This paper explores the perceptions of families and households near Bui National Park, on the impact of Bui dam on their capital assets and how they navigate their livelihoods through the impacts of Bui Dam construction. The mixed methods approach was applied to sample views of respondents from thirteen communities of which eight have resettled as a result of the Bui Dam construction. In-depth interviews were conducted with 22 key informants including four families to assess the impacts of Bui Dam on community capital assets and how these communities near Bui Dam navigate their livelihoods through the effects of the dam construction, and whether the perceived effects of the Bui Dam differed for families in the different communities who were impacted by the dam construction. The results of the study showed that the government failed to actively integrate policies and programmes that could build on the capacity of communities to navigate their livelihoods through the effects of Bui Dam construction and associated resettlement process. Also, dam construction can have both positive and negative impacts on the livelihood opportunities of nearby communities. Conservation efforts, including the establishment of Bui National Park, will not always result in positive effects on people's livelihoods, because conservation efforts limit community access to livelihood resources such as fishing grounds, arable land for farming and game. It is recommended that countries that intend to construct dams conduct relevant and case sensitive needs assessment to ensure that the livelihoods of nearby communities are not necessarily adversely impacted.
Biodiversity conservation is relevant to Ghana as a result of its diverse benefits; it provides people with opportunities for water, food, clean air, livelihoods, cultural values and tourism opportunities (Baird and Dearden, 2003; Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 2010, 2014; Dudley, 2008; Pereira et al., 2012; Porter-Bolland, 2012). In spite of the benefits of biodiversity, issues of conservation remain a global challenge (Lindenmyer, 2015; Outlook, 2015; Teyssedre and Robert, 2015). Such challenges include changes in species abundance and community structure, shifts in the distribution of species and communities, and the genetic diversity in domesticates and wild species (Pereira et al., 2012; Teyssedre and Robert, 2015). Challenges associated with biodiversity conservation have resulted in many interventions including the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, the Aichi Biological Targets, and efforts to establish and expand global network of parks and protected area including 17% of the Earth's land surface and 10% of marine protected areas (Spalding et al., 2013; Maxwell, 2015; Leadley et al., 2016; Tobon et al., 2017).
Of equal concern is the fact that much of the worry associated with biodiversity loss is narrowed down to developing countries, but conservation needs in these countries often conflict with the needs for economic development, sometimes related to the construction of dams. Dams are important for varied reasons: enable energy access and security and improve revenue (Kyei-Dompreh, 2012; Prado et al., 2016); provide employment (Nusser, 2014; Fernside, 2016); support activities to aid the control of flood and irrigation opportunities (WCD, 2000; Billington and Jackson, 2017); and support the growth and development of intensive agriculture (WCD, 2000; Lawrence et al., 2014). Dam construction is significantly considered an important national development agenda of Ghana due to its positive impact on the social and economic development of the nation. Ghana relies heavily on hydroelectricity for household and industrial use (Dzorgbo, 2001; Alhassan, 2009; Turner et al., 2012; Obour et al., 2016).
For example, it was expected that after the commissioning of the Bui Dam, a total of about 1205 MW of electricity was to be produced from key large hydro sources of Akosombo, Kpong and Bui (Kabo-Bah et al., 2016). Hydro dams are also significant in providing both temporal and permanent employment opportunities. For example, the construction of the Bui Dam resulted in a maximum of 1,836 employments at the dam site (Kirchherr et al., 2016). Some arguments in favour of hydro dam construction have linked the Akosombo dam construction to ready and cheap hydroelectric power that provides power to 60% of the mining, manufacturing and commercial activities that incidentally employs a significant number of Ghanaians (Energy Commission, 2005). It shows that construction of dams in Ghana significantly impacts on the livelihoods of people including reducing the scourge of poverty: creation of auxiliary economic activities such as 90% of fish harvest (73,000 to 82,000 metric tonnes) in the Volta Lake (Sarpong, Quaatey and Harvey, 2005); estimated US$ 2.4 million of fish caught (FAO, 1991; 2005; Braimah, 2001); and trading in auxiliary jobs such as carpentry, fishing nets and outboard motors (Sarpong et al., 2005).
Meanwhile, the construction of hydro dams have been extensively contested; dams are sometimes non-profitable due to the fact that the high cost of dams are substituted for capital investments in sections of the economy such as health, education and infrastructure (Ansar et al., 2014; Fernside, 2016) and flooding of large land surface areas (e.g. flooding of 3.6% of Ghana through the Akosombo dam construction) and displacement of communities and livelihoods (Bartolomé et al., 2000; Kalitsi, 2004; Dzodzi, 2006; Cave et al., 2010). For example, the construction of Bui Dam, Ghana resulted in the flooding of nearly a quarter of the Bui National Park, displacement of seven communities, and the destruction of community assets including important plant and animal species (Ofori-Amanfo, 2005; ERM, 2007; IUCN, 2010; Ghana News Agency, 2012; Miine, 2014). Dams can adversely impact water resources (Zhang et al., 2008; Miller et al., 2011) including the construction of dams on the Mekong River that lead to the blocking of migratory routes of fish, extinction of some fish species, reduction in storage capacity due to reservoir sedimentation, and starvation of downstream channels (Piman et al., 2016).
Experiences in Ghana also show that the development of the Akosombo Dam resulted in changes in the natural environment, destruction of plants, animals and other living organisms, and alteration of the chemical chemistry of some water bodies with attendant increase in the incidence of water borne diseases such as bilhazia, malaria and hookworm (Kalitsi, 2004). Dams can impact the livelihoods of downstream river-dependent communities; the construction of the Kpong Dam, Ghana particularly, adversely affected the livelihoods of people involved in farming and fishing whose activities revolved around the seasonal flow regimes of the Volta River (Peter, 2013; Owusu et al., 2017). Dams have social cost and implications including the worldwide dam-related displacement of 40 to 80 million people (WCD, 2000; Krueger, 2009; Chen et al., 2016). In other cases of dam impacts, communities become displaced and resettled, whilst some people are also deprived of access to resources and assets such as farmlands, roads, and health and educational resources (Ferraro et al., 2011; International Rivers, 2013; Fernside, 2016).
Dam-related displacement and consequent resettlement of communities form the core of this study. Although, dam construction has some benefits, the adverse impacts are also very clear such as, the loss of infrastructure, economic upheavals, shift in social roles and loss of assets that support community livelihoods (Biswas, 2012; Peter, 2013; Fratkin, 2014). Dam construction can also impact community governance structures including land title and indigenous rights (Bennett and McDowell, 2012). In other instances of dam construction, protected area resources can be impacted, including the flooding of ecological resources that uphold the ecological integrity of many conserved areas (Hall and Jordaan, 2011; Klein et al., 2011; Dornelas et al., 2014; Sa-Oliveira et al., 2015; Lees et al., 2016). Although, some studies have examined dam/biodiversity conflict, a few studies have looked at the effects of dams on communities nearby Protected Areas (PAs)-“a clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated and managed through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values” (Dudley, 2008: 8).
Resettlement is defined as “the sudden and uncompromising removal from what is familiar” to a different settlement, which sometimes destroys social relationships, and compound risks and hazards for displaced people (Bennett and McDonald, 2012: 1-2). Bartolomé et al. (2000: 4) also suggest that resettlement is “the involuntary and forced relocation of people.” The construction of dams may lead to resettlement of communities, and the deprivation of people’s access to resources and assets such as farmlands, sacred groves, roads, health centres and schools (Gordon and Amatekpor, 1999; Andam et al., 2010; Ferraro et al., 2011; United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), 2011a; International Rivers, 2013). Other cases of resettlement of communities may lead to economic upheaval, loss of cultural identity, shifts in social roles, and most especially, the loss of voice of the impacted communities (The World Bank, 2004; Le Roux and White, 2004; Bennett and McDowell, 2012; Peter, 2013).
In resettlement-related forced land acquisition, communities can be affected through the loss of access to lands for farming and generation of incomes (Syagga and Olima, 1996; Han and Vu, 2009). Abbink (2012) argues that the construction of hydro dams can have substantial effects on the environment, socio-economic systems, livelihoods, and the social organization and culture of the people living near the dam or downstream. The Akosombo Dam project in Ghana, for example, led to the loss of community shrines, traditional religious grounds such as sacred groves, and also led to an adverse health implication for some nearby communities (Kalitsi, 2004; Dzodzi, 2006). Further, the Akosombo Dam reservoir led to an increase in some water-borne diseases including bilharzia and malaria, but also resulted in the reduction and elimination of other diseases such as river blindness (onchocerciasis), in some areas near the dam (Kalitsi, 2004).
Some literature has also argued that the failure to foresee such adverse consequences of the Akosombo Dam construction makes it difficult for a comprehensive plan to be developed and implemented to address dam impacts, such as the anticipated social and health effects (Ding, 2007; Lerer and Scudder, 2005; Ty et al., 2013). Some authors have argued that the social cost associated with the construction of large dams does not make economic sense for their construction (Ansar et al., 2014). The actual costs of hydropower megaproject development dam construction can adversely have impact on conservation efforts such as established protected areas (ERM, 2007). For example, Bui Dam resulted in the exhumation and reburial of some ancestors buried in the communities, but many ancestral heritage sites, and community landmarks for the communities of Bator Akaiyakrom, Bui and Dokokyina could not be salvaged (ERM, 2007; Ghana News Agency, 2012). Although, these ancestors have been reburied, there is still no plan to construct a proper structure, such as a tombstone, to preserve the royalty of the ancestors (even though these burial marks did not exist in the original burial sites).
Of critical importance is the destruction of nearly a quarter of BNP, together with the ecological resources and integrity that sustained tourism in the Bui area (ERM, 2007). The Bui Dam construction has also led to the loss of visitor opportunities to the park, which in 2008 stood at 280 (Jachmann et al., 2011). The implication for the loss of visitor opportunities is reduced revenue for the park. This research examines communities adjacent to Bui Dam, on which construction begun in 2009. Nearby the Bui Dam is the Bui National Park (BNP), established in 1971 to primarily protect biodiversity. The construction of the Bui Dam led to the flooding of nearly a quarter of BNP, and consequently led to the displacement of eight communities of about 1,280 people (Ampratwum-Mensah, 2013; Marfo, 2014; Naab et al, 2016). These communities have to make adjustments to their livelihoods due to the park, and also because of the introduction of an intervention such as Bui Dam.
The embankment of the Black Volta at Bui has resulted in the eviction and resettlement of affected communities into two new resettlement camps- Bui and Gyama (Jama) camps. The dam has destroyed to many features including part of the bank of the Black Volta and land resources including riverine gallery of forest, created 36 islands and a 500 km reservoir shoreline, and destroyed 50% of grassland, 20% of savannah woodland, and 25% of the water and riverine gallery forest (ERM, 2007; Ghana News Agency, 2012a), and also altered habitat for the park's red-listed hippopotamus (CBD, 2010). The construction of Bui Dam also has impact on infrastructure such as roads, clinic, community centre, cemeteries and sacred sites, ancestral villages, and houses of the affected communities. Currently, eight communities have been relocated due to the Bui Dam construction. The park is also threatened by encroachment through resettlement, mining and logging. These activities have therefore challenged the sustenance of the protected area including its exotic species. This situation is even worsened by the already limited and deplorable conditions of such facilities. Although, some reliefs such as new accommodation facilities, access roads, and bore holes have been provided for the resettled people, many continue to live from hand to mouth.
The situation is compounded by the number of people who have lost their farmlands to flooding as well as people whose fishing livelihoods have shifted from river to lake fishing. In many cases, some compensation were provided to the affected people to cushion the impact of the Bui Dam on their livelihoods (ERM, 2007). In many of such cases, the affected people have complained about the resettlement package as inadequate as compared to their livelihood situation before the dam construction. This study seeks to understand the changes experienced by these communities as they navigated their livelihoods through the impact of the Bui Dam construction, but through a conceptual framework that echoes the concept of livelihoods (Carney, 1995; Rakodi, 2014). Livelihood issues have received significant attention as a result of their critical effect on poverty reduction efforts and efforts to improve livelihood conditions (Carney 1995; Scoones, 1998; De Haan and Zoomers, 2003; Ellis, 2005; Rakodi, 2014).
Livelihoods can be well understood through the application of the sustainable livelihoods approach, which emphasise that livelihoods are central to "...the capabilities, assets or resources, entitlements and activities required for a means of living" (Chambers and Conway, 1992: 6). The focus of the approach is that livelihood capabilities focus on people's ability to cope with perturbations and the ability to identify and usefully apply livelihood opportunities and assets (Carney; 1997; Hussein, 2002; Scoones, 2015). The sustainable livelihood (SL) approach focuses on six underlying principles: (1) understanding people’s priorities and livelihood strategies (people centred); (2) responding to the expressed priorities of the poor people (response and participatory); (3) ensuring that micro-level realities (such as capital assets and capabilities) inform macro-level institutions and processes (multi-level); (4) sustainable from economic, institutional, social, and environmental dimensions (sustainable); (5) working with public, private, and civil society actors (conducted in partnership); and (6) process-oriented, responding to changing livelihoods (dynamic) (Chambers and Conway, 1992). The 1990s approach to livelihood was about the actor (including the poor people), the place (such as communities), and specific context to apply livelihood studies (such as poverty reduction).
The livelihood concept is argued to be significant in improving the living conditions of people when the livelihood can be sustainable, that is "when it can cope with, and recover from stresses and shocks, maintain or enhance capabilities, assets and entitlement, while not undermining the natural resource base" (Chambers and Conroy, 1992: 6). The sustainable livelihood framework provides an understanding of the effects of relocation from the perspective of capital assets, the stock of assets and capabilities available to households (Carpenter et al., 2006; Green and Haines, 2012; Masud et al., 2016). The literature identifies seven types of capital assets-social, natural, political, human, physical, cultural and financial. Capital assets in practice, can be stored, accumulated, depleted, or exchanged, and also be applied to generate a flow of income or other benefits (Norris and Stevens, 2006; Folke et al., 2010; Bennett et al., 2012; Masud et al., 2016). Capital assets are important in developing strategies to support people to cope with stresses in livelihoods (Moser, 2008; Nelson, 2010), build disaster resilience to address household food security (Ranola and Cuesta, 2016), and increase farm production and reduce rural poverty (Folke et al., 2010; Bennett et al., 2012).
Closely linked to livelihoods research is the concept of capital assets. Capital assets are the stock of assets and capabilities available to households (Carpenter et al., 2006; Green and Haines, 2012). The literature suggests seven types of capital assets: social, natural, human, physical, financial, cultural and political (Table 1) (Carney, 1995; Rakodi, 1999; Hussein, 2002; Moser, 2008). These assets are discrete in measurement but can sometimes overlap. For example, politics can sometimes apply to both political capital and cultural capital. Assets available to households and communities can be stored, accumulated, exchanged or depleted, and put to work to generate a flow of income or other benefits (Norris and Stevens, 2006; Folke et al., 2010; Bennett et al., 2012). Following is a review of these forms of capital assets. Some studies have argued that the diversification of both social networks and livelihood sources is central to the sustainability of natural resource use as well as create a resilience of social-ecological systems for especially, resource-dependent economies (Besley, 1995; Folke et al., 2010; Goulden et al., 2013).
Social capital adaptation in the form of bonding, bridging and linking have the effect of changing livelihood policies, processes and institutions that helps to clarify the impacts of power and powerlessness on food security in Burundi (Vervisch et al., 2013). But, for many communities near Bui Dam, it is difficult to quantify the contributions of social capital because of the complex network of association and reciprocity that exist within and among families and communities. It stands to argue that the need to address issues relating to capital assets, especially for dam impacted communities is critical (Tilt and Gerkey, 2016). Other community resource such as natural capital provide important resources to cope and overcome livelihood challenges such as dam construction (Raven, 2012). In Madagascar, the improvement in agricultural practices, provision of employment through tourism helped to reduce poverty and maintain ecosystem services for shock affected communities (Naughton-Treves et al., 2005). Although, the protection of natural resources including the establishment of protected areas often deprive nearby communities of park resources and land title rights, but the restoration of natural capital is one key direct and effective remedy for addressing worsening socio-economic and political effects of stress on livelihood (Raven, 2012).
Other capital in the form of human is argued to provide some shocks in livelihood through the application of multiple livelihoods, intensified exploitation of rivers and lands, non-farm wage employment and livestock farming that transcend to relatively higher incomes welfare strategies (Dzodzi, 2006; Baez et al., 2010). An improvement in community physical capital such as physical buildings such as community centre, and community infrastructure such as roads, airports, and waste disposal and water treatment plants provide important lessons to improve community livelihood opportunities (Bennett et al., 2012; Independent Evaluation Group (IEG), 2012). Consequent to physical capital is the role of financial capital in the form of access to credit, remittances, or pensions that provide important lessons in efforts to reduce poverty and empower people for economically productive activities (Thiboumery, 2016). In rural communities in Ghana, the absence of financial capital including wage opportunities is argued to be one major reason keeping people in poverty (Korboe, 1998; Nunan et al., 2001).
Some studies have indicated that political and cultural capitals form key capital assets with the potential to positively or negatively impact access to other forms of capital assets, livelihood strategies and opportunities, and to decision-making bodies and sources of influence (Hussein, 2002; Abbink, 2012; Adger et al., 2013). Some studies also suggest that diversification of the livelihoods of individuals or communities can affect their ability to withstand shocks and explore additional income sources needed to make adjustments to practice livelihoods (Bryceson, 2002; Mutenje et al., 2010; Aosoglenang and Bonye, 2013). It is evident that some literature have explored livelihood from the community capital assets perspective, and many have failed to examine these attributes from the perspective of communities whose livelihoods have been affected by the construction of the Bui Dam.
In summary, the Bui Dam seems to have created a number of negative effects on nearby communities. Some efforts have been made to address these issues and develop alternate livelihoods, but it is not clear how effective these efforts have been. Therefore, this study aims to examine differences in perception in how families navigate through the impacts of Bui Dam construction. The study therefore examines the following research objectives:
1. How communities near Bui Dam perceive the effects of the dam on their capital assets (resources).
2. Show if perceived effects of the Bui Dam different for families in the different communities are impacted by the dam construction.
Study area
This case study is located in the Banda and Bole districts of the Bring Ahafo Region of Ghana. Ghana, a developing country in the west coast of Africa had developed a new dam on the Black Volta to augment hydro power from other major sources of electricity generation. Administratively, villages in the two districts are under the leadership and direction of Paramount Chiefs (ERM, 2007). The governing systems in the study area include government institutions, chieftaincy systems, and Community Based Organizations (CBOs). Government agencies provide administration through the District Assemblies whilst different categories of chiefs for chieftaincy systems provide traditional leadership. The two districts of Banda and Bole are located within 8° 45' N, longitudes 2° 52', 0° 28' W (of 2,298.3 km2) and 1° 50' E, 2° 45' W, latitudes 8° 10' N, 5° 09' N (of 6,169.2 km2), respectively (Ghana Statistical Service, 2014a, b). The population size is 45,000 for Banda and 61, 593 for Bole (Ghana Statistical Service, 2012a, b).
The dominant people in the Banda district are Nafana-speakers of Nafaara who trace their origin to present day Cote d'Ivoire (Stahl, 2001: p.52). Other ethnic groups in the district include Ligbe, Kuulo/Dumpo, Kologo, Bono, Gonja, Akan, Dagarti and Lobi (Stahl, 2001; Tain District Assembly, 2012). In Bole, the Gonja, Vagla, Safalba and Mo are the major ethnic groups. The dominant people in the Bole District are Gonja or Mo, but Mo and Nafana for Banda (Stahl, 2001: p.189; Ghana Statistical Service 2014b). Land in the two districts are mainly communally owned and family members have user rights. In Banda district for example, outright land purchase is prohibited but rather tenancy where tenants are entitled to either half or a third of the harvested crops. On the other hand, majority of the lands in the Bole District are family owned where access for construction of houses passes through a procedure and then becomes permanently owned. Some communities in the study area such as Bator, Bui and Dokokyina have permanently lost some infrastructure such as schools, clinics and roads to the construction of access roads and electricity transmission lines (Table 2) (ERM, 2007).
On the economic front, a large proportion of activities in the Banda District are for subsistence. Some of the common activities for many household include cashew farming, yam cultivation and fishing. The creation of a large dam by the Bui Dam therefore makes fishing an important livelihood threshold for many people living in the communities. The potentials in fishing have therefore encourage a number of indigenous fishermen and fishmongers to expand their livelihood activities for economic purposes, and on the other side increased the level of migration into the district. Other forms of livelihood for the people in the Banda District include carpentry, trading, teaching, masonry, weaving and brewing (Akonor, 2009; Tain District Assembly, 2012; Banda District Assembly, 2013). The economy of the Bole District is mainly agrarian (Bole District Assembly, 2006; Ghana Statistical Service, 2014b). Crops cultivated by people in the Bole District include yam, groundnut, cowpea, pepper, cassava and plantain on large scale. These farm produce are usually marketed in the Sawla, Tuna, Kalba and Wa Districts as well as in the other parts of the country (Bole District Assembly, 2006, 2013).
This study adopted a triangulation approach (Table 3) involving document analysis, interviews with key informants, and detailed household case studies. Triangulation is applied to check and establish validity in studies by analysing a research question from multiple perspectives in order to arrive at consistency across data sources or approaches, and also provide an opportunity to uncover deeper meaning in the data (Thurmond, 2001; Heale and Forbes, 2013). Information from key informant interviews was used to provide input for the design of a guide for the case studies.
There are 45 communities near the Bui Dam (IUCN, 2010). Eight of these have been relocated and were chosen for the study. Five other villages that were not relocated were selected as comparison villages due to their similarities with the relocated villages. The latest to be relocated is Bui Camp (also called the Wildlife Village).
Wildlife Village was created after the establishment of Bui National Park (BNP) to house the staff and families of BNP. The need to include five non-resettled communities located near the dam (Bongaase, Gyama, Banda Ahenkro, Agbelikame North, and South villages) in the study was critical, in order to make comparisons with communities that were forced to relocate. Eight out of 13 sampled communities (Figure 1) were selected because they are affected by the Bui Dam through resettlement. The other five are communities that will be affected by the dam through loss of lands to flooding, construction of transmission lines, and most closely located communities (as indicated by an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment report) to be impacted by the dam (ERM, 2007). Generally, the selection of the case studies took into consideration representation for communities in the two districts (Banda and Bole) impacted by the Bui Dam and associated resettlements.
Key informant interviews
Key informants for the study involved a total of 22 people from diverse groups: men and women, family heads, young adults, aged, and researchers that have been involved in some form of livelihood studies. Key informant questions were selected from a mix of options, including consultations with traditional leaders and opinion leaders in the communities, review of literature on community consultation during Bui Dam construction (ERM, 2007), as well as leads provided by people who have conducted some livelihood related research in the study communities. A key informant interview (use of a semi-structured interview) was incorporated into the research design because it is an effective tool to probe for more information on the topic (Creswell, 2007; Robson, 2011), and it gives the respondents freedom of self-expression and opportunities for more detailed answers (Healey, 1998).
Interviewees included eight traditional leaders and elders of the resettled communities, four from the main livelihood groups (that is, traders, fishermen, fishmongers and farmers), and representatives of BNP, BPA, school, church, District Assembly and researchers (Table 4). Research protocols from institutions such as the Wildlife Division (institution responsible for BNP), and Bui Power Authority (institution that coordinated the resettlement process) were sought before conducting interviews. In all of these cases, the confidentiality of respondents’ responses was assured. Codes that did not provide a hint to their identity were subsequently used to refer to key informants. As a result, the study did not in any way show the identity of key informants. Key informant interviews provided information on: (1) the effect of Bui Dam construction and resettlement on community capital assets; (2) the effect of Bui Dam construction and resettlement on traditional leadership; and (3) the effect of Bui Dam and resettled communities on the management of Bui National Park (BNP). Responses were used as primary data, and also to inform the development of a guide for the case study.
Qualitative case study interviews
For this part of the study, four families were purposively selected as case studies (Seawright and Gerring, 2008). Case studies were selected to adopt the most similar and most different methods. This selection procedure requires that sampling be conducted to cover the most similar and most different attributes relating to the research objectives (Seawright and Gerring, 2008). Both methods require the selection of a minimum of two cases for data collection and analysis, as employed in this study (Przeworski and Teune, 1970; Gerring and McDermontt, 2007; Seawright and Gerring, 2008). The application of the “most similar and most different” choice of case studies involved families that are similar in specified experiences and are broadly representative of the views and experiences of the families affected by the construction of the Bui Dam.
There is need for caution in interpreting these findings from the in depth interviews as representative of the study population; the method illustrates the more generalized results found in the key informant interview survey findings. Two of the case studies were relocated and two were not as a result of the dam. The choice of the most different method of case study selection was also relevant because these families were affected differently by the Bui Dam construction. Reasons for the different effects include the different sociological backgrounds of the families such as ethnicity, type of livelihoods, as well as the communities in which the families lived before and after the dam construction. For example, the four case studies were from four communities: Bongaase (Nafana), Bui Camp (Fante), Dokokyina (Mo) and Bator (Ewe).
These families (Table 5) also engaged in livelihoods such as farming and fishing. The four families selected as case studies provided in-depth feedback on how families navigated through the process of the Bui Dam construction. Selection of the case studies also considered people who have lived for many years close to BNP, those who have passed through the process of migration to live near BNP, those who transitioned through the process of construction of the dam, types of livelihoods, those resettled and those not resettled, as well as geographical locations of communities.
These case studies delved into the personal family experiences during the period of the Bui Dam construction. The four families provided details of their experience as they transitioned into a new livelihood as a result of the Bui Dam.
Analysis of data
Qualitative data obtained through key informant interviews, in-depth interview surveys and document analysis were analysed descriptively by the use of themes and categories from the data (Robson, 2011). Themes were developed to guide the analysis of the qualitative data. These themes were built around issues relating to dam effects on community capital assets. The findings were given to other researchers to review, to confirm the accuracy of the developed interpretations. The analysis was done along theme such as description of life before the dam with attention on assets and livelihoods, effects of the dam including other factors that mediate effects of the dam, and description of life after the dam, with attention on assets and livelihoods. Analysis was done under these themes for the four families who underwent an in-depth interview.
Presentation of results includes details on family history; description of life before the dam during the early days of dam construction; promises made (Table 6); levels of community involvement incorporated into the resettlement process; other factors mediating the effects of the dam (such as access to training); and description of life after the dam with attention on assets and livelihoods. In most cases, experiences of the respective families were compared between families since each family has somewhat different experience.The results of the case studies were also compared with the results of the survey. The names used to represent each family are fictional in order to respect confidentiality protocols.
In depth interview No. 1: Opanin Kwasi’s family
Introduction
Opanin Kwasi’s extended family formed part of the Dokokyina community that migrated from Kakala in La Cote d’Ivoire to settle approximately 200 years ago near the area that is now BNP. Opanin Kwasi is a Mo with the main source of livelihood for his family being farming, and sale of farm produce. Farming was mainly done using traditional cutlass and hoe. His family did not engage in any formal employment with the government. Opanin Kwasi’s extended family (of more than eight) before the dam construction was very united and collectively undertook many household activities, such as farming, cooking and raising of the young, as one big family. Extended family covers an extension of the nuclear family to include other family members such as uncles and aunts, cousins, nieces and nephews, as well as grandparents. They cooked, shared food and work, and supported each other.
His family, which was instrumental in the formation and activities of a local youth association, helped to liaise with the chiefs and constructed a school for the youth, helped in the payment of the wages of the teachers in the school, and also provided free accommodation to support the teachers. This family resides in Dokokyina (Figure 1). Opanin Kwasi is male, 46-55 years old, and has lived most of his life near the dam site. His family was resettled as part of the dam construction process. He was selected because of the significant effect farming has on the livelihood opportunities available to his family. Some prior consultations with opinion leaders in the community, such as the Assemblyman and chiefs, agreed that Opanin Kwasi has been resettled by the Bui Dam and also has an in-depth knowledge and experience on life before and after the Bui Dam. His family has also been significantly affected by the dam in the form of loss of farmlands, and displacement from his village.
Description of life before the dam, with attention on assets and livelihoods
Before the dam, Opanin Kwasi’s family cultivated yam, maize, cassava and vegetables. Farmlands, which were usually freely acquired from the indigenous owners, Bui Chief, ranged from 8 to 15 acres (3.24-6.07 ha) per person in the village, but his family was able to farm on about 30 acres (12.14 ha) of yams as compared to the average farm size of about 10 acres (4.45 ha) cultivated by other farmers. Tenant farmers (farmers whose farmland were allocated by the Banda Chief), such as his family members, contributed a token of 20 to 30 tubers of yam, one cockerel and 20 Ghana Cedis to the indigenous landowners (the Banda Chief) per year or for each farming season. Cultivation of food crops was active in the rainy season, and generally for subsistence use. In the case of Opanin Kwasi, his large cultivated land allowed for the surplus produce to be sold in nearby markets, such as Wenchi and Techiman, to generate revenue for his family.
The heavy rainfall with fairly warm temperatures provided appropriate weather conditions to support the cultivation of both food and cash crops. Drinking water for his family was accessed through streams near his community. In the Dokokyina community in which Opanin Kwasi lived, there were carpenters, masons, drivers, three teachers (with two staying in nearby towns), more farmers and fishermen, but no health care worker. The diversity of people in the community provided the needed support to the larger community because the people lived as one big family of 165 people in 36 households, supporting each other in terms of providing free apprenticeship for the youth, and ensuring that the needs of other members of the community are met. Prior to the construction of the Bui Dam, several consultations relating to livelihoods were organized by stakeholders such as Bui Power Authority (BPA), the Tain District Assembly, and Bui National Park (BNP).
Many of the issues discussed are centred on compensation for relocation, preparations needed to support the new resettlement arrangement, and the need to address the concerns of people affected by the relocation. Many promises were made, such as providing comfortable living conditions for the people, to motivate them to relocate. Such promises included the provision of fertilizer and irrigation to support farming, especially because the land in the new settlement is less fertile. Additional livelihood resources, such as the provision of a fish pond to support fishing, fertile lands for farming, schools, clinic, and better housing facilities were assured by BPA, but these were never provided. In other cases of consultation, BPA asked the people, including his family, to cease construction of additional houses starting from 2005 (later changed by BPA to 2008) since their village was to be relocated and so any new house would not receive any compensation. BPA confirms that some of these projects, such as the provision of a fish pond to support fishing and fertile lands for farming, are still part of their plans, but the clinic has been constructed and has been operational since 2013.
Effects of the dam, including other factors that mediated effects of the dam
According to Opanin Kwasi, construction of the Bui Dam caused some major changes to the livelihoods of his family. As a result of the dam, he and his family have been moved from their ancestral home and resettled in a camp. Although, his family has been provided with a new block house, this can never replace the attachment to his ancestral home lost to the whole process leading to their resettlement. His family has experienced a major shake-up in their livelihoods. Their old farmland were destroyed, and replaced with a smaller 4 to 5 acre farm (1.78 to 2.225 ha). Unfortunately, the fertility of the current farmland is far worse than what prevailed in the old Dokokyina settlement. Moreover, the aftermath of the changes in his family’s livelihood as a result of the construction of the Bui Dam has negatively affected the income of his family, and limited his ability to properly and adequately provide for his family. This has resulted in some hardships for his family, especially in relation to making a decent living.
The state of hardship faced by his family is also worsened by the fact that they were not provided with proper training to help them prepare for and overcome the potential effects of the construction. The limited training support entailed some agricultural extension services provided by the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA) prior to the relocation. The training included how to apply improved farming technologies in their back yard gardens, as well as how to effectively till new farmlands that may not be as fertile as the old ones. As a result, his family is faced with lack of skills to deal with small farm size and poor fertility of farmlands allocated to them. Previously, his family’s farmland was large and allowed shifting cultivation practices that allowed exhausted farmlands to fallow. The small farm size (about 4 acres) allocated to his family does not allow for such a farming practice. Again, he had to contend with pressure from his children who must share in his allocated land as they begin to be faced with the challenge of starting and fending for their own families. The lack of adequate preparation towards the resettlement has resulted in a dire situation for the livelihoods of his family.
Description of life after the dam construction, with attention on assets and livelihoods
After the dam construction, livelihoods became complicated (having to live in a small, new living environment, being unable to fend for his family due to allocation of small farmland that has lost its fertility, and dealing with the inability to adequately provide for his family). As a result, he struggles to meet the livelihood needs of his family, a situation similar to majority of people living in the new Dokokyina community. Most families in the community, including his, were allocated farmlands near the resettlement camps A and B (Figure 1) that have lost their fertility because they were left barren after over-cultivation, as well as the practice of shifting cultivation by other farmers (including farmers from Bongaase and Jama). Currently, his family and many other families have to resort to the use of fertilizers to improve soil fertility and yield from the allocated farmlands. The challenge, however, is how to access unavailable funds to purchase fertilizer to support his farming activities. Unfortunately, BPA does not provide support in this regard.
Information from other key informants indicated that other people in the community, aside from Opanin Kwasi’s family, have gained revenue and employment with Sinohydro (the Chinese company that constructed the Bui Dam) as masons, carpenters, steel benders, drivers, foremen, and cooks (S013). Some key informants also revealed that at the peak period of the dam construction, more than 4,000 people were employed by Sinohydro and 50 by BPA. Informants added that, at the end of the construction, majority of the people who were engaged with Sinohydro were laid off, but those engaged by BPA increased to more than 150 people. Opanin Kwasi stated that his family did not benefit from such employment opportunities because (unlike the large number of employees of Sinohydro who were not from the local community) they are mainly farmers, and also did not have the requisite skills to obtain employment from Sinohydro.
A challenge faced by Opanin Kwasi’s family centres on the limited availability of farmland in resettled villages. Currently, his family has access to about 4 acres of land for farming, which is a reduction from 20-30 acres before his family was resettled. This pattern was consistent with trends in the wider Dokokyina community. According to respondent L011, average farm size decreased from 8-15 acres (3.24 to 6.07 ha) before the dam to less than 3 acres (1.215 ha) per family. Opanin Kwasi revealed that the initial plan was to allocate farmlands based on a community’s previous involvement in farming activities. As a result of the plan, farming communities such as Dokokyina and Bui were targeted to receive larger allocations of farm land than Bator, which is mainly a fishing community, but this did not materialize. He stated that another factor (besides the scarcity of farmlands) that has affected his family’s livelihood is the difficulty of accessing farmlands due to their distance from the community. Available farmland is now farther away than before the dam construction when they lived near the Black Volta (also corroborated by V006).
As a way to compensate for the scarcity of farmlands, Opanin Kwasi’s family had to consult with leaders of some distant communities, such as Jama and surrounding communities (over 10 km away) to secure additional farmlands for cultivation. These lands are secured by making a request from people such as the Jama Chief. In some instances, the farmers have to consult the owners to access the land for farming. Sometimes, they have to part with some of their harvest to settle with the land owners. Opanin Kwasi reiterated that major challenges were created for many of the people who engaged in farming because the resettlement process failed to provide opportunities for farmers to plan and cultivate new lands, prior to their relocation. He noted, for example, how several truck-loads of yam sets (whole tubers or tuber pieces used for planting) transported to the new settlement for planting rotted because the farmland allocated to his family in the resettlement camp was small. The farmlands allocated to him as well as other farmers were mostly lands that have been abandoned by previous farmers due to loss of fertility (V004). He adds:
“Our livelihoods have changed after the Bui Dam. In our old village, food was abundant and livelihoods were good except for our poor roads. Farmlands were unlimited and even settlers were given enough land to farm at virtually no cost. I could farm 30 acres and sometimes engage some farm labourers to expand my farmlands to cultivate more. I can say that I was rich and did not need any support from anybody, including the government. But, now I have access to a mere 4-5 acres of farmland to cultivate. I cannot cultivate much and even yam sets I brought from my old Dokokyina village got rotten because of limited and poor fertility of farmlands allocated to me. How do you expect me to farm and obtain any appreciable yield when I am allocated farmlands that have been heavily cultivated and abandoned after they had lost their fertility? Indeed, this resettlement has cost us a lot, and made many of us farmers poor. How do you say you have made life better for us? This is never true” (L011).
For his part and that of his family, the resettlement has made life difficult due to worsened livelihoods. He blamed this on poor planning associated with the resettlement process. Opanin Kwasi added that BPA failed to ensure that farmers were allocated adequate and fertile farmlands to complement farmlands lost to the displacement and subsequent resettlement. This, therefore, culminated in low harvest and the general shortage of foodstuff just after their relocation in 2011. As a result of these challenges created by the dam, an unknown number of indigenous farmers from some communities have abandoned farming to engage in other competitive livelihood opportunities, such as fishing, trading, and also illegal small-scale mining in places located deep within the park enclave (L011). Opanin Kwasi has diversified his livelihood opportunities to include the sale of pre-mix fuel (for outboard motors), and the construction and rental of housing facilities for visitors who come to the communities. This approach to sourcing livelihood has helped his family to mobilize additional resources to improve their livelihood stakes.
On the social front, Opanin Kwasi added that his family was previously very united, but is now bedevilled with conflict that has left its toll of disunity in the bigger Dokokyina family. For example, a misunderstanding that ensued on whether to relocate during the dam construction has resulted in a divided community, with a few families refusing to relocate and remaining behind in the old Dokokyina village. Others had to return to their kinsmen in neighbouring Cote d’Iviore. In the resettlement, Opanin Kwasi’s family was provided with a new house constructed with blocks and aluminum roofing sheets (an improvement over the earthen houses with thatched roofs they occupied in the old settlement). He has also expanded his house with the construction of additional rooms to rent out for an additional source of income that helps meet the costs of maintenance, such as painting, replacement of locks, and window nets for his new accommodation.
Although, Opanin Kwasi agrees that the Bui Dam has brought some improvement in their livelihoods, he also believes that the Dam and its resettlement process has resulted in many untold hardships, such as weakening his family farming business due to the scarcity and poor fertility of farmlands, as well as the failure on the part of the resettlement process to provide better livelihoods for his family.
Some improvements have included the provision of a decent block house, access to roads, a community centre, and a clinic by the BPA (although many of the community roads are not tarred, and the shorter routes to other communities such as Banda Ahenkro-Manji could have served their interest better than routes along Wenchi-Tingakrom and Wenchi-Tesilima). His family has explored other income-generating opportunities, such as renting rooms and retailing in pre-mix fuel, to lessen the dire implications of the Bui Dam and its associated resettlements (Table 7). In the view of Opanin Kwasi, the Bui Dam construction was not a bad idea, but the effects on his family were negative due to the loss of their farmlands, as well as the small size and poor fertility of the newly allocated farmlands.
He believes that the situation of their livelihood can be improved if appropriate measures, including the provision of farming inputs such as seeds and fertilizer, improvement in agricultural extension services, and allocation of additional farmlands to the farmers are implemented by BPA in their role as the resettlement organization. Table 7 provides a summary of the experiences of Opanin Kwasi’s family regarding the effects of Bui Dam on capital assets. He added that his family, together with many others in Bui Camp, engaged in farming, animal rearing, trading and hairdressing to support the livelihoods of their family. The people of Bui Camp obtained their livelihoods mainly through employment with BNP, and through mixed livelihoods involving farming, fishing and charcoal burning (V004). Another form of resource that supported the livelihoods of Yaw Adjei’s family was the type of accommodation provided by BNP. The management of BNP provided a three bedroom apartment for him and his family, because he was employed by BNP. The house contained a kitchen, living room and washroom. However, he and his family shared a common public toilet with the Wildlife community.
Other colleagues in BNP who were at lower ranks than him were housed in two bedroom apartments. Although, his family did not have electricity, they enjoyed decent accommodation as compared to the kind of accommodation available to majority of the people in the villages near the park. The provision of decent accommodation by BNP provided his family the needed peace to go about their daily activities without worrying about where his family would live. Before the dam construction, Yaw Adjei’s family relied on the cordial relationship they had with people living near the park as a means to promote a high level of cooperation in addressing issues related to park management- the source of his livelihood. Although, Yaw Adjei’s family resided in a nuclear household (like most families in Bui Camp), they found the opportunity to cooperate and share the pains and happiness of the extended family members. This practice helped his family to obtain support they may have required from other members of Bui Camp.
Effects of the dam, including other factors that mediated effects of the dam
In the view of Yaw Adjei, construction of the Bui Dam has both positive and negative effects on his family. The effects have included the relocation of his community, livelihoods and incomes of his family, as well as opportunities to develop resilience towards the potential challenges of the Bui Dam construction. According to Yaw Adjei, the Bui Camp is in the process of relocation because his community forms part of the communities to be either cut off or inundated by the flooding of the Bui Dam. As a result of the planned relocation, his housing in Bui Camp has not received any form of renovation or expansion. This has worsened the previous poor state of the accommodation facilities provided for him and his family, although such accommodation was considered better in the eyes of people in the nearby communities. But the family has some good hope “at the end of the tunnel” because he has observed and inspected the new accommodation in the resettlement camp to be provided for his people by the BPA.
His family will receive a 3-bedroom apartment with a kitchen, living room, and proper toilets (water closets linked to septic tanks), something that eludes them at the present resettlement or park camp. Although, he maintains his employment with BNP after the construction of the Bui Dam, his family’s livelihood has still been affected by the dam due to losses of incomes from other forms of additional livelihoods, such as farming. This occurred because people living in the Bui Camp were asked by BPA not to expand any existing construction activities, or the scope and size of additional forms of livelihood, such as farms. This directive was intended to reduce any future claims for compensation for additional lands to be cultivated or new houses to be constructed. The delays in relocating the community also means that the people cannot start to develop some of these additional and alternative sources of livelihoods in the to-be-allocated resettlement camp.
On the eve of the flooding of nearly a quarter of BNP by the Bui Dam construction process in June 2011, some training opportunities in areas such as animal rescue were conducted for workers of BNP. This training was particularly important in helping to rescue some animal species, such as some monkey species that ordinarily would have drowned in the floods. But it is also important to note that some species of animals were lost because of the low capacity of the park staff and institutional capacity to save all animals that faced a risk. The training opportunities received also improved the capacity of staff of the park to explore and use other opportunities in tourism created by the Bui Dam. This included the purchase of a new boat powered by an outboard motor to support boat cruising that is gradually developing tourism in the park, a development Yaw Adjei believes has positively contributed to the sustainability of the park, as well as the security of his employment with BNP.
Description of life after the dam construction, with attention on assets and livelihoods
After the dam construction, Yaw Adjei continued to support his family with his income from working with BNP. He revealed that currently, the park has witnessed an improvement in tourism opportunities, and this is boosting the morale and work engagement of many in his village who work in the park. This is because the visit of tourists provides opportunities to offer services as tour guides, and also educate people about BNP. Services currently improved by BNP, and also having a positive effect on his livelihood outcomes, include increases in the frequency of tourist activities to watch hippos (now relocated upstream of the Bui Dam).
Tour activities also include boat cruises along the 444 km2 lake created by the Bui Dam. Yaw Adjei adds that few people in the Bui Camp, including his family, are currently engaged in the fishing industry, especially in the areas of smoking and sale of fish caught in the lake. This helps in generating some income to support what is gained from formal employment with the park. As a result of his formal employment with BNP, he is able to mobilize some financial capital to help the family engage in the fishing business. In this regard, the park and the dam are providing an improved fishing livelihood for Yaw Adjei’s family.Yaw Adjei added that access roads are virtually absent, and he and his family had to obtain water from a borehole located at some distance from their residence. Although, there are plans to provide new accommodation for Yaw.
In depth interview #2: Yaw Adjei
Introduction
Yaw Adjei a Fante, from Winneba, is a male and 36-45 years old. He has resided near the Bui area for less than 10 years, and currently lives in Bui Camp (Figure 1), which was resettled quite recently, with his four member family (his wife and children). His village is scheduled to be relocated, but at the time of the interview, this had not yet occurred. As of 2016, the Bui Camp was relocated to a new resettlement camp purposefully constructed to house the workers and family of BNP. Yaw Adjei was selected to be interviewed because he has lived through the period of planning, development, and construction of the Bui Dam and related resettlements. Other reasons for selecting Yaw Adjei included: he has a youthful family and therefore provides a different perspective regarding dam effects; his family is relatively small (which is generally about six in the community); and he works with BNP and can therefore provide in-depth information on the living conditions in the park and the effects of the Bui Dam on the park. He also added that he is among the elders responsible for the interest of a large majority of the people in Bui Camp by virtue of his work with Wildlife Village (Bui Park) and the park, which falls under BNP.
Description of life before the dam construction, with attention on assets and livelihoods
Before the dam construction, Yaw Adjei lived in the Bui Camp, but was born in the central region of Ghana and was transferred to the community to work with BNP. Yaw Adjei holds a university degree and also participated in a number of training programs organized by the Ghana Government. He joined Wildlife Division after going through a successful application and selection process. The Bui Camp (also known as the Wildlife Village) was constructed in the early 1960s for Soviet workers under President Dr. Kwame Nkrumah during a failed attempt to construct the Bui Dam. The camp has been left for decades, without any proper maintenance, and is almost tumbling down. The area of the camp where Yaw Adjei lived had no electricity or running water, but was served by a bore hole and an old public toilet. His main source of livelihood and that of his family was income derived from working for the park (under the Division of Game and Wildlife), the governmental agency responsible for managing the park. Although, Yaw Adjei could not disclose his earnings from BNP for the said-period, he was quick to add that his earnings were significant in providing some level of decent livelihood for his family.
Adjei’s family and that of the many families in the Wildlife village, at the time of this study, people remained in the old accommodation at the Wildlife village. The new Wildlife quarters had been constructed but some infrastructure remained to be completed, including sinking of boreholes, improvement of access roads, and landscaping of the site. Yaw Adjei reiterated that the Bui Dam and its attendant relocation process has a marginal effect on his family, because his family continues to gain income from employment with BNP. The dam has introduced some livelihood opportunities in the areas of fishing, and it makes a lot of sense if his family can diversify livelihood opportunities to explore the benefits perceived to have been introduced by improvements in fishing. However, this has become challenging because his family does not have the requisite skills to engage in the available fishing opportunities. The experiences of Yaw Adjei regarding the effects of Bui Dam on capital assets for his family are summarized in Table 8.
In depth interview #3: Kwame Fosu
Background
Kwame Fosu is a male, 36-45 years old, who has lived near BNP for 37 years. He indicated that for the past 98 years, his extended family and the Bator community have settled around BNP. He is Ewe born in the old Bator village of Akaiyakrom and is a member of the resettled Bator community (Figure 1). He has a family of six made up of his wife and two children, and two siblings. He has some secondary level of education and is currently seeking the opportunity to pursue his education at the tertiary level. He is a member of the Banda District Assembly and a fisherman. Kwame Fosu has worked as a fisherman in his entire life, and also supported his livelihood with an additional meagre allowance he receives for his constituency services for the District Assembly.
Kwame Fosu’s family was selected because of their engagement in fishing, one of the key livelihood activities in the community. He is also an opinion leader who coordinates activities between governmental institutions and their local counterparts such as traditional leaders, clan and family heads. He is very knowledgeable in issues of community livelihoods, and also quite instrumental in the processes leading to the development and construction of Bui Dam and the general resettlement process. He is influential and also interacts substantially with government officials and institutions such as the District Assembly, BPA and BNP, traditional leadership, and community-based organizations. His input stands to enrich the documentation of experiences towards navigating livelihoods before, during and after the Bui Dam construction.
Kwame Fosu’s ancestors migrated from the Volta region of Ghana to the Bui area to engage in their fishing activities. The migration occurred many years before the establishment of BNP in 1971. Their movement was motivated by the search for areas of abundant fish to support their main source of livelihood. Kwame’s wife also engages in the fishing business by drying and smoking fish for sale to retailers from cities such as Accra and Kumasi. He lives with two of his paternal brothers, who also support themselves through fishing and transport service- carrying goods and sometimes passengers. The selection of Kwame Ofosu was critical to the in depth interview because he is popular amongst the people, and works in nearly all facets of community engagement, especially in areas affecting the sustenance and welfare of people in the community.
Description of life before the dam construction, with attention to assets and livelihoods
Before the dam construction, Kwame Fosu’s family was engaged in fishing in a natural river. Although, he could not easily provide figures, he indicated that the river (Black Volta) was a key source of livelihood for his family because it provided them with adequate fish, money from the sale of fish, and generally made life comfortable for his family. The fishing grounds provided enough food for the fish through the decay of plant parts that fell into the river. These conditions provided a sustained livelihood for his family, as well as people of the main Bator community of Akaiyakrom that lived very close to the river and actively engaged in fishing. Other activities supporting the livelihoods of Kwame Fosu’s family were similar to that of the majority of people in the Bator village: fishing and fish mongering, and brewing of local gin called “akpeteshie.”
Methods of fishing applied by his family were simple and involved little capital and equipment, but yields were adequate for consumption and processing for sale at nearby markets. The basic equipment was a canoe, a set of paddles, and a fishing net. The fish the family caught was mainly large in size and high in quantity, and included mudfish (Protopterus spp.), tiger fish (Hydrocynus spp.) and tilapia (Coptodon rendalli). In addition, his family and other members of the Bator community gained livelihoods through the provision of boat services and rest stops for tourists, acting as tour guides to ferry people to watch hippos, and patrolling the park in exchange for periodic access to fish in park areas.
His family has never owned land. However, land for purposes of settlement was accessed through collaboration with Banda Traditional Council and the District Assembly. Kwame Fosu added that farmlands were freely provided for his family as a member of the Bator community. In contribution to the growth and development of the broader Banda community, Bator people were entitled to allocations of land by the Paramount Chief. Kwame Fosu reported enjoying strong family ties in the pre-dam period, which ensured that people brought together food to share and availed themselves to discuss and share experiences which indirectly sustained his family’s livelihood. His family cooked food that included a variety of fish that benefited all, including those who could not engage in fishing due to ill health or failure to secure a better catch during their fishing expeditions.
Effects of the dam, including other factors that mediated effects of the dam
The effect of Bui Dam on the family of Kwame Fosu is both positive and negative (Table 9). The effects include the relocation of their village, employment incomes, and opportunities to engage in additional and alternative livelihoods. Village of Akaiyakrom was flooded and its people relocated to the Bui Resettlement Camp (labelled as A in Figure 1). As a result, he and his family and some paternal relatives, have been resettled in a new block house. The quality of the building is far better than that in the old settlement. The Bui Dam has affected the livelihoods of his family through the destruction of their fishing grounds and landing sites that provided opportunities for bumper fishing harvest and safe landing, respectively. Positive effects include the creation of a wider fishing ground in the lake formed by the dam, and the opportunity to use bigger boats to conduct fishing in the dam. However, he is challenged by the difficulty of mobilizing financial resources to secure a bigger boat and outboard motor to fully explore the current opportunities in fishing livelihoods.
Other alternative livelihoods, such as selling of fish, trading, and provision of some unregulated forms of boat services for tourists have been enhanced by the construction of the Bui Dam. However, this has also come with some challenges, such as competition from migrants to the Bui area. The failure on the part of the BPA and other relevant stakeholders to provide training opportunities to prepare his family for the effects of the Bui Dam has made it difficult to develop resilience against the effects of the dam. His family could have been provided with training in alternative livelihoods, as well as other potential opportunities in livelihoods to be created by the Bui Dam. For example, currently, it has become quite difficult for his family to adequately explore some of the potential opportunities in fishing, to improve the livelihood stakes of his family. His family could have been supplied equipment such as outboard motors and fishing nets on credit. Further, some low interest credit facilities could have been mobilized for fishermen including his family to help them to meet the challenges associated with lake fishing.
Description of life after the dam construction, with attention on assets and livelihoods
The experience of Kwame Fosu’s family after the dam construction is summed up as: “People were comfortable with the simple livelihoods and uncomplicated rural lifestyles in their mud houses with thatched roofs, because they enjoyed the peace within their own compounds. Nobody paid for utility bills, but people directed their livelihoods activities at their pleasure, had enough to eat and even spare, and stream water was clean and freely available at all times. But after the dam construction, we have lost everything and what has been given to the community has brought along the high cost to maintain houses, extreme hot weather conditions during the day, no trees to provide shade, dusty roads…” (L013). Kwame Fosu argued that the dam has increased fish stocks for the fishing industry but the industry is unable to adequately provide for the livelihood needs of his family as well as the main fishing communities of Bator, Dam Site, and Agbegikro because of competition from other settler fishermen. He adds that, currently, there is a free-for-all (unregulated) type of fishing industry practiced in the Bui area.
However, the indigenous fishers are disadvantaged because of the in-migration of other fishers who seem far better equipped to take advantage of the new conditions in that they have the larger boats and outboard motors needed to cope with lake conditions. Further, the sudden weather changes on the lake, as he describes the situation, can make the small canoes adapted to river fishing subject to capsizing in the lake. Immediately after the dam construction, Kwame Fosu’s family, as well as majority of the over 200 indigenous fishermen in the resettled area, could earn more than 1,000 Ghana Cedis from fishing per month, but this has currently decreased to 520-780 Ghana Cedis per month. His family’s current low income from fishing is the result of the low fish catch experienced by some of the fishermen from the dam-affected communities. This is basically related to the challenge of accessing larger boats and outboard motors that can help such fishermen to increase their fishing activities to harvest more fish, as evident with the in-migrant fishermen who enjoy a booming fish business due to their resourcefulness to engage in robust fishing trade with merchants from Kumasi and Accra.
These changes in earning from fishing have greatly affected the livelihoods of Kwame Fosu’s family, and the majority of people from the Bator community, which has a total fishermen population of about 120 people. Currently, his family’s fishing livelihood is undermined by an aggressive competition from migrant fishermen and their families from Ghana and the West African sub-region. Kwame Fosu added that there is currently a large illegal settlement close to Jama (and at the embankment of the Bui Lake) where in-migrants from downstream on the Volta, and other places such as Nigeria, Mali and Cote d’Ivoire, have settled and actively engaged in the booming fishing business. The negative effects of the activities of the migrant fishers on his family occur in tandem with other direct effects from the hydro dam and associated resettlements. Unlike Kwame Fosu’s family that still engages in subsistence and low capital intensive type of fishing, some people from the communities have improved revenue from the fishing industry by purchasing large outboard motors to increase their fishing expeditions, and also selling fish in the community and other large markets in Kumasi and Accra.
His inability to enjoy the potential opportunities in the fishing industry is related to his lack of skills in fishing, and the poor financial capacity of his family to invest in the fishing related industry. Currently, Kwame Fosu’s family has shifted from river to lake fishing, and this takes place a short distance from the dam. According to Kwame Fosu, lake fishing does not provide a favourable alternative to river fishing for his family. Lake fishing has differential effects: the poor are unable to cope with the increased cost of fishing; and the aged and less physically active are unable to access fishing activities because communities are located far from the lake, and need to commute over rocky cliffs to access fishing sites. Further, fishing is threatened by competition from migrant fishers from Ghana and the West African sub-region. At the time of interviewing, Kwame Fosu was exploring an opportunity to secure 7,500-8,000 Ghana Cedis to purchase an outboard motor, aside from the purchase of additional equipment such as fishing nets to fish in the lake created by the Bui Dam.
Further undermining his fishing livelihood is increased competition in fishing due to the absence of any effective regulations in the fishing business. In all, over 20,000 migrant fishermen located in about 53 illegal communities are engaged in active fishing, and therefore compete with his family and other indigenous fishermen for the available opportunities in fishing livelihoods. The only assurance his family has in arresting the challenge is the completion of fishing regulations that will include specifications about access (who can conduct fishing). Kwame Fosu’s family has lost the small but important additional income previously gained from tourism in BNP. These lost livelihoods from BNP included boat services, provision of a rest stop, sale of fish, and sale of some cultural artefacts such as beads to tourists. These services are now provided by BNP because BNP has improved its capacity to provide such services whilst the family is unable to benefit from tourism as a result of being located further away from the park.
Kwame Fosu’s family, together with a host of other families from the Bator resettlement, feel that the relocation process is disappointing. Kwame Fosu adds that his family is unhappy because they believe that BPA has deceived them by failing to honour promises made during the relocation process. He noted that “my family is no longer interested in honouring meetings with stakeholders such as BPA since we do not hope to receive any good assurance for our diminishing livelihoods.” Unlike in the old Bator Village, where participation in social events such as naming ceremonies attracted a compulsory contribution of 5 Ghana Cedis (less than US $2) to support the affected family, Kwame Fosu and his family have difficulty in supporting or gaining support from other families due to the increased difficulty in accessing livelihoods for his families as a result of the adverse dam effects on their fishing livelihoods. Kwame Fosu’s extended family no longer enjoy the pleasures of the past, such as sitting to chat and enjoy folk stories after fishing expeditions, due to the adverse changes that the Bui Dam has caused to the livelihoods of his family.
This has left in its wake, a large number of families who are perceived to have become more selfish and self-centred due to their struggle to meet the needs of their nuclear families. Many people, including the heads of families such as Kwame Fosu’s, have had to share authority with the youth, because many of them are now breadwinners for the larger families. According to Kwame Fosu, Bui Dam has failed to provide the required alternatives to the adverse changes in his livelihood caused by the dam. Overall, Kwame Fosu thinks that some people have benefited from improvements in fish stocks and a wider lake, but the perceived benefits have been negated by the influx of an aggressive migrant population who compete vigorously for the few opportunities in the fishing livelihood. Unfortunately, the few over-competed fishing resources also serve as the only source of livelihood available to support the life of his family. Table 9 provides comparison of Kwame Fosu’s situation with findings from the community survey.
In depth interview #4: Agya Koo Kusi
Background
Agya Koo Kusi is a male, aged between 46 and 55 years, and of Nafana ethnicity. He has lived near BNP for 21 to 30 years, and his village, Bongaase will not be resettled. He has a family of seven, made up of a wife and five children. Agya Koo Kusi sources the livelihood of his family from his farming activities. He and the family have lived in Bongaase for the entire period of the development, construction and after the construction of Bui Dam and related resettlements. They live in a decent accommodation and regulate their livelihoods together with the family’s farming activity. Agya Koo Kusi’s family was selected as part of the case studies because they have witnessed most of the events associated with construction of the Bui Dam, including blasting of rocks and other excavation works, construction of a saddle dam, flooding of some communities by the dam, and the dam-related resettlement process. However, his community will not be resettled. The family lives at the fringe of the dam, where effects are perceived to include loss of farmlands to construction of settlements, roads and transmission lines. Agya Koo Kusi was selected for the in depth interview because he is knowledgeable about his community’s history, and also serves as an elder and is a family head. His inclusion is particularly significant to the study as he provides information for a comparative study of dam effects for communities that will not be resettled.
Description of life before the dam construction, with attention on assets and livelihoods
Agya Koo Kusi and his family have witnessed majority of the events leading to the construction of the Bui Dam. Before the dam construction, the family’s cashew plantation provided most of the family income. In addition to cashew farming, his family also engaged in cultivation of food crops such as yams and cassava for both household consumption and for sale as cash crops. These forms of income were instrumental in funding his children’s education, as well as providing for the daily sustenance of his family. His family was, however, unable to engage in other forms of livelihood such as fishing due to limited skills in practicing these livelihoods. But other members of his community engaged in a variety of livelihoods and professions, including teaching, masons, carpentering, butchering, hairdressing, and trading. Although, Agya Koo Kusi’s livelihood activities were simple, it was relevant in providing for the livelihoods of his family and those of most people in Bongaase community.
Before (and after) the dam construction, Agya Koo Kusi’s family lived in an extended family household that included his nuclear family and a mixture of other nuclear families related by matrilineal kinship (primarily through the mother’s line). The extended family provided support in a variety of ways: practicing their livelihoods, adulthood initiation rites, naming ceremonies and funerals. After a day’s work activities, the extended family cooks and shares meals. Agya Koo Kusi’s family was instrumental in providing for the needs of other family members who could not adequately provide for the needs of their nuclear families. Livelihood support provided by his family included feeding the children of other extended family members, and supplying some food stuffs for other family members in need.
Before the dam, the flow of authority and decision making was swift, well organized, and effective in supporting the livelihoods of his family and that of the larger family. The youth looked up to the direction and guidance of the elderly in the family and this helped in preparing his children for adult life, including how to provide and fend for themselves. Respect and discipline were the hallmark of his family since the authority of the elderly, such as family heads, was greatly revered. As a result, Agya Koo Kusi’s children, including a large number of the youth from the community, grew up to become responsible people with some having completed their education, and others also engaged in different forms of income generating activities. Agya Koo Kusi’s family, like many in his village, lived in block houses and shared a public toilet facility.
Effects of the dam construction, including other factors that mediated effects of dam
The effect of the Bui Dam on Agya Koo Kusi’s family is a mix of positive and negative factors (Table 10). Agya Koo Kusi’s family and their community were not be affected through resettlement, but rather through road construction and loss of some community lands (144 km2 of land, including parts of BNP) to flooding by the dam. The scope of his livelihood has not changed since his family still practices farming. However, his income options have been reduced by flooding of part of the communal lands that served as part of his farmland. His family has also been negatively affected by the dam because of lack of preparedness in the form of the failure of BPA to provide training in alternative livelihood opportunities. This meant that his family could not properly exploit new livelihood opportunities such as trading, and the potential in fishing livelihoods.
Description of life after the dam construction, with attention on assets and livelihoods
The coming of the Bui Dam has less effect on the livelihood of Agya Koo Kusi’s family, as compared to many other families in his community (Table 10). He continued to practice his profession, and still depends on his cashew farms (which was not inundated), as well as his subsistence cultivation of food crops. However, he is now limited in his farm labour due to his old age and occasional ill health. As a result, he has to sometimes, depend on hired labour to support his cash crop farming, which comes with cost. After the dam construction, his family has benefited from improvement in infrastructure, which includes construction of roads and expansion of existing road networks, extension of electricity to his house and the community at large, and construction and rehabilitation of new schools and existing school infrastructure, respectively. Improvements in infrastructure have positively contributed to his livelihood because he can now easily cart his farm produce to sell in nearby markets.
Nonetheless, he is disappointed with the number of failed promises relating to his family’s livelihood, particularly the promise by BPA to provide alternative livelihood support programs, and create local jobs to absorb the ever increasing number of the unemployed youth. According to Agya Koo Kusi, many of the promises by the Banda Chief and including those of the resettled communities (Table 6) have been left unfulfilled. These include provision of an irrigation dam, a community zoo (an example of a Community Resource Management Area, or CREMA), a mausoleum, and funds to start small businesses. Specifically, before the Bui Dam construction, BPA reached an agreement with the communities to provide support to develop a community zoo to keep some of the wildlife threatened by the flooding of the Bui Dam. The animals will be kept to serve as a tourist site and to generate revenue for the communities. Moreover, the CREMA will protect wildlife resources and serve as a legacy to be bequeathed to the younger generation who may not be privileged to have witnessed the park before the intended impoundment and flooding of nearly a quarter of BNP.
Other unfulfilled promises include: support for a tie and dye business; a vehicle to transport traders to and from the market; training in alternative livelihoods; construction of tarred roads within the resettled communities; and providing supplies of fertilizer. Therefore, his hope of securing livelihood for his family has been dashed and this has made it difficult for him to adequately provide for the sustenance of his family. Among the implications of these unfulfilled promises is the loss of expectations. According to Agya Koo Kusi, a number of the youth as well as other families have migrated and relocated from the Bongaase community to seek greener pastures in nearby large towns such as Wenchi and Nsawkaw. Others have also pitched camp in places near Jama where settlements have sprung up. These settlements are mainly for migrants engaged in fishing livelihoods.
He added that these people are mainly involved in fish mongering, and in a few cases in actual fishing in the large lake created by the Bui Dam. As outlined in Table 8, the impact of the dam on Agya Koo Kusi’s capital asset situation resembles, in many ways, the impact experienced by many other people, even though his family has not been relocated. Agya Koo Kusi’s family is not happy about the Bui Dam and related resettlement processes because it has failed to initiate any significant change in their livelihoods. He believes there are major opportunities created, such as improved access to fishing, which can enhance the livelihood options. Unfortunately, Agya Koo Kusi and his family are badly placed to secure any significant benefit from the opportunities in fishing because they lack the essential fishing skills and capital required for fishing.
Before the construction of the Bui Dam, the people were self-sufficient, augmented in some cases, by the income from selling excess food stuff and fish. This is confirmed by responses from key informants who also indicated that livelihoods before Bui Dam construction was more by cultivation of crops for food (L015), and fishing, to provide for the nutritional needs of the families (L013 and L014). In many cases, the livelihood options that people engaged in were capable of providing the general livelihood needs of the people (G022). More so, it was evident that there were minimal levels of community consultation prior to the dam construction. The arguments also suggested that the community inputs were less integrated into the overall process of the dam construction and aftermath. These actions and to some extent, inactions have culminated into community dissatisfaction with aspects of the dam construction process including resettlements and provision of alternative livelihoods.
The significance of community inputs in local development agency as identified by this study is supported by many arguments (le Roux and White, 2004; The World Bank, 2004; Bennett and McDowell, 2012; Peter, 2013) because the contributions of community members to local development discourse is critical for gaining local acceptance and support but, this is usually ignored since the voices of people such as those displaced by dams are rarely highlighted. The case studies demonstrated that effect of the dam on community livelihoods was mixed for different families. The in depth interview results, however, corroborate that of the household survey to suggest that the construction of the Bui Dam has resulted in both negative and positive effects, with the exception of natural capital. The study results indicate that some positive effects of dams such as improvement in housing facilities for the resettled communities, expansion of access routes to Bui communities and its environs, access to a clinic, and expansion of water sources do exist.
The results of the case studies show that effects of the dam involved issues of resettlement, loss of farmlands for farmers, loss of fishing grounds and changes in the needed methods for fishing in a lake environment, as well as worsening livelihood options. These results are also corroborated by many of the key informants, who indicated the following: few villages (as compared to the Akosombo Dam resettlement) have been inundated by the Bui Dam and resettled in Bui and Jama camps (V001-V008 except V004); and communities have generally lost their fertile farmlands to the flooding and subsequent relocation. Moreover, the newly allocated farmlands are small in size and poor in fertility (V003, L015, G018); fishing communities oriented towards river fishing have lost their fishing grounds to flooding, and fishing cost has increased due to the need to purchase large boats and outboard motors needed for lake fishing, as well as need to commute long distances on-land and on-lake to engage in fishing.
The case studies further show that dams and resettlement can undermine livelihoods of people through reduced access and size of farmlands, and create changes in access to opportunities in new livelihoods such as fishing. Key informant interviews suggest worse impacts of the Bui dam construction. Some adverse effects of the Bui Dam include loss of community lands such as farmlands, loss of both food and cash crops, an increase in the cost of conducting some livelihood activities such as fishing, and the influx of migrants who compete for available opportunities in community livelihoods. The study results is similar to the arguments advanced by several literature (Ofori-Amanfo, 2005; Dzodzi, 2006; Cave et al., 2010; Miller, 2011; Ansar et al., 2014; Chen et al, 2016; Fernside, 2016). The Bui study also confirms the results of WCD (2000), Galipean et al. (2013) and Nusser (2014), by showing that dams can negatively affect livelihoods of people and families living near dams, and those who in some cases have gone through resettlements.
However, dams and associated resettlements can also positively affect fishing livelihoods such as improved marketing opportunities, and lake-caught fish for people with the requisite fishing skills and equipment. The few people who have the capacity to explore the opportunities in fishing have improved livelihoods for their families. Results of the Bui study are similar to those described by Dzodzi (2006: 144-146), because the study suggests that dam construction can increase access and opportunities in fishing-related livelihoods for people who live near dams. However, the study provides some differing results with Dzodzi (2006), in part, because people around Bui Dam are unable to explore other promising livelihoods such as fishing (due to the inability to access lake-appropriate equipment and the requisite capital outlays), unlike the case of communities near Akosombo Dam who gladly embraced fishing livelihood through the process of diversification of livelihoods. The positive impacts of dam construction as suggested by this research are further corroborated by the findings of Alhassan (2009), Kyei-Dompreh (2012), Kabo-Bah et al. (2016), Obour et al. (2016) and Prado et al. (2016).
More so, the finding is similar to that of Dzodzi (2006) on the long term responses of downstream and lakeside communities of Ghana's Volta River Project, suggesting that dams and associated resettlement can positively affect fishing livelihoods by increasing fish catch and revenue generated from fishing for people and families who have the requisite skills and financial resources to purchase larger boats and outboard motors for lake fishing. Communities near Akosombo Dam gladly embraced fishing through the process of diversification of livelihoods. In a similar vein, the Bui study suggested that dam construction increased access and opportunities of fishing for people who live near the Bui dam. The Bui study however, differs from that of Dzodzi (2006) because people living near the Bui dam are unable to take advantage of the fishing opportunities given the financial limitation of accessing financial resources to purchase outboard motors and boats to facilitate fishing on the rather large but stormy lake created by the Bui Dam. In some cases, some people are unable to explore fishing opportunities due to their personal or cultural disposition against doing so.
Some key informants (G020, L010-L014) provided similar views as found in the in depth interview scenarios by noting the failure of BPA (the main resettlement body) to provide adequate training in livelihood options, including alternative livelihoods. This development has negatively affected the capacity of the dam-affected communities to develop some forms of resilience in their livelihoods after the Bui Dam. The outcome of the case studies is also supported by the interviews, which shows a worsening of human and natural capital after the dam construction. The results of the Bui study suggest that future resettlement of communities near dams should be based on commitment to fulfil their promises that integrate policies and programs to build the capacity of communities to develop, sustain or improve community livelihoods. Generally, one can infer that policy makers and dam-affected communities have not adequately explored lessons of the Akosombo Dam (Kalitsi, 2004; Dzodzi, 2006; Kabo-Bah et al., 2016), but repeated the many mistakes of the processes associated with that project.
The lessons learned revolve around the need for people affected by dams and related settlements to proactively source and engage in new and emerging livelihood opportunities as a way to absolve the weaknesses in other livelihoods. The argument on improving livelihoods to overcome dam impacts as identified by the study is similar to studies by Bryceson (2002), Mutenje et al. (2010) and Aasoglenang and Bonye (2013) that explored rural livelihood diversity as a coping strategy for adverse impacts of development projects. For example, individuals can organize themselves into cooperatives to improve the capacity to source bigger loans to invest in such livelihoods, whilst the government and contractors also step up and fulfil their promises to the people. These cooperatives can also support process of pulling resources together to generate a revolving fund to be accessed by members who may be in need of capital for their business. Training in multiple livelihoods will therefore be an important step to maintain or secure improved livelihoods and effectively navigate people through the potential adverse effects of dams and related resettlements on community livelihoods. However, there is hope for the people since BPA asserts that they are in the process of sourcing funds and an institution to conduct training on building the capacity of the people in the development of alternative livelihoods.
