The Implementation of Sustainable Development Projects in Sub-Saharan African Countries

(1)

The implementation of sustainable development

projects in Sub-Saharan African countries

Nicky de Waard 10792198 Dr. Sebastian Krapohl

February 2020 Words: 7434

Bachelor Thesis Political Science Universiteit van Amsterdam

(2)

Introduction

Sub-Saharan African countries remain a puzzle to development researchers, with regards to why they do not develop at the same rate as other developing countries in Asia and South America do. Most of the countries in this area are the poorest countries in the world, as can be seen by their low Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and their low economic development (Al-Mulali and Sab, 2012). Their colonial history creating a dependency to the developed world (Jackson, 2013), the lack of stable institutions (Leftwich, 2005), the lack of democracy (Ward, 2008) and their regulation of public goods (Bueno de Mesquita and Downs, 2005) are just a few of the abundant possible explanations mentioned for the low development rate mentioned in literature.

In addition to this ongoing puzzle, rapid population growth and changing climates require new techniques and insights and mean that African countries should not just develop, but develop

sustainably. While the appreciation of the environment is growing in developed countries, the relevance of the environment is growing in developing countries (Kingsbury, 2016). For example, approximately 60% of the ecosystems worldwide have experienced degradation and continue to do so (Barkemeyer, 2014). Climate change has an effect on all humans eventually, of every population, but the effect will be most noticeable to those who rely on natural resources the most and those who are less capable to respond to natural hazards (UNFCCC, 2016).

Many developing countries have experienced economic growth, thanks to trade and investment with and from developed countries. Still, Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia stay relatively behind, with over 900 million people living in poverty (Barkemeyer, 2014). Global organisations are taking action to tackle the problems that generations of the poorest countries are facing. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), promoted by the United Nations (UN), are an important example of implementing sustainable development globally, making people more familiar with the term, normalising the concept and making it more easy to take action for businesses.

This research focuses on combining these sustainability issues with development issues, with the use of new, innovative ‘smart-agriculture’ as a recurring factor in sustainable development

projects. With the motto ‘think globally, act locally’ in mind, the research specifically looks at projects in the Sub-Saharan African countries Mozambique and Ghana. New agricultural processes are

necessary if these countries want to keep up with the rapid population growth, because the current levels of food production do not grow as fast. For example, agroforestry could be a process, providing food security. Nonetheless, farmers are not always keen on initiating a transformation in their

agricultural processes when little to no research is done on the economic growth that this might provide them. Both cases of this study concern a high-value product, being exported to the Western world. However, looking at their political structure, the countries differ quite a lot. According to the

(4)

Democracy Index of The Economist (2018), Mozambique is an authoritarian state and Ghana is a flawed democracy. The main focus of this research will therefore be on the different regime types.

The main question thus will be:

What is the effect of the regime type on the implementation of sustainable development projects in Ghana and Mozambique?

The research is structured as follows. Firstly, it is important to present the puzzle of this research, what literature has been written concerning this question and what is still missing? This is done in the literature review. After this, the concepts related to this puzzle and used in this research will be presented in the theoretical framework. Following the explanation of the theory, two opposing hypotheses will wrap up this section. In the methodology the methods of the research are outlined, going more in-depth in the case selection. Subsequent, the case analysis of the sustainable

development projects in Mozambique and Ghana are presented, by explaining the historical

background, environmental situation and implementation of the projects. And finally a conclusion will be provided in which this research will be summarised and the main question of this research will be answered.

(5)

Literature review

In this section all relevant literature concerning the research puzzle and question is presented. The aim is to show what research has been done and what still is missing.

When looking for literature concerning a certain regime time and its effect on the implementation of sustainable development projects, a number of articles came up. Ward (2008) first of all explains that if we look at theory, democracies should perform better than autocracies on sustainable development. However, “the empirical evidence is ambiguous.” (Ward, 2008, p. 387). He summarises many

theoretical claims of why democracies perform better than autocracies. Less war, more environmental awareness and more inclusiveness. He emphasises that all these theories are “based on argument about deliberation and discourse,” (Ward, 2008, p. 387) and empirical, qualitative literature – he focuses in his paper on statistical research – is less existing.

In a study by Johnston (2007) a research by Lafferty and Meadowcroft is mentioned. The researchers studied developed countries and their policy initiatives for sustainable development. “One would reasonably expect these to be leaders in environmental policies given overall levels of wealth and mechanisms for citizen participation in decision making. Yet in almost every case, environmental concerns have not been sufficiently integrated with economic sectors and decision-making, an

“essential postulate” of sustainable development.” (Johnston, 2007, p. 256).

Acemoglu (2012) states that nations fail because of extractive institutions. These institutions deliberately exclude the mass society, leaving power to the elites. This corresponds with the approach of an authoritarian state. Nations with inclusive institutions, thus being democracies, do not fail because of including all citizens and the type of “engines of prosperities” they use. The extractive and inclusive institutions will be more extensively discussed in the theoretical framework. This theory is however not tested on just sustainable development, but only on societies as a whole.

Bueno de Mesquita and Downs (2005) discuss the recipe of success of authoritarian states. “Conventional wisdom has held that economic development, wherever it occurs, will lead inevitable – and fairly quickly – to democracy.” (Bueno de Mesquita and Downs, 2005, p. 77). This, on the contrary, is not always the case. They identify a type of public goods, coordination goods, that authoritarian governments can exclude for the mass of society to use. Meanwhile, they do provide other public goods such as infrastructure and health care, thus experience economic growth. More explanation of these coordination goods is done in the next section.

Wurster (2013) has elaborated on comparing regime types, autocracies versus democracies, looking at their sustainability achievement. He uses the concepts strong and weak sustainability to explain short-term and long-term decisions from governments. Also, he speaks about a concept used by Meadows et al (1972), eco-dictatorship, which according to them is necessary to overcome certain crises. Climate and environment related problems could be seen as crises, because they are time

(6)

pressured issues and one certain solution is not clear. If authoritarian states focus on protecting the environment, it could be very effective to achieve sustainable development goals. “The underlying notion here is that a competitive or a liberal-pluralist democracy is not adequate to the type of socio-economic transition deemed necessary to rectify major environmental and ecological challenges.” (Lafferty, 2004, p.2). Overall Wurster (2013) questions the fact that democracies are better in achieving a form of sustainable development, and that one could not just assume that this is the case. However, he does state that autocracies often have fewer stable institutions and that stable political institutions, often more present in democracies, provide stronger sustainable policies.

Agroforestry

Besides the fact that human population is growing, individual humans (per capita) are also using more natural resources and producing more carbon dioxide than they did 100 years ago (Rulli, 2013). This is partly due to changing consumption patterns. An effect of the increasing population and changed consumption patterns, is that deforestation is increasing. Forests are being removed for other land purposes, for example agriculture. Deforestation, together with global warming, is the biggest environmental issue worldwide. Due to the lack of roots, the soil of the forest land is more easily eroded, which eventually could lead to two extremes, floods and desertification (Kingsbury, 2016). The latter means that the land is so dry, it is not possible to grow anything on it. Often this state of land is hard to reverse to the more fertile version it once was. Also, deforestation causes loss of habitat for flora and fauna, and an overall decrease of biodiversity (Kingsbury, 2016).

Agroforestry plays an important role in decreasing the process of deforestation. It is a

combination of agricultural practices and forestry technologies (Appiah, 2015). As Mbow (2014, p.1) states: “Improving and sustaining agricultural production in Africa under conditions of increasing climate variability will require increased attention to environmental sustainability, especially the crucial neglected roles that trees can play.” Often agriculture as-we-know-it is not the most efficient, profiting and clean way to produce food. It has negative effects on present environmental resources (Mbwo, 2015). Also, besides the fact that climates are changing and temperatures are rising, another important given is that populations in African countries remain on growing. In Ghana and

Mozambique for example, 70% of the national population is agriculture dependent and lives in a rural area. However, in 2004 only 20% of the agricultural land was cultivated and the growth of food production was lower than the growth of the population. This could account for extra problems in the future, when the food production cannot keep up with the growing population. This would make looking for a solution even more important.

Agroforestry is a land-use system that can increase income for farmers and biodiversity, and can decrease the pressure on natural resources. It is a form of climate-smart agriculture, which, according to the FAO (quoted by Mbow, 2015, p. 2), is “an agriculture that sustainably increases productivity, resilience (adaptation), reduces/removes greenhouse gasses (mitigation) while enhancing

(7)

the achievement of national food security and development goals. However, besides implementing this land-use system, the policies managing these systems are also important. For example, Mbow (2015) states that women should be more involved in the participation of policies. They are involved in the value chains, but are not able to participate due to certain cultural norms and the absence of resources.

(8)

Theoretical framework

“From the Malthusian warnings of the 18th_{century to the ‘Limits to Growth’ scenarios of the 1970s,}

consideration of the earth’s carrying capacity has been a cornerstone of sustainable development.” (Barkemeyer, 2014, p.17). However, since the signing of the Kyoto protocol in 1998, the concepts sustainability and sustainable development have grown in significance around the world. However the appreciation of the environment is growing in developed countries, such as preserving wild life, the relevance of the environment is growing in developing countries (Kingsbury, 2016). Developing countries have less resources to cope with the changing climate and are often more depending on agriculture, which is directly affected by climate change (Meijer, 2015).

Sustainability is a concept with multiple interpretations. It is complex, there is no overall consensus on the definition, and it is more often used with almost everything in media and marketing, sometimes referred to as greenwashing, in other words mainstreamed (Adams, 2009). This is one of the main critiques on sustainable development. The concept is used “to serve a variety of agendas most of which do not necessarily have the well-being of the planet’s supportive ecosystems, or that of people in the developing world, or future generation, at their core.” (Johnston, 2007, p. 61). Its vague character leaves room for different interpretations. Sustainability and sustainable development have over three hundred definitions (Johnston, 2007). Partly because of this debated position and the range of meanings sustainability and sustainable development hold, unsustainable projects and processes keep on going (Kingsbury, 2016).

Presumably the most quoted definition of sustainable development is the one from the Brundtland Report (1987): “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” (quoted in Barkemeyer, 2014, p. 16). Thanks to this definition, the distinction between current and future generations can also be made. People from current generations care about the nature around them and their environment, but sustainable development as a whole, is about protecting the resources for the current and forthcoming generations. A key concept here is equity, and it is divided into two types: intragenerational and intergenerational equity. Intragenerational equity refers to the justice within one generation, meaning the people in developing countries should have access to the same wealth and resources and should be able to experience the same opportunities as people in developed countries (Barkemeyer, 2014). Intergenerational equity refers to the justice between different generations. Thus, maintaining the environment, resources and opportunities for future eras. Sustainable development “therefore includes the aspects of justice and solidarity both between generations as well as on a global scale.” (Wurster, 2013, p. 77).

Through this definition of sustainable development the aspects of the triple bottom line became interlinked (Johnston, 2007). The three pillars of the triple bottom line are economic, social

(9)

and environmental (Barkemeyer, 2014). According to the upper hand of the available literature, economic growth is necessary to decrease poverty. However, there are ways that economic growth could be more beneficiary to the environment and more socially just than other ways. One of the main critiques on the concept sustainable development is that there is contradiction within the definition, an oxymoron (Johnston, 2007). Development consumes finite sources by nature, which clashes with the definition of sustainability.

Thus, sustainable development always requires a trade-off between short-term individual gains and long-term collective gains. These trade-offs could not be decided by people on their own, and need government intervention. “Sustainable development is a concept with two sharp ends, which must challenge wealth and power, and highlight the moral responsibility of the wealthy and powerful in the universal search for well-being.” (Adams, 2009, p. 21). This however, is not easy. Despite the fact that sustainable development is based on a global strategy, the real sustainable development happens at the regional and local level. At these levels the solutions are found. Dryzek (2013, p. 157) states that sustainable development may require “shifts in power between different levels to meet more effectively the challenge of sustainability.” Rather than the top-down administration of a nation state, a more networked governance could be preferable. By networked government is meant, scaling up and down from a national level to a transnational level (upwards) and local level (downwards), but also moving sideways, by working together with businesses. The existence of technology and the improving thereof, knows also an important place within sustainable development (Kuhlman and Farrington, 2010; Dryzek, 2013). The lack of technology could slow development down and the abundance could solve problems that humanity has to cope with.

As Kuhlman and Farrington (2010, p. 3443) put it: “Sustainability […] is a matter of what resources – natural resources, quality of environment, and capital – we bequeath to coming generations.” Therefore, an additional important distinction for this study is the differentiation

between weak and strong sustainability. Some say that the loss of natural resources is inescapable, but that it can be compensated by capital. This is called weak sustainability. It is the belief that human-made capital can be a substitute for natural capital (Kuhlman and Farrington, 2010). “As far as the sense of weak sustainability is concerned, short-term (technical) adaptation measures are sufficient for solving (regional) environmental problems (as long as the production of artificial capital exceeds the destruction of natural capital.)” (Wurster, 2013, p. 78) For example, fossil fuels can be replaced by human-made capital, such as solar panels. Other oppose this and feel that sustainability is a matter of protecting natural resources and that this is necessary for our own vitality and resilience (Kuhlman and Farrington, 2010). This is the second type, called strong sustainability. “Fundamental beharal and lifestyle changes are necessary to ensure that a country’s natural resources are maintained intact as much as possible.” (Wurster, 2013, p. 78). This type is therefore more challenging. An example of this, is that endangered species must be preserved, because they cannot be replaced by a human-made alternative. Pearce et al (quoted in Kuhlman and Farrington, 2010, p. 3443) describes it as follows:

(10)

- Weak sustainability is “that the next generation should inherit a stock of wealth, comprising man-made assets and environmental assets, no less than the stock inherited by the previous generation.” And,

- Strong sustainability is “that the next generation should inherit a stock of environmental assets no less than the stock inherited by the previous generation.”

Strong and weak sustainability can occur at the same time, it mostly depends on the resource what kind of sustainability is used. Also, ecologists and other natural scientists prefer strong sustainability. They rely on the argument that some functions of ecosystems cannot be replaced (Kuhlman and Farrington, 2010). Economists, on the other hand, mostly prefer weak sustainability.

The question that emerges after this is, is the regime of particular importance for the

implementation of weak and strong sustainability in development? In the next section regimes types and their relation to sustainable development will be more substantively discussed.

To implement sustainable development, governance mechanisms are necessary. According to Acemoglu (2012), stakeholder participation and inclusiveness are of the essence. In Why Nations

Fail? He

Compares the cases of North and South Korea, to explain why these nations developed in such a different way and are as we know it today, two completely different states. Most of the time, geography nor culture affect the outcome, particularly economic growth and prosperity, of different countries, but institutions do (Acemoglu, 2012). After the second World War, the different types of institutions, created the quite different North and South Korea.

There are two types of institutions; inclusive and extractive institutions. Inclusive institutions try to, as the concept already hints, include as much people in economic activities. This

way, talents and skills will be more optimally used and therefore economic growth is likelier to happen. However, it is not just the talents and skills that mark the inclusive institutions. Acemoglu (2012) states that there are a few other aspects that shape these kinds of institutions: private property, unbiased system of law, public services and new businesses together with career opportunities. All these aspects provide different situations and levels where people can interact with each other, it ensures the exchange of knowledge and competition. Also, thanks to the new businesses and career opportunities people have the freedom to choose in what kind of way they want to use their talents and skills on the labour market.

The reason why private property rights are so important to an inclusive society is because it is an “engine of prosperity” (Acemoglu, 2012, p. 91). If people are able to own something for

themselves, they would work harder to get it and maintain it. Inclusive markets are not just free markets, they invest in those engines of prosperity. These engines are, besides property rights,

(11)

technology and education. With technology is meant innovation, making, for example, production of goods more efficient. Linked to technology is education, which covers skills, competences and know how of the workforce; the adaption and adoption of new technologies.

The second type of institutions is extractive institutions (Acemoglu, 2012). These institutions are designed in such a way, that one segment of society, mostly elites, benefit from other segments of society. The elite holding the power and wealth in these extractive societies, is worse off when the power and wealth is more equitable distributed over the whole society, and the elite evidently loses power. This explains why a nation does not always strive for prosperity as a whole. It also explains why (some) national fail (Acemoglu, 2012).

Economic growth has as a result that there are winners and losers of this development. Creative destruction, a concept originally formed by Schumpeter (mentioned in Acemoglu, 2012), means that the new innovations and technologies replace the old. “The fear of creative destruction is often at the root of the opposition to inclusive economic and political institutions.” (Acemoglu, 2012, p. 99).

Besides economic institutions, political institutions also play a role within inclusive and extractive societies. Even more, these two institutions create, influence and get influenced by politics. Political institutions decide who has power and how this is used. Within an extractive political institution, the way power is distributed is narrow and absolute.

Additionally, between extractive economic institutions and extractive political institutions a strong feedback loop occurs. Because of the fact that in these types of political institutions the power is narrow and in the hands of the elite, the way the economic institutions are chosen is with very little opposing force. With the extractive institutions chosen and maintained, the same elites will reap the benefits of this and increase their wealth and therefore their power. This means that extractive political institutions and extractive economic institutions will keep reinforcing one another. In inclusive

political institutions power is more broadly divided and the economic resources are more fairly distributed among the large share of society. “From a green perspective, decentralisation is important partly because of the opportunities is gives for greater citizen involvement for deliberation.” (Ward, 2008, p. 406).

Looking at sustainability policies specifically in democracies and autocracies in the world today, many democracies have failed to meet sustainability goals (Wurster, 2013). The core principles of democracies, overlap with the ones from inclusive societies. These being citizen participation and the attempt to reach a consensus. The participation, elections and the ability to vote are the strengths of a democracy (Wurster, 2013). However, democracies do experience a lot of resistance, especially when the government tries to implement policies which are hard, but necessary. These difficult reforms are accompanied by long and hard decision-making processes.

Autocracies, in theory, tend to be more effective in times of crises. “Authoritarian policies might be the only viable solution to overcome resistance of manifold stakeholders and veto players,

(12)

who see ecological measures as detrimental to their short-term economic interests.” (Wurster, 2013, p. 78). To solve a problem or a crisis, government action is necessary (Wurster, 2013). But autocracies know downsides as well. Due to the oppressing factors that autocracies know, the political elite knows less about the wishes and desires of their citizens than in a democracy. Wurster (2013) mentions with this the “Dictator’s dilemma”. It states that more repression from a dictator, means less reliable information coming from its citizens. This is why, overall, autocracies tend to have fewer stable institutions compared to democracies. “Political instability within countries is most commonly associated with poverty, inequality and the unequal access to resources, influence and power.” (Leftwich, 2005, p.1). Weak states are often associated with a weak governance, significant political differences and the lack of unity. Democracy is generally linked to a strong state. For example, to have access to the loans provided by the World Bank, democratisation has been a condition for some time now. This is because democracies overall tend to be more stable, use good governance, and go less into war with other democracies (Ward, 2008).

According to Leftwich (1995) the level of economic growth and development is not based on regime type, because empirical data has shown that non-democratic developing states also experience economic growth. He uses a different characteristic to name these states, developmental states. He defines developmental states as:

“States whose politics have concentrated sufficient power, autonomy and capacity at the centre of shape, pursue and encourage the achievement of explicit developmental objectives, whether by establishing and promoting the conditions and direction of economic growth, or by organising it directly, or a varying combination of both.” (1995, p. 401).

With this developmental state six different characteristics are associated. A committed elite, a relative autonomy, a powerful competent and insulated bureaucracy, a weak and subordinated civil society, an effective management of non-state economic interest, and repression, legitimacy and performance. Using these six characteristics could mean the recipe to success of more authoritarian states. This is in line with the recipe of success of authoritarian states, discussed by Bueno de Mesquita and Downs (2005). The specific public goods, coordination goods, they identify are: political rights, more general human rights, freedom of press and access to higher education. Suppressing these coordination goods is an effective survival strategy for authoritarian states. Other public goods can flourish, increasing economic growth, whilst the population remains oppressed by the government. In the short-term this strategy could increase citizen’s satisfaction with their government and their regime (Bueno de

Mesquita and Downs, 2005). Also, this type of oppressing is more and more seen in China and Russia. In African states “oppressive governments seeking to crack down on those pushing for democratic change have suppressed both types of goods undermining their economies in the process.” (Bueno de Mesquita and Downs, 2005, p. 82). This is interesting, as for instance, it could indicate the difference

(13)

of the level of development in Mozambique compared to the one in China.

Ward (2008) also states the distinction between stable and unstable systems is important. In line with this theory, he concludes that “stable core autocracies perform worse on strong sustainability than stable core democracies.” (Ward, 2008, p. 405). In other words, preserving nature instead of replacing it with man-made capital, is something that democracies perform better in. This is because stable core autocracies are not pressured to change and often experience less internal challenges. He does state that liberal democracies promote weak sustainability as well, but the party system is often too open. Meaning that the large number of small parties reduces investment due to uncertainty. On a concluding remark, Acemoglu (2012) also names two ways how economic growth can occur under extractive political institutions. Firstly, the elites that hold the power in such a society can manage where economic growth should happen, mostly in high-productive activities. They will control those activities and support these activities with resources. A theory that is in line with the one on coordination goods. The second way, and a build-up after the first, is the centralisation of political power. This is important because it brings stability to a country. It is clear who has the power and how the power is used.

The above discussed theories bring me to my main hypotheses:

1) Democratic and inclusive institutions have a positive effect on the implementation of sustainable development projects.

2) Autocratic and extractive institutions have a positive effect on the implementation of sustainable development projects.

(14)

Methodology

The focus of this research will be on the case studies discussed in the next section, the analysis. The case of coffee production in Mozambique and cocoa production in Ghana will be compared through a most similar system design. The descriptive research question focusses on the effect of regime type on the level of sustainable development. Its goal is to describe and give in-depth insights of the causal mechanisms of the independent on the dependent variable. The foundation of this research has been made in the previous section, where theory regarding the question has been addressed. The literature review and theoretical framework made clear that empirical and practical data is mostly lacking on this subject. A lot of statements regarding regime type and sustainable development have been made based on theory. The amount of empirical data and argument based thereon is much less. That is why empirical data is used in the paper. However, the data from the projects discussed in the case analysis was not easy to find or not (yet) available. Thus, most of the data isfrom academic literature, World Bank and other governmental data and data from interview that have been done by others.

Selection and collection of data

Based on the Democracy Index of the Economist (2018) the cases of Mozambique and Ghana where chosen. Looking specifically to Sub-Saharan African countries, Mozambique scores relatively low on this index, 3.85, marked as an autocratic state. Ghana, on the other hand, scores relatively high, 6.63 and is marked as a flawed democracy. The world average was 5.48. The cases of Ghana and

Mozambique, as described in the analysis, are rather similar. Both countries have a colonial background and are producing high-value crops that could benefit of the use of climate-smart agriculture projects, such as agroforestry. The striking difference is their level of democracy and therefore their type of regime and their institutions. This is why these two countries were chosen as case studies, to provide for a good research.

The data used for the analysis of these two cases is mainly from academic literature, news articles and governmental data on agroforestry, cocoa farming, coffee farming and the countries overall history. For example, the Dutch newspaper Het Financieel Dagblad recently featured an article on the Gorongosa coffee project in Mozambique and elaborated on the growth they have experienced. In the article they have interviewed farm workers, and quotes of this interview are used in this

research. The success of the development projects is not only visible in numbers, but also measured by the attitudes of the people involved.

Method of analysis

The research for this paper proceeded in three stages. First, to provide a good case analysis, the research topic was fully explored. This is a process George & Bennett (2004) call “soaking and

(15)

poking” (p.1), getting completely well-known of the research topic, cases and context. This provides a structure, which is chronological and benefits the researcher and as the reader to know every part of the framework of the case. The second stage was developing reasons why certain cases turn out the way they do. This is done with a lot of researching and providing a historical analysis (George & Bennet, 2004). The trustworthiness of these reasons is backed up by presenting other, alternative reasons that are less likely to have had an effect on the dependent variables. In the third and final stage the two cases are compared with the use of a most similar system design.

With a most similar system design, two objects are compared that are “as similar as possible, except with regard to the phenomenon, the effects of which we are interested in assessing.” (Anckar, 2008, p. 389). The idea is that all other possible effects are the same, the potential causal mechanism between the independent and dependent variable can be seen. The downside to this research design however is that is has a small number of cases, which means that the external validity is low.

(16)

Analysis

Ghana

Ghana is a country that for a long period of time, also during their colonial period, benefited from the export of gold and other minerals, timber, and cocoa beans. Gyimah-Boadi and Kwasi Prempeh (2012) even speak of Ghana as an “African Tiger” (p. 94). However, Ghana did not develop as it could have done. “Poor political and economic management of the country’s resources are among the reasons for this disappointing record.” (Gyimah-Boadi and Kwasi Prempeh, 2012, p. 95).

The political system of Ghana has been stable for over 25 years now, since 1993. It knows a democratic regime with a two-party system, the National Democratic Congress (NDC) and the New Patriotic Party (NPP). In the past elections that Ghana has had, the two parties were roughly equally popular, making the two parties stable, competitive and a valid opposition to one another. Ghana has implemented multiple forms of democratic institutions, such as freedom of speech, freedom of media and regularly scheduled elections. All of which are supported by their citizens and have legitimacy (Gyimah-Boadi and Kwasi Prempeh, 2012). For example, in their constitution they state to protect media pluralism and liberty and Ghana was listed on place 27, on the world press freedom list in 2019, the third highest placed country of Africa (RSFa, 2020). Ghana thus can be seen as a democratic and inclusive society.

After Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana is the biggest producer of cocoa in the world. The two countries combined, produce 70% of all the cocoa beans worldwide (Ntiamoah and Afrane, 2007). The revenue of the cocoa beans is extremely important for Ghana, not only for the development of infrastructure, health care and education, but also for the development of cocoa farmers. In 2013, 21.5% of Ghana’s GDP came from agricultural practices and 56% of the population has a job in agriculture (McKinley, 2014). In cocoa farming, 70-100% of the households relies on the production of cocoa (Ntiamoah and Afrane, 2007). It was therefore not a crazy thought of the Ghanaian government to put all effort in the production of cocoa beans, up to its maximum production potential. They have not only invested in the production of cocoa beans, but also invested in factories that are able to transform the cocoa beans in other sellable products, such as chocolate.

However, there has been a major decline in production due to diseases and pests. Different kinds of boards and associations have been called to life to focus on these causes of decline, for example the nation-wide Cocoa Disease and Pest Control Project (CODAPEC) (Ntiamoah and Afrane, 2007). Besides the diseases and pests, the production of cocoa beans is one of the main drivers of deforestation in Ghana (World Bank, 2017). The loss of millions of hectares has led to soil

degradation, water insecurity and crop failures all over West-Africa. According to Asare (2014), a new generation of farmers, mostly immigrants trying to make a living of the profitable cocoa farming, use different techniques than traditional farmers. The new generation focuses more on short term profits and therefor clears more forest, because less shade means higher yields with cocoa plants.

(17)

“Traditionally, cocoa was planted under partially cleared forest with remained trees providing shade to cocoa trees.” (Asare, 2014, p. 1143). With this clearing of forest, also a lot of protected forest is lost. This means that the habitat of different types of flora and fauna is lost and biodiversity is declining. There are multiple projects in Ghana concerning reforestation using agroforestry. For example, the plan of connecting two large forest reserves, Bia Conservation Area and Krokosua Hill Forest Reserve. With the use of cocoa agroforestry this could be done (Asare, 2014). However, agroforestry on the short term is not always that profitable. “The scenario analysis showed that, cocoa agroforest premiums alone are not attractive enough for farmers to shift from no shade cocoa to cocoa

agroforestry.” (Asare, 2014, p. 1153).

The governance mechanisms used in Ghana, are compatible with the first hypotheses: “Democratic and inclusive institutions have a positive effect on the implementation of sustainable development projects.” It is highly ranked on the Democracy Index, as a flawed democracy, and it knows open and inclusive institutions. Besides, it also provides public goods and oppresses coordination goods. However, there are not many success stories of agroforestry or other sustainable development projects concerning their cocoa production, as it is not profitable without government interventions, such as subsidies. Therefore, hypothesis 1 does not last.

Mozambique

For a long period of time, Mozambique was one of the poorest countries in the world (Simler and Nhate, 2005). The country was characterised with poverty, illiteracy and a low life expectancy. To give an example, in 1996-1997 70% of the citizens was living below the poverty line (Simler and Nhate, 2005). The life expectancy in 2005 was no more than 35 years old; this was due to the impact of AIDS. However, these numbers are slightly improving. In 2014-2015, 48,4% of the population was living below the poverty line. A side note to this fact is unfortunately, that the absolute numbers of people living in poverty has actually increased. This is because the rapid population growth in Mozambique, something that is also occurring in the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa (World Bank, 2016). The life expectancy has grown to 60 years old in 2017 (World Bank, 2020). In a report by the World Bank (2018), an average annual growth of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) from 2000 until 2016 is presented. This growth, 7.2%, occurred mostly due to the agricultural production, especially after the civil war. The growth boosted the agricultural sector, amongst with international trade,

macroeconomic management, transport and financial services, foreign investment and donor support. The World Bank states that this growth makes Mozambique “one of the fastest-growing countries in Sub-Saharan Africa.” (World Bank, 2018, p.1).

The colonial background of Mozambique led to a certain approach to handle the conservation of nature. It was characterised as ‘fortress conservation’, because it did not include the local

(18)

until 1992, the whole country was captured by a civil war between the government (FRELIMO) and a national resistance movement (RENAMO). There have been elections since the civil war, where FRELIMO always comes out as a winner. However, during the recent election in the autumn of 2019 the RENAMO party pointed out the fraud and irregularities during this election (BBC, 2019). “About 10 people have been killed in election violence, according to a local observer mission.” (BBC, 2019). This indicates that elections do not go smoothly in Mozambique. Looking at the World Press

Freedom ranking, Mozambique is on place 103. The government often covers up news items, detains reporters or other individuals “violating state secrets” (RFS, 2020). Therefore, is could be said that Mozambique oppresses coordination goods and know extractive institutions.

In 1997 Mozambique implemented the Land Law. Thanks to this law, local communities and individuals can get access to property rights of the land, which will also be protected by the

government. Besides, the existence of property rights should increase investment as well. “The Land Law states that local communities and individuals can acquire land-use rights through occupancy in accordance with customary norms and practices as long as these do not contradict the Constitution.” (Dondeyne, 2012, p. 295). This Land Law does not exclude others of using the land, the only

condition for people that have no property rights, but do want to use the land, is that they should have gotten the consent of the community or individual holding the rights (Dondeyne, 2012).

This was an important step because around 70% of Mozambique’s population earns a living from agricultural practices (Nhlengethwa, 2014). Between 2001 and 2010 the share of agricultural practices to the gross domestic product (GDP) of Mozambique was around 25%. This share has been increasing, making is it more attractive for foreign investment. However, Nhlengethwa (2014) does state that “at the rate at which the GDP of the country is growing, it will probably take about 35 to 40 years before the country could reach the same standard as the SADC (Southern African Development Community) middle-income countries.” (p. 119). Because of the fact that a large share of the

population is dependent on agricultural practices, it is important to boost the share of agriculture of the GDP. This way food security increases and poverty is reduced (Nhlengethwa, 2014).

In theory, the implementation of the Land Law sounds promising. However, in practice, implementing it is a bit more difficult, thanks to “bureaucratic obstacles”. Dondeyne (2012) gives a reason for this: “organisation culture of a highly centralised government system, […] history of war and conflict, and […] a legacy of bureaucratic distrust in the initiatives and capacities of local people.” (p. 298). So, one of the reasons is the centralised government, thus their autocratic regime.

Mount Gorongosa

The Gorongosa National Park is 4000 km2 _{of conservation area. It is rich of natural resources and a}

diversity of plants and animals. When Mozambique was still a colony, the park was used as a hunting reserve, after this period wildlife flourished and tourism followed after this. In times of the civil war, the park functioned as fort for RENAMO troops. This was at the expense of wildlife and infrastructure

(19)

(Dondeyne, 2012).

In 2008, an American multimillionaire, Gregory Carr, joined forces with the Mozambican government. Until 2043, he is focusing on rebuilding the Gorongosa National Park and providing sustainable economic benefit for the people living in that area. The coffee plantation hires farmers living in the nearby area. They earn a fixed salary and get free coffee seeds for their own land. The plantation presented their first coffee in 2016, so the project started running only very recent and the availability of data is therefor quite limited.

One of the workers tells Het Financieel Dagblad (Posthumus, 2019), that her four youngest children do go to school now, something that her older children never could experience, due to money shortages. Now, they are able to buy “soap, cooking oil, schoolbooks and other household items.” The expectations are that the income of the farmers is going to grow even further. Already, there is a tenfold of the income, compared to their previous income as maize farmers. This is because of the increasing growth and (foreign) interests in the project.

The goals of the Gorongosa coffee projects are to eventually restore 5000 hectares of forest on and around the mountain. Their key selling point is that the coffee is produced in the most natural environment, coffee plants do grow in the wild in the same area. And it has paid off, recently Nespresso decided to invest in the coffee project as well (Drinks Insight Network, 2019).

The governance mechanisms used in Mozambique, are compatible with the second hypotheses: “Autocratic and extractive institutions have a positive effect on the implementation of sustainable development projects.” It is relatively low ranked on the Democracy Index, as an autocracy, and it knows a relative unstable government and oppressed coordination goods. However, there is a success story of agroforestry as a sustainable development project. This analysis however does not establish to fully identify the causal relations between the regime type and the implementation of sustainable development projects. Therefore, hypothesis 2 is party true.

(20)

Conclusion

This study focused on the puzzle between rapid population growth, changing climates, sustainable projects and regime types in Sub-Saharan Africa. It did a comparative case analyse according to a most similar systems design, where is compared development projects in Ghana and Mozambique. Sub-Saharan Africa did not experience the same grow as other developing countries have

experienced. Meanwhile, the population is exploding and their agricultural practices can not keep up. Sustainable development projects aim to help Sub-Saharan African countries develop in a way that increases their income and wellbeing, as well as the well-being of the planet and future generations. The definition of sustainable development by the Brundtland Report was the starting point of the theory of this study: “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” In the theoretical framework two distinction are being made, one between intrageneration equity and intergenerational equity, and one between weak and strong sustainability. Using one of these means that governments focus more on short-term gains or long-term gains.

These forms sustainable development mechanisms are then linked to the regime type. These autocratic regimes and democratic regimes. Autocratic regimes are more centralised, extractive and oppress coordination goods. Democratic regimes are more decentralised, inclusive and provide all public goods. In the most similar system analysis, Mozambique is linked to an autocratic regime and Ghana is linked to a democratic regime. Because of democratic and inclusive institutions Ghana knows, long decision-making processes occur, making it harder to reach a consensus compared to the case of Mozambique. In Mozambique the land is state owned and the state, and the community owning property rights, therefore decide about the investment plans. Mozambique knows a success story of sustainable development, and has improved the human well-being of the people living in this area and the environment and biodiversity of the area itself. However, is this not enough to give a complete answer to the research question: What is the effect of regime type on the implementation of sustainable development projects in Ghana and Mozambique?

The project in Mozambique was relatively new, and not much data was available on this case. They do however are implementing new measurement techniques for their yields and these will be operable in 2021. Further research with this new data would thus be recommended. For the case in Ghana, is was mostly a tangle of boards, associations and other stakeholders deciding on the problem of deforestation and the implementation of agroforestry projects. It would be interesting to dive deeper in the motives of farmers. Under what conditions will the farmers change their unsustainable

agricultural practices to sustainable ones? The urgency of these researches is high, as the population in these countries remains on growing, deforestation continues and their dependability on agriculture is significant.

(21)

References

[Anonymous] (2016) Why Climate Change is not Gender Neutral. UNFCCC. Retrieved on 16 January 2020 from

https://unfccc.int/news/climate-action-needs-gender-action

Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. Crown Books.

Adams, W.M. (2009). Green Development. Environment and sustainability in a developing world. New York, NY: Routledge.

Al-Mulali, U., & Sab, C. N. B. C. (2012). The impact of energy consumption and CO2 emission on the economic growth and financial development in the Sub Saharan African countries. Energy, 39(1), 180-186.

Anckar, C. (2008). On the applicability of the most similar systems design and the most different systems design in comparative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(5), 389-401.

Appiah, D. O., & Nyarko, P. (2015). Smallholder Farmers and Agroforestry Land Use Optimisation in Forest Fringed Communities in Ghana.

Asare, R., Afari-Sefa, V., Osei-Owusu, Y., & Pabi, O. (2014). Cocoa agroforestry for increasing forest connectivity in a fragmented landscape in Ghana. Agroforestry systems, 88(6), 1143-1156.

Barkemeyer, R., Holt, D., Preuss, L., & Tsang, S. (2014). What happened to the ‘development’ in sustainable development? Business guidelines two decades after Brundtland. Sustainable development, 22(1), 15-32.

Bueno de Mesquita, B., & Downs, G. W. (2005). Development and democracy. Foreign Aff., 84, 77.

Dondeyne, S., Kaarhus, R., & Allison, G. (2012). Nature conservation, rural development and ecotourism in central Mozambique: which space do local communities get?.

Drinks Insight Network. (2019). Nespresso to support coffee farmers in Mozambique. Retrieved on 16 January 2020 from https://www.drinks-insight-network.com/news/nespresso-mozambique-coffee-farmers/

Dryzek, J. S. (2013). The politics of the earth: Environmental discourses. Oxford university press.

George, A. & Bennett, A. (2004). Case studies and theory development. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press. Chapter 5: ‘Phase two: Carrying out the case studies’, pp. 89-108.

Gyimah-Boadi, E., & Prempeh, H. K. (2012). Oil, politics, and Ghana's democracy. Journal of Democracy, 23(3), 94-108.

Jackson, T., Louw, L., & Zhao, S. (2013). China in sub-Saharan Africa: implications for HRM policy and practice at organizational level. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(13), 2512-2533

(22)

Johnston, P., Everard, M., Santillo, D., & Robèrt, K. H. (2007). Reclaiming the definition of sustainability. Environmental science and pollution research international, 14(1), 60-66.

Kolavalli, Shashi, and Marcella Vigneri. "Cocoa in Ghana: Shaping the success of an economy." Yes, Africa can:

success stories from a dynamic continent (2011): 201-218.

Kuhlman, T., & Farrington, J. (2010). What is sustainability?. Sustainability, 2(11), 3436-3448.

Lafferty, W. M. (2004). Introduction: form and function in governance for sustainable development. In Governance for Sustainable Development: The challenge of adapting form to function (pp. 1-31). Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

Leftwich, A. (1995). Bringing politics back in: Towards a model of the developmental state. The journal of development studies, 31(3), 400-427.

Leftwich, A. (2005). Democracy and development: Is there institutional incompatibility?. Democratisation, 12(5), 686-703.

Mbow, C., Van Noordwijk, M., Prabhu, R., & Simons, T. (2014). Knowledge gaps and research needs concerning agroforestry's contribution to sustainable development goals in Africa. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 6, 162-170.

Mbwo (2015). Agroforestry can form an effective, efficient and fair pathway to achieve food security and agricultural sustainability in Africa. Retrieved on 21 December 2019 from

http://www.worldagroforestry.org/publication/agroforestry-can-form-effective-efficient-and-fair-pathway-achieve-food-security-and

McKinley, J., Nalley, L. L., Asare, R. A., Dixon, B. L., Popp, J. S., & D'Haese, M. (2014). Managing risk in cocoa production: assessing the potential of climate-smart crop insurance in Ghana. Journal of International Agricultural Trade and

Development, 10(1), 53.

Meijer, S. S., Catacutan, D., Ajayi, O. C., Sileshi, G. W., & Nieuwenhuis, M. (2015). The role of knowledge, attitudes and perceptions in the uptake of agricultural and agroforestry innovations among smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 13(1), 40-54.

Nhlengethwa, S., Matchaya, G., & Chilonda, P. (2014). The agriculture sector performance in Mozambique. Revista Galega de Economía, 23(4).

Ntiamoah, A., & Afrane, G. (2008). Environmental impacts of cocoa production and processing in Ghana: life cycle assessment approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(16), 1735-1740.

Posthumus, N. (2019). Koffie biedt oplossing voor armoede én ontbossing in Afrika. Het Financieel Dagblad.

(23)

Reporter without Borders (b). (2020). Retrieved on 16 January 2020 from https://rsf.org/en/mozambique

Rulli, M. C., Saviori, A., & D’Odorico, P. (2013). Global land and water grabbing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(3), 892-897.

Simler, K. R., & Nhate, V. (2005). Poverty, inequality, and geographic targeting (No. 192). International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

The Economist Intelligence Unit. (2018). Democracy Index 2018: Me too? Retrieved on 21 December 2020 from https://275rzy1ul4252pt1hv2dqyuf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Democracy_Index_2018.pdf

Ward, H. (2008). Liberal democracy and sustainability. Environmental politics, 17(3), 386-409.

World Bank (2016). Retrieved on December 28 2020 from:

https://www.worldbank.org/en/region/afr/publication/poverty-rising-africa-poverty-report

World Bank (2017). Retrieved on January 6 2020 from:

https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2017/12/19/forest-and-farmer-friendly-cocoa-in-west-africa

World Bank. Retrieved on January 6 2020 from: https://data.worldbank.org/country/mozambique

Wurster, S. (2013). Comparing ecological sustainability in autocracies and democracies. Contemporary Politics, 19(1), 76-93.

The Implementation of Sustainable Development Projects in Sub-Saharan African Countries