    
***    
39 Traditional laws of this area restrict how women join groups
 37
40 Explain  ………………………………….……………………………………………………………… 
                   38
41  ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
                 39  
42 ………………………………………………………………………………………………..
43 Land in this community is directly own by 0 1 2 Chief Clan/familyhead  Individuals
44 Does it take a long process to secure land for farming? 0 1Yes  No  
45 Ever tried to acquire land for farming? 0Yes  No 
46 Were you successful? 0 1 Yes No
47 How long can it take one to look for a farmland? Years/Months…. 
48 Why? 
49 Which of these crops do you grow on large scale 0 1 Cereals   Tubers
50 Given enough fertile land which crop would like to grow? 0 1 Cereals   Tubers
51 Which is your main reason for farming? 0 1 Feed my family Raise income
52 What cropping systems do you practice  0 1 2Crop rotation  Mixed cropping  Mono-cropping  
    
53 Why do you prefer this practice to others? 0 1 2 3No Land  Finance  Weather variability   Other -state 
    
159 
 
54 What farming system do you use?   allow land to Use same land move to far areas to allow 
1 + 2 
fallow a year or 2 always land fallow for 3  yrs
55 Do you like this farming system that you practice? 0Yes ... No1……. 
56 Which of this faming system would prefer, given enough land? 0 1 2 No1 …… No. 2 No.3
57 Explain  
58 Estimate the number of bags of cereals or tubers of yam you get per year Tubers…… 
59 Cereals………  
60 How many domestic animals do you have currently?  0 1 2Goats  Sheep  Fowls  
   
61 Estimated income derived from your farm work per season? (verify with market prices) 0 1Animals  Crops  
  
 Q. 4 the implications of customary tenure practices on Ghana’s policy pursuits 
61 Land owners are to assist settlers and 0 1 2 3 Strongest agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly 
widows/divorced women in need of farm lands 4 disagree
62 Most farmers in this area sell their produce to buy household needs 0 1 2 True False Not sure
63 Is your farm able to feed your household throughout the year? 0 1 Yes No
64 Have you ever experience food shortage in a year? 0 1 Yes No
1 
65 Do some people experience food shortage in a year? 0 Yes No
66 Which period of the year can this happen?  
67 How do you/they survive those periods of the shortage  
68 What should be done to help or prevent the situation of food shortages in this area? 
69 Sale of land is a problem for farmers in this traditional area? 0 1 True   False
70 Settlers do get fertile farmlands to farm and feed their households 0 1 True   False
 What can land owners do to reduce poverty among people in this community? … 
…………………………………………………………………………………………… 
 0 1 Do the traditional laws on land transfer discriminate against married women in this area? Yes  ……. No …… 
 What can traditional leaders do to help reduce this incidence?  
 ………………………………………………..………………………. 
160 
 
Appendix B: Interview Protocols 
Introduction 
 Good morning/afternoon, my name is ……………… and I am an M. Phil student from 
the university of Ghana.  
 I am conducting a research on customary land tenure practices and livelihoods of 
peasants in Nanumba Traditional Area as a requirement for the award of the degree.  
Explanation of Research 
 This interview is designed to identify, determine and explain the various ways in which 
the actions and inactions of customary authorities (landowners) in the Nanumba 
traditional area affect the interests of landless peasants, such as, their ability to own land, 
decide on livelihood strategies, and improve their outputs and incomes.  
 I hope that any information you provide will be beneficial to the course of this research, 
and also to scholarly works in general.  
 It will also serve as a form of appraisal of the changing functions of traditional authorities 
in the area.  
 And lastly, inform Ghana‟s policy on the fight against the ills of poverty, hunger and 
inequality of all forms in the Nanumba district.  
Confidentiality 
 You can decide not to talk on any issue tabled in this interview/discussion, if you are not 
comfortable. 
 You can also discontinue with the interview/discussion or cancel it and I will respect your 
decisions. 
161 
 
 In anyway, all that you provide as information in this interview/discussion will be 
confidential. 
 It will be used exclusively for this study and your anonymity is assured. 
 If the study quotes any portion of responses in this interview/discussion your identity will 
be protected. By the way, several people are involved in this study, and names or specific 
locations of responses will not be used. 
 This interview will be recorded and transcribed later to aid analysis. Again, your 
anonymity is guaranteed because it will only be made available to my supervisors and if 
possible the panels that will assess my work at presentations. 
Consent  
 You are to sign a consent form that contains all that I have explained to you to serve as a 
contract enforcing the issues of confidentiality.  
 You will keep a copy as proof, in case you feel the contract of confidentiality has not 
been kept. 
 Do you have any question to ask?  
Ground Rules 
 In this interview/discussion there are no correct or wrong answers. 
 Feel free to say anything you think of, both positive and negative things.  
 You are the most experienced persons to talk on these issues. 
 
 
162 
 
Appendix C: Interview Guide: For key Traditional Leaders: family heads; and other 
stakeholders): 
Demographic Data (see Questionnaire  
A. CUSTOMARY LAND DEALS 
1. Elsewhere chiefs hold land in any community in trust for their subjects. In this community, 
who owns and exercise control over land? 
2. Is there any higher authority elsewhere that must be consulted before a major land deal could 
be finalized? 
3. How is land transferred between persons within the clan/family in this traditional area? 
4. What criteria are used for allocation of land to members of a clan or family?   
5. In this community, Can a female child of a landowning family inherit land as her share of 
inheritance? 
6. When can a woman‟s request for a farmland not be granted? 
7. What are the terms of use for customary land by settlers/strangers? 
8. Is it possible a settler/stranger can be given a more fertile land for farming? 
9. Can a settler own a land given to him/her after using it for a long time? 
10. Are there occasions where settler/stranger tried to claim land leased to them on good will in 
the past? 
11. How were those situations handled or resolved? 
12. Does the customs of this traditional area recognize sale of land? 
13. Is it a practice in this area to demand compensation before or after leasing land? What form?  
 
163 
 
B. Customary tenure and poor people’s rights  
5. Does a couple in the Nanumba traditional area have equal right to extended family land? 
6. Are there restrictions on sale, lease, or inheritance on land held by households? 
7. Which of these rights does a woman have on land? (a) use right, (b) right to exercise control 
over land and (c) inheritance of the household‟s portion of the family land. 
8. Under what circumstances does a woman lose her right to family land? 
9. Which asset is a woman not permitted to acquire and own in this traditional area? 
10. Are there restricted lands preserved and protected by the traditional area? 
11. Who controls the use of these community resources by the members of the traditional area? 
12. How can one secure and own land in this community? 
13. How do strangers or settlers get access to farmlands, plot for building houses? 
14. Can settlers own the land and pass it to their generations as inheritance? 
15. Under what conditions are settlers denied access to the community resources, eg dawadawa, 
shea nuts or firewood as sources of extra income? 
16. Are there arrangements in place to meet the land needs of growing families in the traditional 
area? 
17. Is it difficult acquiring land for personal settlement? 
a. If yes, Does it matter whether you are a native of not? 
b. If yes, Does it matter if a woman or a man? 
18. What does the traditional authority do to reduce poverty and hunger in this area?  
19. What is your view about the conflict situation in the traditional area and level of human 
development? 
 
164 
 
C. Customary view of a woman  
1. Is the family patrilocal or matrilocal? 
2. Is polygamy a common practice in this community? 
3. What is the limit of women to a husband? 
4. What are the main roles of women and men in terms of childcare in a household, as customs 
demands? 
5. Who owns children in a family? 
6. Do women have a say in deciding on number of children to a couple? 
7. Who decides on the use of family assets? 
8. Do children matter in the allocation of family assets among women? 
9. Does the sex of a child matter in property allocation in a family? 
10. Which property of the spouse can a woman inherit in this community? 
11. Are there any attempts to ensure gender equity in property allocation in the family? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
165 
 
Appendix D: Guide for FGDs for Men and Women   
A. Customary tenure and poor people’s rights – Farmers 
1. Does a couple in the Nanumba traditional area have equal right to extended family land? 
2. Are there restrictions on sale, lease, or inheritance on land held by households? 
3. Which of these rights does a woman have on land? (a) use right, (b) right to exercise 
control over land and (c) inheritance of the household‟s portion of the family land. 
4. Under what circumstances does a woman lose her right to family land? 
5. Which asset is a woman not permitted to acquire and own in this traditional area? 
6. Are there restricted lands preserved and protected by the traditional area? 
7. Who controls the use of these community resources by the members of the traditional 
area? 
8. How can one secure and own land in this community? 
9. How do strangers or settlers get access to farmlands, plot for building houses? 
10. Can settlers own the land and pass it to their generations as inheritance? 
11. Under what conditions are settlers denied access to the community resources,eg 
dawadawa, shea nuts or firewood as sources of extra income? 
12. Are there arrangements in place to meet the land needs of growing families in the 
traditional area? 
13. Is it difficult acquiring land for personal settlement? 
14. If yes, Does it matter whether you are a native of not? 
15. If yes, Does it matter if a woman or a man? 
16. What does the traditional authority do to reduce poverty and hunger in this area?  
166 
 
17. What is your view about the conflict situation in the traditional area and level of human 
development? 
B. Customary view of a woman – WOMEN  
1. Is the family patrilocal or matrilocal? 
2. Is polygamy a common practice in this community? 
3. What is the limit of women to a husband? 
4. What are the main roles of women and men in terms of childcare in a household, as 
customs demands? 
5. Who owns children in a family? 
6. Do women have a say in deciding on number of children to a couple? 
7. Who decides on the use of family assets? 
8. Do children matter in the allocation of family assets among women? 
9. Does the sex of a child matter in property allocation in a family? 
10. Which property of the spouse can a woman inherit in this community? 
11. Are there any attempts to ensure gender equity in property allocation in the family? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
167