Sustainability 2014, 6, 4587-4607; doi:10.3390/su6074587 OPEN ACCESS sustainability ISSN 2071-1050 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Article The Effects of Biofuel Feedstock Production on Farmers’ Livelihoods in Ghana: The Case of Jatropha curcas Emmanuel Acheampong * and Benjamin Betey Campion Faculty of Renewable Natural Resources, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, KNUST-Kumasi, Ghana; E-Mail: [email protected] * Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: [email protected]. Received: 30 December 2013; in revised form: 5 June 2014 / Accepted: 9 July 2014 / Published: 22 July 2014 Abstract: The widespread acquisition of land for large-scale/commercial production of biofuel crops in Ghana has raised concerns from civil society organizations, local communities and other parties, regarding the impact of these investments on local livelihoods. This paper assessed the effect of large-scale acquisition of land for production of Jatropha curcas on farmers’ livelihoods in Ghana. The study was conducted in 11 communities spanning the major agro-ecological zones and political divisions across Ghana. Methods of data collection included questionnaire survey, interviews and focus group discussions. Results show that several households have lost their land to Jatropha plantations leading, in some cases, to violent conflicts between biofuel investors, traditional authorities and the local communities. Most people reported that, contrary to the belief that Jatropha does well on marginal lands, the lands acquired by the Jatropha Companies were productive lands. Loss of rights over land has affected households’ food production and security, as many households have resorted to reducing the area they have under cultivation, leading to shortening fallow periods and declining crop yields. In addition, although the cultivation of Jatropha led to the creation of jobs in the communities where they were started, such jobs were merely transient. The paper contends that, even though the impact of Jatropha feedstock production on local livelihoods in Ghana is largely negative, the burgeoning industry could be developed in ways that could support local livelihoods. Keywords: Jatropha curcas; plantations; biofuels; land alienation; food production and security; employment; Ghana Sustainability 2014, 6 4588 1. Introduction In recent years, biofuels have rapidly emerged as a major issue for agricultural development, energy policy, and natural resource management. The growing demand for biofuels is being driven by recent high oil prices, energy security concerns, and global climate change [1]. Consequently, there is growing interest from foreign private investors in establishing biofuel projects in Africa, as well as growing support from bilateral and multilateral donors for incorporating biofuels into government policies and development plans [1–3]. Bassey [3] reveals that many European and American governments, International Financial Institutions such as the World Bank and multinational agribusiness, and oil and transport companies are promoting biofuels as a panacea to world energy needs and the business is touted as a sustainable source of higher income for farmers in Africa and a ready avenue for employment opportunities, especially for the youth [3]. It is argued that biofuels can help to reduce urban pollution and promote rural development, dealing with poverty alleviation challenges. However, in spite of these much acclaimed positive potentials of biofuel plantations to reinvigorate Africa’s rural areas, there are still misgivings about the negative environmental and social impacts of large-scale commercial biofuel production. Estimates on the state of biofuel developments in Ghana are mixed. Available data suggest that several companies from various countries have acquired land in Ghana to cultivate biofuel crops for the production of ethanol and biodiesel. The Jatropha projects started taking off well in the country from 2005–2006 and actually reached their peak between 2007 and 2008. A study on the potential impact of large-scale land acquisitions, particularly for biofuel feedstock expansion in Ghana, identified a total of seventeen commercial biofuel developments in Ghana [4]. Dogbevi [5] also asserts that over twenty companies from various countries are in Ghana acquiring land to cultivate non-food crops and other crops for the production of ethanol and biodiesel. According to Schoneveld et al. [4], fifteen of the seventeen companies are reported to be foreign-owned and/or financed by the Ghanaian Diaspora, with all but one adopting business models that require large-scale feedstock plantations of more than 1000 hectares. They report that although almost half of the foreign companies involved in plantation development plan in time to engage smallholders through outgrower agreements, no such schemes are yet in place. They reveal that thirteen of the foreign companies focus primarily on the cultivation of Jatropha curcas, a plant which produces non-edible oil seeds, one on cassava and another on oil palm. Schoneveld et al. [4] further report that, by August 2009, these companies collectively had access to 1,075,000 hectares of land, 730,000 hectares of which is located in the forest-savannah transition zone of central Ghana’s Brong Ahafo and northern Ashanti Regions. Even though biofuel production has the potential to provide a new source of agricultural income in rural areas, and a source of improvements in local infrastructure and broader development, the current land grab by corporations for the large-scale and export-driven expansion of biofuel production has ominous implications for local livelihoods in Ghana. The spread of large-scale/commercial production of biofuel crops, particularly Jatropha curcas, in Ghana has raised concerns from civil society organizations, local communities and other parties. This paper therefore seeks to contribute to the debate on the socio-economic implications of industrial plantations of Jatropha curcas in Ghana, Sustainability 2014, 6 4589 focusing on land grabbing and alienation, impact on food production and security, and impact on employment and income generation. 2. Data and Methods Based on expert advice from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of Ghana, the study was conducted in 11 Jatropha communities spanning the major agro-ecological zones and political divisions across Ghana—Lolito and Adidome in the Volta Region; Old Akrade in the Eastern Region; Kobre, Bredie-Camp, Kadelso and Ahenekom in the Brong Ahafo Region; Agogo in the Ashanti Region; and Kpachaa, Kusawgu, and Diare in the Northern Region (Figure 1). Methods of data collection included questionnaire survey, interviews and focus group discussions. A total of 234 respondents were drawn from the 11 communities for the survey using semi-structured questionnaires. A total of 27 different key informant interviews and 64 different focus group discussions (FGDs) were also conducted across the 11 study communities (Table 1). The key informants comprised of opinion leaders, local government representatives and the local chiefs and their elders. Similarly, participants of the FGDs were individuals who were knowledgeable and had interest in issues concerning Jatropha investments. These included opinion leaders, local farmers who lost land to Jatropha plantations, employees of Jatropha companies, chiefs and their elders and the youth. The participants were identified and selected after administering the questionnaires and interviews. Each focus group was usually made up of about 8–10 homogenous participants. Separate discussions were held with different groups as listed above as well as with people of different gender. The large number of FGDs was due to efforts to capture the views of inhabitants of cottages located close to the study communities who were considered part of those communities. Because of rural sensitivities, initial contact with the respondents was negotiated with the assistance of community administrators such as the Assemblyman or Unit Committee Chairman, who provided the initial list of possible respondents. Subsequent respondents were selected by snowballing. Even though snowball sampling is a non-probability sampling technique and may be subject to biases, it was a useful sampling technique in this study since the research subjects were difficult to locate. Even so, care was taken to minimize the biases by trying to approximate random selection as much as possible. Respondents were residents in the communities who were affected by Jatropha cultivation—either Company workers or people who lost land to the Companies. A total of eight Jatropha Companies operated in the areas studied—Biofuel Africa, Galton Agro Ltd., Kimminic Corporation, Jatropha Africa, Savannah Black Farming and Farm Management Ltd., Anuanom Industries (Anuanom Farms), Integrated Tamale Fruit Company (ITFC) and ScanFarm (formerly, ScanFuel). Responses obtained through the questionnaire administration were assigned numerical codes and SPSS was used to summarize and analyze the data. Simple descriptive statistics and frequencies were generated. Cross tabulations of relevant variables were also done to reveal patterns and relationships. Differences in number of respondents reported in the results are due to respondents’ inability to answer some of the questions. The analyses were only based on valid responses. These have been explained where they occur in the text. Sustainability 2014, 6 4590 Table 1. Study sites and corresponding number of respondents and Jatropha Companies. Number of Household Name of Number of Key Number of Focus Group Jatropha Country of Origin Size of Land Questionnaires Cultivation Model Study Site Informant Interviews Discussions (FGDs) Company of Company Acquired (ha) Administered Adidome 12 2 11 Galton Agro Ltd. Israel 100,000 * Jatropha-Industrial scale Annuamom Old Akrade - 1 5 Ghana 405 ** Jatropha-Industrial scale Industries Kimminic Kobre 50 3 9 Corporation Canada 13,000 * Jatropha-Industrial scale Kimminic Bredie-Camp - 4 11 Corporation Kadelso 52 4 - Jatropha Africa United Kingdom 120,000 * Jatropha-Industrial scale Savannah Black Ahenekom 5 2 8 Farming and United States 202 ** Jatropha-Industrial scale Farm Mgt Ltd ScanFarm Jatropha and food Agogo 30 4 7 (formally Norway 400,000 * crops-Industrial scale ScanFuel) Lolito 35 2 13 Biofuel Africa Kpachaa 50 1 - Biofuel Africa Norway 27,000 * Jatropha-Industrial scale Kusawgu - 2 - Biofuel Africa Integrated Pilot Jatropha plantation; Diare - 2 - Tamale Fruit Ghana 10 ** Mango outgrower Company (ITFC) scheme Total 234 27 64 Source: Size of land acquired data compiled from Friends of the Earth (FoE) [6] * and Antwi-Bediako et al. [7] **. Sustainability 2014, 6 4591 Figure 1. Map of Ghana showing the study sites and associated Jatropha Companies in parenthesis. 3. Results 3.1. Jatropha Cultivation and Land Alienation The most direct and immediate impact of Jatropha cultivation in Ghana relates to land loss. Loss of rights over customary lands, and the way this is negatively impacting local villagers’ livelihoods is a major concern for local communities in Ghana. There are tensions in many areas of the country between private investors, traditional authorities and local communities over rights to use and allocate land. There are specific concerns on whether local people who lose their farming lands to Jatropha plantations can be paid adequate compensation to help them explore alternative livelihood opportunities. Sustainability 2014, 6 4592 3.1.1. Acreages Lost to Jatropha Investments by Households The majority (54.3%) of the 234 respondents reported that they have lost land to Jatropha investments. For example, in Agogo in the Ashanti Region of Ghana, most farmers reported that, contrary to the belief that Jatropha does well on marginal lands, the land given to the Jatropha Company (formerly ScanFuel Ltd., now ScanFarm Ghana Ltd., Agogo, Ghana) by the chief was a productive or fertile land which was being used to cultivate crops such as maize, yam, plantain, and cocoa. The farmers claim that this has forced them to move to marginal lands which are unproductive or infertile. The sizes of land lost to Jatropha cultivation by 109 respondents who were able to provide this information ranged from 1 to 1000 acres. The majority (69.7%) of the 109 respondents reported that they lost up to 10 acres, 7.3% lost between 11 and 20 acres while another 7.3% lost more than 100 acres (Table 2). Of the 8 people that lost more than 100 acres of land, 2 people lost 850 acres each while 1 person lost as much as 1000 acres. Table 2. Size of land lost by households to Jatropha investments. Size of Land Lost (acres) Number of Respondents Percent of Respondents Less than 11 acres 76 69.7 11–20 acres 8 7.3 21–30 acres 4 3.7 31–40 acres 3 2.8 41–50 acres 3 2.8 51–60 acres 1 0.9 61–70 acres 2 1.8 71–80 acres 2 1.8 81–90 acres 1 0.9 91–100 acres 1 0.9 More than 100 acres 8 7.3 Total 109 100 Such land alienations often lead to violent confrontations between local people and Jatropha Companies. The following are excerpts from a key informant interview with an aggrieved farmer in Agogo in the Ashanti Region: “I resisted the Company taking up my land with a gun. They used to operate at night. I struggled with them for about 3 years. I threatened them with death and they stopped. What I don’t like is that everything on the land is cleared. When the Company leaves, there will be chaos as all boundary markers are gone. No landowner will be able to identify his or her land”. 3.1.2. Consultations with Communities When asked whether the Jatropha Companies or the Chief/the traditional authority consulted them before their lands were taken up for the Jatropha plantation, the majority (93.5% of 123 respondents) reported that they were not consulted. For example, the Assemblyman of Jimle, a village in the Kpachaa area of the Northern Region, reported the following about Biofuel Africa’s plantation at Kpachaa: Sustainability 2014, 6 4593 “The affected communities are Kpachaa, Kparchee, Tua, Jachee, Sagbargu and Chegu. No one was consulted and no one knew anything about the start of the project so the people started agitating. Following these agitations, a durbar was held in Tijo at the Tijonaa’s [Paramount Chief of Tijo] palace where the communities were informed that the Company will provide schools, water dugouts or wells and clinics. Apart from two dugouts or wells, all the other promises were not fulfilled before the Company folded up. What took place was not consultation but rather to inform us”. The assemblyman of a village called Kobre in the Pru District of the Brong Ahafo Region also reported as follows: “The project [Kimminic Corporation Jatropha plantation] started about 3 years ago. We were there when the Company brought its equipment about to start work on the land. No one had consulted us and we didn’t know anything about them so we drove them away. Our chief who lives in Accra also came and said he knew nothing about it. The Company moved to a nearby community called Konkomba which shares boundary with us. At that place, they erected a pillar and performed some rituals to officially commence work on the farm. The land being cultivated belongs to the chiefs and people of the Kojobofour Traditional Area and not the Konkomba Traditional Area. The Paramount Chief of Konkomba who gave the land is dead. The chief of Kojobofour who was reigning at the time the Company started operations is also dead. We the people of Kobre have never been officially consulted or informed of the Company. Not even the people of Kojobofour, the landowners, have been consulted… Now Kojobofour has got a new chief so the land issue has been ignited again”. Similarly, the Unit Committee Chairman of Bredie No.1 in the Nkoranza District of the Brong Ahafo Region claimed that: “The Jatropha Company is called Kimminic and they started about 3 years ago. No one consulted the community before the Company started operating here. We had no community meeting. We do not know the terms of the contract. Everything we know has been through rumours. I learnt that the land stretches from Piegnina to the boundary with the people of Ejura. I don’t know the size of the land area acquired. All we know is that the Company keeps increasing the size of the land under cultivation every year. So far they cultivate Jatropha, soyabeans and maize”. 3.1.3. Payment of Compensations The majority (85.3% of 116 respondents) also reported that they did not receive compensation for the loss of their land. For example, in Bredie No.1 the Unit Committee Chairman reported that the most affected communities of the Kimminic plantation are Camp and Dasagwa. He indicated that the main problem was the fact that the Company did not give the affected farmers time to relocate. The Company waited until farmers harvested their produce and the land was then immediately taken. No compensation was paid to the affected farmers for the loss of their farmlands because they were settler farmers. The farmers were afraid to approach the Chief directly and complain. He asserted that the Sustainability 2014, 6 4594 ejection was so abrupt and that was what made the affected people unhappy. He claimed that, in all, about 50 farmers in Camp and Dasagwa lost their lands, some of which have since left the area. The Odikro (Chief) of a village called Old Akrade near Juapong in the Eastern Region also reported as follows: “… farmers that were displaced by Anuanom Industries (a Jatropha Company) in Old Akrade were between 50 and 100. They were farming maize, cassava, mango, and vegetables. The Company negotiated with the farmers but it did not pay the compensation to the farmers. Only the mango farmer was compensated”. The vast majority (65.5%) of those that claimed to have received compensation lamented that the compensation they received was inadequate and forced on them. For example, the Assemblyman of Kobre in the Pru District of the Brong Ahafo Region reported thus: “I know of four people who have received compensation. Compensation was paid for the crops on the field and not for the lost land. The meagre amount they received was based on estimates of the Jatropha farm manager believed to be the value of the crops. For example, someone who had yam on the farm (farm size was not mentioned) was paid only Gh¢ 80 and the yams uprooted”. (At the time of the fieldwork, $1 was equivalent to Gh¢ 1.5). Compensation figures provided by interviewees in Agogo in the Ashanti Region were quite patchy and scanty. For example, a key informant who claimed to have fought to resist the alienation of his land to the Jatropha Company reported that the Company invited all landowners to a village called Nsonyameye and told them that they would pay all affected persons Gh¢ 1 per acre lost per year. He claimed that when the landowners refused, they later offered to pay Gh¢ 10 per acre per year. An opinion leader in the community also lamented thus: “We started to protest through letters and other means. Upon the protest, the omanhene (paramount chief) decided to call a meeting. The farmers were told that they would be offered Gh¢ 2 per acre as compensation for the 50 years duration of the lease. We refused because currently, landowners in this area lease 1 acre for Gh¢ 60 per cropping season. So the offer from the omanhene was not a good deal. Then it was changed to Gh¢ 2 per acre for 15 years. The majority still refused but the Company continued to expand”. An Assemblyman in Agogo also reported that the Jatropha Company operating in the area (ScanFarm Ltd.) paid farmers who lost their lands only Gh¢ 15 per acre of land lost as compensation. The youth in the community started to agitate since they considered the compensation to be far too small but the Company did not listen to them. He claimed that not all families who lost land received compensation, for example, those who already had problems with the chief. Others also refused the compensation hoping for a better deal. To verify the alleged compensation figures provided by the affected farmers, the farm manager of ScanFarm Ltd. was interviewed. He claimed that the Company followed all due procedure and obtained all the necessary documents needed for the farm to start. He revealed that when the local people realized that it was a foreign Company that had started operations in the area they started making trouble about compensation. He continued thus: “So we had to meet them all with the chief Sustainability 2014, 6 4595 and negotiate. So all of them (affected farmers) were compensated and now we have no problems with them. We so far have no conflicts again”. The farm manager, however, failed to declare the exact compensation amounts paid to the farmers, citing unavailability of data at the time of the interview as the reason. 3.2. Effect of Jatropha Cultivation on Food Production and Food Security Results of key informant interviews and focus group discussions showed that the impact of Jatropha cultivation on food production and food security in Ghana is transmitted mainly through land loss. As a result of land loss, households resort to reducing areas under cultivation and increasing cropping intensity, thus shortening the fallow period. These trends have significantly reduced immediate household income levels and food security and are also likely to lead to land degradation and reduced carrying capacity over time. 3.2.1. Effect of Land Loss on Fallow Periods The loss of land by households has significantly affected the fallow period in the communities studied. Farmers are unable to fallow their farming lands for a longer period due to decline in landholdings. This has led to decline in farm yields over the years. While only 29.37% of 144 respondents were able to fallow their land for less than 1 year before Jatropha cultivation in their localities, as much as 39.58% fallowed their lands for less than 1 year after the introduction of Jatropha. Similarly, while 25.17% maintained that they fallowed their lands for more than 3 years before the introduction of Jatropha, only 16.67% fallowed their lands for more than 3 years after the introduction of Jatropha (Figures 2 and 3). The decreasing fallow period clearly shows that local farmers in Jatropha plantation areas are losing land to Jatropha investments. Figure 2. Fallow pattern in the study communities before Jatropha investments (N = 144). Sustainability 2014, 6 4596 Figure 3. Fallow pattern in the study communities after Jatropha investments (N = 144). 3.2.2. Meeting the Food Needs of Households Before and After Jatropha Plantations To understand the impact of Jatropha plantations on food production in the communities, the respondents were asked to compare the easiness of meeting their food needs before and after Jatropha feedstock cultivation in their communities. The majority (41.6%) of the 221 respondents who were able to provide information indicated that, in general, their households had surplus food before the establishment of Jatropha plantations, 26.2% said that their food needs were met most of the time, 15.4% reported that their food needs were sometimes met, while 8.6% maintained that their food needs were rarely met. Only 8.1% claimed that there was not enough food for their households. Conversely, only 16.3% of 215 respondents indicated that, in general, their households have food surplus after the establishment of Jatropha plantations. Indeed, 18.1% revealed that there is now not enough food to meet their household needs, 22.3% said they can rarely meet their food needs now, while 27% maintained that they are now able to meet their food needs most of the time (Table 3). The respondents attributed the changes in their ability to meet their food needs to the loss of their land to Jatropha plantations. Table 3. Households’ views on meeting their food needs before and after Jatropha investments. Before Jatropha Plantations After Jatropha Plantations Easiness of Meeting No. of % of No. of % of Food Needs Respondents Respondents Respondents Respondents Not enough food 18 8.1 39 18.1 Food needs rarely met 19 8.6 48 22.3 Food needs met sometimes 34 15.4 35 16.3 Food needs met most of the time 58 26.2 58 27 Surplus food 92 41.6 35 16.3 Total 221 * 100 215 * 100 * The number of respondents are different because some of them were unable to provide answers.