Kees Burger

Intersectoral labor mobility and deforestation in Ghana

This paper quantifies the effects of the determinants of intersectoral labor mobility and the effect of intersectoral labor mobility on deforestation in Ghana over the period 1970–2008. A cointegration and error correction modeling approach is employed. The empirical results show that labor mobility from the agricultural to the non-agricultural sector exerts negative effects on deforestation in Ghana in the long run and short run. Relative agricultural income exerts a significant negative effect on intersectoral labor mobility in the long run. Deforestation is influenced positively by population pressure, the price of fertilizer and rainfall, whereas access to irrigation infrastructure exerts a negative effect in the long run. In the short run, real producer prices of cocoa and maize exert significant positive effects on deforestation whereas access to irrigation infrastructure exerts a negative significant effect. Fruitful policy recommendations based on the empirical magnitudes and directions of these effects are made in this paper.

Not the Usual Suspects: Environmental Impacts of Migration in Ghana’s Forest-Savanna Transition Zone

LANDSAT images published by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) reveal large-scale land degradation in Ghana’s forest-savanna transition zone, most of which has allegedly occurred in a prime settlement area for migrant farmers from Northwest Ghana—the “usual suspects.” Several studies attribute environmental degradation in this region to the unsustainable farm practices of immigrants, most of whom belong to the Dagaba ethnic group. This section uses several lines of evidence at different scale levels to challenge these studies. First, UNEP’s LANDSAT images overstate the extent of the degradation. Second, most land degradation took place before the arrival of migrants from northwest Ghana. Third, previous studies blaming migrants for land degradation neglect key drivers of land cover change in the region. And fourth, primary data show that migrants’ farm practices are different, but not more degrading than those of native farmers.