4. ACCESS TO AND CONTROL OVER LAND IN THE VOLTA REGION

In areas, such as the Volta Region, where farming activities dominate as an economic activity, those who have secure access to land have social, economic and political power. A respondent from the Jasikan district highlighted this in the following manner: “Control over land = money = economic empowerment = wealth = improved status = improved welfare of the family. Land is therefore power. When you have control over land it provides you with the courage to participate in group discussions and decision-making processes.”

This chapter focuses on men’s and women’s access to and control over land in the Volta Region.

4.1 Definitions of “Access” and “Control”

Respondents defined access to land as the right to enter upon and use land. These rights are usufruct rights and can be granted to male and female members of the family, lineage or stool.

Respondents defined control over land as one’s ability to take decisions with regard to the land (e.g. to determine the size of land used for farming activities and whether the land will be used for food or cash crop production) and the ability to transfer land titles, whether by sale or inheritance (land ownership).

The control definition was determined based on the outcomes of eleven ‘‘control’’ related questions. These questions revealed that in comparison to women:

• Men had greater decision making power to determine the size of the land used for farming activities;

• Men had more rights to transfer rights in land to their children;

• Men had more opportunities to register land in their names as they had more secure access to land and they were in a better position to defend their land rights;

• Men had greater rights to grow perennials and cash crops, an activity that enhances one’s control over land and is allowed only if one has reasonably secure access to the land;

• Men were more involved in forest clearing for agricultural use, a primary determinant of initial access to land and land ownership; and

• Men were said to have greater potential to be leaders (e.g. of the family and lineage) and therefore were considered to be better qualified to take decisions affecting land.

4.2 Access to land

Access to land determines one’s access to income-generating activities as well as one’s access to food. The median size of farmlands cultivated by households in the study area was 3 acres^[14]. The largest median sizes were observed in the Kadjebi district (Northern zone) and the smallest in the Kpando (Central zone) and Keta districts (Southern zone). These differences were related to variances in population densities observed in the districts and the availability of land suitable for farming activities (refer to table 5). The table below shows that the Northern zone is the least densely populated sub-region whereas the Southern Zone is the most densely populated sub-region.

Table 5: Median size of farmland accessible to respondents and population densities; differentiated according to sub-region and district

Source: WILDAF Study 2000

** Source: Statistics Research and Information Directorate of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture and Ghana Statistical Service (2002)

Ninety-six percent of the respondents (N=278) indicated that men and women had access to lineage, stool or clan land as land use rights were open to both sexes and were determined by group membership and social status. Perceptions, however, differed with regard to their level of access.

Three quarters of the respondents (N=209), male (73%) and female (76%), were of the opinion that men and women had equal access to land in their communities. This was ascribed to the facts that: a) the land belonged to the lineage, clan or stool and therefore all members of the lineage, clan or stool had access to the land (80%), b) everyone was given land upon request (10%), and c) everyone was given land according to their needs (i.e. based upon the size of their family) (10%). One quarter of the respondents (N=70) explained that men had greater access to land as men were traditionally considered to be the custodians of family property (48%) and the patrilineal system of land acquisition favoured men over women (43%). Further questioning, however, revealed that access rights of men and women were less equal than initially presumed as women’s rights were generally “secondary’’ rights (i.e. rights obtained through others - mainly male relatives). As a result, women feared that they could be the first to loose their access rights due to growing population pressures, agricultural intensification and commercialisation.

4.3 Access rights of different categories of women to land

Differences in access rights to land were observed, not only between men and women but also between different categories of women, for example between widows with children, widows without children, daughters, stepdaughters and adopted daughters (refer to figure 2), women involved in a consensual relationship and women with physical disabilities.

Figure 2: Access rights of different categories of women to land (% of responses)

Source: WILDAF Study 2000

· Access rights of widows

Notable differences were observed between the access rights of widows with children and widows without children. The former group had greater access rights to the land of their deceased husband than the latter group. More than half of the respondents (57%; N=171) indicated that widows with children maintained full access to land after the death of their husbands, whereas 38% indicated that they had partial or conditional access to the land. For widows without children, the percentages were respectively 13% and 44%.

Widows with children were generally permitted to continue farming on their husbands’ land after his death as they continued to raise his children. They were protected by family and traditional laws if they had contributed to the man’s property or had a good relationship with the family of the deceased. Their rights, however, were “indirect” as they were exercised through their children.

Widows without children were usually not permitted to continue using the land of their husband (which was generally inherited by a brother) under the same conditions after his death. Forty-three percent of the respondents (NT=296) indicated that widows without children had no access to their late-husbands’ land compared to a mere five percent for widows with children. Some inherited movable assets or were given a separate plot of land if they had good relations with their late-husbands’ family, if they agreed to marry the next of kin, or had received land as a gift from their late-husband.

The negative perceptions that exist in the Volta Region on widows without children contribute to their insecure access rights. Traditional Ewe societies believe that children are the main reason for marriage and therefore a childless marriage is of no benefit to the lineage. The unspoken question is “How do you justify your stay in the lineage if you have not contributed to it?” It is important to note that childless men are not harassed by society in terms of their access rights. The blame of a childless marriage is generally put on the woman as society assumes that men cannot be the cause of childlessness.

The study revealed that the perceptions of male respondents with regard to the access rights of widows without children were more positive than those of female respondents. Most of the male respondents explained that widows without children maintained partial or conditional access to land after the death of their husband, whereas most of the female respondents indicated that widows without children generally lost their access to the land. Interestingly enough, 52% of the respondents (N=13) who were widows indicated that widows without children had partial or conditional access to the land whereas 40% (N=10) indicated that they had no access at all.

· Access rights of daughters

A significant difference was observed between the access rights of biological daughters on the one hand, and step and adopted daughters on the other. The study revealed that biological daughters often maintained full access to their father’s land after his death, whereas step and adopted daughters did not have the same privileges. In percentages, 63% of the respondents (N=187) were of the impression that biological daughters maintained full access to their father’s land after his death, compared to a mere 9% for adopted daughters and 7% for stepdaughters.

The differences were ascribed to the fact that biological daughters are better protected by customary and statutory laws. Ewe tradition does not endorse double inheritance. Thus, step and adopted daughters are considered to be members of a different patrilineage and children of a different man and therefore it is said that they have to claim their benefits from their own line of descent. Step or adopted daughters also have fewer rights than step or adopted brothers. An opinion leader from the Ho district explained: ‘‘Adopted or half daughters belong elsewhere. If they were men, they could have been given some inheritance rights, but being women, they will marry one day and exercise that privilege elsewhere.”

· Access rights of women involved in a consensual relationship

Access rights of women involved in a consensual relationship (10% of the female respondents) were strongly depended on privileges given to them by others. They could not enforce any land rights as mere consensual relationships are not officially recognised by the State or by customary law.

· Access rights of women with physical disabilities

Women with physical disabilities revealed at the focus group discussions that their access rights to land were highly insecure as a result of both their status as a woman and their physical condition. They were generally unable to cultivate large plots of land and often required assistance from family members to perform their farming activities. As a result, they strongly feared that they could loose their access rights if the demand for land increased, thus making them feel very vulnerable and dependent on others.

It can be concluded, based on the observations above, that the access rights of widows with children and biological daughters are more secure than those of widows without children, stepdaughters, adopted daughters, women with physical disabilities and women involved in consensual relationships.

4.4 Impact of marriage on access to land

The study revealed the strong impact of marriage on especially women’s access rights to land among the patrilineal communities studied. Women generally gained (secondary) access rights to their husbands’ land through marriage, but lost their access rights to their own lineage land at the same time. A woman from the Ho district explained: “A woman has to leave her lineage land behind when she marries, especially if her husband is from another sub-region or clan. She is no longer considered to be part of her own family after marriage. In the case of a man, however, he is not limited by circumstances, even if he leaves town or the village. He can come back home with his children and is still the heir of the land. Men are therefore not affected by changes in their marital status or occupational circumstances.”

The study showed that only 5% of the female respondents were allowed to keep their lineage land after marriage. The inability of women to retain control over lineage land after marriage was persistently seen as a source of insecurity to women. It was therefore recommended during the focus group discussions that women had to try to maintain access to their lineage land, for example, by renting the land out or by planting cash crops.

Divorced women and widows generally had to “re-apply” for land upon return to their own lineage from lineage or household heads, who could be willing or unwilling to provide land. Traditional divorce laws, as applied in the Volta Region, stress that a woman who initiates divorce need not be compensated in any way, as she is the one who packed her bags. This rule even applies to cases where women leave the matrimonial home because of domestic violence.

4.5 Common means of acquiring land

Most respondents obtained land through inheritance from a father (37%), sharecropping agreements (14%), inheritance from a mother (10%) and/or the allocation of land by a spouse (10%) (refer to table 6). Households who had inherited land from a mother were largely located in the Kadjebi district (58%;N=38) and Keta district (18%;N=12). This could be related to the presence of migrants in the Kadjebi district who originated from matrilineal societies and the existence of grandma lands in the Keta district.

Table 6: Means through which households had acquired land (N = 297)

Source: WILDAF Study 2000

Male respondents had mainly obtained land through inheritance from their father, sharecropping agreements and the allocation of land by the lineage, whereas female respondents had mainly obtained land through inheritance from their mother and the allocation of land by their spouse. Stool lands were never directly allocated to women.

The acquisition of land through the clearance of virgin forestland was not mentioned as a common means of obtaining land, probably because little virgin forestland remains in the Volta Region. In addition, none of the respondents indicated that they had acquired land through state interventions, such as land reforms. The contrary was even highlighted during the focus group discussion. It was said that the State could force landowners to sell their land if this was considered to be in the interest of the public.

Very few households (1%; N=4) had purchased land, although many respondents (N=90) indicated that the purchase of land was common in their community. According to the respondents it was relatively easy to buy land in the Central and Southern districts, especially in the Ho, Keta and Kpando districts, whereas it was difficult to buy land in the more northern districts, such as Kadjebi and Hohoe. This difference could be related to the more traditional character of the less accessible northern part of the Region. The right to sell land was mainly vested in men due to their dominance in land ownership and in decision-making processes.

A comparison of men’s and women’s abilities to purchase land (refer to figure 3), revealed that:

• Half of the respondents (50%; N=84; NT=168) were of the view that men and women had equal opportunities to buy land. The financial position of the individual determined who purchased the land.

• Thirty-nine percent (N=66) of the respondents indicated that it was easier for men to buy land as men traditionally had the right to own land, men were richer than women and women were more interested in acquiring personal effects rather than land.

• Eleven percent (N=18) of the respondents indicated that it was easier for women to buy land, as they were able to generate considerable incomes through their trading activities.

Figure 3: Abilities of men and women to purchase land (in %)

Source: WILDAF Study 2000

The figure above shows that the perceptions of male respondents (N=47) were more positive than those of female respondents (N=97) with regard to women’s abilities to purchase land. It is remarkable that in the Keta district, one out of five respondents indicated that it was easier for women to purchase land. Further research is required into this matter.

4.6 Control over land

The study showed that control over land was strongly linked to land ownership, as allodial owners (=actual owner of the land) have the right to take major decisions with regard to the land (e.g. which investments to make, whether to sell the land, etc).

Land ownership among the communities studied was mainly vested in lineage’s/clans and family units. Clear differences, however, were observed between the districts (refer to table 7). Family units owned most of the land in the Hohoe, Ho and Keta districts, whereas most of the land in the Kadjebi, Jasikan, Kpando and South Tongu districts was owned by the clan/lineage. Stool lands were common in the Northern zone, especially in the Kadjebi district.

Table 7: Land ownership

Source: WILDAF Study 2000

It was interesting to note that even if lineage and family heads owned the land, chiefs or stool heads could still take decisions with regard to the land. They could, for example, initiate compulsory acquisition of the land for community development projects.

Control over land was mainly ascribed to men due to the higher status credited to them by society, the advantages accorded to men through the patrilineal descent system, the fear of loosing family land upon marriage of a woman to someone from outside her clan or lineage, their leadership roles at the household level (e.g. as head of the family, as decision-makers etc.) and community level (e.g. as lineage, clan and stool heads), and their relatively better financial positions. A woman from the Jasikan district explained: ‘‘Women own the crops they grow but not the land. The real owners are men. Therefore a woman’s interest to the land can at best be described as a short term lease.”

Men’s greater control over land was further highlighted by the fact that they had greater opportunities to own land in the communities studied than women (refer to figure 4). Fifty-five percent of the respondents (N=166) indicated that it was difficult for women to own land, whereas only seventeen percent of the respondents (N=52) indicated that it was difficult for men to own land.

Figure 4: Opportunities for men and women to own land (in %)

Source: WILDAF Study 2000

Respondents who indicated that it was difficult for women to own land (55%; N=166) ascribed this to the facts that women were traditionally banned from land inheritance, most of the land within the community belonged to the lineage, and the patrilineal inheritance system favoured men over women. Respondents who indicated that it was easy for women (45%;N=134) to own land ascribed this to the fact that these days both sons and daughters inherited land and women had the ability to purchase land.

Despite the constraints encountered by women with regard to land ownership, respondents indicated that there had been an increase in land ownership amongst women in their communities. This was ascribed to women’s increased abilities to purchase land (often with incomes generated through trading activities) and their increased receipt of land as gifts from parents, grandparents and/or spouses. Thus, traditional barriers to women’s acquisition of land are beginning to break down in the Volta Region.

4.7 Decision-making with regard to land

Male dominance in decision-making is a strong feature within the Ewe culture. The study showed that men were seen as natural leaders as they had the heart, head and patience to lead. They had been leaders since biblical times and continued doing so because of their closeness to their fathers and grandfathers. They knew the traditions and history of their lineage, had conquered land for the benefit of the lineage and were more familiar with the land boundaries. Women were considered to be too weak to be leaders, as traditionally they were not permitted to go to war, they could not settle land disputes effectively and therefore they could loose large portions of land to opposing lineages. Furthermore, women would desecrate the stool because of their menstrual cycle and could not perform traditional tasks such as the pouring of libation. Therefore, stools, totems and all symbols of leadership were generally instituted in the name of men.

These perceptions, however, do not lend credence to the increasing roles played by women in agriculture the Volta Region. It also underestimates the ability of women to participate effectively in decision-making and their capabilities to become leaders and major decision-makers if given a chance. An appeal was made, during the focus group discussions, to give women a chance to prove their capabilities rather than suppress them on the unproven assumption that they are unable to lead and cannot take the right decisions^[15]. Women were encouraged to organize themselves in order to obtain leadership roles and major decision-making responsibilities. The Queen Mothers Association in the Jasikan district was presented as an example of an association that had achieved a representation in the Traditional Council and was lobbying for a representation in the Volta Regional House of Chiefs.

Very few changes had been observed in terms of leadership and decision-making within the communities studied. Only two percent of the respondents (N=5; NT=284) indicated that there had been noticeable changes with regard to the preference of men as lineage and stool heads. Ninety-eight percent of the respondents (N=279) indicated that there had been no changes with regard to land selling powers and decision-making powers of lineage and stool heads on land issues. Respondents explained that decision-making powers had remained much the same either because change was not considered necessary (i.e. the system functioned well) or because it was considered to be too difficult to change existing traditions. Thus, it appeared that male dominance in decision-making processes had been accepted by men and women as a fundamental feature of traditional law.

As mentioned in the literature review, most decisions on land issues were taken by men during lineage, clan or stool meetings. Women seldom participated in such meetings and if they did, they were generally listeners or resource persons. Decisions on what crops to grow were generally made by men and women. Eighty-five percent (N=250) of the respondents indicated that men and women had equal rights to choose which crops to grow. Whether these rights were pursued depended on their resources (e.g. access to credit, access to labour etc). Thus, having the right to take decisions does not necessarily mean that one can actually exert these rights.

4.8 Changes in access to and control over land

Various changes were observed with regard to men’s and women’s access to and control over land in the Region. Land ownership has evolved from family ownership (e.g. acquired through allocation and inheritance) to individual ownership (e.g. through purchase and gifts) due to increasing population pressures, agricultural intensification and commercialisation. The increased importance of the nuclear family over the extended family has resulted in a loss of the latter’s commitment to defend the interests of the former and the breaking down of traditional systems that provided security to vulnerable groups in society, such as women and the poor. This process has evolved over the years and can be analysed from a historical perspective.

Before colonial rule

Virgin lands and forestlands were an abundant commodity before colonial rule. Land was commonly obtained through conquest or appropriation under the leadership of the stool, clan or lineage heads. Families inhabited such virgin areas under the guidance of male household members, as they migrated from place to place. There was much trust between each other in those days and some fathers would give portions of the family land to men who requested their daughters in marriage; a practice that no longer exists. It was during this time that increased male control over land developed, as men generally cleared the virgin and forestlands.

During colonial rule

Colonial rule introduced divide and rule methods of governance and land policies based on land demarcations and compulsory acquisition. In addition, the colonial authority strongly favoured the growth of cash crops over food crops to meet of the growing industrial revolution abroad. The positions of many women were marginalized through these developments, as women were actively involved in food crop production.

After independence

Few changes were observed after independence; two thirds of the respondents (65%;N=189) indicated that there had been no noticeable changes in women’s access to and control over land after independence. Those who had observed changes (35%) expressed either positive or negative changes (refer to figure 5). Male respondents observed most of the positive changes, whereas female respondents observed most of the negative changes. The smallest numbers of changes were observed in the Southern zone, where three-quarters of the respondents indicated that there had been no noticeable changes.

Almost two thirds of the changes mentioned referred to an increase in women’s access to and control over land (61%;N=84). Women had obtained greater access to land than before, greater possibilities to decide on which crops to grow, greater opportunities to own land, and greater choices in selecting plots.

Figure 5: Changes in women’s access to and control over land (in %)

Source: WILDAF Study 2000

Positive changes were mainly expressed in Northern zone (67%) where it was noted that:

• Women had obtained more opportunities to own land through the purchase of land, by renting land or by receiving land as a gift. In addition, positive law reform measures in Ghana had made it easier for women to inherit land and to register land under their own names.

• Women’s roles and responsibilities had changed within the agricultural sector. Women had taken up more agricultural tasks and had shifted their focus from only farming on family plots to also farming on individual plots. In addition, they had become more involved in the cultivation of cash crops such as cocoa and oil palm.

• People within the community had become more gender sensitive and women had become more empowered.

Over one third of the changes mentioned referred to a decrease in women’s access to and control over land (39%; N=54). Women had obtained less access to land than before, fewer opportunities to own land, and less decision-making power with regard to the selection of crops and plots.

Negative changes were mostly expressed by respondents in the Southern zone (58%), where it was noted that women’s access to and control over land had decreased due to the growing population pressures, an increased competition between men and women to acquire land, an increased commercialisation of the agricultural sector and the preferential treatment obtained by men through the patrilineal inheritance system.

4.9 Security of land tenure and agricultural productivity

The literature review revealed that empirical evidence on the relationship between the security of land tenure and agricultural productivity was scattered. This study showed that the majority of the respondents were of the opinion that if women were to obtain greater access to and control over land, it would have a positive impact on the household food supply household income and family welfare, due to their increased agricultural productivity. In addition, more secure land rights would give the users of the land greater control over their labour, a rational to invest (short and long term investments) in the land and crops, access to extension services, access to credit and inputs, bargaining power, and a higher status within the community.

More than four-fifths of the respondents (87%; NT=272) stressed that if women were to gain greater access to land this would be beneficial to the households. It would contribute to: a) an increase of food supply at the household level (27% of the responses), b) an increase of the household income (27% of the responses) and c) an improved family welfare (25% of the responses). Male respondents highlighted the improved family welfare, whereas female respondents emphasised the increase in food supply for the household.

A mere thirteen percent (N=35) of the respondents indicated that an increased access of female household members to land would make no difference to the family welfare, and four percent (N=10) indicated that a greater control of female household members over land would have a negative impact, as it would deprive others of land or the agricultural production would decrease due to bad farm management.

If women were to obtain greater control over land, respondents expected: a) an increase of food supply at household level (28% of the responses), b) an increase of the household income (28% of the responses); c) an improved family welfare (22% of the responses); and d) increased opportunities for women to decide on what to grow (18% of the responses). There were no significant differences between the sexes in the responses given.

Based on the data above, it may be concluded that:

• Most respondents, both male and female, were of the view that increased access to land by women would have a positive impact on the household in terms of food security, household income and family welfare; and

• An increased control over land by women would have an even greater positive impact on the household in terms of food security, household income and family welfare.

It was noted during the focus group discussions that increasing women’s access to and control over land alone (e.g. by transferring ownership of land to women) is unlikely to effectively and substantially raise the agricultural productivity of women, improve the household’s access to food and enhance the family welfare, as long as their access to other resources such as agricultural inputs, credit, knowledge and labour remain constrained. If women are to increase their productivity to the benefit of their families and households, as well as the local and regional markets, they also require an increased access to and control over other resources. The same observation has been made in Ghana’s Accelerated Development Plan, Vision 2020, in which the Government highlighted the need to increase the literacy levels of farmers in the country to improve their agricultural practices. Again respondents indicated that the impact of increased literacy levels on the agricultural productivity would be limited if other needs (such as credit, agricultural inputs, etc.) are not addressed. Thus, the observations above are in line with the statements made by Quisumbing et al. and the Ministry of Food and Agriculture in the literature review (refer to page 6).