During the last decade, debates about the livelihood impacts of large‐scale biofuel projects have focused mainly on either employment creation or on land dispossession. The mediating role of social institutions and communal reciprocity in resource‐access manoeuvring processes have rarely been considered. This comparative study of two biofuel projects in Ghana shows that households affected by land dispossession quickly obtained new productive land areas by switching to fallow farmland or through long‐term reciprocal social networks. The livelihoods of households with members employed by the projects improved in terms of increased income and access to cultivation on project land. Not everyone, however, had the resources and ability to use social networks for job‐seeking and land access negotiation, particularly those considered to be migrants. The authors argue that a context‐specific focus on, and processual examination of, the abilities of individuals and groups to utilize social institutions to sustain their livelihoods during a project's lifetime, are crucial in analysing the impacts of biofuels land deals. Such an approach explores the various forms and uses of livelihood capitals, and shows how new configurations of social and economic relations emerging from land commercialization can reinforce local inequalities.