Environmental Sustainability and Policy for Cocoa ......Inclusivity and Stakeholder Consultation,...

FINAL REPORT

Environmental Sustainability and Policy for Cocoa Production in Ghana Project:

REVIEW OF THE EXISTING TREE TENURE POLICIES AND LEGISLATIONS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR THE

COCOA SECTOR IN GHANA

To

Ghana COCOBOD and UNDP Ghana

By

Proven Ag Solutions

February, 2014

Review of existing tree tenure policy-Ghana Cocoa Board/UNDP-Ghana. February, 2014. i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY To implement the “Environmental Sustainability and Policy for Cocoa Production in Ghana” Project, Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD) and the United Nations Development Program UNDP) Ghana intend to engage relevant government agencies to eliminate ambiguities related to tree tenure security and work with relevant stakeholders to explore and resolve tree tenure issues. Tree tenure – the ownership and benefit sharing in planted and naturally growing trees on farms - continues to be one of the thorny issues facing both landowners and cocoa tenants. Non-conducive tree tenure is largely regarded as a disincentive to sustainable forest management including agroforestry systems. Security of tenure is needed to ensure that farmers benefit from planting and tending trees and from investing in improvements that enhance the value and sustainability of trees. COCOBOD and UNDP Ghana require evidence-based information to achieve the above-mentioned objectives. To get access to this information they are proposing a comprehensive review, by a consultant, of the existing tree tenure policy and legislation and their practical implications to the cocoa sector to better determine effective means for collaboration with stakeholders in the sector. The objective of the consultancy is for the consultant to conduct a review the existing policies and legislations that are related to tree ownership in Ghana and their implication for a sustainable cocoa production system, social and legal analysis of the current tree tenure regime. The specific tasks included: documentation and analysis of the existing forest policies and legislations related to tree tenure especially in cocoa landscapes to help the cocoa sector verify compliance with relevant laws, regulations and best practices that would encourage farmers to plant and maintain trees on the farms; determination of factors shaping tree policy formulation and implementation, determination of the perception of farmers, traditional authorities and timber industry and civil society groups to policy and regulatory frameworks on tree tenure in Ghana, an analysis of the welfare and income impacts of existing tree tenure regimes in Ghana and finally to provide a proposal of recommendations on the policy and regulatory frameworks for the effective promotion of environmentally sustainable practices in the cocoa sector. An analysis of the various policies and laws related to tree tenure and their implications for a sustainable cocoa production system revealed key areas in which the policies and laws were deficient in dealing with the requirements to make farmers, who are key to managing trees on their farms, interested in undertaking sustainable practices to preserve the trees on the farms in which they perform their daily activities. The fact that there were various mechanisms introduced by the government and other private organizations to engender sustainable forest management practices to save the forests indicate that the current policy and legal frameworks have failed to provide the respite required. These major efforts to change the current system of environmental and forest management at the national policy level include: development of the Natural Resources and Environmental Governance (NREG) program, implementation of the Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) and the Non-legally Binding Instruments.

Review of existing tree tenure policy-Ghana Cocoa Board/UNDP-Ghana. February, 2014. ii

Decentralized forest management benefit sharing mechanisms The transparent and fair generation, collection and sharing of natural-resource revenues can be a determining factor of the viability of agreement among stakeholders or the constitutional provisions. The analysis of the various policies and laws related to tree tenure revealed key areas in which the policies and laws are deficient in dealing with the requirement to make farmers, the most important players in managing trees on their farms, interested in undertaking sustainable practices to preserve these trees. The lack of benefits to farmers was identified as a key factor in the increasing degradation of the forests and called for an examination of the various relevant benefit-sharing arrangements that exist in Ghana and elsewhere to inform subsequent recommendations on workable options for incentivizing farmers.

The study examined the range of benefit sharing mechanisms or arrangements, cash benefits through Government budgets, sub-national units such as royalties, sub-national grants and fiscal transfers and details of other benefit flows to communities in the form of monetary and non-monetary transfers. Among the various forest management options and associated benefit-sharing mechanisms examined are the following: a) Commercial Plantation Agreements (CPA), b) Community Forest Management Projects (CFMPs), c) Community Resource Management Areas (CREMA), d) Social Responsibility Agreement (SRA), e) Dedicated Forests (DF), f) “Kuapa Kokoo” benefit sharing formula and g) Traditional systems of sharing benefits from land (arrangements between farmers (caretaker, short or long-term migrant) and landowners. These models offer unique opportunities for scaling-up since they deal appropriately with the requirements of farmers and enable them to undertake responsible actions of tree planting and tree preservation on their farms. Two models of Decentralized Forest Management (DFM), through either devolution or de-concentration, in Tanzanian and Nepal which have relevance for Ghana were also discussed. Socio-cultural factors on forest management A review of key socio-cultural factors affecting sustainable management of forests showed ways in which these factors can influence the shape and scope of forest management systems and their implications for the cocoa sector and especially how these may affect the livelihoods of communities living in or close to forests was conducted. Among those factors examined are: farming systems in the forest and property regimes, forest land tenure, potential power of village institutions, natural resource ownership and use, effects of agricultural development and mining priorities, power and influence, illiteracy and poverty of farmer, significance of cultural values attached to forests and gender and trees. Finally, a case study, “How Brazil is Using Education, Technology and Politics to Save its Rainforest”, detailing socio-economic, cultural and technological tools influencing forest management practices, was discussed to learn lessons from this Brazilian experience. This study offers significant insights into the potential power of using various socio-cultural, political and technological strategies to control the drivers of deforestation and reduce forest degradation. This review demonstrated the significance of these socio-cultural and other factors and their implications to the sector and the range of activities that could be implemented to exploit the opportunities that the current challenges provide, to improve forest management systems in the country.

Review of existing tree tenure policy-Ghana Cocoa Board/UNDP-Ghana. February, 2014. iii

Key factors that shape policy development One of the key concerns of policy makers in advancing the adoption of sustainable practices in the forestry sector is how to establish a policy and legal enabling environment for the implementation of forestry interventions. To tackle the long-documented problem of unclear tree tenure and other regimes, the government needs to create policies that provide incentives that would motivate farmers to get involved in the planting of and caring for timber species on their farms and desist from environmentally negative practices that lead to forest degradation. To create the right conditions for policy development and reform, it is important for policy makers to recognize and take into consideration the factors that affect the policy development, implementation and monitoring and evaluation processes. The study identified and examined some factors that affect the components of the policy-making and implementation processes and to show how they serve as barriers/constraints that could stifle effective policy change. Institutional Architecture, defined as the set of procedures and processes for data collection and analysis, consultation and dialogue, policy proposal, feedback, approval, implementation, and enforcement, was employed as an approach for conducting analysis of a country’s capacity to undertake a particular sector policy change, by identifying policy design options and implementation barriers and coordinating actions across public and private institutions. This approach involves identifying key requirements that affect the policy development process, namely: the guiding national policy framework; the key institutions that hold primary responsibility for development and implementation; inter-ministerial coordination mechanisms; private and civil society organizations, as well as think tanks and research organizations, that impact and influence the sector’s policy change process. These factors are then examined in the context of the broader economic and social dynamics that impact the policy change environment. Six global factors that affect the policy making, implementation and monitoring and evaluation processes and their associated indicators that need to be fulfilled were discussed and included the following: i) Guiding Policy Framework, ii) Policy Development and Coordination, (iii) Inclusivity and Stakeholder Consultation, iv) Evidence-based Analysis, v) Policy Implementation and vi) Mutual Accountability. The study proceeded further, to suggest the opportunities the understanding of these factors present when taken into consideration in guiding the policy development and implementation process. Results of field survey A section of this report deals with the findings from the field survey conducted in four key cocoa

producing regions of Ghana namely, Ashanti, Brong Ahafo, Eastern and Western. The study,

which covered most of the key stakeholders in the forestry sector, examined the views of the

various key stakeholders in the forestry sector on knowledge, perceptions and benefit sharing

arrangements, among others, of the tree tenure regime and its impact on forest management,

community welfare, incomes and farmers’ ability to adopt practices that involve tree plantings.

The respondents also provided insights into the challenges as well as recommendations to

improve the performance of the forestry sector. The results of the survey also showed how the

legal provisions are actually being observed or treated in practice by all stakeholders. The

findings of the survey on the impacts of the tree tenure regime were found to be consistent with

those reported extensively in the literature.

Review of existing tree tenure policy-Ghana Cocoa Board/UNDP-Ghana. February, 2014. iv

Comparative analysis of the 1994 and the new 2012 Forest and Wildlife Policies After about 20 years of operation of the 1994 FWP and the introduction of the various interventions and programs to mitigate the negative effects, a new policy 2012 FWP has been introduced by the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources to replace the 1994 policy. The birth of the new FWP 2012 Forest and Wildlife in December of 2013 was the result of years of work by a Policy Review Committee (PRC), appointed by the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources, which engaged all stakeholders in the sector in consultations at the community, district, regional and national levels. A comparative analysis of the 1994 and 2012 FWPs was undertaken to examine the extent to which stakeholders’ concerns in terms of, weaknesses and limitations in the tree tenure rules of 1994 have been dealt with in the 2012 FWP. Of particular interest also is how the 2012 FWP deals with the concerns of REDD+ requirements and ownership of the carbon sequestered by trees and other legal weaknesses. Comparisons relating to tree tenure were made between the provisions of the 1994 and 2013 policy documents in the areas of: a) the guiding principles, (b) the core objectives, c) the strategic direction and d) the various strategies to achieve a better tree tenure regime. The 2012 Forest and Wildlife Policy recognizes and promotes the following key guiding principles: The role of employing multi-sector approaches to planning and management of forest and wildlife resources, multi-stakeholder interest in forest and wildlife and forging a common vision to protect, manage and use the resources, collaborative resource management among communities, government and other stakeholders and Public-private sector partnerships and investment in forestry sector amongst others and all of which were key weaknesses in the 1994 FWP. The FWP 2012 has as its core objectives the following, among others, which are geared toward resolving the issues relating to tree tenure regime: a) To promote the rehabilitation and restoration of degraded landscapes through plantations development and community forestry by appropriate land-use practices to enhance environmental quality and sustain the supply of raw material for domestic and industrial consumption and for environmental protection and b)To promote and develop mechanisms for transparent governance, equity sharing and citizens’ participation in forest and wildlife resource management. Relating to the Policy’s Strategic Direction and Strategies, the 2012 FWP seeks to institute transparency, equity and legalize public participation in sustainable forest and wildlife resources management by enacting the necessary legislation and regulations to facilitate and enhance local participation through decentralization of forestry operations at the district level. Indeed the government has resolved to develop sustainable institutional frameworks for effective participation of key stakeholders in forest and wildlife resource management and governance and enact legislations that will enable communities and individuals to benefit from trees on their farms and fallow lands, provide off-reserve tree tenure security, authority to legally dispose of resources and allocate greater proportion of benefit accruing from resource management to community members individually or collectively. The policy then proposes various strategies that need to be undertaken to achieve the objectives and overall goal of the 2012 FWP.

Bold pronouncements have been made in 2012 FWP document to define and allocate tree tenure rights by law. This policy also seeks to streamline the collection of stumpage fees and similar taxes and distribute same equitably by law. Following from the above provisions, the Ghana Forest and Wildlife Policy 2012) has, in a major way, through its policy objectives and outlined

Review of existing tree tenure policy-Ghana Cocoa Board/UNDP-Ghana. February, 2014. v

strategies, made adequate provisions to deal with weaknesses identified in the 1994 FWP as far as tree tenure rights are concerned. These provisions are in harmony with those that have been articulated by forestry-sector stakeholders and echoed by the then Deputy Minister of Lands and Natural Resource and Mines in his keynote address to same stakeholders in 2009 to ensure better collection and greater equity in the distribution of the revenue from the resource that would encourage/incentivize farmers and forest-dependent communities to engage in sustainable forest management and plant and preserve economic trees on their farms. Various recommendations have been provided on the policy and regulatory frameworks and on other key issues that will lead to the effective promotion of environmentally sustainable practices in the cocoa sector. Finally, a matrix has been provided after the recommendations, which shows a list the various policies and Laws, their impact on cocoa farmers, the recommended change required to promote sustainability on cocoa farms and finally actions proposed to support the required change.

Review of existing tree tenure policy-Ghana Cocoa Board/UNDP-Ghana. February, 2014. vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................i

TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................................vi

ACRONYMS ...............................................................................................................................................................ix

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 1

2.0 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE .............................................................................................................. 1

2.1 Background .................................................................................................................................................. 1

2.2 Objective of the Assignment ........................................................................................................................ 2

3.0 METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................................... 3

3.1 Processes ...................................................................................................................................................... 3

3.2 The Consulting Team ................................................................................................................................... 4

4.0 DOCUMENTATATION AND ANALYSIS OF EXISTING FOREST POLICIES AND LEGISLATIONS RELATED TO TREE TENURE IN COCOA LANDSCAPES AND THEIR PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS FOR THE COCOA SECTOR ................................................................................................................................................ 5

4.1 Current Legal and Policy Framework .......................................................................................................... 5

4.1.1 Review of Tree Tenure Policy ...................................................................................................................... 6

4.1.2 Tree Tenure Policies Relating to Naturally-Occurring Trees in Forest Reserves ...................................... 7

4.1.3 Negative Implications of the Above Provision ............................................................................................. 8

4.1.4 Tree Tenure Policies Relating To Planted Trees in Degraded Forest Reserves ......................................... 8

4.1.5 Off-Reserve Naturally-Occurring Trees ...................................................................................................... 9

4.1.6 Off-Reserve Private Plantations .................................................................................................................. 9

4.1.7 Challenges Associated with Existing Tree Tenure Policies ....................................................................... 10

4.2 Review of the Existing Legal Framework for Forests and Trees ............................................................... 11

4.2.1 Existing legal framework for forest and trees ................................................................................... 11

4.2.2 Welfare and Income Impacts of Existing Tree Tenure Regimes in Ghana ................................................. 19

4.2.3 Inventory and Analysis of International Policy Instruments Adopted by the Country and which Influences National Policies ................................................................................................................................ 23

4.2.4 Strengths and Weakness of the Current Legal Framework ............................................................... 24

5.0 THE VARIOUS RELEVANT BENEFIT-SHARING ARRANGEMENTS THAT EXIST IN GHANA AND INTERNATIONALLY TO INFORM SUBSEQUENT RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................... 26

5.1 Legal Provisions on Benefit Sharing from Stumpage/Rent and Disbursement .......................................... 26

5.2 Forest Management Options and Associated Benefit-Sharing Mechanisms .............................................. 28

5.2.1 Commercial Plantation Agreement (On-Reserve) ...................................................................................... 29

5.2.2 Community Forest Management Projects (CFMPs) – (On-Reserve) ................................................ 30

5.2.3 Community Resource Management Areas (CREMA) (Off-Reserve). ................................................ 31

5.2.4 Social Responsibility Agreement ....................................................................................................... 31

5.2.5 Dedicated Forests (DF) ..................................................................................................................... 31

Review of existing tree tenure policy-Ghana Cocoa Board/UNDP-Ghana. February, 2014. vii

5.2.6 “Kuapa Kokoo” benefit sharing formula .......................................................................................... 32

5.2.7 Traditional systems of sharing benefits from land............................................................................. 33

5.2.8 Effect of inequitable sharing of benefits from forest resources exploitation ..................................... 33

5.2.9 Models from other Countries and Relevance for Ghana ................................................................... 34

6.0 KEY SOCIO-CULTURAL FACTORS AFFECTING SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF FORESTS AND THEIR PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS FOR THE COCOA SECTOR ........................................................... 40

6.1 Farming Systems in the Forest and Property Regimes ............................................................................... 40

6.2 Forest Land Tenure .................................................................................................................................... 41

6.3 Potential Power of Village Institutions ..................................................................................................... 42

6.4 Natural Resource Ownership and Use....................................................................................................... 43

6.5 Effects of Agricultural Development and Mining Priorities, Power and Influence .................................. 43

6.6 Impacts of Illiteracy and Poverty of Farmers ............................................................................................. 44

6.7 Significance of Social and Cultural Values Attached to Forests ................................................................ 45

6.8 Significance of Gender Considerations in the Forestry Sector and Trees .................................................. 45

6.9 Socio-Economic, Cultural and Technological Tools Influencing Forest Management Practices .............. 45

7.0 FACTORS SHAPING TREE POLICY FORMULATION AND IMPLEMENTATION .............................. 48

8.0 RESULTS FROM FIELD SURVEY AND DISCUSSIONS ........................................................................ 54

8.1 Knowledge and Information views across all stakeholder-groups ............................................................ 54

8.1.1 Sensitization and awareness creation on tree tenure ........................................................................ 57

8.1.2 Challenges associated with knowledge on tree tenure rules ............................................................. 58

8.2 Benefit sharing and it’s impact ................................................................................................................... 59

8.2.1 Local benefits sharing in place as revealed by other stakeholders. .................................................. 59

8.2.2 Farmers views on impact of benefit sharing...................................................................................... 60

8.2.3 Perspective of stakeholders on the effect of benefit sharing on welfare, income and livelihoods. .... 63

8.2.4 Views of loggers interviewed on impact of benefit sharing on welfare and community livelihoods . 63

8.2.5 Views of farmers interviewed on impact of benefit sharing on welfare and community livelihoods . 65

8.2.6 Views of Traditional Authorities interviewed on impact of benefit sharing on welfare and community livelihoods ......................................................................................................................................... 65

8.3 Constraints and challenges to tree tenure implementation ......................................................................... 66

8.4 The Law in practice .................................................................................................................................... 68

8.4.1 Impact of the lack of information/knowledge .................................................................................... 68

8.5 Suggested recommendations by stakeholders ............................................................................................ 70

9.0 INTRODUCTION OF THE NEW 2012 GHANA FOREST AND WILDLIFE POLICY (FWP) IN DECEMBER 2013 ...................................................................................................................................................... 74

9.1 Background ................................................................................................................................................ 74

9.2 The New Forest and Wildlife Policy .......................................................................................................... 76

9.3 The 2012 FWP Tree Tenure Regime and Forest Management .................................................................. 78

10.0 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 81

10.1 Findings from the survey ............................................................................................................................ 82

Review of existing tree tenure policy-Ghana Cocoa Board/UNDP-Ghana. February, 2014. viii

11.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ON POLICY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS FOR THE EFFECTIVE PROMOTION OF ENVIRONMENTALLLY SUSTAINABLE PRACTIES IN THE COCOA SECTOR .. 85

12.0 STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTIONS TO SUPPORT CHANGE MATRIX 92

13.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................. 110

14.0 APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................................. 113

List of Figures Figure 8.1: Knowledge of stakeholders on tree tenure ................................................................................................ 54 Figure 8. 2: Operational knowledge of key stakeholders ............................................................................................. 55 Figure 8. 3: Knowledge on procedure for ownership rights of trees ........................................................................... 55 Figure 8. 4: Views of government agencies interviewed on impact of benefit sharing ............................................... 61 Figure 8. 5: Views of research institutions interviewed on impact of current benefit sharing ..................................... 62 Figure 8. 6: Perception of loggers on impact of benefit sharing .................................................................................. 62 Figure 8. 7: Perspective of stakeholders to the law in practice .................................................................................... 68 Figure 8. 8: Stakeholders views on reaction to the law in practice .............................................................................. 69

List of Tables Table 6. 1: Land Tenure Arrangements in the High Forest Zone* .............................................................................. 41 Table 8. 1 Gender of Respondents * Knowledge on tree ownership in Ghana Cross tabulation ……………………Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 8. 2 Gender of Respondents * Knowledge on how it operates Cross tabulation ……………………………...57 Table 8. 3Table 4: Legal and Chainsaw operators who have received sensitization ................................................... 57 Table 8. 4 Gender of farmers * Awareness Creation Cross-tabulation……………………………………….………58

Table 8. 5: Identified key challenges on knowledge of tree tenure rules ..................................................................... 58 Table 8. 6 Gender of farmers * Benefit Sharing Arrangement in place Cross-tabulation…………………………... 59 Table 8. 7Table 8: Local benefit sharing arrangements as identified by stakeholders ................................................ 60 Table 8. 15: Proposed recommendation from government agencies on tree tenure .................................................... 70 Table 8. 16: Government agencies proposed recommendations on how to improve tree tenure implementation ....... 70 Table 8. 17: CSOs proposed solutions in implementing environmentally sound management practices. ................... 71 Table 8. 18: Proposed recommendations from Research Organizations on how to improve tree tenure..................... 71 Table 8. 19: Loggers recommendations for improvement in tree tenure systems ....................................................... 72 Table 8. 20: Farmers recommendations for improvement in tree tenure systems in Ghana ........................................ 72

Review of existing tree tenure policy-Ghana Cocoa Board/UNDP-Ghana. February, 2014. ix

ACRONYMS AAC Annual Allowable Cut AfDB African Development Bank AFRCD Armed Forces Decree COCOBOD Ghana Cocoa Board CBFM Community-Based Forest Management CF Community Forestry CFMP Community Forest Management Project CFMP Community Forest Management Project CFUGs Community Forest User Groups CRMU Collaborative Resource Management Unit CREMA Community Resource Management Areas DA District Assembly DF Degraded Forests DFID Department For International Development DFM Decentralized Forest Management DFO District Forestry Office DFOs District Forest Officers DoF Department of Forests EPP Expanded Plantation Program ESP Environmental Sustainability Project of COCOBOD and UNDP Ghana EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FC Forestry Commission FCPF Forest Carbon Partnership Facility FECOFUN Federation of Forest User Groups Nepal FIP Forest Investment Program FLEGT Forest Law Enforcement Governance FORUM Forest Resource Use and Management Project FSD Forest Services Division FWP Forest and Wildlife Policy GoG Government of Ghana GPDP Government Plantation Development Project HFZ High Forest Zone HIPC Highly Indebted Poor Countries IFC International Finance Corporation JFM Joint Forest Management LC Land Commission MDAs Ministries, Departments and Agencies MLNR Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources MLGRD Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development MoFA Ministry of Food and Agriculture MTS Modified Taungya System MoTI Ministry of Trade and Industry MoU Memorandum of Understanding

Review of existing tree tenure policy-Ghana Cocoa Board/UNDP-Ghana. February, 2014. x

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Agency NCRC Nature Conservation Research Center NCRC National Constitution Review Commission NDPC National Development Planning Commission NFPDP National Forest Plantation Development Program NLBI Non-legally Binding Instrument of All Types of Forests NRCD National Redemption Council Decree NREG Natural Resources and Environmental Governance NRMP Natural Resources Management Programme NRM Natural Resource Management NTFPs Non-Timber Forest Products PCPA Private Commercial Plantation Agreements PDF Plantation Development Fund PCPD Private Commercial Plantation Development PFM Participatory Forest Management PNDC Provisional National Defense Council PRC Policy Review Committee LAP Land Administration Project LC Lands Commission L.I Legislative Instrument OASL Office of Administrator of Stool Lands REDD Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation REDD+ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) plus Forest

Conservation, Sustainable Management of Forests SL Stool Lands RMSC Resource Management Support Center SoW Scope of Work SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences SRA Social Responsibility Agreement TA Traditional Authority TIDD Timber Industries Development Division TRF Timber Rights Fee TUC Timber Utilization Contract UNDP United Nations Development Program USAID United States Agency for International Development VPA Voluntary Partnership Agreement WD Wildlife Division

Review of existing tree tenure policy-Ghana Cocoa Board/UNDP-Ghana. February, 2014. 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION To implement the “Environmental Sustainability and Policy for Cocoa Production in Ghana” Project, Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD) and the United Nations Development Program UNDP) Ghana intend to engage relevant government agencies to eliminate ambiguities related to tree tenure security and work with relevant stakeholders to explore and resolve tree tenure issues. Tree tenure – the ownership and benefit sharing in planted and naturally growing trees on farms - continues to be one of the thorny issues facing both landowners and cocoa tenants. Unfavorable tree tenure is largely regarded as a disincentive to sustainable forest management including agroforestry systems. Security of tenure is needed to ensure that farmers benefit from planting and tending trees and from investing in improvements that enhance the value and sustainability of trees. COCOBOD and UNDP Ghana require evidence-based information to achieve the above-mentioned objectives. To get access to this information they are proposing a comprehensive review, by a consultant, of the existing tree tenure policy and legislation and their practical implications to the cocoa sector to better determine effective means for collaboration with stakeholders in the sector.

2.0 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

2.1 Background Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD) and the United Nations Development Programs (UNDP) are implementing the “Environmental Sustainability and Policy for Cocoa Production in Ghana Project, The goal of the project is to create the institutional systems, tools and policies to rehabilitate cocoa landscapes, conserve and expand forests, forest buffer zones and corridors and incentivize cocoa farmers to adopt environmentally friendly best practices. The project seeks to address key policy issues that pose major environmental threats to sustainable cocoa landscapes and to strengthen the institutions that work in the sector to formulate policies that promote environmental sustainability in the cocoa sector. Some of the other expected key project outcomes include the rehabilitation of cocoa landscapes, forest conservation, training and capacity building for cocoa institutions and farmers towards environmental sustainability. Another key outcome is the piloting of mechanisms that serve as incentives to farmers to adopt environmentally sound production practices resulting in the rejuvenation of ecosystem goods and services and on-farm biodiversity and to increase productivity. Key to all these objectives and expected outcomes is the commitment of the project to assist farmers to secure tenure rights for newly established tree plantings and existing old forest timber trees located on farmers’ plots because of its significance in ensuring environmental sustainability. Tree tenure - ownership and benefit sharing in planted and naturally growing trees on farms remains one of the thorny issues facing both landowners and cocoa tenants and is regarded as a disincentive to sustainable forest management including agroforestry systems. There are also major issues governing farmer-ownership of old established timber species as well as incentives for farmers to nurture and protect timber trees on their farms. All these problems have resulted and continue to result in significant forest degradation. Tree tenure policy in Ghana is well defined and although the state gives the right of tree tenure ownership if the landowner can provide evidence the tree(s) were planted and maintained by the


landowner/caretaker, most landowners, being illiterate, are unaware of the policy rules and furthermore, they do not have institutional support to contest policy rulings. For these reasons, most farmers have inadvertently forfeited their tree tenure rights since cannot provide proof of ownership to the state. The inability of farmers to satisfy the policy requirements has resulted in large disincentives for farmers to maintain or protect existing forest trees thereby, indirectly leading to significant forest degradation and lack of incentive to establish new tree plantings. Finally, the complexity of tree tenure and forest policy is also considered as weak in addressing the problems faced by landowners and serve as a disincentive to sustainable forest management including agroforestry systems. To solve these debilitating problems, the Project intends to use a cross-sectoral engagement approach to allow implementing partners to work with relevant stakeholders to explore and resolve ambiguities related to tree tenure security and fulfill institutional strengthening requirements that would ensure security of tree tenure and right to carbon sequestered from a national carbon program. As a first required step for the Project to pursue the strategies stated above successfully, it is imperative that there should be a comprehensive review of the current tree tenure regime and its practical implications for the cocoa sector to provide the information necessary for the development and implementation of interventions that will lead to the achievement of the overall goal of the program.

2.2 Objective of the Assignment The specific objective of the ESP Program assignment is to review the existing policies and legislations that are related to tree ownership in Ghana and its implication for a sustainable cocoa production system and the assignment will involve the following:

i. Documentation and analysis of the existing forest policies and legislations related to tree tenure especially in cocoa landscapes to help the cocoa sector verify compliance with relevant laws, regulations and best practices that would encourage farmers to plant and maintain trees on the farms;

ii. Determination of factors shaping tree policy formulation and implementation iii. Proposal of recommendations on the policy and regulatory frameworks for the effective

promotion of environmentally sustainable practices in the cocoa sector such as agroforestry and afforestation in cocoa landscapes

iv. Determination of the perception of farmers, traditional authorities and timber industry and civil society groups to policy and regulatory frameworks on tree tenure in Ghana.

Specifically, the Consultant will undertake social and legal analysis of the current tree tenure regime and perform the following tasks:

a. A review of current status of tree tenure and its practical implications for the cocoa sector b. An analysis of the welfare and income impacts of existing tree tenure regimes in Ghana c. A legal analysis of tree tenure and local forest management arrangements d. Recommendations and proposal for tree tenure regime for sustainable cocoa production

The detailed Scope of Work (SoW) that specifies the tasks to be undertaken by the Consultant is found in Annex 1.


3.0 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Processes In order to address the problems associated with existing policies and legislation that are related to tree ownership in Ghana and its implications for a sustainable cocoa production system, the team used a variety of mixed-methods including: a) desk literature review, key informant interviews and focus group discussions, using semi-structured questionnaires (see Annex 3) and qualitative questions designed for the various stakeholders in the forestry sector. The key stakeholders whose views were solicited during the interview include the following: farmers and farmers’ groups in the major cocoa-growing regions, civil society organizations engaged in forestry and environmental sustainability, forest sector government institutions (Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) and district authorities), industry players including, timber loggers, saw millers, chain saw operators, and wood traders, research organizations engaged in forestry sector and traditional authorities. a. Desk Literature Review: Desk reviews of policies, regulations and practices related to tree tenure (especially in cocoa landscapes) and environmental sustainability of forests in Ghana (Law and policy review arena, Constitutional review, Land Administration Project (LAP), Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VAP), Forest Investment Program (FIP), Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF), etc., and elsewhere in order to: (1) become fully familiar with the current policies and regulations and their implications in implementation, particularly the justification for any recommendations to be made (2) understand organizational structures, partners, stakeholders, and relationships, (3) analyze performance in terms of welfare and income impacts of the existing tree tenure regimes and (4) analyze legal aspects of tree tenure and local forest management arrangements. This preliminary review also guided the team’s understanding of the program’s relevance while further developing critical questions for verification in the field.

b. Key Informant Interviews: The team conducted in-depth one-on-one interviews with select personnel from various implementing agencies, beneficiaries and collaborators (Ghana Cocoa Board, Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources (MLNR), Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA), Forestry Commission (FC), Land Commission (LC), Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development (MLGRD), Ministry of Trade and Industry (MoTI), Local Administration (District Assemblies (DA)), Traditional Authorities, Farmers and Farmers’ Representatives). These interviews allowed the team to address critical questions raised in the Literature Review and synthesize success stories and areas of concern. c. Focus Group Discussions: Using guidelines and probing questions on topics of interest, the team conducted focus group discussions with program farmers and collaborators to gain insights on challenges and problems without intimidating participants through one-on-one key interviews. The list of people contacted can be found in Annex 2. d. Gender Considerations: Women form a major proportion of farmers in Ghana and their contributions to the welfare of families cannot be discounted. Policies and institutions often have different impacts on men and women - even when no explicit discrimination is intended. Men and women have different roles in society and face different opportunities and constraints in all spheres of life including cocoa farming. In order to factor gender differences into the discussions on tree tenure and their implications for making good agricultural policy, particular attention was paid to getting the views of women farmers during the interview sessions.


e. Data Analysis: Qualitative and quantitative responses were analyzed using The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) and Microsoft Excel. Result were generated in bar charts and tables and used to produce the field report of the survey.

3.2 The Consulting Team The team that undertook the study was led by Dr. John Nene-Osom Azu, an agriculturist and natural resource management specialist. Other key personnel included Frank Ankomah, a forester and conservationist, Dennis Osei-Hwere, a legal consultant with competencies in Forest Law enforcement, drafting and review of legal documentations in the forestry industry and Prince Dodoo, an economist and cocoa agronomist with experience in cocoa livelihoods programs in Ghana.


4.0 DOCUMENTATATION AND ANALYSIS OF EXISTING FOREST POLICIES AND LEGISLATIONS RELATED TO TREE TENURE IN COCOA LANDSCAPES AND THEIR PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS FOR THE COCOA SECTOR

This section involves an examination of the policy and legal frameworks and how they support or are related to the tree tenure rules and forest management initiatives in the country The questions asked to guide the discussion are the following:

What are the legal and policy provisions that relate to tree tenure in Ghana? How are they implemented in practice? Are they avoided, misapplied, overlooked? What is in the literature on how other countries are dealing with issues of policy and laws

governing tree tenure? The policies, land and forestry-related laws, acts, customary norms and lesser polices that drive the way forest resources are managed and exploited in the country focus on the following areas:

a. Rights to natural resources b. Ownership and user rights to naturally regenerated trees for economic and non-economic

purposes c. Forest reserves d. Granting of timber-harvesting rights and responsibilities e. Payment of royalties from timber harvesting f. Ownership of planted trees g. Economic plants protection h. Land tenure arrangement i. Community Resource Management Areas (CREMA)

4.1 Current Legal and Policy Framework Although the legal and policy frameworks are housed in the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources, they are indeed shaped by overlapping statutory and customary laws of the lands, forestry and environment sectors. These frameworks primarily prioritize the rights of the State to manage and profit from forest resources, while recognizing that the traditional authorities are de jure the rightful landowners. The traditional authorities receive some nominal benefits from timber resources, however, the individual farmers and forest-dependent communities who use and manage forest resources on a daily basis have no legal rights to these resources. Although farming and forest-based communities are closely linked with current patterns of forest degradation, making them key players in any efforts to undertake environmentally friendly practices, they have not been provided with socio-culturally compatible incentives that are founded upon expanded rights and opportunities (Rebecca Ashley Asare et al., (2010), Furthermore, they are ignored due to weak implementation of the few laws that favor their interests or provide benefits. The Forestry Commission of Ghana is “responsible for the regulation of the utilization of forest and wildlife resources, the conservation and management of those resources and the coordination of policies related to them”). The problem is that the Forestry Commission (FC) has not been able to ensure conservation and sustainable development of the country’s forests (Hansen and Treue 2008), and the high rate of deforestation and degradation continues unabated. Available at http://www.forest-trends.org/publications.php.


The following is a discussion first, on the policy framework that has guided tree tenure and followed by a discussion on the legal framework also relating to tree tenure. 4.1.1 Review of Tree Tenure Policy Ghana has witnessed numerous tree tenure policies within its forest sector from the pre-independence period to this current dispensation. The evolution of these policies also clearly underlines the importance which the nation had placed on its forest governance, at every stage within this period. Any success or otherwise so far achieved and or witnessed to date in the forest sector is, therefore, a direct reflection of the cumulative national policies pursued in realization of the nation’s common objective over time. It has been observed that the central interest of these policies, until recently, has never been for the sake of indigenous communities, but to preserve the economic benefits from timber that the forest brought, as well as to reconcile and rationalize the competing land and forest demands of farmers and loggers (Asante 2005). It has also been observed that Ghana’s first formal government forest policy of 1948 was devised to suit the colonial government of Great Britain. Forests were essentially managed to promote conversion to agricultural land in off-reserve areas and to protect and manage forests in the reserves (FAO, 2001). Asante (2005), has categorized the numerous colonial forest policies in the Gold Coast from the Crown Land’s Bill of 1897 to the Forest Ordinance of 1927 as pseudo- conservative and extractive in focus. Tree tenure, which is defined as the terms and conditions on which trees are held and used (Bruce, 1986) or the set of rights that a person or some private entity holds to trees may include the right to own, to inherit, to plant, to dispose of and to prevent others from using trees and tree products (Fortmann, 1985) did not feature prominently in the colonial era forest policies of Ghana. Numerous forest policies and legislations related to tree tenure in Ghana have been passed in line with modern thinking that focuses on good governance and community participation. Issues relating to tree tenure policies in Ghana are scattered in several sources and an effort has been made here to identify them, as far as they are existing, in assisting the cocoa sector verify compliance with the relevant laws, regulations and best practices that would encourage farmers to plant and maintain trees on their farms. It has been observed that the existing tree tenure policies in Ghana are shaped, first of all, in accordance with the status or category of forest and secondly by the combined effect of our customary and statutory laws which are designed in such a way that ownership of land does not necessarily translate into ownership of the naturally-occurring resources the land holds. Ghanaian customary law and administration support the multiplicity of rights, interests, and entitlements in land and forest resources. Non-public land can be owned by families, communities or groups with multiple-use rights vested in the members that can co-exist at the same time and on the same parcel of land (Tsikata et al, 2008 …referred to by Yaw B. Osafo, 2010). This discussion of tree tenure policies in Ghana on-or-off forest reserve will take into considerations the following categories of forests and whether trees are naturally occurring or planted:

i. Tree tenure policies within forest reserves in respect of naturally-occurring trees ii. Tree tenure policies within forest reserves in respect of planted trees

iii. Tree tenure policies outside forest reserves in respect of naturally-occurring trees


iv. Tree tenure policies outside forest reserves in respect of planted trees

4.1.2 Tree Tenure Policies Relating to Naturally-Occurring Trees in Forest Reserves During the colonial period 282 forest reserves and 15 wildlife protected areas were established which occupied about 16 percent of the country’s total land area. State managed forest reserves, covering an area of 1.6 million ha have been depleted and to a large extent degraded: less than 2 percent of forest reserves are said to be in excellent condition, and no less than half have been described as “mostly degraded or in worse condition” (Treue, 2001 pg. 39, Bamfo, 2010… refer to by Yaw B. Osafo, 2010) and all this is due to over-exploitation and other factors. Although Ghanaian laws clearly distinguish between naturally occurring trees and planted trees, the right to commercial exploitation of any naturally-occurring trees has always been vested in the State irrespective of their location. Section 16(4) of the Concession Act, 1962, Act 124 states that: “all rights with respect to timber or trees on any land other than specified in the preceding subsection of this section are vested in the President in trust for stools concerned”. This statutory provision effectively vests the trusteeship of rights to naturally-occurring forest resources in the President. It is, therefore, an offence punishable by law for anyone to harvest in the reserves or off-reserves without the prior approval of the appropriate authorities mandated to oversee such forest resources. The import of Section 16(4) of Act 124 means the following:

That all naturally-occurring trees within forest reserves, except for private lands that were incorporated into a forest reserve at the request of the private owner are vested in the President;

That all off reserve stool lands and Kumasi town lands in respect of which timber concessions have been granted before commencement of the 1962 Concession Act are vested in the President,

All naturally-occurring timber on any other land is vested in the President. Naturally-occurring trees on admitted farms within any of our forest reserves should be

treated differently since ownership of land within a forest reserve remains unchanged by its constitution as a forest reserve….CAP 157

Revenue from the exploitation of naturally-occurring trees is shared between the beneficiaries in the manner and proportion outlined in Article 267(6) of the 1992 Constitution. At the moment, 60% of the revenue from the harvesting of timber in the forest-reserve is retained by the State with the remaining 40% distributed among other beneficiaries as follows:

i. 25% to the Stool through the Traditional Authority for the maintenance of the Stool

ii. 20% to the Traditional Authority iii. 55% to the District Assembly within the area of authority of which stool lands are

situated In the off-reserves, the revenue accruing from naturally-occurring trees is split 50%-50% between the State and the remaining beneficiaries already named above. It was through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that this arrangement was brokered, and has been respected ever since (Birikorang, 2009…referred to by Osafo, 2010)


4.1.3 Negative Implications of the Above Provision The benefit sharing arrangements outlined in both the Constitution and the MOU

excludes key stakeholders, such as farmers and forest dependent communities who play a critical role in any effort to reduce degradation and over exploitation. They are not beneficiaries nor are they entitled to the revenue obtained from the harvesting of trees.

In off-reserve areas, the farmers are only consulted by the Stool whenever concessions or timber rights are being given out in respect of naturally-occurring trees on their farms but are not beneficiaries of sale proceeds;

The institution of a Social Responsibility Agreement (SRA) mechanism to enable communities to benefit from trees felled in their areas has failed to achieve its intended purposes mainly because of the failure of contractors to honor the agreement and lack of monitoring mechanisms to ensure that the right thing is done (Bamfo, 2010). The failure of SRA to transfer some benefits to communities has also provided incentives for farmers to connive with illegal loggers to remove trees from their farms to earn some income.

4.1.4 Tree Tenure Policies Relating To Planted Trees in Degraded Forest Reserves The statutory law on rights to planted trees has been amended by section 4 (3) of the Timber Resource Management (Amendment) Act, 2002, (Act 617) in aid of afforestation, reforestation and private plantations. This law prohibits the granting of timber rights on private forest plantations and land with trees grown or owned by private persons. The National Forest Plantation Development Program (NFPDP) which was launched in September 2001 and re-launched in January 2010 was largely implemented within degraded forest reserves. The NFPDP has been expanded with the introduction of the Expanded Plantation Program (EPP) to cover private lands located outside forest reserves (NFPDP Annual Report, 2012). The goal of the EPP was to ensure that most of the District/Municipal Assemblies without degraded forest reserves also benefit from the job opportunities being created through the NFPD Program. Other components of the NFPDP that have been implemented over the years with diverse tree tenure policies which are equally important in this discussion include: Private Commercial Plantation Agreements, the Modified Taungya System (MTS), Government Plantation Development Project (GPDP), the Community Forest Management Project (CFMP) and Degraded Forests (DFs).

These programs below are examples of initiatives for reforestation of degraded forest areas (whether on or off-reserve) a). Community Forestry Management Project (CFMP) The CFMP was funded with a loan from African Development Bank. It adopted the MTS model and provided support for capacity building and alternative livelihood interventions for forest-fringe communities. The project which commenced in 2005 witnessed the establishment of 13,388 ha of tree plantation by the end of 2009 according to the NFPDP Annual Report for 2012. Farmers did not have tenure rights in trees planted and tended by them under this policy. This policy was effectively abandoned in 2010 as can be gleaned from the NFPDP’s Annual Report for 2012 b) Government Plantation Management Project (GPMP) The GPMP utilized hired labour and contract supervisors to establish industrial plantation. Plantation workers were hired and paid a monthly allowance to establish and maintain plantation while plantation supervisors were given one year renewable employment contracts to supervise


and offer technical direction. The FSD exercised general oversight and monitored field activities to ensure compliance with quality standards for plantation establishment. This strategy was funded through the Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) benefits. Under this scheme the plantations developed are owned by government with the respective landowners entitled to royalty payment. The NFPDP Annual Report, 2012 indicates that 17,217.60 ha were established under this project between 2004 -2009 when the project was abandoned. c) Modified Taungya System (MTS) The MTS involved the establishment of plantations by the Forest Services Division (FSD) in partnership with farmers. The FSD provides technical direction, surveys and demarcates degraded forest reserve lands and supplies pegs and seedlings while the farmers provide all the labour inputs in the form of site preparation, pegging, planting and maintenance and fire protection. The farmers are permitted to cultivate their food crops which are inter-planted with the trees on the same piece of land. The farmers are entitled to 100% of the benefits from the agricultural crops. In addition, they have 40% share in the returns from the investment in the trees planted. The Government also has 40% share while the landowner and community share 15% and 5% respectively of the proceed that remains. The NFPDP 2012 Annual Report states that 80,727.30 ha have been established between 2002 and 2009. The tree species selected for planting under MTS include teak, Cedrella (Cedrela odorata), Wawa (Triplochiton scleroxylon), Ofram (Terminalia superba), Emire (Terminalia ivorensis), Cassia (which species?) and Eucalyptus (FC Annual Report 2003: 1). The benefit sharing agreement states that at least 5% of tree planted must be indigenous (FC, 2002:4.9). One crucial evolution in the MTS is the improvement in tenure security and benefit sharing arrangements. Farmers are now essentially co-owners of forest plantation products, with the Forestry Commission, landowners and forest-fringe communities acting as shareholders. The basis for the above distribution has been incorporated into an official policy and strategy by the NFDPD (2010). The framework of the above distribution is also based on the contribution of all participatory actors. As a policy, however, the 2012 NFPDP Annual Report shows that the MTS has been abandoned effective 2010 since nothing is captured by the said report from 2010 to date relating to MTS’s activities 4.1.5 Off-Reserve Naturally-Occurring Trees The law on naturally-occurring trees in off reserve areas stipulates that farmers do not own the trees and therefore cannot exploit those resources. In this case, the trees are allocated to concessionaires and they are required to pay timber right fees, ground rent and stumpage and other fees. This is in contrast to planted trees in which the revenue from planted trees mostly benefits the planter and or owner of such plantation.

4.1.6 Off-Reserve Private Plantations Farmers who are inclined to reforest their land for private timber plantation are required to register with the Plantation Department of the Forestry Commission, if they want to benefit from the Division’s support and secure loan facility from the Forest Plantation Development Fund Management Board. In the case of off-reserve private plantations the following applies: Hundred percent (100%) of the total proceeds go to the private farmer if the land is privately owned. However, in situations where the farmer happens to be a tenant on a stool/chief or traditional land 33% of the timber proceeds go to the landowner.


The above means that if a cocoa farmer plants tree on his privately-owned land, he/she becomes the beneficiary of the entire proceeds when the trees are harvested. The farmer would, however, share the proceeds from the tree harvested with the landowner if he/she turns out to be a tenant on somebody’s land.

Private Commercial Plantation development is an activity that can be carried out in both on and off-reserves. The strategy for private Commercial Plantation development involves the release of degraded forest reserve lands by the FC to private entities after vetting and endorsing their reforestation business plans. The operations of these private developers are then monitored through periodic field visits by the FSD to ensure compliance with the approved reforestation plans. The private investor earns 90% of the total proceeds from the plantation while the FC, Landowner and Community earn 2%, 6% and 2% respectively⁹ (NFPDP, 2012 Annual report) In this connection, the forestry Commission gives out 50 years leasehold to the private developer and the parties sign two distinct legal documents namely; Lease and Benefit Sharing Agreements which outline the duration period of the leasehold as well as distribution of the benefits sharing arrangement. The farmer/developer, however, pays annual ground rent which is $2 /ha to the appropriate stool through the FC and bears all expenses during the entire lifespan of the plantation. The NFPDP Annual Report, 2012 indicates that a total of 30,039.03 ha private commercial plantations had been established between 2002-2012 4.1.7 Challenges Associated with Existing Tree Tenure Policies It has been observed that of the factors that affect the level and type of consumptive utilization of forests in many settings is the security of tenure that local residents possess in relation to forests is a major one. Individuals who lack secure rights are strongly tempted to use up these resources before they are lost to the harvesting efforts of others ( Banana and Gomya-Ssembajje, 1998) Similarly, where forest habitats have little economic value to local people because of restrictive access rules, sustainable local management institutions are unlikely to emerge (Lowry, 1990) Tenure therefore determines, in large part, whether local people are willing to participate in the management and protection of forest and tree resources (Acheampong and Marfo 2011.) Ghana developed a Forest and Wildlife Policy (FWP) in 1994 to replace the first formal Forest Policy of 1948, and it focused on the “conservation and sustainable development of the nation’s forest and wildlife resources for maintenance of environmental quality and perpetual flow of optimal benefits to all segments of society” (Ministry of Lands and Forestry 1994). This policy was written in an effort to correct decades of inefficient, anachronistic, and unsustainable forest and wildlife management policies that had led to a massive depletion of the State’s timber and wildlife resources. The key areas of this 1994 policy were environmental protection, sustainable production and use of forest and wildlife resources, involvement of local people in management and benefit sharing, institutional restructuring and promotion of research and human resource development. The implementation of the 1994 Forest and Wildlife Policy brought about significant changes in the structure and form of the forestry sector in Ghana. The various sector-institutions were converted into a Forestry Commission in accordance with the 1992 constitution. The strategic initiatives that were introduced to improve and develop the forest and wildlife resource base included integration of good governance, transparency, equity, poverty reduction, equitable sharing of management responsibilities; increased benefit flows to local stakeholders, especially the rural poor; and increased participation, transparency and accountability into the


forest and wildlife sector. Both the 1948 and 1994 Forest and Wildlife Policies sought to maintain the forest resources as a source of timber to feed a vibrant timber industry. In spite of all these reforms, the implementation of the 1994 policy could not stop the degradation in the forest resource base due to several reasons among which are the following: Illegal chainsaw operation, mining (both legal and illegal), wood-fuel and charcoal production especially in the fragile areas of the savanna regions, wildfires, use of obsolete equipment and installed capacities in excess of the Annual Allowable Cut (AAC) by the timber industry. In addition to these challenges, the sector is also confronted with emerging global issues such as the Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA), Forest Certification, Climate Change and Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) which have far reaching implications for the forest and wildlife industry as well as local livelihoods. A Forestry Development Master Plan was formulated to implement the policy via a comprehensive donor-funded sector development programme – the Natural Resources Management Programme (NRMP). Other significant challenges have been documented in the 2012 Ghana Forest and Wildlife Policy (Ghana Forest and Wildlife Policy 2012. Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources, Accra Ghana)

4.2 Review of the Existing Legal Framework for Forests and Trees This section examines the existing legal framework for forest and trees and its implications to the forestry sector.

4.2.1 Existing legal framework for forest and trees According to Asare et. al., (2010) the actual impact of the 1994 Forest and Wildlife Policy was relatively weak compared to other forestry laws and customary norms that directly or indirectly inform questions of tree ownership, user rights, and management. (Ghanaian law is constituted within a common law system, and therefore it will be critical to review the legal case record and consider the Court’s decisions in order to fully understand stakeholders’ potential rights and roles) The pre-FWP legal framework serves as the real directive for how forest resources are managed and exploited. Relevant laws, norms, and policies adapted from a study by Asare et. al., (2010) include the following:

i. Rights to Natural Resources – The Constitution vests in Parliament the responsibility of ratifying any arrangement involving the allocation or exploitation of any mineral, water, or natural resource (Article 268 (1)); however, the ratification process can be simplified through an act of exemption by Parliament (Article 268 (2)) which designates an appropriate commission to approve resource use or extraction (Republic of Ghana 1992). Timber is subject to such an act and the Forestry Commission, which is made up of the Forest Services Division (FSD), the Wildlife Division (WD), the Timber Industry Development Division (TIDD), and the Resource Management Support Centre (RMSC), has been designated as the proper management and regulatory body (Forestry Commission Act (Act 571) 1999). The FC

ii. Ownership of Naturally Regenerated Trees – All naturally occurring trees are “symbolically” owned by the traditional authorities, who hold the resources on behalf of the people. However, in the 1962 Concessions Act (Act 124: Section 16 (4)), all rights to “economic trees” were vested in the President in trust for the Stools6 concerned (Republic of Ghana 1962). This effectively means that the government, through the FC, has the sole responsibility and right to manage, harvest, and sell the country’s timber


resources, while the affected Stools are relatively passive stakeholders in the formal decision-making process (Dadebo and Shinohara 1999).

iii. Forest Reserves (FRs) – Ghana maintains a forest estate comprised of 282 Forest

Reserves (FRs) and 15 wildlife protected areas, which are managed by the FSD and WD and cover more than 38,000 square kilometers, 16 percent of the country’s total land area (Ministry of Lands and Forestry 1994). The areas under FRs and associated plantations are commonly referred to as “on-reserve”, while lands located outside the FRs are called “off-reserve” areas. FRs are the sole domain of the Forestry Commission, but the associated district assemblies, as well as the relevant bodies that represent the traditional authorities, receive a portion of the stumpage fees from trees harvested within FRs in their respective areas.

iv. Granting of Timber-Harvesting Rights – According to the Timber Resources Management Act 617, it is illegal for any person to harvest timber from any land without a Timber Utilization Contract (TUC). A TUC can be issued on any land, with the exception of land subject to alienation holding or land with farms. Regarding such lands, prior authorization in writing from concerned groups or individuals is required before harvesting can begin (Timber Resources Management Amendment Act (Act 617) 2002).

v. Logging Timber Trees in Off-Reserve Areas – According to the Timber Resources Management Act 547, when a TUC is to be issued in off-reserve areas, including on farm lands, an inspection of the proposed land and written authorization from the landowners is required before any harvesting operations can begin (Timber Resource Management Act (Act 547) 1997).

vi. Payment of Royalties – The Timber Resources Management Act 547 also requires that, with respect to timber operations, royalties are paid to the designated bodies (Timber Resource Management Act (Act 547) 1997). Article 267 (6) of the Constitution outlines how revenues accruing from Stool Lands shall be divided (Republic of Ghana 1992). While the Administrator of Stool Lands, the Stool, the Traditional Authority, and the District Assembly have the right to receive payments from timber revenue (on-reserve and off-reserve), individual landowners and land users receive nothing.

vii. Economic Plants Protection Act – This act states that felling rights with respect to timber “shall not be granted where the timber trees stand in farms where specified plants (cocoa) are cultivated”. It further stipulates that, if timber is felled, the farmer should be compensated for his/her losses at a rate determined by the Minister (AFRCD 47 1979). It is worth noting that while the law prohibits logging on farm land, many of the existing TUCs are in fact issued within cocoa farming landscapes.

viii. Landowners and Land-Users Lack of Rights to Economic Trees – According to the Timber Resources Management Act 617, it is illegal for farmers and other rural land users to harvest any forest tree for commercial or domestic purposes, regardless of whether the tree is growing on their land or farm (Timber Resources Management Amendment Act (Act 617) 2002). Therefore, farmers do not have the right to harvest naturally regenerated trees for economic purposes.

ix. Right to Fell Trees for Agriculture – While landowners and land users do not have economic rights to naturally regenerated trees, there is nothing in the law that prohibits them from felling such trees for non-economic purposes. In this sense, the government recognizes customary laws and norms, which dictate that landowners and land users can clear and burn forested land or fell any tree for agricultural purposes, including the planting of food crops or tree crops.


x. Social Responsibility Agreement (SRA) – Once a TUC is granted in an off-reserve area, the holder of the timber rights is obliged to engage in a Social Responsibility Agreement (SRA) with the affected communities in the proposed area of operation (Timber Resource Management Act (Act 547) 1997). According to the SRA, a concessionaire is obliged to provide amenities to the affected communities amounting to no less than five percent of the annual stumpage fees (Asare 2006). When cocoa trees and other economic tree crops or food crops are damaged in the process of harvesting timber trees on farms, the law also states that the TUC shall issue specific terms and conditions for paying compensation for such damages (Timber Resources Management Regulations (L.I. 1649) 1998). However, the legislation lacks specific regulations on how to determine compensation and ensure that farmers are fairly compensated (Asare 2006).

xi. Ownership of Planted Trees – According to the Timber Resources Management Act 617, “no timber rights shall be granted in respect of land with private forest plantation; or land with any timber grown or owned by an individual or group of individuals” (Timber Resources Management Amendment Act (Act 617) 2002). Thus, farmers, landowners and land users have legal rights to any planted tree.

The details of the legal texts and their review are presented below:

a. CONCESSION ACT 1962, ACT 124

Section 16 (1) reads: “All lands referred to in subsection (2) or subsection (4) of section 4 of the Forest Ordinance (Cap. 157) and which have been constituted or proposed to be constituted as forest reserves under that Ordinance and all lands deemed to be constituted as forest reserve under subsection (7) of this section are hereby vested in the President in trust for the stools concerned:

1. Provided that all rights, customary or otherwise, in such lands validly existing immediately before the commencement of this Act shall continue on and after such commencement subject to this Act and any other enactment for the time being in force.

(2) All lands which in the future shall be proposed to be constituted as forest reserves under the Forest Ordinance (Cap. 157) shall become vested in the President in trust for the stools concerned with effect from the date of the publication of the notice relating to such land and prescribed under section 5(1) of the Ordinance.

(3) Any land, other that land referred to in the preceding subsections, subject to the Administration of Lands Act, 1962 and in respect of which rights have been grated with respect to timber or trees under any concession and in force immediately before the commencement of this Act are vested in the President in trust for the stools concerned, subject to the terms of the concession, this Act and any other enactment for the time being in force.

(4) All rights with respect to timber or trees on any land other than land specified in the preceding subsections of this section are vested in the President in trust for stools concerned.

(5) It shall be lawful for the President to execute any deed or do any act as a trustee in respect of lands or rights referred to in this section.


(6) Any revenue from lands or rights vested in the President under this section or derived under subsection (11) shall be collected, paid in and disbursed as provided by the Administration of Lands Act, 1962. (7) Forest reserves established under any law relating to local government shall be deemed to be forest reserve constituted under the Forest Ordinance (Cap. 157) and paragraph 27 of PART 11 of the First Schedule to the Local Government Act, 1961 (Act 54) is hereby rescinded. (8) The Forest Reserve Ordinance (Cap. 127) shall apply mutatis mutandis to any land outside a forest reserve in respect of which rights relating to timber or trees have been or shall be granted. (9) Section 30 of the Concession Ordinance and the Concessions (Timber Restriction) Order, No. 55 of 1939, shall apply mutatis mutandis to all lands in Ghana in respect of which rights relating to timber or trees have been or shall be granted (10) The Minister may terminate the concession of any holder, if he is found guilty of and offence under section 30(4) of the Concession Ordinance (Cap. 136) (11) Any person who has been convicted of any offence under paragraph (1)of section 22 of the

Forests Ordinance (Cap. 157) shall, in addition to any other punishment imposed under that

section, be liable to pay twice the value of each tree or of the timber which is the subject-matter

of the offence.

Review of Text Section 16 of the Concession Act, 1962 (Act 124) has vested the trusteeship in the President the following:

All lands within forest reserves, except for private lands that were incorporated into a forest reserve at the request of the private owner.

All off reserve stool lands and Kumasi town lands in respect of which timber concessions have been granted before commencement of the 1962 Concession’s Act

All timber on any other land.

Legal implications of Section 16

i. It is an offence punishable by law for anybody to appropriate timber resources within a constituted forest reserve without the express authorization of a competent forest officer. Indeed, Section 1 (1) of the Forest Protection Act, 1974 (NRCD 243) as amended stipulates thus:

(a) “Any person who is in a Forest Reserve without the written consent of the competent forest authority, (b) Fells, uproots, lops, girdles, taps, damages by fire or otherwise damages any tree or timber commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding 500 penalty units or to imprisonment not exceeding to 2 years or to both…”


Erroneous inclusion of tree resources on admitted farms: ii. Section 17 of the Forest Act, 1927 (CAP. 157) states that “the ownership of land within a proposed forest reserve shall not be altered by its constitution as a forest reserve.” Section 17 of CAP 157 referred to immediately above simply means that ownership of admitted farms within any constituted forest reserves shall remain in force, the constitution of the reserves notwithstanding. This provision recognizes that admitted farm owners are owners of whatever is found within their admitted farms, and that such farms do not form part of any constituted forest reserve which is under the control and management of forestry officials. By extension of the above, we can safely affirm that timber resources which are found on all admitted farms in any forest reserve cannot be deemed to be vested in the President by virtue of Section 16 of the Concession Act since the constitution of a forest reserve does not alter in any way the ownership of admitted farms holders, unless it is proven that the said trees are naturally grown. iii. Ownership of timber resources on any admitted farms should be looked at once again since the current legal position that vests ownership in the President appears untenable, in the light of Section 17 of CAP. 157. In practice, therefore, timber resources located on admitted farms are treated the same way as if they are vested in the President. Consequently, these resources are administered without much regard to the farm owners who ought to exercise greater control over these resources. Moreover, several admitted farms owners have lost their farms estate after several years of abandonment. This occurs when these farms are left unattended over a period of time, mostly after the demise of the original farm owner, and if it so happens that the successor does not take immediate possession of the farmland, it eventually merges with the adjacent forest reserves. If no relative of the original farm owners resurfaces to establish the existing right, the admitted farm will forever remain unaccounted for, since the Forestry Commission, on its own, will not search for the owners thereof and demarcate their farms when they themselves had not applied for the release of their ancestral farms. The loss of several admitted farms within the forest reserves underscores the fact that increasingly, the nation is losing its cocoa farms’ legitimate landscape, bearing in mind that greater portion of these hitherto vibrant admitted farms were used in cocoa cultivation within the High Forest Zone (HFZ) of this country. Occasionally farmers who are fortunate to have their ancestral admitted farmlands released to them regrettably abuse this privilege by extending the boundaries of these admitted farms in false belief that their unlawful conduct will not be detected. Some farmers on the other hand sell their admitted farms to other farmers, who, in a bid to justify their investment encroach on adjacent forest reserve and clear the forest for farming purposes. An incident that occurred at Juaboso in the Western Region within the Krokosua Forest Reserve exemplifies the impact of the tree tenure regimes on farmers’ ability to adopt sustainable forestry practices. It happened that after the five farms which altogether had few hectares admitted farms were released to their owners, before the Commission became aware, the farmers and their tenants had in all cleared over fifty times the area released to them within few weeks. When the Commission decided to rectify the situation, the leaders of the farmers quickly initiated civil suit against the Commission for fear that they would lose their investment, should the Commission carry out re-demarcation exercise again within the encroached areas. At the end of the suit, the High Court at Sefwi Wiawso ruled in favor of the Commission and ordered a re-demarcation exercise to restore the integrity of the Krokosua Forest Reserve. The said judgment was equally upheld on appeal by the Plaintiffs. This lack of understanding of the law due its ambiguity has affected the ability of these farmers to adopt practices that involve responsible management of the forest and abuse of the special individual rights they have which is not enjoyed by others.


Distribution of revenue from naturally grown timber resources: iv. Revenue from the exploitation of naturally-occurring trees is shared between the beneficiaries in the manner and proportion outlined in Article 267(6) of the 1992 Constitution. At the moment, 60% of the revenue from the harvesting of timber in the forest-reserve is retained by the State with the remaining 40% distributed among other beneficiaries as follows: 25% to the Stool through the Traditional Authority for the maintenance of the Stool, 20% to the Traditional Authority and 55% to the District Assembly within the area of authority of which stool lands are situated. Cumulative Effect of Section 16 Although all naturally occurring trees are owned symbolically by the traditional authorities who hold same on behalf of the people, the distribution of revenue accrued is skewed in favor of the government. Farmers on whose farms these naturally occurring trees are located mostly on off-reserves areas are not consulted adequately when these trees are given out to timber contractors to harvest. These farmers are also not treated as beneficiaries of whatever proceeds that are generated from the harvest of these trees, though they invariably become unsolicited guardians who take care of these trees before they are harvested. Farmers invariably lose interest in tending for naturally occurring trees on their farms, as well as planting indigenous trees species for fear of losing them eventually to the state. Thus, this apprehension has adversely affected sustainable forest management in the sense that people who have close contact with our forest reserves have refused to act in ways that would ensure good forest management and sustainable forest practices due to apathy and indifferent attitude. The benefit sharing arrangements outlined in the Constitution as well as the MOU excludes key stakeholders, such as farmer and forest dependent communities who play critical role in any effort to reduce degradation and over-exploitation. They are neither beneficiary nor are they entitled to revenue from harvesting. In off-reserves areas, the farmers are only consulted by the Stool whenever concessions or timber rights are being given out in respect of naturally-occurring trees on their farms. The institution of Social Responsibility Agreement (SRA) has failed to achieve its intended purposes of plowing back some of the funds from timber into their communities mainly because of contractors’ failure to honor the agreement. Monitoring breakdown of the SRA has rather incentivized farmers to connive with illegal loggers to remove trees from their farms for some financial considerations. Implications for sustainable forest management It has been observed that “ the potential of forest and tree resources to continually support the livelihoods of the rural poor depends on the security of tenure that local residents possess related to forests, their perceptions and attitudes towards the resources, and how they manage it. People who lack secure rights to the continued use of forests often show little sense of custodianship or stewardship towards the resources and may not have any sense of responsibility towards sustainable management of the resource (Banana and Gomya-Ssembajjwe, 1998; Byron and Arnold, 1997). Forests and timber resources are critical to the livelihoods of people of Ghana. However, the way forests and timber resources are presently managed poses a threat to both rural livelihoods and the sustainability of the forest resources which support these livelihood. Forest management systems which are deliberately designed to sustain and develop the value of forests for people living near them, will gain support for long-term, sustainable management (Ghana J. Forestry, Vol. 27, 2011: 81).


Insecurity of tree tenure often encourages short-term exploitation, such as destructive harvesting practices which results in lower returns than might ordinarily be obtained. The value of forests and tree resources for local communities, therefore, needs to be promoted and developed. Farmers rights to tree resources in both reserve and off-reserve areas need to be recognized to enable these farmers take responsibility for the resource. Tackling inequalities and insecure access to forest goods and services is one of the most important actions needed to improve forest-dependent livelihoods and enhance forest condition. The current legislative and policy on tree tenure regime provides little incentive for farmers to engage in sustainable forest management or plant and preserve economic trees on their farms. Farmers indeed have no incentive to tend or preserve naturally occurring timber trees on their land since they have no tenure rights over such resources. They have no share in the proceeds obtained from timber trees they maintain on their farms, and hardly receive compensation for damage to their crops when they are destroyed during logging. To incentivize farmers, they should be made to benefit directly from timber trees harvested from their farms. Thus, the sharing of timber royalties should be reviewed to ensure that part of the benefit accrues directly to them (Marfo et al. 2010) b. THE 1992 CONSTITUTION OF GHANA – Articles 268 & 267

A number of articles in the Constitution provide for general rules in relation to the management of natural resources by the state as follows:

i. Article 268 (1) “Any transaction, contract or undertaking involving the grant of a right or concession by or on behalf of any person including the Government of Ghana, to any other person or body of persons however described, for exploitation of any mineral, water or other natural resources of Ghana made or entered into after the coming into force of this Constitution shall be subject to ratification by Parliament”

ii. Article 269 (1) “Subject to the provision of this Constitution, Parliament shall, by or under an Act of Parliament, provide for the establishment within six months after Parliament first meets after the coming into force off this Constitution, of a Mineral Commission, a Forestry Commission, Fisheries Commission and such other Commissions as Parliament may determine, which shall be responsible for the regulation and management of the utilization of the natural resources concerned and the co-ordination of the policies in relation to them.” & (2) “Notwithstanding article 268 of this Constitution, Parliament may, upon recommendation of any of the Commissions established by virtue of clause (1) of this article, and upon such conditions as Parliament may prescribe, authorize any other agency of government to approve the grant of rights, concessions or contracts in respect of the exploitation of any mineral, water or other natural resources in Ghana.

iii. Article 268 (6) “10% of the revenue accruing from stool lands shall be paid to the office of the Administrator of Stool Lands to cover administrative expenses, and the remaining revenue shall be disbursed in the following proportions-

25% to the stool through the traditional authority for the maintenance of the stool in keeping with its status; 20% to the traditional authority; and 55% to the District Assembly within the area of authority of which the stool lands are situated


“All rents, dues, royalties, revenues and other payments from stool lands have to be shared between the Stool through the Traditional Authority 25%, the Traditional Authority 20%, and the District Assembly 55%, after deducting management fees for the Administrator of Stool Lands from the original amount 10%”

iv. Article 36 (8) states: “the state shall recognize that ownership and possession of land carry a social obligation to serve the larger community and that managers of public, stool, skin and family lands are fiduciaries charged with the obligation to discharge their functions for the benefit of the people concerned and are accountable as fiduciaries in this regard”

Review of Text The combined effect of the Constitutional provisions referred to imply that no right or concession to any natural resources can be granted without ratification by the Parliament. However, Parliament in its own wisdom has authorized certain Commissions pursuant to their establishment to regulate, manage and utilize natural resources of the country for the overall good. The Forestry Commission, in particular was established in 1999 pursuant to Act 571 to oversee forestry and wildlife resources. The Forestry Commission is enjoined by Article 296 of the 1992 Constitution that talks about exercise of discretionary power to be fair and candid to all stakeholders in the discharge of its statutory functions.

Constitutional Review Commission:

At the National Constitution Review Conference (NCRC) held from 1st – 5th March 2011, which served as a national platform to discuss received submissions, the following constitutional recommendations on ownership and trusteeship of forest resources were tabled.

i. That ownership of forestry resources should be vested in the communities which will be responsible for their management as well.

ii. That natural trees should be vested in the communities where the trees are found, and farmers who cultivate these trees should enjoy the benefits of the proceeds of the sale of these trees

iii. That concept of trusteeship should be defined clearly in the Constitution

Managers of public resources, stool and family lands do not see themselves as fiduciaries hence they lord over the very stakeholders they are supposed to serve and protect. It is hoped that all the recommendations made in reference to ownership of natural resources and tree tenure at the National Constitution Review Conference would be considered to reflect the concerns of the generality of Ghanaians.

c. TIMBER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT ACT 1997 (Act 547) as amended

Timber Right Fee - Section 8 (e) of Act 547

“A timber utilization contract entered into under this Act shall be subject to such terms and conditions as shall be specified in it including provisions for prompt payment of rents, royalties, compensation and such management and service charges as prescribed by law.”


Annual Rent Fee - Section 8 (f) of Act 547

“A timber utilization contract entered into under this Act shall be subject to such terms and conditions as shall be specified in it including annual rent payable to the landlord or owner of the area of land relevant to the grant.”

Timber Resources Management Regulations, 1998 (L.I 1649) Regulation 27 equally states thus: “The holder of a timber utilization contract shall pay for his contract area rent as provided in Schedule 4 to these Regulations to the Administrator of Stool Lands in the case of stool lands and in any other case to the owner of the land.”

Stumpage Fee – Regulations 21 & 25 of L.I 1649 as amended read:

21.(1) “A holder of a timber utilization contract who harvests timber of the species listed in Schedule 2 of these Regulations shall pay the stumpage fee at the rate specified in the Schedule in relation to the species

(2) For the purposes of the Act and unless these Regulations, stumpage fee represents royalties to the landowner and charges for the cost of felled timber which provide a basic return to the landowner and contributes to the cost of forest management and timber regulation

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AGREEMENT (SRA)

Section 3(3)(e) of Act 547 as amended states: “The application for timber rights shall be accompanied with proposals to assist in addressing social needs of the communities who have interest in the applicant’s proposed area of operations.”

Regulation 14(1)(l) of L.I 1649 as amended equally states thus: “ A timber utilization contract entered into for the purpose of section 7(2) of the Act shall be in such form as the Attorney –General shall determine and shall provide for terms and conditions including – an undertaking by the holder to provide social facilities and amenities for the inhabitants of the contract area.”

TIMBER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (Amendment) ACT, 2002 (Act 617)

The Timber Resources Management Act, 1997 (Act 547), section 4 (as amended by Timber Resources Management (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act 617) – “(2) No timber rights shall be granted in respect of-

(a) Land subject to alienation holding; or (b) Land with farms

Without the written authorization of the individual, group or owners concerned (3) No timber rights shall be granted in respect of-

(a). Land with private forest plantation; or (b) Land with any timber grown or owned by and individual or group of individuals.

Review of Text

4.2.2 Welfare and Income Impacts of Existing Tree Tenure Regimes in Ghana Timber right is an annual lump-sum fee payable by logging company for the entire concession area. The FC is the sole beneficiary of this fee. Contract area rent is an annual fee payable per hectare by logging company to the Office of Administrator of Stool Lands (OASL) in the case of


stool lands and in any other case to the owner of the land. The OASL retains 10% of the amount as administration fee, and redistributes the rest as mentioned in Article 267(6) of the 1992 Constitution. Stumpage fee is a species-specific, volume-based fee charged on harvested timber. The fee is fixed by the Sector Minister responsible for forestry in consultation with the FC and OASL. The FC takes 50% of this fee and the remaining 40% is split between the OASL, Stool, Traditional Authority (TA) and District Assembly as enshrined in Article 267(6)

It is very sad to note that farmers who invariably become managers of these trees and forest resources are not entitled to any of the fees already mentioned, although they nurture and tend for them. Because land owners and users have no economic rights to naturally regenerated trees, farmers are not incentivized to retain or maintain economic such trees on their farms. They, sometimes, intentionally destroy these timber species before they mature to prevent possible conflict with timber contractor who may be given the grant to fell such trees.

Social Responsibility Agreement (SRA)

The SRA is a contract that has to be concluded between local communities and logging companies upon notification of the grant of a Timber Utilization Contract (TUC). This contract seeks to provide social amenities to the communities and inhabitants of the proposed area where the logging activities take place at a cost of no less than 5% of the value of the stumpage fee of the timber involved. Logging companies undertake the services promised directly and or put money into the account of the community to carry out the assigned responsibilities themselves.

Challenges:

In the forestry sector, for example, reports abound that most forestry officials renege on their duties from ensuring strict compliance of SRA which timber operators sign with communities to the detriment of affected communities. Hence, most communities receive only a portion of their promised benefits.

TIMBER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (Amendment) ACT, 2002 (Act 617)

(1) The Timber Resources Management Act, 1997 (Act 547), section 4 (as amended by Timber Resources Management (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act 617) –

(2) “No timber rights shall be granted in respect of a) Land subject to alienation holding; or (b) Land with farms without the written authorization of the individual, group or owners concerned”.

(3) No timber rights shall be granted in respect of (a). Land with private forest plantation; or Land with any timber grown or owned by and individual or group of individuals.

Review of Text It is a widely held view that Section 4 (3) of the Timber Resource Management (Amendment) Act, 2002, (Act 617) was promulgated to aid afforestation, reforestation and private plantations. This law prohibits the granting of timber rights on private forest plantations and land with trees grown or owned by private persons without the written authorization of the individual or owners concerned. The FC is, therefore, prohibited by law from granting timber rights in respect of cocoa farmland or any farmland or that matter with economic trees thereon, where prior written authorization is withheld by the farmer in off-reserve areas. In practice, however, such prior authorization by farmers becomes a mere formally with no string attached, particularly where


economic trees or naturally regenerated trees are involved. The reason is that all naturally grown trees are deemed by law to be vested in the President by virtue of Section 16 (4) of the Concession Act, (Act 124) irrespective of their location. What happens ordinarily is that farmers are merely notified, when naturally grown trees on their farms are being given out for exploitation. And, no matter how they stand opposed to such allocation, they hesitantly give their written consent for fear of incurring the wrath of the stool occupant where their farms are located. Private Forest Plantation (Both Exotic and Indigenous Species) On the other hand, the FC has no power whatsoever to grant timber right over land with forest plantation or with timber grown or owned by individual or group of people. Proof of Ownership The onus lies on such a farmer to establish that timber trees on the farm were actually grown by that farmer, and that they are not naturally regenerated. Thus, farmers, landowners and land users have legal rights to any planted tree inside or outside any forest reserve once they can establish so. Private Plantation Development The strategy involves the release of degraded forest reserve lands by the FC to private entities after vetting and endorsing their reforestation /business plans. The operations of these private developers are then monitored through periodic field visits by the FSD to ensure compliance with the approved reforestation plans. Benefit Sharing The private investor earns 90% of the total proceeds from the plantation while the FC, Landowner and Community earn 2%, 6% and 2% respectively⁹ (NFPDP, 2012 Annual report). Normally, the FC gives out 50 years leasehold to the private developer and the parties will then sign two distinct legal documents namely; Lease and Benefit Sharing Agreements which outline the duration period of the leasehold as well as distribution of the benefits sharing arrangement. The farmer, however, pays annual ground rent of $2 to the appropriate stool through the FC and bears all expenses during the entire lifespan of the plantation. The NFPDP Annual Report, 2012 indicates that a total of 30,039.03 ha private commercial plantations had been established between 2002-2012 Setback Most farmers are not aware that they can actually plant and own indigenous forest trees such as Wawa, Odum, Mahogany, Sapele etc. on their farms. Dissemination of information about farmers’ right to planted trees among local communities throughout Ghana is very low. Indeed, majority of cocoa farmers are presently ignorant about ownership of planted trees on their farms. (This assertion, however, depends on which area one is referring to. It has been brought to our attention that in most parts of the Western region most cocoa farmers know that they can plant economic trees on their farms. Small holder farmers working with SAMARTEX know this. Cocoa farmers within the Wassa Amenfi West, East and Central; Aowin Suama; Sefwi Wiawso etc. also all know about this.


Documentation of Established Planted Trees Farmers who plant trees on their farms must, however, register with the district office of the Forest Services Division (FSD) where their farms are located so that they could be given certificate of ownership of such trees. Such registration could also pave way for them to access financial support from the Plantation Development Fund (PDF). A letter dealing with registration of private plantations located outside forest reserves was written in 2006 by the Forestry Commission in support of the registration of farmers’ own trees. Information gathered showed that, International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) assisted the Asankrangwa Forestry District to implement this through sensitization and promotion effort during the implementation of their Livelihood and Landscapes Programme from 2007 to 2010in the Wassa Amenfi West District in the Western region. This is still continuing by the Forest Services Division in the district. This laudable initiative was not scaled-up to cover other forestry jurisdictions in the country. Therefore, it was for this reason that most farmers within the study areas were not aware of this facility.

ECONOMIC PLANTS PROTECTION ACT, 1979 (AFRCD 47)

Section 4 deals with timber rights and consists of the following provisions:

(1) A felling right in respect of timber trees shall not be granted where the timber trees stand in farms where specified plants are cultivated.

(2) Where immediately before the publication of this Act in the Gazette there were existing felling rights in respect of timber trees in farms where specified plants are cultivated, the rights for the purposes of this Act shall forthwith cease to have any effect.

(3) A person who grants or purports to grant or acts or purports to act in pursuance of felling rights in contravention of the provision of this section commits an offence

Review of Text This law prohibits felling of timber in farms where particularly, cocoa or other plants of economic value are cultivated. This law is so emphatic that even where timber felling rights existed in cocoa farms, the coming into force of the law automatically annulled such felling rights. Thus, the law takes retrospective effect over existing timber felling rights in any cocoa farm in Ghana. This law does not give any discretionary power to anyone to grant timber felling rights over cocoa farms irrespective of the farm’s location; be it an admitted farm within a forest reserve or outside a reserve. It is our respective view that the current position of the law (Section 4 (2) of Act 547 as amended) which requires cocoa farm owners to give their written authorization before tree felling rights are given to timber contractor to fell economic trees on their farms is in contravention of Section 4 of Act 87 which prohibits altogether the grant of timber felling rights within any cocoa farms.

In practice, cocoa farmers out of ignorance that timber felling rights ought not to be given in respect of their farms reluctantly give out such consent. And when their farms are destroyed, they are also not paid commensurate compensation by timber loggers. There is weak oversight by the regulatory body, FSD whose duty it is to ensure that logging companies strictly comply with every provision of the law relating to tree harvesting on cocoa farms. To safeguard farmers interest and ensure uniformity of practice, it is submitted that a guideline be put in place as a


matter of urgency to determine how much compensation is payable when farms are destroyed during logging exercise. The only option now available to farmers to cure this seeming abrasion of Section 4 (2) (b) of Act 547 is to insist on their rights by refusing to give their written authorization, if such notices are brought to their attention. The fact that most off-reserve timber concessions are located in cocoa farming landscape, and the fact that most off-reserve timber species comes from cocoa farms in the HFZ clearly points to the fact that Section 4 of the Economic Plants Protection Law, 1979 is being disregarded, ignored, abused and misapplied deliberately by the Forestry Commission to the detriment of cocoa farmers.

It is important to emphasize that although this law does not seek to confer tree tenure rights on cocoa farmers over economic trees on their farms, the enforcement of this law, however, will bring about increased productivity of cocoa and promote environmental sustainability when tree felling in cocoa farms is stopped altogether with its boomerang negative attendance on the environment. It could be added that people who engage in illegal farming activities cannot take refuge under this law if the authorities decide to grant timber harvesting rights over economic trees on their illegal farms. A major challenge likely to hamper and scuttle farmers resolve can be seen as opposition from Stool owners who stand to benefit from such timber exploitation on these farmlands which comes to them in a form of ground rent and stumpage fees. It is most certain that most occupants of stool land will not side with cocoa farmers and forgo their statutory fees for whatever reason. Current policy – from non- consumptive value of the forest to sustainable forest management

4.2.3 Inventory and Analysis of International Policy Instruments Adopted by the Country and which Influences National Policies

i Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) The Voluntary Partnership Agreement with the European Union, in the context of Forest Law Enforcement and Governance (FLEGT), is aimed at achieving a system in which only legally logged timber will be allowed to be exported to the EU market. Review of the Text The implementation of the VPA and the Non-legally Binding Instrument of All Types of Forests (NLBI), also known as the Forest Instrument, represent major efforts to change the current system of environmental and forest management. Resolving the issue of tree tenure will go a long way to assisting the nation in meeting its obligations under the VPA. ii. Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) plus Forest Conservation, Sustainable Management of Forests, and Enhancement of Forest Carbon Stocks in Developing Countries. REDD+ offers monetary incentives that can complement Ghana’s efforts to conserve what remains of its forest reserves. Review of the Text Tree planting through afforestation or reforestation and improved forest management (which, along with REDD, are collectively referred to as REDD+, wetland conservation and restoration, and agricultural land management are also attractive opportunities for mitigating climate change. If Ghana is to benefit from REDD+, key stakeholders, for example the farmers and forest dependent community who contribute to a significant proportion of the deforestation rate, must be suitably incentivized, by ensuring for example that necessary changes in tree tenure are effected that would incentivize these stakeholders to do the right thing.


iii. Millennium Development Goal ((MDG) 7 The Millennium Development Goals and targets come from the Millennium Declaration signed by 189 countries in September 2000. The goals and targets represent a partnership between the developed countries and the developing countries to create an environment at the national and global levels alike which is conducive to development and the elimination of poverty. Review of the Text MDG 7 seeks to ensure environmental sustainability by integrating the principle of sustainable development into the country’s policies and program and reverse the loss of environmental resources. MDG 7 has among its indicators for monitoring progress the following:

i. That proportion of area covered by forest will increase ii. That proportion of households with access to secure tenure rights

4.2.4 Strengths and Weakness of the Current Legal Framework The fact that there are various mechanisms emerging to engender sustainable forest management practices to save the forests indicate that the current legal framework has failed to provide the respite required. These major efforts to change the current system of environmental and forest management at the national policy level include: development of the Natural Resources and Environmental Governance (NREG) program, implementation of the Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) and the Non-legally Binding Instrument on All Types of Forests (NLBI), also known as the Forest Instrument). The growing focus on plantation establishment on-reserve and off-reserve and efforts to address social concerns and community rights are also reflected in the establishment of CREMAs and the existence of the Community Forest Management Project (CFMP), which uses a modified Taungya approach to reforest FRs, and more recently in efforts to encourage tree planting on farms and on individual lands. The push to implement the SRA (as dictated by the Timber Resources Management Act 547) between logging companies and communities also represents an attempt to ensure that communities reap at least some modest benefits from industrial logging. In spite of these constructive efforts there remain significant problems related to the management and use of the land, and its forests and trees. Asare et al 2010 have identified and grouped these challenges into four categories as follows: 1. Poor Forest Stewardship & Governance: as a major constraint that is politically challenging to address and has seriously exacerbated forest degradation and deforestation. Hall and Swaine (1981) have documented the degraded state of Ghana’s forest estate as follows: 2. Awkward Policy Incentives In off-reserve areas, farmers, in off reserve areas are the de facto managers of the tree and forest resources and therefore strongly influence the density and diversity of tree species found in the landscape {Asare and Asare (2008) and Amanor (1996)}. Unfortunately, farmers do not receive any benefits arising from payment of stumpage fees and have no economic rights to naturally


regenerated trees despite their critical role and so do not have any incentive to retain or maintain high value economic species that are likely to be felled for timber. 3. Weakly Implemented and Conflicting Laws Many of the legal parameters associated with TUCs are ignored. The Timber Resources Act 547, calling for an inspection of the affected farms and a written letter authorizing timber harvesting by the landowner is required, is ignored when a TUC is issued on land with farms. In 2002, the Timber Resource Management Act (Act 547) 1997) was amended to stipulate that a TUC should not be issued on farmland without prior authorization from the concerned groups or individuals (Timber Resources Management Amendment Act (Act 617) 2002) is ignored as farmers are unaware of these laws and there is scant evidence that the FSD seeks the stipulated permission or that inspections take place or written approval is sought before felling. In another instance the law states that a TUC should not be issued on lands with farms (Timber Resources Management Amendment Act (Act 617) 2002), and according to the Economic Plants Protection Decree (1979), timber should not be felled where cocoa or other economic plants are cultivated. But these laws are ignored: most off-reserve concessions are in cocoa-farming landscapes, and it is likely that most off-reserve timber comes from cocoa farms. Another problem is the implementation of, and compliance with, applicable laws. For example, many farmers enter FRs and plant cocoa farms with little recourse, and in FRs where older farms have been legally “admitted”, expansion of new farms frequently occurs unabated. The relative silence surrounding these legal and policy conflicts creates a state of paralysis in which further degradation becomes the norm. Another example is that farmers have the right to be compensated for damages to cocoa trees during timber operations (Timber Resources Management Regulations (L.I. 1649) 1998); however, there are no guidelines that specify the amount of compensation or manner in which compensation should be paid and there is weak oversight by the FSD to ensure that logging companies comply. Adherence to the SRA between logging companies and communities is also inconsistent and poorly enforced, and communities frequently receive only a portion of their promised benefits. In some communities, Chiefs demand personal benefits and favors instead of holding companies accountable to the community as a whole. In a tour of over 15 administrative districts within the HFZ, the vast majority of farmers were unaware that ownership of planted trees extends to native species and not just teak or tree crops. Of the 15 districts, only one FSD office was actively encouraging on-farm tree planting and providing farmers with ownership certificates (Asare et al., 2010). 4. Land Dispute Challenges Owing to the fact that most land in the rural areas have never been surveyed, and most landowners and land users do not possess written titles or deeds, boundaries are easily contested and multiple stakeholders dispute user rights and ownership. In general, the courts in Ghana have a large number of land cases in the courts and these generally take a long time to resolve due to the number and backlog of cases. Overall, it can be time-consuming and costly to litigate against actions or decisions taken by individuals, government institutions, or private companies with regard to land or natural resources. Finally, according to an FAO document by K. Kasanga, the Minister of Lands and Forestry, (2002) Ghana had a backlog of approximately 60,000 land cases


5.0 THE VARIOUS RELEVANT BENEFIT-SHARING ARRANGEMENTS THAT EXIST IN GHANA AND INTERNATIONALLY TO INFORM SUBSEQUENT RECOMMENDATIONS This section deals with the range of benefit sharing mechanisms or arrangements, cash benefits through Government budgets, sub-national units such as royalties, sub-national grants and fiscal transfers and details of other benefit flows to communities in the form of monetary and non-monetary transfers. The transparent and fair generation, collection and sharing of natural-resource revenues can be a determining factor of the viability of agreement among stakeholders or the constitutional provisions. The handling of resource revenues may follow directly from the allocation of management and control over these resources, or it can be undertaken quite differently (Haysom and Kane 2009).

5.1 Legal Provisions on Benefit Sharing from Stumpage/Rent and Disbursement The 1992 Constitution of Ghana [267 (6)] guides the present benefit-sharing arrangement

whereby all types of revenues from the exploitation of a natural resource are collected into a

single account and then distributed between the national government, different districts or local

governments based upon some agreed formula. The Current Arrangement by OASL which is

different from what the Constitution says is presented below:

The Office of Administrator of Stool Lands (OASL) and Forestry Commission (FC) are

responsible for the management of the Forest proceeds on behalf of the stools/landowners. While

the FC manages the Forest and collects revenue by way of stumpage, the OASL ensures that the

stool/landowners are fairly treated in the context of the disbursement prevailing laws.

To enhance transparency in the disbursement of any forest proceeds, the OASL and FC have

jointly agreed in a Memorandum of Understanding to publish the disbursement reports. For the

management of the Forest on behalf of the Government and the Stool/landowners, the Forestry

Commission is authorized to retain some percentage of the stumpage fees. Such fees are applied

to finance staff remuneration, administration, operational (services) and investment (capital)

expenses.

Basis of Disbursement

Currently the following rates are applicable: 50% of any shareable revenue from Forest Reserve

and Off-Reserve are retained by FC as management fee whilst 50% are distributed to

stakeholders as stipulated by the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, Section 267 (Sub-section 6) which

provides that the net revenue accruing from Stumpage/Rent after providing for FC’s

management fees and 10% for the OASL, which shall be deemed as 100% for the understated

stakeholders shall be distributed as follows:

25% to Stool 55% to District Assembly 20% to Traditional Council


The Forestry Commission undertakes yearly projections of all areas which are given out for timber exploitation and assess how much it can realize through Rent and Stumpage fees in respect of its timber Contracts, Leases which are extant and Special Permits. These estimates are captured in the national budget and rolled out based on the anticipated projections. Area Rent is an annual payment per hectare to the Office of the Administrator of Stool Lands (OASL) in case of stool lands and in any other case to the owner of the land. The rent equals GH¢1200 per hectare annually in respect of forest reserves and GH¢1000 per hectare annually in off-reserve areas. This amount is collected by the FC and paid to the OASL in the case of stool lands or the owner in any other case. In the case of stool lands, the OASL retains 10% of the amount and redistributes the rest as stated in the Constitution. Stumpage fee is a species-specific, volume-based fee charged on harvested timber. This fee is fixed by the minister responsible for forestry in consultation with the FC and OASL. Currently the fee ranges between $2.6 and $5.6 (per m³), depending on the species concerned. It is noted that the above projections when made, are fed into the national budget, however, disbursements are made based on actual figures realized in the period under review and not on the projections; which may be higher or lower. The Constitution does not define “stool land revenue”; this definition presumable being referred to lower level legislation. For timber, the Timber Resources Management (Amendment) Regulation, LI 1721, defines the stumpage fee (Section 21(3)) and the concession rent (Section 27) as “revenue accruing from Stool lands”. It is worth noting that the legislation is remarkably silent about the sharing of the proceeds from the Timber Rights Fee (TRF), introduced with competitive bidding for timber rights through the Timber Resources Management (Amendment) Regulations (LI 1721) in 2003. For unknown reasons, TRF revenues have not been considered as stool land revenue and the proceeds have not been shared in accordance with the Constitution (Hansen and Treue, 2003) Monetary flows that accrue directly to the communities are seen in the area of Social Responsibility Agreements (SRA’s) which are signed between the local communities and logging companies upon notification of the grant of a timber utilization contract or permit. This contract provides for amenities, services or benefits to assist the communities at a cost of no less than 5% of the value of the stumpage fee of the timber that is harvested. The logging company provides the amenities directly to the community or puts money in the account of the community for such purposes. At times the Stool collects the money involved. The above shows the following:

a) That the cash benefits that flow through government budgets are woefully inadequate in the first place.

b) That the inadequate cash benefits that are released eventually do not accrue directly to the communities, except to say that the District Assembly at times undertakes projects with such funds that may inure to the benefits of the communities.

c) The SRA is the only medium that positively and directly affects the communities but most concessionaires do not respect the agreements and the FC is weak in ensuring compliance

The benefit sharing arrangements outlined in the Constitution, as well as the MOU, excludes key stakeholders, such as farmers and forest-dependent communities who play a critical role in any effort to reduce degradation and over-exploitation. They are neither beneficiary nor are they


entitled to revenue from harvesting Equitable benefit-sharing mechanisms should be able to provide the platform from which individuals and communities would be provided with real and tangible incentives that would make them committed to conservation and management of resources on their farms and communities. It is also evident that little revenue is used for development projects in communities (Hansen and Treue 2009). Equity in benefit sharing - Distribution of stumpage fees There is a problem relating to the efficiency, transparency and equity of the respective financial structures in the allocation of costs and how benefits are collected and distributed among stakeholders. The ‘leakage’ of natural-resources revenues through the selling and marketing of natural resources outside agreed-upon systems is evident. The capture of resource revenues by various ministries, state-owned entities and natural-resource companies can have significant negative implications for transparency and the ability of the state to generate sufficient revenues to fulfill its functions. The timber industry is replete with informal operators, the chainsaw operators who account for over half of the annual harvest. These operators do not pay formal stumpage fees and so no benefit is accrued and shared officially. There is no empirical evidence of how the benefits are shared among participants in the value chain including the farmers, chainsaw operators, carriers, transporters, organizers, wholesalers and retailers. It is, however, believed that most of the benefits go to the downstream participants (transporters, organizers, wholesalers and retailers) and the farmers and chainsaw operators get comparatively, very little. Relating to formal government-recognized operators, there are two problems with the collection and sharing of stumpage fees. Firstly, it is known that some of the legal harvests are not recorded and so no stumpage fees are paid to government to be shared. Secondly, there is the problem of under-invoicing and fraudulent declarations. Thirdly, it is recognized that forest fees are too low compared to what the companies in the timber business are willing to pay owing to their power in influencing policy on the rate that government is to charge. The stumpage fees that should be available for sharing among stipulated stakeholders stated in the constitution and involved in the conservation and management of the natural resources, therefore, go only to the licensed timber industry. So in essence, less than half of the benefits that the law stipulates are available for sharing. The distribution of revenues to stakeholders from FC/ Office of the Administrator of Stool Lands (OASL) is significantly delayed, compared to the time of invoicing/collection and transparency in distribution is an issue Hansen and Treue 2009). The late distribution of timber revenues to stakeholders and the accompanying problems of transparency as a result of the lack of proper documentation further, compound the issue. In such cases, even traditional authorities and district assemblies who are mandated by law to receive benefits from timber operations in their areas get frustrated by these delays and lose the incentive to be protectors of the forests and become pre-disposed to being influenced by illegal operators.

5.2 Forest Management Options and Associated Benefit-Sharing Mechanisms Having realized that farmers and forest-dependent communities are key stakeholders to stemming the tide of forest degradation and in the absence of substantive policy and legal reforms to deal with the inequitable distribution of benefits from timber resources, there evolved several forest management options. These interventions are all associated with various benefit-sharing mechanisms to promote the interests of farmers and forest-dependent communities and incentivize them to take care of trees on their farms and localities. Some of the key ones are the following:


a. Commercial Plantation Agreements (CPA) b. Community Forest Management Projects (CFMPs) c. Community Resource Management Areas (CREMA) d. Social Responsibility Agreement (SRA) e. Dedicated Forests (DF) f. Kuapa Kokoo benefit sharing formula g. Traditional systems of sharing benefits from land (arrangements between farmers

(caretaker, short or long-term migrant and landowners).

5.2.1 Commercial Plantation Agreement (On-Reserve) Forest reserve (on-reserve) areas which are qualified for forest plantation development are former forest areas, which are now heavily degraded due to fire and logging and are in need of reforestation. These areas are known as ‘degraded forest areas’ and allocated to plantation development to regain the tree cover. The CPA enables a private developer to acquire the forest land lawfully, as the FC releases the degraded reserve land after receiving applications and approving reforestation plans from investors. The developer has to prepare a detailed reforestation plan and get it approved by FC. Then s/he pays for demarcation and mapping costs, and bears all necessary inputs including labor costs. The private operator bears the cost of replanting exotic or native timber species in degraded forest reserves. The developer is supposed to pay land rent, which is based on the size of the land and the number of years the land is used. These rents need to be paid when the time of harvest starts. The employees of these developers generally live on the plantation and although this is officially not allowed by law, this occurs under the denominator of ‘temporary hamlet. The harvesting of trees in these degraded forest areas is only allowed with a Timber Utilization Contract (TUC), according to the Timber Resources Management Act, 2003. To qualify for a TUC, the plantation developers have to be registered and a harvesting plan and an environmental assessment plan have to be provided to the Forestry Commission (FC 2008). The benefit sharing agreement applicable to the private developers stipulates that 90% of the revenue is for the private investor, while the landowner, FC and community get 6%, 2% and 2%, respectively. The landowner has a share because s/he releases the land to the developer, the FC has a share because of the support and assistance, and the adjacent communities get a small share because they help to protect the planted trees, and because they partly depend on the forest areas for their livelihood. In private-funded forest plantations, the workers are able to collect some products from the plantation area, such as commercial leaves, other non-timber forest products and firewood which provide livelihood opportunities. The weakness of this scheme is associated with the behavior of some developers who try to outwit the FC by going for the land legally and subsequently giving it to farmers to do a taungya system operation (farmers are farming the land and planting trees). By so doing they get free labor and the trees grow and are protected. Although it is not the common practice of developers to pay such farmers, some developers pay them a small token while they are planting, weeding or maintaining the trees.


5.2.2 Community Forest Management Projects (CFMPs) – (On-Reserve) These projects use the Modified Taungya System (MTS) that involves the establishment of plantations by the government (FC) in partnership with farmers. The FSD assists with technical advice, surveys and demarcates degraded forest reserve areas and supplies tree seedlings and pegs, while the farmers provide all the labor inputs in the form of site clearing, pegging planting, tree maintenance and fire protection. The farmers are allowed to cultivate food crops, which are planted between the trees on the same land, for their livelihood and they receive additional social and economic benefits from their participation. As the farmers do all the labor, while not getting paid for it, they will have a share in the future timber revenue. They are entitled to 40%, whereas the government Forestry Commission (FC) also gets 40% and the landowner/traditional authority and community will obtain 15% and 5% respectively. Many farmers in the MTS are migrant farmers, and they go back after 2 years, so the plantations are abandoned, which is not good for the trees as they need to be maintained. It is better for the plantation that the workers stay for a longer time; a registration system makes this easier. Before starting, the farmers have to sign an agreement, in order to get the 40% tree benefit. The original Taungya system was modified, and extended with the benefit-sharing scheme because the scheme was boycotted by the farmers due to a lack of benefits and voice in negotiating. The Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Plantation Development Model This is a plantation development scheme, financed with the Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) funds. HIPC-funds make use of hired labour and contracted supervisors to establish industrial plantations. Plantation workers are hired and paid a monthly wage to establish and maintain forest plantations for the state; while plantation supervisors are given one year renewable contract employment to supervise and offer technical advice (FC 2008). Monitoring is done by the plantation department of FSD. These developed plantations are owned by the government; therefore, the communities have no share in the future tree revenue. The entitled stool landowners are paid royalties and the government gets the largest share of the revenue. Although it was not the intention of the plantation development plan to plant food crops between the trees, it is often allowed as land is available and no strict measures were taken to prevent it. .

Other Examples of Plantation Development Initiatives Apart from the National Plantation Development Programme, there are several other initiatives geared towards forest landscape restoration outside the reserves. For example; the Forest Resource Use and Management Project (FORUM) in the Volta Region; the Community Forest Management Project, funded by the AfDB; the Participatory Forest Management Project in the Transitional Zone. All these projects are Community-based and encourage resource management outside reserves including tree planting and these initiatives provided some livelihood opportunities to farmers and their communities.


5.2.3 Community Resource Management Areas (CREMA) (Off-Reserve) Communities are capable of playing a very important role in securing their natural resources through the adoption of sustainable natural resource management systems. CREMAs have been adopted primarily for wildlife management and eco-tourism but could be extended to other areas of natural resource management There is ample evidence to show that when local communities are empowered to become responsible stewards in the management of their natural resources, which indeed are the major sources of their livelihood, enforcement of conservation laws become almost redundant. The Wildlife Division of the Forestry Commission of Ghana developed a Collaborative Wildlife Management Policy in 2000 to address the challenges of wildlife management. A primary mechanism of this policy is the Community Resource Management Area CREMA approach, which ensures a win-win situation by creating “a financial incentive for farmers to use and manage natural resources on sustainable basis by developing management rights and responsibilities to them” This approach has led to livelihoods improvement, conservation efforts, democracy, and strengthening of local economies where it has been adopted. Nature Conservation Research Center (NCRC), Calgary Zoo and Earthwatch, have been implementing successful programs in 20 Community Resource Management Areas covering about 1 million hectares and this is being done through the application of policy and not through law/legislation and enforcement.

Scaling-up of the Community Resource Management Areas (CREMA) model and reinforcement of the traditional protection and conservation systems and the introduction of “complementary” livelihood activities through collaboration mechanisms with communities that live in these fragile and protected areas, is a positive development in resource protection and conservation efforts. There are opportunities for generating revenue and benefit-sharing outside the normal legal framework. In a typical CREMA, 5-10% of revenue goes to the CREMA Executive Committee while 90-95% is allocated to the communities. Some CEREMAs have purposefully chosen to share revenues with their District Assemblies and Traditional Authorities.

5.2.4 Social Responsibility Agreement The 1994 FWP and the 1995 Interim Measures to Control Illegal Felling recognized that the future of the forestry industry depended on farmers planting and preserving trees, however, the reform process soon ran into resistance from vested interests. As a compromise, a rather vague Social Responsibility Agreement was introduced in which the concessionaires agreed to provide payments set at 5% of the stumpage value for community infrastructure projects in return for the right to exploit the timber in the vicinity of their communities (Boyce et al., 2007) The institution of Social Responsibility Agreement (SRA) has failed to achieve its intended purposes mainly because of the failure of timber contractors to honor the agreements and poor monitoring of the process to ensure compliance to the commitments. The SRA was instituted to incentivize forest-dependent communities to take care of their trees and its poor enforcement has encouraged community members to rationalize connivance with illegal loggers to remove trees from their farms.

5.2.5 Dedicated Forests (DF) The Dedicated Forest Scheme seeks to institutionalize community and individual ownership and management of forests outside forest reserves (Asare 2007). The basic tenets of the scheme are as follows:


Community or individual ownership and management of land for forestry purposes; An approved technically feasible management plan by the Forestry Commission; Technical, legislative and material support from government, and, Community control over harvesting rights in accordance with existing legislation.

Dedicated forests provide an opportunity for local communities to protect sacred groves or otherwise locally-valued off-reserve forests and to receive economic benefits through community forestry management. Some of the benefits include possible artisanal harvesting of timer and the collection on Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs). Currently, the only notable legislation which appears to enforce the rights of dedicated forest owners is Act 617, the Timber Resources Management Act 617 (Amendment) Act, 2002, which states under Section 1(3) (b) that “No timber rights shall be granted in respect of land with any timber grown or owned by any individual or group of individuals". This provision at least gives some respite since government shall not arbitrary grant timber rights over recognized dedicated forests. This is to serve as an incentive and to put the message across that communities and individuals stand to receive all the benefits that are due if they invest their energy in managing dedicated forest. To exhaustively explore the issues on dedicated forests, the Forestry Commission through the Collaborative Resource Management Unit (CRMU) used two community forests in the Fosu District of the Central region as a field laboratory to pick up useful lessons to guide the proper institutionalization of the scheme. Lessons from the study have helped in providing options and shaping the policies, legislation and practices on off-reserve forest management in Ghana. The local initiatives towards the conservation of two community forest patches started in the Fosu District of the Central Region of Ghana. In spite of the various threats of deforestation, three communities, namely, Akropong, Worakese and Akenkansu all in the Fosu District, have collectively preserved two patches of tropical high forests, perhaps the biggest chunk of such forest in the country outside forest reserves. The two forests, named Adwenase and Namtee, cover a land area of 171 hectares and 190.5 hectares respectively. One of the key lessons learned out of this programme for policy input, is that this program gives credence to the fact that communities can viably manage permanent forest areas. This represents what is truly referred to as community-based natural resource management. Plans are afoot to expand the concept of dedicated forests as a viable option to government reservation. It is anticipated that any future policy revision will place emphasis on community managed forests. Creating a conducive policy environment, which acts as incentive for communities to initiate the establishment of dedicated forests, is the best approach to ensuring success in the scheme. Unclear legal regime has the potential of promoting and prolonging conflicts amongst those with rights over the forest. Through the case study and others such as the GTZ sponsored “legal framework on collaborative forest management in off-reserve areas‟, several proposals have been made to revise legislation to support dedicated forests.

5.2.6 “Kuapa Kokoo” benefit sharing formula “Kuapa Kokoo” is a Fair Trade-certified organization that provides financial, in-kind, and development benefits to its farmer-members. All Kuapa farmers receive a guaranteed premium on the price of their cocoa, bonuses at the end of each year, cutlasses with each new farming season, access to loans, and an opportunity to apply for development projects (water, schools,


sanitation) on behalf of their communities (not just the Kuapa farmers). Interestingly, many farmers cite the democratic structure of the organization as the most compelling reason to join a “Kuapa Kokoo” Society. Kuapa’s numbers have grown substantially over the past 5 years (to over 60,000 farmers in 2009), a testament to the viability of layering in-kind and financial benefits, and a reminder that democratic, transparent, and equitable mechanisms are attractive to farmers. This benefit sharing scheme ensures that the farmers would undertake sustainable natural resource management practices in order to maintain their farms.

5.2.7 Traditional systems of sharing benefits from land A look at the traditional systems of sharing benefits from land use reveals how local stakeholders have negotiated mechanisms for sharing benefits according to ownership and user rights. In the Western Region, Chiefs “give” land to local or migrant farmers so long as they agree to pay royalties (taxes) to the Chief each year. One could presume that under a REDD+ project, while Chiefs may require some benefits, as long as agreements are clearly defined at the start of the land use arrangement, there are likely to be few disputes about indigenous or migrant farmers’ rights to benefit from the resources on Stool Land. In a similar vein, one could argue that the government could tax carbon-based revenue, but allow individuals and communities to receive the direct economic benefits that they are responsible for generating through their resource conservation and management practices.

The land tenure framework (Land ownership, use and benefit arrangements) also represents a benefit sharing mechanism so the need to discuss that before analyzing impact on various parameters mentioned. Natural resource management decisions by farmers and rural land-using communities are significantly affected by land-use norms and tenure arrangements, which are backed by existing legislation and customary laws. A detailed discussion of this subject that provides an overview of basic tenure arrangements for most farming communities in the High Forest Zone is found in a later section

5.2.8 Effect of inequitable sharing of benefits from forest resources exploitation Tree tenure rules management of off-reserve timber resources has suffered greatly due to problems of inequity, legal rights, conflicts and illegal harvesting. It is clear that the off-reserve timber resource management operates in a socio-economic context which is not compatible with sustainable resource management. First of all, the resource is managed solely by farmers who do not have permanent stake in the trees nor incentives to manage it. Secondly, its utilization generates complex issues of equity, rights, illegalities and conflicts between people as well as between forestry and agriculture. It has been observed that provision of appropriate financial incentives for farmers to motivate them to plant and/or protect trees on their farms remains a key challenge to the management of off-reserve timber. Benefit sharing in various forms could provide such an incentive. Unfortunately the benefit sharing rules, specified by the current policy and legal framework, are in favor of state agencies and landowners but deny local people access to timber resources on their farms. Farmers who care for naturally growing trees on farmlands are prevented by law from harvesting the trees on their farms and do not receive any benefit when these trees are harvested by registered timber companies. The farmer makes decisions and inputs in his farm during his farming activities by deciding which trees to cut and those to retain, the seedlings/saplings to retain and nurse and protection and conservation of the trees. Currently, the farmer is not compensated for all these services and


not a beneficiary of timber revenues or any trickle down benefit from those who receive these benefits. The farmer would rather plant exotic trees rather than tend natural timber trees on the farm because he/she can prove ownership easily and can get the full benefit to share with the landlord if he/she is a tenant. Finally, because of the inequity, the farmers invariably, invite illegal chain saw operators to come and cut the trees because at least they give them some monetary payments. Gathering from the above, it is obvious that the present benefit sharing arrangement is not considered fair and does not provide the appropriate incentives for farmers and given that benefit sharing is a key factor in the fast depletion of the timber resources in Ghana over the past decades, it is important to deal with this issue. As a result of the current legal provision on benefit sharing, farmers intentionally neglect economic trees on their farms and in some cases they deliberately kill such trees on their farms. Furthermore, when farmers leave these trees on their farms as prescribed by the law and concessions are given to private timber companies the farmers do not receive adequate compensation for crop damage as a result of logging activities of the companies on their farms. The absence of an enabling environment for benefiting from their protection of trees is one of the major reasons why farmers connive with illegal chainsaw operators to harvest trees on their farms because these operators promptly reward the farmer with some cash benefit. It is the activities of such illegal harvesting of timber by chain saw operators, mainly facilitated by farmers, which has contributed significantly to the degradation of off-reserve forests. If there is no reformation of present legislation and its implementation to provide appropriate incentives for farmers to engage in sustainable forest management practices, the timber industry is likely to crash in the very near future and would result in serious economic and environmental consequences for the nation. . One of the greatest stumbling blocks in obtaining agreement on various to put formula-based revenue-sharing systems in place is often the ‘cheque is in the post’ syndrome (Haysom and Kane, 2009). The late distribution of timber revenue to stakeholders by the Forestry Commission or the Office of Administrator of Stool Lands with accompanying problems of transparency as a result of the lack of proper documentation further compound the issue (Boateng et al., 2009). In such cases, even traditional authorities and district assemblies who are mandated by law to receive benefits from timber operations in their areas get frustrated by these delays and lose the incentive to be protectors of the forests and become pre-disposed to being influenced by illegal operators.

5.2.9 Models from other Countries and Relevance for Ghana There are two models of Decentralized Forest Management (DFM) in Tanzanian and Nepal which have relevance for Ghana (Treue, 2007) that are quoted below: The models chosen exemplify decentralization through either devolution or de-concentration i Devolution is the transfer of authority over forest resources to (democratically elected) local governments, which may further delegate authorities to different kinds of user groups. ii De-concentration (plus delegation) is the transfer of authority to a line agency (e.g. the Forestry Department) authorizing it to delegate (hand-over) management of specified forest resources to different kinds of (self-established) user groups.


The central question is how the central and local governments promote the triple objective of DFM “on-the-ground”?

Forest Conservation This may be ensured by making DFM contingent on forest managing communities‟ actual implementation of specified procedures and guidelines for sound forest utilization (law-defined minimum requirements to management planning and implementation). Yet, technical requirements more sophisticated than those official agencies, which manage similar resources, must live up to, are probably not justifiable, nor are they likely to be essential.

Poverty Reduction The economic rationale of decentralized forest management, as an alternative to open access, is that the total value of the resource can be enhanced or at least maintained (through improved management) and that the costs and benefits can be distributed equitably (through improved governance).

Good governance This may first and foremost be promoted by giving local communities real and meaningful powers over forest resources as well as forest revenues. In addition, local-level decision-making must be transparent and follow democratic principles. Free-riding among users must be discouraged by effective but fair punishment systems. Community leaders must be made downwards accountable through transparent accounting systems that allow for mandatory public auditing. Moreover, there must be reasonable frequent elections of community leaders and clear procedures for when extraordinary elections can be called, e.g. based on votes of no confidence. a) Community Forestry (CF) in Nepal History: Practically all forest resources were nationalized in 1957. In 1957-1993: Forests were, de jure, controlled by the Department of Forests (DoF), but most forests were, de facto, open access resources. The resulting and quite conspicuous deforestation including its possible costs in terms of landslides and floods became a reason for growing political concern. The 1988 Master Plan for the Forestry Sector deemed the 1957 nationalization of forests a failure and stipulated legislative changes that would allow for and encourage the handing over of all accessible and suitable forest areas to appropriate user groups. In 1988-1993: Donors generously supported numerous pilot projects including massive “reorientation‟ programmes for DoF staff and in 1990: Democracy was restored for the second time in Nepali history. In 1993 a new Forest Act legalizing and promoting CF was passed in parliament. In 1995 the Forest Regulations including detailed procedures for implementing CF were passed in parliament. From 1993-present: Donors have generously supported decentralization forest management in Nepal.

Key Legal Features: District Forest Officers (DFOs) are authorized to “hand over” negotiated areas of state forest to local self-defined Community Forest User Groups (CFUGs). This is contingent on: a) A constitution being developed for the CFUG, b) An elected executive committee being established and c) A “sustainable” CF management plan being devised by the community and approved by the District Forestry Office (DFO). The DFO must support and guide this in accordance with the 1993 Forest Act and 1995 Forest Rules, i.e. the organizational approach is de-concentration and


delegation. The state remains the formal owner of CF land but: CFUGs get rights to access, extract, manage and exclude outsiders from their CFs. CFs can only be managed as common pool resources, i.e.: They cannot be sub-divided into individualized plots or outright sold to individuals or any other legal persons, however, they can be sub-divided into, e.g. women CFUGs over which men have no formal say. CFUGs are “legal persons‟ with perpetual succession (they do not need to renew their status as proprietors of their CF). CFUGs acquire full ownership to all products from their CF. Products from CFs may be sold to members or external buyers according to the CFUGs decision and at prices fixed independently by the individual CFUG. No royalties are to be paid. However, some DFOs attempt to collect a disputed 15% “company tax” on revenues arising from sale of CF products to “outsiders”. Results Facts based on official monitoring: About 3.5 million ha of the country’s 5.5 million ha of forest is estimated to be suitable for CF. Since 1993, at least 0.85 million ha or some 23.5% of the potential CF area has been handed over to CFUGs. The total number of CFUGs is around 12,000, including approximately 1.2 million households. Effects on forest conservation: It seems very positive but many CFs also appear “under-utilized‟. There have been no formal attempts to estimate the forest conservation effect of CF across the country. Yet, there have been very few cases of DFOs “taking back‟ CFs due to over-harvesting or other mismanagement. Effects on poverty reduction: No official or unofficial national estimates exist, however, a survey in Nepali fiscal year 2003/4 of 1,958 CFUGs shows that: Their total CF derived income was approx. US$ 1.0 million making up around 30% of the CFUGs total income. Of CFUG expenditures, 22% are spent on CF management, 51% on community development, 15% on development of the CFUG organizations and 12% on activities specifically for poor people. The accumulated assets (outstanding loans, bank balances and cash holdings) of CFUGs were approx. US$ 1.0 million.

Effects on governance: No official or unofficial estimates have been published nor does a “governance monitoring scheme‟ exist (it is an emerging and hitherto under-researched area). Anecdotal information and a few case studies, however, report that: a) Many CFUGs have experienced cases of embezzlement and, thus, toppled executive committees, which indicates that “ordinary‟ people are beginning to exercise their democratic rights and bring about downwards accountability of their elected leaders. b) CUFGs have established a national interest organization; the Federation of Forest User Groups Nepal (FECOFUN), which is capable of raising its voice on CF policy issues at the national level. c) Some residents or occasional forest users are not accepted into the CFUG although they would like to become members (minority interests/rights are not legally secured and not always respected). d) Some CFUGs are dominated by influential individuals who bend group decisions to their personal benefit (elite capture).


e) When the terms of local government members ran out under the King’s recent period of direct rule, networks of CFUGs often took over the administration of public investments and services (health, education, infrastructure, etc.). This indicates that CFUGs are often considered very credible organizations.

b) Participatory Forest Management (PFM) in Tanzania History: There was political concern over dwindling and degrading forest resources. A number of donor-supported pilot projects were implemented during the 1990s. In 2002, the current Forest Act, which provides a clear legal basis for the Participatory Forest Management (PFM), was passed.

There are two different types of PFM:

i. Community-based forest management (CBFM) Village governments may declare (and ultimately gazette) forest reserves within their territory. This applies on hitherto unreserved forest land. Village governments become the official owners of such forests and their products (Devolution).

ii. Joint Forest Management (JFM) Communities may sign joint management agreements with representatives of local or the central government on sharing responsibilities, costs and benefits of managing government forest reserves. Under JFM, the forest reserves remain under government (central or local) ownership (De-concentration). Facts based on official survey in 2006: Community-Based Forest Management and Joint Forest Management The area of forest under CBFM is 2.06 million ha. The area of forest under JFM is 1.61 mill. ha The number of declared or gazetted village land forest reserves is 382. The number of forest reserves under JFM is 209. The number of villages engaged in CBFM is 1,102 and the number of villages engaged in JFM is 719. Most common forest types under CBFM Miombo, acacia and costal woodlands. Most common forest types under JFM Montane forest and Mangroves % of public land forests now under CBFM 10.2% % of government forest reserves under JFM 11.6%.

Results Since Participatory Forest Management (PFM) is relatively new in Tanzania, no large scale systematic monitoring of the effects have yet been launched. Accordingly, the below listing of general results should only be considered as indicative. Effects on forest conservation: • Seems very positive for both CBFM and JFM. However, some CBFM forests appear harvested well below their capacity. Effects on poverty reduction: Most JFM arrangements appear heavily focused on forest conservation, thus, offering very few benefits for the local people. Forests under CBFM, on the other hand, are often generating locally significant incomes.


Effects on governance: Many CBFM villages have experienced cases of embezzlement and, thus, toppled executive committees, which indicates that ordinary people are beginning to exercise their democratic rights and bring about downwards accountability of their elected leaders. Some residents‟ or occasional forest users‟ interests are not well reflected in management plans (minority interests/rights are not legally secured and not always respected). Some CBFM villages are dominated by influential individuals capture). Acknowledged challenges and priorities for the Forest and Beekeeping Division: There is a need to do the following: rapidly bring more forest under PFM (to prevent ongoing deforestation and forest degradation), increase “legal literacy” among rural forest managers on how they may legally benefit from, own and utilize forest land under the 2002 Forest Act, increase the awareness and capacity of district staff and other PFM facilitators, develop ways of making JFM arrangements for high bio-diversity forests financially attractive to local communities, engage responsible private sector forestry enterprises (loggers, charcoal traders, etc.) in PFM in ways that maximizes benefits for both communities and the private companies and establish a national monitoring system for PFM and to support in-depth research on the effects of PFM.

Similarities and Differences in Community Forestry (CM) in Nepal & PFM in Tanzania Similarities: • Political concern over the wider results of dwindling and degrading forest resources. • Political commitment to “democratize” forest resource management and reduce rural poverty. • Substantial donor support during testing, refinement and implementation of the concept. • Substantial and meaningful powers over forest resources and revenues are transferred from central governments to local levels, but this is contingent on decentralized management being sustainable. • Forest products are mainly consumed domestically. Differences: CF in Nepal follows the principle of de-concentration while PFM in Tanzania follows the principle of devolution (CBNRM) as well as de-concentration (JFM). Decentralized forest management in Tanzanian and Nepal; Is DFM relevant in Ghana’s High Forest Zone (HFZ)? (Treue 2009) Some unfulfilled issues in the 1994 Forest & Wildlife Policy: Guiding Principles: The Government of Ghana recognizes and confirms: The need to develop a decentralized participatory democracy by involving local people in matters concerned with their welfare. In view of the importance of local people in pursuing these principles the Government proposes to place particular emphasis on the concept of participatory management and protection of forest and wildlife resources and will seek to develop appropriate strategies, modalities and programmes in consultation with the relevant agencies, rural communities and individuals.

Policy Statements:


The Forest and Wildlife Policy of Ghana aims at conservation and sustainable development of the nation’s forest and wildlife resources for maintenance of environmental quality and perpetual flow of optimum benefits to all segments of society.

Manage and enhance Ghana’s permanent estate of forest and wildlife resource for preservation of vital soil and water resources, conservation of the environment and sustainable production of domestic and commercial produce. Strategies:

Encouragement of local community initiatives to protect natural resources for traditional, domestic and economic purposes, and support with the reservation of such lands to enable their legal protection, management and sustainable development.

Development of consultative and participatory mechanisms to enhance land and tree tenure rights of farmers and ensure access of local people to traditional use of natural products.


6.0 KEY SOCIO-CULTURAL FACTORS AFFECTING SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF FORESTS AND THEIR PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS FOR THE COCOA SECTOR This section deals with a review of ways in which social, cultural, economic and political factors can influence the shape and scope of forest management systems. The discussion will also deal with the implications for the cocoa sector by considering how these may affect the livelihoods of communities living in or close to forests. Among the various socio-cultural factors that shape the response of farmers and behavior of large-scale agricultural developers are as follows: Forest property regimes, forest land tenure, village institutions, natural resource ownership and use, illiteracy and poverty of farmers and politics, influence and power of large-scale operators in tree crop agricultural ventures.

6.1 Farming Systems in the Forest and Property Regimes As the farming system in the forest zone dictates, the farmer makes decisions and inputs in his farm during his farming activities by deciding which trees to cut and those to retain during land preparation, the seedlings/saplings to retain and nurse and protection and conservation of the trees retained as shade for the cocoa trees. In the past cocoa has been grown under shade as the recommended practice and that ensured also that important economic trees are maintained on the farm and there is minimum destruction of the forest. A few years ago the policy trend was towards the promotion of shade-less cocoa plantation development which obviously, resulted in increasing the rate at which important economic trees are being cut down on cocoa farms in the forest zone. Currently, the COCOBOD is promoting the inclusion of shade trees at the rate of 18 trees per hectare of farm. Owing to the fact that the farmer is not compensated for all the services provided in maintaining timber trees and not a beneficiary of timber revenues or any trickle down benefit from those who receive these benefits, farmers are not incentivized to maintain and take care of timber species on their farms. Finally, because of the inequity, the farmers invariably, invite illegal chain saw operators to come and cut the trees they do not need for shade on the farm because at least these operators give them some monetary payments. Lack of understanding of the tree tenure rule that a farmer can claim trees which he/she has planted once adequate proof to that effect is provided to the Forestry Commission, the farmers, rather than take care of high-value indigenous timber species would instead plant exotic trees than tend natural timber trees on the farm because he/she can prove ownership easily and can get the full benefit to share with the landlord if he/she is a tenant. The situation is, however, different in the Wassa Amenfi West, East and central; Enchi, Sefwi Wiawso, etc., farmers have planted economic timber trees on their cocoa farm. Smallholder farmers of SAMARTEX have planted economic timber trees too on their farms within these areas where the promotion of tree planting has been successful. Changes are required to deal with the inequity of benefit sharing regime to better reflect the roles and inputs of the stakeholders and the devolution of the rights to timber trees, in which much of the management decisions are transferred to the stakeholders (landowners, District Assemblies and farmers). The problems associated with the promotion of shade-free cocoa, in which there is clear cutting of forests during cocoa farm development, need to be dealt with by engaging organizations involved in the transfer of this technology that is changing the traditional and


sustainable practices that the farmers have been used to and which has also been shown to be unproductive in the long-term. Both of these changes are expected to increase equity and economic incentives to tend natural timber trees

6.2 Forest Land Tenure The Land Tenure Framework (Land Ownership and Use and benefit arrangements) is important in natural resource management decisions. These forest management decisions by farmers and rural land-using communities are significantly affected by land-use norms and tenure arrangements, which are backed by existing legislation and customary laws as exemplified from the following table adapted from Otsuka et al., (2003) that provides an overview of basic tenure arrangements for most farming communities in the High Forest Zone. There are various land tenure arrangements in Ghana and generally a person in Ghana is able to claim land or bundles of user rights to the resources on the land through the act of clearing the existing vegetation and then planting crops or trees. According to custom, lands cannot, however, be claimed through clearing without the proper authorization. In the case of a sharecropper, if lands are given out but the land is not cleared within a given time period, the sharecropper’s right to cultivate the land is nullified (Asare et al., 2010). The table below shows the various land tenure categories that are also associated with the benefit sharing arrangements from the forest and which are structured such that there are enough incentives for those operating on the land to take care of the forest and its trees: Table 6. 1: Land Tenure Arrangements in the High Forest Zone*

Land Tenure Category

Description

Family Land In a matrilineal inheritance system, which is the most common in all of the Akan ethnic groups, land is transferred to a deceased man’s matrilineal relatives (brothers or nephews), but not to his wives or children. In the less common patrilineal inheritance systems, land is transferred from fathers to sons. Land can also be temporarily allocated to matrilineal family members, as in the case of a family landholder transferring land to his niece or cousin for food crop production or cocoa cultivation.

Village Land Land owned by the customary authority or Stool can be given to community members for cultivation.

Purchased Land Land owned by the Stool can also be sold to individuals. This was more common when forest lands were in abundance.

Gifted Land The giving of gifts developed as a way of circumventing traditional Akan matrilineal inheritance, which excludes wives and children. Legally, under PNDC Law 111, a portion of a person’s estate goes to the spouse(s) and children; however, this does not necessarily apply to ‘family land’. Nonetheless, farmers have used this option as a means of intentionally giving land to spouses, children, or other relatives.

Share-cropping/Renting

Migrant farmers rent parcels of land from landowners. In the case of cocoa, the renter is obliged to clear the designated area and plant it with cocoa. Once the trees are mature, the parcel is either divided evenly (Ebunu) or in a 2:1 arrangement (Ebusan) between the landowner and


renting farmer and for the duration of the life of the cocoa the renter retains strong user rights. Renting can also occur on a seasonal or short-term basis when land is rented to plant food crops.

Caretaking Men work as caretakers of mature cocoa farms for which they receive one third of the harvested crop.

Borrowed Land This refers to land that is borrowed from non-relatives. Source: Adapted from Otsuka et al. (2003). * This table represents land tenure arrangements for the Akan ethnic groups. Land tenure arrangements in other areas of Ghana and amongst other ethnic groups are somewhat different. In practice, Stool Lands are managed in a pluralistic framework in which both statutory and customary laws prevail. Multiple tenure arrangements differentially determine who is allowed to use the land or forest resources and how the land and natural resources may be used. For example, parcels of land within a particular Stool’s territory and the usufruct rights to the resources on the land can be claimed by individuals or families and then be passed down or inherited over generations. Such individual ‘landowners’ can also lease or rent their land to migrants or fellow community members, although this type of contract can be quite specific about how the land and resources may be used by the migrant or sharecropper and is often subject to approval by the traditional authority. Of particular importance is the potential, under Ghana’s customary tenure system, for oral legal arrangements that are not written down or recorded, but are recognized by the whole community (Asare et al., 2010). These socio-cultural arrangements have intrinsic advantages in motivating those who work on the land, be they the land owners themselves or their tenant workers, to take care of trees on their farms because of the obvious benefits that they derive from responsible management of the forest

The Community Resource Management Areas Tenure Modality CREMAs are a relatively new tenure modality in which resident communities in important wildlife or biodiversity areas are given increased tenure security and natural resource management rights. The CREMA concept offers opportunities for generating revenue and benefit-sharing outside the normal legal framework. Although the original focus was on sustainable bush meat production and ecotourism, however, CREMAs provide a workable natural resource management mechanism in off-reserve landscapes. Its intrinsic value in fostering community organization and cohesion would serve as a key asset in organizing communities to join in the efforts of promoting sustainable forest management practices CREMAS and DFs offer real promise in the absence of tree tenure reform (Asare et. al 2010)

6.3 Potential Power of Village Institutions The centralized forestry and wildlife polices in the past have resulted in the degradation of forest resources and deprived farmers and forest-dependent communities from productively continuing with their traditional livelihood systems based on the forests. For this reason, there has been a gradual shift towards decentralized natural resources control and governance and models to include communities and farmers in governing their natural resources. Local institutions, both formal and informal are the basis of local governance and their associated processes of governance at the grassroots level provides an appropriate platform to the local stakeholders who are directly associated with the benefits of the forest on which they depend, to voice their opinions in making decisions concerning their resources. Strong local institutions provide the platform for social organization, leadership development, decision-making and getting things


done. Due to their social position in the communities, they provide flexibility, cost effectiveness and ability to promote an all-inclusive approach. The involvement of local institutions is a valuable intervention and can lead to equitable and sustainable availability of natural resources. Strong village institutions enhance community assets and increase the effectiveness of external support. Forming and strengthening village institutions contributes to local governance reform and to the development of rural civil society and these are assets that could be harnessed in the management of the country’s dwindling forest resources.

6.4 Natural Resource Ownership and Use The regime governing the property ownership of natural resources is often an emotional issue that requires a balancing of the claims of private ownership, communal and customary rights, and state ownership. The resolution of ownership is often the most contested aspect of constitutional negotiations on natural resources. However, ownership is often misunderstood as resolving the related issues of the management, control and sharing of revenues from natural resources. In fact, the rights and benefits of ownership can vary and are often limited by legislation (Haysom and Kane 2009). The constitution is explicit concerning the ownership of trees in Ghana’s forests. Ownership is distinct from control and the sharing of natural-resource benefits - the drivers of conflict in situations where there are divided and vested interests. While ownership is an important element of an overall natural-resources framework, it does not necessarily answer the questions of who manages, regulates and makes money from natural resources the drivers of conflict. This can be determined separately by other parts of the constitution or through future legislation (Haysom and Kane 2009). In other words, it is not necessary for the parties to agree on who owns the resources in order to agree a framework for development of the resource and revenue-sharing. The allocation of legislative and executive authority over natural resources determines who has the ability to make and administer laws relating to the development and exploitation of natural resources. This is potentially much more important than the question of ownership because the power to legislate and regulate natural-resources development, not ownership) determines the rights, and the limits of the rights, of ownership. Very often legislative and executive authorities are coupled with the right to collect revenues from the exploitation of natural resources, but this does not have to be the case. Despite the often intense focus on provisions related to the ownership of natural resources, in many senses it is the collection and distribution of the revenue benefits that is at the core of the debate. The transparent and fair generation, collection and sharing of natural resources revenues can be a determining factor of the viability of the Constitutional provisions. The role and the capacity of the Forestry Commission to discharge its mandated functions effectively and efficiently then becomes very crucial in the debate of transparent and efficient collection of natural-resources revenues, how the revenues are distributed and the timeliness of distributions to stakeholders

6.5 Effects of Agricultural Development and Mining Priorities, Power and Influence Half of the world’s plant and animal species are believed to live in rainforest, so destroying it is a sure way of wiping out large swathes of biodiversity. Species are put at risk not just when forest is burned but also when clearing cuts up the remaining forest into smaller and smaller fragments. Agricultural area expansion and consequent increased clearing of forest for cultivating industrial plantation crops (cocoa, oil palm, rubber etc.) and shifting cultivation (through the colonization of more land rather than increasing productivity) lead to increased forest encroachment,


deforestation and loss of endemic and other species of flora and fauna. Rainforest conversion involves the removal of natural forests to meet other land needs including mining of minerals pasture for cattle and agriculture. It is a major force in driving forest fragmentation/ loss and biodiversity (Laurance, 2010). The development of plantation tree crops and gold mining continue to rise in the forest areas of many West African countries, including Ghana, due to the favorable prices of cocoa, and oil palm and gold and increasing demand for bio-fuels. Local and foreign companies are buying very large tracts of land in many countries of West Africa to produce plantation and other crops (Critchley and Bruijnzeel, 1996). These companies are powerful in influencing decisions by government but their activities drive deforestation which has serious environmental consequences. Unfortunately, forest conversion is associated with a higher incidence of certain infectious diseases, including malaria. Forest clearance often creates new habitats, such as depressions where water can collect and mosquitoes, ticks, and fleas can breed (Critchley et al., 1996). With the increasing acquisition of land by foreign countries and firms in many Ghana for agricultural purposes, this trend in the destruction of forest would continue unless practical steps are taken to implement environmental regulation. Careful attention needs to be paid to the policies that guide the acquisition of large tracts of land in the forest zone for the production of industrial tree crops that impact negatively on the diversity of flora and fauna in the high forest zone.

6.6 Impacts of Illiteracy and Poverty of Farmers Illiteracy, the inability to read or write, limits people’s ability to carry out every day activities such as read signposts, understand medicine labels and machinery instructions, confirm commercial transactions and avoid being cheated. Illiteracy is closely linked to poverty both of which result in marginalization and non-representation in community and national affairs. There is clear evidence that once adults become literate, the benefits can extend beyond the individuals. For example: (i) They are more likely to send their children to school, encourage them to attend regularly and monitor their progress, (ii) The health and nutritional practices of their families may be improved, (iii) Participants take an informed interest in protecting the environment and (iv) There is growth in community capacity, solidarity and a greater awareness of their rights as citizens (DFID 2002).

The cost of illiteracy in the forestry sector in Ghana is exemplified by the observation that the state gives right of tree tenure ownership if the landowner can provide evidence that the tree(s) were planted and maintained by the landowner or caretaker. The problem is that most landowners are illiterate and unaware of the dispensation in the policy rules and hence they have unintentionally forfeited their tree tenure rights simply because they do not know what their rights are and how to go about accessing these rights. The implications of this situation to the forestry sector are several. Because landowners and farmers cannot satisfy the policy requirements they do not get what belongs to them and this also results in a disincentive for them to maintain and protect trees on their farms that which consequently leads to more forest degradation. Literacy skills can help farmers to understand the tree tenure rules and sustainable environmental management practices and help them develop the confidence to participate more actively in public meetings, understand their rights and play a more leading role in community affairs. This observation underscores the importance of including training and capacity building programs aimed at illiterate farmers and landowners who are missing the opportunity to capitalize on the dispensations provided by the government relating to tenure rights and benefit sharing mechanisms.


6.7 Significance of Social and Cultural Values Attached to Forests Social and cultural values are attached to forests, livelihoods and economic values of forest products including recreation and well-being values. There is a good example to demonstrate the social functions of forests in the Fosu area of the central region of Ghana and how it could be scaled-up in efforts to protect the rainforest of Ghana. The people in the Fosu area, in order to remember their ancestors who lost their lives in tribal conflicts with the Ashantis, they decided to preserve their former settlements sites in the forest, where their ancestors lived and died, as a memorial. They then adopted traditional rules to prevent anyone from undertaking any destructive activities in the forest apart from the performance of socio-religious rites at annual occasions. The integrity of the forest was maintained for a long time until economic pressure and greed caused some leaders and recalcitrant people to start plundering the resources. This was when those in favor of preserving the forests sought the assistance of the Forestry Department in 1992 to assist them to protect the forests. Social and cultural values attached to forests, livelihoods and economic well-being provide an opportunity for local communities to protect sacred groves or otherwise locally-valued off-reserve forests and to receive economic benefits through community forestry management. Some of the benefits include possible artisanal harvesting of timer and the collection on non-timber forest products (NTFPs) (Asare, 2009). The significance of social and cultural values in the lives of rural communities offers an opportunity for protecting and managing forests in the rainforest.

6.8 Significance of Gender Considerations in the Forestry Sector and Trees Although more women are agricultural producers in Ghana, they are often marginalized in terms of provision of credit, extension services, training, and other capacity-building programs because of various socio-cultural constraints. Unequal distribution of education is another critical factor in the misuse of women’s contributions in agricultural production. Considering their cultural heritage and continued central role in agriculture (production, processing and marketing), it is a major paradox that their representation is so low in areas where agricultural extension workers and other technicians and support staff in forestry offer training and technical assistance (Juma 2011). It is vital to put more emphasis on involving women in agriculture, forestry and innovation, as well as, helping female farmers in the cocoa sector build their capacity to participate in decision making processes and to adopt sustainable natural resource management practices and increase their productivity

6.9 Socio-Economic, Cultural and Technological Tools Influencing Forest Management Practices

A case study is used here to learn lessons from Brazil, which offers deep insights into the power of using various socio-cultural, political and technological strategies to control the drivers of deforestation and reduce forest degradation (The Economist September, 2013) - How Brazil is using education, technology and politics to save its rainforest). “When Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva became president in 2003 his government, under pressure from public opinion and foreigners, turned against deforestation. From 2003 his environment minister, Marina Silva, started giving greater protection to land in the Amazon and beefed up the federal environmental police, the Ibama. Centres of illegal logging, such as Paragominas, were put on a blacklist. Ms Silva was greatly helped by a combination of remote sensing and a Brazilian NGO, Imazon. Brazil’s space agency published figures on deforestation, but only on an annual basis, nearly a year in retrospect and without a map, so nobody knew exactly where the trees were


coming down. Beto Verissimo, who founded Imazon to use science for the benefit of the rainforest, realized that NASA’s Modis satellite collected data that could be published monthly and would also show were the damage was being done. In 2007 Imazon started processing NASA’s data and publishing them within a few weeks of being collected.

Partly because of rising prosperity and partly because of international attention, Brazilians were getting more interested in the fate of the Amazon. Newspapers started putting Imazon’s data on their front pages. State governors had to respond to them on national news programmes. Month after month, Mato Grosso and Pará were found to have the highest rates of deforestation. In 2008 the government ratcheted up the pressure, publishing a list of the 36 municipalities with the worst records. Seventeen, including Paragominas, were in Pará state. Being blacklisted did not just bring public humiliation to the citizens of Paragominas, it also hit their wallets. Businesses in municipalities on the list were not eligible for cheap credit from state-owned banks. Adnan Demachki, Paragominas’s mayor, saw that Greenpeace’s boycott of soya produced from Amazonian estates was hitting the soya farmers of Mato Grosso and realized that something similar was about to happen to the beef producers of Pará. He went round making speeches to local groups to persuade them that deforestation had to stop.

The federal public prosecutor in Pará, Daniel Avelino, followed the supply chain back from the supermarkets through the beef companies to the ranchers to find out which animals had been produced on illegally deforested land, and threatened the supermarkets with prosecution. “They reacted fast,” says Mr Avelino. “It was about their brand, their visibility to the public.” Brazil’s supermarket association—which includes Walmart and Carrefour—said its members would stop buying beef from recently deforested land. This made Mr Avelino exceedingly unpopular. He received death threats and still travels with an armed guard. But he was not alone in applying economic pressure. The International Finance Corporation (IFC), the private-finance arm of the World Bank, withdrew a loan it had promised to Bertin, a big beef producer, to expand its facilities in the Amazon. Mr Demachki persuaded local trade associations to commit to stopping deforestation. In April 2008 he fined three farmers who were still at it. In October 2008 he was re-elected with 88% of the vote. But not everybody liked what was happening, and things came to a head that November night when the environmental-police station went up in flames. Since then deforestation in the municipality has pretty much stopped and Paragominas has become a model town. It has a Green Lake, a Green Stadium and a Green Park in the centre of town. A museum built from illegally felled, confiscated wood shows, with admirable neutrality, how Paragominas performed its U-turn on deforestation. Since the 1960s two-fifths of the municipality has been cleared of forest. The plan is for about 15% of the cleared area to go back to forest, and half of the rest to be left to cattle-ranching and half to arable farming.

In 2011 Simão Jatene, Pará’s newly elected governor, decided to replicate Paragominas’s achievements around the state. Central to this effort is the Cadastro Ambiental Rural (CAR), the rural environmental registry. Uncertainty about land tenure is a big administrative stumbling block in Brazil. Some farmers do not have title to the land they farm; some give money to people in whose name land is registered, known as laranjas—oranges—so that the real owners are not held to account for deforesting it. “If you have a speed trap but the cars have no numbers, that’s useless,” says Mr Avelino. Rather than try to delve into the history of every piece of land, the state governments in Mato Grosso and Pará are trying to get farmers to apply for a CAR certificate so the government knows who is using the land and how much forest it is supposed to have. Banks now require loan applicants to produce a CAR; beef companies will buy only from


farms with a CAR. In Pará the number of properties with a CAR has gone up from 600 in 2009 to 80,000 now.

Deforestation in Pará has more or less come to a halt. In the Brazilian Amazon as a whole, it has fallen from 28,000 sq km in 2004 to under 5,000 sq km last year (see chart 6). Although small farmers continue to clear land in areas where the authority of the state is weak, the big beef and soya companies that used to do it themselves or buy produce from those that did no longer want anything to do with it.

Brazil’s success—so far—demonstrates how many elements have to come together to make such policies work. You need clear direction not just at the top but all the way through government. Ms Silva’s determination was crucial, but if her views had not had the support of Mr Jatene, Mr Avelino and Mr Demachki, she would not have got far. You need administrators with enough imagination to find novel solutions: the CAR was a way around an apparently insuperable land-tenure problem. You need a functioning police force: if the Ibama had not been effective, the politicians’ and prosecutor’s intentions would have been impossible to implement. You need businessmen whose conscience or share price induces them to change their supply chains. You need NGOs, such as Greenpeace and Imazon, to badger business and government to do things differently. You need independent media to pick the story up and run with it. And, crucially, you need a public that cares: if voters and consumers were indifferent, none of this would happen.

Help from foreigners, especially Americans, has been important too—though, given Brazilian sensitivity to interference by gringos, some of them keep quiet about it. Imazon’s Mr Verissimo was inspired by Chris Uhl, an American field ecologist working in Pará in the 1980s who is now a professor at Penn State. Imazon was founded with grants from USAID and the MacArthur Foundation. The Ford Foundation funded a sustainable forestry project in Paragominas. NASA provides the satellite data that Imazon publishes. Google has built a platform to allow Imazon to process the data more quickly and cheaply, and Imazon is now training people from other rainforest countries to use it. Mr. Lovejoy’s forest-fragments project has been running for 30 years, bringing in a stream of foreign researchers, employing Brazilian scientists and pointing out the consequences of slicing the forest up into little bits. Greenpeace’s international campaign against Brazilian soya, beef and leather put pressure on global businesses such as Walmart, Carrefour and Nike, and that put pressure on Brazilian companies. So although globalization exacerbated deforestation by boosting demand for Brazilian produce, it is also part of the solution.


The problem is still not solved once and for all. Deforestation rates may rebound. If locals can prosper without chopping trees down, there is a good chance that the rest of the forest will survive. If they can’t, it won’t”

7.0 FACTORS SHAPING TREE POLICY FORMULATION AND IMPLEMENTATION

A core concern and commitment of leaders in the forestry sector in advancing the sustainable practices is to establish a policy enabling environment for the implementation of forestry interventions. To tackle the long-documented problem of unclear tree tenure and other regimes, the government needs to create policies that provide incentives that would motivate farmers to get involved in the planting of and caring for timber species on their farms and desist from environmentally negative practices that lead to forest degradation. In order to create the right conditions for policy development and reform, it is important to recognize and take into consideration the factors that affect the policy development, implementation and monitoring and evaluation processes This section examines the factors that affect the components of the policy-making and implementation processes and to show how they serve as barriers/constraints that could stifle effective policy change. Institutional Architecture is defined as the set of procedures and processes for data collection and analysis, consultation and dialogue, policy proposal, feedback, approval, implementation, and enforcement (USAID 2013). Institutional Architecture provides an approach for conducting analysis of a country’s capacity to undertake a particular sector policy change, by identifying policy design options and implementation barriers and coordinating actions across public and private institutions). This approach involves identifying key requirements that affect the policy development process, namely: the guiding national policy framework; the key institutions that hold primary responsibility for development and implementation; inter-ministerial coordination mechanisms; private and civil society organizations, as well as think tanks and research organizations, that impact and influence the sector’s policy change process. These factors are then examined in the context of the broader economic and social dynamics that impact the policy change environment. The next step in the process is to identify the factors that allow the policymakers to undertake transparent, inclusive, predictable, and evidence-based policy change. This methodology has been used in Ghana to assess the capacity of the government for food security policy reform (Callihan and Azu, 2013). There are six factors that affect the policy making implementation and monitoring and evaluation processes and each of these has associated indicators that need to be fulfilled because of their effect on the change process. This approach is used to identify the factors that influence the policy development, implementation and monitoring and evaluation processes. a) Factors that influence or shape the development of policy: The six global factors that shape policy formulation are listed and discussed below:

1. Guiding Policy Framework 2. Policy Development and Coordination 3. Inclusivity and Stakeholder Consultation 4. Evidence-based Analysis 5. Policy Implementation 6. Mutual Accountability


It should be understood that the indicators under each of the global factors constitute the ancillary factors that shape the development of policy. Included here are various questions that should be answered in order to determine the status. The questions to ask in order to understand the importance of each global factor and its ancillary factors are also listed below under each global factor. 1. The Guiding Policy Framework It is important to know whether the Guiding Policy Framework is predictable as will be demonstrated by the ancillary factors. The associated ancillary factors/indicators that constitute this global factor are:

a. Clearly defined and consistent policy framework b. Predictability and transparency of the policy-making process c. Clear and functional legislative system d. Appropriate dispute resolution process/judicial framework e. Clearly defined institutional responsibilities

Questions to ask:

What are the relevant laws, regulations, and policies governing the policy development process?

What are the strategic frameworks governing the identification and prioritization of reform needs?

Policy frameworks in the country: The policy frameworks underlying the growth and development of Ghana’s economy, agriculture, trade, forestry and others are enshrined in the GSGDA and the PRSD. The international regulatory policies adopted by the country are also important considerations during policy formulation and implementation process among which are the following:

The Economic Environment including price and taxation for government revenue generation The process of a liberalized economic environment is reflected in policies regarding land, forest, industry, trade and social concerns which have significant effects on the natural resources on the localand national levels. For example, in the face of rapid economic growth, extra donor-funded investments into the sector such as during the Economic Recovery program era for more extraction of timber and the goal of government to raise more revenue from the sector, the policies were skewed in favor of more exploitation. When not taken into consideration during policy development, this led to a breakdown of local management systems and inability of local communities and institutions in managing forests and forest land. During policy development, these factors need to be weighed against the effect they have on farmers and forest-dependent communities so that they do not create disincentives for these stakeholders to adopt sustainable forestry practices. The Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) with the European Union, in the context of Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT), is aimed at achieving a system in which only legally logged timber will be allowed to be exported to the EU market. Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) plus Forest Conservation, Sustainable Management of Forests, and Enhancement of Forest Carbon Stocks in Developing


Countries. REDD+ offers monetary incentives that can complement Ghana’s efforts to conserve what remains of its forest reserves Millennium Development Goal 7 The Millennium Development Goals and targets come from the Millennium Declaration signed by 189 countries in September 2000. 2. Policy Development and Coordination The Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources (MLNR) has the lead responsibility for developing policies and coordination of activities in the forestry and wildlife sector. Policy development and coordination will be affected by these global and ancillary factors: Ancillary factors:

a. Approved forestry and wildlife strategy/investment plan b. Predictable policy agenda and priorities development c. Annual work plans d. Functioning coordination process e. Secretariat/administrative support function f. Technical capacity g. Political support and approval h. Engagement of parliament/legislative body

The questions to ask are as follows:

Who initiates the policy reform process? (Prime Minister/President, Ministries, Parliamentary subcommittees, private sector, civil society)

What are the primary organizations or groups responsible for policy development? (Prime Minister/President, Executive, Ministries, Parliamentary subcommittees, judicial)

What supporting organizations feed into the policy development process, and how does this engagement look like? (Political (political parties, donors, regional organizations, Private sector - business, professional, and trade associations, Civil society -media, research organizations, NGOs, women’s groups)

What is the nature of the relationship between the actors? What are the social influences at this stage of the policy reform process? (Social,

political, financial, technological, gender, or cultural) 3. Inclusivity and Stakeholder Consultation

What are the key laws, regulations and policies governing the consultation process? Is this process predictable?

What is the primary government organization charged with the consultative process? What is the process for consultation with: (Political - political parties, donors, regional

organizations, Private sector - business, professional, and trade associations, Civil society - media, research organizations, NGOs, women’s groups)

What are the social influences at this stage of the policy reform process? (Social, political, financial, technological, gender, or cultural)

Level of inclusive participation within the policy coordination management entity Capacity for outreach and communications (mechanism to share information on policy

implementation or policy issues with stakeholders).


Level of private sector/CSO participation – opportunity/space Private/CSO sector participation – capacity to participate

Drivers of change structures and actors in policy formulation The political elite and technocrats in charge of public institutions and resources may be driven by motives of serving their private interests resulting in corruption flourished and weakening of public institutions. Since they benefit from the status quo they may oppose desirable patterns of change. Pressure groups from private business that are benefitting from the status quo prevail on policy-makers. Although they understand the need for change and the types of policy reforms required to reverse the current situation, they are guided and motivated by their parochial interests. For instance, various studies have documented that the forest fees are below the actual willingness to pay for the timber, see e.g. Birikorang et al. (2007), Richards (1995) and Treue (2001). This means that a share of the actual value is distributed to the industry, rather than being captured in the form of forest fees. The low pricing of the resource is suspected to be a result of industries’ influence (“lobbying”) on the forest fiscal regime (policy and implementation).

Gender, Social and Economic Status Considerations Community forestry approaches assume that there is a harmonious local population which shares a common vision on Natural Resource Management (NRM). However, stratification of local communities by social and economic status, ethnic origin and gender is not often taken account of. Those groups whose livelihoods greatly depend on forest resources have least influence on decision-making processes and have the most insecure access to these resources. The significant involvement of women in small- scale agriculture (including cocoa farming) is an important factor to be considered among measures to improve the lot of farmers and forest-dependent communities. Up to 2/3 of the female population in rural areas is engaged in subsistence farming. Because of women’s significant contribution to agriculture and the number of constraints, especially limited access to productive resources like improved inputs, extension, and marketing facilities which limit their productivity, their views are important in the policy formulation process. The expansion of rural investments livelihood activities promotion for farmers and forest-dependent communities is likely to have more beneficial effect on women, the majority of whom are among the poor in the rural areas. The perspectives of women are important in policy formulation aimed at mainstreaming gender and vulnerability issues into forestry development planning and management.

Level of consultations among various stakeholders usually with vested and conflicting interests Different and often conflicting interests, aspirations and objectives of various stakeholders with respect to land tenure, resource use and forest management affect decision in policy making and implementation remain a major problem in policy development and implementation. On examination of interests of main beneficiaries and negatively-affected persons, private enterprises, state organizations, the urban population and global community, it becomes obvious that the local population needs sometimes conflict with private, national and (international) interests. Not taking cognizance of this integrated, rather than sectoral approach to harmonizing needs, may and does result in the formulation of forest policies that ignore the needs of the people whose livelihood depends on the forest and other natural resources. This situation eventually results in the displacement of community-based cultures and break-up of well-established common property resource traditions and must be considered. The ability of stakeholders to get together and contribute to the dialogue process in forestry development is


required to balance all the vested interests and present a representative position on policy issues. This requirement of diverse stakeholders to have a representative position weighs heavily on policy development and implementation and must be considered.

Coordination of effort by various stakeholders to reduce the dominance of sectoral strategies: The number of stakeholders influencing forestry decisions with their various sectoral agenda and the lack of centrally coordinated platform only leads to the dominance of vested interests and marginalization of the weaker stakeholders. For example, there is a problem of having both an NREG policy and legislative review process driven by the Ministry and a Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) policy and legislative review process managed by the Forestry Commission. Similarly it is not useful to have a consultative framework for VPA implementation that is completely divorced from the consultation framework for natural resource management. Lack of consideration of this factor in policy development only leads to poor support for policies developed. 4. Capacity for Evidence-Based Analysis Policy development requires evidence-based data to underpin the policy under consideration and to avoid other social discourses, influences by power-brokers and political considerations in the process Ancillary factors:

Availability of economic and financial analysis as a component of planning: Availability of performance monitoring measures and targets Availability of quality data for policy making Inclusion of analysis in the policy development process Capacity to monitor policy implementation and results Established annual performance measurement report production and review Existence of independent analysis capacity

The questions to ask relating to availability, access and use of evidence-based data are as follows:

What is the primary government organization overseeing data collection and analysis? What are the supporting organizations involved in objective policy analysis and review,

and how does this feed into the policy reform process? (Ministries, Research institutes, universities, private sector associations, regional organizations, donors)

What are the social influences at this stage of the policy reform process? (Social, political, financial, technological, gender, or cultural).

5. Capacity for Policy Implementation Turning policy into practice: It is common to observe a gap between what was planned and what actually occurred as a result of a policy. The policy implementation process must be characterized by a high degree of predictability and transparency, monitoring and evaluation and review platform that must be effective at reviewing and guiding the detailed implementation actions of the key ministries responsible for the sector’s activities. Gunn (1978 in Hunter 2003) has identified ten common barriers to effective health policy implementation:


a. The circumstances external to the implementing agency impose crippling constraints b. Lack of adequate time and sufficient resources c. The required combination of resources is not available d. The policy to be implemented is not based on a valid theory of cause and effect e. The relationship between cause and effect is indirect and there are multiple intervening

links f. Dependency relationships are multiple g. There is a poor understanding of, and disagreement on, objectives h. Tasks are not fully specified in correct sequence i. There is imperfect communication and coordination j. Those in authority are unable to demand or obtain perfect compliance

The ancillary factors are as follows: Implementation plans developed System in place to analyze implementation capacity constraints Forestry and Wildlife sectors’ policy priorities aligned with work plans of line ministries Policy implementation budget committed by the government Supplemental implementation funds secured Monitoring and Evaluation

The pertinent questions to ask are the following:

What policy tools are needed to implement the decision? (Legislation, Regulation, Directives, Training)

What are the organizations with direct responsibility for implementation? (President, Executive, Ministries, Parliamentary sub-committees, judicial)

What are the organizations responsible for supporting implementation and how does this engagement look? (Private sector, civil society, regional organizations)

What are the social influences at this level of the policy reform process? (Social, political, financial, technological, gender, or cultural)

6. Mutual Accountability Mutual accountability means that all partners including government, donors and stakeholders involved in the sector hold each other to account on progress made against commitments to improve performance and aid effectiveness and results. In some countries, mutual accountability is being increased through more inclusive policy dialogue and through joint sector reviews and program monitoring exercises. Ancillary factors

A Forum Exists for Regularly Scheduled Donor-Government Meetings Joint Policy Priorities Developed Monitoring System Exists Donor Coordination – Alignment and Harmonization Private Sector Accountability CSO Sector Accountability

The pertinent questions to ask are the following:


a. Is there a Mutual Accountability forum, such as a Joint Sector Review, for regular donor/government meetings? (What organizations and actors are members of this forum? What private sector and civil society organizations support the forum? What is the nature of this support?).

8.0 RESULTS FROM FIELD SURVEY AND DISCUSSIONS This section reports on the findings from the field survey. It examines views of the various

stakeholders on Knowledge, benefit sharing and its impacts, challenges as well as

recommendations on tree tenure rules.

8.1 Knowledge and Information views across all stakeholder-groups

Figure 8.1: Knowledge of stakeholders on tree tenure

Knowledge of the tree tenure rules is important since it determines whether farmers are capable of knowing what the policy and the laws say and what dispensation is available for their benefit under the regime. Most stakeholders interviewed know the existence of the tree tenure rules, however, many of them (especially farmers and traditional authorities) got to know as a result of negative experiences they had with loggers who sometimes claim to have been given concessionary rights by the Forestry Commission. As predicted, the farmers and chainsaw operators happen to be the groups that are less knowledgeable among the stakeholders in the sector.


Figure 8. 2: Operational knowledge of key stakeholders

The research sought to get a view on stakeholders’ knowledge on how the rules operate since

knowledge of the rules does not automatically translate into the operational realities in field

implementation. Mostly, it is when the problems arise, due to conflicts with other stakeholders,

that some people realize the implications of the rules to their daily activities on their farms. This

situation has a tendency to heighten conflicts in the field. Majority of Civil Society

Organizations (85%), research institutions (80%) and legal loggers (100%), as expected, know

the rules and how they operate since they have been serving as assistance providers to farmers.

However, 55.6% of the chainsaw operators had no operational knowledge on tree tenure rules.

This may be partly due to the ban on chainsaw lumbering.

Figure 8. 3: Knowledge on procedure for ownership rights of trees


The Ghana tenure law makes provision for farmers to own trees if they can prove that they planted them. However, most farmers (75%) do not know how to get the authorities to grant them the ownership rights and thus forfeit their rights on account of lack of knowledge of the process. This figure was rightly disputed at the validation workshop because the interviews were conducted in areas where they do not know. If this study had been extended to the Wassa Amenfi areas, where there has been successful promotion, this figure would have been lower. On the average however, the knowledge base is low. Unfortunately, some of the traditional authorities (30%) who are custodians of the land and are expected to advise farmers on their rights are also in the category of stakeholders do not know how to get ownership rights. As expected most chainsaw operators (55.4%) do not know how to get the relevant authorities to grant them ownership rights. This implies many farmers and some traditional authorities have legally forfeited their rights of ownership to trees that they may have planted and or maintained. In the minds of farmers and traditional authorities’ trees on their farm belong to them; however, legally they are not the owners. Table 8. 1: Gender of Respondents * Knowledge on tree ownership in Ghana Cross tabulation

Knowledge on tree ownership in Ghana

Total Yes No

Gender of Respondents

Male Count 50 20 70

% within Gender of Respondents

71.4% 28.6% 100.0%

Female Count 40 10 50


80.0% 20.0% 100.0%

Total Count 90 30 120


75.0% 25.0% 100.0%

An attempt was made to disaggregate the response to knowledge on tree ownership according to

gender to see whether women are different in this respect. The results show that among the male

farmers interviewed 71.4% had knowledge of tree ownership rules as against 80% of the female

farmers.


Table 8. 2 Gender of Respondents * Knowledge on how it operates Cross tabulation

Knowledge on how it

operates

Total Yes No

Gender of

Respondents

Male Count 50 20 70

% within Gender of

Respondents 71.4% 28.6% 100.0%


% within Gender of

Respondents 60.0% 40.0% 100.0%

The research sought to get a view on women’s knowledge compared to men on how the rules operate. 71.4 % for male and 60% for women. Inferring from table 2 and table 3, it was evident that a higher percentage of women knew about the tree tenure rules than men, however, in terms of it operational modalities more men are knowledgeable about the operational modalities. This may be because it is the men who are mostly in the forefront on conflicts relating to trees in the farms. Generally, women resort to calling their husbands and mates when such problems arise and that could partly account for this observation.

8.1.1 Sensitization and awareness creation on tree tenure All the legal loggers (100%) who were interviewed by this study happen to have undergone some form of sensitization programs on tree tenure systems mostly from the Forestry Commission. However, 88.9% of chainsaw operators claim they have not had any sensitization program on tree tenure systems. This was not surprising partly because of the illegal and unorganized nature of the operations of most chainsaw operators. This finding provides an opportunity for the Forestry Commission to rope-in the chainsaw operators and curb the menace of indiscriminate felling of trees

Table 8. 3: Legal and Chainsaw operators who have received sensitization

Type of operator

Have you had any sensitization program on tree tenure in your area

Total Yes No

Legal Count 11 0 11

% within Legal or chainsaw operator 100.0% .0% 100.0%

Chainsaw operator

Count 1 8 9

% within Legal or chainsaw operator 11.1% 88.9% 100.0%

.


Table 8. 4 : Gender of farmers * Awareness Creation Cross-tabulation

Any Awareness Creation?

Total Yes No

Gender Male Count 30 40 70


42.9% 57.1% 100.0%



40.0% 60.0% 100.0%

Majority of both male (57.1%) and female (60%) farmers indicated that they have not had any form of sensitization programs either by the Forestry Commission or CSOs. This finding again present an opportunity for stakeholders involve in sensitization programs to increase the level of sensitization and awareness creation on tree tenure to bring farmers and loggers understanding of tree tenure issues to an appreciable level. Again, these findings were considered prejudiced because of the Wassa Amenfi areas were not covered by the survey. According to a contributor, elsewhere, in the Western Region like the Wassa Amenfi area, if the field study had taken place in the Wassa Amenfi areas of the Western region, a different scenario would have emerged. So an extension to cover those areas and may be parts of the Volta region could give a different picture.

8.1.2 Challenges associated with knowledge on tree tenure rules The study asked key stakeholders to identify key challenges related to tree tenure, majority of them as shown in the table above among other things mentioned high illiteracy rate among farmers as one of the key challenges. Poor knowledge on ownership rights, ignorance and low level of awareness were the other challenges mentioned. The issue of illiteracy and ignorance as identified is crucial for any participatory approach to forest management which targets the farmer. This is because many of the laws and legislations are not farmer friendly and therefore makes it difficult for the illiterate farmer to read and understand and appreciate his role in sustainable forest management Table 8. 5: Identified key challenges on knowledge of tree tenure rules Stakeholders

Identified Challenges on tree tenure rules Percentages (%)

Farmers Poor knowledge on Ownership Rights 16.7 CSOs Ignorance on the part of farmers 40 Research Institutions

High illiteracy rate amongst farmers Ignorance on the part of the farmers

30 30

Traditional Authorities

High Illiteracy rate amongst Farmers 40

Government Agencies

High illiteracy rate 10

Loggers High illiteracy rate Low level of awareness

20 10


. 8.2 Benefit sharing and its impact This section examines benefit –sharing experiences, including land tenure arrangements: views

and perspectives of all stakeholders including women.

Table 8. 6: Gender of farmers * Benefit Sharing Arrangement in place Cross-tabulation

Majority of male farmers (57.1%) interviewed said the only local benefit sharing arrangements known to them are the popular “Abunu and Abusa”. The rest of the male respondents (42.9%) said they had no idea of any local benefit sharing arrangements in place. 60% of the female respondents also mentioned “Abunu and Abusa” as against 40% who said they had no idea. What this means is that among farmers and landowners there are no locally recognized benefit sharing arrangements for tree crops. However, Abunu and Abusa seem to be working very well for other agricultural crops. Here again, although the findings hold true a different scenario is found in the Wassa Amenfi area where the Abusa has two variances: one where the fully matured cocoa trees are divided into 50;50 for both the tenant farmer and the landowner in this case, the land is divided into the 50/50 and each person owns the land and the matured cocoa; the other variant is the case where only proceeds from the sale of the produce is divided into the 50/50 between the farmer and the landowner. If the land use changes from cocoa to trees only then a new agreement would have to be signed between the farmer and the landowner (in this case the abusa is employed where the farmer takes 2/3 and the land owner 1/3. This arrangements may, however, differ from place to place and from region to region.

8.2.1 Local benefits sharing in place as revealed by other stakeholders. Most of the stakeholders interviewed identified at least one form of local benefit sharing arrangements operating in their communities. For instance among CSOs interviewed 65% said they know of Abunu and Abusa, 25% said they know of Social Responsibility Agreements (SRA) between community members and loggers. Only 10% of the respondents from CSOs mentioned Modified Tuangya System which is a direct benefit sharing arrangements on trees. The findings in table 7 below buttress the point that many of the benefit sharing models currently in place do not tackle issues between farmers and landowners, especially in situations of tenants, caretakers and migrants, who are usually the very people who maintain and in some cases plant trees. The situation where farmers get compensation after crop destruction and conflict resolution is also not an ideal way of whipping their interest to engage in sustainable forest management. There should be a mechanism which will inform them of future benefits right from the onset to galvanize their participation in sustainable forest management.

Farmers Benefit Sharing Arrangement in Place

Total Abunu and

Abusa No Idea

Gender of Respondents

Male Count 40 30 70

% within Gender of Respondents 57.1% 42.9% 100.0%

Female

Count 30 20 50

% within Gender of Respondents 60.0% 40.0% 100.0%


Table 8. 7: Local benefit sharing arrangements as identified by stakeholders Stakeholders Identified local Benefit Sharing Percentages of

respondents CSOs Abunu and Abusa 65 Social Responsibility Agreement

(SRA) 25

Modified Taungya System 10 TRADITIONAL AUTHORITIES

Abunu and Abusa 10 SRA 40 Royalties 40 Modified Taungya System 10 LOGGERS Agreement with the farmer on

compensation 20.0

Social Responsibility Agreement (SRA)

55.0

Special Support 10.0 Abusa 15.0 RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS Social Responsibility Agreement

(SRA) 30.0

Royalty Payment to Landowners 30.0 Land Rent Payments to Landowners 10.0 Compensation Payments to Farmers 10.0 Alternative Livelihood Support 20.0 GOVERNMENT AGENCIES SRA 20.0 No Specific Arrangements in place 40.0 Compensation paid to Farmers 30.0 Royalty payment to stool lands

10.0

8.2.2 Farmers views on impact of benefit sharing Most of the farmers interviewed indicated that the only benefit sharing arrangements known to them is the Abunu and Abusa, which are usually the sharing mechanisms for cocoa and food crops. Farmers claim that they do not benefit from any arrangement from trees felled from their farm. Indeed 91.7% of farmers claim they do not know other farmers who had benefitted from tree tenure arrangements. This situation has dis-incentivized some 61.7 % of farmers to plant and


or maintained trees. The remaining 38.3% who said otherwise, indicated that they plant and or maintained trees because they know of the numerous health and environmental benefits they derived from the trees and not as a result of any direct benefits. The consultants admit to the point that if the interview had been conducted in the Wassa Amenfi areas, the percentages would have been different because a lot of the farmers there now about tree planting and actually plant trees which they register with the Forestry Commission (FC)

Figure 8. 4: Views of government agencies interviewed on impact of benefit sharing

Views from Government agencies interviewed suggest that the current benefit sharing arrangements in place enhances farmers’ behavior to participate in forest management, enhances environmental management, and improves communal livelihoods among others as shown in the figure 4 above. Though their views on the positive impact of benefit sharing to the community, environmental management and communal livelihoods maybe right, their views that it enhances farmers behavior to participation in sustainable forest management may be far-fetched since farmers say they do not benefit from benefit sharing on trees and therefore are not incentivized to plant and or maintain trees on their farm. This could be a clear example of what some stakeholders think it is, but in real sense it is not.


Figure 8. 5: Views of research institutions interviewed on impact of current benefit sharing

Views from research institutions were very much in contrast to the views from government agencies interviewed. They believe that the impact has been very negative and counter-productive to sustainable forest management as the figure 5 above shows. These views from the researchers are very much in agreement with the concerns raised by farmers.

Figure 8. 6: Perception of loggers on impact of benefit sharing


Loggers also believe that environmental management, farmers/community incomes, access to trees and livelihoods are positively impacted by benefit sharing arrangements. However, some loggers (50%) said farmers’ behavior is negatively affected by the fallout of benefit sharing. On many occasions loggers and farmers have clashed on the latter’s farm due to conflicts arising from benefits not trickling down to the farmer. To this, loggers say usually force farmers to engage in practices and behaviors detrimental to sustainable forest management.

8.2.3 Perspective of stakeholders on the effect of benefit sharing on welfare, income and livelihoods.

Traditional authorities interviewed indicated that benefit sharing is usually channeled to provision of scholarships, renovations among others as shown in the above table 8. When they were asked whether they liked the current benefit sharing arrangements, as much as 80% said no. This reveals that the views of certain key stakeholders advocating for a review of the current benefit sharing are been collaborated by the disagreements of the chiefs. There is therefore the need to build consensus at the community level which captures the interest of all stakeholders.

Table 8. 8: Views of Traditional authorities interviewed on impact of benefit sharing on welfare and livelihoods

Frequency Valid Percent

Provision of Scholarship 2 20.0

Community Palace Renovation 2 20.0

Renovation of School Block 2 20.0

Electricity Poles 2 20.0

Building of Community Centre 1 10.0

Provision of School Furniture 1 10.0

Total 10 100.0

8.2.4 Views of loggers interviewed on impact of benefit sharing on welfare and community livelihoods

Loggers pointed out that they usually make payments to farmers, landowners, community leaders and Forestry Commission with the latter receiving the most. Even though key stakeholders receive some income from trees felled in the community, it is negligible to make any meaningful impact on community livelihoods and income in general.


Table 8. 9: Payment of fees by loggers

To whom do you make payments of trees felled Frequency Valid Percent

Farmers 4 20.0

Landowners 4 20.0

Forestry Commission (stumpage fee) 8 40.0

Community leaders 4 20.0

Total 20 100.0

Table 8. 10: Areas of Social Responsibility Agreement as stated by loggers

Loggers provide some social amenities to communities in which they operate. 35% said they provide wood and wood products, others (25%) provide iron sheets, electric poles (15%) whilst some also undertake renovations of structures in the communities. It is important to note that SRAs are supposed to be 5% of total stumpage fees to communities; however, SRAs are usually entered into before total stumpage fees are known. This implies that SRAs are based on unknown and understated values. This partly explains why communities complain about limited amount of income for major developmental projects.

Items provided by loggers to farming communities Frequency

Valid Percent

Provision of wood and other wood products 7 35.0

Provision of iron sheets 5 25.0

Cements 3 15.0


Projects renovation 2 10.0

Total 20 100.0


8.2.5 Views of farmers interviewed on impact of benefit sharing on welfare and community livelihoods

Table 8. 11: Effects of income on Livelihoods and wellbeing of farmers

Impact of Tenure Regimes on Wellbeing

FARMERS VIEWS

Destruction of Farms by timber Contractors

Low Productivity as a result of Illegal felling

Provision of Fuel -wood

Receive compensation from timber loggers

No economic rights

Provision of shade and shelter

Gender Male Count 30 10 10 10 0 10

% within Gender

42.9% 14.3% 14.3% 14.3% .0% 14.3%

Female Count 10 0 20 10 10 0

% within Gender

20.0% .0% 40.0% 20.0% 20.0% .0%

8.2.6 Views of Traditional Authorities interviewed on impact of benefit sharing on welfare and community livelihoods

There were mixed feelings on the impact of tree tenure regimes on wellbeing of farmers, for instance,

42.9% of the male respondents said the regimes through the activities of timber contractors destroy

their farms. Additional 14.3% of the male farmers said tree tenure regimes have resulted in low

productivity due to illegal felling of trees. However, another 42.9% of the male respondents said the

tree tenure regimes positively affect their wellbeing through the provision of fuel-wood, additional

income (through compensation) and shelter.

On the other hand, some 40% of female respondents said the tenure regime affects their wellbeing

through the provision and selling of fire-wood, another 20% of female respondents said it provides

them with income (through compensation). However, another 20% of the females indicated the regimes

lead to the destruction of their farms whilst the remaining 20% of women said the regimes do not give

them economic rights over the trees to affect their livelihoods. The above findings reveal that both

sexes agree on the fact that tree tenure regimes affect their livelihoods through the destruction of their

farms.


Table 8. 12: Traditional Authority’s response to community involvement in benefit sharing decision making process

Majority of the traditional authorities (90%) indicated that the community as a whole is not involved in decision making processes on benefit sharing, which may imply that only a few privileged or dominant persons or entities are consulted on behalf of the whole community. One observation during field survey revealed that sometimes forestry programs focus much attention on paramount chiefs and do not trickle down to the local chiefs. Table 8. 13: Areas where proceeds from benefit sharing are impacted according to the local Chiefs

How Proceeds are Used in Community Development Frequency Valid Percent

Provision of Scholarship 2 20.0

Community Palace Renovation 2 20.0

Renovation of School Block 2 20.0


Building of Community Centre 1 10.0

Provision of School Furniture 1 10.0

Total 10 100.0

Most of the benefits that accrue to the community go into infrastructure development specifically renovations of community schools and centers, school furniture among other things as shown in table 14 above. Clearly, nothing goes into community capacity building in forest management.

8.3 Constraints and challenges to tree tenure implementation All the stakeholders identified some challenges to the implementation of tree tenure rules. These are the bottlenecks that the stakeholders want removed in both policies/legislation and implementation of tree tenure rules. Some of the challenges as stated by the stakeholders are very similar in nature. This provides an opportunity for them to build consensus in an efficient and effective manner to confront common challenges. The table below summarizes all the identified challenges from the different stakeholders.

Table 8. 14: Challenges with tree tenure rules and implementation as identified by stakeholders Stakeholders Challenges Percentages RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS

No motivation to retain trees on farmland 20.0

Inadequate understanding of tree/cocoa interaction 10.0 Overlap of statutory Tenure and customary Tenure 10.0

Is the Community Involved in decision making process on Benefit Sharing? Frequency Valid Percent

Yes 1 10.0

No 9 90.0

Total 10 100.0


High illiteracy rate amongst farmers 30.0 Ignorance/Poor knowledge of tenure rights 30.0 FARMERS Ignorance on the part of Farmers 30.0 Socio-Cultural Norms 10.0 Economic Constraints 15.0 Lack of alternatives for forest dependent

communities 10.0

Poverty 25.0 Landownership issues a disincentive to plant 10.0 TRADITIONAL AUTHORITIES

Inaccessibility of trees in our farms 10.0 indiscriminate felling of trees in farmlands 30.0 Poor payment of compensation to farmers 20.0 High Illiteracy rate amongst Farmers 40.0 Stakeholders Challenges Percentages GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Problem of benefit sharing 40.0 Ownership Right Problems 40.0 Problem of Chain sawing 10.0 High illiteracy rate amongst farmers 10.0 LOGGERS High cost of timber extraction 10.0 How to minimize crop and soil damage during

harvesting 10.0

Lack of financial incentive for farmers to retain trees 20.0

High level of Unemployment 25.0 Scarcity of land for Agriculture 5.0 High illiteracy rate 20.0 Low level of awareness 10.0 CSOs Ignorance on the part of Farmers 30.0 Socio-Cultural Norms 10.0 Economic Constraints 15.0 Lack of alternatives for forest dependent

communities 10.0

Poverty 25.0 Landownership issues a disincentive to plant 10.0


8.4 The Law in practice 8.4.1 Impact of the lack of information/knowledge The effects of inadequate education and sensitization on tree tenure systems are self-evident;

farmers and other stakeholders engage in conflicts due to different peoples divergent views and

approach to the law in practice. The study sought to find out what people do in relation to how

the law is being applied. The findings reveal that stakeholders may want to avoid, misapply,

overlook, abuse and exploit the law due to inadequate knowledge or information flow among

stakeholders. This has been one of the biggest challenges to sustainable forest management

efforts in Ghana. As exemplified by the figure 7 below.

Figure 8. 7: Perspective of stakeholders to the law in practice


Figure 8. 8: Stakeholders views on reaction to the law in practice

Each stakeholder was made to give reasons why they believe the other stakeholder would want

to avoid, misapply, over-look, abuse and exploit the tree tenure system. Some local Chiefs (50%)

spoken to pointed to “corrupt practices” of other stakeholders as one of the reasons why others

behave the way they do in relation to how the law is being allied. Loggers also blamed it on

“ignorance” (45%) and “corrupt practices” (25%) of other stakeholders. CSOs also scored

“ignorance” (40%) and “corrupt practices” (35%) of other stakeholders as the main reasons why

people behave the way they do in tree tenure implementation. Government agencies interviewed

also gave “ignorance” (40%) and “corruption” (40%) equal weight as the main bane in tree

tenure implementation. Likewise, farmers concurred with the other stakeholders in scoring

“ignorance” (40%) but also scored “anger at the law” (33.3%) as the main reasons for other

stakeholders’ reaction to the “law in practice”. Inferring from the various answers, it is quite

clear that all the stakeholders are accusing each other of being ignorant of the law and corrupt as

well. It therefore stands to reason that in the eyes of each stakeholder he or she knows more than

the others resulting in divergent views and conflicts. Again, if all stakeholders perceive each

other as corrupt, it stands to reason that there is very little trust and honesty and to a larger extent

transparency in the implementation of tree tenure rules.


8.5 Suggested recommendations by stakeholders Table 8. 15: Proposed recommendation from government agencies on tree tenure

Proposed solutions on tree tenure challenges Frequency

Valid Percent

Awareness Creation on Tree Tenure 2 20.0

Review of Policy and Legislation to include farmers in Benefit Sharing

1 10.0

Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation 2 20.0

A Coordinated platform for all Government Sector Institutions

5 50.0

Total 10 100.0

Among the proposed solutions to challenges besieging tree tenure, 50% of government agencies interviewed proposed the need for coordination among all government institutions whose work is related to environmental sustainability for effective and efficient implementation. Another 20% said there should be more awareness and sensitization on the issue of tree tenure. Others (20%) also proposed a participatory approach to the issue of monitoring and evaluation this is because they consider M&E as weak.

Table 8. 16: Government agencies proposed recommendations on how to improve tree tenure implementation

Proposals to improve implementation Frequency

Valid Percent

Review of Legislation/Policy to include farmers in Benefit sharing

4 40.0

Community Participation in Forest Management 1 10.0

Establishment of alternative Livelihood Ventures 1 10.0

Strict and proper enforcement of Forestry Laws 2 20.0

Awareness Creation and Education of various Stakeholders 2 20.0

Total 10 100.0

On the implementation of tree tenure rules, 40% of the government agencies proposed the need to review the current legislation and policy on benefit sharing to include farmers who plant and or maintain trees on their farm as the policy is silent on this aspect of benefit sharing. Others (20%) stressed on the need for increased awareness creation. The rest proposed the need for alternative livelihoods for farmers to reduce their over-dependence on forest as their main livelihoods activity since this leads to over-exploitation of forest resources. Another 20% feel there should be strict and proper enforcement of forestry laws, because they believe some stakeholders are abusing the laws.


CSOs

Table 8. 17: CSOs proposed solutions in implementing environmentally sound management practices.

Proposed solutions from CSOs Frequency Valid Percent

FC should make seedlings available to farmers 2 10.0

Use PPP to create alternative income sources 1 5.0

Ensure Effective and Efficient Institutions 2 10.0

Proper and documented plan for Compensation to farmers 1 5.0

Increase Awareness Creation 5 25.0

Communities should be allowed to set their own Cultural laws

(CREMA) 3 15.0

Increase Community Participation in Forest Management 3 15.0

Proper Coordination amongst FC and COCOBOD 3 15.0

Total 20 100.0

Some CSOs (25%) interviewed believe that increasing awareness creation or sensitization is what will help farmers to implement environmentally sound management practices. Others (15%) believe communities should be allowed to set their own cultural laws aimed at protecting and conserving the forest. Another set of CSOs (15%) feel there is the need to increase community participation in forest management. Others (15%) observed that there is not much coordination between Ghana Cocoa Board and Forestry institutions. This they indicated has led to divergent views and approaches leading to conflicts among these two institutions even though both work with the same farmers. Another 10% of the CSOs proposed that the Forestry Commission should consider supplying tree seedling to farmers to plant and help them to register the planted seedlings in farmers’ name, instead of reaping in farmers’ farm where they have not helped in planting. From the above discussions it can be observed that CSOs favour community participation, strong institutional capability and linkages to address sustainable forest management.

Table 8. 18: Proposed recommendations from Research Organizations on how to improve tree

tenure

Proposals for improvement on tree tenure Frequency Valid Percent

Education and Awareness creation on tree tenure 1 10.0

Effective use of local governance structures 2 20.0

Review of Policies/Legislations to incorporate farmers into

benefit sharing 4 40.0

Research to determine the number of trees to be retained per unit

area 2 20.0

Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation 1 10.0

Total 10 100.0


Many (40%) of the researchers interviewed believe the current policies and legislations on benefit sharing need review in the sense that the policies neglects farmers. Another 20% believe using local governance structures will prove to be useful and will lead to sustainable use of forest resources. According to CSOs this is the key to farmers and community participation in sustainable forest management.

Table 8. 19: Loggers recommendations for improvement in tree tenure systems

Proposals for improvement from loggers Frequency Valid Percent

Revision of policies and legislation to give benefits to farmers and

fringe communities 8 40.0

Strict law enforcement on the ban on chainsaw lumbering 2 10.0

Review the ban on chainsaw lumbering 3 15.0

Improved community education on tree tenure system 7 35.0

Total 20 100.0

Majority (40%) of the loggers suggested revising the policies and legislations to give some benefits to farmers on whose farms trees are fell to avoid the occasional conflicts arising from lack of benefits for farmers. Another 35% of the loggers said there is the need to improve community education on tree tenure systems to promote community participation in forest management. Some 15% of them said the ban on chain saw should be reviewed. The rest (10%) called for strict enforcement of the law on chainsaw operators. Table 8. 20: Farmers recommendations for improvement in tree tenure systems in Ghana

Proposed solutions to tree tenure challenges from farmers Frequency Valid Percent

Ownership Rights should be given to the farmers 80 66.7

Proper Control and Enforcement of Tree Regulations 10 8.3

Improve Education and awareness creation on Tree Tenure 20 16.7

Tree Seedlings Availability to farmers 10 8.3

Total 120 100.0

For their part 66.7% of farmers said ownership rights should be given to farmers, since they maintain and sometimes plant the trees on their farm. However, 16.7% called for improved education and awareness creation on tree tenure systems, due to misunderstanding on the tree tenure systems. This, when done will prevent many of the conflicts between farmers and other stakeholders in the industry. Others (8.3%) called for proper control and enforcement of tree regulations, since in their view the enforcement is weak. The rest (8.3%) suggested that tree seedlings should be made available to farmers to plant since they do not have tree seedlings to plant. The implication of the above is that, farmers are very much concerned with the manner in which trees they think belong to them over several decades (having grown naturally) are taken away from them without proper benefits to them. A contributions arising at the validation workshop asked that the consultants should separate issues related to naturally growing trees from planted trees whose ownership is not an issue. The issue is greatly with naturally growing


economic trees on farm. It would have been great to separate these two to show where most of the issues arise from. From my own experience and working with farmers in the Wassa Amenfi areas, the real issue has to do with the naturally growing trees and this must be made explicitly clear.


9.0 INTRODUCTION OF THE NEW 2012 GHANA FOREST AND WILDLIFE POLICY (FWP) IN DECEMBER 2013

9.1 Background In a major attempt to find solutions to the documented dwindling supplies of off-reserve timber resources and to mitigate the inability of the FC to effectively control deforestation in the country, a workshop, with a broad stakeholder representation, was held in Accra, Ghana in 2009 (Strengthening off-reserve timber resource management in Ghana (TBI-Ghana and FLD- Denmark, 2009). The keynote address given by the Hon. Adjei Yeboah, the Deputy Minister of Lands, Forestry and Mines at the time, echoed the sentiments and wishes of the ministry and stakeholders in the forestry sector. In view of the prevailing concerns, he reiterated that the Ministry of Lands, Forestry and Mines has over the years taken several bold initiatives to ensure the sustainable management of the resources outside the reserved forests and a few of them are mentioned as follows: i. Change in policy focus The first forest policy of Ghana, drawn in 1948, provided for a progressive utilization of the off-reserve timber resource, without replacement and assumed the confinement of forestry practices to the permanent forest estates. However, later developments showed that timber from off-reserve areas including farms will be needed on continuous basis to supplement production from the forest reserves, which are capable of an annual production of only 500,000 m3 of wood. It is on the basis of this that the 1994 Forest and Wildlife Policy recognized the need for sustainable management of tree resources outside the permanent forest estates. ii. Change in forest administration The regulation of the off-reserve resource which used to be in the hands of the then Land Department was transferred to the then Forestry Department (now Forest Services Division of the Forestry Commission) for more effective management. But even with this institutional change, the management of the off-reserve areas has been rather challenging. iii. Promotion of collaborative resource management The ministry has created a unit within the Forestry Commission to develop mechanisms for collaborative resource management. This, together with the Modified Taungya System (farmers grow food crops and tend tree seedlings on the same piece of land till tree canopy closes), we have instituted for the rehabilitation of degraded forest reserves will, hopefully, help us evolve models which can satisfy all stakeholders and thereby lead to sustainable management of the resource. iv. Plantation development initiatives Apart from the National Plantation Development Programme, there are several other initiatives geared towards forest landscape restoration outside the reserves. For example: the Forest Resource Use and Management Project (FORUM) in the Volta Region; the Community Forest Management Project, funded by the AfDB and the Participatory Forest Management Project (PFMP) in the Transitional Zone. All these projects are community-based and encourage resource management outside reserves including tree planting. v. Benefit-sharing incentives Again, in a bid to ensure greater equity in the distribution of the revenue from the timber resource, the Ministry has reviewed the sharing ratio. The proportions have now been reversed


from 60:40 in favor of the Government to 60:40 in favor of landowners (i.e. off-reserve revenue). Similarly, within the reserved areas, the proportions have been reversed from 60:40 in favor of Government to 50:50. We do realize that this distribution still does not take account of the farmers who in most cases nurture and tend such trees. This issue is however under discussion with the view to evolving a system which is more equitable to all stakeholders. It is apparent that the ministry is very much aware of the challenges of managing the off-reserve resource and has also put in place some measures to tackle the problem. Nevertheless, a lot still remains to be done. vi. The off-reserve timber resource The first forest policy of Ghana, drawn in 1948, provided for a progressive utilization of the off-reserve timber resource, without replacement and assumed the confinement of forestry practices to the permanent forest estates. However, later developments showed that timber from off-reserve areas, including farms will be needed on continuous basis to supplement production from the forest reserves, which are capable of an annual production of only 500,000 m3 of wood. Although the 1994 Forest and Wildlife Policy (FWP) on tree resources outside the permanent forest estates deals with this issue, there is no effective long-term plan in place to ensure the realization of this objective and time is running out for securing the future of the resource. The closed forest located mostly in the Western Region, was estimated to be 0.5 million ha in 1995 but its present size is not known. The fallow lands are secondary growth from abandoned farms, with high potential for producing timber trees if adequately managed whilst the farm areas are lands carrying active farms of various cropping systems (most of which contain a good population of trees). The off-reserve timber resource is an important component of the natural resource base of the country. Its contribution to the timber trade, livelihoods, environmental protection and ecological balance is enormous whilst its potential for private timber resource development is huge if the right policies and incentives could be provided. In the 90s, it was contributing between 70–80 % of all timber harvested in the country, though in recent times, this has declined to about 30 %. An inventory of the off-reserve lands in 1996 showed a stock of about 268 million m3 of standing tree volume of suitable form to be considered as timber. About 38% of this volume was made up of trees greater than the minimum felling limits; signifying possibilities for sustainable management. Also the inventory provided some basis for an indicative annual allowable harvesting of 500,000 m3 nationwide and quotas for various forest districts (FMSC, 1996). Eleven years later, there is a general perception that the off-reserve resource is nearly depleted and that with the exception of trees protected on cocoa farms, most standing trees in the off-reserve landscapes have low timber value. This means, the Forestry Commission (FC) has not been able to regulate the cutting of the off-reserve timber as planned and the future for the remaining stocks is very uncertain”. Some recommendations have been made at various fora on how to build a system of incentives that can help to reverse the current negative tide in the management of forests and trees among which are the following (Ref. ROSE):

Implementation problems and contradictions in existing laws need to be addressed Inter-sectoral coordination need to be managed at a high political level Improved forest governance and compliance A number of experiences and legal instruments in Ghana that have possible relevance to

benefit sharing require further analysis


The focus on plantation development should shift from the reserve to the off-reserve Outside the forest reserves, the main priority should be on tree tenure freeform that create

incentives for farmers to adopt positive attitudes and practices in management and conservation of the forests.

CREMAS and DFs offer real promise in the absence of tree tenure reform

The several consultative workshops that have been organized have helped to crystalize what stakeholders in the forestry sector considered to be the way forward to help solve the problems the sector was facing. It is noted that the outputs of these fora have contributed immensely in providing the evidence-based information required to fashion a new friendly and sustainable forestry strategy. These outputs and recommendations have formed the basis for the development of the 2012 Forest and Wildlife Policy that was inaugurated in December of 2013 by the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources. 9.2 The New Forest and Wildlife Policy In looking at the 1994 FWP policy and following legislations on tree tenure, various negative impacts were observed related to the implications of these current policies and legislation on tree management and carbon ownership and marketing. We have seen earlier that various programs and interventions were undertaken in the absence of policy and legal reforms, to mitigate the negative effects of these policies and laws on sustainable management of the forests. After about 20 years of operation of the 1994 FWP and the introduction of the various interventions and programs to mitigate the negative effects, a new policy 2012 FWP has been introduced by the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources to replace the 1994 policy. The birth of the new Policy was the result of years of work by a Policy Review Committee (PRC), appointed by the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources, which engaged all stakeholders in the sector in consultations at the community, district, regional and national levels. A comparative analysis of the 1994 and 2012 FWPs is made here to see the extent to which stakeholders’ concerns in terms of, weaknesses and limitations in the tree tenure rules have been dealt with in the 2012 FWP. Of interest also is how the 2012 FWP deals with the concerns of REDD+ requirements and ownership of the carbon sequestered by trees Comparative Analysis of the 1994 and 2012 Policies The 1994 FWP Tree Tenure Regime and Forest Management The 1994 FWP had, as its public participation strategy (5.5.5), “the development of consultative and participatory mechanisms to enhance land and tree tenure rights of farmers and ensure access of local people to traditional use of natural products.” Point (5.5.6) also provided for the “promotion of national tree planting programs as positive community building actions which generate raw materials and income while improving the quality of the local environment”. It can be easily recognized that the above strategic directions of the 1994 FWP were geared, in a way, towards resolving tree tenure rights of farmers and local people who manage these forest resources. Several legislations have been passed since the launch of FWP 1994 to accomplish the spirit of the policy, as it were. The following are post-FWP 1994 legislations within the forest and wildlife sectors:

a. Timber Resources Management Act, 1997, Act 547 as amended b. Forestry Commission Act, 1999, Act 571 c. Timber Resources Management (Amendment) Act, 2002, Act 617


d. Timber Resources Management Regulation, 1998, L.I 1649 as amended e. Timber Resources Management (Amendment) Regulations, 2003, L.I 1721 f. The Forest Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002, Act 624 g. The Forest Plantation Development Fund, Act 2000, Act 583 as amended h. The Forest Plantation Development Fund (Amended) Act, 2000, Act 623 i. Wetland Management (Ramsar Sites) Regulations 1999 j. Timber Resources (Legality Licensing) Regulations, 2012, L.I 2184

Moreover, several plans, strategies and projects have also been birthed pursuant to the FWP 1994. For instance, under the National Forest Plantation Development Programme (NFPDP) which was launched in 2001, the nation has witnessed numerous activities such as the Modified Taungya System (MTS), Community Forest Management Project (CPMP), Government Plantation Development Project (GPDP), Private Commercial Plantation Development (PCPD), Model Plantation, Expanded Plantation Program etc. As laudable as the laws and programmes have been, it has been acknowledged in the Overview of Forest and Wildlife Sector, (FWP) 2012 that “the tree tenure arrangement still remains unclear.” This acknowledgment goes to affirm that post-1994 legislations, programs, activities, strategies and projects have failed to address the issue of tree tenure system in Ghana about 20 years since its development and implementation. Examples of reforms, legislations, policies and programs that were fashioned post-1994 to address tree tenure challenges and their effects are as follows: Section 4 (3) of the Timber Resource Management (Amendment) Act, 2002, (Act 617) prohibits the granting of timber rights on private forest plantations and land with trees grown or owned by private persons without the written authorization of the individual or owners concerned. This law only recognizes tree tenure right of farmers over trees grown by them in their farms outside forest reserves, and of which they can attest to by verifiable evidence. The law does not extend to trees tended by these farmers outside the reserve. Farmers tree tenure rights inside forest reserves are, therefore, non-existent and unrecognized post FWP 1994. Post 1994 FWD legislations introduced fees such as the following:

(i) Timber right fee – This is an annual lump-sum fee payable by logging company for the entire concession area. The Forestry Commission is the sole beneficiary of this fee.

(ii) Annual rent fee – Contract area rent is an annual fee payable per hectare by logging company to the Office of Administrator of Stool Lands (OASL) in the case of stool lands and in any other case to the owner of the land. The OASL retains 10% of the amount as administration fee, and redistributes the rest as mentioned in Article 267 (6) of the 1992 Constitution

(iii) Stumpage fee - Stumpage fee is a species-specific, volume-based fee charged on harvested timber. The fee is fixed by the Sector Minister responsible for forestry in consultation with the FC and OASL. The FC takes 50% of this fee and the remaining 50% is split between the OASL, Stool, Traditional Authority and District Assembly as enshrined in Article 267(6)

(iv) Introduction of Social Responsibility Agreement (SRA) – The SRA is a contract that has to be concluded between local communities and logging companies upon notification of


the grant of a Timber Utilization Contract (TUC) This contract seeks to provide social amenities to the communities and inhabitants of the proposed area where the logging activities take place at a cost of no less than 5% of the value of the stumpage fee of the timber involved. Logging companies undertake the services promised directly and or put money into the account of the community to carry out the assigned responsibilities themselves.

It is instructive to note that farmers who invariably become managers of these trees and forest resources are not entitled to any of the fees mentioned, although they nurture and tend for them. The implication has been that because land owners and users have no economic rights to naturally regenerated trees, farmers are not incentivized to retain or maintain such economic trees on their farms. The post-1994 FWP legislative and policy on tree tenure regime provides little incentive for farmers to engage in sustainable forest management or plant and preserve economic trees on their farms. They have no share in the proceeds obtained from timber trees they maintain on their farms, and hardly receive compensation for damage to their crops when they are destroyed during logging.

The modest gains withstanding, it is obvious that the prevailing situation relating to implementation of the tree tenure regimes before the inauguration of the 2012 FWP defeated the premise upon which the 1994 policy was formulated which had, as its public participation strategy (5.5.5), “the development of consultative and participatory mechanisms to enhance land and tree tenure rights of farmers and ensure access of local people to traditional use of natural products.”

9.3 The 2012 FWP Tree Tenure Regime and Forest Management In its guiding principles, the 2012 Forest and Wildlife Policy recognizes and promotes the following:

i. The role of employing multi-sector approaches to planning and management of forest and wildlife resources (3.2 - 1.1.2)

ii. Multi-stakeholder interest in forest and wildlife and forging a common vision to protect, manage and use the resources (3.2. 1.1.3)

iii. Collaborative resource management among communities, government and other stakeholders; (3.2. 1.1.4)

iv. Public-private sector partnerships and investment in forestry sector amongst others. (3.2. 1.11)

The FWP 2012 has as its core objectives the following, among others, which are geared toward resolving the issues relating to tree tenure regime:

i. To promote the rehabilitation and restoration of degraded landscapes through plantations development and community forestry by appropriate land-use practices to enhance environmental quality and sustain the supply of raw material for domestic and industrial consumption and for environmental protection. (4.2. – 1.1.2)

ii. To promote and develop mechanisms for transparent governance, equity sharing and citizens’ participation in forest and wildlife resource management. (4.2. 1.1.4)


Relating to the Policy’s Strategic Direction and Strategies, the 2012 FWP seeks to do the following:

i. In its Strategic Direction 4.1 is to institute transparency, equity and legalize public participation in sustainable forest and wildlife resources management by enacting the necessary legislation and regulations to facilitate and enhance local participation through decentralization of forestry operations at the district level (4.1.1). Indeed the government has resolved to develop sustainable institutional frameworks for effective participation of key stakeholders in forest and wildlife resource management and governance (4.1.1 a) and enact legislations that will enable communities and individuals to benefit from trees on their farms and fallow lands, provide off-reserve tree tenure security, authority to legally dispose of resources and allocate greater proportion of benefit accruing from resource management to community members individually or collectively 4.1.1 b);

ii. Under its Strategy (4.1.2b) the Policy seeks to allocate and define property rights (land and tree tenure rights, intellectual property rights) and rules that define permissible and non-permissible forms of cooperation and competition ( licensing laws, laws of contract and liability, company and cooperative laws, anti-trust laws, etc.);

iii. It also seeks to rationalize forest fees and taxation systems and improvement of the framework for apportioning, recovering and distributing equitably and effectively forest rent (loyalties) between the resources owners, state and the users of the resources through consultative processes (4.1.2 c);

iv. It seeks to build partnership for the effective collection of stumpage, fees and taxes as b` law defined (4.1.2 d);

v. It seeks to define forest and tree tenure rights in all kinds of forest and ownership systems (4.1.2 f);

vi. It seeks to develop the capacities of decentralized local institutions including the District/Municipal/Metropolitan Assemblies, Traditional Authorities, and civil society organizations in sustainable “off-reserve” timber resources and non-timber forest products( NTFP’s) management (6.1.2);

vii. It seeks to increase community participation in wildlife management in all forest areas through appropriate participatory models such as the Community Resources Management Area (CREMA) concept for sustainable livelihood of fringe communities. (1.3.1. d);

viii. It equally seeks to enact the necessary legislation to support and ensure that forests, trees, wildlife and NTFPs on private and communal lands are managed according to the national forestry development objectives and resources owner’s priorities. (1.4.1 a)

Bold pronouncements have been made under FWP 2012 to define and allocate tree tenure rights by law. This policy also seeks to streamline the collection of stumpage fees and similar taxes and distribute same equitably by law. Following from the above provisions, the 2012 FWP (Ghana Forest and Wildlife Policy 2012) has, in a major way, through its policy objectives and outlined strategies, made adequate provisions to deal with weaknesses identified in the 1994 FWP as far as tree tenure rights are concerned. These provisions are in harmony with those that have been


articulated by forestry-sector stakeholders and echoed by the then Deputy Minister of Lands and Natural Resource and Mines in his keynote address to same stakeholders in 2009 and which include the following: a) change in policy focus, b) change in forest administration, c) promotion of collaborative resource management, d) promotion of plantation development initiatives and e) establishment of benefit sharing/incentives in a bid to ensure greater equity in the distribution of the revenue from the resource that would encourage/incentivize farmers and forest-dependent communities to engage in sustainable forest management or plant and preserve economic trees on their farms.


10.0 CONCLUSIONS Various conclusions have been arrived at relating to the different analyses that were conducted during the study and include the following: Review and analysis of the existing policies and legislations that are related to tree ownership: Analysis of the policies and laws related to tree ownership in Ghana and their implication for a sustainable cocoa production system revealed key areas in which the policies and laws were deficient in dealing with the requirements to make farmers, who are key to managing trees on their farms. The fact that there were various mechanisms introduced at the national level to engender sustainable forest management practices to save the forests indicate that the current policy and legal frameworks have failed to provide the respite required. Decentralized forest management benefit sharing mechanisms: The lack of benefits to farmers was identified as a key factor in increasing degradation of the forests and called for an examination of the various relevant benefit-sharing arrangements that exist in Ghana and elsewhere to inform subsequent recommendations on workable options for incentivizing farmers. The study examined a range of benefit sharing mechanisms associated with forest management initiatives including: a) Commercial Plantation Agreements (CPA), b) Community Forest Management Projects (CFMPs), c) Community Resource Management Areas (CREMA), d) Social Responsibility Agreement (SRA), e) Dedicated Forests (DF), f) “Kuapa Kokoo” benefit sharing formula and g) Traditional systems of sharing benefits from land (arrangements between farmers (caretaker, short or long-term migrant) and landowners. These models offer unique opportunities for scaling-up since they deal appropriately with the requirements of farmers and enable them to undertake responsible actions of tree planting and preservation on their farms. Two models of Decentralized Forest Management (DFM), through either devolution or de-concentration, in Tanzanian and Nepal which have relevance for Ghana were also discussed and they revealed options that would be of benefit to the forest sector management in Ghana. Socio-cultural factors affecting sustainable management of forests: A review of key socio-cultural factors affecting sustainable management of forests and ways in which these factors influence forest and tree management systems and their implications for the cocoa sector was conducted. Special attention was given to understanding especially how these factors affect the livelihoods of communities living in or close to forests. Among those factors examined are: farming systems in the forest and property regimes, forest land tenure, potential power of village institutions, natural resource ownership and use, effects of agricultural development and mining priorities, power and influence, illiteracy and poverty of farmer, significance of cultural values attached to forests and the importance of gender considerations in the forestry sector activities. Finally, a case study, “How Brazil is using education, technology and politics to save its rainforest”, detailing socio-economic, cultural and technological tools influencing forest management practices, was discussed to learn lessons from this experience. This study offers significant insights into the potential power of using various socio-cultural, political and technological strategies to control the drivers of deforestation and reduce forest degradation. This review demonstrated the significance of these socio-cultural and other factors and their implications to the sector and the range of activities that could be implemented to exploit the opportunities that the current challenges provide, to improve forest management systems in the country.


Key factors that shape policy development: One of the key concerns of policy makers in advancing the adoption of sustainable practices in the forestry sector is how to establish a policy and legal enabling environment for the implementation of forestry interventions. To tackle the long-documented problem of unclear tree tenure and other regimes, the government needs to create policies that provide incentives that would motivate farmers to get involved in the planting of and caring for timber species on their farms and desist from environmentally negative practices that lead to forest degradation. To create the right conditions for policy development and reform, it is important for policy makers to recognize and take into consideration the factors that affect the policy development, implementation and monitoring and evaluation processes. The study identified and examined some factors that affect the components of the policy-making and implementation processes and to show how they serve as barriers/constraints that could stifle effective policy change. Institutional Architecture, defined as the set of procedures and processes for data collection and analysis, consultation and dialogue, policy proposal, feedback, approval, implementation, and enforcement, was employed as an approach for conducting analysis of a country’s capacity to undertake a particular sector policy change, by identifying policy design options and implementation barriers and coordinating actions across public and private institutions. This approach involves identifying key requirements that affect the policy development process, namely: the guiding national policy framework; the key institutions that hold primary responsibility for development and implementation; inter-ministerial coordination mechanisms; private and civil society organizations, as well as think tanks and research organizations, that impact and influence the sector’s policy change process. These factors are then examined in the context of the broader economic and social dynamics that impact the policy change environment. The next step in the process is to identify the factors that allow the policymakers to undertake transparent, inclusive, predictable, and evidence-based policy change. Six global factors that affect the policy making implementation and monitoring and evaluation processes and their associated indicators that need to be fulfilled were discussed and included the following: i) Guiding Policy Framework, ii) Policy Development and Coordination, (iii) Inclusivity and Stakeholder Consultation, iv) Evidence-based Analysis, v) Policy Implementation and vi) Mutual Accountability. The study proceeded further, to suggest the opportunities the understanding of these factors present when taken into consideration in guiding the policy development and implementation process.

10.1 Findings from the survey A section of this report deals with the findings from the field survey conducted in four key cocoa

producing regions of Ghana namely, Ashanti, Brong Ahafo, Eastern and Western. The study,

which covered most of the key stakeholders in the forestry sector, examined the views of the

various key stakeholders in the forestry sector on knowledge, perceptions and benefit sharing

arrangements, among others, of the tree tenure regime and its impact on forest management,

community welfare, incomes and farmers’ ability to adopt practices that involve tree plantings.

The respondents also provided insights into the challenges as well as recommendations to

improve the performance of the forestry sector. The results of the survey also showed how the

legal provisions are actually being observed or treated in practice by all stakeholders. The

findings of the survey on the impacts of the tree tenure regime were found to be consistent with

those reported extensively in the literature.


For instance, the findings show that the various key stakeholders had some level of knowledge on tree tenure rules even though it was evident that in terms of how it operates, farmers and illegal loggers had inadequate knowledge. This probably explains why farmers always seem to have conflict with loggers. All the stakeholders interviewed had a common view that the current benefit sharing arrangements in place is a disincentive to farmers and fringe communities to plant and or maintain trees in their farms and therefore suggested the review of the tree tenure policy and legislations to give ownership of off-forest reserve naturally occurring trees to farmers and fringe communities if the country’s quest to ensure environmental sustainability in this era of dwindling forest cover and climate change is to become a reality. The study further revealed that there are challenges and bottlenecks in the implementation of the tree tenure laws, even though many of these challenges are surmountable. Finally, in relation to how the law is being applied all stakeholders seem to agree that people are avoiding, misapplying, exploiting, overlooking and abusing the tree tenure law in practice. When the study sought to find the reasons why people engage in these things, it was revealed that some of the stakeholders (farmers) are angry at the law currently in practice. The others, among other things, perceive corruption as the main reason why other stakeholders behave the way they do.

The New 2012 Forest and Wildlife Policy The 1994 FWP was in operation for about twenty years, during which various interventions and programs to mitigate the negative effects were introduced. A new policy 2012 FWP was introduced by the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources to replace the 1994 policy. The birth of the new FWP 2012 Forest and Wildlife in December of 2013 was the result of years of work by a Policy Review Committee (PRC), appointed by the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources, which engaged all stakeholders in the sector in consultations at the community, district, regional and national levels. A comparative analysis of the 1994 and 2012 FWPs was undertaken by the consultants to examine the extent to which stakeholders’ concerns, regarding the tree tenure rules, have been dealt with in the 2012 FWP. Of interest also was how the 2012 FWP deals with the concerns of REDD+ requirements and ownership of the carbon sequestered by trees and other legal weaknesses. Comparisons relating to tree tenure were made between the 1994 and 2013 policy documents, in the areas of: a) the guiding principles, (b) the core objectives, c) the strategic directions and d) the various strategies to achieve a better tree tenure regime. The 2012 Forest and Wildlife Policy recognizes and promotes the following key guiding principles: a) The role of employing multi-sector approaches to planning and management of forest and wildlife resources, b) multi-stakeholder interest in forest and wildlife and forging a common vision to protect, manage and use the resources, c) collaborative resource management among communities, government and other stakeholders and d) public-private sector partnerships and investment in forestry sector amongst others, which were key weaknesses in the 1994 FWP. Regarding the 2012 FWP’s core Objectives and Strategic Directions, it seeks to a) institute transparency, equity and legalize public participation in sustainable forest and wildlife resources management by enacting the necessary legislation and regulations to facilitate and enhance local participation through decentralization of forestry operations at the district level, b) development of sustainable institutional frameworks for effective participation of key stakeholders in forest


and wildlife resource management and governance and enact legislations that will enable communities and individuals to benefit from trees on their farms and fallow lands, and c) provision of off-reserve tree tenure security, authority to legally dispose of resources and allocate greater proportion of benefit accruing from resource management to community members individually or collectively. The policy then proposes various strategies that need to be undertaken to achieve the objectives and overall goal of the 2012 FWP.

The government has made good and courageous pronouncements in the 2012 FWP document to define and allocate tree tenure rights by law. This policy also seeks to streamline the collection of stumpage fees and similar taxes and distribute same equitably by law. Following from the above provisions, the Ghana Forest and Wildlife Policy 2012 has, in a major way, through its policy objectives and outlined strategies, made adequate provisions to deal with weaknesses identified in the 1994 FWP as far as tree tenure rights are concerned. These provisions are in harmony with the sentiments that have been articulated by forestry-sector stakeholders over the years and echoed by the various Ministers of Lands and Natural Resources. These provisions are to ensure better collection and greater equity in the distribution of the revenue from the resource and to encourage/incentivize farmers and forest-dependent communities to engage in sustainable forest management and plant and preserve economic trees on their farms.


11.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ON POLICY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS FOR THE EFFECTIVE PROMOTION OF ENVIRONMENTALLLY SUSTAINABLE PRACTIES IN THE COCOA SECTOR

Drawing from the various analyses, many challenges and recommendations have been presented

in the preceding sections of this report. This section organizes and summarizes the key ones. The

recommendations propose options available to COCOBOD Ghana and UNDP Ghana and to

other partners, public and private as well as other development partners, local and international

research institutes and organizations, especially those interested in partnering with COCOBOD

and UNDP Ghana to help them overcome the various challenges that have been identified in this

study. Among the key areas where recommendations have been given are the following:

1. Legislation Review and Reform

2. Policy Review and Reform

3 Knowledge, Sensitization and Information Dissemination

4. Capacity Building

5. Inter-sectoral Coordination of Various Activities

6. Stakeholder Consultation and Representation

7. Documentation of Farmer-Planted Trees

8. Plantation Development (Scaling-Up)

9. CREMA and Collaborative Forest Management

10. Stumpage Fees/Revenue Collection Revenue Sharing

11. Benefit Sharing and Tenure

12. Gender

13. Research and Development


There are various laws related to tree tenure laws that are inimical to the interests of sustainable management of forests in Ghana. These laws, some of which are difficult to implement or contradictory, need to be reviewed and reformed if farmers are to be incentivized to plant and/or to take care of timber trees that they find on their farms during their farming activities. Some of these laws that need to be carefully looked at include the following:

The legislation on allocation of timber resources does not take into consideration the most important managers of timber trees (the farmers and forest-based communities) on their farms. There is a need to replace the legislation with a more pro-farmers provision.

The current legal position that vests ownership of timber resources on admitted farms in the President appears untenable, in the light of Section 17 of CAP. 157. In practice, therefore, timber resources located on admitted farms are treated the same way as if they are vested in the President. Consequently, these resources are administered without much regard to the farm owners who exercise greater control over these resources. It is instructive that ownership of timber resources on any admitted farms should be looked at once again.


Introduce legislation that will enable communities and individuals to benefit from trees on their farms and fallow lands, provide off-reserve tree tenure security and allocate greater proportion of benefits accruing from resource management to individuals or to the community.

Need to introduce legislation and regulations to facilitate the local participation and control in resource management through decentralization of forestry operations at the district level.


In spite of the various reforms, the implementation of the 1994 policy could not stop the degradation in the forest resource base due to several reasons among which are the following: Illegal chainsaw operation, mining (both legal and illegal), wood-fuel production especially in the fragile areas of the savanna regions, wildfires, use of obsolete equipment and installed capacities in excess of the Annual Allowable Cut (AAC) by the timber industry. In addition to these challenges, the sector is also confronted with emerging global issues such as the Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA), Forest Certification, Climate Change and Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) which have far reaching implications for the forest and wildlife industry as well as local livelihoods. A Forestry Development Master Plan was formulated to implement the policy via a comprehensive donor-funded sector development programme – the Natural Resources Management Programme (NRMP). Other significant challenges have been dealt with in the 2012 Ghana Forest and Wildlife Policy 3. Knowledge, Sensitization and Information Dissemination Most farmers are not aware that they can actually plant and own indigenous forest trees such as

Wawa, Odum, Mahogany, Sapele etc. on their farms. Dissemination of information about

farmers’ right to planted trees among local communities throughout Ghana is very low. Indeed,

majority of cocoa farmers are presently ignorant about ownership of planted trees on their farms.

There is, therefore, a need for information dissemination through multi-media technologies to

sensitize farmers on their rights and responsibilities.


Development of institutional capacity of national and decentralized public institutions, other

private and Civil Society Organizations, farmers and farmers’ organizations involeved in the

forestry sector is required to increase their operational capability with regard to: (i) the efficient

delivery of public services, (ii) the promotion of equitable economic development, and (iii) the

management of poverty reduction programs. Some of the key recommendations are as follows;

Currently the Forestry Commission acts as both a regulator and implementer and is

influenced by government which appoints the Chief Executive. This situation lends itself to political manipulation in executive decision making. It has not been able to perform its roles very well. There is, therefore, a need for building a strong FC institution that would have the capacity to insulate itself from outside influence both from the public and private sector.


The ability of CSOs, researchers, farmers and their organizations to participate

meaningfully in discussions to make the sector planning inclusive has not been the best. There are various areas in which all the private sector participants could be strengthened to make them more capable to participate in the sectors’ discussions. Capacity building of local communities and NGOs is required to strengthen and empower them to fulfill their mandates to get their voices and articulated views heard.

The involvement of local institutions/traditional authorities is a valuable intervention and

can lead to equitable and sustainable availability of natural resources. Strong village

institutions enhance community assets and increase the effectiveness of external support.

Forming and strengthening village institutions contributes to local governance reform and

to the development of rural civil society and these are assets that could be harnessed in

the management of the country’s dwindling forest resources. It is instructive to develop

the capacity of local institutions to enhance their capacity to galvanize their communities

to support initiatives of the forestry sector.

Decentralized government institutions such as the District Assemblies receive proceeds

from the stumpage fees as specified by the Constitution. It is known, however, that they

are constrained by their capacities to deliver the services they are required to provide.

Other capacities of decentralized government institutions are generally weak since the

process of decentralization was not accompanied by a concomitant capacity building

program to enable them perform the new functions that were now required of them. It is

important to develop and implement capacity programs for them to increase their

operational capability with regard to the efficient delivery of public services in

accordance to minimum service standard and the promotion of equitable economic

development. A capacity building program must be developed and implemented to

develop the capacities of decentralized local institutions including the

District/Municipal/Metropolitan Assemblies in sustainable “off-reserve” timber resources

and non-timber forest products ( NTFP’s) management.

Improved governance of timber revenues

Linked to the equity considerations mentioned above, the accountability of the financial management of timber revenues has to be improved. This includes the allocation procedures of logging rights, the pricing of the resource (timber rights fees, stumpage fees and other fees), the distribution and the use of timber revenues by beneficiaries. In relation to distribution, there are instances where timber revenue distribution and use are not backed by any documentation which makes it difficult for beneficiaries to keep track of how much revenue is received and what it is used for. This is perceived to affect the management of off-reserves as the income generated from the resource cannot be stated; this could affect the level of motivation towards management by some stakeholders.

The forestry institutions comprising the FSD, WD, TIDD, RMSC, and WITC are

generally weak in many respects and have not been able to successfully discharge their

mandated functions to a large extent. The government should develop sustainable


institutional frameworks for effective participation of key stakeholders in forest and

wildlife resource management and governance.

Improved governance of forest revenues: There have been several allegations and

complaints about lack of transparent governance, equity sharing against the government

and its institutions (FC, OASL). A mechanism for bringing transparency in governance

and equity in sharing the benefits of natural resources harvested should be set up through

capacity building programs designed for such a purpose.

Capacity Building/illiteracy

Most farmers are illiterates and have been marginalized in the society in which they live.

Literacy skills can help farmers to understand the tree tenure rules and sustainable

environmental management practices and help them develop the confidence to participate

more actively in public meetings, understand their rights and play a more leading role in

community affairs. This observation underscores the importance of including training and

capacity building programs aimed at illiterate farmers and landowners who are missing

the opportunity to capitalize on the dispensations provided by the government relating to

tenure rights and benefit sharing mechanisms.

5. Inter-Sectoral Coordination of Various Activities

Many of the organizations dealing with Land tenure, Agriculture and Forestry policies normally

use the “sectoral” approach but pluralistic approaches to community forestry and co-

management systems cannot be facilitated by the sectoral approach due to the large number of

stakeholders with varying vested interests in the sector. Planning and management of forest

resources must use multi-sectoral approaches to ensure that the various interests, some of which

are contradictory would be balanced and roles would be delineated to ensure efficiency and lack

of duplication of efforts. The Inter-sectoral coordination need to be managed at a high political

level such as at the NDPC that is mandated to do so.

6. Stakeholder Consultation and Representation Owing to the myriad of stakeholders in the forestry sector and their differing interests, there is a

need for the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources to use a systems approach to policy reform

to ensure sustainability of impact by establishing mechanisms which ensure a holistic approach

where all stakeholders involved in the wider-field of resource tenure participate in decision-

making in order to balance the various vested interests to the benefit of the industry.

In order to engender dialogue among all stakeholders, there is the need to support the

development of a multi stakeholder platform for continuous, consultation, discussion and

dialogue for a long term solution to current and potential off-reserve timber management

problems. Moreover, an agreed system of communication and information transfer towards a

sustainable management regime of the off-reserve timber resource is equally important among

such platforms are VPA, NREG and REDD by all key stakeholders. Innovative institutional

arrangements are required to involve these people in the decision-making processes. The Natural


Resources, Environment and Governance Platform (NREG) platform has been established in

recent times. This platform is to provide annual budget support and to sustain the implementation

of broad program of natural resources, governance and environmental reforms and innovation for

the government. The agencies on the platform are the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources,

Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology and Innovation, Mining Commission and the

Environmental Protection Authority. This is indeed a good beginning and there must be ways in

which members could be strengthened to contribute meaningful to the efforts of the platform.


Farmers who plant trees on their farms are required to register with the district office of the Forest Services Division (FSD) where their farms are located so that they could be given a certificate of ownership of such trees. Such registration could also pave way for them to access financial support from the Plantation Development Fund (PDF). A letter dealing with registration of private plantations located outside forest reserves and document produced by the Forestry Commission which supports the registration of farmers’ own trees appeared in 2006, however, information from the field study indicated that farmers were not aware of this and there is information that this effort was piloted by IUCN in the Wassa Amenfi West District in the Western region and it is still operational there. It appears that this initiative was not picked up by various districts which were asked to initiate the program. This effort needs to be revisited, refined and given a national character owing to the promise it holds in motivating farmers to plant and preserve trees on their farms. 8. Plantation Development Scaling-Up

Experience gained from the implementation of various plantation development models in the

country, including Commercial Partnership Agreements Commercial Plantation Agreements and

Community Forest Management Projects (CFMPs) indicate that it is possible to have successful

public-private sector partnership and investment in plantation development. It is necessary to

scale-up these collaborative resource management models that would include communities,

government and other stakeholders.


Although the participatory Community Resource Management Area (CREMA) model has been

used mainly to increase community participation in wildlife management in forest areas, its use

in forest management has just began. It would be advantageous to promote and scale-up this

model beyond its current use by the wildlife sector to support sustainable livelihood of fringe

communities.

Dedicated Forests, (DFs) also offer real promise in the absence of tree tenure reform. Adoption

of a policy that supports accelerated devolution of forest management to communities and

District Assemblies building on the lessons of implementing CREMA type systems introduced

by the Forestry Commission


10. Stumpage Fees

Effective collection of stumpage fees: Relating to formal government-recognized operators, there

are two problems with the collection and sharing of stumpage fees. Firstly, it is known that some

of the legal harvests are not recorded and so no stumpage fees are paid to government to be

shared. Secondly, there is the problem of under-invoicing and fraudulent declaration. Thirdly, it

is recognized that forest fees are too low compared to what the companies in the timber business

are willing to pay owing to their power in influencing policy on the rate that government is to

charge. The stumpage fees that should be available for sharing among key stakeholders involved

in the conservation and management of the natural resources, therefore, go only to the licensed

timber industry. So in essence, less than half of the benefits that the law stipulates are available

for sharing. The government should establish more efficient systems for collection and sharing of

stumpage fees.

The current taxation systems, involving collection and distribution of forest fees are

currently unrealistic and need to be revised to reflect the true value of the forest resource

and the optimum value that will incentivize farmers and forest-dependent communities to

undertake sustainable practices on their farms and in their areas.


Tackling inequalities and insecure access to forest:

Based on the experience that local communities and forest-dependent communities are capable of managing tree resources when provided with incentives, the government should enact legislations that will enable communities and individuals to benefit from trees on their farms and fallow lands, provide off-reserve tree tenure security, authority to legally dispose of resources and allocate greater proportion of benefit accruing from resource management to community members individually or collectively.

Provision of other incentives beyond equitable benefit sharing:

The question of who invests in the raising of timber trees in off-reserve areas points to the farmer as the only stakeholder who tends and cares for timber trees for his/her economic and/or ecological benefits. Hence, aside reviewing the current benefit sharing arrangement to cater for the farmer, it is also important to provide him/her with some other incentives to boost his/her motivation. This is predicated on the fact that trees on farmlands only survive at the mercy of farmers.

It has been proposed that there must be a government scheme that ensures that farmers that plant the recommended number of trees per ha of cocoa are acknowledged and/or rewarded by their respective cocoa districts during the districts farmers days as a way of incentivizing them to plant and maintain trees on their cocoa farms to improve the cocoa landscape and its biodiversity.


12. Gender Considerations

A strategy of including women is critical because women constitute the largest number of the

farming community and their contributions to the forestry sector are unquestionable. They have

been marginalized during provision of assistance to the sector in the past due to various socio-

cultural and religious reasons. Their limited inclusion has undeniably negatively affected the

agriculture and forestry sectors through loss of productivity and production. It is necessary to

ensure the inclusion of women in all the various programs of the Ministry and at various levels

of management in forestry-sector institutions in order to improve the performance of the sector.

The MLNR should ensure this can be accomplished through implementing strategies in the

ministry and other allied institutions to empower women and to make sector programs more

inclusive of women, most of whom are poor.

13. Research and Development (Mainstreaming Activities of Relevant Research and

Development Institutions)

In order for the forestry sector to benefit from science, technology and innovation, it is important

to strengthen the capacities of national and local level technical, research and commercial forest

and wildlife service providers that support community forest-based enterprises. Research in the

management of naturally regenerated trees in off-reserve areas should be supported and

improved to enable farmers respond appropriately to the numerous challenges imposed by

changes in agricultural technology, the physical and the economic environments.


12. STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTIONS TO SUPPORT CHANGE

MATRIX

The policies, land and forestry-related laws, acts, customary norms and lesser polices that drive the way forest resources are managed and exploited in the country focus on the following areas:




5. Inter-sectoral Coordination of Various Activities

6. Stakeholder Consultation and Representation


8. Plantation Development (Scaling-Up)


10. Stumpage Fees/Revenue Collection Revenue Sharing


12. Gender

13. Research and Development

14 Knowledge, Sensitization and Information Dissemination

This matrix shows the Law/Policy, its impact on cocoa farmers, recommended change to

promote sustainability on cocoa farms and the action to support change:

LAW/POLICY

IMPACT ON COCOA FARMERS

RECOMMENDED CHANGE TO PROMOTE SUSTAINABILITY ON COCOA FARMS

1. Rights to natural resources

The legal and policy frameworks primarily prioritize the rights of the State to manage and profit from forest resources, while recognizing that the traditional authorities are de jure the rightful landowners. Section 16 (4) of the Concession

Act, 1962 (Act 124) has vested

the trusteeship in the President all

timber resources

(4) All rights with respect to

timber or trees on any land other

than land specified in the

preceding subsections of this

Although farming and forest-based communities are key players in any efforts undertake environmentally friendly practices, the law does not provide an incentive for them to be good stewards of the environment and these lead to further forest degradation


LAW/POLICY



section are vested in the President

in trust for stools concerned

The traditional authorities receive

some nominal benefits from

timber resources, however, the

individual farmers and forest-

dependent communities who use

and manage forest resources on a

daily basis have no legal rights to

these resources. .

2. Ownership and user rights to naturally regenerated trees for economic and non-economic purposes

All naturally occurring trees are “symbolically” owned by the traditional authorities, who hold the resources on behalf of the people. However, in the 1962 Concessions Act (Act 124: Section 16 (4)), all rights to “economic trees” were vested in the President in trust for the Stools6 concerned (Republic of Ghana 1962). This effectively means that the government, through the FC, has the sole responsibility and right to manage, harvest, and sell the country’s timber resources, while the affected Stools are relatively passive stakeholders in the formal decision-making process

The benefit sharing arrangements outlined in both the Constitution and the MOU excludes key stakeholders, such as farmers and forest dependent communities who play a critical role in any effort to reduce degradation and over exploitation. They are not beneficiaries nor are they entitled to the revenue obtained from the harvesting of trees. *In off-reserve areas, the farmers are only consulted by the Stool whenever concessions or timber rights are being given out in respect of naturally-occurring trees on their farms but are not beneficiaries of sale proceeds; *The institution of a Social Responsibility Agreement (SRA) mechanism to enable communities to benefit from trees felled in their areas has failed to achieve its intended purposes mainly because of the failure of contractors to honor the agreement and lack of monitoring mechanisms to

Introduce legislation that will enable communities and individuals to benefit from trees on their farms and fallow lands, provide off-reserve tree tenure security and allocate greater proportion of benefits accruing from resource management to individuals or to the community.


LAW/POLICY



ensure that the right thing is done. The failure of SRA to transfer some benefits to communities has also provided incentives for farmers to connive with illegal loggers to remove trees from their farms to earn some income.

3. Forest reserves/Admitted farms

The current legal position that vests ownership of timber resources on admitted farms in the President appears untenable, in the light of Section 17 of CAP. 157

*In practice, timber resources located on admitted farms are treated the same way as if they are vested in the President. Consequently, these resources are administered without much regard to the farm owners control over these resources.

The rules on ownership of timber resources on any admitted farms should be looked at once again and changed to reflect the reality

4. Tree Tenure Policies Relating to Planted Trees in Degraded Forest Reserves

The statutory law on rights to planted trees has been amended by section 4 (3) of the Timber Resource Management (Amendment) Act, 2002, (Act 617) in aid of afforestation, reforestation and private plantations. This law prohibits the granting of timber rights on private forest plantations and land with trees grown or owned by private persons.

This amendment provides and incentive for farmers to plant and tend trees on their farms

The National Forest Plantation Development Program (NFPDP) which was launched in September 2001 and re-launched in January 2010 was largely implemented within degraded forest reserves. The NFPDP has been expanded with the introduction of the Expanded Plantation Program (EPP) to cover private lands located outside forest reserves (NFPDP Annual Report, 2012). The goal of the EPP was to ensure that most of the District/Municipal Assemblies without degraded forest reserves also benefit from the job opportunities being created through the NFPD Program. Other components of the NFPDP that have been implemented over the years with diverse tree tenure policies which are equally important in this discussion include: Private Commercial Plantation Agreements, the Modified Taungya System (MTS), Government Plantation Development Project (GPDP), the Community Forest Management Project (CFMP) and Degraded Forests


LAW/POLICY


RECOMMENDED CHANGE TO PROMOTE SUSTAINABILITY ON COCOA FARMS (DFs).

5. Granting of Timber-Harvesting Rights and Responsibilities

According to the Timber Resources Management Act 617, it is illegal for any person to harvest timber from any land without a Timber Utilization Contract (TUC). A TUC can be issued on any land, with the exception of land subject to alienation holding or land with farms. Regarding such lands, prior authorization in writing from concerned groups or individuals is required before harvesting can begin (Timber Resources Management Amendment Act (Act 617) 2002).

This law is not strictly adhered to and farmers are left out of the discussions and they do not receive any benefit from the harvested timber.

The monitoring capacity of the FC and the DA has to be strengthened and so also is the sensitization and education of farmers on their rights under the law.

6. Off-Reserve Naturally-Occurring Trees- Logging Timber Trees in Off-Reserve Areas

According to the Timber Resources Management Act 547, when a TUC is to be issued in off-reserve areas, including on farm lands, an inspection of the proposed land and written authorization from the landowners is required before any harvesting operations can begin (Timber Resource Management Act (Act 547) 1997). The law on naturally-occurring trees in off reserve areas stipulates that farmers do not own the trees and therefore cannot exploit those resources. In this case, the trees are allocated to concessionaires

This law is not strictly adhered to and farmers are left out of the discussions and they do not receive any benefit from the harvested timber. Tenure determines, in large part, whether local people are willing to participate in the management and protection of forest and tree resources Farmers who lack secure rights are strongly tempted to use up these resources before they are lost to the harvesting efforts of others

It is important to strengthen the capacity of enforcement agencies to ensure that there is strict adherence to the law. Building the capacity of landowners to know and insist on their rights is needed


LAW/POLICY



and they are required to pay timber right fees, ground rent and stumpage and other fees. None of these fees goes to the farmer

7. Payment of Royalties

The Timber Resources Management Act 547 also requires that, with respect to timber operations, royalties are paid to the designated bodies (Timber Resource Management Act (Act 547) 1997). Article 267 (6) of the Constitution outlines how revenues accruing from Stool Lands shall be divided (Republic of Ghana 1992). While the Administrator of Stool Lands, the Stool, the Traditional Authority, and the District Assembly have the right to receive payments from timber revenue (on-reserve and off-reserve), individual landowners and land users receive nothing.

This is a disincentive to farmers to plant and tend timber trees on their farms since they not receive any portion of the royalties paid

Introduce legislation that will enable communities and individuals to benefit from trees on their farms and fallow lands and provide off-reserve tenure security and allocate greater proportion of benefits accruing from resource management to individuals and or the communities

8. Off-Reserve Private Plantations

Farmers who are inclined to reforest their land for private timber plantation are required to register with the Plantation Department of the Forestry Commission, if they want to benefit from the Division’s support and secure loan facility from the Forest Plantation Development Fund Management Board. In the case of off-reserve private plantations the following applies: Hundred percent (100%) of the total proceeds go to the private

The above means that if a cocoa farmer plants tree on his privately-owned land, he/she becomes the beneficiary of the entire proceeds when the trees are harvested. The farmer would, however, share the proceeds from the tree harvested with the landowner if he/she turns out to be a tenant on somebody’s land. This is a good incentive to make farmers plant and tend trees on their farms.

The program to promote plantation development and the facilities available for farmers to own the timber trees planted should be scaledup


LAW/POLICY



farmer if the land is privately owned. However, in situations where the farmer happens to be a tenant on a stool/chief or traditional land 33% of the timber proceeds go to the landowner. Private Commercial Plantation development is an activity that can be carried out in both on and off-reserves.

9. Payment of royalties from timber harvesting *Improved governance of timber revenues Linked to the equity considerations, the accountability of the financial management of timber revenues has to be improved. This includes the allocation procedures of logging rights, the pricing of the resource (timber rights fees, stumpage fees and other fees), the distribution and the use of timber revenues by beneficiaries. In relation to distribution, there are instances where timber revenue distribution and use are not backed by any documentation which makes it difficult for beneficiaries to keep track of how much revenue is received and what it is used for.

This is perceived to affect the management of off-reserves as the income generated from the resource cannot be stated; this could affect the level of motivation towards management by some stakeholders.

Stumpage Fees Effective collection of stumpage fees: Relating to formal government-recognized operators, there are two problems with the collection and sharing of stumpage fees. Firstly, it is known that some of the legal harvests are not recorded and so no stumpage fees are paid to government to be shared. Secondly, there is the problem of under-invoicing and fraudulent declaration. Thirdly, it is recognized that forest fees are too low compared to what the companies in the timber business are willing to pay owing to their power in influencing policy on the rate that government is to charge. The stumpage fees that should be available for sharing among key stakeholders involved in the conservation and management of the natural resources, therefore, go only to the licensed timber industry. So in essence, less than half of the benefits that the law stipulates are available for sharing. The government should establish more efficient systems for collection and sharing of stumpage fees.

*The current taxation systems, involving collection and distribution of forest fees are currently unrealistic and need to be revised to reflect the true value of the forest resource and the optimum value


LAW/POLICY


RECOMMENDED CHANGE TO PROMOTE SUSTAINABILITY ON COCOA FARMS that will incentivize farmers and forest-dependent communities to undertake sustainable practices on their farms and in their areas. *Improved governance of forest revenues: There have been several allegations and complaints about lack of transparent governance, equity sharing against the government and its institutions (FC, OASL). A mechanism for bringing transparency in governance and equity in sharing the benefits of natural resources harvested should be set up through capacity building programs designed for such a purpose.

9. Revenue Sharing: Revenue from the exploitation of

naturally-occurring trees is shared

between the beneficiaries in the

manner and proportion outlined in

Article 267(6) of the 1992

Constitution. At the moment, 60%

of the revenue from the

harvesting of timber in the forest-

reserve is retained by the State

with the remaining 40%

distributed among other

beneficiaries as follows:

25% to the Stool through the

Traditional Authority for the

maintenance of the Stool, 20% to

the Traditional Authority, 55% to

the District Assembly within the

area of authority of which stool

lands are situated.

In the off-reserves, the revenue accruing from naturally-occurring trees is split 50%-50% between

The legislation on allocation of timber resources does not take into consideration the most important managers of timber trees (the farmers and forest-based communities) on their farms. .

There is a need to replace the legislation with a more pro-farmers provision and this should be spearheaded by the Forestry Commission.


LAW/POLICY



the State and the remaining beneficiaries already named above

10. Ownership of planted trees

(Documentation of Farmer-Planted Trees) Farmers who plant trees on their farms are required to register with the district office of the Forest Services Division (FSD) where their farms are located so that they could be given a certificate of ownership of such trees. Such registration could also pave way for them to access financial support from the Plantation Development Fund (PDF). Information from the field study indicated that farmers were not aware of this and there is information that this effort was piloted by IUCN in the Wassa Amenfi area of the Western region and it is still operational there.

Provides a good incentive for farmers to plant and maintain trees on their farms

It appears that this initiative was not picked up by various districts which were asked to initiate the program.

11. Economic Plants Protection Act

This act states that felling rights with respect to timber “shall not be granted where the timber trees stand in farms where specified plants (cocoa) are cultivated”. It further stipulates that, if timber is felled, the farmer should be compensated for his/her losses at a rate determined by the Minister (AFRCD 47 1979).

It is worth noting that while the law prohibits logging on farm land, many of the existing TUCs are in fact issued within cocoa farming landscapes and farmers are not being compensated

There must be mechanisms put in place to ensure that farmers have a platform to lodge complaints against infractions

12. Landowners and Land-Users Lack of Rights to Economic Trees

According to the Timber

Farmers do not have the right to harvest naturally regenerated trees for economic purposes. This law serves as a disincentive

The Law needs to be changed to reflect the reality on the ground.


LAW/POLICY



Resources Management Act 617, it is illegal for farmers and other rural land users to harvest any forest tree for commercial or domestic purposes, regardless of whether the tree is growing on their land or farm (Timber Resources Management Amendment Act (Act 617) 2002).

for farmers to take care of economic trees on their farms

13. Right to Fell Trees for Agriculture

While landowners and land users do not have economic rights to naturally regenerated trees, there is nothing in the law that prohibits them from felling such trees for non-economic purposes.

In this sense, the government recognizes customary laws and norms, which dictate that landowners and land users can clear and burn forested land or fell any tree for agricultural purposes, including the planting of food crops or tree crops.

But this situation creates tensions with the FC and the DAs as farmers could cut down trees in the name of land clearing for farming

There must be a mechanism created to allow landowners and land users economic rights to naturally regenerated trees so that there is no ambiguity and the resultant potential for conflict between farmers and other government institutions

14. Social Responsibility Agreement (SRA)

Once a TUC is granted in an off-reserve area, the holder of the timber rights is obliged to engage in a Social Responsibility Agreement (SRA) with the affected communities in the proposed area of operation (Timber Resource Management Act (Act 547) 1997). According to the SRA, a concessionaire is obliged to provide amenities to the affected communities amounting to no less than five percent of the annual stumpage fees. When cocoa trees and other economic tree crops or food crops are damaged in the process of harvesting timber trees on farms, the law also states that the TUC

It is common practice that concessionaires fail to honor the SRA and the farmers have no platform to hold them to account

Furthermore, the legislation lacks specific regulations on how to determine compensation and ensure that farmers are fairly compensated.

There is a complete failure of the FC to ensure that SRAs are enforceable and so there remains a problem of under-payment or non-payment of the agreed levels of funds.


LAW/POLICY



shall issue specific terms and conditions for paying compensation for such damages (Timber Resources Management Regulations (L.I. 1649) 1998).

15. Ownership of Planted Trees

According to the Timber Resources Management Act 617, “no timber rights shall be granted in respect of land with private forest plantation; or land with any timber grown or owned by an individual or group of individuals” (Timber Resources Management Amendment Act (Act 617) 2002). Thus, farmers, landowners and land users have legal rights to any planted tree.

A good incentive for farmers to plant as well as take care of timber trees on their farms.

There is a need to scale-up the various tree planting promotion schemes that have work since they offer greater and more sustainable opportunities for prudent management of various forest resources including economic trees

16. Policy Development One of the key concerns of policy makers in advancing the adoption of sustainable practices in the forestry sector is how to establish a policy and legal enabling environment for the implementation of forestry interventions. To tackle the long-documented problem of unclear tree tenure and other regimes, the government needs to create policies that provide incentives that would motivate farmers to get involved in the planting of and caring for timber species on their farms and desist from environmentally negative practices that lead to forest degradation. To create the right conditions for policy development and reform, it is important for policy makers to recognize and

Policies inimical to the interest of farmers are developed and they invariably serve as disincentives for farmers to take care of naturally- growing trees on their farms

Use the Institutional Architecture methodology as an approach for conducting analysis of a country’s capacity to undertake a particular sector policy change, by identifying policy design options and implementation barriers and coordinating actions across public and private institutions.


LAW/POLICY



take into consideration the factors that affect the policy development, implementation and monitoring and evaluation processes.


Currently, the benefit sharing mechanisms are not provided for in the legal and policy frameworks.

Lack of appropriate provision for benefit sharing in the policy and legal framework is a major cause of the increasing forest degradation

Tackling inequalities and insecure access to forest: Based on the experience that local communities forest-dependent communities are capable of managing tree resources when provided with incentives, the government should enact legislations that will enable communities and individuals to benefit from trees on their farms and fallow lands, provide offreserve tree tenure security, authority to legally dispose of resources and allocate greater proportion of benefit accruing from resource management to community members individually or collectively. Provision of other incentives beyond equitable benefit sharing: In addition to reviewing the current benefit sharing arrangement to cater for the farmer, it is also important to provide the farmer with some other incentives to boost his/her motivation. This is predicated on the fact that trees on farmlands only survive at the mercy of farmers.

18. Gender Considerations A strategy of including women is critical because women constitute the largest number of the farming

The programs of the forestry sector will reach a significant number of farmers (who are mostly women) and increase the

It is necessary to ensure the inclusion of women in all the various programs of the Ministry and at various levels of management in forestry-sector


LAW/POLICY



community and their contributions to the forestry sector are unquestionable. They have been marginalized during provision of assistance to the sector in the past due to various socio-cultural and religious reasons. Their limited inclusion has undeniably negatively affected the agriculture and forestry sectors through loss of productivity and production.

contribution of these women in forest management and increase in agricultural productivity,

institutions in order to improve the performance of the sector. The MLNR should ensure this can be accomplished through implementing strategies in the ministry and other allied institutions to empower women and to make sector programs more inclusive of women, most of whom are poor.

19. Research and Development (Mainstreaming Activities of Relevant Research and

Development Institutions) There is low investment in research and development in the forestry sector.

Adoption of new technologies will result in increased productivity, incomes and improved livelihood.

In order for the sector to benefit from science, technology and innovation, it is important to strengthen the capacities of national and local level technical, research and commercial forest and wildlife service providers that support community forest-based enterprises. Research in the management of naturally regenerated trees in off-reserve areas should be supported and improved to enable farmers respond appropriately to the numerous challenges imposed by changes in agricultural technology, the physical and the economic environments.

20. Community Resource Management Areas (CREMA)

CREMAs are a relatively new tenure modality in which resident communities in important wildlife or biodiversity areas are given increased tenure security and natural resource management rights. Its intrinsic value in fostering community organization and cohesion would serve as a key asset in organizing communities to join in the efforts of promoting sustainable forest management practices.

The CREMA concept offers opportunities for generating revenue and benefit-sharing for farmers and forest-based communities outside the normal legal framework.

Although the participatory Community Resource Management Area (CREMA) model focused on sustainable bush meat production and ecotourism, the model provides a workable natural resource management mechanism in off-reserve landscapes. It would be advantageous to promote and scale-up this model beyond its current use by the wildlife sector to support sustainable livelihood of fringe communities. Dedicated Forests, (DFs) also offer real promise in the absence of tree tenure reform. The adoption of a policy that supports accelerated devolution of forest management to communities and District Assemblies


LAW/POLICY


RECOMMENDED CHANGE TO PROMOTE SUSTAINABILITY ON COCOA FARMS building on the lessons of implementing CREMA-type systems introduced by the Forestry Commission is warranted.

21. Institutional weaknesses Capacity Building The forestry institutions comprising the FSD, WD, TIDD, RMSC, and WITC are generally weak in many respects and have not been able to successfully discharge their mandated functions to a large extent. Development of institutional capacity of national and decentralized public institutions, other private and Civil Society Organizations, farmers and farmers’ organizations involved in the forestry sector is required to increase their operational capability with regard to: (i) the efficient delivery of public services, (ii) the promotion of equitable economic development, and (iii) the management of poverty reduction programs. Some of the key recommendations are as follows; *Currently the Forestry Commission acts as both a regulator and implementer and is influenced by government which appoints the Chief Executive. This situation lends itself to political manipulation in executive decision making. It has not been able to perform its roles very well. There is, therefore, a need for building a strong FC institution that would have the capacity to insulate itself from

Most farmers are illiterates and are missing the opportunity to capitalize on the dispensations provided by the government relating to tenure rights and benefit sharing mechanisms. Literacy skills can help farmers to understand the tree tenure rules and sustainable environmental management practices

The government should develop sustainable institutional frameworks for effective participation of key stakeholders in forest and wildlife resource management and governance. Capacity Building/illiteracy his observation underscores the importance of including training and capacity building programs aimed at illiterate farmers and landowners who

Development of institutional capacity of

national and decentralized public

institutions, other private and Civil

Society Organizations, farmers and

farmers’ organizations involved in the

forestry sector is required to increase

their operational capability with regard

to: (i) the efficient delivery of public

services, (ii) the promotion of equitable

economic development, and (iii) the

management of poverty reduction

programs. Some of the key

recommendations are as follows;

*Currently the Forestry Commission acts

as both a regulator and implementer and

is influenced by government which

appoints the Chief Executive. This

situation lends itself to political

manipulation in executive decision

making. It has not been able to perform


LAW/POLICY



outside influence both from the public and private sector. *The ability of CSOs, researchers, farmers and their organizations to participate meaningfully in discussions to make the sector planning inclusive has not been the best. There are various areas in which all the private sector participants could be strengthened to make them more capable to participate in the sectors’ discussions. Capacity building of local communities and NGOs is required to strengthen and empower them to fulfill their mandates to get their voices and articulated views heard. *The involvement of local institutions/traditional authorities is a valuable intervention and can lead to equitable and sustainable availability of natural resources. Strong village institutions enhance community assets and increase the effectiveness of external support. Forming and strengthening village institutions contributes to local governance reform and to the development of rural civil society and these are assets that could be harnessed in the management of the country’s dwindling forest resources. It is instructive to develop the capacity of local institutions to enhance their capacity to galvanize their communities to support initiatives of the forestry sector. *Decentralized government institutions such as the District

its roles very well. There is, therefore, a

need for building a strong FC institution

that would have the capacity to insulate

itself from outside influence both from

the public and private sector.

*The ability of CSOs, researchers,

farmers and their organizations to

participate meaningfully in discussions to

make the sector planning inclusive has

not been the best. There are various areas

in which all the private sector

participants could be strengthened to

make them more capable to participate in

the sectors’ discussions. Capacity

building of local communities and NGOs

is required to strengthen and empower

them to fulfill their mandates to get their

voices and articulated views heard.

*The involvement of local

institutions/traditional authorities is a

valuable intervention and can lead to

equitable and sustainable availability of

natural resources. Strong village

institutions enhance community assets

and increase the effectiveness of external

support. Forming and strengthening

village institutions contributes to

local governance reform and to the

development of rural civil society and

these are assets that could be harnessed

in the management of the country’s

dwindling forest resources. It is

instructive to develop the capacity of

local institutions to enhance their

capacity to galvanize their communities

to support initiatives of the forestry


LAW/POLICY



Assemblies receive proceeds from the stumpage fees as specified by the Constitution. It is known, however, that they are constrained by their capacities to deliver the services they are required to provide. Other capacities of decentralized government institutions are generally weak since the process of decentralization was not accompanied by a concomitant capacity building program to enable them perform the new functions that were now required of them. It is important to develop and implement capacity programs for them to increase their operational capability with regard to the efficient delivery of public services in accordance to minimum service standard and the promotion of equitable economic development. A capacity building program must be developed and implemented to develop the capacities of decentralized local institutions including the District/Municipal/Metropolitan Assemblies in sustainable “off-reserve” timber resources and non-timber forest products ( NTFP’s) management.

sector.

*Decentralized government institutions

such as the District Assemblies receive

proceeds from the stumpage fees as

specified by the Constitution. It is

known, however, that they are

constrained by their capacities to deliver

the services they are required to provide.

Other capacities of decentralized

government institutions are generally

weak since the process of

decentralization was not accompanied by

a concomitant capacity building program

to enable them perform the new functions

that were now required of them. It is

important to develop and implement

capacity programs for them to increase

their operational capability with regard to

the efficient delivery of public services in

accordance to minimum service standard

and the promotion of equitable economic

development. A capacity building

program must be developed and

implemented to develop the capacities of

decentralized local institutions including

the District/Municipal/Metropolitan

Assemblies in sustainable “off-reserve”

timber resources and non-timber forest

products ( NTFP’s) management.


LAW/POLICY




LAW/POLICY



22. Inter-Sectoral Coordination of Various Activities

Many of the organizations dealing with Land tenure, Agriculture and Forestry policies normally use the “sectoral” approach but pluralistic approaches to community forestry and co-management systems cannot be facilitated by the sectoral approach due to the large number of stakeholders with varying vested interests in the sector.

The farmer suffers in the long-run since he/she is always left out in cases where of sector-activities is weak

Planning and management of forest resources must use multi-sectoral approaches to ensure that the various interests, some of which are contradictory would be balanced and roles would be delineated to ensure efficiency and lack of duplication of efforts. The Inter-sectoral coordination need to be managed at a high political level such as at the NDPC that is mandated to do so.

23. Knowledge, Sensitization and Information Dissemination

Most farmers are not aware that they can actually plant and own indigenous forest trees such as Wawa, Odum, Mahogany, Sapele etc. on their farms. Dissemination of information about farmers’ right to planted trees among local communities throughout Ghana is very low. Indeed, majority of cocoa farmers are presently ignorant about ownership of planted trees on their farms.

Many farmers and landowners, owing to their level of literacy forfeit that which belongs to them by law and are unable to participate fully in the development of policies that directly affects them

There is, therefore, a need for information dissemination through multimedia technologies to sensitize farmers on their rights and responsibilities.

24. Extension of social amenities and facilities such as schools, clinics, electricity etc. to illegal settlements in Forest reserves for political

Encourages encroachment of forest reserves by recalcitrant farmers

There is a need to dismantle these camps and cease providing them with amenities, a process that is taken as provision of legitimacy for encroaching.


LAW/POLICY



expediency


13.0 REFERENCES

1. Acheampong E. and E. Marfo (2011).The Impact of Deforestation on Forest Livelihoods in Ghana | Africa. www.africaportal.org/.../impact-deforestation-forest-livelihoods-ghana

2. Affum-Baffoe K. 2009, ‘Timber Resources Outside Permanent Forest Estates of Ghana High Forest Zone: Status and Trends’ in Tropenbos International - Ghana (2009). Strengthening off-reserve timber management in Ghana. Proceedings of a national workshop held in Accra, Ghana, on the 27th and 28th of September, 2007. Tropenbos International - Ghana Workshop Proceedings 7. Kumasi, Ghana.

3. Agyeman, V.K.; Kasanga, K.R.; Danso, E.; Marfo, K. A.; Whiteman, A.; Asare, A.B.; Yeboah, O.M.; and Agueman, F. 2004. Equitable Cost and Benefit Sharing Framework in Plantation Development Schemes involving Public, Private and Local Community Partnerships in Ghana.

4. Agyeman, V.K., Marfo, K.A., Kasanga, K.R., Danso, E., Asare, A.B., Yeboah, O.M.,

5. Agyeman, F. (2003). Revising the Taungya plantation system: new revenue sharing proposals from Ghana. Unasylva 212, Vol. 54, 40-43

6. Amanor, K.S., (1996). Managing trees in the farming system. The perspectives of farmers. Forest.

7. Asare A (2009) in Decentralized Forest Management: The Case of Dedicated Forests and Sacred Groves in Tropenbos International - Ghana (2009). Strengthening off-reserve timber management in Ghana. Proceedings of a national workshop held in Accra, Ghana, on the 27th and 28th of September, 2007. Tropenbos International - Ghana Workshop Proceedings 7. Kumasi, Ghana.

8. Bamfo K. R. 2009. Basics of REDD and REDD Process in Ghana, Presentation at a

Multi-stakeholder Workshop on REDD at Accra, Ghana May 14, 2009

9. Benefor T.D. (2009). Impact of climate change on forest dependent livelihoods. Presentation made to the Network of Dutch-supported initiatives in the forestry sector of Ghana.

10. Benhin, J.K.; Barbier, E.B. 2000, ‘Forestry, deforestation and biodiversity in Ghana’ in

Perrings C. (ed.), The Economics of Biodiversity Conservation in Sub-Saharan Africa: Mending the Ark, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp 185-231

11. Boyce J. K, S Iarain and E. A. Stanton (2007) Reclaiming Natures Environment. Justice and Ecological Restoration Edited by James K. Boyce, Sunita Iarain and Elizabeth A. Stanton

12. Callihan David and J. Azu 2013, Institutional Architecture for Food Security Policy

Change: Ghana, Africa Leadership Training and Capacity Building Program


(AfricaLead) for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Ghana.

13. Critchley, W. & Bruijnzeel, S. (1996). Environmental impacts of converting moist tropical forest to agriculture and plantations. UNESCO

14. DFID (2002 ‘Improving livelihoods for the poor: the role of literacy’, DFID Background

Briefing, March 2002. www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/bg-briefing-literacy.pdf

15. FC 2007. ‘Ghana’s Entry into a Voluntary Partnership Agreement with the EU’, VPA

Briefing Paper 1

16. Hall, J.B. and Swaine, M.D. 1981. Distribution and Ecology of Vascular Plants in a Tropical Rain Forest: Forest Vegetation in Ghana. Geobotany, The Hague.

17. Hansen C. and Treue T. 2009. ‘The Sharing of Financial Benefits from Timber Trees in

Ghana: Issues of Equity and Economic Incentives with Emphasis on the Off-Reserve Situation’, In Tropenbos International - Ghana (2009). Strengthening off-reserve timber management in Ghana. Proceedings of a national workshop held in Accra, Ghana, on the 27th and 28th of September, 2007. Tropenbos International - Ghana Workshop Proceedings 7. Kumasi, Ghana.

18. Haysom N and S. Kane (2009)Negotiating Natural Resources for Peace: Ownership, Control and Wealth Creation. Briefing Paper, Cebnter for Humanitarian Dialogue.

19. Juma C, 2011. The new Harvest: Agricultural Innovation in Africa Oxford University

Press, 2011

20. Katooba 2009. Realising REDD: Implications of Ghana’s Current Legal Framework for Trees, http://www.katoombagroup.org/%7Eforesttr/documents/ files/doc_2354.pdf, accessed on November 8, 2009

21. Kotey N. A., Francois J., Owusu J. G. K., Yeboah R., Amanor K. S., Antwi L. (1998), Falling

22. Marfo E. 2009a. Chainsaw Milling in Ghana: An overview of the Issues, Tropenbos International

23. Marfo E. 2009b. Security of Tenure and Community Benefits Under Collaborative Forest

Management Arrangements in Ghana: A Country Report, Ghana: CSIR Printing Division

23.Millikan B. 2009. Implementing REDD in the Brazilian Amazon: Contextualization, Debates and Challenges, Background Paper for TFD Field Dialogue in Brazil, October 28-29, 2009

24. Osafo Y.B. 2009. REDDplus in the International Negotiations, Presentation at a Multi-stakeholder Workshop on REDD at Accra, Ghana July 16, 2009


25. The Economist, (September 2013) Special report: Biodiversity: Brazil’s conversion - Trees of knowledge-How Brazil is using education, technology and politics to save its rainforest, Sep 14th 2013 | From the print edition. http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21585096-how-brazil-using-education-technology-and-politics-save-its-rainforest-trees

26. Tropenbos Ghana info sheet on ‘Equity in Forest Benefit Sharing: Stakeholders’ Views and

27. Perceptions’,http://www.tropenbos.nl/images/ Tropenbos/ghana/Publications/Infosheets/benefitsharinginfosheetweb.pdf


14.0 APPENDICES Annex 1 Review of Existing Tree Tenure Policy and its Implications for the Cocoa Sector in

Ghana

Terms of Reference (TOR)

1. Background Under the Environmental Sustainability and Policy for Cocoa Production in Ghana Project (ESP), Ghana COCOBOD and UNDP Ghana will engage the services of a consultant to review the current tree tenure policies in Ghana and its effects on the cocoa sector in promoting environmentally sustainable practices in consultation with a wide range of stakeholders. The overall objective of this project is to create the institutional systems, tools and policies to rehabilitate cocoa landscapes, conserve and expand forests, forest buffer zones and corridors and incentivize cocoa farmers to adopt environmentally friendly best practices. The project will work to address key policy issues that pose major environmental threats to sustainable cocoa landscapes and strengthened the institutions that work in the sector to formulate policies that promote environmental sustainability in the cocoa sector. Other key project outcomes would include the rehabilitation of cocoa landscapes, forest conservation, training and capacity building for cocoa institutions and farmers towards environmental sustainability. Furthermore, the project would pilot mechanisms that serve as incentives to farmers to adopt environmentally sound production practices resulting in the rejuvenation of ecosystem goods and services and on-farm biodiversity and to increase productivity. Taken together, project activities will promote a model that can be adopted nationally to enhance the capacity of COCOBOD and other stakeholders in the cocoa sector including farmers to participate in selected activities to maximize the economic benefits of sustainable production and biodiversity conservation as a counterweight to factors driving deforestation and environmental degradation. Lessons learned in the course of ESP implementation will be widely disseminated, especially to inform UNDP and COCOBOD strategies on climate change and the promotion of green commodities on the international market. Among other things, the project will work to assist farmers to secure tenure rights for newly established tree plantings and exiting old forest timber trees located on farmer’s plots. Tree tenure policy in Ghana is actually well defined. The state gives right of tree tenure ownership if the landowner can provide evidence the tree(s) were planted and maintained by the landowner/caretaker. However, this is actually the root of the problem; most landowners are illiterate, unaware of policy rules, and have no institutional support to accommodate policy rulings. Not surprisingly, most farmers have unintentionally forfeited their tree tenure rights since no proof can be provided to the state for ownership. The inability of farmers to satisfy policy requirements has resulted in large disincentives for farmers to maintain or protect forest trees – indirectly leading to significantly forest degradation and lack of incentive to establish new tree plantings. There are still major issues governing famer ownership of old established timber species as well. Tree tenure - ownership and benefit sharing in planted and naturally growing trees on farm - has become one of the thorny issues facing both landowners and cocoa tenants. The term refers to a system or bundle of rights over trees and their produce which may be held by different people at different times (FAO 1989). These rights include the right to own or inherit trees, plant trees, use trees and tree products, dispose of trees and exclude others from the use of trees or tree products. Security of tenure is needed to ensure that farmers benefit from planting and tending trees, and from investing in improvements that enhance the value or sustainability of the trees.


Tree tenure in Ghana is complex and forest policy is considered as weak in addressing the issue. Non conducive tree tenure is largely regarded as a disincentive to sustainable forest management including agroforestry systems. The project will engage relevant government agencies1 to eliminate ambiguities related to tree tenure security. Using a cross sectorial engagement approach implementing partners will work with relevant stakeholders to explore and resolve tree tenure issues and institutional strengthening to ensure security of tree tenure and anticipated right to carbon sequestered from a national carbon program. To do this, it is important to first and foremost undertake a comprehensive review of the current tree tenure regime and its practical implications for the cocoa sector. 2. Objective The Environmental Sustainability and Policy for Cocoa Production in Ghana Project is seeking a Consultant to review the existing policies and legislation that are related to tree ownership in Ghana and its implications for a sustainable cocoa production system. The assignment would involve the following:

Documentation and analysis of existing forest policies and legislations related to tree tenure especially in cocoa landscapes. This will help the cocoa sector verify compliance with relevant laws, regulations and best practices that would encourage farmers to plant and maintain trees on their farms.

Determination of factors shaping tree policy formulation and implementation. Proposing recommendations on the policy and regulatory frameworks for the effective promotion

of environmentally sustainable practices in the cocoa sector such as agroforestry and afforestation in cocoa landscapes.

Determining the perception of farmers, traditional authorities, forest and timber industry and civil society groups to policy and regulatory frameworks on tree tenure in Ghana.

Specifically, the Consultant would undertake social and legal analysis of the current tree tenure regime and perform the following tasks:

A review of current status of tree tenure and its practical implications for the cocoa sector This review will identify the key socio-cultural issues in the current tree tenure regime and its implications for the cocoa sector. The review will rely on the extensive literature on community structure in Ghana, natural resource ownership, use, and management and the tree tenure regimes as prescribed by legislation. To the extent possible, the review will summarize how the current regime is affecting their perceptions on tree ownership. The review will also detail the range of relevant benefit sharing arrangements that exist in Ghana and internationally in an effort to inform subsequent recommendations. Specifically, the review will look firstly at the cash benefits that flow through government budgets and cycle back to the sub-national unit in forms of royalties, sub-national grants, or other fiscal transfers. Secondly, the review will examine benefit flows that accrue directly to communities in the form of monetary or non-monetary transfers.

An analysis of the welfare and income impacts of existing tree tenure regimes in Ghana This analysis will detail the existing tree tenure regimes and their impacts on community welfare, incomes and farmers' ability to adopt practices that involve tree planting. The analysis will incorporate an examination of the benefit sharing arrangements and where necessary relevant analysis of land ownership and use. The analysis will directly inform the recommendations of tree tenure models and the resulting policy recommendations. The consultant will use a variety of methods to ensure that both quantitative and

1 Ghana Cocoa Board, Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources, Forestry Commission, Land Commission, Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development, Ministry of Trade and Industry, District Assemblies, Traditional Authorities, Farmer representatives, etc.


qualitative data on the impacts of the tree tenure regime, and associated benefit sharing arrangements, are obtained.

A legal analysis of tree tenure and local forest management arrangements The review will include an examination of the policy and legal framework supporting the tree tenure regime, forest management initiatives by local people and benefit sharing mechanisms (where they exist). The consultant will conduct a comprehensive survey of policies, laws, regulations and institutions relevant to the above issues. This should include constitutional provisions, acts statutes, subsidiary legislation and policy statements related to forest management, protected areas, wildlife, land tenure, land use, agriculture, collection of revenue from stool lands and related topics. Furthermore, emphasis should be on understanding the “law in practice” -- how legal provisions are actually implemented, avoided, misapplied, overlooked, etc. Such an analysis will require reference to existing secondary material on the subject, as well as structured interviews with key informants in relevant government and non-governmental organizations. The consultant should also review available literature regarding examples from elsewhere in the world to help draw comparative lessons that may be relevant to Ghana as it tries to identify an appropriate strategy for dealing with these issues.

Recommendations and proposal for tree tenure regime for sustainable cocoa production Drawing from the above analysis, the consultant should identify legal and institutional constraints, gaps or obstacles to achieving more optimal tree tenure, local forest management and benefit sharing regimes, and provide concrete recommendations for addressing these to ensure sustainable cocoa production and community benefits. 3. Approach Data collection: It is anticipated that these tasks will include desk reviews, field work, and key informant interviews. The research will involve the administration of a questionnaire in relevant local areas to determine the feasibility of the models. In addition to the questionnaire, the implementation of these activities will be highly consultative in nature. The tasks will be undertaken in an inclusive manner—taking into account the input of a broad range of stakeholders including national and local level actors in the cocoa sector. The Consultant will build on studies already undertaken with a view to avoiding duplication and adding value to an already existing knowledge base. Of particular note is the work undertaken in the law and policy review arena including the Constitutional Review, the Land Administration Project (LAP), etc. Work being undertaken through the Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA), Forest Investment Program (FIP), and Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) should also be considered. 4. Deliverables and Timeline Reporting requirements include submission of a report on initial findings (inception report), a draft final report and a final report, the timing of which will be agreed and recorded in the consultant contract. The review/analysis is expected to produce a series of actionable, prioritized recommendations for the project for addressing the tree tenure challenge facing farmers in the cocoa sector.

Deliverables Tentative Timeline Notes

1 Inception Report After two weeks Including initial findings and the activity plan

2 Draft Final Report After six weeks

3 Final Report After eight weeks Including executive summary


The work is envisioned for a total duration of 2 (fulltime) months from October 2013. The consultant will submit a timeline as part of a detailed work plan. 5. Required Skills and Competencies The Consultant will have specialization in natural resources governance, with at least 10 years of experience and a good knowledge of both the forestry and cocoa sector in Ghana. In addition, S/He will have experience with participatory methodologies and proven experience collecting and analyzing both quantitative and qualitative data. Experience working on the legal dimensions of natural resource tenure will be an advantage. Specific expertise in tree and/or land tenure regimes in West Africa is required as is knowledge of national laws and implications for tree tenure and benefit sharing in Ghana. Experience working on similar assignments will be required, as will excellent communication and writing skills. Ability to multi-task will also be required. Knowledge of relevant local languages is preferred. The requirements for the two consultants are outlined below. The recommended team composition is as follows:

Position Qualifications Experience

Team Leader

Team Leader shall be a postgraduate holder in any of the discipline including: Environmental Management Forestry or Natural Resource

Management Exceptional communication and writing skills is a must. S/he is required to have a strong analytical skills and ability to synthesize large amount of data into analytical and practical knowledge/information.

At least 8 to 10 years of relevant work experience. S/he should have extensive professional experience in working with national, regional, and district governments, preferably in the forestry or cocoa sector Successfully conducted at least 3 studies at national, regional, or district level. Project implementation experience in this field is a plus.

Team Member

The Team Member shall be a postgraduate holder in a field closely related to tree tenure issue and environmental management. Exceptional communication and writing skills is a must. S/he is required to have a strong analytical skills and ability to synthesize large amount of data into analytical and practical knowledge/information. His/her expertise should complement that of the Team Leader’s.

At least 3 to 5 years of relevant work experience. His/her experience should complement that of the Team Leader’s.

The Team Leader will be responsible for the overall delivery of all outputs under this assignment with reference to international best practices. S/he will, 1) prepare a task matrix for consultants; 2) supervise the inputs of the consultants; and 3) ensure the quality of and consolidate their outputs to complete the deliverables of this assignment.


6. Guidance for Consultants a. Gender – All activities should take into consideration approaches and methods that are gender

sensitive. To the extent possible, data and analysis should be gender-disaggregated

b. Monitoring & Evaluation – All activities will be monitored and evaluated based on qualitative

and quantitative information. Agreed upon deadlines must be met, and penalty may arise, as

outlined in the contract, for late submissions that have not been approved in advance.

c. Communication – All information regarding the activity will be communicated to a wide variety

of stakeholders using various channels throughout the implementation. The final product of the

work will be the property of the Ghana Cocoa Board and UNDP.

d. Teamwork – Consultants are advised to utilize and build upon skills, data, and information

gathered as a team rather than individuals. Therefore, consultant is requested to collaborate and

distribute their tasks effectively so that they can complete the given task within the timeframe of

this consultancy.


Appendix 2 Questionnaires

Proven Ag Solutions “Environmental Sustainability and Policy for Cocoa Production in Ghana”

Project QUESTIONNAIRE 1: GOVERNMENT MINISTRIES, DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES This questionnaire is prepared to solicit for scientific knowledge on the review of Existing Policies and Legislation Related to Tree Ownership in Ghana and its Implications for a Sustainable Cocoa Production System. Your maximum cooperation is therefore appreciated. Thank you.

A. Socio – Demographic Information

1. Region ……………………………………. District ………………………………….

2. Name of Organization…………………………………………………………………

3. Name of respondent (optional): ………………………………………………………

4. Gender of respondent (1). Male [ ] (2). Female [ ]

5. Level of education attained (1). Primary [ ] (2). Middle / JSS/JHS [ ] (3.) SSS/Voc. /

Tec. [ ] (4). Tertiary [ ]

6. What are the public institutions responsible for Environmental management and their roles?

INSTITUTIONS ROLE OF INSTITUTION SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVITIES

7a). Do you know of any existing forestry legislation /Policy on tree tenure Yes [ ] No[ ]

7b. If Yes what are the existing legislation on tree tenure (at least tree) i. …………………………………………………………………………

ii……………………………………………………………………………… iii…………………………………………………………………………………… 8. What are the challenges in implementing environmentally-sound management practices with special reference to land/tree tenure in cocoa landscapes?


FACTORS AFFECTING ENVIRONMENTALLY-SOUND PRACTICES IN COCOA LANDSCAPES (relating to policy)

CHALLENGES IN ADDRESSING THE FACTORS

9. What are the solutions proposed? FACTORS AFFECTING ENVIRONMENTALLY-SOUND PRACTICES IN COCOA LANDSCAPES (relating to policy)

PROPOSED SOULTIONS

10. Implementation assessment of Forestry legislation related to tree tenure PROBLEMS OF IMPLEMENTATION RELATED TO TREE TENURE POLICIES AND RGULATIONS

ASSESSMENT/VIEW ON STATUS

11. Proposal to improve the implementation of the Tree tenure system PROBLEMS OF IMPLEMENTATION RELATED TO TREE TENURE POLICIES AND RGULATIONS

PROPOSAL FOR IMPROVEMENT

12. As a Government organization what contributions have you made to the welfare of forest dependent communities and farmers over the last decade (List)………………………………….. “The law in practice” 13. In relation to how the law is being applied what do people do in response to the application of the law? (Please tick as appropriate?

a) Avoidance……………………………………………………………………………

b) Misapplication………………………………………………………………………..

c) Overlooked………………………………………………………………………………….


d) Abused……………………………………………………………………………………

e) Exploited………………………………………………………………………………….

f) Others …………………………………………………………………………………….

14. Reason (Tick)

a) Anger at the law

b) Rebellion against the law

c) Ignorance of the law

d) Corruption

e) Others (Specify) ...........................................................................

15. What are the different types of benefit sharing arrangements that you have with the communities or individuals as a government institution?.............................................................................. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 16. Which of these areas are impacted by these benefit sharing arrangements? (Tick as appropriate)

a) Environmental management (taking care of forest) …………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………

b) Farmers’ Behaviour …………………………………………………….........................

c) Farmers /community income…………………………………………………………..

d) Access to trees…………………………………………………………………………………

e) Livelihood……………………………………………………………………………..

f) Others (Specify)………………………………………………………………………. 17. Which of the following are impacted by the laws on tree tenure? (tick as appropriate)

a) Environmental management (taking care of forest)


b) Farmers Behaviour c) Farmers /community income d) Access to trees e) Livelihood f) Others (Specify)

18. Are there any coordination Platforms amongst the various key stakeholders in the formulation and implementation of sustainable forest management? Yes[ ] No[ ] 19. If yes what are they? 20. Who are involved in these platforms?



Project QUESTIONNAIRE 2: INDUSTRY PLAYERS (Loggers – legal/illegal) This questionnaire is prepared to solicit for scientific knowledge on the review of Existing Policies and Legislation Related to Tree Ownership in Ghana and its Implications for a Sustainable Cocoa Production System. Your maximum cooperation is therefore appreciated. W assure you of maximum confidentiality. Thank you.


1. Region ……………………………………. District ………………………………….




5. Level of education attained (a). Primary [ ] (b). Middle / JSS/JHS [ ]

(c). SSS/Voc. / Tec. [ ] (d). Tertiary [ ]

Knowledge on Tree Tenure System

6. Do you know of the tree tenure system in Ghana? (1). Yes [ ] (2). No [ ]

7. If yes, how did you get to know? Give reason(s) for your answer……………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

8a. Do you know how it operates? (1). Yes [ ] (2). No [ ]

8b. If yes can you describe the process involved?

………………………………………................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................

9. Has there been any sensitization program in this area on this subject matter?

(1). Yes [ ] (2). No [ ]


10. If Yes by whom? ………………………………………………………………………..

11. Have you planted and or maintained any timber (species) tree(s)?

(1) Yes [ ] (2). No [ ]

12. Do you know of how to get government to give you ownership rights to tree(s) you have

planted and or maintained? (1) Yes [ ] (2). No [ ]

13. Have you or any other person benefitted from this system? (1). Yes [ ] (2). No [ ]

“The law in practice” 14. In relation to how the law is being applied what do people do in response to the application of the law,

a) Avoidance……………………………………………………………………………


c) Overlooked………………………………………………………………………………….

d) Abused……………………………………………………………………………………

e) Exploited………………………………………………………………………………….

f) Others …………………………………………………………………………………….

15. Reason (Why) ?........................................................................... f) Anger at the law

g) Rebellion against th law

h) Ignorance of the law

i) Corruption

j) Others (Specify)

Benefit-Sharing arrangements 16. What are the different types of benefit sharing arrangements that you have with the communities or individuals as a logger?.......................................................... ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….


17. What are the impacts of these benefit sharing arrangements on a) Environmental management (taking care of forest) ……………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

b) Farmers Behaviour …………………………………………………….........................


d) Access…………………………………………………………………………………

e) Livelihood……………………………………………………………………………..

f) Others (Specify)………………………………………………………………………. 18. Do the laws on tree tenure impact on the following (tick as appropriate)

a) Environmental management (taking care of forest) b) Farmers Behaviour c) Farmers /community income d) Access e) Livelihood f) Others (Specify)

C. Perception of Tree Tenure System

19. Have you ever had any conflict over trees on people’s farms? (1). Yes [ ] (2). No [ ]

20. If yes, what was it?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

21. Was it resolved? (1). Yes [ ] (2). No [ ]

22. How was it resolved?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

23. Did you like the outcome? (1). Yes [ ] (2). No [ ]

24. So based on the outcome, would you encourage people to plant and or maintain trees on their

farms? (1).Yes [ ] (2).No [ ]

25. Where do you source your timber trees from


i.

ii.

iii.

26. From who do you get permission to fell these trees………………………………………

i.

ii.

iii

27. What do you think of government setting aside areas as forest reserves? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

28. What are the private sector organizations in the timber and cocoa industry in relation to environmental management and their roles? INSTITUTIONS ROLE OF INSTITUTION

IN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVITIES

29. What are the challenges in abiding by environmentally-sound management practices with special reference to tree tenure in cocoa landscapes? i…………………………………………………………………………………………………… ii…………………………………………………………………………………………………… iii…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 30. What are the solutions proposed? CHALLENGES PROPOSED SOULTIONS 31. To whom do you pay money for any tree you fell? i………………………………………………………………………………………………. ii……………………………………………………………………………………………… iii…………………………………………………………………………………………….

32a. Do you have any Social Responsibility Agreement with the community (Any special

contribution to community) where you operate? Yes [ ] No[ ]


32b. If Yes what exactly have you provided over the last decade

i………………………..ii………………………iii……………………iv………………….

33a. Do you know of the Forestry Legislation related to Tree tenure Yes [ ] / No[ ] 33b. If Yes, give your assessment of the Forestry legislation related to tree tenure FORESTRY LEGISLATION ON TREE TENURE


34. Proposal to improve the implementation of the Forestry Law related to Tree tenure ASSESSMENT/VIEW ON STATUS PROPOSAL FOR IMPROVEMENT 35. Are there any coordination mechanism amongst the various key stakeholders in the formulation and implementation of sustainable forest management. (ask the other actors) Yes[ ] No[ ]



Project QUESTIONNAIRE 3: CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS ENGAGED IN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES This questionnaire is prepared to solicit for scientific knowledge on the review of Existing Policies and Legislation Related to Tree Ownership in Ghana and its Implications for a Sustainable Cocoa Production System. Your maximum cooperation is therefore appreciated. We assure you of maximum confidentiality. Thank you.


1. Region ……………………………………. District ………………………………….



4. Gender of respondent (1). Male [ ](2). Female [ ]

5. Level of education attained (1). Primary [ ](2). Middle / JSS/JHS [ ]

(3). SSS/Voc. / Tec. [ ] (4). Tertiary [ ]

B. Knowledge on Tree Tenure System 6. a)Do you know of the tree tenure system in Ghana? (1). Yes [ ] (2).No [ ] b) If yes, how did you get to know? Give reason(s) for your answer

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………..

7a). Do you know how it operates? (1). Yes [ ] (2). No [ ]

7b). If yes can you describe the process involved?

……………………………………....................................................................................................

...........................................................................................................................................................

8). Has there been any sensitization program by your organization on tree tenure?

(1). Yes [ ] (2). No [ ]

9). Has your Organization promoted any afforestation project?

(1) Yes [ ] (2). No [ ]



10a). Does your organization have any conflict/contention on tree tenure with government ?

(1). Yes [ ] (2). No [ ]

10b). If yes, what was it?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

11a. Was it resolved? (1). Yes [ ] (2). No [ ]

11b. How was it resolved?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

12. What do you think of government setting aside areas as forest reserves?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………..

13. Civil Society organizations engaged in Environmental management and their roles? INSTITUTIONS ROLE OF INSTITUTION



14. In your opinion what are the challenges farmers face in abiding by environmentally-sound management practices with special reference to land/tree tenure in cocoa landscapes? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 15. What are the solutions proposed? CHALLENGES PROPOSED SOULTIONS 16. Assessment of Forestry legislation related to tree tenure


FORESTRY LEGISLATION ON TREE TENURE


17. Implementation assessment of Forestry legislation related to tree tenure SPECIFIC ISSUES RELATED TO TREE TENURE


18. Proposal to improve the implementation of the Forestry Law/Tree tenure ASSESSMENT/VIEW ON STATUS PROPOSAL FOR IMPROVEMENT “The law in practice” 19. In relation to how the law is being applied what do people do in response to the application of the law,

a) Avoidance……………………………………………………………………………


c) Overlooked……………………………………………………………………………

d) Abused………………………………………………………………………………

e) Exploited………………………………………………………………………………

f) Others

…………………………………………………………………………………….

20. Reason (Why) ?........................................................................... a) Anger at the law

b) Rebellion against th law


d) Corruption

e) Others (Specify)

Benefit sharing arrangements


21. What are the different types of benefit sharing arrangements that you have with the communities or individuals as a logger?.......................................................... ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………22. What are the impacts of these benefit sharing arrangements on

a) Environmental management (taking care of forest) …………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… b) Farmers Behaviour ……………………………………………………......................... c) Farmers /community income………………………………………………………….. d) Access………………………………………………………………………………… e) Livelihood…………………………………………………………………………….. f) Others (Specify)……………………………………………………………………….

23. Do the laws on tree tenure impact on the following (tick as appropriate)


24. Are there any coordination mechanism amongst the various key stakeholders in the formulation and implementation of sustainable forest management. (ask the other actors) Yes[ ] No[ ]



Project

QUESTIONNAIRE 4: RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONS ENGAGED IN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ISSUES (FORIG, CRIG etc.) This questionnaire is prepared to solicit for scientific knowledge on the review of Existing Policies and Legislation Related to Tree Ownership in Ghana and its Implications for a Sustainable Cocoa Production System. Your maximum cooperation is therefore appreciated. We assure you of maximum confidentiality. Thank you.


1. Region ……………………………………. District ………………………………….



4. Gender of respondent (1). Male[ ] (2). Female [ ]

5. Level of education attained (1). Primary [ ] (2). Middle / JSS/JHS [ ]


6. What are the research organizations in Environmental management and their roles? INSTITUTIONS ROLE OF INSTITUTION



B. Perception 7. Do you have any outreach or sensitization programs on tree tenure? Yes[ ] No[ ] 8. How often do you organize such programs 1.Very often[ ] 2.Often[ ] 3. Less often[ ] 9. What’s your opinion on farmers’ knowledge in tree tenure policies and legislation in cocoa growing lanscapes? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 10a. In your opinion are farmers interested in tree tenure? Yes[ ] No[ ] 10b) Give reasons for your answer………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 11a. In your opinion do you think the tree tenure policy adequately trickles down to the farmer? Yes[ ] No[ ] 11b. Give reason(s) for your answer…………………………………….........................


………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 12a. In your opinion do you see the illiterate farmers practically benefitting from tree tenure? Yes[ ] No[ ] 12b.Give reasons for your answer…………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 13. What are the challenges in implementing environmentally-sound management practices with special reference to land/tree tenure in cocoa landscapes? FACTORS AFFECTING ENVIRONMENTALLY-SOUND PRACTICES IN COCOA LANDSCAPES (relating to policy)


14. What are the solutions proposed? FACTORS AFFECTING ENVIRONMENTALLY-SOUND PRACTICES IN COCOA LANDSCAPES (relating to policy)

PROPOSED SOLUTIONS

15. Practical implementation assessment of Forestry legislation related to tree tenure PROBLEMS OF IMPLEMENTATION RELATED TO TREE TENURE POLICIES AND RGULATIONS


16. Proposal to improve the implementation of the Forestry Law on Tree tenure ASSESSMENT/VIEW ON STATUS PROPOSAL FOR IMPROVEMENT 17. Proposal to improve the implementation of the Tree tenure system in Ghana PROBLEMS OF IMPLEMENTATION RELATED TO TREE TENURE POLICIES AND RGULATIONS



18. Are there any coordination mechanism amongst the various key stakeholders (researchers and policy makers and implementers) in the formulation and implementation of sustainable forest management. Yes[ ] No[ ] 19. What are the impacts of benefit sharing arrangements on related to tree tenure on

a) Environmental management (taking care of forest) …………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………

b) Farmers Behaviour …………………………………………………….........................


d) Access…………………………………………………………………………………

e) Livelihood……………………………………………………………………………..

f) Others (Specify)………………………………………………………………………. 20. Do the laws on tree tenure impact on the following (tick as appropriate)




Project QUESTIONNAIRE 5: TRADITIONAL AUTHORITIES ENGAGED IN ENVIRONMENTAL/LAND AND TREE TENURE ISSUES This questionnaire is prepared to solicit for scientific knowledge on the review of Existing Policies and Legislation Related to Tree Ownership in Ghana and its Implications for a Sustainable Cocoa Production System. Your maximum cooperation is therefore appreciated. We assure you of maximum confidentiality. Thank you.


1. Region ……………………………………. District ………………………………….

2. Name of traditional area…………………………………………………………………



5. Origin of respondents (1). Native [ ] (2). Migrant [ ] (3). Settler [ ]



B. Knowledge on Tree Tenure System 7a. Do you know of the tree tenure system in Ghana? (1). Yes [ ] (2). No [ ] 7b. If yes, how did you get to know? Give reason(s) for your answer……………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

8a. Do you know how it operates? (1). Yes [ ] (2). No [ ]

8b. If yes can you describe the process involved?

……………………………………....................................................................................................

...........................................................................................................................................................

9a. Has there been any sensitization program in this area on tree tenure aimed at sustainable

forest management?


(1). Yes [ ] (2). No [ ]

9b. If yes by whom? ……………………………………………………………………….

10. Have you planted and or maintained any timber tree(s) in your cocoa farm?

(1) Yes [ ] (2). No [ ]

11. Do you know of how to get government to give you tenure rights to tree(s) you have planted

and or maintained? (1). Yes [ ] (2). No [ ]




………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

14. How do you describe the level of community participation in afforestation in the district?

1) High [ ] 2) Average [ ] 3)Low [ ]

15. Is your outfit or the traditional authority regularly consulted on the management of forests by

government institutions? (a) Yes [ ] (b) No [ ]

16a. Are there any local tree tenure arrangements in place for timber species? (a) Yes[ ] (b)No [ ]

16b). In your opinion do you think the following have timber tenure rights in cocoa growing

landscape?

i. Individual land owners……Yes[ ] No[ ]

ii. Perpetual tenants /Migrants …Yes[ ] No [ ]

iii. Short stayed tenants and migrants…Yes [ ] No [ ]

iv. Communal lands…Yes [ ] No [ ]

v. Family lands…Yes[ ] No [ ]


D. Benefit Sharing Arrangements

17a. Have you ever had any conflict over benefit sharing of revenues accruing from trees on your

farm? (1)Yes [ ] (2). No [ ]

17b. If yes, what was it?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

18a. Was it resolved? (1). Yes [ ] (2). No [ ]

18b. How was it resolved?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

18c. Did you like the outcome? (1). Yes [ ] (2). No [ ]

19. So based on the outcome, would you continue to urge your subjects to plant and or maintain

trees on their farms? (1).Yes [ ] (2). No [ ]

20. How easy it is for community members to plant and maintain timber trees?

a)Very easy b) Easy c)Fairly easy d)Not easy.

21.

22. Can you describe how the proceeds from the forest are used in community

development……………………………………………………………………………………..

…………………………………………………………………………………………..

23. Do you like the benefit sharing arrangement with government as a community? Yes [ ] No[

]

24. Do you like the benefit sharing arrangement with timber companies as a community?

Yes [ ] No[ ]

25. Do you like the benefit sharing arrangement with chain saw operators as a community?


Yes [ ] No[ ]

26. In your opinion is the community benefitting from proceeds of the forest? Yes [ ] No[ ]

27a. In your opinion do you think benefit sharing models in the community enhances only the

privileged and dominant groups? Yes [ ] No [ ]

27b. If Yes, How has the current benefit sharing arrangements for timber contributed to the

marginalization of others including

i) Women…………………………………………………………………………………………

ii)Caretakers……………………………………………………………………………………..

iii)Tenants……………………………………………………………………………………….

iv)Youth………………………………………………………………………………………….

28. In your opinion is there community participation in decision making on benefit sharing on

tree tenure. Yes [ ] No[ ]

29a. Are there community dialogue structures in place for negotiations/discussions on forest

management issues. Yes[ ] No[ ]

29b. Give reasons for your answer……………………………………………………….

……………………………………………………………………………………………….

30. What are the Traditional Authorities responsible for Environmental management and their roles? INSTITUTIONS ROLE OF INSTITUTION



31. What are the challenges in implementing environmentally-sound management practices with special reference to land/tree tenure in cocoa landscapes? PROBLEMS OF IMPLEMENTATION RELATED TO TREE TENURE POLICIES AND RGULATIONS

PROPOSED SOULTIONS




33. Proposal to improve the implementation of the Forestry Law/Tree tenure ASSESSMENT/VIEW ON STATUS PROPOSAL FOR IMPROVEMENT 34. What are the challenges in abiding by environmentally-sound management practices with special reference to land/tree tenure in cocoa landscapes? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 35. Are there any coordination mechanism amongst the various key stakeholders (researchers and policy makers and implementers) in the formulation and implementation of sustainable forest management. Yes[ ] No[ ]



Project QUESTIONNAIRE 6: LOCAL ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITIES ENGAGED IN ENVIRONMENTAL/LAND AND TREE TENURE ISSUES This questionnaire is prepared to solicit for scientific knowledge on the review of Existing Policies and Legislation Related to Tree Ownership in Ghana and its Implications for a Sustainable Cocoa Production System. Your maximum cooperation is therefore appreciated. We assure you of maximum confidentiality. Thank you.


1. Region ……………………………………. District ………………………………….






B. Knowledge on Tree Tenure System 6. Do you know of the tree tenure system in Ghana? (1)Yes [ ] (2).No [ ] 7. If yes, how did you get to know? Give reason(s) for your answer…………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

8. Do you know how it operates? (1). Yes [ ] (2) No [ ]

9. If yes can you describe the process involved?

……………………………………....................................................................................................

...........................................................................................................................................................


(1). Yes [ ] (2). No [ ]


11. If yes by whom? ………………………………………………………………………….

Perception 12. Do you have any outreach or sensitization programs on tree tenure? Yes[ ] No[ ] 13. How often do you organize such programs 1.Very often[ ] 2.Often[ ] 3. Less often[ ] 14. What’s your opinion on farmers’ knowledge in tree tenure policies and legislation? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 15a. In your opinion are farmers interested in tree tenure? Yes[ ] No[ ] 15b. Give reasons for your answer…………………………………………………………….. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 16a). In your opinion do you think the tree tenure policy adequately trickle down to the farmer? Yes [ ] No[ ] 16b) Give reason(s) for your answer……………………………………………………………. 17. In your opinion how do you see the illiterate farmers practically benefitting from tree tenure? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 18. Is there any aspect of the implementation of tree tenure that you want changed? Yes [ ] No[ ] .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19. What are the challenges in implementing environmentally-sound management practices with special reference to land/tree tenure in cocoa landscapes? PROBLEMS OF IMPLEMENTATION RELATED TO TREE TENURE POLICIES AND RGULATIONS


20. What are the solutions proposed? PROBLEMS OF IMPLEMENTATION RELATED TO TREE TENURE POLICIES AND RGULATIONS

PROPOSED SOULTIONS

Community Welfare 21. As a District/Municipal do you normally receive the loyalties accruing from timber? Yes [ ] No [ ] 22. How much income has been raised from proceeds of the forest in this District/Municipal? Year Income Percentage of revenue base 2012 2011


2010 2009 2008 2007 23. List the community projects that this income from forest directly financed over the last five years ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 24. In your opinion would you say that the community has benefitted immensely from tree tenure?.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... In your opinion would you say that income from forests timber is a significant contribution to your revenue base? Yes [ ] No[ ] 25. Implementation assessment of Forestry legislation related to tree tenure SPECIFIC ISSUES RELATED TO TREE TENURE


26. Proposal to improve the implementation of the Tree tenure system PROBLEMS OF IMPLEMENTATION RELATED TO TREE TENURE POLICIES AND RGULATIONS


27. What are the solutions proposed? PROBLEMS OF IMPLEMENTATION RELATED TO TREE TENURE POLICIES AND RGULATIONS

SOLUTIONS SUGGESTED




29. Proposal to improve the implementation of the Forestry Law/Tree tenure ASSESSMENT/VIEW ON STATUS PROPOSAL FOR IMPROVEMENT 30. Are there any coordination mechanism amongst the various key stakeholders (researchers and policy makers and implementers) in the formulation and implementation of sustainable forest management. Yes[ ] No[ ] “The law in practice” 31. In relation to how the law is being applied what do people do in response to the application of the law,

a) Avoidance………………………………………………………………………

b) Misapplication………………………………………………………………………

c) Overlooked…………………………………………………………………………

…

d) Abused……………………………………………………………………………

…

e) Exploited……………………………………………………………………………

…

f) Others

…………………………………………………………………………………….

32. Reason (Why) ?........................................................................... a) Anger at the law

b) Rebellion against th law


d) Corruption

e) Others (Specify)

Benefit sharing arrangements 33. What are the different types of benefit sharing arrangements that you have with the communities or individuals as a logger?.......................................................... ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………


…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 34. What are the impacts of these benefit sharing arrangements on

g) Environmental management (taking care of forest) …………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… h) Farmers Behaviour ……………………………………………………......................... i) Farmers /community income………………………………………………………….. j) Access………………………………………………………………………………… k) Livelihood…………………………………………………………………………….. l) Others (Specify)……………………………………………………………………….

35. Do the laws on tree tenure impact on the following (tick as appropriate)

g) Environmental management (taking care of forest) h) Farmers Behaviour i) Farmers /community income j) Access k) Livelihood l) Others (Specify)



Project

QUESTIONNAIRE 7. For Farmers This questionnaire is prepared to solicit for scientific knowledge on the review of Existing Policies and Legislation Related to Tree Ownership in Ghana and its Implications for a Sustainable Cocoa Production System. Your maximum cooperation is therefore appreciated. Thank you.

B. Socio – Demographic Information

7. Region ……………………………………. District ………………………………….

Community…………………………………………………………………………………

8. Name of respondent (optional):

…………………………………………………………………………………………


10. Age of respondent (years) (1) 10 – 20 [ ] (2). 21 – 30 [ ] (3). 31 – 40 [ ]

(4). 41 – 50 [ ] ( 5). 51 – 60 [ ] (6). 61+ [ ]

11. Origin of respondents (1). Native [ ] (2). Migrant [ ] (3). Settler [ ]



13. Number of dependants (1). None [ ] (2). 1 – 4 [ ] (3). 5 – 9 [ ] (4). 10+ [ ]

C. Knowledge on Tree Tenure System

14. Do you know of the tree ownership system in Ghana? (1). Yes [ ] (2). No [ ]

15. If yes, how did you get to know? Give reason(s) for your answer……………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

16. Do you know how it operates? (1). Yes [ ] (2). No [ ]


17. If yes can you describe the process involved?

……………………………………....................................................................................................

...........................................................................................................................................................


(1). Yes [ ] (2). No [ ]

13. If yes by whom?

………………………………………………………………………………….

14. Have you planted and or maintained any timber tree(s) in your cocoa farm?

(1) Yes [ ] (2). No [ ]

15. Do you know of how to get government to give you ownership rights to tree(s) you have

planted and or maintained? (1). Yes [ ] (2). No [ ]



17. Have you ever had any conflict over the ownership of trees on your farm?

(1). Yes [ ] (2). No [ ]

18. If yes, what was it?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

19. Was it resolved? (1). Yes [ ] (2). No [ ]

20. How was it resolved?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

21. Did you like the outcome? (1). Yes [ ] (2). No [ ]

22. So based on the outcome, would you continue to plant and or maintain trees on your farm?


(1). Yes [ ] (2). No [ ]

23. What do you think of Government’s role in managing trees on your farm?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………


………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

D. Welfare and Income Levels

25. What are the tree tenure regimes in this area?

Arrangement in Place Yes No

(i) Right of Access to the trees

(ii) Right to own the trees

(iii) Right to the usage of trees

(iv) Right to the disposal of trees

(v) Right to prevent others from use of trees in your farm

26. How do these regime(s) affect your wellbeing? (Assets accumulation/livelihood)

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

*

27. Does it affect your income, and in what ways?


………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

28. What Land tenure arrangement do you have?

Categories of Land Yes No

(i) Public/State lands

(ii) Vested lands

(iii)Stool/Skin lands

(iv) Family lands

(v) Private ownership

29. Do these arrangement(s) provide you with land security? (1). Yes [ ] (2). No [ ]

30. What are the benefit sharing arrangements in place for revenues accruing from both land and

trees, if any?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………..

31. Do these arrangement(s) incentivize you to plant and or maintain trees in your farms?

(1) Yes [ ] (2). No [ ]

32. What challenge(s) do you have with the tree tenure system?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

33. What recommendation(s) do you suggest for future improvements of tree tenure system in

Ghana………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………


Annex 3 List of Interviewees

LIST OF PEOPLE INTERVIEWED

CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS

REGION NAMES INSTITUTION

MUNICIPALITY/

DIST

COMMUNITY CONTACTS

Greater

Accra

Mr.Samuel Kofi

Nyame (National Project

Coordinator)

IUCN Accra

Metropolitan

Assembly (A.M.A)

N/A 0246996552

Accra Albert Martey Solidaridad A.M.A N/A -

Accra Jeremiah

Boachie Sarpong

Friend of The

Earth(FOE)

A.M.A N/A -

Accra Christian

Mensah

Rain Forest

Alliance

A.M.A N/A 0244755277

Accra Dr. Rebecca

Asare

Nature

Conservation

Research Centre

(NCRC)

A.MA N/A 0243 709369

rebeccaashley

asare@yahoo.

com

Brong

Ahafo

Representative Care

International

Ghana

Asunafo N/A -

Western

Region

Anthony

Quacoei

HACOG (Help Advance

Community

Opportunity Goals)

WASSA EAST N/A -

Western

Region

Evans Owusu (Dev. Facilitator)

World Vision

Ghana

Wassa East N/A 0244473996

GOVERNMENT/MINISTRIES/DEPARTMENTS/AGENCIES

REGION NAMES INSTITUTION MUNICIPALITY COMMUNITY CONTACTS

Western

Region

Joseph Kojo

Amissah

Department of

Agriculture

Wassa East N/A 0277735477


Western

Region

Geoffrey Sam (District Cocoa

Officer)

CSSUD-Control

Unit/COCOBOD

Sekondi N/A 0208140388

Central Kofi Antobam Forestry office

Forestry

Commission

Cape Coast N/A 0202627961

GOVERNMENT/MINISTRIES/DEPARTMENTS/AGENCIES Cont.


Ashanti Mr. Roger

Akpabonle

Mr. Bismark

Appiah-Kubi

Armajaro (PBC) KMA N/A 0244572261

0244640958

Greater

Accra

Theophilus Osei

Owusu

MOFA-

Directorate

N/A 0244204674

Kofi Afresah Ministry of

Trade and

Industry

N/A 0266132321/0

302686552

Pearl Rockson Lands

Commission

N/A 0245770060

Richard Owusu

Kuma

Forest Services

Division

N/A 0205100919

BRONG

AHAFO

Representative Forest Services

Division

Goaso N/A -

Male

Representative

Asunafo North

Municipality

Assembly

Asunafo North N/A -

Felix Tienaah MOFA Asunafo North N/A -

FARMER FOCUS GROUPS BRONG AHAFO


BRONG MALE Farmers/Focus ASUNAFO AYOMSO


AHAFO Groups NORTH

Boye George -

James Gyebi -

Peter Adjei -

Nsiah Nicholas -

Yaw Amoako -

Kofi Antwi -

FARMERS/FOCUS GROUPS BRONG AHAFO Cont.


BRONG

AHAFO

MALE Farmers Focus

Groups

ASUNAFO

NORTH

AYOMSO

I.K Bofa

Opoku Robert -

Adu Samuel -

Akwesi Addai -

Arthur Jacob -

Thompson

Opoku

-

Kwabena Gyan -

FEMALE Farmer Focus

Group

ASUNAFO

NORTH

ASUMDAI -


Beatrice Boakye -

Adwoa Mansah -

Yida Amponsah -

Sophia Omari -

Theresah

Asantewaa

-

Comfort Appiah -

Abiba

Mohammed

-

Dora Boateng -

Georgina Adbu -

Cecilia Atenka -

Letricia

Owusuwaa

-

FARMER FOCUS GROUPS BRONG AHAFO


BRONG

AHAFO

FEMALE Farmers Focus

Groups

ASUNAFO

NORTH

AYOMSO

Grace Kyei -

Mary Akomeah

Comfort Ayaania -


Hanna Gyamfi -

Paulina Yeboah -

Grace Donkor -

Mary Nyanor -

Susuana Brenya -

Dina Aseidu -

Agnes -

Yida Tawiah -

Grace Asiedu -

Mary Donkor -

FARMER FOCUS GROUPS EASTERN REGION

EASTERN MALE SUHUM TEI MENSAH -

Ernest Anti 0248325215

Pinto Frederick 0249634906

S.N Okwampah -

Emmanuel

Adamptey

-

Daniel Kwasi

Nortey

-


Nartey Nicholas 0544557453

FARMER FOCUS GROUPS EASTERN REGION


EASTERN MALE Focus Group SUHUM TEI MENSAH -

Ntiamoah

Stephen

0267929911

Samuel Akunour -

Osei Samuel -

Kwaku Odei

Evans Asom -

Baah Emmanuel -

Alex Gyimah -

Tetteh Francis 0542343358

FEMALE

Mary Norga 0241392315

Gladys Kakie -

Hannah Anima -

Nakour Felicia 0542376173

Lartey Georgina 0241380063


Agnes Dede -

Karl Georgina 0241455276

Addo Janet -

Rose Akunour 0241544271

Mary Hoga -

Doris Maku -

Mercy Agyei -

CHIEF /ELDER EASTERN REGION


EASTERN CHIEF/ELDER CHIEF/ELDER SUHUM DENSUSO

Odikro Nana

Adu Ameyaw I

0246039324

Opanyin Kwasi

Mensah

-

Opanyin Kwasi

Tieku

0278636603

Opanyin Royal

Amedi

Opanyin Kudjo

Akpabla

-

Opanyin

Emmanuel

Tettey

0277210666

Opanyin Kwadjo

Aboagye

-


Opanyin Donko

Isaac

0273040060

Farmer Focus Group EASTERN REGION


EASTERN MALE FOCUS GROUP SUHUM DENSUSO

Daniel Obeng -

D.H Tettey 0249044034

Kwasi Ayeh -

Isaac Ansah 0246284381

Amos Tettey -

Kwame Fosu 0543650333

Ernest Owusu -

FARMER FOCUS GROUP EASTERN REGION


EASTERN MALE FOCUS GROUP SUHUM DENSUSO

N. K. Agbenyo 0541382656

Emmanuel Sakyi -

Ebenezer Aferi -

Daniel Akamabu -

FEMALE -


Elizabeth Oduraa 0245763965

Abigail Kpoga 0542968253

FEMALE -

Lydia Amponsah

Nsiah

0243005639

Vida Owusua 0234902296

Monica Mensah -

Madam Israel -

Janet Goku 0545054044

Kpoga Gifty 0542968253

Christiana

Korkor

0540946689

Cynthia Kpoga -

Gladys Apevieku -

Eunice Dede 0549973937

Nuziayovo Mary 0242534683

FARMER FOCUS GROUP WESTERN REGION


WESTERN MALE Farmer’s Focus

Group

WASSA-EAST SEKYERE

ABROADZEW

URAM-MEN


Possible Ansah 0202877524

Peter Boafi 0203891549

Hayford Ackah 0204555152

Isaac Osei 0275278613

James Cobbinah 0201419206

Benjamin Odoom

0201885424

Kobina Kuma -

Cosmos Ankrah 0207141556

Kwesi Oduro 0508123856

Paul Yeboah 0203883582

Kofi Agyapong -

Kwame Attah -

FEMALE -

Grace Aggrey 0202992632

Juliana Otoo 0200695758

Joyce Mensah 0204075321

Afua Nyarkoh 0205065036

Ekua Baawa -


Esi Boma -

Agnes Nkansah 0207496346



WESTERN FEMALE FOCUS GROUP WASSA-EAST SEKYERE

HEMAN

Yaa Baawa 0201486121

Adjoa Nuakowah

0203071114

Ekua Baba 0204126976

Ekua Praba -

Esi Boafowa -

MALE -

Ebo Mensah 0205901366

John Kessin 0200410556

Robert Qua-eno 0200348756

Yaw Eduful 0209995268

Kofi Kwaah 0207964118

Kwame Asomoah

-

Appiah Kubi 0201617126


James Zottor 0203761622

Kojo Sackey -

Ekow Freeman 0203071114

Amadu Adamu 0209821808

Kwaku Ndur 0209821805

David Amedzo 0205614069



WESTERN MALE FOCUS GROUP WASSA-EAST SEKYERE

HEMAN

Kwame Atta Kesse

0201615823

John Amporful 0209886818

Nana Quaidoo 1 -

Kojo Arhin 0508123759

Kwesi Nkrumah 054054468

Kofi Adansi 0200410380

Emmanuel Larure

-

Michael Ofori -

Geshon Sordzi 02782990484


FARMER FOCUS GROUP ASHANTI REGION


ASHANTI

REGION

MALE Farmers Focus

Group

AMANSIE-WEST MANSO

NKWANTA

KOBRISO

Fobi Asare -

Michael Okai -

Kwabena Agyare -

Kwaku Nsiah -

Glibert Senedju -

Akomeah Asante -

FARMER FOCUS GROUP ASHANTI REGION


ASHANTI

REGION

MALE Farmers Focus

Group

AMANSIE-WEST MANSO

NKWANTA

KOBRISO

Akuffo Joel -

Musah Baba -

Kojo Baffour -

Kodzovi Ahetor -

ASHANTI FEMALE Focus Group AMANSIE-WEST


Martha Owusu Mensah

-

Rosemary Asare -

Ama Oforiwaa -

Serwaa Krobea -

Akua Ampomaa -

Alice Twumwaa -

Abena Grace -

Salamatu Musah -

Memuna Adamu -

Dzifa Akpenyo -

Faustina Asantewaa

-

Environmental Sustainability and Policy for Cocoa ......Inclusivity and Stakeholder Consultation,...

Documents

Transcript of Environmental Sustainability and Policy for Cocoa ......Inclusivity and Stakeholder Consultation,...