CONSIDERACIONES PRELIMINARES.

Residents of Biu and surrounding villages can be described as being agro-pastoralists. Besides their farming activities, most households keep livestock and poultry. Trading, involving the sale of food crops and livestock, also constitutes a major economic activity (cf. Gutsch- midt 1996). The main crops grown include grain (mainly millet, rice, and sorghum), cowpea, groundnuts and vegetables. All households keep poultry and small stock but the ownership of cattle is increasingly becoming the preserve of wealthy individuals and households. Farming is typically done with simple equipment (like the hoe, cutlass, sticks etc.) although the use of the bullock in the completion of agricultural tasks has become common. A few households have purchased tractors which they use on their own fields and hire out to neighbouring farm- ers. Since the mid-1980s when dry season irrigation farming was gra- dually introduced into the community, increasing numbers of indivi-

duals and households have taken to irrigation farming where they cul- tivate rice, soybeans and tomatoes mainly for household consumption and for sale on the market. The majority of households in Biu have re- mained subsistence farmers who cultivate less than five hectares of land on farms located around the compound, in the village, the bush area and on the irrigated fields.

The land tenure system in Biu, just as in all Kasena-Nankani settle- ments, has been shaped both by the pattern of arrival and settlement of the various clans and the social organisation of these clans. Tradi- tionally, the first clan to settle on a particular piece of land claimed ownership of the land and the area immediately surrounding the settle- ment.5The eldest male member of the clan was typically appointed as the Tengnyono, that is, the spiritual, political and administrative head of the settlement. Subsequently, the allodial title6to land remains with- in the ‘first-comer’ clan and a Tengnyono is chosen from amongst members of the clan to succeed a deceased leader (cf. DaRocha and Lo- doh 1995; Pogucki 1955; Woodman 1996).

ATengnyononever owns the land but only holds land in trust or cus- todianship for the members of the community. He allocates land to members of the various clans and sections in the settlement and to newly-arrived migrants. The Tengnyono remains only a custodian of land and can hardly refuse a native land on which he wishes to settle or farm. He may, however, express his dissatisfaction with a native seeking farmland by not giving him enough land or by offering him an infertile area. Land may be allocated only to adult males and fe- males have no rights of usufruct. In practice, unmarried, divorced, or widowed women are always allocated a portion of the household land for farming purposes (cf. Becher 1996). Strangers, on the other hand, may be refused land if they are known to be of doubtful character or suspected of being able to destabilise the community. The Tengnyono

may also reallocate bush land which has been abandoned or is left fal- low for several seasons (usually for more than 5 years) to another household or individual willing to cultivate it. Virgin lands can only be acquired through the Tengnyono. This involves having to send him small amounts of cola nuts, oil, millet-flour, salt, tobacco, and alcoholic drinks to be used in sacrifices to the ancestors, in prayers for a good harvest and for the protection of the individual acquiring the land. All items found on such acquired lands, including strayed livestock, metals, bangles, axes, hoes etc. remain the property of the Tengnyono. After the harvest, it is customary for individuals who have been given farmlands to send a small part of the harvest (typically, two or three bowls of maize or millet) to the Tengnyono to be ‘given to the ances- tors’. This practice is often waived when grain harvests during a parti- cular season are poor (Tonah 1993; 2002).

Land lying fallow, virgin lands, forests and indeed all land not allo- cated to a particular individual or household are regarded as communal property. Usable resources on these plots of land may be used by any member of the community. Livestock may graze freely as long as they do not destroy crops or property. Forests and bush resources may be exploited for their fruits, wood, vegetables and meat. Rivers and ponds may be used for minor irrigation and fishing.

An individual who acquires land from theTengnyonomay transfer it to his descendants for farming purposes. Once a household or lineage has established its right over a piece of land, no one can dispossess that household/lineage of the usufructory right unless it acts contrary to the conditions under which the land was given to the household. Cur- rently, most of the compound and in-village plots have been allocated to the various households and lineages. The use and control of these plots are subsequently transferred to the male children within the household. Land for farming purposes is, however, available in the bush and forest areas far away from the settlement.

Generally, theTengnyonoof Biu still has considerable authority with- in the community and has maintained control over the administration of land. He is regarded as the legitimate authority over land matters by the vast majority of the inhabitants. His exclusive right to perform the numerous religious rites associated with the use of land and the belief that the non-performance of these rites has serious implications for the community has contributed to strengthening the position of the Teng- nyono vis-a`-vis other individuals and groups. While the Tengnyonohas largely retained his authority over land in Biu, he has over the years lost control over a vast stretch of land in the KND (Laube 2005:137). Two major factors were responsible for theTengnyono’s gradual loss of power and control over land in the Kassena-Nankana area. The first was a result of the imposition of colonial rule in the area. This resulted in the transformation of clan heads into chiefs and the creation of a hierarchy among the chiefs. The chiefs later on became the political re- presentatives of their communities and eventually constituted them- selves into a powerful group meddling in land issues (cf. Berry 2006:256). The second was the negative impact that colonial land pol- icy had on the authority of theTengnyono.

Since the period of colonial rule, the Tengnyonoof Biu has seen his authority over land being challenged by several paramount chiefs in the KND. Prior to colonial rule, theTengnyonowas in charge of the en- tire territory stretching from Biu to Paga, along the border with Burki- na Faso. This includes all the land in Paga, Pungu, Navrongo and parts of Chuchuliga. However, with the creation of divisional and paramount chiefs in areas that did not have any hierarchical leadership structure prior to colonial rule and the provision of such chiefs with powers by

the colonial authority, such ‘government-sponsored’ chiefs gradually be- came more powerful than the Tengnyono. The power and authority of the Tengnyono as the ‘owner of the land’ has been systematically eroded.

The various colonial administrations did not recognise the authority of theTengnyonoof Biu. Instead they created divisional and paramount chiefs in the neighbouring settlements including Kologo and Naga. Biu, on the other hand, was provided with only a headman, who be- came the political representative of the community with the colonial government. Similarly, the colonial authorities recognised the chief of Navrongo (Navro-pio) as the leader of his community. The Navro-pio

utilised his closeness to the colonial administrators to enhance his sta- tus and power. In subsequent years, the chiefs of Kologo, Naga, and many other settlements were made paramount chiefs while theNavro- pioalso became the paramount chief of Navrongo. Residents of Biu, on the other hand, lost out in the colonial administrative set-up and had to content themselves with a divisional chief. In recent times, as a re- sult of their elevated status and their close connections with persons in central government, chiefs have been claiming to hold the allodial title to land in areas where they traditionally did not have such powers (cf. Lund 2006). For example, during the period of colonial rule, the chief of Kologo (Kologonaba) successfully wrestled control over land in the Kologo settlement and in the neighbouring bush area from the Teng- nyonoof Biu and this situation has been maintained until today. Simi- larly, theNavro-pio, using his position as the paramount chief of Nav- rongo and his closeness and influence amongst top government lea- ders claims allodial title to lands in Navrongo and its environs. His claim is hotly contested by the Tengnyam in the various settlements. Currently, all persons wishing to acquire land for non-agricultural pur- poses in the Navrongo area have to seek the consent of the Navro-pio

as well as that of the Tengnyonoof Navrongo (Konings 1986:243). This has resulted in some confusion over the ownership and control of land in Navrongo and the surrounding settlements. There are reported cases of someTengnyamcontesting the claim by theNavro-pioto be solely re- sponsible for administering lands in Navrongo and its environs. Some of theTengnyamare demanding that compensation paid by the govern- ment with respect to lands acquired by government agencies in the area be given to them instead of theNavro-pio.7Generally, one can con- clude that the colonial government, while strengthening the powers of chiefs, weakened the position of theTengnyonoin many parts of North- eastern Ghana.

The land policies of the colonial and post-colonial governments have also curtailed the powers of the Tengnyono. A Land and Native Right Ordinance introduced by the colonial government in 1927 declared all

lands in Ghana ‘public lands’. Such lands subsequently came under the management and control of the Governor. The Ordinance empow- ered the colonial government to claim land in any part of Northern Ghana for ‘development purposes’ without the payment of any com- pensation to the original landowners. Similarly, the government could grant rights of occupancy to any persons who required the use of land and charge the appropriate fees (Agbosu 1978; Konings 1986). In this way the powers of chiefs and the Tengnyono with respect to the man- agement of land were rather limited and made subordinate to that of the colonial government. After the attainment of independence, all lands in Northern Ghana continued to be vested in the President who held them in trust for the people of the area. This remained the case until 1979 when the state finally relinquished its authority over lands in Northern Ghana and returned the ownership and control of such lands to their traditional owners. Given the different land tenure re- gimes in Northern Ghana and the changes that have taken place since the expropriation of these lands by the colonial government, it has be- come increasingly difficult for the government to determine the ‘tradi- tional owners’ of lands in parts of Northern Ghana as a result of con- flicting claims by different persons and groups to ownership of a parti- cular land. This is particularly the case in the towns and major settlements where there is considerable rent to be obtained from the ownership and control of such lands. Since 1979, there has been an in- tense competition in many parts of Northeastern Ghana between the

Tengnyamand chiefs over who has allodial title to land. During the co- lonial and post-colonial period, many chiefs were able to use their privi- leged position and power to wrestle control over land from the Teng- nyam. However, it appears that the Tengnyam are beginning to fight back and are re-claiming their rights to control land and reverse their loss of authority over land (Laube 2005; Lund 2006).

In the next section, I examine in detail how the introduction of large-scale irrigation farming in Northeastern Ghana during the 1980s has intensified the conflict over land between chiefs, theTengnyamand the Ghanaian state. I shall also indicate how commercial irrigation farming has changed the environment under which farming takes place, transformed the land tenure system as well as the authority of the Tengnyonoin Biu. Today, residents move between commercial irri- gation agriculture that largely ignores the social and religious rules in the area and rain-fed agriculture on household/communal land that is embedded in and regulated by the social and religious practices of the population.

Irrigation agriculture and the transformation of land tenure and