A Review of Reforestation Approaches in Ghana

European Journal of Scientific Research ISSN 1450-216X / 1450-202X Vol. 131 No 1 April, 2015, pp.70-99 http://www.europeanjournalofscientificresearch.com

A Review of Reforestation Approaches in Ghana:

Sustainability and Genuine Local Participation

Lessons for Implementing REDD+ Activities

Mark Appiah

University of Eastern Finland, Faculty of Science and Forestry, School of Forest Science

P. O. Box 111, 80101 Joensuu, Finland

CSIR-Forestry Research Institute of Ghana, University P. O. Box 63, Kumasi, Ghana

E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected] Tel: 358-132514499

Murray Fagg

Associate, Centre for Australian National Biodiversity Research

Australian National Botanic Gardens, Canberra, Australia

Ari Pappinen

University of Eastern Finland, Faculty of Science and Forestry

School of Forest Science, P. O. Box 111, 80101 Joensuu, Finland

E-mail: [email protected], Tel: 358-132514499

Abstract

The sustainable management of reforestation activities is increasingly dependent

upon local communities' cooperation and participation. However, their involvement in project activities has been challenging because of conflicting interests in forest utilization on the one hand, and conservation on the other. In Ghana, for instance, this challenge is compounded by unclear government land use policies. However, while these challenges remain, there are some steps that can still be taken in order to secure the long-term commitment of local people to the governance and management of reforestation projects. This article reviews research findings on reforestation projects focusing on four cases in Ghana with high levels of achievement of sustainability indicators. The review provides an overview of the key sustainable approaches utilized that could become a model for sustainable management of “Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation plus” (REDD+) activities involving reforestation and livelihood development elsewhere. While seeking improved forest policy, a pressing need is to build the capacity of local people and institutions to manage integrated tree-crop systems independently and also to include all social groups in management and decision-making. The projects’ initiators took steps to ensure land tenure confidence, as opposed to outright ownership (which is difficult to achieve), and suggest that it has been one of the main drivers in achieving successful local commitments.

Keywords: Forest Governance, Land Tenure Confidence, Land Use Policies, REDD+, Stakeholder Participation

A Review of Reforestation Approaches in Ghana: Sustainability and Genuine Local Participation Lessons for Implementing REDD+ Activities 71

1. Introduction Options for averting or reducing deforestation and the growing loss of biodiversity that is associated with it has been an integral part of climate and development policy because forest species are being lost at an extinction rate that is 100 times higher than the natural level (Chaytor et al, 2002; Chandra and Idrisova, 2011). It has been estimated that, of the 6 billion hectares of forest that existed on Earth 8,000 years ago, only 4 billion hectares are now left (FRA 2010) and around 13 million hectares of forest are still being converted to other uses or lost through natural causes each year. Africa’s deforestation rate (of more than 4 million hectares of forest every year) is about twice the world average (Reuters, 2008; The Independent, 2008; UNEP, 2008). For example, it was reported two decades ago that Ghana had lost about 23% of the 715500 ha of its original forested lands (Wagner and Cobbinah, 1993) and much of that has since been degraded through human actions such as illegal and destructive logging operations and shifting cultivation (Appiah et al, 2009; FRA, 2010; Pereira et al, 2010; Cardinale et al, 2012; Avtar et al, 2013). At the same time that deforestation exacerbates biodiversity loss in Ghana and the rest of the world (Appiah et al, 2010; FRA, 2010; Cardinale et al, 2012), it also contributes 6–17% of the total anthropogenic CO2 emissions to the global atmosphere (IPCC 2000; IPCC 2007; Gibbs et al. 2007; Van der Werf et al, 2009; Avtar et al, 2011; Avtar et al, 2012a; 2012b; Baccini et al, 2012). Undoubtedly, deforestation is one specific area where climate change and biodiversity loss overlap (Siikamäki and Newbold 2012) and it is among the most pressing global environmental problems of today (Siikamäki and Newbold, 2012; Gebara, 2013).

The international community’s determination to avert deforestation and its associated consequences has been demonstrated by the signing of two separate international conventions to address deforestation, biodiversity loss and climate change: the Convention for Biological Diversity (CBD) and the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC) at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro (UNEP, 1992; UNFCCC, 2009; Siikamäki and Newbold, 2012). These agreements have led to the proliferation of several “Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation plus” (REDD+) projects involving afforestation/reforestation (AR) and agroforestry (AF) activities (Brown et al, 2008; Cerbu et al, 2009; Venter and Koh, 2012; Patel et al, 2013). AR involves establishing vegetation in an area with little or no existing forest cover where carbon can be captured in new tree biomass and other carbon pools. AF involves the integration of agricultural and forestry practices in which the sequestration of additional carbon in trees and/or soils is possible (Murdiyarso and Adiningsih, 2007; Murdiyarso et al, 2010). These project activities have become key parts of strategies to conserve biodiversity and mitigate and adapt to climate change (Dutschke and Wolf, 2007; Mbow et al, 2012; Angelsen et al, 2012). They are further expected to help to improve forest governance, alleviate poverty and secure rights and equity for local communities (Brown et al, 2008; Patel et al, 2013).

There is, however, widely expressed concern by major donors, such as the World Bank, the Africa Development bank and other bilateral aid agencies, that the sustainability of such AR and AF projects, often implemented at huge costs, is a major challenge in many countries (e.g. Byron 1997; Olbrei and Howes, 2012). According to several recently conducted studies (e.g. IEG, 2012), while the trend to start such projects has been good, the trend in sustaining them is rather disappointing - increasingly, fewer projects are being sustained. As a result many of these AR projects are still far from realizing their fundamental goal of biodiversity conservation, large-scale emissions reduction and improved forest governance (Butchart et al, 2010; Angelsen et al, 2014). This means that while huge expenditures are being incurred by project initiators in implementing AR/AF projects, poor sustainability is depriving them from the returns expected of these investments. Furthermore, Ozinga (2012) and Mbow et al (2012) have suggested that, in some cases, REDD+ related AR initiatives have triggered conflicts and marginalized local people. Some AR and AF activities, including REDD+ related ones, have been controversial as they have been associated with land grabs, evictions and forest access restrictions (Larson, 2011; Phelp et al, 2010; Lawlor et al, 2013).

72 Mark Appiah, Murray Fagg and Ari Pappinen

The lack of sustainability in AR and AF activities is attributed to a variety of reasons. There are those that are related to the lack of legal frameworks (contractual agreements) for joint-management and shared equitable benefits that cause social conflicts (Appiah, 2001; Mansourian et al, 2014). Unclear or less secure tenureship has also been another source of conflict in the implementation of AR/ AF activities. A more fundamental problem is that poor participatory approaches have been adopted (Dooley et al, 2008; Gebara, 2013). Projects have failed to strengthen local peoples’ use or access rights and they have excluded them from the actual decision-making process (Yasmi, 2007; Angelsen et al, 2009; Knox et al, 2011; Yasmi et al, 2012). It is acknowledged by many studies (e.g. Gebara, 2013) that, in some projects, local people are ignored with respect to forest governance; the decisions of AR are instead made by outside officials and ‘experts’ who are often project officials (Pimbert and Pretty, 1994; Gebara, 2013). In other cases, local people are either consulted or allowed to participate in project activities in return for food, cash and other incentives, but are not involved in decision-making (Pimbert and Pretty, 1994; Gebara, 2013). In a few projects, local people and other stakeholders are involved in decision-making during the planning, implementation and monitoring of project activities (Pimbert and Pretty, 1994; Gebara, 2013). This last type of approach to peoples’ participation is considered to be an example of genuine stakeholder participation (Pimbert and Pretty, 1994; Gebara, 2013). It is most important for stakeholder participation that they receive wide-spread recognition and appreciation (Gebara, 2013) and it should become an important factor in forestry projects and other international development projects.

Local people genuinely taking part in forest governance practices is recognized as being the basis for development and sustainable resource management (Collier, 2007; Dhiaulhaq et al, 2014) and has now become an important pre-requisite for countries and projects wishing to participate in emerging climate change mitigation schemes. In fact, it has been an important subject of discussion for decades since local participation is expected to enhance our understanding of the different interests and values that exist with regard to land tenure and traditional rights (Arevalo et al. 2014), as well as contributing to fair decision-making and benefit distribution (Santilli et al, 2005; Nepstad et al, 2007; Griffiths, 2008; Peskett et al, 2008). In light of this, the implementation of good forest governance through AR, AF and other REDD+ activities should be based upon a system that encourages long-term commitment by local communities to participate in and keep managing the systems in the long-run. Already, local communities, through their traditional interdependence upon forest resources, have developed unique perspectives and valuable traditional knowledge that can be used in order to support the management of AR and AF systems to achieve improved forest governance and sustainability.

If REDD+ activities that involve AR and AF are going to succeed, then finding practical ways in which local people can participate and improve forest governance must become a top priority. Given the level of local peoples’ dependence upon forests in Ghana, as well as those who convert them to other uses, REDD+ related AR and AF will not succeed without addressing the issues of commitment and forest governance practices. There is, however, no clear agreement upon exactly what good forest governance comprises, nor on how to assess whether it is being done well or poorly (Counsell, 2009; Larson and Petkova, 2011), but a suggestion has been made that good local forest governance is determined by how well local authority is applied in the management of forestry projects (FAO, 2011; Larson and Petkova, 2011). This includes how the projects’ officials deal with stakeholders, including local people, in terms of influencing how the projects’ activities and resources are managed and shared, and how decisions are made. 1.1. Aims and Significance of this Article

This current article provides a review of four AR/AF projects in Ghana, with particular emphasis upon the approaches and governance practices that have been utilized in order to enhance local commitment for sustainable forest governance. The aim is to draw on lessons learned from these projects using indicators developed by Lawlor et al (2013) and laid down within the UN framework of indicators for sustainable development (ISD) (Ba and Skutsch, 2010). The framework highlights issues that can be used for enhancing sustainability of AR activities including REDD+ -related ones for the benefit local

A Review of Reforestation Approaches in Ghana: Sustainability and Genuine Local Participation Lessons for Implementing REDD+ Activities 73 populations and all other forestry stakeholders. Brief descriptions of the indicators which highlight the pathways for achieving the goals of sustainable development are as follows:

Engaging in pre- project implementation consultation and participatory assessments - Gathering of baseline information enhances the project initiator’s understanding of the technical, socioeconomic and environmental status of the project areas and provides the Project participants with a check-list for sustainable forestry management interventions. One of the challenges to enhancing greater local people’s willingness to engage in participatory sustainable forest management (SFM), as suggested by Watson et al (2013), is the lack of a strong knowledge base for choosing and utilizing the appropriate planning tools.

Mobilization of the local population and recognizing each of the social groups, as well as

their involvement in decision-making - Local communities have a significant role in improving forest management and their participation in its management and the decisions affecting forest management can therefore contribute significantly to effective management of these resources (Kiptot and Franzel, 2011). Active participation of local people and communities is essential to improved democratic and service accountability and it enhances social cohesion because communities recognize the value of working in partnership with each other and with other forestry institutions (Kiptot and Franzel, 2011). Active participation of local communities adds economic value both through mobilizing them to contribute to forest regeneration and through skill development, enhancing their opportunities for employment and increased community wealth (Kiptot and Franzel, 2011). Mobilizing and recognizing all social groups in a local community have been found to be an effective way to reduce natural resources conflict (Wondolleck and Yaffee, 2000; Cleaver, 2001).

Developing projects with a long-term perspective and a focus upon social acceptability

(Adoptability of project activities by local people) - Agriculture in the project area and most areas in Ghana is dominated by smallholder farmers. Their priority is to produce enough food to sustain their families. Under such circumstances, any AR/AF actions or measures that are to be put in place to mitigate the effects of climate change should also improve food production. For this a mixture of trees and crop systems are needed. The roles that integrated systems such as agroforestry can play in addressing both climate mitigation and adaptation in primarily food-focused production systems of Africa are well reported (e.g. Murniati et al, 2001; Verchot et al, 2007; Linquist et al, 2012). AF (a farm with trees) is estimated to suffer less from the impacts of climate change because it will absorb some of these impacts (Ramadhani et al, 2002; Verchot et al, 2007). It also enables the diversification of local people’s livelihoods (Ramadhani et al, 2002). These benefits make such integrated systems good examples of how to develop resilience of agroecosystems in the face of climate change as well as how to improve local farmers’ livelihoods. In Ghana such systems need much more adoption in order to increase the impact on food security and be a key consideration in AR actions.

Defining management responsibilities and benefits of different stakeholders - Sharing the burden and benefits in the forest management is a keystone of community-based forest management arrangements (e.g. Behr et al, 2012). In these arrangements, management plans should detail the responsibilities of each stakeholder and define the allowed uses and distribution of any revenue generated from the sale of timber and non-timber forest products managed by the communities. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (1992) highlights the importance of the sustainable use and equitable sharing of the benefits that arise from biodiversity resources.

Introducing improved land use agreements (land tenure security) - Land tenure, as defined in this paper, is the way in which people access and use land and it’s natural resources, including trees, soils, water and other wild living resources within the environment (Bassey 2003; USAID 2010). It has many dimensions consisting of intertwining rules and regulations that are used to control and manage these resources (Bassey, 2003). The lack of secure land tenure or ‘forest user rights’ is a key reason why local people do not commit themselves to participatory forest management (Agrawal, 2001; Agrawal, 2007; Agrawal et al, 2008; Adhikari, 2009; Jagger et al, 2014). Unsecure land tenure leads to short-term profit motives resulting in deforestation, degradation of the environment and extinction of


wild biotic resources, as well as the failure of many forestry projects (ITTO, 2002; Agbosu et al, 2007; Bassey, 2003; Arevalo et al, 2014; Campbell et al, 2008; Sandbrook et al, 2010; Barbier and Tesfaw, 2012) because people without such rights face an uncertain future and are less willing to invest their labor into sustainable forest management practices. This means that security in land tenure is no longer an issue that can or should be ignored. Tenureship has to be clear and structured for the implementation and effective governance of AR projects (ITTO, 2002). Unfortunately, many project initiators and other land users disregard traditional tenure rights in their project design and implementation, resulting in conflicts that encourage increased deforestation and over-exploitation of forest resources (Bassey, 2003; Agbosu et al, 2007). For many of the REDD+ related projects involving AR that have had limited success or failed completely, a major cause for this was the failure of project initiators to strengthen local peoples’ user rights (Ozinga, 2012). Such projects were more focused on developing a valuation and monitoring system of forest carbon, while largely ignoring issues associated with local long-term user rights, livelihood, biodiversity and cultural values. Continuing down this path is unlikely to lead to better governance of forest resources unless the conflicts and disincentives within land tenure systems are appropriately managed (Mansourian et a, 2014).

Ensuring high level of continued community participation with adequate capacity - Active community participation is not only needed at the start of the AR and AF projects, but their continued involvement based on improved management skills is crucial for both sustaining initiated activities and stimulating new actions as well as for cost recovery well beyond the life span of such projects (Kiptot and Franzel, 2011).

Providing incentives - Generally projects that generate, or have the potential to generate, enough income to reduce poverty in the community are most patronized by local people. Thus, local interest in AR and AF is expected to be low if the systems or practices are unprofitable or insufficient to meet local needs, even if they are socially and environmentally acceptable (Colfer 2005). The flow of goods and services - financial and economic returns are essential motivational factors for local adoption of AR and AF activities.

Maintaining biodiversity within land use - From an ecological point of view, the stability of biophysical systems and protection of biological diversity is an important aspect SFM (Butchart et al. 2010). AR/AF activities including REDD+ related activities should promote the existence and maintenance of forest ecosystems because the services that flow from forest ecosystems support the livelihoods of many rural populations globally. Therefore, any negative impacts of community land uses on biodiversity must either be avoided or mitigated during the life of the AR and AF projects.

2. Methodology 2.1. Description of Project Area and Communities

The case study projects (Case Study 1, Case Study 2 and Case Study 3) were located between latitudes 4° 30’ and 8° N in southern Ghana in the Dormaa, Begoro and Offinso Forest Districts, respectively (See Figure 1). The annual rainfall in these districts ranges from 1,250 to 1,500 mm with mean daily temperature ranges from about 25°C in the wet season (March October) to about 30°C in the dry season (November February) (Blay et al, 2008; Appiah et al, 2010). The vegetation at these sites is tropical semi-deciduous forest (TSDF)—a vegetation type with a more or less uneven tree canopy between 10 and 40 m in height. Some emergent trees can reach 60 m and woody climbers and vascular epiphytes are always present in undisturbed or mildly degraded areas (Hall and Swaine, 1976; Hall and Swaine, 1981). Dormaa and Offinso project sites are located in comparatively drier southern marginal forest of TSDF while the Begoro sites are in the moist area of the TSDF. The soils are predominantly poor in fertility (Hall and Swaine, 1981; Blay et al, 2008). Humus content and cation exchange capacity are low (Hall and Swaine 1981; Blay et al. 2008). The project area includes a total of about 3000 people from forest communities in the Begoro, Offinso and Dormaa Forest Districts. The average household size within the communities was 6.7 (Blay et al, 2008). The predominant ethnic groups

A Review of Reforestation Approaches in Ghana: Sustainability and Genuine Local Participation Lessons for Implementing REDD+ Activities 75 living within these forest districts are the Asantes, Asantes and Bonos, respectively (Blay et al, 2008). The main occupation of the local communities in all these case areas is slash-and-burn agriculture representing their primary source of food, income, and security. Land holdings range from 1-5 hectares. Crops usually planted by farmers, apart from cocoa, are plantains, cocoyam, maize and, to a lesser extent, vegetables. Keeping livestock (chickens, goats, sheep and ducks) was an additional occupation of the farmers. The farmers earned an average annual income of 248 USD in 2004. Regarding education, about 93% of the farmers in the project areas had 6.7 years of primary school and 1 % had 10 years (middle school) of formal education. Only 6% of the respondents had no formal education and were considered in this study as illiterate. Many of the rural households either lack any access to land or a secure stake in the land they farm. Consequently, high levels of forest degradation persist in these areas. Furthermore, the forests in these areas have been subjected to heavy timber exploitation (Hall and Swaine, 1981) raising concern for rehabilitation.

The projects’ concept. The need to reduce deforestation and rehabilitate already-degraded areas led to the initiation of these projects in 2000. They were initiated by the Forestry Research Institute of Ghana (FORIG) and supported financially by the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) and partly by the government of Ghana. It involved national institutions such as FORIG, the Forestry Services Division of the Forestry Commission, the Institute of Renewable Natural Resources at the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology and local communities. FORIG was the executing agency (Blay et al, 2008). The three case studies were implemented through the concept of a Modified Taungya System (MTS) under the theme of ‘rehabilitation of degraded forests with collaboration of local communities’ (PD 30/97 Rev 6 (F)). Under the MTS, farmers were given land in which to grow annual agricultural crops along with forestry species during the early years of the plantation’s establishment. Food crops, especially annuals such as plantain, cocoyam and vegetables, were interplanted with a predetermined set of high-priority tree species, often economically valuable timber trees. Farmers are essentially the owners of forest plantation products, with the Forestry Commission, landowners and adjacent forest communities as partners. All participants in the MTS are eligible for a share of the benefits that accrue from the plantation (Agyeman et al, 2003). An equitable benefit-sharing framework is based upon the contributions of the participants as follows: farmers are to carry out most of the labor, including pruning, maintenance and tending; the Forestry Commission is expected to contribute technical expertise, train farmers to carry out their functions efficiently, supply equipment and tools and be responsible for stock inventory and the auctioning off or marketing of products; the landowners (i.e., traditional authorities) are to contribute land; and the adjacent forest communities are to provide support services in the form of protection of the investment from fire and encroachment (Agyeman et al, 2003).

Gwira-Banso project (Case Study 4). This fourth case study (Gwira-Banso reforestation project) is sited in Gwira-Banso in Southwest Ghana (latitude 3° 30’ 3° 45’ and longitude 5° 25’ 5° 30’) in one of the few remaining patches of unreserved closed canopy rainforests in Ghana, standing as a corridor between two forest reserves (See Figure 1). The area records an average annual rainfall that is the highest in Ghana of between 1700 and 2000 mm (Appiah, 2001). The vegetation is a wet evergreen tropical forest. This forest has an average canopy height of 30 m and contains few deciduous species (Hall and Swaine 1976; Hall and Swaine 1981). The soils are highly acidic latosols which are generally unsuitable for growing cocoa. The population of Gwira-Banso is about 5,000 and is mostly made up of the indigenous Gwira people and migrants who are mostly Ashantis, Krobos, Fantes and Brongs (Appiah, 2001). Appiah and Pedersen (1998) recorded an average household size of ten people for the 600 households inhabiting the concession. The farmers are poor, earning an average annual income of US$ 241 in 1998 (Appiah and Pedersen, 1998) from farming, which is their main occupation. 98 %, are engaged in farming with 2 % involved in others services and trading in agricultural and forest products. Land holdings range between 0.6 and 5 hectares. Farmers grow mainly cocoa and other crops such as ginger, okra, cassava, yam, cocoyam, plantains, maize, kola (Cola

nitida), pepper, tomato, and avocado and they also keep livestock including chickens, goats, and sheep.


Regarding education, about 10% of them had 6.7 years of primary school and 38 % had 10 years (middle school) of formal education. 52% of the respondents had no formal education and were considered in this study as illiterate. Prior to the project initiation, the local people’s attempt to earn a living through extensive farming practices threatens the existence of timber resources and the entire forest.

The projects’ concept: The clearance of forest lands for farms and indiscriminate logging practices have led to most of the areas becoming degraded. Initiated in 1995, the project aimed to promote sustainable forest management (SFM) in this farming environment, increase the production of wood from the project area and promote sustainable agricultural practices therein, leading to improved livelihoods for the individuals and communities in the area. The project was a joint effort by a Ghanaian timber company (Ghana Primewood Limited (GAP)), a Danish timber trading company (Dalhoff, Larsen & Horneman (DLH)), an NGO (CARE-Ghana, which organizes its work around health, governance, sustainable livelihoods and education) the Forest Services Division (FSD) of the Forestry Commission of Ghana and the local people of Gwira-Banso. The implementation of the project improved agricultural production through agroforestry practices and alternative income generating activities. The DANIDA Private Sector Development Programme (DANIDA/PSD-Programme) at the Royal Danish Embassy in Accra financially supported the project together with financial and technical input from two commercial partners. The operation’s area is GAP’s timber concession covering 16 000 ha of off-reserve forests (Appiah, 2001; FAO, 2007). All of the stakeholders and each of their responsibilities are listed as follows (Appiah, 2001; FAO, 2007):

• Dalhoff, Larsen & Horneman (DLH). DLH provided technical assistance, training and technology transfer in the various activities of the project through its staff in both Ghana and Denmark.

• Ghana Primewood Products Limited (GAP). GAP had the responsibility of providing resources to the farmers and supervising field activities.

• Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA). DANIDA was interested in providing resources to DLH, a Danish company, while at the same time improving the livelihood of the local people in the project area.

• Chiefs and elders of Gwira-Banso. The chiefs and elders, who are generally the landholding authorities, were responsible for organizing the farmers and ensuring their collaboration.

• Ministry of Lands, Forestry and Mines (MLFM). MLFM is primarily responsible for the formulation and coordination of forestry and land policy.

• Local farmers (LF’s). LF’s are the managers of trees on their farmland and have the responsibility of implementing all field activities including reforestation.

• Forestry Service of Ghana (FSD). FSD had the responsibility of providing training in field activities related to forest management.

• Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA). MOFA provided training and facilitated activities related to the management of land resources and promotion of sustainable agriculture.

• Nzema East District Assembly (NEDA). NEDA benefits from royalties obtained from the timber industry and NTFP exploitation.

• CARE. An NGO collaborated with the Ministry of Agriculture in providing training and facilitating activities related to the management of land resources.

2.1.1. Prevailing Land Tenure Systems in Ghana including the Project Area

Control and management of land in Ghana can be classified into three broad categories: namely, lands under customary laws (stool lands), under statutory laws (public lands) and private lands. Under Customary Law (CL), the Chief (often referred to by his seat of office, the ‘stool’) is the custodian of the land on behalf of the community (Appiah, 2001). In Ghana, about 80% of all off-forest reserves lands—those often in demand for forestry projects—are held under Customary Law, with varying

A Review of Reforestation Approaches in Ghana: Sustainability and Genuine Local Participation Lessons for Implementing REDD+ Activities 77 tenure and management systems (Agbosu et al, 2007). The Customary Land Tenure (CLT) systems are based on informal local practices that vary from community to community and are usually flexible and negotiable through verbal agreements (Agbosu et al, 2007). Access to these lands can be gained through customary inheritance practices, where land and associated resources can be passed on from father to son or parents to children or from one family member to another member of the family. Other means of acquiring land under CLT have been described by Kasanga (2002) and Agbosu et al (2007). They are through sharecropping, as practiced mainly by migrant farmers, and also by leasing land from indigenous family heads and traditional authorities. The terms and practices vary locally according to the settlement history of the traditional areas and land use practices. However, land secured under each of the avenues can still be redistributed to people outside of the original household through a system we could term as sub-leasing or sub-tenancy. Farmers who migrate to resettle in forest areas where farming lands are available often rely on sub-tenancy practices (Appiah 2001). Public lands, on the other hand, are those which are owned and managed by the state, such as the project lands in Dormaa, Offinsso and Begoro. Public lands constitute about 20% of all of Ghana’s lands (IUCN, 2007). The administration of these lands is now based upon statutory laws that outline what is acceptable and provide consequences for non-compliance. Under this system, land rights are allocated and confirmed through the issue of user titles.

A major problem that has not yet been addressed, but is attributed to land conflicts in Ghana, is the flexibility and the lack of written agreements under the CLT systems. This lack is believed to create the potential for wrong interpretations of responsibilities and specifications. Another major concern under the CLT system is that ownership can be claimed from “long use and association” with communal land. Unfortunately, tree planting, which is the main component of all of the forest carbon or reforestation projects, is considered to be one of the acts that can guarantee “long use and association” with a piece of land. As a result, tenant and sub-tenant farmers are often discouraged by land owners from planting trees or have no incentive to do so since they may not be beneficiaries of the planted trees (Appiah, 2001). Another problem, this time at the national policy level, is that, although communities have rights to manage their own lands, when it comes to forests and timber trees on these lands under CLT systems (i.e., outside of reserves), as well as on the reserves, they are vested in the State and administered by the Forestry Department (FD) (Appiah, 2001). The FD allocates tree-felling rights, collects royalties and shares them with landowners, excluding the local farmers who are actually working the land (Appiah, 2001). This policy appears to be misguided as this arrangement often gives local people no incentives or rights to prevent others from cutting down the trees which are found on lands under their management.


Figure 1: Map of Ghana Showing the Location of Case Study Projects

2.2. Sources of Data

Research findings and documents on AR and RF projects were reviewed with a focus on the four case studies described above. The selection of these projects was based upon the following considerations, which were some of those proposed by Lawlor et al (2013) and laid down within the UN ISD:

• “Was there enough necessary baseline information present to build an effective community participation strategy, including comprehensive information about the different communities and community groups within the project area?”

• “Did the project mobilize the local population and recognize each of the social groups?”,

• “Were the local people involved in decision-making which affects local land-use and development?”, “Were the projects’ activities, technically, socially and economically acceptable?”,

• “Were the responsibilities and benefits of the different stakeholders clearly defined?”, Did the project ensure an equitable distribution of benefits and can future generations benefit from it?

• “Were there systems put in place for managing conflicts and enhancing land tenure confidence?”,

• “Did the project have a significant proportion of local people participating and were they equipped with the needed technical capabilities?”,

• “Could the project generate, or have the potential to generate, enough income to reduce poverty in the community?”,

• “Was tree biodiversity maintained?”


The reviewed documents were mainly research papers and project reports. The main review documents/papers (Amanor, 1997; Prah, 1997; Appiah and Pedersen, 1998; Appiah, 2001; FAO, 2007; Blay et al, 2008; Appiah, 2012) were based upon field data that were collected as part of the projects’ activities, including the following: (1) information regarding household background (e.g., income, age, education, household size information, farming practices, etc.), (2) the determinants for participation in tree replanting (i.e., use of preferred tree species, project incentives and benefits, management strategies, consultation process and other project practices), (3) farmers’ willingness to sustain their participation in the projects’ activities, (4) opinions on other issues such as land tenure and, lastly, (5) land use changes based upon project activities. The sample sizes that were chosen for all of the studies that were reviewed represented at least 14% of the project communities. Generally, the reviewed studies used three lines of evidence: namely, literature review, direct field observation/inventory and interviews with resident project farmers and key informants (i.e., the people who are anticipated to have particularly valuable insights or opinions about the subject under investigation). Relevant literature, such as the Project Progress Reports, unpublished Technical Reports (Luukkanen and Appiah, 2006) and conference documents and Ghana’s forest policy, were critically reviewed for information about the subject under investigation. The reviewed documents also had information pertaining to tree survival, tree growth and floristic changes within the land use system eight years after the initiation of the project. These data were collected through inventory techniques. This paper uses and infers from statistical information and observations presented in these research papers.

3. Case Study Review Highlights 3.1. Project Management Features and Associated Outcomes

All of the case studies are characterized by pre-project consultations and participatory assessment (Project start up strategy, pre-project environmental background assessments). The pre-project activities were the activities conducted prior to activities to fully scope the project. This was followed by an implementation strategy that involved all social groups within the local communities being mobilized to use farm lands in an integrated manner to replace destructive shifting cultivation-based production systems. The implementation strategy was also characterized by responsibility and benefit sharing, improving land use agreements to reduce conflicts and building the capacity of farmers to manage new integrated farm operations or expand and improve existing systems. For all case studies, local people learned critical business of nursery development, field preparation and planting, while gaining access to agricultural inputs and technical support from the Project initiators. Ensuring local access to forest products and other incentives, and ensuring that tree biodiversity was maintained within farmers’ land use systems were also typical of the project actions (Table 1). The adopted land use systems and trees in each of the four case areas provided services and goods that were important to the local people, including planted trees being a source of energy, mainly for cooking and heating, and also a source of nutritious food. Other benefits included their use for fodder, shade, medicine, etc. (Table 2 and Table 3).

Table 1: Description of the Sustainability and Participation features of Reforestation Projects in Ghana

Sustainability and Genuine Participation indicators and Outcomes of the Projects Key References

1 Pre-Project Consultations and Participatory Assessments- (Start-Up Workshops and

Pre-Project Environmental Background Assessments)

Case Study 1, 2, and 3 Start-up workshops (SUWs) were organized prior to the implementation of the projects’ activities that were characterized by a dialogue between farmers, landowners and other stakeholders (FORIG, FC, and KNUST) in which the projects’ concepts (e.g., its aims, opportunities, limits and modalities), roles, management responsibilities (including land

(Luukkanen and Appiah, 2006; Blay et al, 2008; Appiah, 2012)



preparation, planting and tending) and land-tenure agreements were clearly defined. Socio-economic background of communities was comprehensively investigated as a basis for management decisions. Information obtained included (a) Primary data: household structure, income levels, farming practices, on-farm tree resource, land area, etc. (Section 2.1), (b) Preferences: farmers’ preferences for tree (Table 2 and Table 3) and crop species (Section 2.1), the short- and long-term outcome likely to be desired by each and what other sorts of things each stakeholder might require in order to participate. Assessments were also carried out to determine tree seed sources for nursery activities. The biodiversity status within farmer’s lands were also assessed to determine threatened tree species as well as serve a baseline data for monitoring changes after project implementation. For example, initial assessment data from Case Study 1 area suggests that before plantation establishment, an average of 22 plant species were found per hectare (ha).

Case study 4 The project initiators (GAP and DHL) held SUWs with the landowners and farmers, the District Assembly (the political authority of the area), the Ministry of Food and Agriculture and the FC Ghana. The Project aims were explained and views for improvement, enhancing local participation were solicited. The meetings discussed how sustainable forest management could contribute to raising living standards. The roles and responsibilities including land preparation, planting and tending of all stakeholders were also discussed. Socio-economic studies were carried out to understand the community socio-economic setting and land uses (Section 2.1). Threatened and local preferred tree species (Table 2 and Table 3) were identified through field inventory and interviews.

Significance of the Pre-Project Consultations and Participatory Assessments

(Amanor, 1997; Appiah and Pedersen, 1998; Appiah, 2001; FAO, 2007)

• The SUW increased the understanding of the projects’ concepts and stakeholder roles and responsibilities and this enabled the local community to participate in determining the direction of the project as well as present their problems and priorities. Project managers became aware of heterogeneous groups and their differences and this helped to identify population segments by specific characteristics. The information on household characteristics such as income levels was used as a basis for monitoring welfare gain or losses resulting from the Projects. The opportunity was created for farmers to help to evaluate indigenous species and 13 high-priority trees and tree seed sources were determined in consultation with farmers.

• For Case Study 4, a preliminary botanical survey has helped to establish the presence of some medicinal plants, as well as some economically valuable tree species that need protection.

• The pre-project activities helped to build upon local knowledge by utilizing traditional information resources in combination with environmental data that was collected at the start of the project.

2 Involving Local Population and all Social Groups in Management and Decision

Case Studies 1, 2, and 3 The project steering committee was made up of members of all stakeholders namely farmers, land owners (traditional authorities), KNUST, FORIG and FC. With oversight by the project partners, the farmers were the main decision-makers in the choice of systems, biological components and management. Efforts were made to include 10% of women farmers in Project management.

(Luukkanen and Appiah, 2006; Blay et al, 2008; Appiah, 2012) (Amanor, 1997; Prah, 1997; Appiah and Pedersen, 1998; Appiah, 2001; FAO, 2007)

Case Study 4

Members of all stakeholder groups, including farmers, DLH, GAP, Chiefs and elders of Gwira-Banso, MLFM, FC, NEDA, CARE, and DANIDA were part of the management board. With oversight by the other stakeholders, the farmers were the main decision-makers in the choice of systems, biological components and management.

Significance of Involving Local Population and all Social Groups in Management and

Decision

• Equal partnership, individual and community accountability and bottom-up implementation were the models that were promoted. Management was characterized by cooperation and respect for each other’s interest.

• Local communities to enabled to participate in determining the goals and direction



of the project and, more importantly, present their priorities

3 Adoptable Long-Term Integrated Land Use Systems

Case Studies 1, 2 and 3 The Modified Taungya System (MTS) was used as an integrated system on government-controlled lands. This involved inter-row planting of farmers’ selected trees with food crops introduced on degraded areas of forest reserves which are managed by the Forestry Commission. At each project site, at least 80 ha of degraded land is currently being managed under MTS by farmers with the following key species planted at a rate of 278 trees per ha: Cedrela odorata, Ceiba pentandra, Alstonia boonei, Terminalia ivorensis, Khaya ivorensis, Terminalia superba and Pericopsis elata. The survival rate of planted tree species was

high due to improved management by farmers. The survival rate of all of the tree species was estimated to be more than 85%. The height growth of local trees, usually slow growing, was statistically similar to the exotic ones dues to farmers’ routine cultural practices. At least 700 farmers per project location that were involved in the project have adopted these systems.

(Luukkanen and Appiah, 2006; Blay et al, 2008) (Prah, 1997; Appiah, 2001; FAO, 2007)

Case Study 4 The land use type was agroforestry practiced within an off-reserve forest concession. Farmers were assisted with planting mixed stands of trees on farms, just as they occur in nature, at a rate of 20 – 40 seedlings per ha, depending upon the wishes of the farmer and the crop being cultivated. A total area of 416 ha of farmlands out of the 16, 000 ha degraded forest concession area was planted with farmers’ selected trees. The study reports suggest that the local population (about 5000) is now managing 40% indigenous and 60% exotic timber tree species on more than 50% of all of the farms managed within the concession area. The species planted include the following: Khaya ivorensis, Heritiera utilis, Tieghemella

heckellii, Entandrophragma angolense, Nauclea diderrichii, Entandrophragma utile, Ceiba

pentandra and Cedrela odorata. As a short-rotation timber tree, Cedrela was planted in pure stands on fallow lands with an initial population of about 1200 seedlings per ha. Piper nigrum and Cola nitida were also planted as shade-tolerant and early-maturing crops.

(Amanor, 1997; Prah, 1997; Appiah and Pedersen, 1998; Appiah, 2001; FAO, 2007)

Significance of Long-term Integrated Land Use Systems.

• Potential for Improvement of the livelihood of the local communities through (a) the diversification of land use systems involving trees and crops such as black pepper (Piper nigrum) and cola (Cola nitida) and (b) training farmers in alternative livelihood programs (i.e., bee-keeping, snail-rearing and fish farming).

4 Responsibility and Benefit Sharing

Case studies 1, 2, and 3 Common to all the cases, responsibilities were shared as follows: The local farmers were the managers of trees on their farmland and have the responsibility of implementing all field activities including reforestation and agroforestry practices. The chiefs and elders, who are traditionally the landholding authorities, were responsible for organizing the farmers and ensuring their collaboration, Project initiators had the responsibility of providing training in field activities related to forest Management. Farmers become the owners of forest plantation products, with the Forestry Commission, landowners and communities adjacent to the forest as shareholders.

Luukkanen and Appiah, 2006; Blay et al, 2008)

Case Study 4 The local farmers were the owners and managers of trees on their farmland and have the responsibility of implementing all field activities including reforestation and agroforestry practices. The chiefs and elders, were responsible for organizing the farmers and ensuring their collaboration, Project initiators had the responsibility of building the capacity of local people for the project actions. One of the Project partners (DLH) provided technical assistance, training and technology transfer in the various activities of the project through its staff in both Ghana and Denmark

(Prah, 1997; Appiah, 2001; FAO, 2007)

Significance/Outcome of Responsibility and Benefit Sharing

• Burden and benefit sharing created the feeling of shared ownership and enhanced commitment t

5 Land Tenure Security through Improved Land-Use Agreements

Case studies 1, 2 and 3



Farmers were given access to degraded government-owned forest reserve lands in order to establish MTS plantations. They gained long-term access to land and trees. The benefit-sharing arrangement described above took into account the interests of each party. For 72% of the local people, long-term access to land through the MTS was considered to be a significant step in ensuring land tenure security.

(Luukkanen and Appiah, 2006; Blay et al, 2008)

Case Study 4 Private sector agreements were made with local people in order to sustainably manage community land for the supply of timber to timber trading companies through improved agroforestry practices. Farmers and land owners were shared owners of trees. 95% of the participants attributed their participation in tree planting to feeling comfortable with their security to land.

(Appiah, 2001; FAO, 2007)

Significance of land use agreements

• Confidence created in land tenure through formal acknowledgement of user rights and the sharing of benefits from plantations although the arrangement was not outright ownership.

• Due to the favourable land arrangement, local people maintained and managed the planted tree.

6 Continued Community Participation with Adequate Capacity

Case Studies 1, 2, and 3 At least 70% of local people in these case study areas are engaged in the Project’s reforestation activities. Farmers, both women and men, were educated about forest degradation and its consequences and trained to establish nurseries (at least one in each community), and undertake field planting and other silvicultural practices through workshops and on-field training.

(Blay et al, 2008)

Case Study 4 More than 50% of the local population in the concession has adopted the project concept. Education and training sessions were organized for both women and men through workshops and on-field training. They were educated about sustainable forest management practices and trained in nursery management, and field planting practices including planting at required spacing, site preparation for block planting, and enrichment planting. Between 1996 and 1997, five nurseries were established by the local people that supplied 168000 tree seedlings. They were also trained as to how to take an inventory of Non Timber Forest Products (NTFPs) on their farms, use GPS to trace their farms’ boundaries, prepare simple management plans and in alternative livelihood production systems such as fish farming and bee-keeping and in simple techniques. Two-week long training was organized for some of the forest operations staff of Ghana Primewood Products (a timber company) in forest inventory techniques and low-impact harvesting.

(Prah, 1997; Appiah, 2001; FAO, 2007)

Significance/Outcome of Continued Community Participation with Adequate Capacity

• The education and training created awareness about environmental issues (e.g., the causes and consequences of deforestation) among both men and women in the communities.

• The skills gained by farmers in nursery development and maintenance helped sustained the planting practices

• Farmers’ skills were enhanced in short-term alternative production systems. This addresses farmers’ needs for income in the short-term.

• Continued support and management of project activities by local people mean project’s invest return is guaranteed.

7 Incentives Initiated

Case Studies 1, 2, and 3 (Luukkanen and Appiah, 2006; Blay et al, 2008) Community nurseries were developed by project initiators in order to supply preferred tree

species to farmers. Free extension services were provided by project partners. Farmers owned shares in the trees that they planted. They also received free education and training and logistical and technical advisory services.

Case Study 4

Community nurseries were developed by project initiators in order to supply preferred tree species to farmers. Free extension services were provided by project partners. Farmers owned

Prah, 1997; Appiah, 2001; FAO, 2007)



shares in the trees that they planted. They also received free education and training and logistical and technical advisory services. Piper nigrum and Cola nitida were some of the species that were used for the nursery and planted in the field. This enabled new cash crops that were more suitable for the area than cocoa to be introduced to farmers. Alternative livelihood programs (i.e., bee-keeping, snail rearing and fish farming) were introduced as short-term income generating activities. A 20 km road was constructed through the project area. Access to local markets and communities that were previously inaccessible was made possible due to road construction. A Community Development Fund was established. The Fund received 5 USD per m3 for any log extracted from the area. The expected harvest amounts to about 12,000 m3, which is equivalent to 60 000 USD per year. The Fund was used for livelihood projects that include the establishment of boreholes for clean water.

Significance of Incentives

• Motivated local people to participate in the project actions

• Improvement of the livelihood of local communities by (a) setting up development funds which could be used for further development projects, (b) diversification of tree products and agricultural crops such as black pepper (Piper nigrum) Cola (Cola

nitida), (c) training farmers in alternative livelihood programs and d) improved road conditions for the purpose of marketing

8 Biodiversity Stability within Land-Use

Case studies 1, 2, and 3 These cases ensured that threatened trees species and other preferred indigenous trees identified during the pre-project assessment were planted on farm lands as a mean of biodiversity recovery and stability. Biodiversity data available for Case Study 1 show that a maize system that was interplated with six indigenous tree species (Ceiba pentandra, Alstonia boonei, Terminalia ivorensis, K. ivorensis, Terminalia superba, and Pericopsis

elata) and one exotic multipurpose tree species (Cedrela odorata) had improvement in per-hectare tree biodiversity. Diversity analysis carried out demonstrates that species richness (S) increased by 24% per ha within 8 years (S per hectare was 22 (Standard deviation (SD) = 5.7) at the start of the project and increased to 92 (SD = 6.0) per hectare within 8 years), while the number of families represented an increased by 48% in the same period (the number of individuals and of families per ha increased from 147 to 4419 and from 16 to 33 per ha, respectively).

(Appiah, 2012)

Case Study 4 (Appiah and Pedersen, 1998) Pre project botanical survey has helped to establish the presence of some medicinal plants as

well as some economic timber tree species needing protection (Table 3). The Project ensured that these tree species were included in reforestation actions as mean of biodiversity recovery.

Significance of Biodiversity Stability

• Improved availability of trees that could be sources for food and non-timber forest products

• Potential for improvement in soil fertility and farm microenvironment, and tree biodiversity

• The reported tree biodiversity recovery is a result of informed tree management decisions implemented based on land use baseline data.

FORIG- Forestry Research Institute of Ghana, FC- Forestry Commission, KNUST- Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, DLH- Dalhoff, Larsen & Horneman, GAP- Ghana Primewood Products Limited. DANIDA- Danish International Development Agency, MLFM- Ministry of Lands, Forestry and Mines, NEDA- Nzema East District Assembly.


Table 2: Essential Services of the Adopted Farming Systems Perceived by local people in the Case Project areas as Incentive for Participation*

Category of System’s

Benefits/Services Measure of Benefits/Services Livelihood Sustenance Category

1. Land access and land

use security • Financial shares in tree planting

• Long-term access to land and products

• Direct employment in reforestation and silviculture projects; future household income

• Farming land for landless and migrant farmers in particular

2. Provisioning • Increased cash and food crop yield

• Increased availability of snails

• Honey production

• Wood production

• Fodder yield for animals

• Medicinal products

• Agricultural income and food

• Forest income and food

• Forest income and food

• Forest income, construction materials, energy# and assets

• Forest income and animal feed

• Forest income and health security

• Crops

• Snails

• Bee keeping

• Wood

• Fodder

• Medicine, resins and dyes

3. Regulating • Enhanced microclimate for cocoa and other crop production

• Enhanced carbon stock

• Carbon sequestration

• Agricultural income

• Environmental income

• Environmental income

• Micro-climate

4. Soil • Improved soil fertility/organic matter • Agricultural cost-saving

• Agricultural cost-saving • Soil erosion reduction

*Key references are Appiah (2001), Blay et al (2008) and Appiah (2012). #Wood energy is essentially the only energy source in rural areas in Ghana since rural people cannot afford any other alternatives; thus, wood energy contributes significantly to the total primary energy supply (TPES) in Ghana. In the latest FAO report (FAO, 2014), it was estimated that Africa consumed 181 million tonnes of oil equivalent (MTOE) of wood energy in 2011, the highest globally after Asia and Oceania, where 293 MTOE was consumed in the same year. TPES is the measure of the total energy use in a country and is usually measured within energy statistics in MTOE (FAO, 2014).

Table 3: Planted Tree Species and the Respective Value Assigned to them by Local People who participated in the Project*

Tree Species per

Case Study

(TSCS)

Tree Species’ Value within the System Components

Socio-economic Value Environmental Value

Timber

# Spices

Medicine@

Fodder Fuel

wood

Seed

Oil Shade

Organic

matter

Nitrogen

fixing

/Soil

health

Erosion

control

Fence

/ wind

break

Carbon

sequestr

ation

/stocks)

1, 2 and 3

Cedrela odorata X X X X X Ceiba pentandra, X X X X X X X X X Alstonia boonei X X X Terminalia

ivorensis, X X X X X

Khaya ivorensis X X X X Terminalia superb, X X X X X Pericopsis elata X X

4

Khaya ivorensis X X X X X Heritiera utilis X X X X Tieghemella

heckellii, X X X X

Entandrophragma

angolense X X X X X

A Review of Reforestation Approaches in Ghana: Sustainability and Genuine Local Participation Lessons for Implementing REDD+ Activities 85 Tree Species per

Case Study

(TSCS)

Tree Species’ Value within the System Components

Socio-economic Value Environmental Value

Timber

# Spices

Medicine@

Fodder Fuel

wood

Seed

Oil Shade

Organic

matter

Nitrogen

fixing

/Soil

health

Erosion

control

Fence

/ wind

break

Carbon

sequestr

ation

/stocks)

Nauclea

diderrichii X X X X

Entandrophragma

utile X X X X

Ceiba pentandra X X X X X X X X X Cedrela odorata X X X X X Piper nigrum X X Cola nitida X X X X

*Key references are Appiah (2001), FAO (2007), Blay et al. (2008) and Appiah (2012). #For local people, timber trees are not only regarded as assets, but the main product from the forest which is used for their basic shelter needs. @They also gain health benefits from the forests through the use of medicinal plants as a source of traditional medicine

3.2. Level of Achievement of Indicator by Project

With the exception of one indicator “mobilization of the local population and recognition of each of the social groups” where the Level of Achievement of Indicator in Case Study 4 was considered ‘moderate’ because gender issues were not really considered, all other indicators used in this review were of the highest level of achievement for all cases (Table 4). Table 4: Description of Level of Achievement of Sustainability and Participation Indicators based on the

features of the Projects

Indicator * Explanation of

Indicator

Initiated and

Supervised by

Whom?

What are the

Implications for the

Different parties?

Level of

Achievement of

Indicator by Project

Pre-Project implementation consultations and assessments

Gathering baseline information to inform technical, socioeconomic and environmental management decisions and to serve as interventions reference point

Project initiators, in cooperation with the local population

Both Project initiator and communities must have a check-list of interventions areas as well as reference points for monitoring.

High for all Case

Studies

Mobilization of the local population and recognition of each of the social groups

Identification of the relevant local population and key local institutions for reforestation actions

Project initiators, traditional authorities, local project committees

The targeted locals, including women, will be the group to take charge of the project and inform everyone else about the project, its objectives and its benefits

High for Case

Studies 1-3 and

moderate for Case

Study 4 because,

gender issues were

not really

considered.

Local involvement in decision-making

here is a framework for local peoples’ involvement in sustainable forest management (SFM) decisions while they work towards project

Project initiators, traditional authorities, and famers, were responsible for the formulation of the objectives of the management

he project planning, implementation and evaluation must involve the local people themselves in order to increase their motivation. They will

High for all Case

Studies



Indicator

Initiated and

Supervised by

Whom?

What are the


Different parties?

Level of

Achievement of


objectives approaches then identify with the plan for management

The projects have a long-term perspective and focus upon social acceptability

It is essential, to some extent, to renounce short-term gains in favor of long-term ones

Management plan developed by project initiators with local people

Management systems must conform to the social practices of local communities

High for all Case

Studies

Definition of responsibilities of different stakeholders

Local people know their rights and responsibilities in connection with project initiatives

The project initiator, traditional chiefs, and farmers (land users) agree on management responsibility and benefit sharing

The local population has confidence that the project can provide for their families. The forest is seen as being part of their future development

High for all Case

Studies

Definition of benefits of different stakeholders and ensures that future generations would also benefit

There are rules which ensure the equitable access of different groups to the benefits of the project. The rules are such that the forest will continue to bear benefits for future generations

The local people accepts the arrangements of benefits as being “equitable”

All local people who would like to participate should have this opportunity. The presence of agreed-upon, well-defined rules will assure the continuation of benefits into the future, thus enhancing locals’ commitment to long-term reforestation actions

Moderate, because

formal (i.e., non-

verbal) agreements

have yet to be signed

There is a system put in place for managing conflicts and enhancing land tenure confidence

Local people gain confidence in land tenure security through the use of MTS and traditional land use contractual agreements

Chiefs and project initiators supervise the land tenure agreements. The rules for resolution of conflicts are also discussed

The local population needs to be involved in the setting of norms for the resolution of conflicts so that they gain local legitimacy

High for all Case

Studies

Proportion of the community involved in projects’ activities

Large numbers of people are involved and benefiting from reforestation project activities

Local communities are responsible, with support from project initiators

Recognition of forestry as an economic sector will help the locals to identify with the project

High for all Case

Studies

Local capacity in regard to reforestation

Technical capacity of local people is built upon silvicultural techniques

Project initiators train local people and local trainers

Farmers’ sustainable forest management skills will be enhanced and create local confidence in SFM

High for all Case

Studies

The project generates, or has the potential to generate, enough income to reduce poverty in the

The livelihoods of local people improved

Records on livelihood improvement is kept by the households and projects initiators

The project participants may escape from poverty as a result of reforestation practices

High for all Case

Studies



Indicator

Initiated and

Supervised by

Whom?

What are the


Different parties?

Level of

Achievement of


community

Tree biodiversity is maintained within land uses

The numbers and diversity of tree species increases per hectare

Experts train the local people to observe and record the numbers of flora and fauna

People should be trained in order to take part in observations and monitor land use changes

High for all Case

Studies

*Sustainability Indicators were Modified from those proposed by Lawlor et al, (2013) and from the UN’s framework of Indicators for Sustainable Development (ISD) (Ba and Skutsch, 2010).

4. Discussion 4.1. Pre-Project Implementation Consultation and Participatory Assessments

Start-up workshop (SUW): For all these cases, consultations through start-up workshops were organized prior to the implementation of the project’s activities. The participants in these consultations were farmers, landowners (traditional chiefs) and members of governmental bodies (FORIG, FC) and non-governmental organizations, (Timber companies, NGOs) in which the goals were to discuss the project’s concepts (e.g., its aims, opportunities, limits and modalities), roles, management responsibilities (including land preparation, planting and tending) and land-tenure agreements. These initial consultations provided an opportunity for local communities to voice their views on which areas are most in need of project intervention and arrive at community-based partnership forms that would ultimately benefit the local people. Planning a relevant and productive workshop for such a diverse group of stakeholders is a difficult task that takes organization (arraigning logistical and practical details), focus, and can take a huge amount of time and money. However, if they are planned well, they can be incredibly valuable for everyone involved. Workshops are great for brainstorming, interactive learning, and building relationships for problem solving. Thus, SUWs should be an important part of any forest management planning and a key strategy for initial data collection and managing project risks.

Pre-Project Environmental Background Assessments (PPEBA): To develop SFM best practices, a PPEBA was conducted by the project initiators in each case study area. PPEBA led to the initial understanding of the technical socioeconomic and environmental status of the project areas that was used to make informed decisions about what technologies or systems were best to introduce. The environmental survey during this phase analyzed or assessed the types of tree species that are preferred by local people and which would grow well in the project area, tree biodiversity needs within farmers’ lands. All these analyses provided an opportunity for the project initiators to gain information for addressing the most needed project intervention issues, including, for instance, those related to threatened tree species and seed tree sources. Tree species loss, if uncontrolled, can hamper the successful regeneration of forests and hinder local nursery development. Thus, it is essential for projects to undertake PPEBA to obtain baseline information on land use biodiversity status and tree seed sources for implementing sustainable biodiversity recovery. 4.2. Recognition of each of the Social Groups and their Involvement in Decision-Making

The projects made significant efforts to involve the people who live in, and derive their livelihoods from, the forests and lands within the project area. Additional steps were undertaken in order to include members of local groups within the project management and steering committee and to allow local farmers to decide upon their choice of tree species and system components. In so doing, they allocated significant importance to ensuring the involvement of different social groups within their communities, especially women, who are significant players in determining and managing system components. The


recognition of each of the social groups and their involvement in decision-making is considered to be an important aspect of good forest governance and is seen as being fundamental to equity and legitimacy (Larson and Petkova, 2011; Lawlor et al, 2013). This is also, to some extent, a step in the right direction toward meeting the criteria for indigenous peoples’ rights to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC), which is part of a 2007 UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples to give or withhold their FPIC for activities affecting lands that they have customarily occupied or used. Advocates are now seeking to guarantee that REDD+ donors and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) recognize and uphold the rights of both indigenous and other local communities to FPIC (Lawlor et al, 2013). Unfortunately, unlike these current projects, many reports on African forestry projects suggest that local communities have been poorly informed about project plans and those projects have failed to consider the needs of different local stakeholders (Appiah, 2001; Pimbert and Pretty, 1994; Gebara, 2013). More work can and should be done to inform and include local peoples within processes that are often termed to be “participatory” even though some key players, particularly local people, are usually ignored during the process.

These case studies show that it is possible to ensure that local people (including each of the social groups) have access to as much project information as possible and that they can be considered to be active, constructive stakeholders who need to be heard rather than just being objects of public policy. It shows that there is the possibility of involving multiple stakeholders (e.g., private commercial timber companies, local people, the public sector, research and academic institutions and NGOs) and securing their involvement in decision-making related to forest governance. It is worth noting that the sort of inclusive and participatory approach with regard to the allocation of land to landless farmers in these Ghanaian examples significantly expanded the knowledge and economic base of the local people who were entrusted with the task of forest governance. 4.3. Acceptable, Easily Adoptable, Sustainable Information

The projects’ activities were limited to simple and inexpensive land use options; above all, the options were based upon an improvement of practices familiar to the local people. This may have contributed to the participation of poorer households in the projects’ activities as suggested in the sustainability indicators proposed by Lawlor et al (2013). Generally, many rural farmers in Africa are poor since they receive low returns on their practices and, consequently, low incomes (Ellis and Bahiigwa, 2003; Dorward et al, 2004; Christiaensen et al, 2011; Fuglie and Rada, 2013). Being poor hinders local peoples’ adoption of, or participation in, good forestry governance (Barret, 2008; Botlhoko and Oladele, 2013). Therefore, cost-effective, simple and easy-to-manage farming systems should be more easily adopted by local people than complicated and expensive ones. They prefer low-risk ventures (Frito et al. 2006; Kgosiemang and Oladele, 2012) because they have neither insurance nor access to credit facilities. Consequently, large, upfront, personal investments in forestry projects would most likely be a barrier for participation by farmers in tree planting and its management.

For local farmers, the provision of services such as the regulation of the micro-climate under which crops develop, pest/disease control, watershed management and soil fertility improvement (Cardinale et al, 2012) can be the key that influences the adoption of forest farming systems. This is because local people have lands or work in areas where the problems of erosion and soil and water conservation require attention. Thus, the choice of land use technologies must also consider how they affect the environment. The case study systems provided regulatory services that substantially improved agroecosystems and increased the flow of goods and services to the local community. Over the past 25 years, not only have farmers been interested in the regulatory services of land use systems, but Ghana’s agricultural policy has become increasingly oriented towards environment sustainability. Agricultural enterprises are being required to meet sustainable development guidelines, contribute to the conservation of natural resources and maintain the landscape. These are some of the principles by which the impacts of REDD+ activities are measured, and the ones which assess how changes in agricultural practices affect the environment.

A Review of Reforestation Approaches in Ghana: Sustainability and Genuine Local Participation Lessons for Implementing REDD+ Activities 89 4.4. Definition of Benefits and Responsibility of Different Stakeholders

The four projects’ management processes incorporated the transfer of management responsibilities and benefit-sharing opportunities to local forest user groups. Local forest users share their resources (indigenous information, money, labor, etc.) through collaboration and management of the adopted project land use system. For these investments, the local people have shared ownership of the forest resources, which includes harvested trees, fuel wood, dead branches and other forest products. The principle objective of this approach was to grant the authority for local forest management to local people and provide them with tangible benefits. According to Lawlor et al (2013) and Gebara (2013) this granting of authority to local people to manage their forests for their own benefits is an incentive that encourages local support in sustainable forest management practices, and in these cases encouraged local support for the project actions. In agreement with Peskett et al (2008) and Griffiths (2008), ensuring equity in benefit-sharing should be a fundamental condition if REDD+ related AR and AF is to be effective and, as they argue, should also depend upon local participation in the process of developing and implementing these benefits. 4.5. Enhancing Land Tenure Confidence

The experience in Dormaa, Offinso and Begoro could be one of the pathways to grant individuals secured, long-term user rights to agricultural land and forest land. It made government lands available to farmers who normally have smaller land sizes or have difficulty accessing land. These lands were used for tree planting under the Modified Taungya System (MTS). The MTS, dubbed by Kalame et al, (2011) as a win-win system for forest management, is an approach where the inter-row area within a plantation is planted with agricultural crops at the initial stages of plantation development. The farmers become the owners of forest plantation products, with the Forestry Commission, landowners and communities adjacent to the forest as shareholders (Agyeman et al, 2003). Farmers tend and maintain the plantation with the Forestry Commission contributing technical expertise. For instance, farmers are guided in order to raise the seedlings of preferred species in their own or community nurseries for field planting (Agyeman et al, 2003). The MTS not only takes the rights of farmers to tree resources and other benefits (i.e., local peoples’ tenure rights) into consideration, it also offers significant opportunities for local people to make their own decisions as to the selection of species, planting arrangements and the managing and monitoring of systems. It has been reported by Kalame (2009) and Kalame et al, (2009) that more than 100,000 hectares of MTS plantations have been established across the country through the involvement of over 100,000 rural farmers through the MTS. In fact, the successful implementation and positive outcomes of the systems in Dormaa, Offinso and Begoro have led to those areas being designated as “forest landscape restoration (FLR) learning sites” by IUCN (2006).

Having the right to use a land area for a long period of time, and make decisions about the tree species that they plant there, or the system components that they adopt, as well as benefiting from the managed systems, including the trees, creates confidence in tenure security. This then provides the incentive for local people to engage in land and natural resources management for long-term productivity. It also addresses the concern that was indicated by Lawlor et al, (2013) that the “prospect of forest carbon revenues coupled with realities of uncertain land tenure rights and weak governance in many forest regions could lead states, companies, and even conservation organizations to take actions that threaten rural livelihoods.” Some studies (CIFOR, 2003) argued against the notion that secure land tenure will encourage forest communities to manage forests better. They suggested that “secure tenure is not a necessary or sufficient condition for sustainable forest management.” While that assertion may sometimes be true, in these case studies, the governance of reforestation activities was significantly enhanced by secured confidence in land tenure. Thus, land tenure issues are inseparable from the other key factors that are mentioned in this review which generated local support for sustainable management activities. These contrasting points of view underscore the importance of addressing the issues of each forestry project on a site-by-site, traditional-area-by-traditional-area, basis.


4.6. Local Community Participation with Improved Technical Capacities

For AR and AF projects in general, the broad participation of local communities is extremely important (Griffiths, 2008; Peskett et al, 2008; Cornwall, 2000; Cleaver, 2001) because local communities are the forest users who are responsible for the present and future state of the resources. Often, however, as Gebara (2013) indicated, genuine local participation is largely ignored, with the result that forest AR and other forest management practices could not be achieved successfully. The four reviewed projects have significant participation from local people. The projects’ strategies for ensuring continued participation included, among other things, the two key steps that were suggested by Lawlor et al (2013) and Selvam (1998): (1) situation analysis, which is the first step that the projects took in order to identify stakeholders, available resources, resource utilization, degradation pressures, the causes of degradation pressures, the degradation of resources and the socio‐economic status of the communities that are dependent upon those resources; and (2) community issue analysis in which stakeholders are consulted regarding problems that are related to management and remedial measures. This not only helped in the prioritization of the projects’ actions, but it also gave the local people a feeling that their values were a priority.

Other steps provided by Lawlor et al (2013) and Pomeroy and Katon (2000) that were also followed in these studies included the capacity-building of stakeholders for the projects’ activities and ensuring that responsibility was shared among the entire range of different stakeholders, including local communities. These communities often need to strengthen their technical capacity in order to take on the responsibilities of managing and conserving forest resources (Hajek et al, 2011). For the current project areas, communities needed to develop competence in areas such as nursery management, designing and undertaking field planting and mastering other silvicultural techniques for AR and AF. For the Project in Gwira-Banso (Case 4) local skills were built in taking inventory of Non Timber Forest Products (NTFPs) on their farms, alternative livelihood production systems such as fish farming and bee-keeping, simple techniques like using GPS to trace their farms’ boundaries, in forest inventory techniques and low-impact harvesting, and they were also taught how to prepare simple management plans. In practice, community needs may range from basic education to specialized training in mapping, conservation planning or the use of geographic information systems. For these reasons, training needs must be identified on a case-by-case basis. It should not be assumed that gaining these skills is beyond the capacity of the local people.

Local people’s participation alone was not enough to bring about the desired outcome until it was supported with capacity-building measures (e.g., education and skill building) for participating households. By these measures, the projects boosted local peoples’ self-confidence in forest resource management by increasing the feelings of both understanding and having the capacity to manage their own land resources. In addition, the measures created new areas of skill and expertise—for example, in bee keeping and snail farming. The capacity-building programs were mostly beneficial to those local people, the majority, who have lower educational levels (Blay et al, 2008). Thus, these programs helped to bridge the gap between social groups with different educational backgrounds in relation to how much they could contribute to forest management. It was evident that capacity-building can balance the uneven learning opportunities that are experienced in rural areas and also encourage volunteerism towards forest management. The Gwira-Banso project (Case Study 4), for example, paints an accurate picture of how capacity-building in Reduced Impact Logging (RIL) enhanced the efficiency of local timber logging and made the role of the collaborating timber organizations more environmentally sound than others in RIL. With improved local confidence in forest management skills, local participation in forest governance was enhanced.

Local empowerment also entails the ability of local people being able to combine both scientific and local knowledge for the advancement of resource management. It is no longer enough for local people to apply only traditional knowledge; they also need to know key biological parameters and have access to technological knowledge in order to manage tree-crop systems effectively and sustainably. With the increasing attention being paid to agroforestry systems as both reforestation and ecological restoration tools, it is crucial that forest managers introduce capacity-building measures into

A Review of Reforestation Approaches in Ghana: Sustainability and Genuine Local Participation Lessons for Implementing REDD+ Activities 91 their project designs, as was the case in these reviewed projects, in order to strengthen local knowledge (Hajek et al, 2011). Ever since the concept of scientific forest management emerged in the 1800s, forest managers have depended upon quality scientific information and the capacity to process this information for management purposes. Now, with the emergence of community-based forest management, combining scientific knowledge with traditional local knowledge and practices has to be treated as a serious consideration. This has been the approach adopted by the reviewed projects. They have built upon local knowledge by seeking the best ways in which to collect and utilize traditional information resources in combination with the environmental data that was collected at the start of the project. 4.7. Incentives and Other Motivational Factors to Enhance Sustained Local Participation

The projects offered a suite of benefits that are associated with trees and ecosystems to local communities. The benefits/services offered to local people included provisioning services that involved the production of both short- and long-term renewable resources (for example, food, wood and medicine) (Cardinale et al, 2012). The planted trees are also expected to produce higher income opportunities in the long-term in order to meet household expenditures such as school fees and other goods and services that are normally not available to local people. In addition to these localized benefits, the restored degraded forest areas are expected to bring numerous benefits to the economy of Ghana through increased stumpage and carbon credit revenues (Damnyag et al, 2011). These project outcomes support the argument that afforestation or reforestation initiatives should deliver appropriate socio-economic incentives (both direct and perceived) in order to be able to change farmers’ behaviors towards the sustainable management of carbon sequestration and reforestation projects (Lawlor et al, 2013; Gebara, 2013). Generally, local interest in AR and AF is expected to be low if the systems or practices are unprofitable or insufficient to meet local needs, even if they are socially and environmentally acceptable (Colfer, 2005). Immediate profitability is an important concern for local people and small-scale farmers (Frito et al, 2006; Kgosiemang and Oladele, 2012) that can no longer be ignored by project planners.

The reviewed projects showed the importance of addressing equity concerns by not only providing employment opportunities to some of the landless households in the area covered by the project, but also by providing access benefits. Thus, they have showed how addressing equity concerns can be translated into local commitments. Often, benefit-sharing has been one of the most contentious issues within forestry projects (Hotte, 2001). The use of a proactive approach for a more equitable distribution of entitlements and benefits has been emphasized by many researchers (Kokko, 2010; Maryudi and Krott, 2012; Pham et al, 2013). This is rightly so because a transparent benefit-sharing system that contains a strong equity component as part of the project design triggers participation in forest governance and enhances the welfare of those affected by the project. Furthermore, improvements to infrastructure that were undertaken by the Gwira Banso Project initiators to enhance access to markets and improve intercommunity transactions in forest and agricultural products must be considered to be a serious incentive since most of these communities in Ghana are often inaccessible. Such infrastructure undertakings may come with increased costs to the projects, but are economically sound since they pave the way for sustained rural development.

5. Implications of Project lessons for REDD+ Related AR and AF Schemes and

Conclusions Project sustainability is a major challenge in many developing countries. Large numbers of projects implemented at huge costs often tend to experience difficulties with sustainability. There are some key frameworks that have underpinned the case study projects’ management approaches that are likely to encourage or nurture good behavior within forest management and may present the most promising paths


toward improving REDD+ initiated reforestation activities with the active involvement of local people. These frameworks, if followed, can contribute to achieving the twin goals of sustainable development: the conservation of forest resources and processes and the improvement of local peoples’ welfare.

The framework is as follows: At an early stage, initiators of AR and AF projects including REDD+ related ones, must

consider promoting the understanding and awareness of the Project goals, actions, processes, and identifying developmental and priority needs of the local communities involved. Local communities have a variety of interests and identities and each of them will have a different understanding of what community participation in AF is. Therefore it is important to share and discuss these different perspectives, agree on priorities and management responsibilities. Engaging local people to talk about the issues at an early stage highlights to them the importance attached to their values. Workshops and inclusive project board meetings are some of the tools and exercises that can be used to facilitate dialogue and discussion between local people and other key stakeholders to develop agreement and understanding.

Producing better forest management decisions will require a number of careful judgements based on facts. There is, therefore, a need to assess and develop an understanding of community socioeconomic settings and resource use status. This should also provide baseline information for the monitoring of changes following project implementation as well as to identify the key issues needing further ‘unpacking’. Field inventory of resources and asking the wider community to both fully assess socio-economic status, land uses, priorities, challenges and ways of addressing them are some of the methods that could be used.

AR and AF projects including REDD+ related ones are more likely to be sustained if proper democratic and interactive processes are followed for local participation because, according to Gebara (2013), such processes will lead to greater flexibility in the selection of benefits and distributional mechanisms and as a result firm local commitment.

Developing alternative sources of income while waiting for trees to mature offers substantial incentives for local people to put their forest land under proper management. REDD+ related AR activities must aim to increase the profitability of production systems in the short- and medium-term. Furthermore, REDD+ related AR must include systems that supports both crop and tree production.

Improvements to infrastructure that enhance access to markets and improve intercommunity transactions in forest and agricultural products must be considered to be a serious incentive since many of these communities in Ghana are often inaccessible. Such infrastructure undertakings may come with increased costs to projects, but are economically sound since they pave the way for sustained rural development.

Land tenure and rights are at the core of most of the debate over AR, AF and other land uses in Ghana (Ghana (Kasanga 2002; Agbosu et al. 2007). Addressing tenure security is pivotal if AR and AF including REDD+ related ones are to be supported by local people. Literature suggests achieving ownership rights to land is not easy. This is due to the extremely complex processes, interests and cultural values that are involved in land tenure negotiations. To this end, focusing on ensuring land tenure confidence must be an alternative solution. Households and tenants can be granted more, rather than fewer, long-term, rather than short-term, usage rights to lands and their associated resources as in the reviewed cases. When this practice gains prominence, it will help to instill local confidence in land tenure and improve chances of equitable forest steward-ship. It will also help to discontinue the practice where reforestation projects are carried out primarily to re-establish forest cover in order to produce economic profit for the government or restore protective functions with complete disregard for local land use rights and without direct benefits to local communities This approach should gain prominence in addressing some of the land tenure issues, particularly in areas where government-controlled lands are unused, degraded and wasted. There are large and growing areas of degraded forest lands in Ghana and across Africa that need to be rehabilitated in order to once again provide forest goods and services and meet local livelihood needs.

Local peoples’ involvement in forest governance must be supported with training as genuine participation entails the redistribution of management responsibilities for all involved parties. These

A Review of Reforestation Approaches in Ghana: Sustainability and Genuine Local Participation Lessons for Implementing REDD+ Activities 93 changes create a need for new skills. For instance, local people may need updated skills in silvicultural techniques. Therefore, an education campaign should be a key component when considering reforestation project design and a systematic approach should be taken towards engaging all of the different social groups within such programs.

Concluding Remark The case studies presented here substantially advance our understanding of some pathways to achieving sustainability and genuine participation in AR and AF projects, but certain issues require further consideration. Seeking long-term usage rights through the land-use agreements described in this review should be accompanied by the creation and implementation of formal contracts; this remains a major challenge under the existing CLT system. A formal contract should be a much more secure way to ensure that the benefits of tree planting will be passed onto the farmer’s descendants, especially as tree life-cycles are likely to extend beyond the life of some farmers. This would be a significant factor in any incentive scheme.

Acknowledgements The authors are thankful to the Forestry Research Institute of Ghana-led ITTO funded REDD Project and UEF-CSIR Graduate School for organising a field observation trip in 2013 that triggered this review. Our participation in the field trip was funded by the UEF-KNUST Exchange Programme financed by the Finnish Foreign Ministry.

References [1] Adhikari, B., 2009. “Reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation: Some issues and

considerations”, J. For. Livelihood 8, pp. 14–24. [2] Agbosu, L., M. Awumbila, C. Dowuona-Hammond and D. Tsikata, 2007. “Customary and

Statutory Land Tenure and Land Policy in Ghana”, Technical Publication No. 70, Institute of Statistical Social and Economic Research (ISSER), University of Ghana, Accra.

[3] Agyeman, V. A., K. A. Marfo, K. R. Kasanga, E. Danso, A. B. Asare, O. M Yeboah, and F Agyeman, 2003. ”Revising the taungya plantation system: new revenue-sharing proposals from Ghana”, Unasylva 212 (54), pp. 40-47.

[4] Agrawal, A., A. Chhatre, and R. Hardin, 2008. “Changing governance of the world’s forests”, Science 320, pp. 1460–1462.

[5] Agrawal, A., 2007. “Forests, governance, and sustainability: Common property theory and its contributions”, Int. J. Commons 1, pp. 111–136.

[6] Agrawal, A., 2001. “Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources”, World Development 29(10), pp. 1649-72.

[7] Angelsen, A., 2009. “Realising REDD? national strategy and policy options”, Indonesia: CIFOR.

[8] Angelsen, A., M. Brockhaus, W. D. Sunderlin, and L. V. Verchot, (eds) 2012. “Analysing REDD+: Challenges and choices”, CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia, Printed in Indonesia ISBN: 978-602-8693-80-6.

[9] Angelsen, A., P. Jagger, R, Babigumira, B. Belcher, N. J. Hogarth, S. Bauch, J. Börner, C. Smith-Hall, and S. Wunder, 2014. “Environmental Income and Rural Livelihoods: A Global-Comparative Analysis”, World development, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.006

[10] Amanor, K., 1997. “Socio-economic Survey for the Gwira-Banso Project”, Legon, Ghana, Institute of African Studies, 63 p.

[11] Appiah, M., 2001. “Co-Partnership in forest management: The Gwira Banso joint forest management project in Ghana”, Environment, Development and Sustainability 3(4), pp. 343-360.

[12] Appiah, M., 2012. “Changes in species composition in a deciduous agroecosystem in Ghana following plantation establishment”, Agroforestry Systems 82, pp. 57-74.


[13] Appiah, M, L. Damnyag, D. Blay, and A. Pappinen, 2010. “Forest and agroecosystem fire management in Ghana”, Mitigation and Adaptation of Strategies for Global Change 15 (6), pp. 551-570.

[14] Appiah M, D. Blay, L. Damnyag, F. Dwomoh, A. Pappinen, and O. Luukkanen, 2009. “Dependence on forest and tropical deforestation in Ghana”. Environment, Development and

Sustainability 11(3), pp. 471-487. [15] Appiah, M. and T. R. Pedersen, 1998. “Participatory Forest Management in Gwira-Banso,

Ghana”, M.Sc. Thesis, Denmark, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Department of Economic and Natural Resources.

[16] Arevalo, R., B. Ochiengc, D. Mola-Yudegod, and Gritten, 2014. “Understanding bioenergy conflicts: Case of a Jatropha project in Kenya’s Tana Delta”, Land Use Policy 41(2014), pp. 138-148.

[17] Avtar, R., H. Sawada, W. Takeuchi, and G. Singh, 2012a. Characterization of forests and deforestation in Cambodia using ALOS/PALSAR observation. Geocarto International 27(2), pp. 119–137.

[18] Avtar, R., W. Takeuchi, and H. Sawada, (2012b). ”Monitoring of biophysical parameters of cashew plants in Cambodia using ALOS/PALSAR data”. Environmental Monitoring and

Assessment, doi:10.1007/s10661-012-2685-y [19] Avtar, R., H. Sawada, and P. Kumar, 2013. “Role of remote sensing and community forestry to

manage forests for the effective implementation of REDD+ mechanism: a case study on Cambodia”. Environ Dev Sustain 15, pp. 1593–1603. DOI 10.1007/s10668-013-9448-y.

[20] Avtar, R., W. Takeuchi, and H. Sawada, 2011. ”Full Polarimetric PALSAR based land cover monitoring in Cambodia for implementation of REDD policies”. International Journal of

Digital Earth, doi:10.1080/17538947.2011.620639.1600 R [21] Ba L., and M. Skutsch, 2010. “Sustainable development indicators for community forest

management in West Africa: some thoughts”. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia, 7p.

[22] Baccini, A., S. J. Goetz, W. S. Walker, N.T Laporte, M. Sun, D. Sulla-Menashe, J. Hackler, P. S. A. Beck, R. Dubayah, M. A. Friedl, S. Samanta, and R. A. Houghton, 2012. “Estimated carbon dioxide emissions from tropical deforestation improved by carbon-density maps”, Nature Climate Change, 2, pp. 182–185.

[23] Barbier, E. B., and A. T. Tesfaw, 2012. “Can REDD+ Save the Forest? The Role of payments and tenure”. Forests 3, pp. 881-895.

[24] Barret, C. B., 2008. “Smallholder market participation: Concepts and evidence from Eastern and Southern Africa”, Food Policy 33, pp. 299-317.

[25] Bassey, E., 2003. The effect of Land Tenure on natural resources conservation in the Nigerian Rain Forest. The XII World Forestry Congress. Quebec: FA O.

[26] Behr, C., Diji, E. M. Cunningham, M. Gimbage, G. Kajembe, S. Nsita, and K. L. Rosenbaum, 2012. “Benefit Sharing in Practice: Insights for REDD+ Initiatives”, Washington, DC: Program on Forests (PROFOR).

[27] Blay, D., M. Appiah, L. Damnyag, F. Dwomoh, O. Luukkanen, and A. Pappinen 2008. “Involving local farmers in rehabilitation of degraded tropical forests: some lessons from Ghana”, Environment, Development and Sustainability 10 (4), pp. 503-518.

[28] Botlhoko, G. J., and O. I. Oladele, 2013. “Factors Affecting Farmers Participation in Agricultural Projects in Ngaka Modiri Molema District North West Province, South Africa”. J.

Hum. Ecol. 41(3), pp. 201-206. [29] Brown, D., F. Seymour, and L. Peskett, 2008. “How do we achieve REDD co-benefits and

avoid doing harm? In Moving Ahead with REDD: Issues, Options and Implications”, Angelsen, A., Ed.; CIFOR: Bogor, Indonesia, 2008; pp. 107–118.

[30] Butchart, S. H. M., Walpole, M., Collen, B., van Strien, A., Scharlemann, J. P. W., Almond, R. E. A., Baillie, J. E. M., Bomhard, B., Brown, C., Bruno, J., Carpenter, K.E., Carr, G. M.,


Chanson, J., Chenery, A. M., Csirke, J., Davidson, N. C., Dentener, F., Foster,F., Galli,A., Galloway, J. N., Genovesi, P., Gregory, R. D., Hockings, M., Kapos, V., Lamarque,J-F., Leverington,F., Loh, J., McGeoch, M. A., McRae, L., Minasyan, A., Morcillo, M. H., Oldfield, T. E. E., Pauly, D., Quader, S., Revenga, C., Sauer, J. R., Skolnik, B., Spear, D., Stanwell-Smith, D., Stuart, S. N., Symes, A., Tierney, T., Tyrrell, T. D., Vié, J-C., & Watson, R. (2010). Global Biodiversity: Indicators of Recent Declines. Science, 328, 1164 (2010); DOI: 10.1126/science.1187512.

[31] Byron, N., 1997. “International development assistance in forestry and land management: the process and the players”, Commonwealth Forestry Review 76 (1), pp. 61- 67.

[32] Campbell, A., S. Clark, L. Coad, L. Miles, K. Bolt, and D. Roe, 2008. “Protecting the future: Carbon, forests, protected areas and local livelihoods”. Biodiversity, 9, 117–122.

[33] Cardinale, B. J., J. E. Duffy, A Gonzalez, D. U. Hooper, C. Perrings, P. Venail, A. Narwani, G. M. Mace, D. Tilman, D. A. Wardle, A. P. Kinzig, G. C Daily, M. Loreau, J. B. Grace, A. Larigauderie, D. S. Srivastava, and S. Naeem, 2012. “Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity”. Nature, 486, pp. 59–67.

[34] Cerbu, G., P. A. Minang, B. Swallow, and V. Meadu, 2009. Global survey of REDD projects: What implications for global climate objectives? ASB PolicyBrief No. 12. ASB Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins, Nairobi, Kenya.

[35] Chandra, A., and A Idrisova, 2011. “Convention on biological diversity: a review of national challenges and opportunities for implementation”, Biodivers. Conserv, 20, pp. 3295-3316.

[36] Chaytor, B., R. Gerster, and T. Herzog, 2002. “The Convention on Biological Diversity – Exploring the creation of a mediation mechanism”. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 5(2), pp. 157-180.

[37] Christiaensen, L., L. Demery, and J. Kuhl, 2011. The (Evolving) Role of Agricultural in Poverty Reduction-An Empirical Perspective. Journal of Development Economics, 96, pp. 239-254.

[38] CIFOR. 2003. “Learning from past rehabilitation efforts”, CIFOR News 7, Number 32. [39] Cleaver, F., 2001. “Institutions, Agency and the Limitations of Participatory Approaches to

Development”. In Participation: the New Tyranny?, eds. B. Cooke and U. Kothari, 36-55. London: Zed Books.

[40] Collier P., 2007. “The Bottom Billion: Why the poorest countries are failing and what can be done about it”. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[41] Colfer, C. J. P. ed. 2005. “The Equitable Forest: Diversity, Community and Natural Resources”. Washington, D.C.: RFF/CIFOR.

[42] Counsell, S., 2009. “Forest Governance in Africa”. South African Institute of International Affairs, Jan Smuts House, East Campus, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. S A I I A Occasional Paper, Number 50.

[43] Cornwall, A., 2000. “Beneficiary, Consumer, Citizen: Perspectives on Participation for Poverty Reduction”, Sida Studies No. 2. Stockholm: Swedish International Development Agency.

[44] Damnyag, L., T. Tyynelä, M. Appiah, O. Saastamoinen, and A. Pappinen, 2011. “Economic cost of deforestation in semi-deciduous forests - a case of two forest districts in Ghana”, Ecological Economic, 70 (12), pp. 2503-2510.

[45] Dhiaulhaq, A., D. Grittena, T. De Bruyn, Y. Yasmi, A. Zazali, and M. Silalahi, 2014. “Transforming conflict in plantations through mediation: Lessons and experiences from Sumatera, Indonesia”, Forest Policy and Economics, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.01.003

[46] Dooley, K., and C. Okereke, 2009. “Distributive Equity Concerns in an International REDD Mechanism: Towards a Copenhagen Climate Agreement”. IOP Conference Series: Earth and

Environmental Science, 6:112022 [47] Dorward, A. R., J. G. Kydd, J. Morrison, and I. Urey, 2004. “A Policy Agenda for Pro-Poor

Agricultural Growth”, World Development, 32 (1), pp. 73-89.


[48] Dutschke, M. and R. Wolf, 2007. “Reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries. The way forward”. GTZ Climate Protection Programme, Eschborn, Germany. 29p.

[49] Ellis, F., & Bahiigwa, G. (2003). Livelihoods and Rural Poverty Reduction in Uganda. World

Development, 31(6): 997–1013 [50] FAO. 2014. “State of the World’s Forests: Enhancing the socioeconomic benefits from forests”,

FAO, Rome. 119 p. [51] FAO. 2007. “Multi stakeholder forest management: a case from the humid zone in Ghana”.

Based on the work by Dominic Blay, Forestry Research Institute of Ghana. Forest Management Working Paper FM/32. Forest Resources Development Service, Forest Management Division. FAO, Rome (unpublished).

[52] FAO. 2011. “Framework for assessing and monitoring forest governance”. Electronic Publishing Policy and Support Branch, Communication Division, FAO, Rome.

[53] FRA. 2010. “Global forest resources assessment”. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

[54] Frito, D., D. R. Carter, J. M. McDaniel, D. A. Shannon, C. M. Jolly, 2006. “Factors influencing farmers participation in forestry management programs: A case study from Haiti”, Forest

Ecology and Management 236, (3) pp. 24-3 31. [55] Fuglie, K., and N. Rada, 2013. “Resources, Policies, and Agricultural Productivity in Sub-

Saharan Africa”. USDA, Economic Research Service, February 2013. [56] Gebara, M. F., 2013. “Importance of local participation in achieving equity in benefit-sharing

mechanisms for REDD+: a case study from the Juma Sustainable Development Reserve”, International Journal of the Commons, 7(2), pp. 473-497.

[57] Gibbs, H.K., S. Brown, J. O. Niles, and J. A. Foley, 2007. Monitoring and estimating tropical forest carbon stocks: making REDD a reality. Environmental Research Letters, 2: 045023.

[58] Griffiths, T., 2008. “Seeing ‘REDD’? Forests, Climate Change Mitigation and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities”. Moreton-in-Marsh: Forest Peoples Programme.

[59] Hajek, F., M. J. Ventresca, J. Scriven and A Castro 2011. “Regime-building for REDD+: Evidence from a cluster of local initiatives in south eastern Peru” Environmental Science and Policy, 14 (2), pp. 201-215.

[60] IPCC, 2000. Special report on emission scenarios. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [61] IPCC, 2007. Climate change 2007: Synthesis report. Fourth Assessment Report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Core Writing Team, eds. R. K. Pachauri, and A. Reisinger. Geneva: IPCC, 104.

[62] IUCN, (2007). Ghana Country Assessment Report Summary. IUCN. [63] IUCN, 2006. IUCN (2006) Forest landscape restoration to meet Ghana’s deforestation

challenges, IUCN, http://www.IUCN.org/en/news/archive/2006/newfebruary06.htm. [64] Kiptot, E., and S. Franzel, 2011. “Gender and agroforestry in Africa: are women participating?”

ICRAF Occasional Paper No. 13. Nairobi: World Agroforestry Centre [65] Linquist, B., K.J. Groenigen, M. A. Adviento-Borbe, C. Pittelkow, and C Kessel, 2012. “An

agronomic assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from major cereal crops” Glob. Chang.

Biol., 18, pp. 194–209. [66] Hall, J. B., and M. D. Swaine, 1976. “Classification and ecology of closed-canopy forest in

Ghana”, Journal of Ecology, 64, pp. 913-951. [67] Hall, J. B., and M. D. Swaine, 1981. Distribution and ecology of vascular plants in a Tropical

Rain Forest Vegetation in Ghana. Geobotany 1. The Hague: W. Junk Publishers, 383 pp. [68] Hotte, L. 2001. “Conflicts over property rights and natural-resource exploitation at the frontier”

J. Dev. Econ., 2001, 66, pp.1–21. [69] IEG, 2012. “Managing Forest Resources for Sustainable Development: An Evaluation of World

Bank Group Experience”. The World Bank,Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A.

A Review of Reforestation Approaches in Ghana: Sustainability and Genuine Local Participation Lessons for Implementing REDD+ Activities 97 [70] Jagger, P., M. K. Luckert, A. Duchelle, J. F. Lund, and W. D. Sunderlin, 2014. ”Tenure and

forest income: Observations from a global study on forests and poverty”. World Development, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.004

[71] Kalame, F. B., Aidoo, R., Nkem, J., Ajayi, O.C., Kanninen, M., Luukkanen, O., & Idinoba, M., 2011. ”Modified taungya system in Ghana: a win-win practice for forestry and adaptation to Climatic change?” Environmental Science and Policy, 14 (5), pp. 519-530.

[72] Kalame, F. B., 2009. “Modified taungya system in the transition zone of Ghana”. In: Bodegom,V., Jan, A., Savenije, H., & Wit, M. (Eds.), Forests and Climate Change: Adaptation and Mitigation. Tropenbos International, Wageningen, The Netherlands, pp.101–106.

[73] Kalame, F. B., J. Nkem, M. Idinoba, and M. Kanninen, 2009. ”Matching national forest policies and management practices for climate change adaptation in Burkina Faso and Ghana” Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change, 14, pp. 135–151.

[74] Kasanga, K., 2002. “Understanding the dynamics of land tenure –Land Tenure, Resource Access and Decentralization in Ghana”, In: Toulmin C., Lavigne-Delville P., & Traore, S (eds.), The Dynamics of Resource Tenure in West Africa, International Institute for Environment and Development, pp 25-36.

[75] Kgosiemang, D. T., and O. I. Oladele, 2012. “Factors affecting farmers’ participation in agricultural projects in Mkhondo Municipality of Mpumalanga Province, South Africa”, J Hum

Ecol, 37(1), pp. 19-27. [76] Knox, A., C. Caron, J. Miner, and A. Goldstein, 2011. “Land tenure and payment for environmental

services: Challenges and opportunities for REDD+”, Land Tenure J. 2011, 2, pp. 17–55. [77] Kokko, S., 2010. Local forest governance and benefit sharing from reduced emissions from

deforestation and forest degradation (REDD): case study from Burkina Faso. Department of Urban and Rural Development, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Uppsala, Sweden.

[78] Larson, A. M., and E. Petkova, 2011. “An introduction to forest governance, people and REDD+ in Latin America: Obstacles and opportunities”, Forests, 2, pp. 86-111.

[79] Lawlor, K., E. M. Madeira, J. Blockhus, and D. J. Ganz, 2013. “Community Participation and Benefits in REDD+: A Review of Initial Outcomes and Lessons” Forests, 4, pp. 296-318.

[80] Lukkanen, O., and M. Appiah, 2006. ”Rehabilitation of degraded forests with collaboration of local communities Ghana”. International Tropical Timber Organisation/ Forestry Research Institute of Ghana, ITTO Project (PD 30/97 Rev 6 (F) Technical Report, 56 p. (Unpublished).

[81] Mansourian, S., L. Lucy Aquino, T. K. Erdmann, and F. Pereira, 2014. “A comparison of governance challenges in forest restoration in Paraguay’s privately-owned forests and Madagascar’s co-managed State Forests”, Forests 5, pp. 763-783.

[82] Maryudi, A., and M. Krott. 2012. “Poverty alleviation efforts through a community forestry program in Java, Indonesia”. Journal of Sustainable Development 5, pp. 2

[83] Mbow, C., D. Skole, M. Dieng, C. Justice, D. Kwesha, L. Mane, M. El Gamri, V. Von Vordzogbe, and H. Virj, 2012. “Challenges and Prospects for REDD+ in Africa: Desk Review Of REDD+ Implementation in Africa”. GLP Report 5, 70

[84] Murniati, D. P. Garrity, and A. N. Gintings, 2001. “The contribution of agroforestry systems to reducing farmers’ dependence on the resources of adjacent national parks”, Agroforestry

Systems, 52, pp. 171–184. [85] Murdiyarso, D., and E. S. Adiningsih, 2007. “Climate anomalies, Indonesian vegetation fires

and terrestrial carbon emissions” Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 12 (1), pp. 101-112.

[86] Murdiyarso, D., K. Hergoualc’h, and L. V. Verchot, 2010. Opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in tropical peatlands. Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences 107 (46), pp. 19655-19660.


[87] Nepstad, D., B. Soares-Filho, F. Merry, P. Moutinho, H. Rodrigues, M. Bowman, and S. Schwartzman, 2007. “The Costs and Benefits of Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation in the Brazilian Amazon”, Falmouth: Woods Hole Research Center.

[88] Olbrei, E., and S Howes, 2012. “A very real and practical contribution? Lessons from the Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership”, Australian National University, Development Policy Centre. Australia.

[89] Ozinga, S., 2012. “The impact of REDD on forest governance”, ETFRN News (April 2012), 53, pp. 141-148.

[90] Patel, T., A. Dhiaulhaq, D. Gritten, Y. Yasmi, T. D. Bruyn, N. S. Paudel, H. Luintel, D. B. Khatri, C. Silori, and R. Suzuki, 2013. “Predicting Future Conflict under REDD+ Implementation”, Forests 4 (2), pp. 343-363.

[91] Pereira, H. M., P. W. Leadley, V. Proenca, R. Alkemade, J. P. W. Scharlemann, J. F. Fernandez-Manjarres, et al., 2010. “Scenarios for global biodiversity in the 21st century” Science 330, pp. 1496–1501.

[92] Peskett, L., D. Huberman, E. Bowen-Jones, G. Edwards, and J. Brown, 2008. “Making REDD work for the Poor”. A Poverty Environment Partnership (PEP) Report. Overseas Development Institute (ODI). 80p.

[93] Pimbert, M., and J. N. Pretty, 1994. “Parks, people, and professionals: Putting "participation" into protected areas management”. Geneva: UNRISD and WWF; London: IIED.

[94] Pham, T. T., M. Brockhaus, G. Wong, L. N. Dung, J. S. Tjajadi, L. Loft, C. Luttrell, and S. Assembe Mvondo, 2013. “Approaches to benefit sharing: A preliminary comparative analysis of 13 REDD+ countries”. Working Paper 108. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.

[95] Phelps, J., Webb, E. L., & Agrawal, A. (2010). Does REDD+ threaten to recentralize forest governance? Science, 328, 312–313.

[96] Pomeroy, R. S., and B. M. Katon, 2000. “Mangrove rehabilitation and coastal resource management project (MRCRMP) of Mabini‐Candijay, Bohol, Philippines: Cogtong Bay”. In: Proceedings of Asia‐Pacific Cooperation on Research for conservation of mangroves, Okinawa, Japan, pp. 265‐278.

[97] Prah, E. A., 1997. “Joint forest management- the Gwira-Banso experience”, Commonwealth

Forestry Review 76(3), pp. 171–174. [98] Ramadhani, T., R. Otsyina, and S. Franzel, 2002. “Improving household incomes and reducing

deforestation; the example of rotational woodlots in Tabora District, Tanzania”. Agriculture,

Ecosystem and the Environment 89(3), pp. 227–237. [99] Reuters, 2008. “Africa's deforestation twice world rate, says atlas”. Reuters, June 10, 2008. [100] Sandbrook, C., F. Nelson, W. D. Adams, and A. Agrawal, 2010. “Forests, carbon, and the

REDD paradox”. Oryx, 44 (3), pp. 330-39. [101] Santilli, M., P. Moutinho, S. Schwartzman, D. Nepstad, L. Curran, and C. Nobre, 2005.

“Tropical deforestation and the Kyoto Protocol: An editorial essay”. In Tropical Deforestation and Climate Change, eds. P. Moutinho and S. Schwartzman, 267-276. Belém: Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia (IPAM); Washington, DC: Environmental Defense.

[102] Selvam, V., 1998. “Community participation in the conservation and management of mangrove wetlands: A planning framework”. An Anthology of Indian Mangroves. Seshaiyana, 5 (2), pp. 57‐ 63.

[103] Siikamäki J., and S. Newbold, 2012. “Potential Biodiversity Benefits from International Programs to Reduce Carbon Emissions from Deforestation”, Ambio, 41, (1), pp. 78‐89.

[104] The Independent, 2008. Nature laid waste: The destruction of Africa. The Independent, June 11, 2008.

[105] UNEP, 2008. UNEP 2008 Annual Report. 106 p. [106] UNFCCC, 2009. Report of the Conference of the Parties on its fifteenth session, held in

Copenhagen from 7 to 19 December 2009. Part One: Proceedings. UNFCCC. Conference of the Parties (COP).


https://unfccc.int/documentation/documents/advanced_search/items/6911.php?priref=600005734, Accessed 26.6.2014.

[107] UNEP, 1992. Convention on Biological Diversity. Nairobi. United Nations Environment Programme.

[108] USAID, 2010. Nigeria: USAID Country profile: Property rights and resource governance. [109] G. R. Van der Werf, D. C Morton, R. S. DeFries, J. G. J. Olivier, P. S. Kasibhatia, R. B.

Jackson, G. J. Collatz, and J. T. Randerson, 2009. “CO2 emissions from forest loss”, Nature

Geoscience 2009, 2, pp. 737–738. [110] Venter, O., and L. P. Koh, 2012. ”Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest

degradation (REDD+): game changer or just another quick fix?” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[111] Verchot, L. V., M. van Noordwijk, S. T. Kandji, T. P. Tomich, C. Ong, A. J. Albrecht, Mackensen, C. Bantilan, K. V. Anupama, and C. A. Palm, 2007. “Climate change: linking adaptation and mitigation through agroforestry”, Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang., 12, pp. 901–918

[112] Wagner, M. R., J. R. Cobbinah, 1993. “Deforestation and sustainability in Ghana: the role of tropical forests”, Ghana Journal of Forestry, pp. 91: 36-39.

[113] Watson, C., E. Brickell, and W, McFarland, 2013. “Integrating REDD+ into a green economy transition Opportunities and challenges”, Overseas Development Institute, London. 33p.

[114] Wondolleck, J. M., and S. L. Yaffee, 2000. “Making collaboration work: Lessons from innovation in natural resource management”, Washington, DC: Island Press

[115] Yasmi, Y., 2007. “Institutionalization of conflict capability in the management of natural resources: theoretical perspectives and empirical experience in Indonesia”, PhD Dissertation, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

[116] Yasmi, Y., L. Kelley, D. Murdiyarso, and T. Patel, 2012. “The struggle over Asia's forests: An overview of forest conflict and potential implications for REDD+”, Int. For. Rev. 14, pp. 1–11.

Documents

A Review of Reforestation Approaches in Ghana