assessing customary land tenure institutions for land - itc

Assessing Customary Land Tenure Institutions for Land Administration in Ghana:

Good Governance Perspective

Case Study of Gbawe, Greater Accra, Ghana

Prince Gyapong March, 2009

Assessing Customary Land Tenure Institutions for Land Administration in Ghana: Good Governance Perspective

Case Study of Gbawe, Greater Accra, Ghana

By

Prince Gyapong

Thesis submitted to the International Institute for Geo-information Science and Earth Observation in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in

Geo-information Science and Earth Observation, Specialisation: (Geographic Information Management- Land Administration)

Thesis Assessment Board

Chairman: Prof. Ir P. (Paul) van der Molen External Examiner: Prof. Dr. mr. Jitske de Jong First Supervisor: Dr. Ir. M.J.P.M Lemmens Second Supervisors: Dr. A.M. Tuladhar Mr. Anthony Arko -Adjei

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR GEO-INFORMATION SCIENCE AND EARTH OBSERVATION ENSCHEDE, THE NETHERLANDS

Disclaimer

This document describes work undertaken as part of a programme of study at the International Institute for Geo-information Science and Earth Observation. All views and opinions expressed

therein remain the sole responsibility of the author, and do not necessarily represent those of the institute.

i

Abstract

Many authors have reflected on the performance of Customary Land Tenure Institution (CLTI) over time and come to the realization that population increase and urbanization coupled with the monetization of customary land transactions negatively affects the performance of CLTI in terms of Good Governance (GG). Chiefs who are supposed to hold land in trust for the community have been accused of unilaterally alienating the land and consequently privately using the proceeds. In the light of this, the processes of customary land delivery is purported to be un-transparent; not involving community members; lacks fairness and exhibits poor standards of accounting of stewardship. The main objective of this research thesis has been to assess CLTI’s in support of Good Governance (GG) in Land Administration (customary land delivery). The research made use of the single case study approach but a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods comprising interview, community based forum (CBF) and household survey for the purposes of capturing and analyzing data sets of perception of people; indigenes and settlers from Gbawe. In contrast to other parts of Ghana, customary land rights are vested in the families rather than in Stools or Skins. A framework comprising of GG Dimensions, criteria and indicators, based on transparency and accessibility, participation, equity and accountability was designed based on prior studies into customary land tenure and land delivery as well as the principle is GG. Contrary to the general perception that customary tenure institutions do not promote GG, the study revealed that CLTI promotes to some level transparency and accessibility of information. The study has also shown that land and proceeds from land are equitably distributed to members of the land owning group whilst the rights of women are observed and that CLTIs have structures and programs that ensure accountability and portrayal of good stewardship of the land although much is needed to improve auditing of their accounts. The family CLTIs cover smaller areas and fewer people than Stool or Skin land CLTIs, and the hierarchy is also less complex probably ensuring better controllability and hence better governance.

ii

Acknowledgements

My first appreciation goes to the Most High God who through His unexplainable mercies and grace gave me life and strength in a sustainable manner to enable me come this far.

I am very thankful to Netherlands Government for the scholarship to enable me take part in this newly introduced program. What can I do to express my appreciation to my supervisors Dr. ir. M. J. P. M Lemmens (my first supervisor) and Dr A.M. Tuladhar (my second supervisor) for their selfless support in terms of constructive directions, critisms and encouragement given though out the research face of my Msc. program. I very much appreciate all that you have done for me. Many thanks to my Research Advisor, Mr. Anthony Arko-Adjei for his invaluable support both in the Nether land and Ghana without which I would not have come this far. May the Almighty God reward you greatly in all that you desire to accomplish in life. I will like to express my appreciation to Prof. Ir P. (Paul) van der Molen and Ir. M.C. (Kees) Bronsveld (Course Director), Prof. Dr. mr. Jitske de Jong (my external examiner) as well as all other staff members of the department for their support for my entire study.

Many thanks to the staff of ITC especially Ms. Saskia Groenendijk (of the ITC International Hotel) as well as Bettine Geerdink, Theresa van den Boogaard, Marie Chantal Metz and Thea de Kluijver all of the Students Affairs.

My appreciation goes to all staff of the Office of the Administrator of Stool Lands (OASL) for their support and prayer for my sustenance in one way or the other towards my stay in the Netherlands. First in this category goes to Dr (Mrs.) Matilda E. Fiadzigbey (former Administrator of Stool Lands) and Mrs. Christie E. Bobobee (acting Administrator of Stool Lands) for their much support, both official and unofficial. I would also like to recognize people such as Geoffrey Osafo-Osei (Ag. Regional officer for the Eastern Region), Edem, Francisca, Awuku, Maame Ama, Messrs. K. Dautey, C. Seniagyah, W J Paku, Samuel Amanquah. I cannot stop without making mention of Mrs. Rebecca Sittie (LTR) for her consistent advice.

I acknowledge the assistance of the entire Gbawe Kwatei family especially Nii Adam Kwatei Quartey (the family Head), Mr. Solomon Afutu Quartey (the Administrator of the CLS) and all CLS staff.

To all participants of the Msc. GIMLA program, I say kudos for the thought that we shared throughout 18 month duration of the program at ITC. To friends such as Nabraj, Anietie, Msuya, Florence, Edward and Boshomane; I say thank you for your exceptional company “we remain as one family for life”.

I will be unfair to my conscience not to admit the contribution of my fellow Ghanaian colleagues who I had the opportunity of leading. Many are the thing I leant from you and hope we are going to be together even whiles we are back home.

How can I conclude without saying thanks to my wife Linda, Nana Akua Amponsah (my daughter) and Paa Kwasi Owusu (my son)? I love you so much.

iii

Dedicated to My father; Emmanuel Yaw Owusu Gyapong on his 80th Birthday My mother; siblings and entire Gyapong family in New & Asante Juabeng

My children Nana Akua Amponsah and Paa Kwasi Owusu My Wonderful wife Linda

iv

Table of contents

1. Intoduction ...............................................................................................................................11.1. Introduction........................................................................................................................1 1.2. Defining the Research Problem..........................................................................................2 1.3. Justification ........................................................................................................................3 1.4. Prior Work .........................................................................................................................4 1.5. Research Objectives ...........................................................................................................4

1.5.1. Specific objectives......................................................................................................4 1.5.2. Research Questions ....................................................................................................5

1.6. Conceptual framework .......................................................................................................5 1.7. Research Process................................................................................................................6 1.8. Outline of research of thesis...............................................................................................8

2. Literature Review ....................................................................................................................92.1. Introduction........................................................................................................................9 2.2. Concept of Good Governance............................................................................................9 2.3. Good governance dimensions, Criteria and Indicators ....................................................10

2.3.1. Transparency and Accessibility................................................................................10 2.3.2. Participation .............................................................................................................11 2.3.3. Equity .......................................................................................................................12 2.3.4. Accountability ..........................................................................................................12 2.3.5. Other dimensions of Good Governance ...................................................................13

2.4. Land Administration and Institutions...............................................................................13 2.4.1. The History of Land Administration in Ghana.........................................................14 2.4.2. Statutory Land Administration in Ghana..................................................................15 2.4.3. Fundamental Characteristics of Customary Land Tenures.......................................17 2.4.4. Institutions in Land Administration..........................................................................18 2.4.5. Land Development and Investment in Ghana...........................................................20

2.5. Connecting Good Governance and Land administration .................................................21 2.5.1. Aim of Good Governance in Land Administration ..................................................21 2.5.2. GG dimensions and their merit in local governance of CLTI’s in LA .....................22 2.5.3. Concluding Remarks ................................................................................................23

3. Framework for Assessing CLTI ...........................................................................................243.1. Introduction......................................................................................................................24 3.2. Framework for Assessing the Effectiveness and Efficiency of LA..................................24

3.2.1. Developing Criteria and indicators...........................................................................26 3.2.2. GG in respect of Customary Land Governance........................................................27 3.2.3. The conceptual Framework Design ..........................................................................29

3.3. Concluding Remarks........................................................................................................32 4. Research Methodology ..........................................................................................................33

4.1. Introduction......................................................................................................................33 4.2. Operationalization of Research Problem: Research Design.............................................33 4.3. Research Approach ..........................................................................................................33 4.4. Background of the Case Study.........................................................................................34

4.4.1. Study Area ................................................................................................................34 4.5. Data Collection ................................................................................................................35

4.5.1. Interview...................................................................................................................36 4.5.2. Community-Based Forum (CBF) .............................................................................37 4.5.3. Field Observation .....................................................................................................37

v

4.5.4. Training and Preparation of Household Survey....................................................... 37 4.5.5. Sampling Procedure for household Survey.............................................................. 38

4.6. Data Analysis and Discussions........................................................................................ 40 4.7. Limitations/ Problems of Data Collection....................................................................... 40 4.8. Concluding Remarks ....................................................................................................... 41

5. Results and Analysis ............................................................................................................. 425.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 42 5.2. Community Members and Land Delivery ....................................................................... 42

5.2.1. Indegines and Landholdings .................................................................................... 42 5.2.2. Settlers and landholdings......................................................................................... 44 5.2.3. Allocation of Land................................................................................................... 45 5.2.4. Subjects in Land-Right Transfers ............................................................................ 46 5.2.5. Allodial Title to- Members and Strangers ............................................................... 47 5.2.6. Facilitating Actors in Land Delivery at Gbawe ....................................................... 48

5.3. Transparency and Accessibility....................................................................................... 52 5.3.1. Access to Land Information..................................................................................... 53 5.3.2. Openness of Land Allocation and Delivery............................................................. 54 5.3.3. Decision making processes and utilisation of resources.......................................... 56 5.3.4. Land Conflict Resolution......................................................................................... 57

5.4. Participation .................................................................................................................... 58 5.4.1. The level of representation and involvement of all actors ....................................... 58 5.4.2. The decision making process ................................................................................... 60

5.5. Equity .............................................................................................................................. 61 5.5.1. Non discriminatory access to information ............................................................... 61 5.5.2. Distribution and utilization of community resources............................................... 62 5.5.3. Compensation for land loss ..................................................................................... 66

5.6. Accountability ................................................................................................................. 66 5.6.1. The availability of measure to ensure accountability in allocating land .................. 66 5.6.2. Reporting of stewardship to the community............................................................ 68 5.6.3. Questioning and explaining decision to citizens...................................................... 68

5.7. Concluding Remarks ....................................................................................................... 69 6. Discussion............................................................................................................................... 70

6.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 70 6.2. Transparency and Accessibility....................................................................................... 70 6.3. Participation .................................................................................................................... 73 6.4. Equity .............................................................................................................................. 75 6.5. Accountability ................................................................................................................. 77 6.6. Concluding Remarks ....................................................................................................... 79

7. Conclusions and Recomendations ....................................................................................... 807.1. Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 80

7.1.1. Specific Objective 1................................................................................................. 80 7.1.2. Specific Objective 2................................................................................................. 80 7.1.3. Specific Objective 3................................................................................................. 80 7.1.4. Specific Objective 4................................................................................................. 81 7.1.5. Main Conclusions .................................................................................................... 81

7.2. Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 81 8. References .............................................................................................................................. 819. Appendices............................................................................................................................. 89

vi

List of figures

Figure 1-1: Conceptual Framework of Research ................................................................................... 6�Figure 1-2: The Research Process.......................................................................................................... 7�Figure 2-1: Tenure security/ Institutional Arrangements Matrix......................................................... 19�Figure 3-1: Framework for Accessing the Efficiency and Effectiveness of LA .................................... 25�Figure 4-1: Map of Ghana showing the study area, Gbawe near Accra.............................................. 34�Figure 4-2: A session with the elders of the land owning community (3 perspectives)........................ 36�Figure 4-3: A section of participants of the Community based forum.................................................. 37�Figure 4-4: Spatial distribution of the household of respondents ....................................................... 38�Figure 4-5: Showing streets randomly selected from the indigenous area. ......................................... 39�Figure 4-6: Sampling Approach four Household Survey ..................................................................... 39�Figure 5-1: The foundation of land acquisition (who gives out land) ................................................. 42�Figure 5-2: State of registration of land document by indigenes and settlers...................................... 45�Figure 5-3: The Primary Land Acquisition process ............................................................................. 49�Figure 5-4: The Secondary Land Acquisition process......................................................................... 50�Figure 5-5: CLS with an engraved reception ....................................................................................... 51�Figure 5-6: Showing the levels of satisfaction...................................................................................... 53�Figure 5-7: Representation of the people’s involvement in land allocation ........................................ 55�Figure 5-8: Clarity of rules and regulations associated with land delivery......................................... 55�Figure 5-9: Indicating the response from the complaints made to the CLTI ....................................... 57�Figure 5-10: Showing the level of participation in a spectrum of activities ........................................ 60�Figure 5-11: View whether contributions are implemented ................................................................. 61�Figure 5-12: Indication of equal access to land information ............................................................... 61�Figure 5-13: Equity in land distribution ............................................................................................... 62�Figure 5-14: Equity in land distribution from the view of Professionals ............................................. 62�Figure 5-15: Equity in land distribution among women....................................................................... 63�Figure 5-16: Women’s recognised right to ownership of land and professional responses to equity . 63�Figure 5-17: Equity in terms of the spatial distribution of Settler and Indigenes................................ 64�Figure 5-18: Status in community & Level of satisfaction from the use of the ADR of CLTI .............. 65�Figure 5-19: Gender in community & Level of satisfaction from the use of the ADR of CLTI ............ 65�Figure 5-20: Satisfaction with regards to compensation received ....................................................... 66�Figure 5-21: Status in community and the reflection of payments in received receipt. ....................... 67�Figure 5-22: Status in community and the reflection of payments in received in receipt. ................... 68�Figure 5-23: To what extent can community members question decision makers ............................... 68�

vii

List of tables

Table 1-1: Research questions of adopted sub objectives .......................................................................5�Table 3-1: Approach to Qualitative Indicators for Customary Systems................................................26�Table 3-2: Central government principles and customary land administration ...................................30�Table 3-3: Good Governance criteria and indicators used for assessing CLTI....................................32�Table 4-1: Sample size of the chosen areas ...........................................................................................38�Table 5-1Community and the terms of ownership .................................................................................43�Table 5-2: A matrix of outcome of transactions of different actors.......................................................46�Table 5-3: Indication of the readily accessibility to information on allocated land .............................53�Table 5-4: Indicating the level of agreement that decision making is open ..........................................56�Table 5-5: Preference of community members to mediating land related disputes ..............................57�Table 5-6: Showing the level of participation in a spectrum of activities in the community ................59�

viii

List of Abbreviations

ARPS Aborigines Right Protection Society CLTI Customary Land Tenure Institution COE Council of Elders DMMD District, Municipal and Metropolitan Assemblies FAO Food and Agricultural Organization GG Good Governance IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development LA Land Administration LAC Land Allocation Committee LAS Land Administration System LB Land Board LC Lands Commission LSA Land Sector Agencies LTR Land Title Registry OASL Office of the Administrator of Stool Lands PNCL Provisional National Defense Council Law TCPD Town and Country Planning Department UN-ESCAP United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific UN-ECE Unites Nations Economic Commission for Europe UN-HABITAT United Nations Human Settlement Programme

ASSESSING CUSTOMARY LAND TENURE INSTITUTIONS FOR LAND ADMINISTRATION IN GHANA: GOOD GOVERNANCE PERSPECTIVE (CASE STUDY OF GBAWE, GREATER ACCRA, GHANA)

1

1. Intoduction

1.1. Introduction�

In Ghana like most Sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries, greater proportion of the land is controlled by indigenous institutions under customary land tenure arrangements. However with the level of multiplicity of property regimes, state maintained land administration institutions continue to operate side by side (Kasanga and Kotey 2001) with indigenous community based institutions. The consequential effect of the two systems operating side by side has therefore become one the greatest issues that countries that finds itself under this system have to grapple with. The dilemma has been whether land administration practices in SSA supports good governance principles. Good Governance (GG) is increasingly recognized as critical to effective development. It has become one of the main driving objectives for the support for land administration projects in most developing countries by major donor agencies (Mitchell, Clarke et al. 2008). It is however recognized that there is comparatively little material on good governance in land administration (FAO 2007). This research is therefore aimed at assessing indigenous customary institutions for Land Administration (LA) based on good governance principles.

Although results from studies differ in terms of the coverage of customary land management in Ghana, each of them tends to demonstrate how great its extent is. Whereas some studies reveal that about 80 percent of land is customarily managed (Mends 2006) others contend that the cooperate customary landholding institutions control over 90% of the total land mass of the country (Abdulai and Ndekugri 2007). The numerical variance however does not deviate from conveyance of the information regarding realities of land management in the country. The customary level is therefore the first place of call for most land transactions in the country (Larbi, Antwi et al. 2003). This phenomenon signifies that accessibility to land is therefore mainly through the traditional land sector (Abdulai and Ndekugri 2007). Land is administered by chiefs, family heads, clan heads, community heads, held under customary law and governed by traditional rules and regulations (Obala and Kinyungu 2003). Referencing Larbi et al. (2003) and (Ollennu 1962), Mends (2006) indicates that this system has thrived over the years based on the belief that lands belong to a vast family of which many are dead, few are living and countless host yet unborn.

It is common knowledge that customary land management practices existed before the introduction of formal (modernized) procedures of land management and administration. Invariably, customary institutions have their own knowledge, procedures, methodology and techniques for handling issues related to land within their local setting. Little studies as already indicated have critically reviewed the role customary land tenure institutions play in promoting good governance. Issues that are of paramount importance within this subject scope include effectiveness of participation, equity, transparency, legitimacy, inclusion of local knowledge, and ultimately whether customary land administration output meet the interest of the actors who are involved. The question then arises as to how the role of actors in customary land institutions and the processes adopted in land administration


2

at the local level is good governance oriented and meets the challenges in contemporary land administration requirements.

The research is therefore about assessing the customary institutions to see whether they promote good governance. The research embodies a theoretical framework of customary land tenure practices from good governance perspective as well as its complementary strength in contemporary land administration. Added to this the research problem, objectives, methodologies and anticipated outcome is examined.

1.2. Defining the Research Problem

Research has shown that vast majority of developing SSA countries are very much dependent on customary tenure arrangement for land delivery. This system is fundamentally embedded in their cultures and customs depicting their way of life. On the other hand there also exists a formal system of land administration in Ghana. Invariably the two system of land administration have been operating side by side (Kasanga and Kotey 2001) giving rise to legal pluralism. As a result of challenges emanating from the concurrent operation of these systems of land administration in most developing countries, there has been calls for the integration of the two system (Williamson and Ting 2001). On the other hand the development of existing community-based regimes is beginning to be perceived as a preferable option to reinforce accountability, ensure low-cost in land delivery (Alden Wily 2008) and to achieve equity (Deininger and Binswanger 1999; Toulmin and Quan 2000; Ubink and Quan 2008).

As evident in Ghana the customary system has operated considerably well over the years until recently, when questions regarding its equity, fairness, accountability, transparency began to be asked. These questions have arisen as a result of the reflex response of the system to emerging trends of the world economy such as demographic pressures as well as development of market economies. This is what has been identified by Kasanga and Kotey (2001) as pressing challenges among customary managers emerging from the changing nature associated with the environment. The phenomenon has therefore claimed to have amply impacted the existing tenural arrangements thereby creating concerns from users of the system. In essence, the social, political and economic turmoil has given rise to questions been raised regarding the actions of actors of the Customary Land Tenure Institutions. For instance there has been the claim that the Ghanaian system of customary land transactions has become increasingly monetized and thus its inherent equity, transparency, participatory under the control of traditional chiefs is being questioned (Ubink and Quan 2008). This has dwindled the support-base of the customary tenure institutions in land administration as it seems to have lost its vitality and good practices (Kasanga and Kotey 2001). The question then arises as to whether customary land tenure institutions meet land governance objectives in land administration.

On the contrary however, Kasanga and Kotey (2001) claim that despite the weaknesses in customary tenure systems and institutions, they are able to better guarantee accountability to local communities and villagers than the state management mechanism. These mix account of the customary institution has arisen because of the lack of a systematic assessment of these customary land tenure institutions (Amanor 2001; Ubink 2008). This research seeks to assess the customary land tenure institution in meeting good governance objective in land administration.


3

1.3. Justification

Many studies have been carried out in the area of land administration; be it at the customary or the statutory paradigm. Major findings related to these institutions have been discussed over the years with the aim of enhancing land delivery. There has not been any critical assessment of the systems based on governance. One of the fundamental principles that has been identified to be the panacea of ensuring the adequate protection of property right and the development of an efficient, effective, transparent and accountable system in land and property market is embedded in the issue of governance (Bell 2007). Although there has been segments of discussion in respect of the governance aspect of both the customary land management and the statutory systems this subject has not been fully trodden. The subject has therefore received much interest taking cognizance of the contemporary calls for the inclusion of the customary system into the conventional method of land administration (Kalabamu 2000). Moreover the claim that customary land law offers the best security of tenure to individuals, families and local communities (Kasanga 1996) and sited by Ubink (2008) deserves to be tested whether it is a reality or an illusion.

Moreover it has been identified that as policy makers sometimes lack critical assessment of customary land tenure systems, so do some academic studies also seem to be “based on hypothetical models of how land was managed under traditional systems” (Amanor 2001) and sited by (Ubink 2008). It is therefore not surprising for Hood and Jackson (1991) to have clearly indicated that claims by aid of arguments on administrative doctrine are not judged based on the truthfulness or falsity but through its capability of dominance over the other counter logic. Many studies have therefore not accessed and tested the reality of the claims made in these areas. The research focuses on whether or not, and how, indigenous customary land tenure administration systems and process meet the GG dimensions.

One segment within the broad Land Administration Project is the establishment of Customary Land Secretariats (CLS). This component aims at empowering the customary land institutions to foster their control of lands within their respective jurisdiction. Although the government idea of injecting resources into the customary institution to enhance their activities is a perfect step, what it failed to do was to conduct a prior critical assessment of the way and manner in which these institutions conduct their business. Investigations are necessary to identify and better understand the nature of capacity building being infused at the local level that can induce the attainment of GG and thus can be injected into conventional land administration as compared to its former situation. On the other hand if these capacities and process are defunct, how to strategise to enhance them to meet contemporary challenges.

Moreover one of the contentious subjects of debate in contemporary times as far as the history of the country has been the capacity of the indigenous customary institution to administer lands within their respective jurisdictions such that it can partner the government in its quest to ensuring good governance. Does customary tenure institutions and process promote accessibility to land and guarantee security of tenure? On a whole, the research is about enabling indigenous institutions involvement in the LA framework and aimed at promoting GG.


4

1.4. Prior Work

Various arguments have transpired over the years and across the globe geared at discovering an ideal mechanism and tools for achieving a desirable land administration system especially for customary areas. It is for this reason that the concept of land administration has attracted various researchers to study among other things the varied land administration systems, conceptualisation of the process, institutions involved, the actors involved as well as the legal construct related to land administration. These researches have revealed the diversity in these component areas as mentioned above as well as others that appear in the world of land administration. Among this is the revelation of the duality in the land administration process in most SSA countries (Arko-Adjei 2001; Kasanga and Kotey 2001; Mends 2006; Abdulai and Ndekugri 2007; Asare 2008).

Proposal was given by Arko-Adjei (2001) on the need for local registries to be established as well as strengthened with the appropriate administrative, institutional, judicial and legal structures in place. This proposal was given in the light of studies revealing a failure in the statutory system of land administration (Kasanga and Kotey 2001; Abdulai 2008). The statutory system has been identified not to be serving fairly but has been noted to be operating to the advantage of people in the high income bracket (Arko-Adjei 2001; Burns, Grant et al. 2006). Kasanga and Kotey (2001) and Abdulai (2008) also identifies the statutory system to be facilitating land access to mainly senior civil servants, politicians, top army and police officers, contractors, business executives, the land administrators themselves as well as people who are highly placed in society. The study by Abdulai (2008) focussed on the extent of insecurity and the level of uncertainty associated with property rights under customary land management system as well as to test whether formal land title registration is a panacea to this problem. Interestingly, the latter by virtues of the research was proven not to be the ultimate solution whereas the former was blamed on ideological perspectives initiated by colonial administrators, and which has enjoyed perpetuation by post-colonial land administrators in Africa. For instance a study by Abdulai and Ndekugri (2007) examines the claim that the customary landholding system (with its communal ownership nature) does not permit individual ownership and thus has significantly been a disincentive to the investment in housing development, proved otherwise.

Abdulai (2008) further admonishes that the policy implication for this is that African governments should rather concentrate on strengthening the traditional landholding institutions by supporting and empowering them rather than replacing them. For these reasons it is necessary to assess whether these customary land holding institutions can promote GG in order to support international agenda.

1.5. Research Objectives

The main objective of this research is to assess customary land tenure institutions in support of good governance.

1.5.1. Specific objectives

1. To identify the key actors of customary land tenure institutions and their role in land Administration (customary land delivery and statutory tenure system).

2. To identify the framework for assessing customary land tenure institutions based on good governance perspective.


5

3. To assess whether or not the performance of customary land tenure institutions meet good governance objectives in land administration (Customary Land Delivery).

4. To validate the research findings based on scientific knowledge.

1.5.2. Research Questions

The questions that need to be answered as part of adhering to the main objective of this research are captured in Table1-1.

Objective Research Questions

1 1. What are the characteristics of the customary land tenure in the study area?

2. Who are the key actors of customary land tenure institutions? 3. What are their roles in customary land delivery and statutory land

administration? 2 1. What are the key principles of good governance in land administration?

2. What are the criteria and key indicators for assessment? 3 1. Does the performance of customary land institutions satisfy good

governance objectives in land administration? 2. How can the key indicators be assessed at the customary land

institutional and community levels? 3. In what ways can the indigenous customary land institutions be

enhanced for statutory land administration? 4 1. What are the results/findings?

2. How can the findings be generalised for family lands in Ghana?

Table 1-1: Research questions of adopted sub objectives

1.6. Conceptual framework

In this research, a set of concepts were necessary in order to adequately solidify the foundation of our communication and to present the study in a clear perspective. Figure 1-1 as illustrated below categorises the foundation concepts to be the principles of GG and LA processes. Governance in land tenure and administration cannot be separated from governance in other disciplines. Therefore the context of this study is to look at the principles of governance in general and governance dimensions in land administration based on which we develop the framework for assessing the performance of the customary land tenure institutions. The framework covers the criteria and indicators for the assessment. The process involved in land administration is the basis of choice of indicators that will be used. These indicators served as the guidelines upon which questionnaires for data collection was based. Indicators which can be quantified allow the trends in governance to be observed over time (Chapter 3). Criteria for selecting indicators include ease of collection, universality, relevance and credibility (FAO 2007; Minang, Bressers et al. 2007). On the other hand, indicators can be prioritised based on the purpose of which the system being assessed has been designed. The questionnaire was centred on how the various identifiable stakeholders have perceived the customary land tenure


6

institution and whether the institutions supported good governance or not. The family type of customary lands is the focus of this study by using Gbawe-Kwatei family as a case. The principal assumption of this research is that Customary Land Tenure Institutions have some inherent practices that meet good governance values. This is premised on the reason that in spite of the perceived potentials of the customary institutions they are seldom used for statutory land administration purposes. This assessment reveals some lessons that first serve as the foundation for CLTIs consideration for statutory land administration and secondly any further needed study into new challenges that might emerge at the end of the study.

Figure 1-1: Conceptual Framework of Research

Although the GG dimension covers a wide range of issues, we limit ourselves to transparency, participation, accountability and equity. The choice of the GG dimension is highly influenced by the limitation of the study in terms of financial resources and time. The choice of these dimension are also informed by their interrelatedness.

1.7. Research Process

The research process has been shown in Figure 1-2. The pre-field phase emphasizes the conceptions stages of the research and comprises of the determination of the research problem, its justification and the formulation of research objectives and questions. This served as the starting point of the entire research process. It also served as the stage for the determination of the appropriate criteria for assessment notwithstanding the fact that it was subject to subjective refinement based on the experience in the field. The field stage focused on how data was gathered to enable us carry out an assessment based on the framework designed during the pre-field stage. Both primary and secondary data sources were used for this research. The post-field phase covers the synthesis of the conceptual work, the field information and secondary data review and how best these results can be related to scientific literature.


7

Figure 1-2: The Research Process


8

1.8. Outline of research of thesis

Chapter 1: Introduction The first chapter captures the fundamental footings of this research thesis. The synopsis therefore covers areas such as the background, justification, research problem, research objectives, research questions as well as the structure of the thesis.

Chapter 2: Literature review Chapter two brings to bare the theoretical orientation of this research thesis through the consistent, coherent and objective literature review and makes the appropriate extraction for the purpose of adaptation and reference in the main work. Areas that served as the core of literature review are the CLTI, customary land management practices and land delivery, the concept of good governance principles and its application in land administration and the review of appropriate good governance indicators.

Chapter 3: Framework Design This chapter develops a framework that is applicable for the assessment of CLTI based on the principle of good governance. This captures the theoretical bases after which we derive the appropriate criteria and indicators.

Chapter 4: Data Collection This chapter captures how the entire study was conducted. The section provides ample justification for the research approach adopted to be able to scientifically meet the scope of the question asked at the outset of the research process; sampling methodology and the requisite approach to help in objective analysis of data was gathered. It draws a brief emphasis on the study area and justifies thechoice for this research process.

Chapter 5: Results and Analysis This chapter provides the synthesis of the research analysis of results emanating from the utilised research methodology. It covers the operations of the customary institution in the study area and the feedback from the assessment process based on the principle of good governance as captured in the evaluation framework.

Chapter 6: Discussion This section discus the results as captured in the previous chapter and compare the findings arrived at to scientific literature.

Chapter 7: Conclusion and Recommendation This is the concluding chapter dwelling on the main findings that we came across. Conclusions are drawn and recommendations given for further research work in the subject area.


9

2. Literature Review

2.1. Introduction

The previous chapter has highlighted the perceptions of some schools of thought over the performance of Customary Land Tenure Institutions (CLTI) in Land Administration (LA). Some have perceived it as a preferable option to reinforcing accountability, ensuring low-cost in land delivery and to achieving equity whereas others are beginning to ask questions regarding its equity, fairness, accountability and transparency. This difference in contention is claimed to have impacted the existing tenural arrangements and the security outcome hence creating concerns from users of the system. The question has been whether CLTI meet land governance objectives in LA bearing in mind that the performance of land administration institutions is one of the key determinants of the security of tenure and access to land and a promoter of the land market.

Elements of good practices are embedded in the principle of good governance. Further revelation is that the concept of land administration is wide in scope, transcending boundaries of countries and continents at large. The practices of land administration differ from one country to the other. Some countries operate under a single land administration system (LAS) whereas others operate under a combination of systems (i.e. duality in land administration systems under legal pluralism). Good governance is a concept that has a wide use, applicable to all spheres of life; be it social, economic, political, religious or culture. Information on how LA practices promote GG is lacking.

Chapter two captures information gathered from related studies, theories and experiences as relevant to land administration institutions, organizations and processes and identifying elements relevant in good governance principles which can be positively linked to land administration. The section captures literature that bares the theoretical orientation of our framework design captured in chapter three. The segment aims at encapsulating the concept of good governance and whether or not they exist in operations, practices and performance of CLTI in LA. We first explore the broader concept of good governance by identifying some criteria and indicators on one hand and on the other CLTIs which enable us to deduce some aims of good governance in LA (Customary Land Delivery).

2.2. Concept of Good Governance

Many views exist on what principles of GG entail as they are influenced by ideological, political social, economic or religious backgrounds. Downer (2005) describes good governance to comprise mechanisms, processes and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their legal rights, meet their obligations and mediate their differences. Governance can also be looked at as the composition of the traditions, institutions and processes that determine how power is exercised, how the citizens are empowered to make their voice heard and how to go about decisions on issues that touch on the life of the entire public (Graham, Amos et al. 2004). Karl (2005) looks at good governance among others as a normative concept involving legitimacy, participation accountability and transparency. Roy (2008) refers to Hyden and Mease (2004) arguing that governance refers to ‘‘stewardship of the formal and informal rules that regulate the public realm, the arena in which the state as well as economic and societal actors interact to take decisions.’’ the


10

present meanings therefore is a representation of consultation and accountable process of decision making hence contradicting the orthodox top-down approach. The question is ‘to what extent can institutions exhibit these features in their operations’? These contributions of the Graham et al and Karl contain several central themes relevant to families, groups’ organizations, institutions, corporations, states etc. These includes a class of governors, a class of the governed and the exercise of power, processes and mechanisms, the articulation of rights, meeting of responsibilities, decision making and implementation etc. It also implies that the levels of operations of the above grouping do not matter. This makes governance relevant in all spheres of life and borders on the interaction between the governing institution and the people who are governed.

Until recently, there was insufficient attention to land-related development cooperation to the integration of GG in the design, implementation and impact monitoring of land administration and management (Bell 2007). Indeed virtually all civilizations throughout history have developed procedures, practices and systems of determining land rights and most importantly establishing institutions for administering these rights. There are however no clues as to the consideration of GG as one of the underlining principles for the establishment of these institutions nor how they perform their duties. For instance although about 50-80 percent of all lands in most Sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries resides with indigenous groups such as stools, skins, communities, clans, tribes and families, the level of security of tenure even among the indigenous community seems to becoming inadequate (Ubink and Quan 2008). If this is true, then to what extent can we attribute it to the mode of governance attached to customary land delivery? Again how applicable can the concepts of governance be aligned with processes, procedures and practices in respect of customary land delivery in SSA.

2.3. Good governance dimensions, Criteria and Indicators�

According to Graham et al.(2003) GG comprises traditions, institutions and processes that determine how power is exercised, how citizens are given a voice, and how decisions are made on issues of public concerns. It therefore relates to the way important decisions are made by society, organizations or a group of persons and encompasses the choice of persons to participate in such decision making as well as who and how to render accounts of the entire process.

The procedure adopted in the governing process is of interest to determine how legitimate power is exercised. Does the power suppress or does it gives a voice and is open to the people? Issues that are of prime concern is how a governing group, society ensures participation and empowerment, transparency and accessibility, equity and fairness, legitimacy, accountability, use of local knowledge, effectiveness and efficiency. The implication is that, assessment of the mandates of institutions should primarily target their performance within the parameters of GG (Zakout, B. Wehrmann et al. 2006) . Over the years various dimensions of GG have been recognized as a result of the trend of what is acceptable as good to the majority of people and as a means of reducing autocracy in the governance mechanisms in society. These dimensions have contributed to understanding how people, groups, organizations, institutions and the society at large functions.

2.3.1. Transparency and Accessibility

Transparency as one of the key dimensions of GG has been viewed from different perspectives such as political, institutions, scope of coverage and approaches. Nelson (2001) refers to the Working


11

Group on Transparency & Accountability, (1998) with their definition “a process by which information about existing conditions, decisions and actions is made accessible, visible, and understandable”. Transparency is also defined as the means of providing right of access (Fraser and Ellis 2009) to full, reliable and timely social and economic information for use by all relevant stakeholders (Kolstad and Wiig 2008). This means that individuals, groups, and institutions providing services to a target population or undertaking activities for and on behalf of a given society have the responsibility and obligation of opening up their activities to all its stakeholders. Indeed there is always a fiduciary relationship between the provider of some service and its shareholders. It is this fiduciary relationship that should compel the party producing the service to be as much as possible open in its way of dealing with all stakeholders so long as it does not breach the privacy of any associate partner of the institution.

Transparency and accessibility have been sighted as one of the solutions to the increasing incidence of corruption that has been associated with resource management by making information open between the governor and the governed. To tackle the problem of non-transparency of land information between land administrators and the public, Tuladhar (2007) has advocated for the creation of inventory of existing land tenure (cadastre), opening access to information about ownership, value and use of land, providing standardized procedures to determine, record and disseminate information, provision of a window of opportunity to appeal and the computerization of the system. Where transparency does not exist, the public is least convinced to involve themselves and their commitment to participate gets dwindled due to the loss of trust. For instance to foster a willing buyer and seller to identify and communicate with willing sellers, there is the need to ensure transparency (Ybarra 2009) in the information stored with respect to that commodity. Where information is open to all parties, then participants and those outside the process can with confidence determine how decisions are made and by whom (Davis 2008).

2.3.2. Participation

The meaning of participation has been influenced by the ideological, social, political and methodological context within which it is discussed giving rise to many interpretations (Lawrence 2006). Reed (2008) refers to Wilcox (1996) defining participation as a process where individuals, groups and organizations choose to take an active role in making decisions that affects them.

Traditionally, the management of society and resources has been on a top-to-down basis. However recently there has been the advocacy for participation where there is the demand for the utilization of the local people in the management and planning of resources. Richards et al (2004) have recommended a bottom-up approach for the handling of decision making in society. To improve the quality of governance at all levels, there is the need for institutions and the citizens to be brought more closely together. This enhances the level of participation as it broadens the base of decision making and makes institutions become more responsive to community needs.

Participation entails consultation, corporation and corroboration, representativeness and interactive approach in decision making. It is important to have some diversity in the composition of participants in decision making as well as the inclusion of highly skilled facilitators who have knowledge in the process. Hence, the determining factor is the membership composition, procedure of selection, the level of diversity in the representation of interest and the number of partakers (Stenseke 2009). The


12

success of participation can only be judged based on whether it improves the quality of life, guarantees the sustainability of the resource, protects rights of people or is acceptable to all stakeholders. As Reed (2008) puts it, the quality of decision made through stakeholder participation is strongly dependant on the nature of the process leading to them. It should be able to build consensus where all participants will be able to live by the consensus.

2.3.3. Equity

Equity is one of the fundamental footings of sustainable developments (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987). Brown and Corbera (2003) view equity as fairness of outcomes both now and in the future with respect to who benefits or is included in the process of decision-making for development action. There are three elements of equity in this context: access, outcome and participation. Discussion associated with equity has been limited by the discipline of application and the form of criteria necessary for use as basis of assessment. For instance, Curry (2001) looks at the concept from two perspective;

Distributional referring to where rights are distributed such that it fairly cuts across the contemporary population of interest. Intergenerational seeks to ensure that rights are proportioned such that they are used effectively and efficiently at present without compromising on their use by the future generation.

Distributional equity seeks to ensure that it is not only the political elite, the wealthy, the influential in society, the educated or the majority who are given preference as against the minority, the vulnerable in society such as women, and children as well as the poor. For instance Ikejiofor (2006) has indicated that issues of gender is of paramount importance (not in terms of additional legislations but rather through more rigorous public education) if we desire to eradicate the gender discrimination practiced by local level authorities. Intergenerational equity ensures the longevity of the rights and resources for the yet unborn and thus focuses on the sustainability of the benefits emanating from the resources been enjoyed by the present generations. Is there a mechanism of ensuring that resources been utilized today can be available for use by the next generation?

2.3.4. Accountability

Accountability combines with transparency in the discourse of good governance as they all emphasize the necessity for institutions to make their activities open to their clients (Schultz 2008). This is because the adaptation of the two principles by governing institutions is a basic step of commanding confidence and trust over stewardship of resources that has been placed under their care. An accountable institution demonstrates stewardship by responding to questioning, explaining actions and providing evidence of performance (FAO 2007). Effectiveness is largely dictated by the implementation procedures. Two trends of accountability are distinguished (Mamimine 2003): Downward and upwards accountability.

• Downward entails developing mechanisms accountable to the local resource users • Upward entails the situation where the institution is more responsive of becoming accountable

to the state.


13

Downward accountability is the most logical means of becoming accountable at the community levels (Mamimine 2003), because local institutions have better and ample knowledge of local needs as well as their aspirations.

2.3.5. Other dimensions of Good Governance

The four dimensions of governance, explained above, are not exhaustive. Others can also feature in the assessment of other institutions. UN-ESCAP (2007) and FAO (2007) mention rule of law; legitimacy; Responsiveness; effectiveness and efficiency.

Rule of law entails having fair legal frameworks that are enforced impartially. People are not dealt with based on their social economic political or religious characteristics, their caliber in society nor gender. Human right protection is a key principle under the concept of rule of law where there is effective separation of powers paving way for effective checks and balances in the enforcement of laws, rules and regulations.

Legitimacy refers to the power being exercised by those in the helm of affairs in the light of whether such personalities have earned the right to govern. This is expressed by the level of acceptance of the government by the governed. Thus whether the people endorse their leadership/ instructions and direction in respect of what such group of persons, organization or institution stands for. FAO (2007)indicated that there should be power vested in the people been governed to show their dissatisfaction through the rejection of the government and enabled with the right to ask for a replacement.

Responsiveness requires that organization or institutions perform the services that the governed desire and need. An element is the desire for institutions and processes to serve all stakeholders within a timeframe.

Effectiveness and Efficiency is required in all spheres of life. Institutions, organizations groups and individuals develop strategies that enable the production of results that meets the needs of society but also ensuring that one makes the best use of resources. Policies and programs are developed to enable for delivery of services of a high quality and standard.

2.4. Land Administration and Institutions

There have been incremental but divergent views concerning what LA entails. These views have been strengthened by the nature of the practice of LA. Invariably LA activities are specific to one geographical area of interest and are seldom generalized for the entire globe. There have been attempts to converge these divergent views, opinions and practices of land administration to the level that will be acceptable irrespective of the ideology of stakeholders, groups or country. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has defined LA to be “the way in which the rules of land tenure are applied and made operational”. In 1996 the UN-ECE Land Administration Guidelines defined it as the “process of determining, recording and disseminating information about the ownership, value and use of land when implementing land management policies”. On the other hand Dale and McLaughlin (1999) defined land administration to be “the processes of regulating land and property development and the use and conservation of the land, the gathering of revenues from the land through sales, leasing, and taxation, and the resolving of conflicts concerning the ownership and use of land”.


14

These definitions highlight the foundation of land administration leaving out how it is conducted. Much of this problem has arisen from the historical, cultural, institutional, legal, organizational and the technological footing of countries. Moreover the land tenure difference has dictated how LA is carried out. Historically modern LAS and resulting “best practices” actually came to being in the late 18th century and early 19th century with the establishment of the Napoleonic cadastres such as the Torrens system of land title registration perpetuated by colonial powers such as England, France, The Netherlands, Germany, Portugal and Spain. Such a system was acknowledged to have more advantages over the deeds system in terms of security of tenure. In today’s world, it has been recognized that these systems were designed to accomplish a certain status quo relevant to particular land tenure characteristics.

Williamson (2001) recounts of a range of options for recording of land tenure relationship to include government guaranteed land titles, deeds registration systems, title insurance systems, qualified titles (both to boundaries and title), individual ownership and communal or customary ownership. Apparently there are institutions behind these processes. At some places more than one of these systems operates at the same time. These are characteristics of countries that have plural land administration system emerging out of legal pluralism such as what pertains in most countries in SSA. Accordingly, one of the contemplations of our time has been how to fit the conventional land administration system and processes into the indigenous culture and customary tenure systems.

2.4.1. The History of Land Administration in Ghana

Land tenure forms in the western world differ from Africa (especially SSA) (Bentsi-Enchill 1964; Asiama 1990; Abudulai 1996; Agbosu 2000; Abdulai 2008). Until the time of colonization, land was administered under different tenure arrangements depicting the traditional and cultural orientation of the people who own the land. Traditional states in this contest refer to the governing structure of the people before colonization and which has continued to exist to date alongside the state structures. There were the Ga State, Ashanti states, the Ewe state, the Akyem State etc. The difference in the practices was therefore reflexive in the uniqueness of the practices of these independent traditional states.

Land was administered by selected elders, chief or the head of family or clan, for the benefit of all members depending on the communal status. Ownership is based on a common lineage with practices based on customary rules which are implemented through the practices and governing system of the community (Kalabamu 2000).The seat of an indigenous state (sometimes of a head of family) represents the sources of authority and poses as a symbol of unity between the people. Their responsibility devolves upon its living representatives, the chief and his counselors. In this case all members of the family have equal stake in the land resources however it is the family head that administers the land with the consent and concurrence of the council of elders. It is expected that community members are alerted of decisions made at special gatherings. Colonial governments introduced new land governing systems through the promulgation of legislations, regulation and laws giving legal recognition and at the same time controlling how customary land was dealt with. Before this time there were no state lands. This was the commencement point of the government’s power to accumulating land to itself.


15

After independence in 1957, governments have continued to exhibit control on land administration irrespective of the type of land tenure through the establishment of government-based land administration agencies. Regardless of colonialism and the perpetuation of colonial land administration techniques by present governments, the customary tenure has continued to grow stronger and stronger (Mends 2006). The result is that both conventional method of land administration and the customary tenure system are running side- by-side, resulting in legal pluralism. In this wise, customary land tenure are administered by traditional leaders whereas that of the formal system is controlled by state agencies.

2.4.2. Statutory Land Administration in Ghana

Customary land delivery in most SSA cannot be discussed in thorough without considering the impact of statutory land administration. This has become so due to their present interrelatedness and consequently how statutory LA can influence how land delivery takes place under customary land tenure and authority.

Today’s statutory land administration dates back to the colonial eras. Statutory measures were instituted with the view of streamlining land delivery procedures which were hitherto different depending on the traditional area where the land is situated and the nature of ownership. The general idea was to introduce some uniformity in how land is dealt with but with some reference to the nature of the ownership of the land. Some of these enactments are the Akim Abuakwa (Stool Revenue) Act (No. 28), 1958, The Ashanti Stool Lands Act (Act 51), Stool Land Act 1960 ( Act 27), Administration of Lands Act, 1962 (Act 123), Lands Commission Act, 1994 (Act 483), Office of the administrator of Stool Lands Act, 1994 (Act 481. According to Mends (2006) however, these interventions effected through colonization as well as subsequent independent governments has not been successful, partly due to resistance against the implementation of such laws. One example was the opposition mounted by chiefs’ traditional elders, the native lawyers, the nascent middle class, the educated elite, and European firms who constituted themselves into the Aborigines Right Protection Society (ARPS). This group is known to have received ample support from pressure groups, of influential business concerns such as the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce (LCC) and the West Africa Trading Association (WATA). What ignited this struggle of disagreements between the ARPS and the British colonial government was the latter’s ambitions of introducing legislations between 1891 and 1897 aimed at vesting lands of the Colony in the Crown. The sequence of the promulgation of laws and enactments on land suggests the importance the government placed on the control of communal lands in Ghana. In accordance with these statutes, laws and legislations, the governments still exercises the legal power to determining the terms within which a particular traditional authority gives out land although the right to give out such a land still resides with the land owners. The many Acts, enactments, laws and instruments as described above has resulted in institutions established on ad hoc bases to deal with one issue in land delivery.

The Lands Commission By virtue of Lands Commission Act, 1994 (Act 483) and article 258 (1) of 1992 constitution of the republic of Ghana, the Lands commission has been mandated to facilitate all forms of land interest acquisitions. Their functions is to among other things, advice on and assist in the registration of title of lands throughout Ghana and the granting of consent and concurrence to all stool land transactions.


16

This agency operates at both the national level as well as the regional levels (Ubink and Quan 2008). More details with respect to their mandate can be found in the legal document establishing it.

Office of the Administrator of Stool Lands This agency has its mandate by virtue of the Office of the Administrator of Stool Lands Act, 1994 (Act 481) and Article 267 of the 1992 constitution of the Republic of Ghana to among other things establishment of stool land account for all stools into which all payment related to the stool are collected and paid into. The constitution as well as the enabling Act has provided regulations with respect to the disbursement of such revenues. (Kasanga and Woodman 2006; Ubink and Quan 2008).

The Land Title Registry Land Title Registry was established in line with the Land Title Registration Law, 1986 (PNDC Law 152) with the mandate to correct the fundamental weakness of the deeds registration system. The idea behind this drift was to improve tenure security and reduce land related conflict (Bentsi-Enchill 1964; Agbosu 2000; Abdulai 2008) through the registration of the land itself and not the transaction associated with the land. The original initiative was to carry out a systematic adjudication and registration of interest in land. The title registration has as one of its central focuses cadastral details that enable for the geo-referencing of landed information which was nonexistent in the deed registration system.

The Survey Department The Survey department operates under the Survey Act, 1962 (Act 127) to perform all land survey activities in the country. There is a broad spectrum of activities that the government has mandated the survey department to do. This includes the facilitation of a national Geospatial framework for referencing of all geo-information, certification of all cadastral plans for deeds or title registration purposes, ensuring up-to-date hard as well as soft copies of topographic maps at the requisite scale.

The Land Valuation Board The Land Valuation Board was established by virtue of Section 43 of PNDC Law 42 1986. Its main functions are to Determine all matters of compensations for Land compulsorily acquired by Government, any organ of Government or public corporation, Prepare, update and maintain the valuation list for property rating purposes for the Metropolitan/ Municipal / District Assemblies, Undertake valuation of immovable property for the administration of Capital gain tax and Stamp Duty as well as any other duties that the state shall levy. Payment of stamp duty for instance is a prerequisite for the registration of interest in land and is supposed to be established by the Land Valuation Board.

The Town and Country Planning Department The town and country planning department receives its mandate from a number of legislations and legal instruments including the Local Government Act, 1993 (Act 462), National Development Planning Commission Act, 1994 (Act 479), National Development Planning (Systems) Act, 1994 (Act 480) National Building Regulation, 1996 (L.I. 1630), Town and Country Planning Ordinance, 1945 (Cap 84). They have been mandated to orderly plan and manage development of human settlements, Providing planning services to public authorities and private developers, Provision of layout plans (planning schemes) to guide orderly development. With the schemes possible conflicts between


17

planned layout, the actual situation on the ground and ownership claims can be detected and resolved. The schemes are important in the concurrence process by the Lands Commission as part of registration of title.

The District and Metropolitan Assemblies The District Municipal and Metropolitan Assemblies (DMMS’s) are operating under the Local Government Act, 1993 ,Act 462 (Kasanga and Woodman 2006). This legal instrument confers the authority on the DMMS’s to among other things plan for the overall development of districts. In land LA, Assemblies have legislative power to make by-laws in respect of buildings, sanitation and the environment. The preparation and approval of layouts plan, the granting of planning and development permits and the enforcement of regulations and sanctions for non-compliance of the regulations of the assembly.(Asare 2008)

2.4.3. Fundamental Characteristics of Customary Land Tenures

Annor (1992) established to some extent the relationship between the land and the owners and emphasized that the way of life of the people is primarily influenced by their traditions and culture. Boydell et al (2002 ) and Steudler et al (2004) acknowledge that indigenous people see their relationships as coming from land rather than owning it as a commodity. Customary land tenure constitutes the holding of land under customs and traditions (Kalabamu 2000). Considering the bond through lineage that exists between members of the community land resources are held cooperatively and managed to the benefit of all. This confirms the accession that land is seen to belong to the dead, the living and those who are yet to be born. This implies that individual rights are subject to the right of the community in principle as the custom does not sanction individual ownership but the use of the land. Consequently there exist the right of the community and the right of members of the community. Although customary tenure institutions differ in practice and in forms across SSA, they are grounded on the same principle and their associated right does not differ greatly.

The highest interest in the land is vested in the community that owns the land and not the individual, in Ghana referred to as the Allodial title and defined as the highest probable interest that can be held from which all other lesser interests are derived. Each community has authority made up of chiefs and the council of elders (Ogolla and Mugabe 1996; Mends 2006) who administer the land and who are vested with the power to allocate right associated with these lands and to see to it that such given right is adequately respected and protected.

There are rules, customs and usages related to the nature of right that can be enjoyed by members as well as strangers in terms transfers, land use, lease, licenses inheritance, freehold conveyance etc. Although these rules are not normally written down (Bentsi-Enchill 1964), they are known and understood by the people since they are a reflection of their culture and traditions.

Since rights are communally based, interest of the community is paramount to the individual right. The community can practically retain some rights to it such that this set of land rights co-exists. In a particular allocation for farming purposes, there can still be a concurrent right for the community to gather firewood or collect fruit, snails or mushrooms. As Kotey and Yeboah ( 2003) put it: “the holder cannot block the community’s right of way over his portion of the land and he cannot put the land to use that will affect the legitimate right of others.”


18

Okonyo (2008) indicated that there is that level of individual right of occupation and use of land - the ‘ right of avail’ – and is uniformly applied to all and automatically shared by all members of the community, tribe, clan family, stool or skin. Members have the right to create lesser interest from the right they possess so long as it does not conflict with the rules and regulation concerning the tenure.

Although these rights are known to the people there lies a possibility of abuse due to factors such as population pressure, the wave of individualization of rights, economic reasons and social factors.

2.4.4. Institutions in Land Administration

By virtue of the 1992 constitution of the republic of Ghana all lands are vested in the appropriate authorities, either families, clans, tribes, Stools and Skins or the state. What differentiates stool/Skin Land from family land is the size of the community and the size of land under their control. The former are generally larger than the latter. Primarily, interest under customary tenure cannot be recognized in their right without having recognized the existence of the institutions that sustains it (Wily 2008). These institutions - termed the customary land holding institutions (Abdulai and Ndekugri 2007) control about 50-80 percent of lands in SSA and govern access to land for all persons (be it an indigene or a ‘settler’ and for all uses). They performed their land administration activities before colonization, which presupposes that before the coming into force of western statutes, local communities had their own way of administering their land. Allocation of land, recording of land transaction and the determination of the use of the land was conducted based on the norms and traditions of the people. Institutions at the communal and traditional level have survived the times because they permit the use of procedures which are more sensitive to local conditions, more accountable, and more transparent as a result of their openness to public scrutiny and amendment (UN-HABITAT 1996).

Some basic aims of governments’ intervention was to create uniformity in the land tenure regime at the time, modernize the system through the provision of maps, registry systems, and to facilitate the release of land for public infrastructure purposes such as schools health centers, road networks, water etc. However contemporary land administration mechanisms have not been able to stand up to the plight of the vulnerable in the society such as the rural, peri-urban and urban poor, the disabled, the unemployed, the low and middle-income earners although they are the majority. In spite of the numerous controls exerted by the state machinery on customary tenure and their inherent weakness, customary tenure institutions have remained strong, dynamic and evolutionary. As a result of this strength customary tenure systems and traditional land administration practices still reign supreme in the North, and remain very strong in the South of Ghana (Kasanga and Kotey 2001).

In contrast there is ample evidence that there has been a systematic breakdown of trusteeship level and a weakening of the fundamental principles of customary land law which has created landlessness, poverty, homelessness, insecurity of land for women and the most vulnerable in society (Ubink 2008). As population increases these institutions need to make new lands available. Consequently settlements sometimes suffer from removal without recourse to the principle of equity, transparency or accountability in the management of the process, neither as concerns the disposal of land nor in the distribution of benefits (Kasanga and Kotey 2001). This is happening in the midst of the guiding principle of the 1992 constitution, Article 36 (8) where it is indicated that “the state shall recognize


19

that ownership and possession of land carry a social obligation to serve the larger community and, in particular, the state shall recognize that the managers of public, stool, skin and family lands are fiduciaries charged with the obligation to discharge their functions for the benefit of the people of Ghana of the stool, skin or family concerned, and are accountable as fiduciaries in this regard”. It further indicates that notwithstanding any law to the contrary any head of family or any person who is in possession or control of , or has in his custody, any family property shall be accountable for such property to the family to which the property belongs. It further states that any failure to this, members of the family to which the property belongs who has or claims to have any beneficial interest in the property may apply by motion to a court for an order compelling the head of family to render accounts.

Many researchers have recognized the key role played by land administration institutions (i.e. both CLTI and statutory land agencies) and thus stresses the need to strengthen them if they will be able to meet the many challenges (Bentsi-Enchill 1964; Olima and Obala 1998; Kasanga and Kotey 2001; Ikejiofor 2006; Kasanga and Woodman 2006; Okonyo 2008). Evaluations based on an acceptable normative constructs such as efficiency, effectiveness, transparency, participation, accountability, legitimacy enable to test their existing strengths and weaknesses hence enabling us to make the necessary interventions based on their present situation. Burns et al. (2006) develops a framework to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of land administration from a global perspective. This framework (Section 3.2) reveals the complex nature of LA and hence its presentation of many strategies and roadmaps for intervention. The various criteria and indicators developed were classified based on the type of tenure.

A quick overview of land delivery in SSA will show that land is mostly under the control of indigenous communities.

Figure 2-1: Tenure security/ Institutional Arrangements Matrix Source: (Burns, Grant et al. 2006)

In addition, indicators as they appear are not exhaustive and depend on expected performance of the customary institutions by the people that it serves.

Burns et al. (2006) makes a qualitative representation portraying the institutional background of most SSA countries where majority of the land is vested in communities. Since the key objective of any project in strengthening the land administration system is to move from the top of the matrix to the

The framework therefore comes with it some qualitative indicators that are worth noting (Section 3.2). Based on these indicators we can access the level of efficiency of the customary land tenure and it’s institution in land administration. In all this, it has been recognized that some of the identified indicators for the framework can easily be associated with other GG dimensions.


20

bottom, then it behoves us to concentrate on the community authorities as the strategy to revamp the African situation. Customary authorities are able to guarantee higher tenure security than the central government. This is a turn on new revelations that existing community-based regimes are better placed to be strengthened since they are always accountable to the governed (Wily 2008). Seven strategies are developed for implementation by Burns et al. (2006). Reference is made to two of them because of their relevance to the land ownership base SSA.

� Promote a significant role for community/customary authorities, and perhaps the community itself, in a decentralized LAS;

� Strengthening existing community/customary land administration systems

2.4.5. Land Development and Investment in Ghana

According to Abdulai and Ndekugri (2007) CLTIs controls approximately 80 percent of the total land area of Ghana and therefore are responsible for potential access to land. The one controlling the landholding controls the land market and determines the nature of urban land use and development patterns (Gereth 1991; Olima 1993). The availability of land for all private, communal or state developments is therefore very much depended CLTIs. However some suggest that in spite of the population pressure in the (peri-) urban areas of Ghana, there have not been any increase in the development of houses (Kwadwo 2006; Myrdal (1974). ) and for this the nature of ownership under customary tenure has been held responsible (Asiama 1990). One of the reasons is that the traditional system does not permit individual landownership Kwadwo (2006). However, Abdulai and Ndekugri (2007) show that the operations of CLTI’s permits individual ownership and indicate that individual ownership would not be permitted is based on misconception. Individuals still have the right of ownership and transfer (subject to probable restrictions).

When indigenes or settlers have a sense of ownership of the land, they will not hesitate to invest in the land, resulting in the massive developments taking place in the peri-urban areas of Ghana. Census data shows that property development and investment is increasing with time irrespective of the land been under customary care (Abdulai and Ndekugri 2007). For instance, the enumeration area of Gbawe in 1984 (Population and housing census by the Ghana Statistical Service) contained 141 houses, 2000 this number was 4,142. This therefore cannot be the reason for reduced investment.

Most CLTIs have been involved in the provision of social and economic infrastructures from the revenues that emanate from their day-to-day administration of the land under their jurisdiction. With this some stools/skin/family has complemented the efforts of the government by building health centres, schools etc. The Office of the Administrator of Stool Lands (OASL) operating under Article 267 of the constitution of the republic of Ghana and the enabling Office of the Administrator of Stool Lands Act (Act 481) has been very instrumental in the mobilisation of such revenues for the benefit of the communities concerned through the District Assemblies (DA’s).

In the next section we capture key aims of good governance in land administration.


21

2.5. Connecting Good Governance and Land administration

Many literatures indicate how relevant the concept of GG is to LA and for that matter local land delivery or local land governance. We discuss issues arising which have their basis from some of the literatures covered already.

2.5.1. Aim of Good Governance in Land Administration Different views exist on incorporating good governance principles in land administration processes. Firstly, Security of tenure and land access has been accepted as the foundation of socio-economic development. However recent privatization, liberalization of the property/land market, increased demand and competition, have in many developing countries resulted into insecurity of tenure, enrichment of the wealthy and powerful in society and further deprivation of the poor and the disadvantaged. GG is therefore promoted to be incorporated into LA as it aims at protecting property rights of individuals, groups, and or the state through principles such as transparency, equity, accountability, participation, efficiency and effectiveness, and the rule of law (Zakout, B. Wehrmann et al. 2006).

Secondly, today’s focus is in GG as a factor being important for sustainable development (Karl 2005). Graham (2004) quotes the words of the former secretary general of the United Nations (Kofi Atta Annan) that ‘good governance is perhaps the single most important factor in eradicating poverty and promoting development’. Land is one of the four basic factors of production (i.e. land, labour, capital and entrepreneurship) and characteristically fixed in supply, thus requiring maximum attention through prudent administrative practices. GG in LA and land management institutions are paramount in the discus of sustainable development. Burns and Dalrymple (2008) identified some of the principles to include operational sustainability, equitable stakeholder participation and benefits, and consistency in law and policy implementation.

Thirdly, GG in LA also aims at protecting the property rights of individuals, enterprises and the state. In this wise the varied land right are equally recognized since consensus is reached among various categories of people; be it the poor or the rich and the politically strong or weak in society. Conflicts originating in bribery and corruption are eliminated because the issues are clear and where there is settlement of any dispute people involved are dealt with fairly.

Fourthly, LA and management officials have long been associated with bribery and corruption. This has cropped up as a result of problem such as overlapping laws and regulations, overlapping tasks of institutions, weak and the lack of institutional framework, the availability of multiple registration systems and a lack of a complete property registration system, multiple tenural regimes culminating into the absence of transparency. The result is that the rich in society, top government officials, the respected in society, the political elite and government officials use the power they possess to acquire and to give out landed properties using informal means where bribes can be obtained from the public to the detriment of the vulnerable in society. Burns and Dalrymple (2008) refers the work of McAuslan (2002) that Senior politicians and public servants in cities manipulate or disregard the law and administration relating to land allocation and development with the objective of lining pockets and those of their families, friends and political allies. Good governance in land administration has


22

been noted to be one of the central requirements for achieving better governance in society (FAO 2007; Tony Burns and Dalrymple 2008)

2.5.2. GG dimensions and their merit in local governance of CLTI’s in LA Transparency and Accessibility Transparency is a critical component of a functioning efficient and effective LAS (Palmer and Exchange 2007), especially in support of local governance. There has therefore been a continual emphasis for land management institutions to make available clear and credible information with respect to the availability of land, transactions, public information on land rights and policies as key issues on land (UN-HABITAT 2007). This is because the risk of corruption and inequality are very real in land allocation and management (Palmer and Exchange 2007). There has been prior assertion that chiefs, heads of families, clans and communities have become a threat with respect to allocation of lands that has been put in their care as many have resolve to sell for monetary gains as against the common interest of the entire community in a clear violation of their trustee role (Ubink and Quan 2008). Molen and Tuladhar (2007) tries to relate the struggle for land and the role of chiefs in Ghana. Although according to customary law the chief should administer the land in the interests of the community, in approximately 65% of case studies the chief himself is the main beneficiary of land sales, giving rise to much local resistance. Much of the activities concerning the land are executed without the knowledge of the community members who the land is been held in trust. In addition to this Fourie (1998) argues that , locally held records are more accessible to people and therefore, this makes it cheaper for them to transfer and subdivide their land legally. It is extremely difficult for poor people to transfer and subdivide their property right legally when the only office for this is in the capital city and/or they have no hire professional service in order to effect transfer and /or subdivision

Participation Participation creates representation which is a key indicator of empowerment hence the level of voice of the people on issues that touches on their future (Blair 2000). This helps in a meaningful way to bring women and minority groups into the limelight of decision making. By injecting participation into local governance, governance at the local level tends to be more responsive to the desires of the citizenry and be more effective in service delivery. Stenseke (2009) make reference to Zachrisson (2004) of the associating benefits of participation such as reduction of conflicts, a more flexibility and efficient management, increased legitimacy, an implied better use of place-specific knowledge etc.

Participation always brings about consensus building and help build oneness in the decisions made concerning how things actually get executed in particular setting. This enables all individuals who are part of the decision making feel a part of the consensus and for that matter feel a part of the ownership of all activities undertaken within those certain. Ideally it is expected that institutions allow for decision-making by all people at all levels not withstanding their status to meet the scope of participation irrespective of the strategy that will be used to achieve this. The empowerment and making of the people’s voice heard also implies that the operations of an organization or institution should guarantee access and be transparent. To what extent are the CLTI able to involve professionals in local land delivery? This is very important because Fourie (1998) argues that local land administrators, linked to professionals in the land industry, could become the effective communication channel which improves participation management and assists the transformation of the regulatory framework to the point that the informal and formal systems can form an integrated system.


23

Equity One of the ambitions of LAS is to ensure equal level of access to services as well as exhibit equal service standards to the public irrespective of their political or economic status (Zakout, B. Wehrmann et al. 2006). There are however misconceptions as to whether CLTI provide enough equity to the people. Olima and Obala (1998) report from Kenya that non-de facto land tenure has the advantage of promoting equity within the community/land trust group where lands have been allocated to community members on the basis of need rather than financial ability. Can we say with all certainty that customary land tenure creates an artificial market where all community members are genuinely taken care of? On the contrary, Wily and Hammond (2001) and Ubink and Quan (2008), report from peri-urban areas of Ghana that usufructs are forcefully evicted from their farmlands by chiefs and given to settlers for residential purposes without compensation. The proceeds that come from land sales are not equitably distributed to the citizens of the communities.

Accountability CLTI’s have been noted to posses ample local information and thus are de facto often held accountable by local people because of strong kinship ties (Clement and Amezaga 2009). Notwithstanding this, some CLTI have been criticized for not being accountable to their communities. According to Kasanga and Kotey (2001) many customary law managers no longer act as if they are holding a fiduciary position and, in fact, behave as if they own community land on a personal basis. Accountability has therefore become a major challenge in the area of customary Land Tenure where there are significant entrenchments along the lines of status, age, gender and in situations where there has been a breakdown of trusteeship. In this stead, some custodians of communal lands have asserted private right over communal property without any recourse to accounting it to members leading to local members been dislocated from their birth right.

2.5.3. Concluding Remarks

This chapter explored the concept of good governance and its relationship with the broad land administration process. This has enabled us to identify the key dimensions and elements of GG and what pertains in LA. The CLTI has been the centre-stage of this review bringing to bare its fundamental characteristics and the relationship between the people and the land. We made a connection between LA and GG by discoursing some key aims of GG in LA as well as some emerging issues relating to local governance of CLTI in LA. In this respect governance issues have emerged, setting the pace for a framework to be able to assess CLTI for evidence of good governance dimensions in their operations.


24

3. Framework for Assessing CLTI

3.1. Introduction

The previous chapter has revealed the institutions behind the LAS and showcased the various dimensions of good governance from global and local perspectives. This Chapter designs a logical framework to define the scope within which CLTI can unambiguously be assessed by linking the principle of GG and their practices as captured in the previous chapter. The research focuses on four dimensions of GG. These are Transparency and Accessibility to information, Participation, Equity and Accountability. Moreover, the characteristics of institutions and processes differ in structure, composition, objectives, ambitions, functions, etcetera hence requiring that a choice be made for more relevant dimensions as basis of assessment. From these perspectives vis-à-vis information as captured in chapter 2 enable us to develop adaptive criteria and indicators for assessing CLTI.

3.2. Framework for Assessing the Effectiveness and Efficiency of LA

The advancement of different approaches for the assessment of LA is dictated by its multi-disciplinary nature. The concept of LA can be viewed from different perspectives including economic, social, cultural, political and technological (section 2.4).

In contemporary times there has been the realization that there exist a number of factors that can lead to the promotion of the effectiveness and efficiency that is required in LA. Some of these issues include security of tenure, availability of a service-conscious institution, unambiguous laws, enforceable regulation, smooth administrative process, the climate of transparency and openness. It is these factors that Burns et al,(2006) recognizes to be the panacea to effective land market which is the one single most important reason for LA.

It has been realized that modern LA should not only be looking at conventional methods but rather also consider the predominance of customary land tenure in some areas in the world. Whereas consideration is given to deed and title registration as the means of recognizing interest in land, and that assessing LA has been focused on the performance of these systems, it should be recognised that in SSA majority of land is under customary land ownership, which is controlled by CLTIs. CLTI play a major role in the final LA and for that matter their effectiveness and efficiency cannot be compromised. It is therefore important to define a framework to assess CLTI in LA.

In the framework for assessing the effectiveness of LAS from a global perspective, Burns et al (2006) distinguishes between three levels of governance;

� A top-level category that assesses the nature of the policy and legal framework that supports the land administration system, particularly the relative importance of formal and customary tenure systems;


25

� Where customary systems operate, a second category to assess the qualitative effectiveness of these systems;

� A third category that is a set of quantitative indicators of the effectiveness of the formal land administration system.

Figure 3-1: Framework for Accessing the Efficiency and Effectiveness of LA Source: (Burns, Grant et al. 2006)

From the Figure 3-1, customary systems are assessed based on qualitative indicators whilst the formal land administration system is assessed based on quantitative indicators. Although the approach looks at the customary system and the formal system of LA, they developed qualitative indicators as basis of assessment of the former and quantitative indicators for the latter. Each of these indicators holds the key to determining the level of efficiency and effectiveness of the LAS. We refer to Table 3-1 that gives a further exposition on the indicators as well as approach for assessing customary tenure. Unlike the conventional method of land administration where there is a recognition for either a deed or title registration system, the incidence of customary tenure differ from one country to the other. Sometimes there exist differences within the country itself. Much of the emphasis as far as this framework dwelled on, the factors that holdback tenure security under customary tenure. On the other hand the choice of indicators for the assessment framework of the formal land administration system is influenced by the International Federation of Surveyors (FIG) criteria for successful administration for legal right in property. The indicator adopted for this study includes percentage of total parcels registered, percentage of transfers that are registered, annual registered transactions as a percentage of registered parcels, annual registered transfers as a percentage of registered parcels, annual registered mortgages as a percentage of registered parcels, annual registry running costs/registered parcels, etc.(Appendix 7). The indicators as captured above and as treated under Customary Land Tenure can all be seen to be reflecting varied objects of GG.


26

Table 3-1: Approach to Qualitative Indicators for Customary Systems Source: (Burns, Grant et al. 2006)

3.2.1. Developing Criteria and indicators

There are reasons to suppose that institutions, organisations, companies, groups and governments have looked at how applicable the issue of GG and GG indicators is to their day-to-day business. Kaufmann et al. (1999) examines how the World Bank have assessed indicators of GG from a global perspective and for that matter a reflection of a higher country level dimension of governance such as voice and accountability, democracy, political stability, effectiveness and efficiency, corruption curtailment, the rule of law and quality of regulation. However these are higher level indicators and are seldom wholly applicable for all institutions. This means the indicators do not have the capacity of establishing micro differentials variation in institutions. In essence the principle of GG can be explained to suit acceptable moral behaviour expected from the key operators of institutions in the act of government. I.e. the CLTI is not different

Development of indicators in the context of GG in CLTI requires taking a general tour into literature that bare the theoretical background of the CLTI and their performances in the land delivery process(section 2.4). In the light of issues arising from the principles of GG (Section 2.2), we can re-orient our literature to its expected implication on customary land governance. Customary land governance can hence be described as, the cultural, social, traditional and administrative process that ensure that land owning community members are able to effectively enforce their rights; a situation where contributions are well incorporated; decisions are made and implemented and those in the helm of decision making are held accountable with respect of resource management and the land delivery process. The question that arises from all these deliberations is whether these customary institutions have checks and balances that ensure that there is accountability, fairness and equity, transparency and participation to the acceptance of the entire membership of the community.

Having noted the implication of GG, it is important that we develop specific customary indicators to assess institutions. The criteria and indicators selected can then be the basis of comparing CLTI (within country as well as across country). It can further serve as a yardstick for the development of


27

policies statements, guidelines and actions to enable for compliance of similar institutions. This is because in areas where there is legal pluralisms, it is ideal to develop this knowledge in order to streamline how these numerous and isolated customary institutions functions in fulfilling the mandate of properly administering land for the local community members. In developing these indicators we looked at some contributions of earlier writers and organisation. The IFAD (2004 ) develops indicators related to access to land where there is consideration for the access with respect of the poorand vulnerable in society, women access to land, indigenous population and access to land, the regulation of the allocation and management of common property resources etc. Indicators covering the procedure, cost and time associated with property transfer are established by the Doing Business Property Registration (see http://www.doingbusiness.org/) but are a representation of information captured from one key stakeholders and about one instance of a commercial transfer of property. These indicators (and more) have been developed with little or no emphasis on civil society and in this respect consideration of customary land governance.

Literature reviewed under CLTI and Customary Land Delivery has revealed features that are worth noting. Some of these features include access and openness, participation, use of local knowledge, supremacy of custom and usages, stewardship, ownership and control, accountability, fluidity and flexibility, equity, the institutional field, policy, constitutional and legal dimensions and the capacity of the key actors of the CLTI. These features highlighted comprises of both internal and external features. The internal features are those that form the core of the operations of the institutions and are directly under their control. In the same respect there are considerable elements that are external in nature that also have some level of influence on the CLTI. One such dimension is the legal environment. There are comprehensive land policies, constitutional stipulations as well as statutory pronunciations that can influence the CLTI. Does it foster or hinder participation, equity, transparency and accountability in customary land tenure processes? One major factor that has significant influence on the performance of the CLTI is the level of experience of the actors who are involved in the day-to-day business of the CLTI. For instance, traditional community leaders are not appointed based on their educational background even though there are presently some leaders who are very educated. In developing countries this is known to be a key source of threat or opportunity (Minang, Bressers et al. 2007). Both internal and external factors have features that are all important in the assessment of the CLTI.

In this study we restrict ourselves to the four dimensions (Participation, transparency and accessibility, equity and accountability) as basis for this assessment due to resources available and time constraint.

3.2.2. GG in respect of Customary Land Governance

Williamson (2001) indicates the importance of the recording of individual and communal ownership. Records keeping can take place at the local level or at the regional or the national level. Wherever it takes place, the keeping of records will be meaningless if there are no ways one can access this information in order to take decision with it. Information related to land is therefore expected to be very open to all community members. The (UN-HABITAT 1996) have indicated that institutions at the communal and traditional levels have survived the time because they permit the use of procedures which are more sensitive to local conditions, more accountable, and more transparent as a result of their openness to public scrutiny and amendment. On the other hand other researchers have indicated


28

the absence of transparency at the customary level (Ubink 2008). Transparency in all aspect of customary land governance does not relate to only members of the community but the government LSAs’. Information sharing however cannot take place where there are no structures to foster the process (example where there are no front offices or secretariats to spearhead this dealings). This has become important due to the plural environment within which most SSA countries find themselves. Issues of importance with respect of transparency and information accessibility will include levels of accessibility to land information, the openness of land allocation and delivery, decision making process and utilisation of resources and in the area of land conflict. In respect of transparency, we will be investigating whether all transactions on land are made open to the community and to establish whether decisions on the use of resource from land sales are also transparent to the people. Is information on allocated lands available to the public/community? Is there openness in the rules and regulations regarding land transactions, ownership and dispute resolution? Are the customary institutions open to the formal land sector agencies? Are the CLTI easily accessible to all land users? All these and many others need to be investigated in order to establish whether or not there is transparency in the performance of the CLTI.

Tradition has it that, it is always the chief and selected elders who are entrusted with the responsibility of administering communal land for and on behalf of the entire community (Ogolla and Mugabe 1996). The concept of participation has therefore been an underlining principle in customary land governance where there is the involvement of a group of people in the determination of decisions. Chiefs and heads of families, clans and tribes are not in any way permitted to take unilateral decision concerning acquisition or occupation and use of land as well as the utilisation of resources emanating from the land. This is because members are believed to have equal stake in the land resources (Section 2.4.1). In spite of this there exists the tendency of chiefs to unilaterally take decisions concerning the lands belonging to the whole community without involving the people. It is for this reason that there has being a continual practice of all CLTI to have heads as well as selected members (representing the council of elders) in charge of the administration of land in the area. Moreover colonial and post colonial studies have shown how two systems has been created under legal pluralism and harnessed in LA. In Ghana for instance land policies have been developed with equal consideration of the two systems. These two systems have come to stay and hence the need for peaceful co-existence in order to foster quality LA process. Consensus, consultation and collaboration are actions that need to be injected into the two operating systems. The CLTI will have to involve these state agencies because the law have already placed some governance activities in the domain of the state agencies and for that matter CLTI cannot exclude them in the decision they take at the local level. In respect of participation the idea will be to study the level of representation and involvement of all actors in the decision making in terms of the use of resources and in the general performance of the customary land tenure institutions. The assessment will be to establish whether the CLTI enable community members and settlers to participate fully in land governance and enabling consensus building.

Equity is equally becoming one of the considerations in the world of customary tenure. Ikejiofor (2006) contends that it is the responsibility of community heads to ensure that the proceeds from communal land are equitably distributed among all community members. This is increasingly becoming one of the salient issues of our time as land is now becoming in short supply and rising urbanization leading to some people being ejected from their lands which hitherto were their source of livelihood. Doebele (1987) expresses that every society, at every stage of its development, must invent


29

a paradigm of land tenure that optimises efficiency while maintaining enough equity to keep the society stable. This is based on the principle that land belong to a wider group of persons and that all people in the community needs to be considered in the sharing of the land and all accrued resources from its management. The ownership cut across generation and hence the strategy for the injection of equity needs to take into consideration those who are even yet to be born. Secondly gender equity is becoming of interest in the discourse of the principle of equity (McEwan 2003). Even though there are ample research confirmations regarding the inequitable distribution of the land between the male and female population of the community in respect of customary tenure some of these assertions are based on hypothetical models. Some of the issues that will be looked at in accordance with the criteria arewhether the customary institutions deals fairly and impartially with community members and settlers in granting non-discriminatory access to information, fairness in the distribution and utilisation of community resources, a fair handling of conflict and whether there is fairness in the event of compensation payments when there is loss of land among all community members.

The accounts of contemporary discussion seem to suggest that accountability on the part of CLTI has diminished (Ubink 2008) with the increasing pressure for land from population/urbanisation and the skyrocketing values of lands. Kasanga and Kotey (2001) on the other hand seem to disagree on the assertion. They indicate that irrespective of the weaknesses addressed by numerous research works, customary tenure systems and institutions are more able to ensure accountability to local communities and villagers than the state land management machinery and that Community land secretariats backed by their own hired professionals are better placed to promote positive land management. Communal land management therefore requires a lot of accountability taking cognisance of the fact that the chiefs and heads of stools, family, clans occupies a fiduciary positions with respect to the resources that is in their trust. This is very important because in all cases, it is not all the community members that take direct part in decision making. Invariably it has been a requirement that people in the hem of affairs to be made to account. However the bone of contention now has been the means with which stewardship is accounted. With respect to accountability, this study will be assessing whether or not CLTI demonstrate the required level of stewardship marked by their response to questioning by community members, explanations given with respect of its actions and the attitude of providing evidence and results of its functions. Although land sales/leasing are accompanied by issue of receipts and allocation notes, Chiefs and land secretariats in charge of land allocations do not publicise accounts on proceeds from land sales/lease to their citizens. There is also the assertion that these institutions are also not periodically audited.

3.2.3. The Conceptual Framework Design

It is important that we are able to pinpoint the significance of the establishment of governance principles directly assignable to the specific area or the reason based on which the indicator is required. These are the principles that form a governance framework. In this case four central governance principles were selected as were found to be common in most governance literatures. These are transparency and accessibility to information, participation, equity and accountability. The chosen principles all have adequate bearing with governance in customary land administration with some overlaps that ensure that a wider spectrum of governance issues considered. Table 3-2 showsestablished link between principle of governance and customary land governance.


30

Principle of Governance

Principle of governance as embedded in Customary Land Tenure Institutions in Land Administration

Transparency and Accessibility

“which information about existing conditions, decisions and actions is made accessible, visible, and understandable”

� the availability of a secretariat where information and other services delivery can be made available;

� full access to clear information to LSAs’ private professionals, and the public at large;

� easy process to the acquisition of land information and the land process involved in the land delivery process;

� effort made to enable for the publication of information regarding land delivery in the public domain;

� all land delivery related rule, regulations and usages are made clear to all community members as well as other users of the institution;

� all revenue accruing to the institution with respect to land delivery as against requisite expenditures are made very open to the whole membership of the community;

� issue of importance are discussed in the open where selected community representatives or community elders can express their opinion if it is not likely to involve the entire membership of the community;

� rules concerning dispute mediation must be made bare to all parties such that none will be taken unawares of what he/she is expected to do;

Participation

“consultation, corporation and corroboration, representativeness and interactive approach where individuals, groups and organisations choose to take an active role in making decisions that affects them”

� frequent involvement of government LSAs’ as well as private professionals in the acquisition and recording of land transactions and land information dissemination;

� involvement in governance issues such as the choice of community leaders, use of community resources, land allocation and land dispute resolution;

� greater level of involvement of the people in the community in the event of decision making while ensuring that governance is backed by an effective feedback system;

Equity

“fairness of outcomes both now and in the future with respect to who benefits or is included in the process of decision-making for development action”

� information can be assessed by any person not withstanding his/status in community or gender;

� there is equality in the level of security of tenure irrespective of the residence status of person or gender;

� ensuring that land is given out to members of the community on a fair bases and revenues are utilized such that it benefit everyone;

� there is the absence of an unjustifiable discrimination against community members who are not part of the land owning group;

� conflict on land are not solved based on the issue of status or gender of the parties; � whoever in the community that loses land unjustly must be compensated ;

Accountability “demonstration stewardship by responding to questioning, explaining actions and providing evidence of performance”

� Effective means of acknowledging receipt of payment, the keeping of such records and making such records available for audit purposes by external auditors;

� an effective way of reporting stewardship over all customary governance issues;

Table 3-2: Central government principles and customary land administration

Table 3-3 gives detailed criteria and the indicators of the selected GG dimensions and is based on the previous identified principle of governance as embedded in CLTI in LA (Table 3-2). Table 3-3 is a representation of the connection that has been established between GG dimensions and the operations


31

of the CLTI. The first column related to the dimensions of GG whereas the second and third column brings to bare the criteria and indicators as arising from the study of CLTIs’.

Dimension of Governance

Criteria Indicators

Access to land Information

• Unrestricted access to land information to the public • Unrestricted access and Sharing of land information with

government land sector agencies • Openness of land information to professional land institution • Establishment of a front desk, information service centre or a

secretariat • The level of complexity and bureaucracy associated with

seeking land information or land transaction • Utilisation of the media (print or electronic) for the publication

of land information • Clear records of all lands, boundaries, use and occupation

under the jurisdiction of the institution Openness of land allocation and delivery

• Clear information on land allocations for community purposes and individuals (members or general public)

• The involvement of community members in land allocation processes

• Customary laws, regulations and usages for land administration are clear to the general public

• Clear and simple processes in land allocation, delivery and acquisition

• Availability of information on allocated land to the community members and the general public

Decision making processes and Utilisation of resources

• Public awareness of revenues accruing to the institutions • Knowledge of what revenue accruing from land as resources

are used for • Decision on use of land as a resources is open to the

community members • Community members can lodge petition against decisions

made

Transparency & Accessibility

Land conflict resolution

• Clear rules for the resolution of conflict. • Openness to contending parties • Contending parties are given the needed chance to provide

evidences to prove their case

Participation The level of representation and involvement of all actors

• The level of involvement of government land sector agencies in recording regarding ownership, use and valuation

• The involvement of government LSA’s in choosing community leaders, use of community resources, land allocation and land dispute resolution

• Level of existing relationship with Local government agencies • Frequency of interaction with the public • The involvement of community members (land owning

members as well as strangers) in land activities • Level of involvement of professional bodies in data

acquisition, valuation, land use, and spatial data recording. The decision making process

• Ability for the public to lodge complaint • The level of response to complaints raised by the people


32

• Ability of citizens to object to decisions of the institutions pertaining to land delivery

• The voice of the people regarding the use of the land as a resource as well as accruing revenues

• The voice of the people in the choice of the leadership Non-discriminatory access to information

• Uniform access to land information by both members as well as strangers (general Public)

• Land information is not restricted on the basis of gender Distribution and utilisation of community resources

• Land is not distributed on the basis of gender • Members of the land owning community are given adequate

land to use. • Equal tenure security • Uniform protection of land right for both indigenes as well as

strangers. • Revenue accruing goes to benefit everyone in the community

Land Conflict • There exist no discrimination between indigenes and strangers • Gender is not the yardstick for the determination of land

conflict

Equity

Compensation for land loss

• Payment of prompt and adequate compensation

The availability of measure to ensure accountability on allocating land.

• Receipt provision or any form of evidence • Attitude of keeping copies of receipt issued out • Access of the accounts by external institutions for audit

purposes • The frequency of community meeting aimed at rendering the

accounts of the stewardship of the land Reporting of Stewardship to the community

• frequency of meeting community over all activities carried out

Accountability

Questioning and explaining decisions made to citizens

• Platform for questioning and explaining of ongoing activities to community members

Table 3-3: Good Governance criteria and indicators used for assessing CLTI

3.3. Concluding Remarks

This chapter has established a common bridge between the principle of GG and the practices of CLTIs. A fair relationship has been drawn between the two as we are informed from their characteristics. The criteria and indicators derived are therefore based on the synthesis done. Indeed for practical reasons, these criteria and indicators are designed to be more adoptive to CLTI as pertains to SSA. It is based on this framework that we designed an appropriate data collection strategy that will enable us carry out the study of our case. The proceeding chapter captures the research methodology of this case study.


33

�� Research Methodology�

4.1. Introduction

Chapter three has described the link between the principle of GG and the key issues arising out of Customary Land Tenure Institutions (CLTI) with their operations in customary land delivery and LA. This section describes the research approach by encapsulating the various techniques and strategies utilised for gathering necessary data. The section therefore hinges on how we made operational, the various research questions into the most probable way of gathering enough evidences to answer them, the justification for the selection of the case study method and the study area, describes the primary and secondary data sources, gives a brief of how we made selections of our respondent, project into how data was analysed and report of some limitations and problems encountered whiles collecting and analysing data.

4.2. Operationalization of Research Problem: Research Design

To be able to reasonably conduct this research there was the need to convert these formulated objectives into operational measurable variables. These variables served as the lead for investigation into this study and aided us to appropriately measure and interpret. Appendix 14 shows the various measurable variable as well as its associated techniques used for collecting the requisite data.

4.3. Research Approach

Yin (1994; Yin 2003) identifies case study research to be the best strategy if the research questions are explanatory, when the research is on contemporary issue and when behavioural events within the research environment occurs within a real world context and outside our control. The nature of CLTI and the soft or unstructured environment they operates involving social, cultural and organisational issues makes the case study ideal for the research. Yin (1994; Yin 2003) further distinguished between single and multiple case approaches. The single case research methodology is the basis of making this assessment. The choice of using a single case to investigate the phenomenon is by virtue of its ability to enable us get closer, have an in-depth insight and a better exposure to its deep structure and enabling a right description. The case study approach employed both quantitative (nomothetic) and qualitative (ideographic) methods. In so doing we built a fuller , richer picture surrounding the phenomenon than depending on their individual capabilities and also enable for cross-validation to ensure consistency and authenticity (Cavaye 1996).

Evaluation always seeks to assess the level of performance of a particular system, body or institution to enable for decision to be made whether its productivity, performance and efficiency is acceptable to its various stakeholders. However, there is no internationally accepted standardized methodology but highly dependent on among others the aim and the agenda of whoever is doing it (Steudler, Daniel et al. 2004). GG dimension is used in this case. The concept of GG is essentially broad, multi disciplinary and polycentric in nature because of its relevance to all spheres of life and hence the need for a method that will be able to distil it to fit the subject of study. GG covers dimensions such as


34

transparency, effectiveness, efficiency, responsiveness, empowering and enablement, accountability, equity, strategic vision, resource prudence, competence, rule of law and right, participation, use of local knowledge, partnership (McCall 2002; UN-ESCAP 2006; FAO 2007; Minang, Bressers et al. 2007; UN-ESCAP 2007). The research is therefore apart from the challenge of selecting among these fields also had to decide on the different stakeholders who are connected to this unit of analysis. The indicators derived for the output process and the input process will be based on the CLTI with its inherent decision making processes.

The CLTI was the main target for the various interviews that was conducted. Sources of information included the various divisions of the CLTI itself, the local community members, government land sector agencies and other private professionals. In addition to these was a community based forum held to help us validate and clarify some of the data collected through the household survey with the view of gathering further insight to some of the choices made during the household survey and identifying bias responses. There were other documents that were collected from government agencies as well as the CLTI itself where it was thought to be necessary.

4.4. Background of the Case Study

4.4.1. Study Area

Gbawe (Figure 3) was once one of the old farming villages in Ghana and located approximately 10 kilometres off the city centre of Accra (the administrative capital of Ghana). It previously formed part of a number of satellite localities/communities around the centre of the then Gold Coast.

Figure 4-1: Map of Ghana showing the study area, Gbawe near Accra


35

History and tradition has it that the land under occupation was settled upon through discovery by forefathers of the present generation who happen to be hunters, some six-seven centuries ago. The present generation claims about 10,000 acres of inhabited land as their own. Although the land was forest in nature, it has been cleared to make way for farming whereas time has continually seen the conversion of these farms into building plots. This has been as a result of the demographic pressures which is currently been experienced in Accra. This phenomenon has led the spread of development into the fringes of the city and consequently the rippling effect on the study area.

The choice of this customary land tenure institution was based on factors such as the willingness and availability of data, level of collaboration with government land agencies, its geographical location in terms of social and economic development and proximity to the Central Business District (CBD) of Accra, as one of the first chosen spots for the strengthening and establishment of Customary Land Secretariats (CLS’s) under the broad Land Administration Program (LAP), its acclaimed gender oriented land tenure and the level of reported internal land conflict. Given the strengths highlighted above, we were confident that, ample evidences in the form of data from the pronouncements of some researchers as well as documentary proofs and evidence from the field data would enable us conduct meaningful analysis.

4.5. Data Collection

In order not to lose important information, a combination of data sources were used. These complementary sources of information helped in validating and improving the reliability of the information gathered. The primary data collection tools utilized were predominantly structured interviews for the household interview, Semi-Structured Interviews (SSI) for the customary institution and professionals, forum guide for the Community based Forum (CBF) and a checklist for our interaction with the Elders. Secondary data were in the form of reports, policy documents statutes, Maps and laws. Structures interviews (SI) was used at the household level for reasons of making interpretation easy because of the many (100) respondents involved whereas the semi structured interview was used for the customary institutions and professionals due to the limited number of respondents and the expected enormous views and contribution to this research. The community forum was used to validate the results from the interviews

The fieldwork was conducted with three major types of questionnaires; one for a household interview; one for the various sections of the CLTI; one to solicit view from private professionals, the government land sector agencies and the interest bodies. Appendix 6 shows the list of stakeholders contacted and the technique used the collection of data on the field.

Topographic sheet of the scales, 1: 50000 and a larger scale (1: 25000) covering a section of the areawas used in the research. Information regarding the operations of the Customary Land Secretariat (CLS) and the various actors in the delivery process was gathered. Information collected from the government land sector included the Land Policy document, laws, and enactments, constitution of the republic, document on the Land Administration Project (LAP) and documentary evidences of claims made during the interview.


36

4.5.1. Interview

A household level interview was conducted from among hundred community respondents within the community consisting of 50 indigenes and 50 settlers. The choice of the sample size was influenced by the limited time and resource at our disposal. According to Denscombe (2007), the question of resources needs to be taken serious when it comes to deciding on a sample . Locating the two groups without missing was due to the spatial distinctiveness in the location of the areas they occupy. Respondents were selected using Systematic Random Sampling method after haven randomly selected five streets. The choice of the technique was influenced by the absence of a proper database, and the vastness of the area. Again the method guarantees that every household within the area stood a good chance of been selected provided the street on which it was located was selected. Respondent were given the chance to air their opinion via the questionnaire irrespective of been a member or otherwise of the land owning family..

The PRO and the Administrator who are operatives within the CLS were selected and interviewed based on a prepared open and closed questionnaire. These respondents were deemed key to this study because they were personalities within the CLS which is presently the official face of the CLTI. To add to this, there was an interview with a representative of the Land Allocation Committee (LAC) of the institution concerning their perception about their activities with respect to land delivery.

Private professionals as well as the Residents association of Gbawe were also contacted for their views regarding CLTI. The idea was to crosscheck some of the information provided by CLTI.

Figure 4-2: A session with the elders of the land owning community (3 perspectives)

In addition to the above, there was an open session to interact with the elders of the community where salient issues regarding land delivery was discussed (Appendix 5). Figure 4-2 indicates the eagerness as well as women representation at the level of council of elders.


37

The selection of respondents from land sector agencies as well as land professionals was based on whether they interact with CLTI. The land sector agencies contacted during data collection are the Land Title Registry, the Lands Commission, the Surveys Department, the Office of the Administrator of Stool Lands, the Land Valuation Board and the Town and Country Planning Department. The private land professionals include valuers, land surveyors, real estate consultants. In addition the office of the National Facilitator of the Land Administration Project (LAP) was interviewed. The questionnaires are shown as Appendix1-3.

4.5.2. Community-Based Forum (CBF)

A forum (CBF) organized at the community level was aimed at validating information that was previously gathered from the household survey as well as information collected from the earlier interviews and interactions.

Figure 4-3: A section of participants of the Community based forum

4.5.3. Field Observation

To facilitate field observation satellite images, maps and photographs taken during field observation were used. In addition because it was anticipated that not all the enquiries that answers would be given, preparations was necessary to depend on personal observation as events unfold in terms of appearances and informal comments and utterances that will be made by people contacted or interacted with. In this stead it is not everything that has to be asked. This is because data can be collected firsthand, thereby preventing contamination of the factors standing between him or her and the object of research (Nachmias and Nachmias 1987).

4.5.4. Training and Preparation of Household Survey

Three research assistants were involved in the household survey. The choice for the persons was based on their familiarity to the study area and the experience they have gained in similar exercises. A training session was organized for the assistants to acquaint with the details of questionnaires and interviews. Their feedback was necessary to enable for the review of the questionnaire after testing the questionnaire on the field and noting the response. The response received from the field try as well

A hall centrally located in the community was chosen as venue so as to enable participants to easily locate. Approximately 20 participants were involves in the forum. The forum was towards discussing salient selected questions from the household interviews (Appendix 4). Participants were purposely selected with the help of the CLS staff based on their experience, their insight into land delivery, their commitments and willingness.


38

as other identifications informed us to a little adjustments in terms of rephrasing them to the understanding of the people.

4.5.5. Sampling Procedure for household Survey

It is a recognized fact that the reliability and the accuracy of a survey is greatly determined by the sample size taken out of the sample population. The greater the sample size, the better the feedback. Statistical strictness regarding the sample is however not the main reason for this study but to solicit for information and concerns of community members regarding the operations of the CLTIs in terms of land delivery.

Figure 4-4: Spatial distribution of the household of respondents

Description Indigenous

Locality Settler Locality

A Settler Locality

B Total

Sample Size 50 25 25 100

Table 4-1: Sample size of the chosen areas

STUDY AREA


39

Indigenes and settlers were interviewed; 100 respondents from 100 Households were interviewed due to time and resource constraints. The respondent does not depend on whether the head of the household owns land or not. The criteria for the selection of the areas were purely based on whether the area is occupied by indigenes or by settlers.

Figure 4-5: Showing streets randomly selected from the indigenous area.

Two blocks of settler-occupied zones were selected judgmentally based on physical identification using the road network as a guide and later satellite image used to indicate the areas chosen. In addition one indigenous locality was also judgmentally selected Figure 4-4. The entire process was based on the assumption that the choice with respect to the given locality was spatially invariant.

Figure 4-6: Sampling Approach four Household Survey

Because of the density in housing structures and the lack of any database to carry out the requisite sampling in the indigenous locality, it was thought prudent to randomly select the streets from where systematic random sampling was used to select households for the interview. Although the settler locations have a well prepared layouts, there was equally no such database to serve as a sample frame. Streets were randomly picked and systematic random sampling done to select respondents from the two settler localities. The sampling approach is summarised in Figure 4-6. The areas have been

Determine the sample Size (n)

Purposively determine

indigenous locality

Purposively determine settler

locality

Simple random Sampling for Streets

in chosen areas

Systematic random sampling for selecting

respondents

Administration of Questionnaire


40

identified in the attached image as well as the above table indicating the distribution of the samples over the study area (Figure 4-4 and Table 4-1).

4.6. Data Analysis and Discussions

After designing the methodological framework as well as the data collection techniques, there was the need to prescribe an appropriate approach to help analyze these data that was gathered vis-à-vis the research objectives. There were two issues involved in the information generated from the household surveys. These are related to the status of the community members; thus whether a person is a member of the land owning community or he/she is a stranger. The data collected was coded and analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), Microsoft excel and Arc GIS for the presentation of results along the lines of the status of the community members.

The deductive coding methodology was used to construct responses categories before administering the instrument to the respondents. Researchers using deductive coding often pre-test the instrument on a small sample of population of interest so they can modify the categories suggested by theory to fit the specific population (Nachmias and Nachmias 1987). The analysis of the data was based on the community status of respondents (whether indigenes or strangers) and how they have perceived the CLTI in terms of transparency, equity, participation and accountability. On the other hand meanings were made from qualitative information gathered from the customary tenure institution itself, the government land sector agencies and interest groups, legal/administrative documents and the community-based forum. Information are extracted and conclusions drawn with respect to the objectives of this study. Quotations from the qualitative data are an attempt to put ‘flesh to the bone’ of the information being conveyed from qualitative information. Each of the set of data (i.e. quantitative and qualitative) therefore complements the other.

4.7. Limitations/ Problems of Data Collection

Limited time was available within which to organise both primary and secondary data collection. We had to spend some time seeking authorisation for the collection of data from some offices and persons hence straining the time allocated for the various information sources.

Interview at the household level had to take place only during the evenings when people have returned from their work and during the weekends when there are no official duties. It was therefore with difficulty that information was received from the respondents since they often came back from work late and much tied. In the course of the day, time was taken to book appointments and arrange for interviews with other professions and the other respondents. The tight schedule of government and private professionals made it difficult for interviews to be granted according to our preliminary schedule. In spite of all this constraints, all the respondents were contacted with the exception of the National facilitator for the establishment and strengthening of CLSs’. However the Thematic Facilitators were able to provide the needed response. Thematic facilitators are operational officers employed under the LAP to help in the activities of the National facilitator at various thematic areas of CLS establishment and strengthening.

Some respondents also expressed their concerns over their tiredness in answering survey questionnaires. They expressed having spent time to respond to such surveys and have not reaped any


41

benefits in terms of development thereof. Such respondents will have to be talked to in order to respond to it.

Getting information from Organisations and Institutions was also a problem. Some of the Organisations did not have the information required, and even if they consented in giving out the data, it was not readily available. The situation revealed that most data are not well organised in most public institutions and organisations.

At the time of this study, the Regional Planner who is the head of the land use planning division in the region was quite new in the Greater Accra region and hence was not in the position to give any account on the operations of CLTIs with emphasis on the Gbawe family lands. He would have been in the position to give us a regional account of the practices of CLTI and how they operate. Instead we were much dependent on the information given by the district planning office as a direct and responsible replacement of the regional planning officer.

At the onset of the sampling process, it was thought that chosen areas were spatially invariant from within. This means that the spatial characteristics within the area covered by the indigenes are unique. The areas being inhabited by settlers were visually seen to be similar in nature as well as the characteristics of the people leaving there. Given the assumptions made, any observation otherwise of this assertion will be a setback to this research design


This chapter has explained the techniques adopted for data collection and indicated how such information has to be analyzed. Each of the techniques described has in one way or the other contributed to the assessment of the customary land institutions in respect for good governance. The subsequent chapter bears details of the analysis in this study bearing in mind the research objective.


42

�� Results and Analysis�

5.1. Introduction

This chapter centres on the derivation results of out of the research methodology and as captured in chapter four. In chapter three a framework for assessing CLTI have been developed with respect to GG. The results will include key characteristics as well as actors of the customary area as recorded from interviews, surveys and forum. The accounts of the characteristics and actors are divided into two; the primary Actors and the facilitating actors. The primary actors comprises of the indigenous community members and settler community members depicting the rights, restrictions and responsibilities (RRR’s) that is associated with land ownership in the area. The characteristic of the institution is therefore demonstrated in the light of these actors and hence geared at answering research objective 1, question 1, 2 and 3. The facilitating actors are the institutional pillars which have evolved over time to oversee land delivery in the area. As part of an answer to objective 3, the second part of this section synthesizes the perception of the varied stakeholders in respect of the activities of the CLTI in the light of the principle of GG. The stakeholders involved are indigenes, settlers, private professionals, LSAs’ as well as interest groups. The responses are also weighed against the response of the various divisions of the CLTI. The analysis is therefore dictated by the four chosen GG dimension (i.e. Transparency and Access, Participation, Equity and Accountability).

5.2. Community Members and Land Delivery

5.2.1. Indegines and Landholdings

In this area there is no recognition of a Stool or a Skin as a symbol of communal land ownership but all land belong to the family. The various state machinery as well as legal provisions concerning land has acknowledged this state of ownership. In confirmation of the information provided in section 2.4.3 the allodial title is vested in the family. The ownership indicates who in reality has the power to alienate land to the members of the community as well as whoever needs land to settle on.

Figure 5-1: The foundation of land acquisition (who gives out land) Source: Household Survey


43

Figure 5-1 extracted from the survey demonstrates who has this authority. It is the family head with its council of elders from the royal gates that holds this title for and in trust of the entire community members.

It was realised that in spite of the existence of a head, there is consensus as to how to deal with the interest that has been placed under his care and as indicated in section 2.4.3. The head of family does not do anything with respect to land delivery without consulting and collaborating with the chosen committees of elders. From the point of view of an elder of the community, any attempt to usurp the authorities of the committee risk the cooperate membership of the council relieving him from that responsibility. The interaction with the elders however revealed that this has been a rare phenomenon because the heads so far had been corporative to the decision making process as has been handed over from generation to generation.

In this area, customary freehold (which is also termed as usufructuary title) exists. It was however observed that only members (indigenes) of the land owning community are eligible (Table 5-1). The interest was said to be as of right. From the account of some community members, the ownership of such interest has been as a result of first cultivation by the ancestors of that line of family or by the allocation by community elders. The interest is held subject to the allodial title. A member thereforeholds the land without fear of losing ownership even though most often than not there are no documentary proof of ownership. The only limiting factor to this form of tenure is the communal highest interest (Allodial) and the interest of the state.

Table 5-1Community and the terms of ownership Source: Household survey

From the statement of a member of the council of elder that “but the enjoyment of this right should not in any way conflict with that of the wider interest of the community” is an indication that the right of indigenes are subject to the common ownership of the community members. The customary freehold can be transferred. However the level of freedom is dependent on the status of the person receiving the transfer. Where transfer is done among members whether by grant, gift or by inheritance, it requires no consent from the elders of the land owning community. As can be noted from Figure 5-1, there are some community members (indigenes and settlers) who actually acquired their lands from some indigenes living in the community. This was noted not to be in contravention of the rules and regulation of the land owning community in principle. On the other hand where the transfer is meant to benefit a ‘settler’ it requires the consent and concurrence of the council of elder of the land owning community as will be seen later. It is under special circumstance that a settler is granted freehold. Such special instance is where the settler has rendered some special service to the

Term of Ownership Ser. No Community Status

Counts Freehold Leasehold

Total

1 Indigenes Frequency % of Total

43 44.3

5 5.2

48 49.5

2 Settlers Frequency % of Total

4 4.1

45 46.4

49 50.5

Total Frequency % of Total

47 48.5

50 51.5

97 100


44

land owning community. We however did not come across such settles who have acquired such interests although we were made to understand that they do exist. Those that we came across as shown by the table are those who have formalised their freehold titles with government agencies.

5.2.2. Settlers and landholdings

Interviews and documentary review revealed that common law freehold has been as a result of the operation of common law and the law of equity alongside customary law. The constitution permits the granting of common law freehold on family land unlike stool and skin lands. This freehold can either be a grant by the allodial holder in the form of gift or sale or transfer of freehold from another freeholder. One of the significant differences between Stool/Skin and family land pertains to the how the allodial owner can deal with the land in terms of sale and gift. The choice to sell or gift-out is therefore absolutely dependent on the consensus of the elders of the community. It was discovered however that lands are rarely given out under freehold to settlers although there are isolated cases as shown in Table 5-1 where they exist. Settlers are normally given the freehold in exchange of substantial monetary consideration. The accruing revenues are used for the purposes of procuring public goods for the community. There are times that grants are made in recognition of services or contributions of some settlers to the community. These lands are registered formally as freehold (fee simple absolute) by the deed registration and presently through the titling systems. In deed as at now, the family can still grant absolute interest in the land if they deem fit.

Leasehold is a category of interest found in this area. Documentary reviews and Interviews revealed a change that has taken place in context of customary tenure. Before now, it was said that customary tenure consisted of unwritten transactions and rules and regulations. One Real Estate Consultant attributed the revolution of the leasehold and freehold to Urbanization and population pressures, state laws and regulations which have incited the documentation of some form of permanent interest as discussed above. As captured in the lease document, land is granted to Settlers in the land owning community for a stipulated time in reciprocation of customary drinks, “customary run” and annual payments. In addition to the annual payments there are additional restrictions that determine the use of the land. The agreement is said to be binding on the bases of the conditions stipulated in the lease document. Transactions are therefore a rippling effect of laws and regulations governing land delivery in Ghana. With respect to Stool lands, whereas the constitution stipulates the minimum and the maximum term for lease transactions (subject to the use of the land and the Nationality of the lessee), the Conveyancing Decree of 1973 (NRCD 75) has indicated categorically that, a transfer in land will be of no effect unless it is in writing and signed by the one making the transfer or by his duly authorised agent. In line with this it was realised that all leases granted by the CLTI are in writing signed by all parties involved. Legal provisions have enables the CLTI to have written documents, whereas the arrangement in the lease have served as a source of perpetual income from the land.

All leases are signed by the head of family with the consent of the council of elders. No individual member of the land owning community has the right to lease-out or sell-off land to non-indigenes. The best they can do is to grant occupation to other members of the communities. There is however no regulation or usage that disbars there outright transfer of land to stranger. A grant of a land to a non-indigene requires the consent and concurrence of the elders. The duty of someone relinquishing his/her interest in a land is to lead the will-be lessee to the palace though the CLS for the transaction to commence. In the same way where a settler-owner of a piece of land in the areas is willing to make


45

a sublease or an assignment to a third party, it is required that he inform the council of elders before such a transfer will be regarded as authentic.

Figure 5-2: State of registration of land document by indigenes and settlers Source: Household survey

One significant feature is the fact that notwithstanding the customary machinery for the recognition of ownership of land much of the settlers make use of the formal system to assert title to their land. From Figure 5-2, it could be identified that ample number of the respondents makes use of the customary registry whereas a considerable number of settlers have attitude of furthering the process to formally register their interest at the erstwhile Land Registry and now the Title Registry. Even though the incidence of internal boundary dispute is minimal, people still desire to meet the directives of the government to register land transaction at the title registry level. On the other hand it would be seen that this is not usual with people enjoying customary freehold. There is no compulsion on the part of individuals to proceed to register their interest at the government level.

5.2.3. Allocation of Land

From the account of an elder of the community land in time past was in abundance making it easy for members as well as non-members to acquire and cultivate the land for economic gains. Indigenes were allocated any vacant land in the community without reservations.

A settler is required to present customary ‘drinks’ as well as some premium consideration called ‘customary run’ for the use of the land before the elders witnesses the transaction. This is the ceremony that seals the transaction. At this point it is thought that the community represented by the elder have accepted you as part of the community. The community is now urbanised and that farming activities is now a thing of the past. But every family member acknowledges that land is vested in the family and administered by the head for and on behalf of the entire community. As the use of land changes from farming to residential, redistribution is done taking into consideration the one in practical occupation. Members loosing farmland are first to be considered in the land distribution process before others. Occupiers of farm lands could boast of the surface right and not the absolute ownership of the land as indicated in Section 2.4.3. Whenever lands were needed for social or economic development, the land would be taken back subject to the payment of some form of compensation to the person in occupation.


46

The distribution of land is based on a formula that factors the entire royal gates of the community to ensure that all community members are taken care of. In accordance with the formula land are shared equally among the royal gates and then to members. The onus for the trickling of the interest to the individual level is all dependent on the family units that would be further entrusted with the allotted lands. Thus it is the individual family unit that decides on whom within the family deserves to be given the land. These lands that are given to family members are given on freehold bases without any reservations. Members therefore have the right to deal with the land anyhow pleases them provided the zoning as well as other restrictions from the state is adhered to. They have the right to sell, lease, give it as gift, assign their interest, make licenses, make transfer inter-vivo etc as indicated in Sections 2.4.3. The rest of the lands are made available for non-members who are interested in living in the community (Figure 5-3 for the process involved) after settling all member gates.

The development scheme based on which allocation is done is prepared by the Town and Country Planning Department which is a presently under the District, Municipal and Metropolitan Assemblies (DMMDA’s). It is by virtue of Section 12 of the Local Government Act (Act 462) that it is mandated to be the highest planning authority for all areas under its jurisdiction.

5.2.4. Subjects in Land-Right Transfers

The transfer of land between varied degrees of persons was a recognised phenomenon. Land can be acquired by all manner of persons. However the procedure is dictated by the parties concerned. Transfer can take place between two strangers, between two or more family units or members and between a member and a stranger. In addition to this there are other lands that are absolutely in the care of the institutions. The right to give out such lands resides with the family head who acts in trust of the community. Whichever form it takes, it all amounts to who has the right to dispose of the interest in the land (as determined by the nature of ownership of the land). In this wise the various elements are going to be captured followed by the chain of the process of land acquisition itself. First we demonstrate the probable parties in a matrix and indicate the nature of the transaction that can be created.

The CLTI does not frown on a transfer between two indigene of the community. Such transfer does not require the consent of the elders of the community. The understanding is that all members see themselves to be descending from a common lineage (section 2.4.3). As noted by a community member, ‘transactions can be done irrespective of the magnitude of the interest been the subject of the transfer’. These transfers are normally not recorded. The transactions can only results into customary freehold.

Table 5-2: A matrix of outcome of transactions of different actors. Source: Interview and forum

Holders Allodial Indigene Settler Allodiall - CF L/C Indigene CF CF L Settler L/C L L/C


47

Key Description CF Customary Freehold Transaction L/C Leasehold or Common Law /Customary Freehold Transactions L Leasehold Transaction - Impracticable transaction for the same family

Transaction between indigene and settlers can only result into leasehold as seen in Table 5-2. However this will always have to go through the elders of the family. In principle the family is at liberty to also give out land on a freehold bases to non-members by virtue of the position of the constitution of the republic of Ghana. However customary freehold being enjoyed by indigenes is not transferred in full to non-indigenes. There are restrictions attached to the indigene with their right to transfer right to non-indigenes. The basis is to ensure that proper steps are taken in admitting an outsider into the ancestral heritage of the state and extending birthright of citizenship. Family members have the responsibility of introducing the will-be land seeker to the council of elders through the CLS.

A transaction between settler and a settler can either create a leasehold or a freehold depending on the interest been held by the transferor. Settlers owning rights in the land has the right to transfer their interest. In the case of leasehold for instance the explicit covenants is to seek the consent of the family before disposing it off or creating a sublease. This is also to ensure that proper steps are taken in admitting an outsider to the ancestral heritage of the state and extending birthright of citizenship.

Transactions between two strangers and between indigenes and strangers constitute the secondary form of land acquisition in this area. It is termed secondary in the sense that it is a transfer from an old user to a new one. Figure 5-4 is a UML representation of the process after the parties have agreed to effect the transfers. It was realised that this is not applicable to transactions between two indigenes because they are normally not written and needs no consent of the elders.

5.2.5. Allodial Title to- Members and Strangers

The last but not the least types of transfer is that which the family been acted for by elders of the community makes to individual members as well as strangers in the community. Where lands are given to members they are expected not to offer any consideration in the form of money. Rather they present drinks in appreciation. However where land is given to strangers, it is required that they offer ‘customary drinks’ as well as ‘customary run’ to the family. This is however exclusive of annual rents that holders of leasehold interests are covenanted to pay. It is the payment of this ‘customary run’ that makes such transfers significantly different from that which is transferred from a community member to a stranger. See section 5.2.3 for analysis of how lands are given out to indigenes. On the other hand allocation of land to strangers also has its procedure too. This is the primary land acquisition. A primary allocation is where the land is fully under the control of the family machinery in which case it is the family that has the sole right to give out (Figure 5-1).

Land can be applied for by anyone irrespective of residence status, sex, age, culture, socio-economic status or even his/political ideology. There are however development conditions that has to be adhered to. This includes the use of the land, the term of occupation as well as other restrictions responsibilities, and rights associated with the acquisition. Applicants fill and submit an application


48

form to the CLS Appendix 9. The secretariat then notifies the Land Board (LB) of the application who then schedules to deliberate over the application. After deliberations, the Plot Allocation Committee is notifies to schedule a day for the allocation to be done in favour of the applicant. At this point, the applicant is invited to the palace where he makes some commitments to the transaction. This commitment includes the delivery of ‘customary drinks’ and payment of ‘customary run’. Where the elders of the community raise no objection to the request the secretariat is then notified to start processing the applicant’s document for him/her. The applicants after the payment of all associating fees for the transaction can then pick this lease up. It is up to the applicant to opt to continue with a formal registration at the Land Title Registry. In actual fact, many do not go beyond this point because they are satisfied with the security granted by the traditional system. However where they opt for land title certificate, the secretariat is able to facilitate its acquisition.

5.2.6. Facilitating Actors in Land Delivery at Gbawe

Different class of actors are considered although they might have been mentioned in the previous sections of this chapter. This comprises of the four basic facilitating divisions of the CLTI in respect of land delivery. The divisions have evolved over the years according to the needs and the aspirations of the land owning community and backed by the policy of the government of Ghana. These are the Council of Elders (CE) headed by the Head of Family, the Land Allocation Committee (LAC), Land Board (LB) and the Customary Land Secretariat (CLS). We analyse the varied responsibilities as collated from our fieldwork below.

Council of Elders The council of elders (COE) is the highest decision making body as far as the CLTI is concerned (Section 2.4.3). It is not oriented to predominantly land related issues arising from the community. However majority of the issues dealt with are related to land management. This is the highest level in the determination of land related dispute through the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanism.

The council is made up of thirty-nine (39) chiefs and elders including eleven (11) women selected from the various royal gates in the area. The selection is made local with no interference from the state or any other interest group. The council of elders is headed by the head of family who chairs the sittings. There are meetings every Saturday provided there are no funerals in the community. Beside the usual meetings, there are general meetings where issues needing wider involvement are discussed. All decisions taken at the usual or general meeting are bidden on all the citizens of the land. It is deemed as if it was taken by each person. The COE is responsible to the giving of final approval of transaction of land which is not between two indigenes. It is the approval authority of any land allocation in the area following any land use approval by the TCPD.

‘Customary run’ are premium paid in respect of the transaction been made with a stranger whereas ‘customary drink’ is a typical Ghanaian custom where drink and cash is presented to seal land transaction between a land owning group and a non-indigene. This is an indication of allegiance towards the chief, and for the customary pouring of libations on the ground to seek the gods’ blessings for the transaction.


49

Figure 5-3: The Primary Land Acquisition process Source: Interview and forum

There are times that representatives of other tribes in the area are invited and mandated to take part in the meeting of the COE’s. Apparently there is a local chief of all these foreign tribes in the area who represent such minority groups. These additional members however do not have voting right on the issues that will be discussed.

Land Board (LB) The LB performs an advisory role, first to the COE, then to the land LAC and the CLS. This is an eight (8) member group in composition. This includes the head of family as the chairman, the Administrator of the CLS as the secretary. Other members are the Chief of Gbawe (who in this case is not the family head), principal elder, legal personnel, land surveyor, a land economist and a planner

A Settler in the context of land transfer is anyone who is not a member of the land owning community but lives in the community.


50

Figure 5-4: The Secondary Land Acquisition process Source: Interview and forum

Some of the thematic areas that the LB handles are policy formulation for the running of the CLS at the local level, development of and implementation of guidelines that will ensure prudent land management. It has the responsibility of monitoring and ensuring that there is efficiency and effectiveness associated with the implementation of the CLS objectives. When application for land is made by prospective developers, it is the LB that reviews the application before they send their recommendations to the COE over the application been made.

Land Allocation Committee (LAC) The LAC is the technical wing of the institution. It is made up of Nine (9) people including one (1) female. Its main responsibility is to effect the decision of the land board and also give the LB


51

technical advises in respect of applications made to it by people. For instance it is the LAC that handles issues of the geographical location of the land and deals with all boundary matters. In cases of land disputes, it is the land allocation committee that will be required to provide detailed field information regarding the dispute to the CLS or the COE to enable them relate the information on documentation to the realities on the ground.

Customary Land Secretariat (CLS) The report gathered from the office of the national facilitator for the establishment and the strengthening of CLSs indicated that, Gbawe Kwatei family is among the few CLTI that have been particular about land-based records since time immemorial (Figure 5-5). It is one of the CLTI that kept records of land transactions before the conception stages of the broad Land Administration Project (LAP). It was therefore one of the first ten customary institutions that the project identified to facilitate in the areas of record taking and record keeping. The objects of the CLS can be found under the sub component 2 of the LAP. The idea of the government is to help reduce poverty and enhance economic/ social growth by improving security of tenure, simplifying the process of acquiring land by the populace, developing the land market and fostering prudent land management, both state and customary.

Figure 5-5: CLS with an engraved reception Source: Field Survey

In line with the facilitation process, the project has provided computer and accessories, air conditions, fax machines, photo copier, furniture, training and an ongoing office/activity support.

The mission adopted by the CLS is to enhance the family land management and facilitate sustainable development for the benefit of present and future generations and to have up-to-date records on all lessees and assignees on Gbawe Kwatei Family land as quick and reliable sources of reference on property ownership. Below are the objectives associated with the functioning of the secretariat.

• To have an up-to-date records on lessees and assignees on Gbawe Kwatei Family lands; • To educate lessees and assignees on the nature of the lease documents issued by the


52

Gbawe Kwatei Family; • To mobilize revenue to aid development project in the community through ground rent

collection; • To operate the secretariat in a free, fair and equitable manner to all stakeholders. • To educate the public on the procedures for land acquisition. • Ensure that land development is effected in conformity with community development; • Provide land information to the public in terms of the ownership, use etc; • Keep records of all fees and charges associated with land grants; • Serve as the link between the land owning community and the public land sector agencies

such as the Lands Title Registry, Land Valuation Board, the Survey Department, the District Assembly etc;

• Receive all correspondence on behalf of the Land Allocation Committee and the Land Board; • Serve as the link between an applicant and the Land Board; • Prepare accounts of all incomes and expenditure for monies paid; • Prepare periodic reports on all activities of the secretariat; • Providing Alternative Dispute Resolution with respect of land related conflicts and helps to

facilitates demarcation of residential lands; • Carry out land title registration on behalf of lessees and assignees; • Providing land acquisition advisory services to the general public; • Monitoring of all developments on the land to ensure that they are in conformity with

approved planning schemes and the prevention of encroachment;

The commencement of the LAP brought about some recognition to the operation of the secretariat. Since the recognition of the secretariat, steps have been taken to gather more information on their land from different sources. Some of these sources are the Lands Commission, the central records and the judiciary. The Lands Commission Secretariat was one such place that such information was gathered since their mandate regarding family lands came to an end in 2006 (Appendix 15a). The move was to help furnish it with all the necessary land information from the area (which hitherto was not available). Secondly the available of such data was going to help in the building of a detailed attribute data concerning all their lands under occupation.

At present all documents related to the customary areas passes through the structures put in place at the customary institution before the commencement of land title (as required by law). This process implicitly feeds into the statutory process. This data gathering process has helped the institution start the development of a database that will contain all land transactions in the area (Appendix 15b).

The database was in construction phase at the secretariat. It was revealed that the database lacks a geo-referenced cadastral information and digital site plan. This will help in the transparency in land delivery and access to information related to lands in the area.

5.3. Transparency and Accessibility

The questionnaire was designed to capture information from the various stakeholders regarding how easy it is to get information related to land from the institution machinery and how transparent the entire land delivery process at the customary level is. Apparently some of the issues of prime


53

importance are the restrictions attached to information, the existence of the information requested, the publication of land information and practically the bureaucracy involved in the acquisition of such information. Information was generally gathered from the household survey, interviews, forum and documentary reviews.

5.3.1. Access to Land Information

For the purposes of bridging the gap between the public and the customary institution and enable for a safer keeping of all land information, a secretariat was established. The Gbawe Kwatei Family Secretariat was among the first 10 pilot CLS at the traditional level to be strengthened at the commencement of LAP hence confirming our knowledge prior to field data collection. According to one Thematic Facilitator for the establishment of CLSs’, Gbawe Kwatei family CLS is one of the best functioning secretariats ever to have been reengineered by the government of Ghana. This was confirmed by both the community members who expressed significant improvement (during the forum) in the level of efficiency and transparency and accessibility to information that the initiatives have injected into the land delivery process.

Information that is normally accessed includes ownership, unallocated land, local maps, land use and judicial judgements. Out of the respondents interviewed, 16%, 4%, 25%, 38% and 1% respectively indicated haven accessed information on ownership, unallocated land, cadastral plan/maps, land use and other information.

Figure 5-6: Showing the levels of satisfaction Source: Household survey

Community Status

Agree strongly

Agree somehow

Neither Disagree Disagree strongly

Total

Indigenes 27 15 3 3 1 49 Settlers 33 12 1 3 0 49 Total 60 27 4 6 1 98

Table 5-3: Indication of the readily accessibility to information on allocated land Source: Household survey

Table 5-3 also represents the perception of people (both settler and indigenes) as regards to information access. Thus as to whether they agree that information is readily accessible to everyone in the community. It can be realised that the choice ticked by the people does not deviate from that which was chosen by community members who have had real experience. Again the difference

The ease with which people were able to get information was thought to be embedded in the level of satisfaction they had on receipt of the required information. 94%, 3.6% and 2.4% of the respondents who have taken advantage of land information from the institution were either satisfied; neither and unsatisfied respectively (Figure 5-6).


54

between the views of indigenes is not really different. This can be related to the absence of discrimination in the access of land related information.

Community members were happy with the kind of response they receive whenever they make request for land information. There exists a one-stop-shop (OSS) at the secretariat level whenever land information is required. Issues of information delivery is not difficult since the institution controls the information that is their custody (some of which are stored in computers) by itself. Once the request is made at the counter, the officer in-charge of that particular information is alerted to produce it. The steps as realised were therefore very minimal and hence not bureaucratic in nature.

There was however a slight drift in the opinion of professionals of the LSA. When we sources for their impression to the assertion that land information at the CLS is fully available and accessible to the public, a number of them stayed neutral. (i.e. 6/15). Aggregately, there were 7 and 2 professionals who agreed and disagreed respectively. The average score is a confirmation of the information in the minds of the professionals as pertaining to the capabilities of the CLTI in the provision of land related information. They highlighted some problem such as the lack of cooperation on the part of the CLS, inappropriate address of holders of landed-property and in-accurate data, limited reliability of the accuracy of the information and delays due to the manual nature of the information. From an account of a professional of the LTR “customary land institutions are normally not organised. However Gbawe CLS is doing a great work and have managed to organize most information pertaining to land under their jurisdiction”. It is easy to obtain information to some extent as to who owns what land in the areas even though they are in manual form. But they are even developing a database that will even ease the process of getting information”. This is an indication that the institution is open even to LSA’s and other private professionals. Their response was based on the lack of knowledge about how people source for information from the CLS. Moreover they were mostly influenced by the low capacity-base of most CLTI and hence underrated that of Gbawe.

One aspect of transparency related to how the institution publishes land information. Although there are no publications in respect of individual ownership of the land, there are general information about judicial judgements, allodial interest, general information about the CLTI and its processes. We were able to procure some evidences of payments associated with the publication of land information in the print media (Appendix 12). Durbars are organised annually and used as a platform to make public information concerning land. In addition there are now information Vans available which is purposefully to help in the dissemination of information to the doorsteps of community members.

5.3.2. Openness of Land Allocation and Delivery

In Connection with seeking for impressions about the openness of the land distribution process 83.8% can be categorised as satisfied, 2% did not favour any side of the divide, 1.1% said the process was un-transparent whiles 13.1% expressed lack of knowledge on the issue.

In contrast, it was realised that when they were asked whether they have ever participated in land allocation which would have eventually enabled them to have a better insight about the process 3.2%, 12.6%, 14.7%, 56.9%, and 12.6% indicated that it was regular, sometimes, rarely, never and don’t know respectively (Figure 5-7). The response seams negative in nature. The distribution is quite


55

similar to the opinion of professions where it became evident that it was rare for all community members to have a clear insight into the process.

Figure 5-7: Representation of the people’s involvement in land allocation Source: Household Survey

This presupposes that from the point of view of professionals, community members rarely take part of the allocation process of land. This confirms the response of the LAC and the CLS that the community per say do not take part in the allocation process. Instead, there is a group who have been selected by the community to take charge of this activity. Even though all community members were not actively involved in the process, they are alerted and are given a chance to make their case whenever there is a community gathering with respect to the activities of the institution. Again, all that is accrued in terms of revenue are also made bare to everyone.

Studying the institution in terms of transparency was also to understand how rules and regulations are open to the entire community membership. On the average the response of professionals was also similar to that observed through the household survey in terms of the presence and availability of customary rules and regulation. Rules and regulations are quite clear although there are many of these rules that are not written but are passed on from generations to generation. 86.6%, 3.1%, 2.1% and of the respondents indicating that the rules were clear, neither clear nor unclear, very unclear respectively whereas 8.2% community members expressed ignorance about their existence. There was therefore no indication as to the possibility of a community member to be taken unawares of a particular responsibility in relation to rules regarding the land delivery process.

Figure 5-8: Clarity of rules and regulations associated with land delivery Source: Household Survey


56

It was however realised that the clarity of the rules differed from the segment of the governance although rules applies to all areas (i.e. in the areas of Chieftaincy, dispute resolution, land allocation, land compensation, and land transfer). With the exception of chieftaincy and compensation in which one person each of indigenes and settlers expressed lack of knowledge, there was a fair distribution of knowledge over the other areas of customary land governance. The response from the perspective of the status of the community member did not make much difference (Figure 5-8).

The openness of the decision making process was thought to be one area that dictates the level of transparency of the institution. This entails all manner of decisions that touches on the life of the people including the use of the resources emanating from the land. The response received signified the agreement of the assertion that decision making processes are open to the community (Table 5-4). The responds from the professionals on the other hand indicated that it is not always that community members take part in decision. It seems there are more interactions that go on outside the purview of the land sector agency professionals as well as other private professionals and that the community members are more informed than the professionals.

Level of Agreement

Frequency Percent Cumulative percent

Agree strongly 21 21.6 21.6 Agree 41 42.3 63.9 Neither 18 18.6 82.5 Disagree 15 15.4 97.9 Disagree strongly 2 2.1 100 Total 97 100.0

Table 5-4: Indicating the level of agreement that decision making is open Source: Household Survey

The survey also shows that there are those who stayed neutral and others who disagreed with the assertion. When enquiries were made into how decision were made open (through the interview with the CLS and the COE) it was realised that there were various royal gates that makes up the family and each has a member representative at the highest decision making level in the community. To the community members the decisions taken have their consent due to the presence of their representative. In addition to this highest decision making representatives, there are reporting times where durbars are organised for people to appreciate decisions made at a high level and to contribute to it (i.e. to reject it or accept or alter it).

5.3.3. Decision making processes and utilisation of resources

Such contribution is evident in the ability of the local people to lodge complaints on any issue in the community and the corresponding tendency of receiving feedback from those in the helm of affairs. There was certainty regarding the ability for community members to petition land decision makers as captured from the survey. This was confirmed by also probing into those who have actually petitioned or heard of people who have petitioned decision makers as against the response received (Figure 5-9). It was realised that people are able to petition the decisions made because of the openness of the process. This means that people can petition the institution before a particular decision is actually


57

implemented. This evidence shows the importance of the contribution of community members in trying to build a solid society where the voice of everyone is considered important.

Figure 5-9: Indicating the response from the complaints made to the CLTI Source: Household Survey

The frequency of interaction with all community members is a good indication of how the institution opens up their performance for scrutiny. Annual gathering is one important strategy of making all activities known to community member. Whereas the mode value from the household survey showed that there are annual meetings, majority of the professionals indicated that there were regular meetings among the community to deliberate on issues of land delivery. It is among such annual and regular gatherings that the institutions render account on the dividend from all land delivery businesses and bring to the open all communal activities undertaken within the timeframe of reporting. There was no signal however that revenues accruing from the land were made open to the public as a whole. Indeed there were no indications of national medium that such account is made open to all persons who are interested. Rather everything to do with the account is made open at the community level only.

The regularity of interaction indicates how the CLTI declare proceeds from land resources and the use the accruing revenue. Notwithstanding this, it was clear that there are other emergency gathering times that also presented opportunity for members to contribute in decision making or come-up with their petitions over decision taken already.

5.3.4. Land Conflict Resolution

We first looked out for the preference of the people in terms of dispute resolution over land, should it arise. Majority of the respondent preferred the ADR mechanism provided by the CLTI as means of resolving conflict on land (Table 5-5).

Mechanism Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent

State 30 30.6 30.6 Customary Institutions 68 69.4 100

Total 98 100 Table 5-5: Preference of community members to mediating land related disputes

Source: Household Survey


58

We came to the realisation that there were five fundamental reasons for which the people preferred to use the ADR mechanism from the forum; the courts are clogged with too many cases to handle; cost of using the court system is high; ADR guarantees the use of Local knowledge; familiarity of the people handling the matter and thus guaranteeing an informal environment; and the fact that most documents covering lands and land transactions are not registered at the formal level and hence permit the use of the information at the local registry as evidences.

Out of the 100 people interviewed, 40 people indicated haven personally or know someone who had gotten involved in some form of conflict where CLTI ADR mechanism was used as a means of mediation. In this wise we asked whether they were satisfied with the openness of the process of settlement. Although majority of the respondents were satisfied with the outcome, it was realised there were no strict rules and regulations with respect to how a particular land dispute is handled. The interview with the CLS and the COE revealed that every case was unique in itself and thus the approach for amicable settlement thereof also differed. However there are key manifestations that make it possible to be assured of its transparent nature. These are fundamental principles based on which the settlement is done and prevail at both the CLS level and the Council of Elders levels of dispute resolution. Among the principles are that there is always the determination of making sure that all parties to the conflict are present and are fairly represented to enable each one to fairly tell his or her side of the story, creation of an informal environment where parties are able to speak their minds without any intimidation. All necessary supporting documents (if any) are not secrete evidences and hence are made bare to all sides of the dispute to enable them file their defence. Moreover each party is given adequate time to produce evidences and witnesses such that it will not be said to be in favour of one person or party. There is equally the assurance that the process does not have special favours for persons with special inclination to politics, social status, cultural status,community status or gender. In this essence it was realised that during disputes, issues are the main focus and not the personalities involved. In spite of this local effort, it was realised that the competency level in respect of training background was lacking.

5.4. Participation

Participation assessment entails looking at how the entire community members are involved in decision making in the determination of who gets what, who becomes a leader, dispute resolution and how resources are used in the area. In this section the level of interaction of the CLTI with government land agencies as well as other private professionals are also examined. To what extent can we conclude on the effectiveness of the participation of these local people and whether decisions that are cooperatively reached are implemented to the satisfaction of all community members?

5.4.1. The level of representation and involvement of all actors

All land sector agencies as well as private professionals contacted indicated their involvement in one way or the other in the processes that goes on at the customary level. However the degree of involvement of LSAs’ is limited by the mandate given to it by the enabling Act, the constitution of the country and the self-requested assistance needed by the CLTI itself. The Office of the Administrator of Stool Lands (OASL) and the Lands Commission (LC) only perform advisory roles in the area of use of community resources and during conflict resolutions. These two agencies do not have any formal responsibilities with land delivery activities concerning family lands at present. Their involvement is therefore purely on request extended by the CLTI. The involvement of private


59

professionals was also noted to be purely advisory in nature except the private surveyor who performs a technical responsibility. Private planners did not feature at all in the land delivery process whether advisory or technical. The SD as well as the T&CPD also perform its mandate according to the Act and enactment that sets them up. There was no representation of these LSAs’ at the traditional level in the event of decision making. Decision making process at the traditional level runs parallel to that of the state. Otherwise it is only during statutory land Administration that the activities of the LSAs swing to its full.

On the issues of the involvement of the community members, it was realized that decision taking on land delivery is vested in the leadership of the community which comprises of a number of divisions. As recorded from the interview with the professionals, majority (8/15) and (5/15) indicated that decision were the responsibility of traditional elders and chosen community members respectively. An interview with the various sections of the customary institution revealed that there were 11 women and 28 men member COE who represent the various royal gates in the community. In addition there is an 8-member committee that constitutes the LB and a 9- LAC members comprising of only one female (Sections 5.1.6). With the exception of the core members of the Council of Elders, all other committees comprises of a combination of royal and non-royal members as well as professionals. There were no indications that only indigenes are made to dictate in land issues to the public. In asking the community with regards to participation in terms of choosing community leaders, use of community resources, land allocation, land distribution Table 5-6 reveals the response:

Frequencies of response Level of Participation Choosing

Leadership (%) Use of Community

Resources (%) Land Allocation

(%) Dispute

resolution (%)

Regularly 40.5 37.2 3.6 5.8 Sometimes 31.3 35.1 14.5 14

Rare 11.1 11.7 16.8 14 Never 17.1 16.0 65.1 66.2 Total 100 100 100 100

Table 5-6: Showing the level of participation in a spectrum of activities in the community Source: Household Survey

Even though in principle, it is only the Family head backed by the council of elders that is vested with the powers to choose other community leaders, it was realised that many (40 % of the respondents) indicated that they take part regularly whereas 31% indicated that they sometimes take part. There were 11, 17 of the respondents who also indicated that they rarely and never take part in choosing community leaders respectively. This was seemingly the line of response of the people in terms of making choices over use of community resources. On the other hand their representativeness in the area of land allocation and dispute resolution was very abysmal. The choice of the people was dependent on their representation at the council of elders’ level.

The result is an indication that there are key issues that have popular participation such as choosing of community leaders and the use of community resource whereas there are activities performed on behalf of the community by some selected few.


60

Figure 5-10: Showing the level of participation in a spectrum of activities Source: Household Survey

The response from the professionals as regarding the frequency of meetings of the CLTI leadership with community members was indicative that quarterly as well as annual gathering for discussing issues concerning land delivery was usual in this area. This proves the choice of the people that they are involved in the choice of leadership and how community resources are used (Table 5-6 and Figure 5-10). Moreover the interest of the people are fully represented at all the levels even though they themselves at the personal levels do not take part in the initial decision making process. This can be seen from their choice regarding their level of participation in land allocation and dispute resolution. Issue of dispute was also realised to be on a personal basis and therefore did not require the participation of all members.

5.4.2. The decision making process

Much of the feedback to this can be related to the transparency level of the process of land delivery. As gathered from the point of view of one forum participant, ‘where there is effective participation, then you should expect that the process and activities will be transparent to the wider population’. This certainly meant that we needed to check the frequency with which community are allowed to add to decision making at the local level. Out of the 15 professionals interviewed, seven (7/15) and five of them (5/15) indicated that the local people participated regularly and sometimes respectively. The response from the household interview and the community-level forum showed that issues of importance to the community are always discussed among community members. This also stems from the annual programs as well as quarterly programs that take place with the view of among other things soliciting for contributions to enhance decision at the local level. It was also realized that such contributions are not merely futile exercises and that contributions of communities member (irrespective of whether he is an indigene or a settler) are taken into consideration so long as it is accepted by all members of the community. Response is a representation of the fact that contribution from the communities when acceptable to all members are taken into consideration and hence implemented to the full (Figure 5-11)

Moreover when there are issues that do not meet the expectation of the people, there is a room of opportunity for community members to complain to those in the hem of affairs for consideration. It was noted that in addition to the annual, quarterly and weekly meetings, the CLS is also designed to collate such concerns and liaise with the appropriate quarters to deal with the concerned


61

Figure 5-11: View whether contributions are implemented Source: Household Survey

5.5. Equity

In this section we capture the response received with respect to investigations conducted in trying to establish whether there is the existence of some level of inequality in various aspect of governance exhibited by the CLTI subject to the status of members of the community and on gender. The scope covers the access to information, the distribution and utilisation of community resources, the settlement of disputes and in terms of compensation for the loss of land.

5.5.1. Non discriminatory access to information

There were the indications that all manner of persons not withstanding their status in the community have access to information from the CLS (Figure 5-12). At the forum it was added that one does not need to be a resident in the area to be able to access information concerning land.

Figure 5-12: Indication of equal access to land information Source: Household Survey

The only barrier is the fees that will have to be paid as part of the services provided by the CLS. See Appendix 11 for the price checklist of the secretariat. In addition the fee payment, information is given out with particular caution to privacy. In this case it was realized that information given out are parcel-based. This means that people could not solicit for information about ‘what one owns’ but who owns what’. Out of the total number of professionals interviewed, 7 indicated that they have access to all forms of information whereas 8 people indicated that there are certain types of information that can be accessed. The choice however do not deviate greatly from each other since it was realised that even though the information in the care of the CLTI is open to LSA as well as other private professionals, it


62

is not all spatially related data that is available. In a concern raised by the administrator of the CLS “it is admitted that even though the secretariat is open to private persons, organisations, other institutions and government departments it must be acknowledged that they can only produce what is in their possession”.

5.5.2. Distribution and utilization of community resources

The survey revealed that the people were satisfied with the distribution process as it was thought to be fair to all the royal gates.

Figure 5-13: Equity in land distribution Source: Household Survey

From the account of the LAC and the COE, lands are made available to all indigenous homes when demarcation is done although there is a reservation of some plots for the purposes of leasing which can propel development and generate revenue for the CLTI. Lands are however not given on a personal basis to community members. Rather it is given to the various smaller family grouping for them to decide on which person amongst them deserves it. Each family unit therefore has the responsibility to ensuring that true members and the proper persons are given the land.

The response received as per the survey (Figure 5-13) is not much different from the perception of professionals contacted. Figure 5-14 depicts that majority (9 out of 15) respondents representing 60% favoured the assertion that land is fairly distributed to community members whereas only 4 representing 26.7 disagreed.

Figure 5-14: Equity in land distribution from the view of Professionals Source: Interview


63

In addition to this, our investigation revealed that the distribution of land in this area is not based on gender (Figure5-15). An in-depth interview however revealed that this was one of the positive characteristics of this CLTI. As indicated by one professional for OASL “this is not one of the customary land institutions where due to the practice of partrilineal inheritance, the right of women to land resources are suppressed to the advantage of men. Instead the right of women is also counted as supreme and hence respected”.

Figure 5-15: Equity in land distribution among women. Source: Interview

Even though this is a customary certain where under normal circumstance, women are always relegated in the background there were a massive response that sends a signal of a differences. The response runs in contraventions to practices that prevail in some parts of Ghana as well as other parts of SSA where women are not allowed to own land. From the observation of a community member, the recognition to women and their right to land are very much influenced by literacy, urbanisation and formal laws or statutes in the country. One such law is the Interstate Succession Law of Ghana (PNDCL 111). The recognition of the right of women therefore reduces as one move from the urban centres to the hinterlands. Figure 5-16 shows the level of acceptance to women’s ownership of land from the perspective of community members and the level of agreement as to whether women have equal right to own property in the area from the perspective of professionals.

At the time of investigation, it was realised that there has been a general consensus to further makemarried men to include the names’ of their spouses in the preparation of document concerning their land.

Figure 5-16: Women’s recognised right to ownership of land and professional responses to equity Source: Interview


64

A spatial assessment was done to compare predominantly settler localities to predominantly indigenous locality in order to ascertain whether the latter has anyway been discriminated in terms of the suitability of the land.

Figure 5-17: Equity in terms of the spatial distribution of Settler and Indigenes.

From the map it would be realised that the land is same in terms of the topography and drainage for the predominant areas (Figure 5-17). In the same way the mixed zone (depicted by the un-shaded areas) where we have indigenes living side by side indicated that there are no discrimination between them. Lands are given to settlers on leasehold basis with the aim of promoting the intergenerational equity where there will be the perpetual revenue generation from the land for even those who are yet unborn.

One aspect of equity test was in the area of the use of the dispute resolution mechanism by the CLTI and the outcomes thereof. The only means of getting information in this direction was to analyse the response in relation to their respective levels of satisfaction of the people based on their experience with the process. The test was therefore relevant to people who have actually made use of the dispute resolution mechanism. It was realised that the level of satisfaction was uniform with both indigenes and settlers alike. At the forum we were made to understand that there is no such discrimination in the determination of conflict.


65

Figure 5-18: Status in community & Level of satisfaction from the use of the ADR of CLTI Source: Interview

86.8%, 7.9% and 5.3% of the respondents were satisfied; neither and unsatisfied respectively (Figure 5-18). There were no expressions of un-satisfaction surrounding women who have actually utilized the alternative resolution mechanism offered by the CLTI (Figure 5-19).

Figure 5-19: Gender in community & Level of satisfaction from the use of the ADR of CLTI Source: Interview

Both indigenes and settlers alike on one hand and male and female on the other have a uniform perception on the nature of the security of their tenure in the land that they own (Appendix 8). It can be computed that 93.9% of the indigenous community residence respondents were o f the view that their interest was secured whereas 90% of the settler community thought the same. In the same way 90.5% of the male community residence respondents were of the view that their right was secured whereas 94.4% of the female community respondents thought the same. Indeed there are quite an insignificant number of respondents who were of the view that they were not sure of their interest or that they have no knowledge of the level of security. This was actually confirmed by the interview with professionals, where even though there were five and one of them who expressed the view that indigenes have better security and settlers have better security respectively, majority (nine) of them were of the view that there was equal tenure security. The comments however raised by a government professional seemed to suggest that security between an indigene and a settler depends on the level of urbanisation. He contended that settlers have higher security in the highly urbanised areas whereas indigenes on the other hand have a higher security of tenure the rural areas.


66

5.5.3. Compensation for land loss

The CLTI have a more liberal process of identifying people who lose their land so that they are compensated accordingly. Out of the Fifty-three (53) people who expressed haven experienced or heard or seen some community members lose their land indicated that there is some form of compensation that is made available. There was the reason to test for the satisfaction of the people on the compensation made available. The information gathered from the field indicated that compensation is always in a form land replacement where there is a loss of land for instance. Figure 5-20 below shows the level of agreement from the people who in one way or the other received compensation over one loss or the other. There were 73.6% of the respondents who were satisfies but 17 % of them who were not satisfied with the process and the outcome.

Figure 5-20: Satisfaction with regards to compensation received Source: Household survey

5.6. Accountability

In this section we present response received from the field that have significant bearing with how the CLTI ensure that they remain answerable to the community. How do the institution account for land allocation and the utilisation of resources accruing from the land. Other issues of interest are to test whether community leaders report their stewardship and enable the people also question them of decisions and actions taken on behalf of the community.

5.6.1. The availability of measure to ensure accountability in allocating land

There are payments that are associated with allocation of land as well as other land transfers in the area. These payment however depended heavily on the status of the community member (i.e. whether an indigene or settler). Settlers are made to pay premiums whereas indigenes do not. In addition to this indigenes are not suppose to make any annual payment as in the case of settlers where they lay claim to the land through leasehold.

This led us to source out to know whether when such payments are made, they attract some evidence or whatsoever. Receipts were issued for all payment made with the exception of the ‘customary drink’ which does not attract any such evidence. This they related to custom and hence do not have to be accounted for. Majority (43 out of the 45) of the settlers’ acknowledged that there was some receipt issued out in respect of the payments. This is an evidence of the fact that payments are normally associated with people coming from outside the land owning community. When people were asked whether they were satisfied with the receipt that was issued out in respect of the payment made it was


67

realized that 32 expressed their satisfaction whereas 6 indicated that they were somehow satisfied. It was realized on the other hand that 14 of the acknowledged payees expressed that they were not satisfied. Invariably it is the payment of drink money without receipt which was seen to be a problem to them and thus their unhappiness. Figure 5-21 is the response when they were asked whether receipt reflected the amount of money paid.

Figure 5-21: Status in community and the reflection of payments in received receipt. Source: household survey

Figure 5-21 shows that there were more respondents who were settlers hence depicting the assertion made earlier on that they actually make substantial payments. 73% of the people who acknowledged monetary payment indicated that receipt given reflected the money paid while 27% thought otherwise. There are a considerable number of settlers who acquired lands outside the purview of the institution.Such persons are not likely to receive any evidence of payment. Added to this, there is a free market for land transaction where indigenes and settlers can trade in the land that they have acquired legitimately. Such private arrangement does not lead to the issuance of institution receipt and hence leading to a situation where receipts were not issued.

We tested the assertion that much of customary land delivery payments were not correspondent with the issuance of receipt, not recorded and that much of the payment are done informally. We detected that a greater number of people indicated their disagreement to the assertion (Figure 5-22). 70.7 percent of respondents disagreed with the assertion whereas 9.1% stayed neutral). On the other hand there were 20.2% of the respondents who agreed with to the assertion.

Evidence showed that account of the institution is not in any way audited by the government or private external auditors. On the other hand there was the evidence that a formal invitation has been submitted to Price Waterhouse Coopers to audit the accounts of the institution spanning their 2007/2008 fiscal year (Appendix 10).

Notwithstanding this there was the evidence from both the household survey and various professionals that there were annual gatherings where the entire operations of the institution are laid bare for all members to deliberate on. As noted by one professional from the OASL ‘I have from my experience known that this is unusual with many customary land institutions. But the Gbawe Kwatei Family CLTI tries to listen to all members of the community on the resources accruing to the community because there is the general believe that the land belong to all and thus the benefit thereof


68

must be properly accounted for’. The scrutiny is very efficient because the community members have a clear glimpse of the projects undertaken by the institutions in the locality.

Figure 5-22: Status in community and the reflection of payments in received in receipt. Source: household survey

5.6.2. Reporting of stewardship to the community

The institution has over the years shaped itself with the contribution of all members of the community. This was demonstrated in their attitude of reporting to the activities including resources accruing to the institution. Interviews conducted among individuals, government land agencies and professionals indicated that there is high frequency of meetings held by the CLTI. Whereas community members indicated annual gathering, majority of professionals knew of quarterly meetings. The forum however confirmed that there are even weekly meetings at the palace. However these weekly meetings is meant for elders to make decisions on land transactions and resolve conflicts whereas there are quarterly meetings that also looks at issues that touches on the development of the area.

5.6.3. Questioning and explaining decision to citizens

The conception has been that many customary institutions govern the land delivery process on personal bases as if it was a private property. We therefore wanted to check whether this institution allow people to air their opinions on how things are run. The feedback revealed that people were given the chance to question the authorities in the discharge of their duties. 85% of the respondents showed their liberty to always question how the CLTI is run.

Figure 5-23: To what extent can community members question decision makers Source: household survey


69

There are however 10% of the respondents who thought that this is a rare phenomenon whereas 4% of the people thought that there is never the opportunity to question the institution (Figure 5-23).


The findings indicate progressive governance principles within the context of transparency and accessibility, Participation, Equity and Accountability which are apparently not in contemporary times visible in respect of CLTI in SSA.

In respect of transparency, we have identified how the CLTI have opened up to enable full access to it, how allocation is done in the clear glimpse of the people and the nature of representation of the people in decision making by creating the platform for questioning. Other areas have been the attitude of ensuring that community members get abreast with rules and regulations that related to the land and how during conflict resolution the institution ensure that they remain open to conflicting parties.

In respect of Participation, the findings show the interplay of popular and representative involvement of community members whereas there is the evidence of the contribution of government LSAs’ and other professionals in various aspect of the land delivery process. This is demonstrated in the frequency of interaction with the community in soliciting for criticism and contribution and ensuring that interaction is backed by an effective feedback system which enables the citizens to feel ownership of the process.

In respect of Equity, evidence gathered showed absence of discrimination associated with access to land information. Land is distributed equally among all the royal gates and every benefit accruing from the land is given out fairly to community members in a form of individual support or provision of social goods and communal Services. Land is not given on the basis of gender whereas settlers are given land on leasehold basis to promote intergenerational equity. In addition there is no spatial discrimination in land distributed between indigenes and settlers whereas there is no inequity in the ADR and compensation on the basis of residential status or gender of community members.

In respect of Accountability, responses gathered brings to the fore the delivery of full account of responsibility devolved to it. This comprises of all manner of decisions taken in respect of land delivery such as land allocation, use, revenue etc. In this wise there is the issuance of receipt to cover transactions with the exception of ‘drink money’. Even though there are meetings and gatherings that looks at revenues and expenditures of the pertaining to land delivery process, accounts are not assessed by any independent auditors.

Invariably there are issues arising in respect of customary land delivery process comparative to what has been discovered by other researchers. The next chapter therefore examines these findings within the context of earlier works.


70

6. Discussion

6.1. Introduction

In this section we discuss CLTI (Chapter 5) in the context of contributions of earlier research works as well as contemporary realities (Chapter 2 and 3). CLTIs can either exist as a single institution or be adopted within the statutory system of LA. In Ghana there is the reliance on both, attributed to the many failures during colonial governments and present ones to eradicate it (Kasanga and Kotey 2001; Mends 2006).

One reason for the inability of the curtailment of the CLTIs has been the result of the changing nature of the rights and the administrative practices associated with customary land tenure. Peters (2002) establishes that there is an existing changing tenure associated with landholding in Africa and thus is not inflexible but are transformed through the hard work and social creativity of the local people with the passing of time. This has been the reason for the argument in recent times that the informal system have evolved over time to support the land market which has been the main reason for the promotion of the conventional method of land administration (Platteau 2000). This is however not to state that there have not been failures with regards to the operation of CLTI in SSA. There are reports from some SSA countries where land owning community members have expressed their dissatisfaction with regard to how chiefs have been singlehandedly been selling off communal lands without recourse to compensation and a fair distribution of the proceeds nor accounting for it (Molen and Tuladhar 2007) because of the absence of transparency, and participation.

The resultant impacts of the operations of these CLTIs have been structure, location and people dependent. The structure entails the various elements in the CLTI working together to produce the needed results whereas location and people refer to the level of urbanization of the areas, the social and cultural attributes coupled with the aspirations of the people. In SSA there is a number of CLTI depending on their cultural, social and ideological perspective. This could be a family, stool/skin, clan, tribe etc. Invariably, the factors as indicated above dictate the nature of land governance at the customary level.

6.2. Transparency and Accessibility

Lavigne-Delville (2000) contends that, the unpredictability with customary tenure is not as a result of its uncertainty but may be due to conflicting claims associated with it and these arise from the communal nature of land (where there are usually many people connected to one land in ownership) and the lack of transparency in customary land delivery system emerging from the lack of information related to land transactions at the customary level. Many CLTIs did not recognize the need to record land information because of the high land - population ratio. Transactions involving customary lands were therefore normally not recorded. Hence, people deal with the land without knowing whether the rights associated with the land are questionable or not, hence the many customary land conflicts that have clogged the courts across SSA.


71

Before the establishment of the Customary Land Secretariat (CLS) under the broad Land Administration Project (LAP), there was a fully functioning native secretariat at Gbawe which was even an inspiration for the final design phase of the CLS sub-component of the LAP (Ubink and Quan 2008). Since the inception of the LAP project in 2003 and the subsequent selection of the Gbawe Kwatei Family land secretariat, transparency has improved as it is easy to approach the CLS. At present the CLS is capable of providing adequate ownership information, established a mechanism where rent can be assessed, collected and record all revenues for accounting purposes. The steps taken by the institution is therefore in line with the advocacy by Tuladhar (2007) for the creation of inventory of existing land tenure, opening access to information about ownership, value and use of land, providing a standardized procedure to determine, record and disseminate information. At present land information gathering is a prerequisite to all land transactions. This is not to say that there are no transactions that take place outside the purview of the CLTI. With the operation of the CLS, the level of uncertainty has been reduced if not even removed. Access to such information is virtually unrestricted except only limited by privacy issues and obligation of fee payment (Appendix 11) and is boosted by the CLTI’s strategy of getting the community informed through media, house-to-house education and information vans. And this is vital in promoting effective land administration (UN-HABITAT 2007) since people (i.e. both indigenes and settlers) are confident that they can trade in land without fear of being duped. The level of clarity in land information and the rules, customs and usage surrounding land delivery is appreciated by the community members. Furthermore, the information is locally stored and as indicated by Fourie (1998), locally held land records are more accessible and therefore cheaper for people to transfer and subdivide their land legitimately. It is difficult and costly for the vulnerable to transfer or acquire information on property legitimately when the only office for this is the capital city. This was reflected in levels of satisfaction of the community members who have taken advantage of the services delivered by the CLS. On the contrary, it was realized that there was a drift of response from when LSA and private professionals about the availability of information at the CLS level. The response received from government and private land professionals confirmed their general perception of the human and financial resource capacity of CLTI’s in the country. This is because there are still many CLTIs in Ghana that lack even simple structures to record transactions let alone to make it accessible. Indeed as captured by the legal maxim “qui non habet, ille non dat” meaning “he who has not, does not give” so is it impossible for such CLTI to make land information available upon demand. In this respect the populaces always have to depend on the formal land registries located at regional capitals to be able to access land information. This means that the establishment of local registries is the only way of handling land information and enabling proper land delivery on customary lands.

The publication of land related documents has never been part of the activities of the CLTI. Rather it executes a customary document concerning its area of jurisdiction for keeping track of land ownership. This is even not so in areas where there are no structure in place for such purposes. The extent a CLTI can go is to put in the public domain information such as claims to the land with respect to allodial boundaries, judicial judgments, rent demand notices and general information on the operations of the CLTIs (Appendix 13). This is however their own initiative. It seems at present thereis no compulsion on families and stools or skins to publish their revenue accounts for the scrutiny of the public (see the head of family Accountability Law, 1985 -PNDCL 114). Revenues accruing to CLTIs are seldom published except in recent times when a joint action of the Forestry Commission (FC) and the OASL has led to publication of Timber Royalties paid to the CLTI. Other revenues


72

emanating from the land such as ground rents, farm rents and dues are never published. It is in the case of Stool/Skin lands (where OASL has the mandate) that an audited report of accounts is submitted to Parliament for their scrutiny with the purpose of among other things reviewing all revenues collected and how they were disbursed. This reflects an Upward Accountability (Mamimine 2003) which leads to less or no transparency at the grassroots. Many CLTIs have therefore as a result of this state of events never bordered to effect the publication of revenues accruing to it. The only means of admitting revenues accruing to it is at their normal durbars where activities of the institution are discussed. This will definitely not allow for proper public scrutiny of the accounts of the institution. Studies in the world of the chiefs have suggested that the behavior of chiefs, head of families and clans stands at variance with their responsibility from custom to hold the land in trust for the entire community (Molen and Tuladhar 2007; Ubink and Quan 2008). In the light of these studies, the conclusion is that majority of these leaders deal with the land without the knowledge of the community members who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of the land resources. Having seen this as a setback for many families, there is the need to create some responsibility along this line. The government needs to institute programs that will ensure that CLTI are able to improve on land and financial records including publishing of accounts (Ubink and Quan 2008).

The issue of non-transparency of land allocation, accruing resource revenue as well as decision making on land delivery process and utilization of resources are very widespread among all CLTIs. Response received from Gbawe community (which was confirmed by public and private professionals) however contradicted these findings. This is reflected in the satisfaction that community members purport to receive from the process of land allocation and their expression of knowledge of the process and also in the context of other community decision making such as revenue utilization. It seems to suggest that the entire land owning community have control over all that which transpires with regards to the land delivery hence this positive response. It can also be suggested that the size of the land in question as well as the population have an ample influence on the control of the CLTI. In areas where the community is large and the structure are complex such as in the case of stool/ skin lands, it can supposedly become difficult to compel leaders to be transparent unlike in the case of family where the land is smaller, the structures are minimal and the leaders involved are reachable or can be questioned. In such cases there are responsible oversights that take place and hence making it difficult for someone to do things in a non-transparent manner. As in a workflow management process, the LAC for instance only acts on the directive of another wing of the CLTIs’ (i.e. LB) which is in turn overseen by the COE. With the existence of this division, participants and those outside the process can with confidence determine how decisions are made and by whom (Davis 2008). It is the lack of these structures as well as platform to enable community members to air their opinion that has led to the incidence of non-transparency among CLTIs’ in Ghana in particular (Molen and Tuladhar 2007; Ubink and Quan 2008). Even though CLTI’s under family lands have the tendency of been transparent because of its advantage of being able to socially control activities, there is still the necessity for some level of state control. The head of family Accountability Law, 1985 -PNDCL 114 gives the directive of the opening up the processes of CLTI’s however it does not stipulate how this should be put into effect. It is suggested that a detailed directive of making CLTIs’ transparent to community such that it is clear as to when to declare dividend from community resources and how to report all dealings with the land such that it is not upon request for such information that they will be made available.


73

Rules and regulations concerning how land delivery takes place must be clear in order to receive the full understanding and hence the participation of the local people. On the average it was realized that these rules exist and are quite clear although there are many of these rules that are not written (Bentsi-Enchill 1964), but are passed on from generation to generation because they reflect their culture and traditions. There are recent transactions however that combine statutory and customary rules such as the leasehold which contains basic rules and regulations that touches on the rights of the parties involved in the transaction. One significant finding made is the differences in the levels of clarity since issues of governance differ from one area of customary land governance to the other. Governance at the customary level involves chieftaincy, dispute resolution, land allocation, land compensation and land transfer. The behavior of man is influenced by the availability of clear rules and regulation about how a system operates. This implies that for there to be effective adherence to the system, there is the need to create more avenues of disseminating rules and regulations about how the system operates. Education at the local level is very ideal to ensure that community members get abreast with all rules that affect them.

Peters (2004) reports of the pervasiveness of land boundary and ownership conflict over land in SSA and calls for a closer attention. Majority of these conflicts have arisen because of the lack of proper means of keeping records and the adaptation of a more down-to-earth or local means of handling emerging conflicts. A survey conducted revealed the wide preference for the use of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Mechanism as a means of resolving conflict. This confirms the assertion of Wily (2003) that participation by land holders in decisions of land administration, management and ADR is generally increasing. There were five main reasons which prompted for its general preference (Section 5.3.4). The section also indicates the satisfactory level with regards to the utilization of the community-based ADR mechanism. The strategy used in this sense is to ensure that all parties to the conflict are present and fairly represented. The environment for ADR is very informal enabling the parties to articulate their opinion in a tension-free environment. Although there are proofs to the efficacy of ADR mechanism in the reduction of conflict related to land, the findings indicated that there is still the lack of adequate professional knowledge to effectively handle dispute at the local level of many CLTI. In spite of this weakness, people still prefer this system as a result of the advantages it has over the court system such as, cost bureaucracy and delays. Besides, the ability of the CLTI to enforce decisions makes people appreciate the system (Appendix 12). Wily (2008) reports of positive outcome of this machinery in both central Sudan and Afghanistan whereas the FAO (2007) indicates that the presence of an effective ADR mechanism could help to ease the workload of courts and provide a transparent alternative to the troubled judiciaries. The use of ADR mechanism can be improved to serve LA if we are able to inject a lot of education into the public domain and improve on the knowledge level of ADR handlers in courses in the area of Conflict Management.

6.3. Participation

Developing an understanding of the efficacy of participation in decision making in land administration heavily depends, on the analysis of all stakeholders; settlers, indigenes, government and private professionals. Participation (Section 2.3.2) is achieved when individuals, groups and organizations take active role in making decisions on issues that concerns them. This involves consultation, corporation and collaboration, representativeness and interactive approach in decision


74

making. The study has showed that with the exception of the private planners, government and private land professionals participate in customary land governance. This is as a result of the incidence of legal pluralism. Although the constitutional provisions, laws and enactments do not mandate government institutions such as the LC and the OASL to deal with family lands as in the case of Stool lands, CLTI can call on these institutions when it becomes necessary. For instance the OASL has no mandate to collect revenue from this type of customary land and the Lands Commission neither is supposed to grant consent nor concurrence. Whatever services (be it advisory or technical) is therefore purely under private request by the CLTI in a specified area that they think the government institution as stated above may have the expertise.

The nature of participation of government LSAs in customary land delivery have since history been driven by legal instrument dictating the pace of land administration. There is therefore the absence of a mutual agreement for the involvement of state LSAs in customary land delivery. This state of event has always resulted in struggles between governments LSA’ and CLTI because of the loss of trust between the two parties. CLTI contend that state land institutions have been given mandate over resources belonging to community against their will under the pretext that they lack adequate logistics and capacities to perform creditably. These state land agencies have utilized these mandates to establish empires of extracting monetary payments from the public for service delivered which sometimes add no value to the transaction. A number of commentators in the field of indigenous affairs have often been strident critics of a state that has frequently been unresponsive to indigenous interest, and they have been equally quick to embrace the community- based way of administration (Lane and Dale 1995). The Surveys Department have to approve plans prepared by the CLTI though its private surveyor; the T&CPD prepares and approves the appropriate layouts; the Land Title registry has to approve and issue Title Certificate for all lands acquired from declared districts even though the local institution might have its own local registries (Figure 5-2). There are many people who assert their claims to land through the customary system and think there is no need for spending ample amount of money to go further to obtain title to the land issued by the LTR. The system only prolongs the process and makes the land acquisition complex and costly. As much as there is the need for participation between the professionals and the CLTI, there is the need to create an environment where there will be full collaboration rather than creating a compulsion that will enable the state agencies to exploit the situation. This will mean improving on the nature of legislation to enable CLTI blend properly with the government land agencies to enable for the discovery of the appropriate process of land administration in Ghana. This is because the quality of decision made through stakeholder participation in respect of LA will be dependent on the nature of the processes leading to them (Reed 2008 ). So as to improve the situation, there is the need for legislation that will spell out the paradigm within which both LSAs and CLTIs will work together to achieve efficiency in LA.

It has been argued by Juul and Lund (2002) that the negotiability of rules and relationships is one of the fundamental features of the African Society and that the involvement of community members is an inherent characteristic of the CLTI where decisions of the community are taken by the chief and his council of elders (Ogolla and Mugabe 1996; Mends 2006). It is the responsibility of the council to adequately and equitably articulate the ideas of the whole community. There is evidence of a lot of deliberations and interventions from within the community on a particular issue until consensus is reached before implementation is done. Participation is reflected at the levels of COE, LB, LAC and durbars (where deliberations take place with respect to matters arising). As Quan and Toulmin,(2000)


75

noted, one strategy for developing responsibility is to establish local LB which can provide a vehicle for decentralizing land policy and balance the role of traditional chiefs without infiltrating the customary tenure system. This means that the availability of the LB ensures that there is a flexible method that is able to play between the customary system and the formal system. Although under customary land delivery there is a chief and COE who make decisions for and on behalf of the land owning group, there are instances that there has been a breakdown in this trusteeship. In essence there should be a mechanism where community members can feel part of the process. However the size of the population of the community can presumably have adequate influence on how the community heads can involve the ordinary people in decision making. Stool/Skin land CLTIs’ are presumably less capable of involving community members as in the case of family lands where there are fewer number of people involved. The possibility on the part of families probably makes them more responsible as in the case of stool/skin lands. The best way of ensuring that Stool/Skin land areas are able to promote popular participation is to make autonomous the various communal units that make up the stool/skin. This is because as emphasized by Wilcox (1996), the conceptualization of participation covers a broad scope of relations of power and the level of influence of the entire community members. The greater the level of participation by the community, the better the governance.

The survey also revealed that respondents were satisfied with the feedback upon making complaints to the authorities. According to respondents, issues discussed are taken seriously and dealt with as the people have decided. This information was also confirmed by professionals. It is believed that it is as a result of the feedback system that has been built into the process that has given confidence attracting people to take part in the decision making process. As has been observed by McEwan (2003), an important session organized without a proper feedback to people who have been involved previously risks becoming a fiasco due to the loss of trust. This is made possible because of the size of the community enabling popular participation and ensuring that the elders answer the request of the people.

6.4. Equity

There is equal access to information to everybody; indigene or settler but one has to pay for services (Appendix 11). Land is also equitably distributed among the sub-family units indicating a tendency toshare land among the family which is in contrast with Skin / Stools land areas (Ubink 2008). So, the family system promotes equity and land is allocated on the basis of need rather than on financial considerations (Ikejiofor 2006).

Population increase in peri-urban areas has led to the transfer of land to settlers. The users of the family land are compensated but, since land belongs to the dead, the living and the unborn (Ollennu 1962; Ollennu and Woodman 1985) the question arises “what about the generation yet unborn?” Even though policy and legal instruments regarding family land administration endorses the outright sale of family land, lands in this area are normally given out on lease bases to non-landowners in the community. Since there is no possibility of holding onto the land in perpetuity in the midst of increasing demand, leasehold ensures that the future generation can also enjoy the land resources (Obala and Kinyungu 2003). However the act of instituting an intergenerational equitable distribution of land resources is purely on the basis of CLTIs discretion. This is because there is no compulsion on the part of CLTIs’ not to create freehold on family lands. This means that even though the size of the


76

land owning group has the tendency of ensuring fair distribution among them, there is also a high tendency for some to sell of all their interest without leaving any reversion to the future generation or reserving some perpetual source of income from the land resource in a form of rent. The genesis of this freedom given to family CLTI is as a result of the removal of the clause of restriction of the outright sale of family lands from the 1992 constitution of the Republic of Ghana. Hitherto the 1969 constitution placed equal restriction over stool/skin land as well as family lands. Invariably there is the need of reconsidering its reintroduction to control the outright sale of all communal land. Alternatively there should be some level of education by land professionals to family land owning communities to understand the consequences of condition surrounding the perpetual disposal of land.

Recent arguments about the distribution of land have it that, non-indigenes are given the better side of the land because of their stronger ability to pay for the land. Inferably, the tendency is even high in the urban and peri-urban centers where the population pressure has increased giving rise to higher land values. The spatial comparison done between the areas being inhabited by the indigenes as against the areas being inhabited by settlers did not show much differences. Figure 5-17 shows that the characteristics of the land as indicated by the topography as well as hydrology of the areas do not portray much difference hence disproving the assertion of discrimination. There are three zones with respect to the occupation of community members. These are areas exclusively under the occupation of indigenes and settlers and an area where there is a combination of the two set of people where they live side-by-side. In each case, there is a strong indication that land is not distributed along the lines of ethnicity and that indigenes are not deprived of the better part of the land to the advantage of the people with higher purchasing powers. This is however not to say that with the increasing levels of urbanization coupled with the operation of free market of land among community members, people who have the financial means cannot buy off land right from the people leading to landlessness among the land owing community. Even though the primary land distribution process is fair, the local people may be unable to hold onto the land but rather sell it because of poverty and need. In this case there is the need for education and training for the local people to effectively invest revenues from land compensation.

There is the argument that lands are distributed to community members without considering the female population (Ikejiofor 2006). Information gathered however proved otherwise (Figure 5-16). The finding runs in confirming the fact that although there are ample research confirmations regarding the inequitable distribution of land between the male and female population of the community in respect of customary tenure, some of these assertions are all based on hypothetical models (Amanor 2001) and sited by (Ubink 2008). Some of these findings were generalized to cover all customary land holding. The question is ‘what effects has the social construct of the people, economic and environment background of CLTIs’ over women inclusiveness ’. For instance urban social norms of equality are able to influence family lands in the urban centers as compared to peri-urban and rural areas of Ghana where the culture norms is so strong (Kasanga and Kotey 2001). In the urban centers there is now the consensus for married women to be included in properties acquired by spouses during property recording and registration. As noted by Deere and Leon (2001) after studying some countries and identifying that there exist equality in the right over land noted that the steps to recording joint property ownership among married couples was an advancement for gender equality. This is because the strategy establishes explicitly that the property right is vested in both man and woman forming a couple. The meaning therefore is that women and men are gradually been recognised as the common


77

representatives of the family. We can also relate this turn of events to the intervention of statutory laws that gives credence to the granting of property right to women. In addition to this, the free market in land transaction has enabled women who have adequate financial resources to purchase land at will without any restrictions. The question is if a female-stranger who has the financial means is eligible for the acquisition of land without restriction then how much more are the land owners themselves? These are some of the reasons that has accounted for the admission of women as capable of holding rights in property especially coming from customary tenure. On the other hand this might not be so in the peri-urban or rural areas (Kasanga and Kotey 2001) where the cultural and social norms are so strong and where under all systems of law in many African countries, land ownership is anchored in patriarchy (Agarwal 1994; Kameri-Mbote 2005). Although most SSA countries are developing policies and promulgating laws aimed at reducing gender discrimination, there is the need to inject some level of education into the public in order to get everyone on board irrespective of whether the area is rural or urban. Ikejiofor (2006) has indicated that issues of gender is of paramount importance (not in terms of additional legislation but rather through more rigorous public education) if we desire to eradicate the gender discrimination practices by local level authorities.

There have been many concerns about the domineering nature of Chiefs and head of communities in the administration of land under their jurisdiction. This attitude of governance has led many community members to lose their land to pave way for communal interest under the unilateral decision of chiefs or family heads without adequate compensation. However, there is a trend that can be inferred from judicial customary land governance towards a more authority to chiefs and family heads to ensure equal land distribution. This however cannot be interpreted to mean that these heads have the power to deal with land according to their whims without adequate compensation (Ubink and Quan 2008). Response received however proved that the institution is very sensitive to the plight of the local people such that there is always a way of negotiating an appropriate compensation (Figure 5-22). Losing parties are always compensated in a form of plots of land. The conversion of some of these plots of land through sales presents opportunities for community members to invest into other businesses of their choice. In this wise even though lands were acquired because the area have been zoned as residential, the local people are not equitably left out to lose. Indeed the size of the family (as a community) makes it possible for community members to insist on their right and also enable the leadership to be able to deal fairly with all members. This therefore indicates that family lands with its inherent characteristics ensure that members are dealt with fairly which may presumably not be the situation with respect to CLTIs’ under Stool/Skin lands because of the community size vis-à-vis the complex nature of the CLTI.

6.5. Accountability

In the past the acquisition of land could be done without the parting of any consideration, present economic situation coupled with demographic trends have led to the introduction of payments in terms of money even on customary land. This turn has become a catalyst of threat to the livelihood and survival of indigenous people; majority of them being poor and vulnerable. The realisation of this phenomenon has brought about the introduction of procedures that will ensure that the local people do not pay for land that belong to themselves. On the other hand the accountability of all revenues that accrues to the institution has become a major concern. Although it has never been an essential component of customary land delivery, lump sum payments has made it essential for the issuance of


78

receipts. As a result, in Ghana all transactions except ‘customary drink’ come with some form of receipt. Although many people have expressed their dissatisfaction with this type of payment, the practice is still persistent even in civilised societies. Ubink and Quan (2008) claim that drink money is not purchase money but rather an acknowledgement of the ownership of the land, to show allegiance towards the chief, and for customary pouring of libation on the ground to seek the blessings of the gods. There is the assertion that ‘Customary drink’ is now the market values of land in most urban centres (Kasanga and Kotey 2001). The Gbawe CLTI has strategized in breaking these payment into the traditional ‘drink money’ and ‘customary run’ . The payment of the ‘customary run’ therefore attracts the issuance of receipt whereas the traditional customary drink does not. Invariably there is maintenance of culture; cultures many people think are ethically incorrect. With the exception of the drink money, there is the culture of the issuance of evidence of monetary payments which creates a textual and numerical base for the CLTI to be accountable to the people. Receipt issuance is also applicable to money paid as rent of leases as well as for services rendered at the secretariat. As a matter of fact citizens are now very particular about the issuance of receipt concerning their transaction over land. The move is to serve as security for any eventual dispute. This has become a good tool for tracking payment to the CLTI since the constitution does not frown on the payment of substantial payments to it. This however can be quite controversial if adopted in stool land areas because the constitution does not officially recognise premium payment. Payment of this nature has come to stay and hence the need to recognise it since that will ensure leaders of all forms of CLTI’s including families to give proper account to all revenues while ensuring that custom is maintained. The Gbawe experience can therefore be replicated in other customary areas.

CLTIs’ are not expected to report to any higher authority, be it customary or statutory except that they must ensure that their activities are in line with plans and programs of statutory bodies such as the TCPD, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) etc. Instead by virtue of their setup, they are supposed to be accountable to the local community because of their fiduciary position. However there are evidences that seem to suggest that notwithstanding this responsibility on the part of chiefs and heads of stools/ skins/ families etc. there is nothing done to account for what is done with the land to the local community members. According to Kasanga and Kotey (2001) many customary law managers no longer act as occupying a fiduciary position but behaves as if they own community land on a personal basis. In this essence the downward accountability will be the most appropriate form of making all transactions open to the entire membership of the community. As indicated by Mamimine (2003), this is a more logical way since the local institutions have better and ample knowledge of local needs as well as their aspirations. As noted by one professional from the OASL, there is the evidence that the family listen to all members of the community on the resources accruing to the community because there is the general believe that the land belong to all and thus the benefit thereof must be properly accounted for. In addition to this there are other windows of opportunities that people can present their petition to the institution. This is quite satisfactory to the local people as indicated from the previous chapter. However the question that is of prime importance is ‘to what extent can they do this’ and ‘is there enough time for community members to scrutinize the evidence of transactions executed’? Durbar which is normally packed with events cannot be the only means of staying accountable to the person in respect of issues that has to do with money. There should be an independent auditor (which in respect of our investigations) are non-existent even though there have been attempts to source out some private auditors (see appendix 10).


79

The interview conducted among both local people and professionals revealed various interactive sessions by the CLTI with community members. This is a time that all the various divisions are expected to account for their activities of the period under review. It seems that the family land owning community is smaller and hence has a stronger relationship with the land; counting on each and every member of the family as important. This confirms the assertion by Clement and Amezaga (2009) that CLTI are in practice accountable to the local people because of strong kingship ties. It seems that the size of community members that makes up the family results into high accountability as compared to the wider communal scope such as in the in the case of the stool/skin land owning communities. This characteristic coupled with the structures in place places a lot of responsibilities on all persons in positions to discharge their duties with a lot of circumspection that meet the expectation of community members. The voice of the people is so effective to the extent that a community leader can be changed. What has been realised from the reporting attitude of the institution is an indication of consultation and collaboration with every community member in the community.


The above has discussed our findings in relation to prior research. The study has shown that CLTI’s promotes participation, transparency and accessibility, equity and to some extent accountability. There is development of programs that ensured the involvement of the entire land owning community as well as government and private land professionals ; indications of the absence of discriminations in information access, fairness in the distribution of land and land proceed and respect for the right of women (although we shared the believe that urbanization might have been a factor); and instituting structures and programs that ensured accountability and a portrayal of good stewardship of the land. The positive elements of governance exhibited by the family can be attributed to the structure of the family, the size of land under its governance, family size and the bond between members. The chapter suggested to further enhance the relationship between CLTI and government LSAs’ as well as other private land professionals, enhancement of the knowledge level to the handling of dispute resolution, a reconsideration for the issuance of receipt in respect ‘customary drinks’ and the appointment of external auditors to enhance the level of accountability of the CLTI.


80

7. Conclusions and Recomendations

The main objective of the study – conducted on family lands in Ghana – was to assess Customary Land Tenure Institutions (CLTI) in support of Good Governance (GG).

7.1. Conclusions

7.1.1. Specific Objective 1

The first specific objective was to identify the key actors of CLTI and their roles in Land Administration in order to find out the nature of customary land tenure and to find the main actors behind customary land delivery on family lands in general and specifics with respect to the case study. The CLTIs do not differ greatly from others as reported in earlier studies and innovations in the administration of customary land in the study areas are ongoing. The key actors comprise both indigenous and settler community members (Section 5.1). The facilitating actors are the institutional structures which have evolved over time to oversee land delivery and include the Council of Elders, the Land Allocation Committee, the Land Board and the Customary land Secretariat (CLS). In general, the consent and concurrence of elders of family are necessary for the commencement and completion of all documents under statutory tenure systems. It is the family head for instance who signs the final document before it can be registered at the customary level or statutorily.


Objective 2 sought to identify the Good Governance framework for assessing CLTI in order to derive the criteria and indicators for assessment. For this GG literature were reviewed and compared to the accounts given by other writers on the principles exhibited under customary land tenure through the CLTI in terms of the customary land delivery (Chapter 2). Both internal and external elements are important in this case. The internal elements includes accessibility, openness, participation, use of local knowledge, flexibility, equity, the institutional field, supremacy of custom, stewardship, ownership and control. The external elements comprise the land policies, constitutional provisions, enactments and other statutory pronunciations that have influence on the CLTI. In the light of these elements we restricted ourselves to four GG principles. In essence, the principle of GG has been explained to suit acceptable moral behavioural expectations from the key operators of the CLTI in respect of governance. Table 3.3 is a representation of the connections drawn between GG dimensions and the operations of the CLTI.


The third specific objective sought to assess whether or not the performance of CLTIs meet GG objectives. Four principles of GG; Transparency and Accessibility; Participation; Equity; and Accountability were studied. The findings indicated various degrees of governance levels with regards to the chosen governance principles. There is the development of programs that ensured the involvement of the entire land owning community as well as government and private land professionals; indications of the absence of discriminations in information access, fairness in the distribution of land and land proceed and respect for the right of women (although we shared the believe that urbanization might have been a factor); and structures and programs that ensured accountability and a portrayal of good stewardship of the land.


81

There is transparency in the activities of the CLTISs in the study area, resulting from the bond existing between the family members and also the size of the family. CLTIs involve family members and other members of the community in decision making. On the other hand the involvement of the government land sector agencies (LSA) was mandatory. The level of consensus between customary land owners and government LSAs need improvement to ensure that both CLTIs and LSAs play their part in the land delivery process by identifying the unique responsibilities of the two institutions in the area of data capturing, storage and dissemination. There is equity in information access, land distribution, land-proceeds distribution, gender (except that it was realised that this trend have a link with the culture of the people vis-à-vis the proximity of the community to the urban centre). The study shows a high degree of accountability, demonstrated in the nature of reporting of stewardship and the issue of receipt to cover transactions on customary lands.


Transparency and information accessibility is instrumental in customary land delivery as in conventional LA and that it is not all CLTI that exhibit transparency in land delivery. Transparency is achieved as a result of the level of involvement of the local people in the land delivery process. In case of Family CLTI’s customary tenure is able to ensure equity within the community where land is allocated to community members on the basis of need rather than on financial capacity. Women may own land which contradicts the general precept that land ownership is anchored in patriarchy in SSA. However, urbanization has been viewed to have some level of influence on the rights of women. Furthermore, in some circumstances, CLTIs are in practice accountable to the local people because of strong kingship ties. Key weakness and problems associated with the operations of CLTI include: the lack of structures to record land transactions coupled with the central location of statutory land registries, lack legislation to compel the publication of basic land information, the unwritten nature of rules and regulation, low level of training of personnel in ADR, the existing mutual non-cooperation between CLTI and statutory land agencies etc. Some of the solutions proposed includes, the cultivation of the political will through the removal and replacement of redundant, impracticable and obsolete laws with those that can promote GG among CLTIs and strengthen their relationship with statutory land agencies and also institute programs that will help educate the public.

7.1.5. Main Conclusions

Gbawe Kwatei family CLTI promotes GG. Some characteristics of family land fundamentally differ from Stool and Skin lands as a result of socio-cultural differences, population size, complexity of hierarchy, land size and the nature of external legal influence such as the state of statutory laws and regulation. Family land CLTIs have therefore better conditions to promote GG. The GG framework we developed based on transparency and accessibility, equity, participation and accountability appeared to be appropriate to assess CLTI. For other countries refinements may be necessary.

7.2. Recommendations

We concluded that family land CLTIs, which cover smaller areas and contain fewer people than Stool or Skin land CLTIs, ensure better controllability and hence better governance. To further underpin this conclusion it is recommend carrying out similar studies in stool and skin land areas. Added to this, our case study was performed in a (peri) -urban area, where urbanization and population pressure is purported to have influenced customary land tenure. In order to verify our findings and to arrive at a complete picture, it is recommended to cover rural and urban areas as well. (Abdulai 2008)


82

8. References

Abdulai, R. T. (2008). Is land title registration the answer to uncertain property rights in sub-Saharan Africa?, RICS Research paper series, Volume 6, Number 6. Abdulai, R. T. and I. E. Ndekugri (2007). "Customary landholding institutions and housing development in urban centres of Ghana: Case Studies of Kumasi and Wa." Habitat International 31(2): 257-267. Abudulai, S. (1996). "Perceptions of Land Rights, Rural-Urban Land Use Dynamics and Policy Development." Managing Land Tenure and Resource Access in West Africa. Proceedings of a Regional Workshop in Gorée, Senegal. International Institute for Environment and Development, London. Agarwal, B. (1994). A Field of One's Own: Gender and Land Rights in South Asia, Cambridge University Press. Agbosu, L., K., (2000). "Land Law in Ghana: Contradiction between Anglo-American and Customary Conceptions of Tenure Practices, Land Tenure Centre, An Institute for Research and Education on Social structure, Rural Institution, Resource Use and Development, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA.". Alden Wily, L. (2008). "Custom and commonage in Africa rethinking the orthodoxies." Land Use Policy 25(1): 43-52. Amanor, K. (2001). Land, Labour and the Family in Southern Ghana: A Critique of Land Policy Under Neo-liberalisation, Nordic Africa Institute. Annor, L. (1992). "Land Tenure and Arable Farming In Ghana: A Study of a Customary and a Customary Land Tenure System. Unpublished Msc. Thesis ITC, Enschede, The Netherlands.". Arko-Adjei, A. (2001). Progressive titling for customary areas of Ghana : a re - engineering effort in land administration. Enschede, ITC: 110. Asare, K. D. (2008). Can participatory geographic information systems PGIS enhance knowledge of customary land rights and boundaries ? : a case study of Gbawe, Greater Accra, Ghana. Enschede, ITC: 88. Asiama, S. O. (1990). "Land for housing the urban poor in Africa: Some policy options. In Amis, P., Lloyd, P. (Eds.), Housing Africa’s urban poor (pp. 239–251). Manchester and New York.". Bell, K. C. (2007). "Good Governance in Land administration and Management. Strategic Integration of Surveying Services." Retrieved FIG Working Week, Hong Kong, China SAR, from http://www.fig.net/pub/fig2007/papers/ps_03/ps03_01_bell_2219.pdf.


83

Bentsi-Enchill, K. (1964). Ghana land law: an exposition, analysis and critique, Sweet & Maxwell. Blair, H. (2000). "Participation and Accountability at the Periphery: Democratic Local Governance in Six Countries." World Development 28(1): 21-39. Boydell, S., G. Small, et al. (2002 ) Declarations and Resolutions of the FAO/USP/RICS Foundation South Pacific Land Tenure Conflict Symposium, Suva, Fiji, 10-12 April 2002, . Brown, K. and E. Corbera (2003). "Exploring equity and sustainable development in the new carbon economy." Climate Policy 3(S1): s41-s56. Burns, T., C. Grant, et al. (2006). Land Administration Reform: Indicators of Success, Future Challenges. Cavaye, A. L. M. (1996). "Case study research : a multi - faceted research approach for IS." Info systems journal, 6(1996), pp. 227-242. Clement, F. and J. M. Amezaga (2009). "Afforestation and forestry land allocation in northern Vietnam: Analysing the gap between policy intentions and outcomes." Land Use Policy 26(2): 458-470. Curry, N. (2001). "Rights of access to land for outdoor recreation in New Zealand: : dilemmas concerning justice and equity." Journal of Rural Studies 17(4): 409-419. Dale, P. and J. D. McLaughlin (1999). "Land Administration Systems." Oxford University Press, Oxford, 169pp ISBN 0-19-823390-6. Davis, N. A. (2008). "Evaluating collaborative fisheries management planning: A Canadian case study." Marine Policy 32(6): 867-876. Deere, C. D. and M. Leon (2001). Land and property rights in Latin América, Empowering Women, University of Pittsburgh Press. Deininger, K. and H. Binswanger (1999). "The Evolution of the World Bank’s Land Policy: Principles, Experience, and Future Challenges." The World Bank Research Observer 14(2): 247-76. Denscombe, M. (2007). The Good Research Guide: For Small-scale Social Research Projects, Open University Press. Doebele, W. A. (1987). "The Evolution of Concepts of Urban Land Tenure in Developing Countries." Habitat International 11(1): 7-22. Downer, A. (2005). "Good governance, Guiding principles for implementation." Retrieved 3rd June 2008, from http://www.ausaid.gov.au/publications/pdf/good_governance.pdf.


84

FAO (2007). "Good governance in land tenure and administration. FAO Land Tenure Studies 9. Natural Resources Management and Environment." Retrieved 20th May 2008, from http://www.fao.org/nr/lten/abst/lten_071101_en.htm Fourie, C. (1998). "The role of local land administrators: An African perspective." Land Use Policy 15(1): 55-66. Fraser, G. S. and J. Ellis (2009). "The Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act: Transparency of the environmental management of the offshore oil and gas industry." Marine Policy 33(2): 312-316. Gereth, J. (1991). "The Commercialisation of the land market? land ownership patterns in the Mexican city of Puebla." Third World Planning Review 13(2). Graham, J., B. Amos, et al. (2004). "Principles for good governance in the 21st century; Policy Brief No.15 - August 2003." Retrieved 3rd June, 2008, from http://www.iog.ca/publications/policybrief15.pdf. Graham, J., B. Amos, et al. (2003). "Governance principles for protected areas in the 21st century." A discussion paper, phase. Retrieved 3rd June, 2008, from http://www.iog.ca/publications/pa_governance2.pdf. Hood, C. and M. Jackson (1991). Administrative argument. Aldershot, Dartmouth. Hyden, G. and K. Mease (2004). Making Sense of Governance: Empirical Evidence from Sixteen Developing Countries, Lynne Rienner Publishers. IFAD (2004 ). "Progress Report on the Implementation of the Performance-Based Allocation System Governing Council -Twenty-Seventh Session. Rome, IFAD: 67.". Ikejiofor, U. (2006). "Equity in informal land delivery: Insights from Enugu, Nigeria." Land Use Policy 23(4): 448-459. Juul, K. and C. Lund (2002). Negotiating property in Africa, Heinemann. Kalabamu, F. T. (2000). "Land tenure and management reforms in East and Southern Africa–the case of Botswana." Land Use Policy 17(4): 305-319. Kameri-Mbote, P. (2005). "Gender Issues in Land Tenure under Customary Law." Land Rights for African Development. Retrieved 30th January, 2009, from http://www.capri.cgiar.org/pdf/brief_land-05.pdf. Karl (2005). "Good Governance and Economic Development in Africa." from http://www.iwim.uni-bremen.de/publikationen/pdf/b059.pdf. Kasanga, K. (1996). "Land tenure, resource access and decentralisation: The political economy of land tenure in Ghana." Managing Land Tenure and Resource Access in West Africa.


85

Kasanga, K. and N. A. Kotey (2001). "Land Management in Ghana: Building on Tradition and Modernity." IIED/University of Ghana/ILMAD. Kasanga, K. and G. R. Woodman (2006). "Ghana: Local Law Making and Land Conversion in Kumasi, Asante." Local Land Law and Globalization: A Comparative Study of Peri-urban Areas in Benin, Ghana and Tanzania. Kaufmann, D., A. Kraay, et al. (1999). "Governance matters (Policy Research Working Paper 2196)." Washington, DC: The World Bank Development Research Group. Kolstad, I. and A. Wiig (2008). "Is Transparency the Key to Reducing Corruption in Resource-Rich Countries?" World Development In Press, Corrected Proof. Kotey N. A and M. O. Yeboah ( 2003). "Peri-urban, land relations and women. Access to Justice Series (Ghana) 1.". Kwadwo, G. (2006). "Land Reform in Ghana. A paper presented at the 22nd Annual Conference of American Real Estate Society, Key West, Florida, USA, 19–22 April.". Lane, M. B. and A. P. Dale (1995). ""Project Assessment in Australia Indigenous Domain: the Case for Reform." " Australian Journal of Environmental Management 2((1)): 31-39. Larbi, W. O., A. Antwi, et al. (2003). "Land valorisation processes and state intervention in land management in peri-urban Accra, Ghana." International Development Planning Review25(4): 355-371. Lavigne-Delville, P. (2000). "Harmonising formal law and customary land rights in french speaking west africa [A]. C. Toulmin." J. Quan. Evolving Land Rights, Policy, and Tenure in AfricaLondon: International Institute for Environment and Development. Lawrence, A. (2006). "No Personal Motive?'Volunteers, Biodiversity, and the False Dichotomies of Participation." Ethics, Place and Environment 9(3): 279-298. Mamimine, P. W. (2003). "Administration by consensus: a quest for client-centred institutional structures for land administration in Zimbabwe." Retrieved 19th November, 2008, from http://www.ies.wisc.edu/ltc/live/zimbabwe/zimbook/chapter15.pdf. McAuslan, P. (2002). "Tenure and the Law." Land, Rights & Innovation: Improving Tenure Security for the Urban Poor, published by ITDG Publishing, London. McCall, M. K. (2002). "Seeking good governance in participatory GIS : a review of indigenous spatial knowledge, participatory processes, and governance dimensions in local level GIS for development." In: GISDECO 2002 proceedings : Governance and the use of GIS in developing countries, ITC, Enschede, 15-18 May 2002. pp. 22-1.22-23. McEwan, C. (2003). "[`]Bringing government to the people': women, local governance and community participation in South Africa." Geoforum 34(4): 469-481.


86

Mends, T. M. (2006). Customary land tenure and urbanization with a case study on the Peri urban area of Accra, Ghana. Enschede, ITC: 73. Minang, P. A., J. T. A. p. Bressers, et al. (2007). Implementing global environmental policy at local level : community carbon forestry perspectives in Cameroon. Enschede, ITC. Mitchell, D., M. Clarke, et al. (2008). "Evaluating land administration projects in developing countries." Land Use Policy 25(4): 464-473. Molen, P. v. d. and A. Tuladhar (2007). "Corruption Is Everywhere: Transparency and Land Administration." from http://www.geoinformatics.nl/geo-informatics-2007-4. Myrdal, G. ((1974). ). "Against the stream—Critical essays in economics. London.". Nachmias, D. and C. Nachmias (1987). Research methods in the social sciences, St. Martin's Press New York. Nelson, P. J. (2001). "Transparency Mechanisms at the Multilateral Development Banks." World Development 29(11): 1835-1847. Obala, L. and N. Kinyungu (2003). "Current Changes in Customary." Traditional Land Delivery Systems in Sub Saharan African Cities-Case Study of Nairobi', University of Nairobi, Nairobi. Ogolla, B. D. and J. Mugabe (1996). "Land Tenure Systems and Natural Resource Management." In Land we Trust: Environment, Private Property and Constitutional Change. Okonyo, E. W. (2008). Customary tenure : "opportunity" or "obstacle" to urban land development : the case of Kisumu city, Kenya. Enschede, ITC: 90. Olima, W. H. A. (1993). The Land Use Planning in Provincial Towns of Kenya: A Case Study of Kisumu and Eldoret Towns, Projekt Verlag. Olima, W. H. A. and L. M. Obala (1998). "The effect of existing land tenure systems on urban land development: A case study of Kenya's secondary towns, with emphasis on Kisumu." Habitat International 23(1): 113-124. Ollennu, N. A. (1962). Principles of Customary Land Law in Ghana, Sweet & Maxwell. Ollennu, N. A. and G. R. Woodman (1985). "Ollennu's Principles of Customary Land Law in Ghana." Birmingham, CAL Press. Palmer, R. and N. S. C. Exchange (2007) Literature Review of Governance and Secure Access to Land. London: DFID Peters, P. (2002). "The Limits of Negotiability: Security, Equity and Class Formation in Africa's Land Systems'." Negotiating Property in Africa. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann: 45-66.


87

Peters, P. E. (2004). "Inequality and social conflict over land in Africa. ." Journal of Agrarian Change 4 ((3), ): 269-279. Platteau, J. P. (2000). "Does Africa Need Land Reform?" Evolving Land Rights, Policy and Tenure in Africa: 51–73. Quan, J. and C. Toulmin (2000). "Land Boards as a Mechanism for the Management of Land Rights in Southern Africa. Evolving Land Rights and Tenure in Africa." London, DFID/IIED/NRI. Reed, M. S. (2008). "Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review." Biological Conservation 141(10): 2417-2431. Reed, M. S. (2008 ). ""Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review." " Biological Conservation 141(10): 2417-2431. Richards, C., C. Carter, et al. (2004). Practical Approaches to Participation, Macaulay Institute. Roy, I. (2008). "Civil Society and Good Governance: (Re-) Conceptualizing the Interface." World Development 36(4): 677-705. Schultz, C. (2008). "Responding to scientific uncertainty in U.S. forest policy." Environmental Science & Policy 11(3): 253-271. Stenseke, M. (2009). "Local participation in cultural landscape maintenance: Lessons from Sweden." Land Use Policy 26(2): 214-223. Steudler, Daniel, et al. (2004). "Evaluation of land administration systems." Land Use Policy21(4): 371-380. Tony Burns, Chris Grant, et al. (2006). LAND ADMINISTRATION REFORM: Indicators of Success, Future Challenges. Tony Burns and K. Dalrymple (2008). Conceptual Framework for Governance in Land Administration. Toulmin, C. and J. Quan (2000). "Evolving Land Rights, Tenure and Policy in Sub-Saharan Africa." Evolving land rights, policy and tenure in Africa, IIED, NRI and DFID: London: 1-30. Tuladhar, A. (2007). "Corruption and Land Administration." Surveying and Land Information Science 67(1): 5-13. Ubink, J. M. (2008). In the Land of the Chiefs; Customary Law, Land Conflicts, and the Role of the State in Peri-Urban Ghana. Ubink, J. M. and J. F. Quan (2008). "How to combine tradition and modernity Regulating customary land management in Ghana." Land Use Policy 25(2): 198-213.


88

UN-ESCAP (2006). "UN-ESCAP: What is Good Governance?". from http://www.gdrc.org/u-gov/escap-governance.htm. UN-ESCAP (2007). "UNESCAP | What is Good Governance?". from http://www.unescap.org/pdd/prs/ProjectActivities/Ongoing/gg/governance.asp UN-HABITAT (1996). "New Delhi Declaration. Global Conference on access to land and security of tenure as a condition for sustainable shelter and urban development. New Delhi. 17 - 19 January, 1996. Preparation document for Habitat II, Istanbul." UN-HABITAT (2007). "Transparency in Land Administration: A Capacity Building Agenda for Africa. Expert Group Meeting on Transparency in Land Administration, Nairobi, Kenya, UN-HABITAT.". Wilcox, D. (1996). "The Guide to Effective Participation." from http://www.partnerships.org.uk/guide/main1.html#anchor80854. Williamson, I. and L. Ting (2001). "Land administration and cadastral trends—a framework for re-engineering." Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 25(4-5): 339-366. Williamson, I. P. (2001). "Land administration "best practice" providing the infrastructure for land policy implementation." Land Use Policy 18(4): 297-307. Wily, L. A. (2003). "Governance and Land Relations:A Review of Decentralization of Land Administration and Management in Africa. Land Tenure and Resource Access in Africa, International Institute for Environment and Development, London.". Wily, L. A. (2008). "Custom and commonage in Africa rethinking the orthodoxies." Land Use Policy 25(1): 43-52. Wily, L. A. and D. Hammond (2001). Land security and the poor in ghana: Is there a way forward? a land sector scoping study, ID. World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). "Our Common Future. ." Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York. Ybarra, M. (2009). "Violent visions of an ownership society: The land administration project in Petén, Guatemala." Land Use Policy 26(1): 44-54. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research : design and methods. Newbury Park etc., Sage. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage Publications Inc. Zachrisson, A. and FjÃ¤llMistra (2004). Co-management of natural resources : paradigm shifts, key concepts and cases. UmeÃ¥, Mountain mistra. Zakout, W., B. Wehrmann, et al. ( 2006). Good Governance in Land Administration: Principles and Good Practices. Washington D.C., World Bank, FAO.


89

9. Appendices

Appendix 1: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR COMMUNITY MEMBERS

I am a student at International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation located in Enschede City in the Netherlands. I am undertaking a Masters of Science in Geo-Information Management for Land Administration. My research topic is “Assessing Customary Land Tenure Institutions for Land Administration in Ghana: Good Governance Perspective (Case Study of Gbawe, Greater Accra, Ghana).” I kindly ask you to complete the present questionnaire.

Investigator Prince Gyapong E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]: (+233) 0208600464; (+31) 0626433631

First Supervisor Dr. ir. M.J.P.M Lemmens E-mail: [email protected]

Second supervisor Dr. A.M. Tuladhar E-mail: [email protected]

Privacy Statement We acknowledge and respect your privacy. All information obtained from the questionnaire will be only used for the purpose of this research.


90

1. Community status indigene settler

2. Sex of respondent male female

3. Marital Status single married divorced widowed

4. What is your level of education? ...............................................................................

5. What do you do for a living?.....................................................................................

6. How long have you lived in the community?................................................................

7. Do you own landed property? Yes No

i. If ‘yes’, what are the terms of your ownership? freehold leasehold tenancy usurfructuary title Others (specify)..........

ii. How long have you owned the property?..........................................................

iii. From whom did you acquire the land? chief/family head an indigene a settler government parents

iv. How long did it take you to complete the land acquisition process? less than a month 1-3 months 3-6months 6-12months more than 1year cant’ estimate

v. Did you encounter any specific problem in the acquisition process? Yes Somehow No If no, go to vii

vi. If yes, how would you describe the problem encountered? generally somewhat acceptable neither very unacceptable Don’t Know

vii. If ‘no’; have you heard of people encountering problems after acquisition of land for development? Yes No

viii. What is your general impression of the level of difficulty? generally somewhat acceptable neither very unacceptable Don’t Know

ix. In general, how would you describe the nature of the difficulty between indigene and settlers? difficult for indigenes slightly difficult for indigenes difficult for settlers not much difference don’t know

x. How satisfied are you with the land acquisition processes? generally somewhat satisfied neither very unsatisfied Don’t Know

8. Did you pay for the land? Yes No i. If ‘No’, why? .............

ii. If ‘yes’, what was the form of payment? Customary drink cash others (specify)……..

iii. How much did you pay for your land transaction?

…………………….

iv. To whom did you make the monetary payment?

Chief/family head customary secretariat government agency

Family/stool member Settler


91

v. Were you given receipt or any form of evidence of payment? Yes Somehow No

vi. Did it reflect the amount of money spent on the transaction Yes Somehow No

vii. Greater portions of the payment are informal and are not recorded Agree strongly Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Disagree Strongly

9. Have you registered your property? Yes No

i. If ‘yes’ , which institution: customary registry deed registry land title registry

ii. If ‘no’, why not? Process long & unclear see no need High cost Don’t Know Others

10. How often do you participate in the following activities?

Activity Frequency

Choosing community leadership

regularly sometimes rarely never don’t know

Use of community resources

Land allocation

Land dispute resolution

11. Can you petition the land decision makers? Yes somehow No don’t know

12. Have you ever lodged your displeasure on any happening in the community? Yes Somehow No

i. What was the complaint? Domestic Land ownership dispute Boundary Other

ii. If question 12 ‘yes’, or ‘somehow’, was your complaints adhered to? well adhered somehow never don’t know no pinion

13. The making of decisions on use of resources are open to the community members? Agree strongly Agree neither agree nor disagree Disagree Disagree Strongly

14. How transparent is the land distribution processes? generally somewhat Transparent neither very Un-Transparent Don’t Know

15. How often are issues of importance to community discussed among community members? quarterly or less twice yearly once yearly Not at all don’t know

16. Where issues are discussed, does the discussions affect decision-making or are they merely futile exercises? always implemented sometimes implemented not implemented no opinion

17. Do you know your land right in the community? very well somehow Don’t know no opinion

18. Are you aware of the customary rules and regulations on land delivery in this area? Yes somehow don’t know No opinion

i. How clear are these rules and regulations to you? generally somewhat Clear neither very unclear Don’t Know

ii. Are these rules and regulations available to everybody? generally somewhat available neither very unavailable Don’t Know


92

iii. How well are customary rules and regulations over land allocation and use implemented in the community? well implemented weakly implemented not implemented don’t know

iv. How well are customary rules and regulations over dispute resolution implemented in the community? well implemented weakly implemented not implemented don’t know

19. How often are proceeds from community land resources made public? not at all quarterly or less twice yearly once yearly don’t know

20. Have you ever accessed any information from the customary secretariat? Yes No

i. If ‘no’, have you heard or know someone who has tried to access information from the customary institution? Yes somehow No

ii. If ‘yes’, what was the form of information?

ownership unallocated land cadastral plan/maps Land use others (specify)………… iii. Were you/the person satisfied with the responsiveness of the customary institution regarding the accessed land

information? generally somewhat satisfied neither very unsatisfied Don’t Know

21. In practice, anybody can easily access information on allocated lands and use? Agree strongly Agree somehow Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Disagree Strongly

22. How often do the customary land tenure institutions render accounts on the dividends from land allocation/use of land resources to the community? quarterly or less Half yearly once yearly beyond one year not at all don’t know

23. How often do the chief and elders meet the community on activities undertaken? at least quarterly twice yearly once yearly beyond one year Not at all don’t know

24. Are community members given the chance to question the ongoing activities in the community? always almost always rarely never don’t know

25. Is land equally distributed among community members? Yes No sometimes don’t know

26. Do you think that land is distributed equally among women and men in the community? Agree strongly Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Disagree Strongly

27. Does the land tenure institution provide equal tenure security to both indigenes and settler?

indigenes have better tenure security than settlers

settlers have better tenure security than indigenes

both indigenes and settlers have equal tenure security

neither the indigenes nor settlers have tenure security

28. Do women have equal right to own land as men? Yes Somehow No don’t know

29. Do you agree that indigenes are given adequate land to farm or build? Agree strongly Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Disagree Strongly

30. Community members and the general public have equal access to land information in the customary land secretariat? Agree strongly Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Disagree Strongly

31. How secure is your land holding under the customary system? generally somewhat secured neither very unsecured Don’t Know


93

32. Have you ever been involved in any form land dispute? Yes some how No i. If ‘no’; have you heard of people encountering problems after acquisition of land for development?

Yes don’t know No ii. How was it resolved? local dispute resolution mechanism state courts Other (specify)....

iii. Were you satisfied with the process and the outcome?

generally somewhat satisfied neither very unsatisfied Don’t Know

33. Which of the following land dispute resolution mechanism would you prefer to use should you have any land dispute? state courts customary institutions Other (specify)..............

34. Do you have the right to petition against the results of the customary dispute resolution mechanism? Yes Somehow No don’t know

35. How often do people in this community rely on the customary land tenure institutions for dispute resolution? Very often Fairly often not often don’t know

36. How will you judge the effectiveness of the customary land dispute resolution mechanism? generally somewhat satisfied neither very unsatisfied Don’t Know 37. Have you ever lost all or part of the land you own/use before? Yes No

i. If ‘no’, have you heard somebody losing his/her land before? Yes No

ii. If yes, under what circumstances did the person lose his/her land?

Government acquisition encroachment litigation community expansion others-------

iii. Were you/the person compensated? Yes No don’t know

iv. Compensation given was is adequate

agree strongly Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Disagree Strongly

38. How will you access the effectiveness on the customary land tenure institutions? generally somewhat satisfied neither very unsatisfied Don’t Know


94

Appendix 2: QUESTIONAIRE FOR CUSTOMARY LAND TENURE INSTITUTIONS


Investigator Prince Gyapong E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]: (+233) 0208600464; (+31) 0626433631





95

1. Customary area: …………………………………..

2. What is the position that you hold in the institution................................

3. What is your educational background? Elementary Secondary Polythenic University

4. What is your role in the customary land delivery process?........................................................

5. Generally, what is the role of the institution in customary land delivery? ………………………………..

6. What is the role of the institution in statutory land administration? …………………………………..

7. Who can acquire land from this traditional area? indigenes settlers government everybody

8. How many different officials are involved the land allocation processes? Less than 5 5-10 more than 10 don’t know

9. How many steps are involved in the land acquisition processes?................................................

10. Could you describe these steps as indicated............................................................................ .........................................................................................................................................

11. How often are community members involved in the land delivery processes? always almost always rarely never don’t know

i. Do community members complaints over their dissatisfaction over the process of land delivery? Yes sometimes No don’t know

ii. How long does it take to respond to complaints made by the people (in weeks)?.....................

12. In what form do you have customary rules/regulations? written unwritten Both

13. How often do you receive signals that people do not understand the customary rules/regulations? Very Often Rarely Neither of above Don’t know

14. How do you communicate the rules and regulations to the people? ‘Gong gong’ TV/Radio Programs Print Media Bill Boards Posters don’t know

15. How much money did you spend on the media on monthly basis?..............................................

16. Do you have a help desk for customers to contact? Yes No

i. What is the function of the help desk? ............................................................................ ...................................................................................................................................

ii. How many customers were served by the help desk on in 2006 and 2007..............................

iii. What kind of information is provided by the help desk? ownership unallocated land Cadastral Plans Land use Plan (Specify)..............

iv. How is information on land stored?

Information type Manual Computer

Ownership/ Leasehold

Unallocated land

Cadastral plans/Maps

Others-


96

v. What restrictions are attached to information delivery to customers?..................................... ...................................................................................................................................

vi. Do the state agencies have access to the information in the secretariat? Yes No

vii. If yes, what type of information all information certain type of information after payment no information

viii. How often do you publicize land information in this customary area (on monthly basis)? ...................................................................................................................................

ix. If yes; what form of medium? ‘Gong gong’ TV/Radio Programs Print Media Bill Boards Posters don’t know

x. Which information is subject to publication? Information Availability

Ownership

Unallocated parcel information

Cadastral Plans/Maps

Land use plan

xi. How many steps are involved in accessing land information from the secretariat?...................

xii. What are the steps required for accessing the information from the secretariat? ..............................................................................................................

xiii. Do you insist for the inclusion of the name of spouse when land is allocated? Yes It depends No

xiv. If it depends, then on what does it depend?....................................................................... ...................................................................................................................................

17. How often do land users rely on your institution for dispute resolution on yearly basis? .........................................................................................................................................

i. How many people are involved in the dispute resolution ..................................................... ii. What is their educational background................................................................................

iii. What kind of special training have they received.................................................................

iv. What are the guiding principles of dispute resolutions at the local levels? customary rules only local knowledge only both customary rules and local knowledge Statute all of the above

v. Can you give me a recent example?.................................................................................. ...................................................................................................................................

vi. How long does it take to resolve conflict (on average)( the fastest and the slowest)? ...................................................................................................................................

vii. How do you ensure that parties are given equal opportunities during conflict resolutions? Equal time for submission and presenting case; presenting on the same platform; Equal opportunity to present available evidence; presenting at

different times or any other (e.g. of dispute resolution records)


97

viii. Can you provide me with information regarding resolved land disputes................................. ...................................................................................................................................

ix. How would you describe the effectiveness of the enforcement of the ruling on resolved land disputes? generally somewhat

effective Ineffective Don’t know

x. Can parties to land conflict appeal on the outcome of the resolution? Yes No it depends don’t know

xi. What are the restrictions associated with appealing to decision?........................................... ...................................................................................................................................

xii. Which means do you use to make decision regarding land use and conflict resolutions public? ‘Gong gong’ TV/Radio Programs Print Media Bill Boards Posters don’t know

18. How often do you involve the following in customary land delivery?

Institution/Land Professional

Periods of involvementGuide (regularly, twice yearly, once yearly, one year and beyond, don’t know

What way

Local Government

Survey Department

Land Valuation

Lands Commission

Town and Country Planning

Land Title Registry

Office of the Administrator of Stool Lands

Private Valuers

Private Surveyors

Private Planners

19. Who in the community is involved in taking decision on the use of land? ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

20. Do you consult the general community whenever decision is going to be made concerning land...... ......................................................................................................................................... 21. Which community members are involved in the following?


98

Activity Persons Involved

Appointment and selection of community leadership

All Only men Only indigenes Family leaders chosen members Don’t know

Choice and use of community resources

Allocation of land

Dispute resolution

22. How often are community members allowed to present argument to the decision makers? regularly sometimes rarely never don’t know

23. Is it possible for a community members to lose his/her lands for a particular reason? Yes No

i. If yes; under what circumstance? re-allocation compulsory acquisition by state forfeiture re-zoning Others

ii. Are the affected persons compensated?

always sometimes rarely never don’t know

iii. What form of compensation is made available? money plots/land don’t know Others (specify).........................

24. Do indigenes and settlers equally pay for the cost of land transaction? Yes No 25. If No, what makes them different?........................................................................................ 26. Are there regulations to this effect.......................................................................................

27. Community members are made to pay for acquired land? Agree strongly Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Disagree Strongly

i. Do you issue receipt on land transaction Yes No No opinion

ii. What form of transactions do you issue receipt to cover ? all transactions only some transactions none don’t know

iii. If ‘no’ or only some transactions, which payment does not attract the issuance of receipt?........................................................................................................................

iv. Do you have records or accounts of all payments related to the land transaction? Yes No don’t know

v. Is your accounts audited by external auditors? Yes No vi. Which institution conducts this auditing? ................................................................

vii. How often are your accounts audited? quarterly twice yearly once yearly more than one year don’t know

viii. How often do you make information on the accounts of transactions public to the community? quarterly twice yearly once yearly more than one year don’t know

28. How adequate is the human and financial resources of the institution? generally somewhat Neither

Adequate inadequate Don’t know


99

Appendix 3: QUESTIONNAIRE STATUTORY INSTITUTIONS AND PROFESSIONALS


Investigator Prince Gyapong E-mail:[email protected]; [email protected]: (+233) 0208600464; (+31) 0626433631




1. Name of institution/Profession...............................................................................................


100

2. What is your Position/Rank ..................................................................................................

3. What is the function of your institution in relation to customary land administration

4. Under what statute (legal instrument) do you operate .............................................................

5. Does this institution interact with the customary land tenure institutions? Yes Somehow No don’t know

i. If ‘yes’ or ‘somehow’ on what do you interact?

ii. How often do you interact? regularly quarterly once a yr Not at all don’t know

6. Do you often participate in the following activities? Activity participation

Choosing community leadership

Yes somehow no

Use of community resources

Land allocation

Land dispute resolution

7. Where applicable, could you describe the nature of your participation?

8. Do you have access to information in the customary secretariat all information certain type of information after payment no information

i. What type of information do you access? ownership unallocated land cadastral plan maps land use others (specify)........

ii. What specific problems do you encounter when accessing such information?

iii. Information in the customary land secretariat is fully available and accessible to the public?


101

Agree strongly Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Disagree Strongly

9. How often are community members involved in the land delivery processes? regularly almost always rarely never don’t know

10. Are there well documented rules and guidelines for customary land delivery?

Yes Somehow No don’t know

i. In what form are these regulations documented? unwritten brochures statute gazettes no pinion

11. Which aspect of customary land governance do these rules and regulations apply and how clear is it to you?

Status

Level of Clarity Aspects

Yes No very clear quite clear somewhat clear unclear very unclear

Chieftaincy

Dispute resolution

Land allocation

Land compensation

Land transfer

ii. How often do the customary authorities ensure community members get abreast of these rules? always almost always rarely never don’t know

12. Are community members given the chance to complain over their dissatisfaction with the activities of the customary land tenure institutions? Yes sometimes No don’t know no opinion

13. How frequent occurrence of land conflicts in the customary area? rampant rare none don’t know No opinion

14. How often do land users rely on the customary institutions for dispute resolution? regularly almost always rarely never don’t know

xiii. How competent are the people in charge of customary land dispute resolution processes? generally somewhat

Competent Neither Very Incompetent Don’t Know

xiv. What are the guiding principles of dispute resolution at the local levels? customary rules only local knowldege only both customary rules and local knowledge none of them

xv. How long does it take the cutsomary institutions to resolve land conflict? less than 1 week 1wk – 1 month 1-6 months 6-12 months more than 1 yr

xvi. Do the customary institutions offer equal opportunities for parties during land conflict resolution? Yes Somehow No Don’t know no opinion

xvii. Are parties to land conflict allowed to appeal on the outcome of the conflcit resolution? Yes Somehow No don’t know no opinion

xviii. How effective is the enforcement of the ruling on land conflict resolutions? very effective effective ineffective very ineffective


102

14. How often does customary land tenure institutions involve the following in customary land delivery? 15. Who in the community is involved in taking decision on the use of land? all only men only indigenes Traditional leaders chosen members don’t know

16. How often do the customary institutions consult the community members in deciding on the use of community land resources?

regularly sometimes rarely never don’t know

17. How often are community members allowed to contribute to the decision on the use of community land resources? regularly sometimes rarely never don’t know

18. How often do the customary land tenure institutions submit their accounts for external auditing? quarterly twice yearly once yearly not at all don’t know

19. How often do the customary land tenure institutions make public information on the accounts or revenues accruing from land resources to the community? quarterly twice yearly once yearly not at all don’t know

20. How often do the customary land tenure institutions meet the community to discourse the activities of the customary institution? quarterly twice yearly once yearly not at all don’t know

21. How adequate is the human and financial resources of the customary land tenure institution for land delivery? generally somewhat Adequate Neither Very Inadequate Don’t Know

22. Is land equitably distributed among community members in the customary area? Yes Somehow No don’t know

23. Does the land tenure institution provide equal tenure security to both indigenes and settler? indigenes have better tenure security than settlerssettlers have better tenure security than indigenesboth indigenes and settlers have equal tenure security neither the indigenes nor settlers have tenure security

24. Women have equal right to own land as men? Agree strongly Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Disagree Strongly

Institution/Land Professional

Duration What way

Local Government

regularly twice yearly once yearly one year and beyond don’t know

Survey Department

Land Valuation

Lands Commission

Town and Country Planning

Land Title Registry

Stool Lands

Private Valuers

Private Surveyors

Private Planners


103

Appendix 4: COMMUNITY FORUM GUIDE

1. How is land acquisition done in this area?

o Who are involved in the acquisition process? o Who has the right to give out land in the area? o What are the difficulties associated with land acquisition and allocation in this

area. o Can you narrate the difficulty and the problems in acquiring land in the area?

2. How is payment done with respect to the land?

3. What are the kind or category of payment done and its associated receipt.

4. Land Acquisition / land use/ use of land resources and choice of community leadership

o Is it transparent

o Is it Participatory

o Accountable to the community

o Principles of equity.

5. Is it permitted to complaint on how land is managed and used?

6. How has been the response like in relation to complaints by community members?

7. How does the headship of the family renders accounts to other family members and the

entire community?

8. What is your tick on the rules and regulations governing land delivery in the area? Are

they clear? In what form do they appear.

9. How would you assess the performance of the CLS?

10. Do the chief, elders and the entire leadership of the land committees make time to

meet the community on land and other issues?

11. There is the assertion that land is fairly distributed among members. How true is this

and what do you have to say about it? How about women rights.

12. What can you say about the security of tenure between family members and non family

members?

13. How secure is your interest in the land under customary tenure.

14. How do you perceive land dispute resolution under customary system? Do people use

ADR to resolve land disputes?

15. Under what circumstance can one loose his/her land within Gbawe area?


104

Appendix 5: OUTLINE FOR INTERACTION WITH FAMILY ELDERS

1. Who are the owners of Gbawe land

2. How is the structure of land ownership and right for land disposition like?

3. Generally what land rights exist on the land

4. What are the key characteristics of your customary land institution with land

administration that differs from others in Ghana?

5. Who are the very important actors responsible for the various aspects of the land

administration within the area?

6. What rules governs land delivery and how are they determined.

7. How do you ensure that you account your stewardship of the land to the people?

8. How do you ensure that you involve the community in the land delivery process?

9. Under what condition can one dispose off land and what are the guiding principles for

the acquisition of land.

10. What payments are associated with land transaction in the area?

11. How do other community members get to know of the proceeds from the land?

12. How does rules’ concerning land made open to all community members.

13. What roles runs with land delivery and what are the position of these rules in relation

to gender and the status of a person (whether an indigene or a settler).

14. How do you ensure that whatever goes on in terms of land delivery is brought into the

domain of all to see and acknowledge.

15. What role in played in the preparation and the level of participation in land use plan

design and implementation.

16. How is land information stored by the institution?

17. In what way do you think that the institution could be useful in statutory land

administration?

18. Has the indigenous institution got the capacity to administer land with minimal

interference from the state?

19. How do you perceive the customary tenure amidst the rapid urbanization of Accra?

20. What do you need to enable you perform well such that the CLTI could be used for

Statutory Land Administration.


105

Appendix 6: PRIMARY DATA COLLECTION STRATEGY & INTERVIEWEES LIST

Interview Category Sample size

Interview form

Indigene 50 SQ/ CFG Household Surveys Settlers 50 SQ/ CFG Land Title Registry Department 1 SSQ

Town and Country Planning Department

1 SSQ

Survey Department 1 SSQ Office of the Administrator of Stool Lands

3 SSQ

Land Valuation Board 1 SSQ

Land sector Agencies

Lands Commission 2 SSQ Private Valuers 1 SSQ Private Surveyors 1 SSQ

Professionals

Real Estate Consultants 1 SSQ Chiefs/ Elders 1 SSQ/ CFG/Interview Site Allocation committee 1 SSQ Administrator (PRO) –CLS 1 SSQ

The Core of the Customary Institution

The PRO (CLS) 1 SSQ/ CFG Facilitator for the establishment of CLS 1 SSQ Land administration Project

(LAP) M&E Focal Persons 1 SSQ Civil Society The Resident Association of Gbawe 1 SSQ

Total Number of Respondents 119 SQ= Structured questionnaire; SSQ= Semi Structured Questionnaire CFG= Community Forum Guide;

A- List of Interviewees

B- Approach followed for data Collection


106

Appendix 7: CRITERIA FOR SUCCESSFUL ADMINISTRATION OF LEGAL RIGHT IN PROPERTY

Source: Burns et al,(2006)


107

Appendix 8: SECURITY OF TENURE IN TERMS OF GENDER AND RESIDENCE STATUS OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS

Security of land holding under the customary system?

Sex generally secured

somewhat secure neither un-secure don't know Total

Count 48 9 2 1 3 63 Male

% of Total 48.5% 9.1% 2.0% 1.0% 3.0% 63.6%

Count 26 8 0 1 1 36 Female

% of Total 26.3% 8.1% .0% 1.0% 1.0% 36.4%

Count 74 17 2 2 4 99

% of Total 74.7% 17.2% 2.0% 2.0% 4.0% 100.0%

Community status Security of land holding under the customary system?

generally secured

somewhat secure neither un-secure don't know Total

Count 38 8 0 0 3 49 indigene

% of Total 38.4% 8.1% .0% .0% 3.0% 49.5%

Count 36 9 2 2 1 50 settler

% of Total 36.4% 9.1% 2.0% 2.0% 1.0% 50.5%

Count 74 17 2 2 4 99

% of Total 74.7% 17.2% 2.0% 2.0% 4.0% 100.0%


108

Appendix 9: APPLICATION FORM


109

Appendix 10: APPLICATION FOR AUDIT BY THE CLS


110

Appendix 11: SERVICE CHARGES LIST


111

Appendix 12: A STATEMENT OF JUDGMENT OF THE FAMILY AFTER ADR


112

Appendix 13: RECEIPT OF PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION


113

Appendix 14: MEASURABLE VARIABLES AND DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES

Research Objectives Measurable Variables Data Collection Techniques To identify the key actors of customary land tenure institutions and their role in land Administration (customary land delivery and statutory tenure system).

• The characteristics of the customary land tenure in the study area.

• The key actors of customary land tenure institutions.

• The roles of actors in customary land delivery and statutory land administration.

• Interview • Forum at the

Community Level • Documentary reviews • Researcher’s own field

observation

To identify the framework and indicators for assessing customary land tenure institutions based on good governance perspective.

• The key principles of good governance in land administration.

• The criteria and key indicators for assessment.

• Documentary reviews • Interview

To assess whether or not the performance of customary land tenure institutions meet good governance objectives in land administration.

• The performance of customary land institutions and whether they satisfy good governance objectives in land administration.

• The assessment of key indicators at the customary land institutional and community levels.

• Ways of enhancing indigenous customary land institutions for statutory land administration.

• Interview • Forum at the

Community Level • Documentary reviews • Researcher’s own field

observation

To validate the research findings based on scientific theoretical knowledge.

• The results/findings.

• The generalization of the findings for family lands in Ghana?

• Scientific Literature


114

Appendix 15: DATA ASSEMBLING FOR CLS AND DATABASE CONSTRUCTION

A- Records gathered from the Lands Commission

B- Interface of Database at the CLS

assessing customary land tenure institutions for land - itc

Documents