Migration, environment and rural livelihoods in Ghana

1
Migration, environment and rural livelihoods in
Ghana

• Kees van der Geest
• (Human Geographer)
• University of Amsterdam

2
Overview of presentation

• Introduction to the research
• Sustainable rural livelihood approach
• Methodology
• Show the flow (census data)
• Earlier research findings

3
Original research question

• What are the economic and environmental
  consequences of rural-to-rural migration in the
  areas of origin and destination?
• Area level
• Not people-centred

4
Proposed research question

• What are the consequences of rural-to-rural
  migration for rural peoples livelihoods in the
  areas of origin and destination?
• Alternative
• What are the consequences of rural-to-rural
  migration for the SUSTAINABILITY of rural
  peoples livelihoods in the areas of origin and
  destination?

5
Location in the migration typology matrix

• Internal migration
• Rural-rural migration
• Emphasis on consequences of migration
• Analysis at two ends area(s) of origin and
  area(s) of destination
• Integrative micro-level agency meso-level
  networks and macro-level structures
• Interdisciplinary human geography, anthropology,
  economy and perhaps some physical geography

6
Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Framework

• Scoones (1998) Ellis (1998 and 2000) Carney
  (1998) de Haan (1999)
• Migration as one of three main livelihood
  activities that are inter-related
• Activity portfolio depends on asset base, access
  relations and (structural, but changing) context
• Activity portfolio affects livelihood security
  and environmental sustainability

7
Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Framework (Adapted
from Carney 1998 5)
8
Questions in area of origin

• How does migration affect the asset base of those
  who stay behind?
• Natural capital land, trees, water
• Human capital education, skills, labour
• Physical capital housing, infrastructure,
  livestock, tools
• Financial capital cash, savings, credit
• Social capital networks, relations, institutions

9
Questions in area of origin (cont.)

• How does migration affect the livelihood
  activities of those who stay behind?
• Crop cultivation, livestock production and other
  natural resource based activities
• Local non-farm activities

10
Questions in area of origin (cont.)

• How does migration affect the institutions,
  relations, division of labour, rules of the
  game, etc. that determine access to resources?
• Gerontocracy
• Gender
• Land tenure
• Income inequality
• Organisations, etc.

11
Expected problems in area of origin

• How to isolate the influence of migration from
  other agents of change
• How to isolate rural-rural migration to BAR from
  other destinations (not necessary?)
• Different types of migration have different
  impacts (permanent out-migration, seasonal
  migration, return migration)
• Long-term and short-term effects

12
Questions in destination area

• The basic questions are the same as in the area
  of origin, but the livelihood context is
  different and migration plays an opposite role.
  Hence different questionnaire
• Whose livelihoods migrants or hosts?
• Are livelihoods in destination area more secure
  than in the area of origin?

13
Expected problems in the destination area

• For temporary settlers, the link between
  environment and livelihoods may be less strong or
  direct.
• To analyse the environmental consequences of
  in-migration, the area level may be more
  appropriate (deforestation, loss of biodiversity).

14
Questions in the transregional space

• How do multi-spatial livelihoods function to
  reduce risk and increase livelihood security?
• What is the autonomy of individuals in dispersed
  family networks?

15
Expected problems in the transregional space

• Questionnaire survey findings will probably
  provide some answers, but more in-depth analysis
  of a few multi-spatial families will be
  necessary.
• Case-specific
• Not statistically representative

16
What is relatively new?

• Link between migration and environmental
  consequences in area of origin
• In migration and development debate Link
  between migration, other rural livelihood options
  (local farm and non-farm activities) and a more
  diverse set of assets
• Dispersed livelihood system analysis

17
Methodology

• Quantitative and qualitative data
• The core
• Questionnaire survey
• In-depth analysis individual migration histories
  in the context of family networks and opportunity
  structure and with a focus on intra-household
  negotiations

18
Methodology (cont.)

• Other methods and techniques
• Focus group discussion in destination area
  (community level analysis and input for
  questionnaire)
• Census data analysis
• Literature review for macro level analysis

19
Methodology (cont.)

• Optional ideas
• Short questionnaire for local, autochthonous
  population in destination area
• Field measurements
• GIS application to analyse satellite images of
  vegetation change
• Seasonal migrant diaries

20
Policy contributions?

• Recommendations to government agencies and NGOs
  to help the people reduce the negative
  consequences of migration and further develop the
  positive ones in areas of
• Services
• Investment opportunities
• Environmental management
• Land tenure

21
The flow Ghana Census 2000

• About 31 of people born in the UWR have migrated
  to another region in Ghana
• About 12.5 of people born in the UWR have
  migrated to the Brong Ahafo Region
• For both, about 45 are women
• About 5 of the inhabitants of the Brong-Ahafo
  Region were born in the UWR

22
Ghana Census 2000 (cont.)

• More than 50 of the Dagaba people are no longer
  living in the UWR (including second generation)
• About 18 are living in the BAR where they form
  About 7 of the population
• Dagaba people have mostly settled in the
  Central-Northern part of the region

23
Ghana Census 2000 (cont.)

• Seasonal migration
• 8 of UWR-ers counted elsewhere in the country
• Return migration
• 1.3 of those counted in the UWR were usual
  residents of other regions five years ago

24
M.A. Research

• Livelihood adaptation to climate change among
  rural households in Northwest Ghana
• Important role of migration
• www.home.zonnet.nl/keesvandergeest

25
Findings on migration

• Context
• Agro-ecological conditions
• Population density
• Macro-level structuralist explanations
• Individual / Household / Lineage level
• Some survey findings
• Livelihood histories and in-depth analysis

26
Agro-ecological conditions

• Uni-modal rainfall pattern in N-Ghana, bi-modal
  in S-Ghana
• High variability of rainfall in N-Ghana
• Decreasing amounts of rainfall in N-Ghana
• Low soil fertility in N-Ghana

27
Annual rainfall and inter-annual variability in
Lawra (1926-1979) and Nandom (80-99)
28
Population density

• Upper West Region 34 inh/km2
• Lawra District 90 inh/km2
• Brong-Ahafo Region 46 inh/km2

29
Macro-level structural-historical explanations

• Around 1900 Colonial rule in area of origin
• Forced migration
• Cocoa boom
• Northern Ghana as a labour reservoir for southern
  export economy
• No investments perpetuation of migration
• Increased cash needs

30
Survey findings (60 hh)

• Seasonal Labour Migration
• Dispersed Family Networks
• Remittances
• Return migration

31
Seasonal labour migration

• 38 seasonal migrants in 29 out of 60 households
• Young male dominance
• Mainly agricultural work (maize and yam)
• Average net savings 85 US
• Represented 8 of total household income, but
  more in poor and middle income households
• Important money from outside local economy
• Decreased pressure on food supply
• No data on how exactly the money was spent

32
Dispersed family networks

• Everybody has close relatives down south
• In rural areas as well as in urban centres
• Female as well as male
• Educated, white collar workers as well as
  unskilled labourers
• Family members move between places

33
Remittances

• 41 households received monetary remittances
• Average amount 28 US, which was a bit less than
  revenue from livestock sales and about 4 of
  household income
• Mostly from rural-urban migrants
• No data on how money was exactly spent, but much
  on education
• 17 households received at least 100 kg of maize

34
Return migration

• Only in raw data
• Relate to other livelihood characteristics

35
DEBATE