Testing a fit-for-purpose (FFP) model for strengthening customary land rights and tenure to improve household food security in Northwest Ghana

Highlights

• Land rights enhance productive land use.

• Secure land tenure and strong land rights for all.

• Co-created model can make it fit-for-purpose as it meets local user requirements.

• Strong land rights may boost related investments for increased production leading to food security.

• Mock-testing a model is a pre-requisite for its patronage and sustainability.

Abstract

Current land rights and tenure literature on northern Ghana is deficient in presenting a responsible and fit-for-purpose land rights and tenure model (in short: FFP model) for subsistence farmers. This paper tests a new co-created FFP model based on user requirements. The research tested the effectiveness, proper functioning and possible obstructions to the model when implemented. In order to test this model; focus group discussions, key informant interviews, joint community workshops and community forums were employed. The results show that the co-created model is potentially effective, can function properly with minimal obstructions that can be easily addressed if there is commitment from stakeholders. The model can therefore facilitate the strengthening of land rights and securing of land tenure in local communities. It further passed the test as capable of facilitating subsistence farming and the promoting food security. The research (test) also shows that in spite of the external influences negatively affecting local communities including their land issues, these communities are willing to take advantage of some of these external factors (e.g. government institutions, legislations and courts) for their common good. Thus, strengthening land rights and securing tenure for all categories of land users and land uses. The research therefore concludes that this model can be successfully implemented in the study area and in other areas of Ghana. However, beyond Ghana, some adjustments to the model may be needed to make it adequately relevant for each unique context.

Introduction

Land is a fundamental source of livelihood for most people in the world. It contains various rights that people can lay claim to, through inheritance, purchase or other means. In other words, these land rights are the entitlements and practices that communities use to make land available to various categories of users and uses. Some people, the landowners usually hold primary and strong land rights while others e.g. settlers generally hold weaker secondary rights (Bugri, 2010, Nara et al., 2020a). Those who possess weak land rights tend to produce insufficient food from their farms and are consequently more prone to experiencing food insecurity (Nara et al., 2020a, Peters, 2013). Meanwhile, food security of many subsistence farmers especially in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia and southern America largely depend directly on strong land rights and secure tenure (Bugri, 2010, Cotula and Neves, 2007, Nara et al., 2020a). This probably explains why the UN explicitly captured food security in its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 1 & 2. Additionally in sub-Saharan Africa, where there is low application of agricultural mechanisation coupled with land rights and tenure challenges, many farmers still require large amounts of land to produce sufficient food (Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMLE), 2015, Ruerd and Policy and Operations Evaluation Department (IOB) Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2011). Meanwhile, weak customary land rights and insecure tenure issues of marginalised subsistence farmers characterise many land dealings in these areas (Cotula and Neves, 2007).

There are many debates surrounding the usefulness of models for securing land tenure, promoting land-based production like farming and securing food. Such models are usually tailored towards dealing with specific tenure issues and in particular contexts. One of such models is the vulnerability to food insecurity model (Capaldo et al., 2010). This model establishes the relationship between assets like land i.e. ownership and its influence on vulnerability to food insecurity due to shocks that affect agricultural production. The model asserts that there can be chronic food insecurity associated with land “ownership” and those earning income from on‐farm activities. The suggestion then is that farming can expose households to food insecurity shocks with lasting negative consequences if the right tenure strategies for instance, are not adopted. Accordingly, models seek to facilitate an assessment of a problem and provide the framework for dealing with them holistically (Nara et al., 2020b). The model by Capaldo et al. allows for an analysis of how vulnerability relates with various household characteristics, in order to profile the most vulnerable households and to draw conclusions on possible causes of vulnerability to food security. This model also engages in poverty analysis based on various unspecified risk factors to analyse food security. However, this paper “mock-tested” the new responsible and fit-for-purpose land rights and tenure model’s (in short: FFP model) possible success when implemented based on a specific risk factor i.e. weak land rights and insecure tenure of the end users. There is the need for a FFP model in Ghana because using the current local customary and formal/legal systems side-by-side to manage lands has challenges which the FFP model is apparently successful in addressing from Enemark’s works. Hence, the model by Capaldo et al. is based on the social risk management approach where previously unknown factors are risks of different kinds. Therefore, households’ risk management abilities of these uncertainties like weak land rights and insecure land tenure issues determine the future food (in)security status. Their model explains how current characteristics, risks and risk management capacities affect the likelihood of a favourable (or unfavourable) future food security status.

A second model assessed in this work is a land tenure model (Mulolwa, 2002). This model examines land tenure and land reforms in a few sub-Saharan African countries. The analysis reveals the reasons for reforms and the resulting insecure land tenure in the sub-region. Given this nature of tenure challenges in sub-Saharan Africa and the arguments for or against, the case is then made for an alternative model (Mulolwa, 2002). The argument is further made as to whether customary tenure in its current form and practices is or not an obstacle to stronger land rights and tenure security. Mulolwa subsequently recommended a kind of a model, believed to be effective in particular contexts to promote land rights, land tenure security and consequent productive use of land for example for farming. The result of Mulolwa’s recommendation is expected to lead to attainment of human aspirations, following strong land rights and secure tenure, which can lead to improved food production, food availability and food security.

Another model by Chigbu and Klaus (2013), analyses land rights and tenure influencing food security as a consequence. This model shows how land tenure practices can lead to either food security or insecurity. They further argued that a secured land tenure system, guided by a model, would generally lead to well defined and sustainable ownership structures, uses and management of resources. Chigbu and Klaus (2013) therefore contend that such a structure or model encourages defined property rights that lead to efficient land-based innovation and production systems. And this includes farming, devoid of unnecessary land rights and land tenure disagreements, the result of which can be increased food production, food availability and food security.

This research inspired by all three models, taps especially into that of Chigbu and Klaus (2013) as that directly connects land tenure to food security. This paper aims at testing the effectiveness of a responsible and fit-for-purpose land rights and land tenure model for this customary context in northwest Ghana. And examines its influence on food security of subsistence farmers, particularly non-landowners (migrants/settlers). According to Enemark and Mclaren (2017) a fit-for-purpose land administration system must be flexible, participatory and inclusive - locally engineered. In other words, the FFP model uses the local political, socio-cultural etc. circumstances and practices to co-create the model to also fit their local purposes and solve their peculiar problems. Detail discussions on FFP model are contained in a paper preceding this one and submitted to Land MDPI journal - special issue for publication. This local involvement is what Galvagno and Dalli (2014); Ind and Coates (2013) referred to as co-creation. In this way, the model is potentially effective and successful, which Enemark and Mclaren describe as reliable, attainable and upgradable into the future. Thus, a requirement of fit-for-purpose system is to use the community to describe the tenure system and the kinds of evidence of the land rights currently in use (Zevenbergen et al., 2013). The model is then tested within the socio-cultural, political and economic environment where it will operate. Of course, based on communities’ inputs and best practices of the effectiveness, functioning and possible obstructions to the model to address community land rights and tenure issues.

The FFP model in this paper targets the vulnerable and marginalised subsistence farmers in local communities. The effectiveness of this model is therefore measured based on its anticipated feasibility to assist these farmers access relatively strong land rights and obtain more secure tenure to boost local investments in farming for food to sustain their households (Nguyen et al., 2016, Zevenbergen et al., 2013). Referring to responsible and fit-for-purpose land administration and management; Enemark et al. (2014) believe such a model must be addressing the current constraints and allowing for incremental improvement over time to be regarded as effective.

In testing the functioning of the model, each participant (as an individual or in a group) engages in role-plays by dramatizing specific roles in the model as a trial of how it will function in practice. The available literature suggests that isolated implementation of either the current old or adopted model used elsewhere, cannot effectively promote strong land rights and secure tenure (Mulolwa, 2002). Rather a careful combination of various customary and formal land tenure practices, institutions and laws according to Mulolwa (2002), in addition to a strong attitudinal change is key. The stakeholders must also be desirous of success and committed to the proper functioning of the new model to ensure that it functions well, it is effective and efficient (Asperen and Mulolwa, 2006, de Vries and Chigbu, 2017, Mulolwa, 2002).

The review of the above models gives a clear indication that the effectiveness of models can be obstructed by a number of factors and in various ways. Capaldo et al. (2010) believe that vulnerability is the result of a recursive process. That is, current socio‐economic characteristics and exposure to risks determine households’ future characteristics and their risk‐management capacity. The risk management strategies mentioned by Capaldo et al. (2010) invariably include how local land rights and tenure issues are being managed to make land available to people to farm and produce food for enhanced food security. A model can therefore facilitate and improve policy design and targeting. It implies that inappropriate management of risks like land rights and tenure issues, can obstruct the success of their model.

Mulolwa (2002) asserts that model effectiveness can be obstructed if dynamism in social land tenure relations are not upheld. The dynamism makes the model upgradable and allowing for incremental improvement (Enemark et al., 2014). This is because a model must be aimed to support individual, concurrent and communal rights. In which case emphasis may have to shift from ownership of land alone but to include rights to use land resources. Local tenure experiences have been mentioned also to be important but more so for tenure instruments/rules in the form of a model. For Mulolwa, rights and obligations as well as commitment and attitudinal change are necessarily captured in an effective model without which its effectiveness can be obstructed.

Chigbu and Klaus (2013) also insist that land tenure practices can lead to either food security or food insecurity. For a land rights and tenure model to be effective, there is the need for good land policies that focus on fair laws that consider the interests of the poor. They, Chigbu and Klaus (2013) believe that achieving this effectiveness cannot be feasible without the participation of rural people in the land rights and tenure strengthening process. Therefore, facilitating the co-creation of a model that can be said to be responsible and fit-for-purpose is fundamental (Enemark, 2017). Co-creation is the joint, collaborative, concurrent, peer-like process of producing some new object, model or value, both materially and symbolically (Galvagno and Dalli, 2014, Ind and Coates, 2013). Given the above perspectives, it implies that the lack of or inadequate local participation in model creation (i.e. whether co-creation or co-production) forms an obstruction to model success and must be addressed.

The focus of this paper therefore contributes to the discussion about the use of models to address socio-cultural challenges such as strengthening customary land rights and securing tenure. Further it needs to pay attention to the possible obstructions to the effectiveness of such models towards the realization of human aspirations like farming and food security.