*4.2. Household Experiences of Land-Related Disputes: A Plot-Level Analysis*

To further explore the dynamics of land-related disputes at the household level, a question was asked as to whether respondents had experienced disputes pertaining to their landholdings. As discernible from Table 2, whereas a breach of sharecropping terms was the common form of land-related disputes in Kakum, farmland boundary disputes were more prevalent in Ankasa. In general, the oral nature of most sharecropping contracts and indeterminate land boundaries have been noted as the common causes of land-related disputes amongst land users in rural Ghana [37,53,54]. Yet, the inherent flexibility in the execution of oral grants in addition to being convenient channels for maintaining social cohesion are some positive attributes, which perhaps explains their pervasive practice across rural communities in Ghana.


**Table 2.** Experience of previous disputes over household plots (%).

The incidence of land-related disputes perhaps gives more impetus to the respondents' quest to protect and secure their property rights. Yet, information from key informants and FGDs indicates that there was the underlying tendency of bias in favour of indigenes, especially in instances of disputes involving migrants and their indigenous landlords. Moreover, groups of people with strong socio-political connections within the community stood a better chance of securing a favourable judgement in the event of disputes over land. This invariably creates room for some level of uncertainty as to the adequate protection and legitimacy of land rights of different social groups. The succeeding section therefore examines in more detail the local mechanisms for land dispute resolution in the study areas. Preceding this is a discussion on the common boundary indicators used in household plot identification in the light of the prevalence of farmland boundary disputes as mentioned above.

Nature of Farmland Boundary Indicators of Household Plots

In view of the relatively high incidence of farmland boundary disputes (especially in Ankasa), respondents were asked about the specific boundary indicators of their respective

household landholdings as a way of identifying plausible factors occasioning such disputes (and insecurity) over land, as shown in Figure 3.

**Figure 3.** Type of farmland boundary indicators.

It is evident from Figure 3 that non-permanent indicators were commonly used in farmland boundary demarcations as opposed to permanent boundary indicators such as cadastral plans/maps. This finding is unsurprising to the extent that the lack of permanent and accurate boundary indicators has been identified as constituting a major source of land-related disputes associated with the insecurity and uncertainty of rural landholders' property rights [37,53,54]. During the field interviews, the national LAP coordinator emphasised the importance of permanent boundary demarcations pointing to on-going exercises (i.e., Customary Land Demarcation and Rural Parcels Rights Demarcation projects) aimed at mapping the extent of land rights and boundaries at the community and household levels to improve the certainty and security of tenure5. While this remains necessary, it is also instructive to note that such exercises could lead to a situation of possible winners and losers, especially in rural communities where land disputes are common. For instance, the permanent boundary demarcation process could be manipulated in favour of powerful and socially connected local actors in terms of further consolidating their land claims (in the case of contested lands) to the detriment of vulnerable actors like women and the poor. It may also result in some natives losing their entitlements (social right) to land, whereas strangers may have an opportunity to bolster the security of their (*de facto*) land rights, which otherwise would have been difficult to accomplish [55]. In any case, the authority of chiefs (as custodians and administrators of customary lands) also comes into play here. Social groups lacking recognition from chiefs could lose their *de facto* land rights (particularly third-party migrant transfers without appropriate legitimation by traditional authorities), whereas those of persons recognised by the chiefs might more likely be protected in the event of any conflicting land claims occasioned by such permanent farmland demarcation exercises [56]. To the extent that the foregoing holds true, this could perhaps result in heightened tensions and social insecurity in said communities (see Section 4.1). This inference derives support from Kasanga and Kotey's [39] and Ayee et al.'s [54] observations that the inefficiency and complicity that plague state land agencies renders them susceptible to manipulations by a few powerful actors (including chiefs and local elites) to the detriment of the less powerful and poor majority. The foregoing also finds expression in Lund's [55] statement that 'the process of securing land rights can often become complex when several

<sup>5</sup> At the time of the fieldwork, the Rural Parcels Rights Demarcation (RPRD) project had taken off on a pilot basis in the western, Ashanti and Brong Ahafo regions, focusing on demarcating 5118 farmlands in the afore-mentioned regions.

competing normative orders may be brought to bear to legitimize specific claims'. In this view, looser demarcations might actually reduce disputes relative to permanent precise measurements when interested parties might start to contest boundaries if they perceive they might permanently lose out particularly in conflict-prone communities. This further underlines the relevance of a sufficient understanding of the local socio-political realities as a precursor and a basis for intervention programmes geared towards enhancing the certainty of rural land rights.
