Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group

Rethinking farmer participation for sustaining the Modified Taungya System of Plantation development in MSc Thesis

Emmanuella Ntiamoah Sarpong

August, 2016

Rethinking farmer participation for sustaining the Modified Taungya System of Plantation development in Ghana

Thesis

Submitted in fulfillment of the requirement of the Academic Board of Wageningen University and Research Center for the degree of master Presented by,

Emmanuella Ntiamoah Sarpong

i

Author Emmanuella Ntiamoah Sarpong Forest and Nature Conservation (Policy Option) Student number: 711206610010

Supervisor Prof. Dr. B. J. M. Arts Professor of Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Wageningen University

Acknowledgements

ii

I Thank God that I could go through my MSc journey and have the opportunity to say thank you to those who supported me through this journey. I am grateful to my supervisor Prof. Bas Arts, Chair of the Forest and Nature Conservation policy chair Group, Wageningen University for supervising this thesis and for his valuable contributions that shaped this research. I am also grateful to Mr. Alex Asare of the Resource Management Support Centre (RMSC), Forestry Commission (FC), , for inspiring me to take up this challenge of furthering my education. Also to Mr. Edward Obiaw, Director, RMSC for his support and encouragement. I say God richly bless you. I would like to express my utmost gratitude to Mrs. Joanna Beulah Echeruo, Lecturer at the Faculty of Renewable Natural Resource (FRNR), Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST and Dr. Kwame Antwi Oduro of Forestry Research Institute of Ghana (FORIG) for their time, support and valuable contributions in shaping this report. I am also grateful to Mrs. Doreen Asumang -Yeboah National Forest Forum-Ghana (NFF-G); Mr. Godfred Ohene- Gyan, Mad. Yaa Konadu Pokuaah and all my colleagues at RMSC for their numerous supports. My heartfelt gratitude to all the people who granted me interviews to share their views and knowledge on the topic with me especially MTS farmers from the research communities. I will always remember friends like Lydia, Joshua, Pascal, Gerald and Eva Perez of Wageningen University, guys you made my stay in Wageningen lively and fun. My sincere appreciation goes to my parents Nana and Mrs. Owusu Agyapong and my brothers who have encouraged and supported me to this level. I say thank you for your prayers and love. To Rev. Fr. Emmanuel Boateng (OSB) of the Benedictine Monastery Milan, Italy, Papa, thank you for your prayers, love and encouragement. Finally to my husband Mr. Kwadwo Ntiamoah-Sarpong and my lovely Children Yaw Ntiamoah- Sarpong, Adwoa Serwaa Ntiamoah-Sarpong, Akua Boatemaa Ntiamoah-Sarpong and Kwabena Ntiamoah-Sarpong for their love ,support and also have to cope with my absence when I was away from home. I am so grateful and thankful for being there for me.

Abstract

iii

The area of closed forests in Ghana continues to dwindle due to unsustainable harvest practices, illegal logging, wildfires, agriculture and mining, among others. To address the negative effects of deforestation and to ameliorate its effects on rural livelihoods; the Government of Ghana in 2001 launched the National Forest Plantation Development Programme (NFPDP) to aid in the rehabilitation of degraded forest reserves in an attempt to increase forest cover across the country. Various approaches were designed for plantation development. The MTS was the most prevalent amongst all the approaches. The MTS has been suspended since 2010 but there is lack of information on farmer participation in decision-making in the already established plantation, which may be a hindrance to the revival or review of the implementation arrangements of the MTS. The study therefore was to assess how institutional arrangements influence participation of farmers in decision -making after the establishment of MTS plantations. It took an in-depth look at how farmers were involved in decision-making at all levels under the MTS. The study was conducted in five (5) communities in the Offinso and Forest Districts in the . An explorative research approach was used to investigate decision making processes under the MTS and farmer participation in these processes. The results show that, though there are formal rules and regulations governing the MTS, none of them enable farmer participation in decision-making. There is an institutional void regarding farmer participation in decision-making. There are no specific institutionalized participation structures or laid down decision-making structures under the MTS. The study recommends an institutionalized structure regarding farmer participation in decision-making under the MTS and these structures must be adhered to. Additionally, the issue of power dynamics within the groups can affect farmer’s participation in decision-making therefore there is the need for in-depth study on power relations within the groups and its effect on decision-making in the implementation of the MTS. The MTS beyond all doubts has been a useful initiative; its full potential would be achieved when stakeholders especially farmers are actively involved in decision making at all the levels.

iv

Table of Contents Acknowledgements ...... ii Abstract ...... iii List of figures ...... viii List of tables ...... ix List of Acronyms ...... x Chapter One...... 1 1.0 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Background Information ...... 1 1.1.1 A history of deforestation and reforestation policy in Ghana ...... 1 1.1.2 The Modified Taungya System ...... 2 1.2 Problem statement ...... 4 1.3 Justification ...... 5 1.4 Research Aim and Objectives ...... 6 1.5 Research questions ...... 6 1.6 Study Area ...... 6 1.7 Thesis outline ...... 7 Chapter Two...... 7 2.0 Conceptual Framework...... 7 Introduction ...... 8 2.1 Institutions ...... 8 2.2 Institutional Analysis and Development Framework (IADF) ...... 9 2.3 Operationalization of concepts and methods ...... 11 2.4 History of Local Communities’ Participation in Natural Resource Management ...... 13 2.5 Defining Participation ...... 15 2.5.1 Levels of participation in decision-making ...... 15 2.5.2 Benefits and drawbacks of participation ...... 17 2.6 Institutional arrangements for effective participation ...... 18 2.7 Participation in decision-making processes in NRM/Conservation ...... 18 Chapter Three ...... 20 3.0 Methodology ...... 20 3.1 Study site description ...... 20 3.2 Research Design and method ...... 23

v

3.3 Data Collection and Analysis ...... 23 Chapter Four ...... 28 4.0 Results ...... 28 Introduction ...... 28 4.1 Background information on respondents ...... 28 4.2 Biophysical Attributes: Differences in plots among farmers ...... 29 4.3 Community Attributes; Accepted norms and values ...... 30 4.3.1 Rules not stipulated in the guidelines (accepted norms and values) ...... 30 4.3.2 Effects of informal rules on decisions making on the implementations of MTS ...... 31 4.4 Rules-in-use: Rules and regulations governing MTS ...... 31 4.4.1 Benefit Sharing Agreement (BSA) ...... 31 4.4.2 The land lease agreement ...... 32 4.4.3 Guidelines for the establishment and management of Modified Taungya Groups (MOTAGs): ...... 32 4.4.4 Guideline for the implementation of the MTS ...... 33 4.5 Participation in decision-making ...... 34 4.5.1 Stakeholders participating in decision-making processes under the MTS ...... 34 4.5.2 Decision-making by farmers under the MTS ...... 38 4.6 Participation structures in the implementation of the MTS ...... 41 4.7 Effects of Years of involvement on participation ...... 42 4.8 Stakeholder interactions ...... 43 4.8.1 Stakeholders and their responsibilities ...... 43 4.8.2 Stakeholder interactions under the MTS ...... 45 4.9 Challenges to farmer participation in decision-making processes under the MTS ..... Error! Bookmark not defined. Chapter Five...... 50 5.0 Discussions ...... 50 5.1 Stakeholders’ participation in decision-making and their interaction under the MTS ...... 50 5.2 Effect of formal and informal rules on decision-making ...... 52 5.3 Existing participation structures and their effect on decision-making under MTS implementation ...... 53 5.4 Effects of Years of involvement on participation ...... 55 5.5 Lessons learnt from the MTS and implications for improving farmer participation ...... 55 Chapter Six ...... 58

vi

6.0 Summary of findings, Conclusion and Recommendations ...... 58 6.1 Summary of findings ...... 58 6.2 Conclusions ...... 59 6.3 Recommendations ...... 60 6.4 Reflection on theory and methodology ...... 61 References ...... 63 Appendix 1 ...... 69

vii

List of figures Figure 2.1: The Institutional Analysis and Development Framework…...…………………………10 Figure 2.2: Institutional analysis framework for MTS...... 12 Figure 3.1: A map showing research site and forest reserves……………………………………..22 Figure 3.2: Pictures of focus groudiscussions...... 24 Figure 4.1: Pictorial view of interactions of stakeholders under the MTS……………………...... 46

viii

List of tables Table 2.1: Levels ofParticipation...... 16 Table 3.1: Number of respondents and focus groups in the different communities and Institutions...... 26 Table 4.1: Duration of farmers’ involvement in Plantation establishment under MTS...... 28 Table 4.2: FC perspective on key areas for decision making under the MTS……………………35 Table 4.3: Farmers’ perspective on their involvement in key areas of decision-making………...37 Table 4.4: Years of involvement in plantation development and level of participation in Decision-making…………………………………………………………………………………………42 Table 4.5: Stakeholders and their responsibilities with regards to the MTS...... 43

ix

List of Acronyms AfDB African Development Bank BSA Benefit Sharing Agreement CFMP Community Forest Management Project CRMU Collaborative Forest Management Unit CSO Civil Society Organization FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FC Forestry Commission FORIG Forestry Research Institute of Ghana FSD Forest Services Division GoG Government of Ghana GPDP Government Plantation Development Programme HFZ High Forest Zone HIPC Highly Indebted Poor Countries KNUST Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology MoFA Ministry of Food and Agriculture MOTAG Modified Taungya Groups MTS Modified Taungya System NFPDP National Forest Plantation Development Programme NGO Non-Governmental Organization RMSC Resource Management Support Centre RUDEYA Rural Development Youth Association SRA Social Responsibility Agreement TS Taungya System UNDP United Nation Development Programme

x

Chapter One 1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background Information 1.1.1 A history of deforestation and reforestation policy in Ghana Ghana has a total forest area of about 2.5 million hectares which is divided into two vegetation zones namely the high forest zone and the savannah zone (MLNR, 2016). The area of closed forests continues to dwindle from its original size due to unsustainable harvest practices, illegal logging, wildfires, agriculture and mining, among others. The loss of forest cover across Ghana’s high forest zone has reached a stage that clearly shows that there is over-exploitation of timber resources. This poses a threat mostly to the communities living close to forest reserves that rely on the forest reserves for their livelihoods (Ledger, 2009).

To address the negative effects of deforestation and to ameliorate its effects on rural livelihoods; the Government of Ghana in 2001 launched the National Forest Plantation Development Programme (NFPDP) to aid in the rehabilitation of degraded forest reserves in an attempt to increase forest cover across the country. The goal of the programme is to develop a sustainable resource base to satisfy the future demand of industrial timber and enhance environmental quality, thereby reducing pressure on natural forest (FSD, 2015). It also aimed at increasing forest cover for improved environmental quality. The programme was again envisaged to generate jobs and to increase food production in the country whilst creating wealth to reduce rural poverty (FC Report, 2005:40.).

Various approaches were designed for plantation development under the NFPDP. These approaches were; the Government Plantation Development Project (GPDP) funded by the Government of Ghana (GoG) through the Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) benefit for establishing plantations, the Modified Taungya System (MTS), the Community Forest Management Project (CFMP) which was implemented between 2005 to 2009. A total of 185,088.82ha of plantation has been established at the end of the 2014 plantation year. Out of this, 80,727.30ha has been developed under the MTS (FSD, 2015). This project adopted the MTS model for plantation establishment which was funded with a loan from the African Development Bank (AfDB) and the Industrial (Commercial) plantation within forest reserves and outside forest reserves.

1

1.1.2 The Modified Taungya System Amongst the approaches designed for plantation development in Ghana, the Modified Taungya System (MTS) is the most prevalent. It is an agroforestry system, where a group of farmers living close to forest reserves and experiencing land scarcity for farming acquire a piece of land from degraded forest reserves. The plantation is established in partnership with the Forestry Commission (FC). In this arrangement, the FC of Ghana shares responsibilities with farmers in fringe community and establish local authorities as partners both in managing and drawing benefits from planted trees to ensure local communities’ commitment in sustainable forest management.

The MTS replaces the old Taungya System (TS) for plantation development introduced in the country by the Government in the 1930s (Agyeman et al, 2003). Taungya system is an agroforestry practice of inter-planting trees with food crops during the initial stages of the plantation establishment. The taungya system is reported to have its origin in Myanmar (formerly Burma) (Blanford, 1958). The system was widely applied in the country between the 1970s and the 1980s within degraded forest reserves until it was suspended in 1984. The primary purpose was to produce commercial timber at a comparatively shorter time and also to help solve the problem of land shortage of farmers living in communities near forest reserves (Agyeman et. al., 2003). In such situations, farmers apply for allocation of land in degraded forest reserves and after verification, Forest Services Division (FSD) field staff allocates a piece of land to them. This enabled farmers taking part in the programme to experience improved food security from increased crop yield on a more fertile soil in the degraded forest reserve lands.

In the old TS arrangements, taungya farmers have no share in the revenue of the tree crop apart from the proceeds from the food crops in the initial stages of the plantation establishment (Milton, 1994). Though the taungya was successful in the beginning, it became unfavorable and was abandoned because farmers were not part of decision making process in terms of management (Birikorang G. et al, 2001; Fobissie B. Kalame, 2009). Farmers therefore, tend to neglect the tree crops since they would not benefit directly from it and also were not permitted to stay on the land for a longer period. Other flaws of the old TS include:

i. insecure access to forest land with a limited tenure period of three years (3 years) ii. farmers have no direct share in the revenue from tree crops iii. inequity of land allocation to participating farmers

2

iv. emergence of middlemen who exploited the migrant and landless farmers

Consequently, the FC identified local people’s participation as weak, the Collaborative Forest Management Unit (CFMU) introduced the current system Modified Taungya System (MTS) in the early 1990s as a pilot community forest plantation development programme, following an 18 months consultation process with relevant stakeholders including Traditional authorities and farmers, to address the lapses in the old taungya system.

This was done by making the farmers, fringe communities and other stakeholders as partners in managing and also deriving benefit from the tree crops. The FC and the other stakeholders have a share in revenue from only the tree crop, with the farmers being the sole beneficiaries of the food crops. With the modifications to the old taungya system in the early 1900s, the Government recognized the prospects of a well-designed and managed taungya system for plantation development in the High Forest zone (HFZ). There was a process of pursuing a permanent regime for land user right under the MTS. A basic agreement structure stating the rights and responsibilities of all stakeholders, including cost and benefits was developed. Under the previous TS, the landowners and the FC were the sole owners of the plantation product, the farmers only benefitted from the food crops. However, under the MTS, farmers are basically co- owners of the plantation with the FC whilst landowners and the forest fringe community as shareholders. The MTS also provided other services like fuelwood, food crops for both commercial and subsistence uses as well as other environmental services (Kalame, 2009).

The MTS has since its introduction been one of the key strategies under the National Forest Plantation Development Programme (NFPDP) aimed primarily at minimizing poverty in forest fringe communities. Since its inception in Ghana in 2002, local people, mostly farmers have been involved by partnering the Forestry Commission in establishing the plantations. The FC provides all the technical support, surveys and demarcates the land and supplies seedlings while the farmers are responsible for land preparation, pegging, planting, and tending and fire protection. The MTS has its basis in the provisions of the 1994 Forest and Wildlife policy that encourages reforestation programme. It is also supplemented by the policy framework in pursuit of the Forestry Development Master Plan to reverse deforestation (Agyeman et al. 2010). The 1994 Forest and Wildlife Policy provided the framework for the pursuit of collaborative and sustainable forest management in Ghana (Kortey et al, 1998). This policy recognizes the rights for local people to have access to natural resources for the maintenance of their basic standard of living. The

3 policy also highlights a number of responsibilities of local people to ensure the sustainable use of such resources. The policy again perceives local people's participation in forest management as vital for sustainable forest management. From the legal viewpoint, the MTS is governed by a land lease and the benefit sharing agreements that clearly states the tenure arrangements, responsibilities as well as the benefit of each party involved in the scheme.

There are institutional arrangements stipulating the rights and responsibilities of each actor regarding the management, protection as well as sharing of benefits. The rights of farmers are enshrined in the Timber Resource Management Act 2002, ( Act 617) which states that ” no timber right will be granted with respect of land with private plantation, or land with any timber grown or owned by any individual or group of individuals”. This makes them owners of the timber trees grown in forest reserves. The institutional arrangements governing the MTS are; the land lease agreement, benefit sharing agreement Guidelines for the establishment and management of Modified Taungya Groups (MOTAGs) and informal rules and norms to guide the conduct of farmers. These institutional arrangements indicate that, the MTS is a partnership involving both state and non-state actors with some support from the international community such as Development partners. In practice, the district Forest Services Division (FSD) allocates degraded portions of the forest reserves to interested farmer groups in the communities. Prior to that, the modified taungya committee members are elected to take responsibilities for further allocation of the MTS plots to the farmers. These farmers are those who actually establish the plantation with supervision and technical assistance from the FSD.

At the national level the FC is responsible for the general management of the operational funds, which comes from its budget as well as the Forest Plantation Development Funds established in 2000 under Act 583 (amended Act 23 of 2003). Similarly, some key international institutions (for example the World Bank and the African Development Bank (AfDB) through the Community Forest Management Project) have supported the scheme.

1.2 Problem statement The purpose of the MTS was to rehabilitate degraded forest reserve areas and also promote local people's participation in forest plantation development. However, the current approach allows farmers only limited participation, particularly in the negotiation phase and in terms of agreements. This is because the FSD/FC develops rules to be adopted in the planning process, establishment and management of the plantations and the implementation of the scheme as a whole (Ros-

4

Tonen et al. 2014). To this end farmers are active participants only in the plantation establishment but that is not the only aspect that guarantees the success of such a plantation scheme.

Another issue is that farmers also lack influence in decision-making processes, which might be due to the current rules, regulations or norms that are applied in the program (which is theoretically often referred to as institutional arrangements). As a result, farmers have been constrained to participate in decision-making under the MTS. According to Reed (2008), effective participation requires farmer’s involvement in decision-making processes including coming up with ideas, choosing options and how they are to be involved in implementing these options.

Since the introduction of the MTS in 2002, not much assessment has been done on the original implementation strategy. To this end not much is known about how the farmers are involved in decision-making in relation to management, harvesting and marketing of the already established plantation. Though research has been conducted since the introduction of the MTS, these studies focused on tenure (ownership) systems, the impacts of the program on the livelihoods of the farmers involved (Ledger, 2009; Adjei and Eshun, 2013), and governance issues (Derkyi, 2012; Ros Tonen et al, 2014). These studies have not critically assessed participation of farmers in decision-making processes after the establishment of the plantation.

1.3 Justification Over the last decade, policymakers have promoted and applied forestry decentralization as an appropriate way for environmental protection and sustainability (Anderson, 2006). The MTS model therefore, represent a significant decentralization reform in which, for the first time local communities in Ghana and individuals have direct ownership rights over trees in state forest reserves and specifically prescribed benefits through mutual agreements. (Marfo, 2009). Currently, there is a suspension of the MTS since 2010 and the lack of information on the current participation levels in decision-making of farmers in the already established plantation may be a hindrance to the revival or review of the implementation arrangements of the MTS. There is therefore the need to assess the current state of farmers’ participation in decision-making after the establishment of the plantation. In this direction, the study will contribute to meeting sustainable forest management objectives through improved community representation and participation in decision-making processes. There should be ways to improve upon the current farmer participation, therefore the need for this research. This study, therefore, seeks to assess

5 how the institutional arrangements influence participation of farmers in decision -making after the establishment of plantations using the MTS.

1.4 Research Aim and Objectives The main objective is to assess the institutional arrangements for farmers’ participation in decision-making under the MTS, and identify the lessons that can be learnt to increase farmer participation.

Specifically, this study seeks to: 1. Identify the stakeholders involved in decision-making under the MTS, their interaction and how years of involvement influences participation in decision-making in different forest districts in Ghana; 2. Identify how the rules and regulations governing the implementation of MTS enhance or constrain farmers’ participation in decision-making processes.

1.5 Research questions From this objective, the main research question is: how do the institutional arrangements enable or constrain farmer participation in decision-making under the MTS and how can it be improved? The specific research questions are: 1. Which stakeholders are involved in decision-making and how do they interact under the MTS? 2. Which formal rules governing MTS and informal rules (social norms) among farmers enable or restrain farmer participation in decision -making? 3. How do existing participation structures affect implementation of the MTS in different districts? 4. How do years of involvement of farmers in plantation development affect their participation in decision-making under the MTS? 1.6 Study Area Two forest districts in Ashanti Region of Ghana were selected for the study, namely Mankranso and Offinso Forest Districts. The two districts were purposively selected because they have been actively engaged in the MTS since its inception in Ghana in 2002. The Offinso Forest District was particularly chosen because of its long history of involvement in plantation development since the 1970s. The communities selected were identified with assistance from the District Forest Managers and Technical Officers at the FSD office. This recommendation was followed up with preliminary field visits of introduction to the identified communities to establish contact with the

6 farmers. All the five (5) communities selected were situated within 2 to 5km radius from the forest reserves

1.7 Thesis outline This study is organized into six chapters; Chapter one is the introduction, which includes the problem statement and justification, the objectives as well as the research questions. In chapter two the relevant theoretical framework of the study is discussed; institutions, the institutional analysis and development framework and participation.

Chapter three is on the research methods, and elaborates first on the overall research design. Information is also given on the used information sources, as well as the applied methods and instruments for the selection of research locations and respondents, and methods for data collection and analysis. In Chapter four, key findings from the study which has been analyzed are presented,

Chapter five is the discussion of results. Chapter six serves to summarize both the content and issues brought up in this thesis, relate the research questions to the theoretical framework and offer conclusions, followed by the necessary recommendations for policy action. This chapter also gives the conclusion of the study, which includes the scientific objectives and practical application of the results and recommendations made.

Chapter Two 2.0 Conceptual Framework

7

Introduction This chapter discusses the theoretical framework adopted to answer the research questions. The chapter starts with a short introduction to institutions and then talks about the institutional analysis and development framework developed by E. Ostrom. It focuses on participation, levels of participation and finally on participation in decision-making in natural resource management.

2.1 Institutions The term “institution” can be defined as “the rules of the game in society or more formally, they are the humanly devised constraints that shapes human interactions” (North, 1999). Institution embraces more than agencies and organizations, it covers laws, regulations and management actions. In this way, institutions refer to the shared concepts in repetitive situations organized by rules, norms and strategies (Ostrom, 2005). Institutions may be seen as codes of conducts that possibly reduce insecurity, mediate self-interest and facilitate collective action (Ostrom and Cox, 2010).

Institutions in their scale and context play significant roles in environmental decision-making, and any given environmental decision is likely to be the product of a blend of the mix of institutions (informal and formal), scale (households, local communities, national or global) and cultural and historical context (Adger et al, 2003; Cleaver 2000). Bromley (1991) and Young, (2002) recognize the role institutions play both in causing and mitigating environmental problems, because they influence the behavior of local community members and include common understandings on how issues and challenges should be addressed and solved.

The old institutional theories viewed institutions as the organizations or structures that make the rules and regulations whilst the new institutional theories on one hand views institutions as “the rules of the game” themselves, or the regulations imposing restrictions on human behavior to enable collective action (Ostrom,1990; North, 1990). These also consider institutions as representing both the formal rules and agreements and informal roles and responsibilities or norms that are created to shape social interactions with the purpose of heading towards collective action. Hence, new institutional theories distinguish institutions from organizations, and institutions are seen as “the rules of the game” while organizations are considered “the players of the game” (North, 1990). The” rules of the game” covers a vast range of circumstances, in that,

8 some rules are formulated to govern policy-making processes while others come about as a policy results to shape the daily activities of members aside those involved in policy making.

Others also see institutions as more fluid and dynamic. Thus, they are more than just rules or regulations but are what actors do or how they behave, giving these actors representative roles (Cleaver, 1998). In contrast, other proponents of the institutional framework argue that institutions are developed to embrace, restrain or aggravate uncertainty. They are also embedded in social relations that are symbolic and intertwined with power and knowledge. Building on the concept used in the research question for the study, institutional theory precisely the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework (IADF), developed by E. Ostrom (2011), will be used to analyse the institutional arrangements of the MTS. Focusing on how the rules and regulations governing the program constrain or enable farmers’ participation in decision-making processes.

2.2 Institutional Analysis and Development Framework (IADF) The IADF is a widely recognized framework that presents a systematic approach for analysing the governing actions and outcomes within a collective action arrangement of institutions (Ostrom, 2011). It identifies three key variables that influence the action situation, namely: institutions or norms that govern the action area, the characteristics of the community of interest and the attributes of the biophysical environment within which the community acts (Ostrom, 1999, 2005). Secondly the variables include a set of seven different components and inherent in them some nested sets of rules (Ostrom, 1999, 2005, 2011). These are the participants in the situation, the participants positions, the outcome of their decisions, costs and benefits associated with outcomes, the linkages between actions and outcomes, the participants control in the situation and lastly, these rules serve as incentives and deterrents-assigned to actions and outcomes.

The benefits of institutional analysis includes accessing the existing situation to find out which players could deliver services or interventions most efficiently and effectively by analyzing the key institutional and organizational setup, and by accessing which institutions and institutional linkages are critical for successful service delivery (Chang et. al, 2010).These “rules of the game” affect the management strategies of resource users.

The IADF developed by Ostrom and colleagues is a framework that recognizes the broad relationships among all the components needed for institutional analysis and offers a structure

9 and analytical view. Institutional analysis gives different ways of studying institutional arrangements of natural resources and their diverse challenges (Ostrom, 1990; De Groot et al., 2002). Institutional analysis is seen as helpful in assessing existing situations to determine which organizations could deliver most effective and efficient interventions by analyzing their institutional and administrative set-up. In addition, institutional analysis is important in analyzing which institutions and institutional linkages and factors are critical to deliver successful outcomes. The IADF is compatible with several theories such as the bounded rationality theory and the collective action theory. Theories help an analyst make the assumptions needed to identify specific phenomenon, explains its processes and forecast outcomes (Ostrom, 2011). The IADF proposes ways by which composite decisions made by institutions could be easily analyzed and it is also used to diagnose the strengths and weaknesses of participatory or collaborative systems.

Biophysical

Conditions

Attributes of Action Interactions community situations/Arenas

Rules-in-use Outcome

Figure 2.1: The Institutional Analysis and Development Framework, adopted from E. Ostrom (2005, 2011)

The IADF offers a broad structure describing how institutions (rules-in-use), physical and biological environment and the attributes of the community affect the action arena/situation as shown in Fig. 1. The action situation is used to “describe, analyse, predict and explain behavior within the institutional arrangement” (Ostrom, 2011). The aim under this study is to use the IADF to assess the current MTS decision making structure to understand the challenges and discuss how to work towards a desired outcome that will make MTS sustainable in Ghana.

10

The first factor, the biophysical condition like location is very important in analyzing an institution (Ostrom et. al., 1994). With the MTS this includes the location of the forest reserve, size and boundaries of the MTS plots, existing status and agreements which have impact on the whole institutional arrangement. Secondly, community attribute as a factor in the IADF involves all entities such as; social structures, legal positions, differences among farmer groups, landowners and other groups involved in and are affected by decision-making processes in the MTS as an institution. The third aspect which is the institutional rules-in-use (Kiser and Ostrom, 2000), which in the MTS includes; the Forest and Wildlife Policy backing collaborative forest management in the country, the land lease agreement, the benefit sharing agreement, the draft constitution governing the MTS farmer groups and the informal rules, norms and values of these farmers that affect decision making. The interactions are the set of activities, deliberations and relations that goes on in the action situation to produce an outcome (McGinnis, 2011). Fourthly, under the MTS, the interactions are the activities, discussions and actions that lead to decision-making. The outcome is formed by a combination of outputs from the action situation.

From the legal point of view, the MTS is ruled by the land lease and the benefit sharing agreements that state the tenure arrangements, responsibilities as well as the benefits of each of the actors involved in the scheme. The MTS agreements have, clearly defined institutions and arrangements that involves multiple actors. All these actors are then analysed in the context of the “action arena” making up of all the individuals who interact and make decisions that affect the outcome of the institution (Ostrom, 2011). For the MTS, the actors of the action arena/situation includes all FC officials (at the district, regional and the national level) who are involved in the implementation of the programme to enforce the rules; all taungya farmers taking part in the MTS; local, national and international NGOs that backs the implementation of the scheme; international institutions that offer financial support to the programme and policy makers who prescribe the overall rules. Decisions taking in the action arena/situation are affected by all the external variables to produce the desired outcome which is the greater farmer participation in decision making at all levels of the MTS.

2.3 Operationalization of concepts and methods In the IAD framework, the first step for analysis is to identify the conceptual unit ‘action arena/situation’ which is used to describe, analyse, predict and explain behavior within an institutional arrangement. The action situation according to Ostrom (2005, 2011) is “a social space where the individuals interact and argue to make decisions that affect the outcome”. Then one

11 can dig further and find out the factors that affects the structures of the situation (Kiser and Ostrom, 2000) and also examine how the action situation changes over time (Cox and Ostrom, 2010). Figure 2.2 below illustrates the institutional analysis and development framework for MTS.

Biophysical attributes -Differences in plot among farmer groups Interactions (participation of farmers in decision-making Action situation under the MTS) (Decision-making Attributes of community and deliberations -Social structure of MTS towards MTS (accepted norms and implementation) values) among farmers

Outcome (Higher level of participation of MTS farmers in decision- Rules-in-use making at all levels) -Rules governing MTS

Figure 2.2: Institutional analysis framework for MTS

According to the IAD framework (Figure 2), exogenous factors like; the biophysical attributes, attributes of the community and the rules-in-use which according to McGinnins (2011) are factors which put in place the context in which the action situation is found. These attributes act together in the action situation to give an outcome. The results of the outcomes are produced by a combination of outputs of a given action situation.

In the action situation, the study analyzed the rules governing the implementation of the MTS. In this process, the study also looked at the sections of the Action Situation which constrain or encourage farmer participation in the decision-making processes. The research also found the community social structures (such as accepted norms and values) that enable or restrain participation in decision-making. The research further identified how differences among farmer groups hinder or encourage participation in decision-making processes under the MTS.

This study will focus on the Action Situation facet of the framework to ascertain which stakeholders participate in decision-making. It will further determine how they collaborate, share information and engage in patterns of interactions to develop strategies and governing rules and regulations

12 from their interactions to manage the implementation of the MTS. The study will also find out how these interrelations enable or constrain farmers’ participation in decision-making under the MTS.

2.4 History of Local Communities’ Participation in Natural Resource Management The colonial governments in many developing countries including Ghana reserved vast forestlands from the indigenous population into the hands of central Governments as protected areas (Matose and Wily 1996; Amanor 1997; Amanor, 1999; Matose 2006). This shift in control and access to forest resources empowered the central Government to design rules and procedures to regulate the use and management of forests. Important decisions about forest use and management did not involve local communities. The main interests of colonial forest policies was not focused on local communities involvement and benefit-sharing but on timber exploitation and export, as well as to reconcile the competing land and forest demands of farmers and loggers (Wiggins et al., 2004; Asante, 2005). Forest dependent communities and farmers were therefore excluded from forest management activities despite the significant role forest plays in the livelihood of these communities. As stakeholders, they at that time had no legal rights, access and economic incentives to manage and use forests (Wily, 2001).

Many countries recognized the truth that sustainable forest management is not achievable if local people are not involve in the protection, restoration and management of forests. Consequently, several countries begin by making serious attempt to involve local people in formal forest management. Diverse approaches were used in this regard and were categorized using terms such as participatory forest management, collaborative forest management, community forestry, joint forest management (Alnord, 1992; Colfer, 2005; Osei-Tutu, 2011; Wily, 2002; Osei-Tutu, 2015). In Ghana, local people's participation in forest management decision making and resource allocation was practically ignored in the past (Agyeman et al., 2010). The current phase began in Ghana several decades ago when the concept of Participatory Forest Management (PFM) was initiated (Kotey et al., 1998; Asare, 2000; Wily, 2001) and emphasizes local community’s participation involves planning, exploitation and conservation of forests. PFM is defined by the FAO as “processes and mechanisms that facilitate those people who have a direct stake in forest resources to be part of decision making in forest management” (Schreckenberg et al., 2006). There are different forms of PFM including; Collaborative Forest Management (CFM), Joint Forest Management (JFM), Community-Based Forest Management (CBFM, Community Forestry (CF)

13 and Co-management. In the context of the MTS, the early stage of the plantation is managed by the farmers’ while the Forestry Commission plays a supervisory role. This form of management can therefore be that of co-management as both parties play respective roles in managing the planted trees.

The 1994 Forest and Wildlife Policy were formulated in part to promote forest dependent community participation in forest resources management. For example, section 3.2.15: states “the need to develop a decentralized participatory democracy by involving local people in matters concerned with their welfare”. From this attempt at participatory forest management to today’s collaborative forest management, the Forestry Commission has always been able to involve landholding authorities, forest officers, timber companies and forest dependent communities in forest management (Asare, 2000). Despite the growing participatory initiatives which involves forest-dependent communities, only few of such initiatives can boast of being highly successful (Appiah, 2001; World Bank, 2002 Cited by Blay et al., 2007), as a result of the lack of local communities’ commitment which is a result of poor partnership approaches, or the absence or poorly utilized incentives (Brown, 2002; Brown, 2003).

Moreover, it is important to note that the relationship between the FSD and local people has historically been one of mistrust and plagued with conflicts (Kotey et al., 1998; Marfo, 2006; Marfo, 2007). More importantly, very little has been mentioned about the change in behavior of the forest bureaucrats and has therefore affected the role of FSD in influencing forest dependent communities’ participation. According to Burns et al (2004), community participation is necessary to enhance democratic accountability and to make policy applicable to local communities. Numerous research have successively been done to assess the prospect of involving communities in forest management and these have focused more on Co-management, adaptive management (Brown, 1999; Mayers and Kotey, 1996) and collaborative forest management. MTS is the first collaborative arrangement between the FC and farming communities with legal backing, clearly defined institutions and benefit sharing arrangements in Ghana.

Collaborative and sustainable management practices in Ghana are still not benefiting vulnerable groups such as marginalized farmers, mostly because promulgated policies are not implemented or well enforced. According to Eshun (2008), the management of forest resources in Ghana is still characterized with extensive control by the government although forest-dependent communities are recognized as primary stakeholders. Also in the view of FERN (2006), state forestry agencies

14 take most important decisions without reference to communities, and discriminate against communities with respect to resource access.

2.5 Defining Participation Following from Parry et al. (1992), participation is “members taking part in any process of formulation, passage and implementation of public policies”. This definition extends participation beyond the development of policies, to decision-making and implementation. Stakeholder participation might step-up people’s confidence in decisions, if the participatory processes involved are seen as transparent and take into account contradicting claims and opinions (Richards et al, 2004; Reeds,2008). According to Reeds (2008), stakeholder participation needs to be considered from the beginning of any program i.e. from concept development, planning, implementation through to the monitoring and evaluation stages. Participation of stakeholders in decision-making is now seen as a democratic right (Richards et al., 2004). Participation of local people is therefore viewed to be a vital feature of any development and decision making process. Since Arnstein's complex theory of participation, there has been a change to the understanding of participation in terms of empowerment of individuals and communities when it comes to resource management.

Also from Arnstein ladder of participation, Wilcox classifies five interconnected levels of community participation namely; “information, consultation, deciding together, acting together and supporting individual community initiatives” (Wilcox, 1999). According to Agrawal (1999), research on community property has revealed communities to be effective and sustainable alternative in managing resources to private and state actors. The level of involvement of actors in decision making processes in an institutional arrangement has an effect on the outcome of the arrangements. According to Agyeman et al. (2010), there is significant evidence that, in Africa and other parts of the world, local resource users can effectively manage these resources well provided the right institutional arrangements are in place together with clear and significant benefit arrangement and secure tenure

2.5.1 Levels of participation in decision-making There is a positive association between the intensity of deliberation and desired outcome. Thus variables such as the number and length of face-to-face interactions and the amount of time participants spend in the process of deliberation influences the attainment of desired results

15

(Beierle and Cayford, 2002). The linkage between intensity of participation and outcomes indicates the great importance of intensity in many situations in which a major controversy necessitates intense interaction to reach a resolution. Intensity may however not be crucial in other situations. According to Dietz and Stern (2008), the key point is to have a process for which the intensity is appropriate to the context. Of particular importance is the structure of the face-to- face interactions that are the heart of a participation process. Results can be highly sensitive to the extent to which the participatory process is organized so as to ensure that the advantages of group deliberation are enhanced and the potential adverse effects are minimized. The central aspect of these levels of participation in taking decisions is the relative balance of power and control between the participants and the instigators. The table below outlines the levels of participation and their description:

Table 2.1: Levels of Participation LEVEL DESCRIPTION Informing Without it, true public participation cannot take place. It is the basis of all levels of participation Means of one way communication are the media, pamphlets, posters, responses to inquiries and in some cases the internet. Drawbacks of this level of participation are low quality of the information or superficial information Consultation Easiest form of participation This is where citizens’ opinions are solicited in a planning process or before taking decisions. Means of consultation are attitude surveys, consultative meetings and public hearings For effective participation, it is normally combined with other forms of participation Deciding Encouraged to provide added options and ideas, then they all join to come out with together the best way forward. This form of participation is appropriate when fresh ideas are needed and there is enough time. Acting At this level of participation, power is shared through negotiation between together stakeholders. It involves both deciding together and acting together. Not only do people with different interest decide together what best action is but they also form a partnership and carry out the action.

16

Supporting It is an advanced level of stakeholder participation, it means helping others develop local initiatives and carry out their own plans. It may require involving people in setting up new forms of organization to handle funds. It is appropriate when people are interested in starting and running an initiative. The stakeholder has the dominant decision making authority. Source: Adapted from Wilcox, 1999

2.5.2 Benefits and drawbacks of participation Participation ensures that a wide variety of viewpoints are considered when defining the problem. This will assist decision-makers in understanding the interlinked nature of problems facing our society. This is best achieved by eliciting views from a spectrum of perspectives. It makes decision or a policy more effective in the sense that a broad coalition supports what is being proposed and works together to deliver it. Also public trust in the final outcome of a decision can be increased through participation, a process in which conflicting claims and views are all considered (Richards et al. (2007). According the authors, the process of making policies can be greatly improved when participatory approach is adopted. This happens when participants are provided a role for reasoned dialogue between interested parties which will in turn promote active citizenship, greater social capital and increased trust for taking decisions. The same authors have noted that, there are categories of personalities and different approach to participation may suit them.

A number of factors may negatively affect the effectiveness of people’s participate in making decisions concerning natural resources. Richards et al. (2004) has identified the following factors; situations where one stakeholder group dominates discussion; there exist a history of conflict; the participatory process lacks a clear purpose; there are unreconciled differences in the way people think or in their philosophies; lack of communication; an imbalance of power and control. This may make participation to be more difficult or to fail. Conflicts may arise if a broad range of participants are involved. For instance there is a need to allow enough time for consensus building, if that does not happen, it may potentially lead to conflicts. One common challenge by allowing all stakeholders to participate is raised expectations. This happens when instigators create an open and flexible discussion. It may also lead to ‘wish-listing’ by participants. This puts the instigators in a difficult position, where they feel unable to deliver all that is asked of them, fueling the negative cycle of distrust. However, this can be overcome by setting clear objectives at the start of the process in a participatory manner (Richards et al., 2007). From the above, it is important to put in

17 place institutional arrangements that will improve effective participation for stakeholders in decision-making under the MTS.

2.6 Institutional arrangements for effective participation According to the UNDP (2016), the policies, systems, and processes that organizations or groups use to legislate, plan and manage their activities efficiently and to effectively coordinate with others in order to fulfill their mandate are referred to as institutional arrangements. Participation can be effective or ineffective depending on some form of arrangements. The investment decision and implementation of MTS is guided by Ghana’s plantation development programme, which uses different policy instruments. At the national level, legislative instruments such as the Timber Resources Management Amendment Act of 2002 and the Forest Plantations Development Funds Amendment Act of 2002 strengthen the tree ownership rights of farmers and provide incentives for MTS. Farmers have a share in the benefits that will arise from the sale of harvested timber in the future. Benefits which go with responsibilities are divided 40%, 40% and 20% between farmers, the forestry department and the local community, respectively. Clearly defined ownership rights and benefit sharing quotas can probably improve farmers’ resources to improve livelihood. For example, farmers now know that they are co-owners of forest plantation trees and even in their absence, children and future grand children can use trees to sustain and improve livelihoods which in turn commit farmers to the whole process of MTS. However, MTS farmers have no place in decision making processes.

2.7 Participation in decision-making processes in NRM/Conservation According to Reeds (2008), participation of relevant actors needs to be considered from the beginning of any program. Management or conservation of natural resources is a collective action of all stakeholders, hence the need to involve all stakeholders. That is, from concept development, planning, implementation through to the monitoring and evaluation stages. Participation of stakeholders in decision-making is seen as a democratic right (Richards et al., 2004). Participation of local people is therefore viewed to be a vital feature of any development and decision making process. Since Arnstein's complex theory of participation, there has been a change to the understanding of participation in terms of empowerment of individuals and communities when it comes to resource management. Richards et al. (2004) sees empowerment of participants as fundamental to participation in finding solutions. Thus empowerment as mentioned by Richards et al. refers to the building capacities for them to better participate in making decisions about

18 natural resources and its conservation. Under the MTS, the function of managing forest areas by public agency (FC) rest partly on the farmers at the local level making decisions about the plantation decentralized. Farmers have a direct stake in the planted trees in the sense that they have a 40% share as the FC.

19

Chapter Three 3.0 Methodology This chapter provides general information about Ghana, the study area and describes the research methods employed in the study.

3.1 Study site description Ghana is found in West Africa and shares boundaries with Cote d’ Ivoire to the West, Togo to the East, Burkina Faso to the North and the Gulf of Guinea of the Atlantic Ocean to the South. It is located on latitudes 40 to 120 North and longitudes 40 West to 20 East. The country has a total area of about 23.9 million ha of which 57% is approximately covered by agricultural land. The country is divided into three main vegetation zones; the High Forest Zone (HFZ) in the southern part of the country, the savanna zone in the northern part and the transition zone which falls between the two. The HFZ covers about covers about a third of the country’s land area which is roughly about 0.5% of the total area of the world’s tropical forest. The forests in Ghana are also classified into reserved and unreserved forests. In all there are two hundred and sixty-six (266) gazetted forest reserves of which two hundred and four (204) are in the HFZ. The study took place in two forest districts which falls within the HFZ in the Ashanti Region of Ghana.

The Ashanti region is centrally located in the middle belt of Ghana. It lies between longitudes 0.15W and 2.25W, and latitudes 5.50N and 7.46N. The region shares boundaries with four of the ten political regions, Brong in the north, in the east, in the south and in the South west (Regional Coordinating Council, 2010). The region occupies a total land area of 24,389 square kilometers representing 10.2 per cent of the total land area of Ghana. It is the third largest region after Northern (70,384 sq. Km) and Brong Ahafo (39,557 sq. Km) regions. Administratively, the region contains 30 districts, made up of one (1) metropolitan assembly, seven (7) municipal assemblies and twenty-two (22) districts with Kumasi as its capital.

The study was conducted in five (5) communities in the Offinso and Mankranso Forest Districts in the Ashanti Region. The extent of the forest reserves in the two Forest Districts cut across parts of the Ashanti and Brong-Ahafo . The communities include Nyamebekyere and communities fringing the Tinte Bepo Forest Reserve in the Mankranso Forest District and Asuakwaa, and Mfante fringing Mankrang Forest Reserve and Asempaneye fringing the Opuro

20

River Forest Reserve in the Offinso Forest District all in the Ashanti Region of Ghana. The annual rainfall of the two Forest Districts ranges from 1500 mm in the north to 1700 mm in the south. A maximum temperature of 30 0C is experienced between March and April, while the average monthly temperature is about 27 0C. The vegetation ranges from dry-semi deciduous forest in the north to moist semi-deciduous forest towards the South and Northwest. The population density is about 63.5 persons per square kilometer. Farming is the major activity of the population, although timber, especially teak, is a major export resource in the area.

The Mankranso Forest District falls within the Moist Semi-Deciduous Northwest (SNW) ecological zone. The Mankranso Forest district is in the political jurisdiction of the Ahafo Ano North, Ahafo Ano South and Asutifi District Assemblies. The District lies on the main Kumasi- Highway and the Kumasi-Tepa- road. The Mankranso Forest District shares boundaries with the Offinso, and Forest Districts. The Tinte Bepo Forest reserve is one of the Forest Management Unit (FMU) in the district. It lies between latitudes 60 33” and 70 03” North and the longitudes 10 55” and 20 06” West. The Forest reserve has a total area of 115.54 Sq. Km (11,554.00ha) including admitted farms.

The Offinso Forest District fall under political Jurisdiction of the Offinso North and South, Municipal and Sunyani west District Assemblies. The district lies on the main Kumasi- Techiman-Tamale Highway. The forest District shares boundaries with the , Sunyani, Mankranso and the Kintampo Forest Districts. The Opro River Forest Reserve constitutes the Forest management Unit (FMU) 3. It lies between latitude 1045” and 10 55” West and longitude 70 05” and 70 15” North. The reserve falls within the Moist Semi-Deciduous North West ecological zone. The reserve has a total area of 129.29 Sq. Km. The Mankrang Forest Reserve in one of the Reserves in the Offinso Forest district. It lies between latitude 20 4’ 0” West and longitude 70 21’ 0” North. The reserve falls within the Moist Semi-Deciduous North West ecological zone. The reserve has a total area of 92.49sq.km.

The two forest districts were purposively selected because they have been actively engaged in the MTS since its inception in Ghana in 2002. The Offinso Forest District was particularly chosen because of its long history of involvement in plantation development since the 1970s. The communities selected were identified with assistance from the District Forest Managers and Technical Officers at the FSD office. This recommendation was followed up with preliminary field visits of introduction to the identified communities to establish contact with the farmers. All the five

21

(5) communities selected were situated within 2 to 5km radius from the forest reserves. Figure 3.1 below shows a map of the study area.

Figure 3.1: A map showing research site and forest reserves

22

3.2 Research Design and method The study is an explorative research. It investigates decision making processes under the MTS and farmers participation in these processes. A comparative study approach was adopted. It analyses the extent of participation of farmers in the two selected districts in decision-making in plantation development and its associated problems.

A desk-study of literature was initially undertaken. This was important in order to understand the rules and regulations being used to implement the MTS, benefit sharing and the decision making processes under this system. Information was collected by reviewing relevant forest policies and acts, including: ● Benefit Sharing Agreement of MTS ● The land lease agreement ● Guidelines for MTS ● Guidelines for establishment and Management of Modified Taungya groups ● The 2012 Forest and Wildlife Policy

3.3 Data Collection and Analysis The data for the study was collected by a three member team comprising a student researcher from Wageningen and two research assistants (with Bachelor of Science degree in Natural resource management). The research assistants were given a brief background of the research and orientation on the questionnaire and checklist were developed and pre-tested. Each of the assistants took detailed notes and voice- recorded the discussions with prior permission from the respondents at each district visited.

23

Figure 3.2: Pictures of focus group discussions

The data collection was done in two phases in both districts under the study, between October and December 2015. The first phase involved the interview of individual MTS farmers in the selected communities in the selected districts. The second phase involved focus group discussions with selected MTS farmers using purposive sampling also within the same period

24

Focus group discussions were held with identifiable MTS farmers on “taboo” days, because farmers do not go to farm on taboo days so all/many were present at home to confirm what has been said during the interviews and obtain additional relevant information. In total, 43 semi- structured interviews and 3 focus group discussions were conducted. Although checklists guided the discussion, the order of discussions was flexible in terms of the specific questions asked and in the order of the questioning. The advantage in the semi-structured interview option lies in combining the flexibility of unstructured interviewing and the ordered discussions of structured interviews. The discussions and interviews with farmers were conducted in the local dialect (Twi), since majority of the do not understand nor speak English.

At each study site multiple qualitative methods were employed to collect data, namely, review of available reports, semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions and personal observation. Information from one source was validated and complemented with the information from other sources, as recommended for case study research (Yin, 2009). The reports reviewed include the profiles of the selected forest reserves within the selected forest districts in which the study sites are located. Snowball sampling technique was employed to identify the key informants, where informants were asked which other people are ideal informants for the study. They were first visited to explain the study objectives to them and seek their participation as respondents. All the farmers who were approached agreed to participate in the study. Dates and times were set for the interviews and focus groups and they were conducted accordingly. For most of the respondents, early mornings or late afternoons were ideal as they were away from home to their farms during the day time.

The aim of the interview was to obtain knowledge on how the forestry commission is encouraging farmer participation in decision making under the MTS; the challenges the Forestry Commission is facing with farmer participation in decision making process and how it is affecting farmers’ commitment to their responsibility under the MTS. Additionally, interviews were also done to gather interviewees opinion on how farmers could be better involved in decision making with regard to management of the established plantations. At each site the interviewing continued until we reach the “saturation point” where no new data is generated in subsequent interviews Yin, 2009). In all 43 interviews and three focus group meetings were conducted. Table 3.1 gives an overview of number of respondents and focus groups and how they are distributed over the different communities and institutions.

25

Table 3.1: Number of respondents and focus groups in the different communities and Institutions

Level Technique Institution No. of participants

National Interview FORIG 2

FRNR 1

CSO 3

FSD 1

RMSC 2

District FSD Interview Mankranso FD 3

Offinso FD 3

District Focus group Mankranso district 15

Offinso FD I2 (Asempanaye)

Offinso FD 18 (Asuakwaa & Mfante)

Communities Interview Nsuta 5

Nyamebekyere 6

Mfante 5

Asuakwaa 5

Asempanaye 7 Source: Authors own construct, Field data, 2016

A number of approaches (interviews, document analysis, focus group, and content analysis) were used to improve on both the external and internal validity of a case study. This study made use of these approaches to increase its validity. There was triangulation of both methods and sources. Interviewing and document analysis were used to achieve triangulation of methods while interviews with the various stakeholders involved with MTS and content analysis of different text documents resulted in triangulation of sources. According to De Vaus, (2001) and Yin, (2003), one main strategy for improving the validity of case study is triangulation of sources and data. Interviews and focus group discussions were recorded after respondents have consented to the request from the researcher to record and the relevant notes were written. The study used a case

26 study approach; therefore no statistical test was carried out. The recorded interviews and focus group discussions were transcribed and the relevant information extracted which were then summarized in written form. Relevant data were grouped and developed into general pattern that are characteristics of particular research objective to create major themes around that objective. The data was then sorted out by using the themes based on the main and specific research questions as general categories. Relevant data to answer each research question were then grouped and analyzed separately. The same procedure was applied to the results from literature, the notes taken from each document and reports were summarized in a written form.

27

Chapter Four 4.0 Results Introduction This section describes results from desk studies, interviews and focus group discussions with stakeholders in the Modified Taungya System (MTS) of plantation development. It highlights background of respondents, stakeholders and their interactions, rules and regulations governing the implementation of MTS and the extent of farmer participation in decision-making under the MTS

4.1 Background information on respondents The research was conducted in two forest districts, Offinso and Mankranso, in the Ashanti Region of Ghana. The study communities were Assempaneye, Mfante and Asuakwaa in Offinso; and Nyamebekyere and Nsuta in Mankranso. The respondents were aged between 30 and 78 years but about 70% were aged between 41 and 60 years. Respondents from the Offinso district have been involved in the first taungya plantation since the early 1970s and the farmers from the Asempaneye community were involved in the Community Forest Management Project (CFMP) that also used the MTS model for plantation development.

Table 4.1: Duration of farmers’ involvement in Plantation establishment under MTS District Community Years of Old MTS CFMP establishment taungya Plantation of plantations establishment under MTS Offinso Mfante 3 √ √ √ Asuakwaa 3 √ √ √ Asempaneye 8 √ √ √ Mankranso Nyamebekyere 4 √ Nsuta 4 √ Source: Authors own construct, Field data, 2016

28

In general, Communities within Offinso and Mankranso Districts joined the MTS in 2002 and 2003 respectively. Though land was allocated to certain communities in the two districts studied each year over the eight (8) year period of the existence of MTS. Communities studied could not establish plantations each year. Asempaneye community had been involved in MTS plantation development for eight years and had more experience in plantation development than the other communities studied. The number of years each community established plantations are shown in Table 4.1.

4.2 Biophysical Attributes: Differences in plots among farmers The size of land allocated to the group was mostly agreed upon by the FC staff at the district and the taungya heads on behalf of the taungya group. According to the FSD, the size of plot allocated to each taungya group is dependent on the extent of the degraded area in a particular forest reserve and the number of farmers in the group. The taungya heads then have to meet and discuss how to distribute the land to their group members.

According to the farmers, each group has a committee and it is the committee that allocates the land to individual farmers based on their strength and capabilities. The farmers reported that, the size of plot allocated to them each year is about half to an acre while the elders and the taungya committee do get twice that size or more than other members of the group. For instance some farmers were allocated 1 ha some ½ ha and others ¼ ha. There was no consensus building among farmers as to the size of plot each farmer is getting as most of the farmers were not happy about the committees’ decision. The farmers in Mankranso District complained that the committee imposes that decision on them and they cannot object to it. In the Offinso District farmers were of the view that, they as farmers cannot challenge their taungya heads and the committee. One farmer interviewed stated that, the unequal distribution of plot which leaves some farmers with small plot size is a disincentive to many farmers. This sometimes creates conflicts among the farmers and also breeds indifferences in them.

An Official of the FC at the district further confirmed that, the FC consults farmers on its decisions on land allocation, however, the farmers have the right to review the allocations, by deciding either to take less or more of the size of plot allocated to them depending on their capacity to perform.

29

A researcher from FORIG also attested to the fact that, lands were shared to the individuals by the Taungya head.

4.3 Community Attributes; Accepted norms and values 4.3.1 Rules not stipulated in the guidelines (accepted norms and values) Farmers confirmed during the interviews that, they have verbal norms and values that they use in guiding their various Taungya groups. These norms and values are enacted by the groups and each member of the group is to abide by them. According to the Taungya heads these informal rules make working more efficient in the groups. Failure to obey them attracts some sanctions. Examples of the norms and values are;  Farmers are to follow the technical advice of the FC field staff  not to challenge elders when they give ruling therefore farmers do not object to decisions from their taungya heads  Most farmers, particular women always want their leaders to take decisions on their behalf  Trust in elders and the decisions they take on their behalf  Individual farmers cut their pegs for their plot of land  Farmers make monetary contributions to care for the sick members in the group  Farmers are not supposed to spray under the trees with chemicals meant for their crops  Farmers are not to burn farms during dry season.  Taungya committees are to demarcate and allocate plots to individual farmers

Some of the sanctions that go with flouting the rules and regulations include;  Any farmer who fails to plant the seedlings supplied would be kicked out of the group and would not benefit from timber sales.  Also destruction of food crops of those farmers who fail to plant the tree seedlings and tend them.  Farms are taken away from farmers who neglect their farms to protect the interest of the group  Names of farmers who flout the rules are written down so that in case their yield is low during harvest, they will be rewarded in accordance with what they produced.

30

4.3.2 Effects of informal rules on decisions making on the implementations of MTS The Taungya heads agreed that verbal rules formulated by them have actually been effective in ensuring that farmers do not destroy the planted trees. For instance, in the traditional setting it is difficult to challenge elders and opinion leaders when they give a ruling, therefore when Taungya heads and committees take decisions farmers cannot object to them. In all the two districts studied, most farmers (60%) and particularly women want their leaders to take decisions on their behalf with regards to the MTS. And they do not object to any decision taken by their leaders on their behalf even if they are unhappy with it. They further explained that, this at times raised indifference among some farmers which affect their work and therefore the quality of timber from MTS plantations. In a discussion with farmers in Asempaneye in the Offinso Forest District, they reported that, they are only involved in the decisions that are taken at the community and district levels and since it is a norm in their tradition to have trust in elders and the decisions they take on their behalf. They therefore expect that promises made to the group by the FC at the district level be relayed to the FC headquarters.

4.4 Rules-in-use: Rules and regulations governing MTS There are both formal and informal rules governing MTS. The formal rules mainly address Benefit Sharing Agreement (BSA) and land lease agreement. There are also guidelines on the MTS and for the establishment and management of the taungya groups. Below is a summary of the formal rules and regulations governing the implementation of the MTS.

4.4.1 Benefit Sharing Agreement (BSA) Before the inception of the MTS and private plantation development plan, the ministry of Lands and Natural Resources through consultations with the other stakeholders came out with the BSA. The BSA defines the four key players in the implementation of the MTS (i.e. FC, the farmer, stool landowner and the community). It stipulates the rights and responsibilities of each stakeholder and their percentage benefit when the final products are harvested and sold. The taungya farmers are responsible for seedling production, land preparation, labour and maintenance of the plantation. They will therefore receive 40% of the standing value of the tree crop and all revenue from the food crops. The FC is responsible for providing technical support, demarcation and site mapping, quality control and plantation management. The FC receives 40% of standing value of the tree crops. The landowners shall be responsible for guaranteeing access to land and security

31 of tenure, community mobilization and conflict resolution. This group includes both the Traditional Authorities and the Stool Landowners. They will receive 15% of the standing value of the tree crop. The local community shall assist with labour for wildfire prevention and control. They shall prevent their members from setting fires which would adversely affect the Plantation and Forest reserve as a whole. They shall also assist in preventing illegal activities within the Modified Taungya plantation area and the forest reserve. The community therefore receives 5% share of the revenue.

Other institutional arrangements to safeguard participation of farmers and other key stakeholder in the programme is that the FC shall register all participating farmers and keep record cards which bears the photograph and contain information on next of kin, hometown and age of each farmer. The record cards will be attached to the BSA and copies lodged with the Attorney- General’s Department, the FC and other relevant institutions.

4.4.2 The land lease agreement The land lease agreement is signed between the FC and an investor. The investor may be a group of MTS farmers who take part in the modified taungya plantation development programme in degraded forest reserves or a private plantation developer. In the land lease agreement, the FC as the Lessor, is the party with the mandate to manage and develop the forest reserves and protected areas in Ghana. This mandate is enshrine in sections 16(1) and (2) of the concession Act 1962 (Act 124) which states that lands constituted as forest reserves are vested in the president of Ghana in trust for the stool.

4.4.3 Guidelines for the establishment and management of Modified Taungya Groups (MOTAGs): This document was developed by the FC in consultation with some selected stakeholders to guide the MTS groups and make them effective. The guidelines spell out the role of the MOTAGs in forestry which focuses on; Forest plantation policy; Forest plantation planning and implementation and plantation establishment programmes under the MTS. The guidelines also contain a draft constitution to be adopted by each MTS group. The constitution contains sections that defines; a) Name of the MTS group, b) Aim, c) Objectives of the group, d) Membership, e) Structure, f) Agreement signing and disbursement of 40% benefit share, g) Sanctions and h) transfer of ownership of benefit.

32

Section (3.4) of the Guidelines for establishment and management of MOTAGs states that: ‘the MTS groups are to assist in regulating MTS plantation harvesting. The MOTAGs are to be consulted in all matters concerning award and monitoring of timber Utilization Contracts (TUCs) in connection with MTS plantations’. All the 28 farmers’ interviewed had no idea of any rules and regulations governing the harvesting and marketing stage of the established plantation under MTS. They explained that, most of the plantations have not been thinned though some of the plots have passed the first thinning stage.

4.4.4 Guideline for the implementation of the MTS Forest fringe communities have to be encouraged to participate in MTS as MOTAGs. The MOTAGs are to be the main community bodies through which forest plantations will be established in the forest reserves. They will operate at the community and district level in forest plantation establishment, maintenance and management. The MTS guarantees farmers to use degraded forest reserve lands for plantations and also to have benefit share from the sale of trees at maturity. The farmers are responsible for management and protection to ensure survival of plantations in order to benefit from the share of the revenue after harvest. Needy communities associated with significant sacred natural sites shall be supported with the provision of livelihood systems (materially, socially and spiritually) when the need arises.

Majority of the respondents (61%) were not aware of the existence of any formal rules and regulations guiding the MTS. The remaining 39%, did know of the existence of the rules and regulations. They knew that these rules and regulations border on the benefit sharing agreement and the land lease agreement and were able to mention some of the rules as stipulated in the benefit sharing. However, only 3 people representing 11% could explain the rules and regulation governing some stages of MTS implementation with the exception of harvesting and marketing stages. Farmers in the Asempaneye who had been involved in taungya for a longer period of time did show in-depth knowledge of the rules and regulations governing the MTS than those in the Mankranso Forest district. In Offinso majority of the farmers (75%) could mention the formal rules governing MTS as stipulated in the BSA.

Representatives from FORIG emphasized that most of the rules used in the MTS were informal and that most people do not know of any formal rules. They suggested that the whole MTS process be documented to provide a sense of entitlement and security. Though most (70%) of the farmers interviewed could not give the formal rules governing establishment stage of MTS

33 implementation, they have a fair idea of the verbal rules that were being used by the groups. The farmer groups formulate their own bye-laws (norms and values) to guide how they would undertake their work. Most of the farmers were involved in formulating these verbal rules to govern their day to day activities during the establishment phase of the MTS. An official of the FC in an interview reiterated that the establishment stage of the plantation is the sole responsibility of farmers with technical advice from FSD Staff. The rule in the BSA states that, farmers are responsible for land preparation, Planting of their food crops, tree species and tending.

However, all the respondents interviewed have no idea of any rules or guideline with regards to this stage of the MTS. According to the farmers, they only carry out the directives given to them by the FC through their taungya heads. The farmers were of the view that, management of the plantation requires technical expertise and they therefore require education from the FC on the rules regarding silvicultural management of the established plantation. However, the rule as stated in the BSA is that farmers are to remain on the land and maintain the trees till maturity. According to a researcher from KNUST, farmers are aware of the rule that they have to manage the trees but as to how and whether they are to maintain the plots individually or in a group is a challenge.

Desk study of the formal rules and regulations show that there were no written provisions for farmer participation in decision-making. There is no evidence in the rules and regulations enabling farmer participation in decision-making. A researcher from the academia also confirmed that “No Decision-making rules or regulation can be pinpointed to encourage participation in decision making by farmers”.

4.5 Participation in decision-making 4.5.1 Stakeholders participating in decision-making processes under the MTS Decision-making under MTS takes place at different levels which can be national, district and the community level. According to the farmers interviewed, decision-making among different stakeholders is mainly through workshops and meetings at the district, regional and on few occasions at national levels. Of the 28 farmers interviewed 54% of the respondents have never participated in workshops and meetings outside their communities. Of the 46%, only 4% claim having participated in a national workshops and meetings. All the farmers indicated that, though

34

they are involved in the decision-making in one way or the other, the ultimate decision lies with the FC. Focus group discussion indicated different levels of participation of farmers in decision- making for the stages of MTS. The Modified Taungya System involves decision-making within 5 key areas. These include; planning, establishment, management, harvesting and marketing and benefit sharing. Most of the decisions at these stages are made at the national level and are handed down to the districts for implementation. The FC managers at the district are represented by their regional managers during those meetings. Farmers’ participation at this level is very minimal. The FC’s perception on key decision areas under the MTS is shown in table 4.2

Table 4.2: FC perspective on key areas for decision making under the MTS Key MTS areas What is the How was the Extent of farmer Role of institutions decision decision taken participation (rules & regulations) Planning to rehabilitate FC headquarters Farmers do not APW, MOP C degraded forest and Regional decide participate in this (plantations manual) reserve land on annual target decision

the size of land to Forest Districts Forest Districts be allocated to the decide based on the decide in - MOTAG’s taungya groups target given to them consultation with from the taungya heads to request for headquarters. degraded land Farmers plan as Farmers decide to how to share among themselves to the land, peg and request for degraded plant land for plantation establishment Establishment Forestry districts Consultations are Farmers decide ensure that lands held with farmers at at the community are demarcated the community level. level how to clear, and made available peg and plant. to farmers Species selection Selection is done at headquarters and

35

information relay to Farmers are district informed of the size of plot to decision allocate to Taungya committees individual farmer decide and inform the other group members Farmers schedule dates to demarcate land for themselves Management Silvicultural FC decides on the Farmers form the MOP C practices to be management major partners in carried out practices and inform the actual farmers maintenance FSD and farmers decide on Organize farmer maintenance of group’s meeting farms Harvesting and Forestry districts do There are thinning Some farmers MOP for harvesting marketing the enumeration. schedules for especially natural stands However in the pilot plantations. taungya heads MTS plots that are part of the have been thinned Under the FSD enumeration BSA gives FC the farmers formed MTS piloted, taungya team. mandate to market gangs to do the headmen identify In the pilot plots the products enumeration and individual farmers to farmers form part are paid. do the enumeration. of the enumeration and so do know the FC set date to award whole stock. FC does the contracts to TUC Farmers do not marketing through holder play any role in it. auctioning

36

Benefit sharing A study was Through Farmers sign Benefit Sharing conducted and a consultations their portion of agreement (BSA) sharing the agreement arrangement

agreed upon: FC-

40%, farmer-40%, landowner-15% and fringe community- 5%

Source: Authors own construct, Field data, 2016

Farmer participation in decision-making starts at the district level. The taungya heads represents their taungya groups during these meetings. The taungya heads then meet and discuss the information given at the meeting with the taungya committee and later to the entire taungya group.

At the local/community level, the groups have bye-laws guiding their conduct and the leaders normally call for meetings whenever there is the need for any decision to be taken. Table 4.3 indicates the views of farmers as to their participation in decision-making on the key decision areas under the MTS.

Table 4.3: Farmers’ perspective on their involvement in key areas of decision-making Decision Area

Planning Establishment Management Harvestin Benefit g and sharing Managem

ent Community Allocation Species When Type When Silvicultual Harvesting Benefit of land selection to of to practices and sharing plant food leave marketing crop a plot to plant

37

Asuakwa C C E C I I I C Asempaneye C C E E I I I E Mfante C C C C I I I I Nsuta C I C C I I N I Nyamebekyere C I C C I I N I Authors own construct, Field data, 2016

Legend: I= Informed; C= consulted; E= Engaged; N= Not involved Informed means outcomes of decisions are communicated to farmers; Consulted = informed on decisions and opinions sought; Engaged = informed, opinions sought and involved in taking decision; Not involved= not informed nor consulted or engaged.

Table 4.3 above indicates that the FC takes most of the decisions guiding MTS. Taungya group members were mainly informed about most of the decision that were taken with regards to the MTS very few were engaged in discussions that lead to some of the decisions. One FC staff confirmed that most of the decisions were made by the FC and attributed about 70% decision making to the FC. “The FC manages the reserves in trust for the people and most of the times take decisions without consulting the landowners. Therefore when it comes to taking decision on the MTS, I will say, the FC has a 70% say in decision making, the farmers take about 20% and the community take 7%, the traditional authorities have a 3% say” (FSD District Manager)

4.5.2 Decision-making by farmers under the MTS Discussions with the farmers revealed that, there is no laid down decision-making structure/process under the MTS. This was confirmed by interviews with FC staff. They attested to the fact that there is no laid down decision-making structure under the MTS. Most of the farmers further reported that they have not been directly involved in developing rules and regulations; the rules are communicated to them by FC. An official from the FC head office in also emphasized that, the FC does not have any laid down decision-making structure in place under the MTS. However, farmers are consulted or invited to be part of decision-making as and when they are needed to make inputs “Why should a farmer be involved in board meetings and such, The FC should take the decisions and then communicate it to the farmers.”(FC official).

38

Planning Planning involves 3 key decisions; the idea to rehabilitate degraded lands using farmers, setting of national target (size of degraded forest land) to rehabilitate, However, farmers were not involved in taking those decisions. The farmers’ role at this stage is when they apply for degraded forest reserve land for rehabilitation and the allocation of land. Planning of the MTS is done at the national level with low farmer participation in taken these decisions

Establishment MTS plantation establishment covers activities like; species selection, when to plant and type of food crops to interplant with the tree. Interviews with FC officials and others revealed that, species selection is usually based on the species found in the locality. It is further influenced by the conditions in the area, for instance, in a fire prone area, fire resistance species are usually preferred. It is also based on species composition that existed in the degraded area especially what is in the Management plan of the particular reserve.

On planting time, farmers indicated that they are involved in that process of scheduling a time table for land preparation, pegging and planting. According to the District Managers, farmers are involved in deciding on the planting time as this is done at the local level. The FC has a timetable for planting. Normally planting starts in May, June and July, however, farmers at times make request to FC to supply seedlings early or late for planting.

Another issue of importance in MTS is which food crops to interplant with the seedlings. To this, the farmers explained that they are free to choose which crop they would plant. The only limitation was that some crops, such as cassava are prohibited by the FC because cassava grows fast and easily over shadow the trees and harvesting the root crop disturbs the roots of the tree crops. Food crops to be inter-planted with trees are proposed by farmer, discussed and agreed upon with the FC.

Management The FC has standards with regards to management which includes silvicultural practices and when to leave the land which have been established over the years in the manual of procedures. The FC has a schedule; 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 years as per FSD plantation thinning regimes. The FC discusses these practices with farmers and relevant stakeholders.

39

All farmers interviewed indicated that the FC decided on silvicultural practices and inform farmers on how to manage the planted trees in terms of weeding, tending and pruning. An official of the FC expressed concern about the FC’s inability to offer the requisite training for farmers to undertake these duties properly due to lack of funds. Decision on when to leave the land or MTS plot is not discussed with farmers. According to them, the FC informed them that they had to leave the land when the canopy closes. When the trees shade out the food crops farmers voluntarily abandon the area but continue to harvest food from the area until none is available

Harvesting and marketing Farmers were uninformed about marketing procedures of the timber product from the MTS. Although harvesting (thinning) had not been done in most of the MTS plantation plots, most of the farmers (90%) interviewed claimed they have not been involved in any decision-making on harvesting and marketing. However, Farmers in Asempaneye reported having a meeting with the FC officials at the district office and they have been promised that the contract agreement would be enforced to the letter. They are therefore hoping “they will be in the loop when the time comes since none of their plot has been thinned”. However, the taungya groups in Mfante and Asuakwaa whose plots have been thinned recently claim their involvement in decisions during the thinning and marketing was minimal. They are therefore pleading with the FC to take time to educate them on the technicalities involved in the marketing processes particularly how the stumpage is calculated.

Benefit sharing The benefit sharing process was initiated by the FC, in consultation with the chiefs and land owners before consulting the farmers for their opinion. However the farmers could not change what had been agreed upon by the two groups of stakeholders. Most farmers therefore were not fully involved in the decision-making processes in developing the benefit sharing scheme. All respondents explained that they have been informed about their entitlement to 40% of the proceeds from the MTS. However, only 10% of the farmers said they were involved in the decision-making process. Farmers’ participation in the development of the benefit sharing scheme was minimal. With regards to the government signing of the BSA with MTS farmer group, almost all the MTS groups in the communities studied have not signed the agreement. Though they claimed they have been registered.

40

4.6 Participation structures in the implementation of the MTS From the literature and interviews we learn that there are no specific institutionalized participation structures under the MTS. Although the RMSC developed guidelines for establishment of Modified Taungya Groups (MOTAGs), this document was restricted to organization of the farmers into groups and not selection of the farmers for MTS. However, in practice there were two main approaches for participating in the MTS. The first is where farmers from a community approach the FC to ask for a portion of land to cultivate. Farmers in Nyamebekyere and Nsuta in the Mankranso Forest District for example applied for land and requested to be part of the MTS. In the second year however, they did not need to use the same approach because their performance in plantation development was satisfactory. The second approach involved the FC contacting the community with a proposal for their involvement in the plantation scheme. This was the case for farmers in communities within the Offinso district especially Asemapaneye. The community had been noted for their hard work under the old taungya system. In both options farmers are encouraged to form groups consisting of 10 to 25 farmers. Both men and women are given equal opportunities to take part in the MTS but due to the tedious nature of the work, more men tend to participate than women. For the study areas, The FC worked through taungya heads rather than with individual farmers. They relied on the experience of leaders from the old taungya system and consultation with community leaders in farmer selection. The criteria used in farmer selection included hard work, enthusiasm, capabilities and the collective strength of the group in the land allocation process. Other stakeholders in MTS were not selected by FC to participate. These different ways of getting involved or participating in the MTS does not affect the implementation in anyway. However, the group approached used rather than individual farmer approach added some value to the implementation since it is easier tracking farmers in a group than individual farmers.

The MTS activities can also broadly be grouped into pre and post canopy closure (tree canopy is still open) activities. The pre-canopy closure activities are planning and establishment. During this period farmers participation and interest in the programme is very high, the meet frequently to plan how to undertake their activities. It was observed that, during the pre-canopy phase, the food crops that they take from the farm serves as an incentive to them. This whips their interest and act as a motivation for participation. According to a farmer, “the food crops was important to us and we have got it, what is left to motivate us is the agreement which have not been signed” (a farmer- Nsuta - Mankranso District). The research also showed that, farmers’ interaction among

41 themselves is high at the pre-canopy stage so is their interaction with the FC and other stakeholders.

The post canopy closure (tree canopy closes) activities are management, harvesting and marketing and then benefit sharing. The observation here is that, there are no incentives to motivate farmers’ participation. The dynamics of farmers’ participation and interactions changes after canopy closure. There are not regular meetings amongst the farmers to think of the plantation and how to undertake their responsibilities assigned to them under the agreement. This situation has made the FC also aggrieved. According to an FC official, the market prices of the MTS plantations timber have gone down because the plantations were not maintained properly. He laid the blame on farmers since that was part of their responsibilities as stated in the agreement. “Our market price has gone down because the plantations are not being properly maintained and the blame lies with the farmers. We have held a lot of meetings with the farmers; they know their responsibilities” (FC official).

4.7 Effects of Years of involvement on participation Discussions with farmers in the focus groups gave an indication of the extent of participation of each community in decision making (Table 4.4). The community (Asempanaye) that had been involved in plantation development for a longer period was more engaged in decision-making at both the community and district levels. Though generally farmer participation in decision-making at the national level was low, this community was usually selected where community input was required at the national level. The chief and taungya head of Asempanaye community confirmed that, they are called upon by FC whenever they require farmers’ representation in a decision- making forum. Communities that had only few years of experience in plantation development, particularly from the Mankranso district were only informed about decisions made at the district level and remained uninformed about national level decisions.

A researcher from KNUST asserted that, past experience in plantation development plays a key role in selecting farmers to be part of decision-making processes in a district. His assertion was confirmed by an FC staff, who indicated that “Some of the more enlightened chiefs are involved in decision-making process; the chief of Asempanaye, Nana Kofi Aboagye and Nana Anthony of Ayigbe in Offinso and Sunyani districts respectively have been in plantation establishment for a long time”. In the Offinso forest district for instance, there are formidable plantation development associations in the district.

42

Table 4.4: Years of involvement in plantation development and level of participation in decision- making District Community Years of Level of participation in decision-making involvement in Community District National plantations development Offinso Asempaneye 13 E E C Asuakwaa 8 C C I Mfante 8 C C I Mankranso Nyamebekyere 4 C I N Nsuta 4 C I N Source: Authors own construct, 2016 Legend: I = Informed; C= consulted; E= Engaged; N= Not involved Informed means outcomes of decisions are communicated to farmers; Consulted means informed on decisions and opinions sought; Engaged mean informed, opinions sought and involved in taking decision Not involved means not informed nor consulted or engaged.

4.8 Stakeholder interactions 4.8.1 Stakeholders and their responsibilities. The research identified two categories of stakeholders involved in MTS: primary and secondary stakeholders. Primary stakeholders are those who benefit directly from the revenue from the tree crop. The beneficiaries include Farmers, the Forestry Commission, Traditional Authorities and the Forest Fringe Communities. Secondary stakeholders are; District Assemblies, timber contractors, Research and Academia {Forestry Research Institute of Ghana (FORIG); Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST)} and NGOs working with MTS farmers in the two forest districts (e.g. Tropenbos International Ghana, and RUDEYA). They contributed to the implementation of the MTS but do not benefit directly from the revenue that accrues from the tree crop. There are other international organizations like the FAO and the AfDB who provided financial and technical supported to the programme. These stakeholders had diverse roles and responsibilities under the MTS. Stakeholders and their responsibilities with regards to the MTS are illustrated in Table 4.2.

43

Table 4.5: Stakeholders and their responsibilities with regards to the MTS Stakeholder Responsibilities Primary Farmers Farmers would carry out most of the labour related activities including  Site preparation  Pegging and planting of seedlings, weeding and tending.  Protection of the seedlings  Replacement of seedlings which do not survive  prevention and control of fire and protection against other illegal activities Forestry Commission (FC) The FC is constitutionally mandated to manage the country’s forest reserves and under the MTS they are to;  release the land by demarcating the area, prepare the plan of the lands and undertake silvicultural treatments  supply seedlings, monitor and provide day to day supervision of activities of the farmers  provide financial support and equipment for managing the plantation  contribute technical expertise by training farmers to carry out their functions efficiently,

undertake stock inventory, marketing and accounting of the plantation products Traditional Authorities The landowners are the allodial owners of the forest reserve (Landowners)/Chief land. Under the MTS they are;  to lease land to the FC and farmers for the programme  support farmers to protect against illegal logging  provide encouragement to farmers with their work  Mobilize the community members to support farmers in protecting the plantation

44

 Settle dispute among farmers with regards to land Forest Fringe Communities provide support services in the form of protection of the investment from wildfire, illegal activities and encroachment Secondary Opinion leaders - Mediate in dispute settlement. FORIG and KNUST These are the academia and research institutions, their research help in information on  Species site matching  Pest and disease control  Growth and yield NGOs and CSO (TBI-G, Undertake awareness programme s on RUDEYA, NFF-G)  Educate farmers on their roles and responsibilities under the MTS, environmental issues and  Advocate for rights of farmers under the programme  liaise between the FC and farmers at both national, regional and district Fire Volunteer Squad (FVS) Liaise with FC and Fire Service for fire prevention education  Prevention and control of fire.  Fire suppression Development partners Provided technical and financial support Source: Authors own construct, Field data, 2016

4.8.2 Stakeholder interactions under the MTS Farmers and the FC represented by its Divisions {the Forest Services Division (FSD) both Regional and District offices; the Resource Management Support Centre (RMSC)} are the two key stakeholders in MTS and they interact in several ways. The MTS farmers start interacting with Forestry Commission immediately land is allocated in degraded Forest Reserves managed by the FC. FC field staffs educate farmers on proper silvicultural management to enhance productivity of the tree crop. A member of the FC stated that, “the FC presents its extension services on how the farmers should plant the food crops with the tree crops through community durbars and community interactions but not necessarily direct farmer interactions.” They also meet to discuss issues bordering on farms improvement. These meetings are regular during planting seasons

45 when farmers are establishing plantations. The FC also organize training workshops, forums and seminars for the farmers to interact with other stakeholders at the district, regional and national levels.

A researcher from KNUST confirmed that, FC and farmers interact and the interactions are even better with farmers who have long experience in plantation development, these are the farmers who are mostly invited to decision-making forums at the national level. Example, Asempaneye and Ayigbe in Offinso and Sunyani forest districts respectively who are most of the time invited to participate in decision making forums due to their long time involvement in plantation development. It came to light that, the Offinso forest district has a formidable plantation developers association because of the district’s long involvement in plantation development. This probably accounts for why a member from the district is always invited to many of the decision- making forums in the forestry sector whenever there is the need for farmers’ participation in such forums. “Some of the more enlightened chiefs are involved in decision-making process; he cited the chief of Asempanaye, Nana Kofi Aboagye and Nana Anthony of Ayigbe in Offinso and Sunyani districts respectively have been in plantation establishment for a long time” (FC staff).

“The FC saw in 2002 that I had a lot of good ideas even though I didn’t school to the highest level and I am also vigilant and vocal. I have a long history of involvement in these processes and especially plantation development. Some of the farmers in this community speak up and they bring up very good ideas”. (Chief of Asempaneye).

With respect to farmer to farmer interactions, the feedback from the interviews indicates that, farmers involved in MTS within communities come together to form taungya groups at the local level. Every year before the start of plantation establishment, farmers meet to discuss strategies and methods on how to undertake the work including re-allocation of plots to individual farmers, preparation of land, pegging and planting. These meetings are led by the taungya heads or their assistants. Farmers are mostly satisfied with these interactions. “As for us, these meetings and deliberations keep us together as a group and we are satisfied with the way our leaders handle issues concerning our work”. (Focus groups discussions at Asempanaye and Nyamebekyere). However, some farmers expressed reservations based on the size of land allocated to them. In Mankranso some farmers reported that they have not been meeting regularly after the canopy closure. Though the MTS groups still exist, the regular meetings have reduced because of the suspension of the MTS scheme. The farmers meet once in a while to discuss the unsigned benefit

46 sharing agreement and how to protect the plantation against illegal loggers and wildfires. The taungya farmers do not have interactions with the other local community members and stakeholders with regards to MTS.

NGOs and research and academia are other important stakeholder groups when it comes to the implementation of MTS and they interact with farmers and the FC in diverse ways. The NGOs meet with the farmers’ to educate them on their rights and responsibilities under the MTS. TBI and RUDEYA acted as consultants for the FC and were involved in the registration of farmers under the FAO National Forest Programme. The Universities and the research institutions also use the MTS site for research and educational purposes and therefore interact with the farmers. They share their research findings on forest improvement techniques with the FC. These interactions are mostly under sponsored projects and FC and community initiatives. These interactions help in information sharing among all the stakeholders.

On how the stakeholders interact and work together under the MTS, the discussions revealed that, the other stakeholders occasionally have meetings to discuss challenges affecting MTS plantations and way forward. The farmers further have interactions with the other stakeholders especially during workshops and meetings. Figure 4.1 (below) gives a pictorial view of interactions of stakeholders under the MTS.

4.9 Challenges to farmer participation in decision-making processes under the MTS

From the interviews and the focus group discussions, a number of challenges identified as Commented [AB1]: From interviews, focus groups..?? confronting participation of farmers in decision-making under the MTS, these include;  The difficulty working with farmers because sometimes they do not fulfill their responsibilities but expect to get their percentage share.  Some Obstacles to the MTS were the uncooperative nature of some farmers. The moment the canopy closes, farmers attitude towards maintaining their plot changes though they are aware they are to nature the trees till maturity before the qualify for the benefit share.  Apathy on the part of some farmers to participate in decision-making forums  Participation is very expensive. The full representation of farmers in decision making involves travel cost. Thus the cost of participation is a challenge.

47

 Lack of planning in people involvement in terms of taungya. Taungya groups must be identified including the executives and representatives of taungya groups to be invited for meetings must be planned and predetermined so that feedback can be taken to the group. Thus planning is another challenge. People cannot just be chosen if they are not reps of farmers.

Forestry Commission Head Office, Accra

Development Partners Forest Services Division (FSD), Accra

Research Resource Management Institutions and Support Centre FSD, Regional Academia offices

NGOs and FSD District CSOs Offices MTS farmer Groups Community level

Figure 4.1: Pictorial view of interactions of stakeholders under the MTS. The thickness of the arrows show the extent of interaction (the thicker the more interaction) and the broken or unbroken line depict the strength of the linkage (unbroken is strong, broken is weak linkage)

 Logistics when it comes to farmers. It is easy to find project coordinators communicating among themselves. If project areas are far away and there is a meeting farmers have to

48

travel far away to attend the meetings which poses a problem. But these challenges can be overcome through planning for instance monthly meetings.  The issues relating to why the signing of the BSA has delayed should be communicated to farmers. The unsigned BSA have made farmers loose trust in the FC post (lessons learnt)

49

Chapter Five 5.0 Discussions This chapter discusses the research findings in line with theory, thereby placing the research in a broader context. The discussion is structured based on the research questions.

5.1 Stakeholders’ participation in decision-making and their interaction under the MTS The MTS involved a wide array of stakeholders who played different roles in its implementation. Key stakeholders in decision-making were the FC, MTS farmers, Traditional Authorities, NGOs, Researchers, Academicians and Development partners. Under the MTS, the advantages of involving variety of stakeholders were not fully realized for two reasons. First, some key stakeholders were left out of the program, the most prominent being the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA). MoFA could have played a role in decision-making on agricultural crops suitable for intercropping with trees since MTS is an agroforestry system. This potential role of MoFA was confirmed by Acheampong et al. (2014). Writing on stakeholders’ perspectives on overcoming implementation challenges of the MTS in Ghana they stated that farmers believe the Extension division of MoFA could play a role in helping them identify appropriate ways of intercropping. They further stated that farmers do support collaboration between FC and MoFA in the implementation of the MTS.

Secondly, none of the stakeholders involved in MTS (apart from the FC) played any monitoring role nor gave feedback to the FC or other key stakeholders on how previous decisions were implemented and the extent to which they worked and what needs to be improved upon. Reeds (2008), writing broadly on how stakeholder participation is embedded in environmental decision- making processes, points out the need for any program to begin with stakeholder participation and for such participation to be sustained at all stages of the program. This implies that participation is required from concept development, planning, implementation through to the monitoring and evaluation. Under the MTS, participation of stakeholders in decision-making was seen mainly at the concept development, planning and implementation phases. Stringer et al. (2006) argues that for stakeholder participation in decision-making to be effective a monitoring or feedback mechanism is important. This study however shows that, monitoring was mostly done by the RMSC which is a division of the FC. There were no collaborative monitoring mechanisms developed for MTS.

50

Although many stakeholders are listed as being involved in the MTS, in terms of decision-making the onus strongly lies with the FC and only weakly on the other stakeholders. Most of the stakeholders are called upon to brainstorm on issues using consultative approaches, but final decisions are not taken collaboratively. This observation is contrary to that of Pomeroy et al. (2001) and Nielsen et al. (2004) who noted that, in their fisheries co-management projects (South East Asia and Southern Africa), all stakeholders were involved in decision-making and that made the implementation more successful. The MTS had no structures for checking whether FC takes input from stakeholder interactions into account or not.

Aside FC’s interaction with other stakeholders, there is also farmer-to-farmer interaction. According to the study, farmer to farmer interactions provide some form of platform for sharing and discussion before a decision is made. However, the hierarchical structure of the Modified Taungya Groups (MOTAG) at the local level coupled with the informal norm (i.e. respect and trust for elders) affect the ability of farmers to air their views during farmer-to-farmer interaction. This creates room for an elite capture of the decision making process. Only the leaders /elite in the taungya groups in essence take decisions under the MTS. According to Wong (2010), elite capture is a situation where elites manipulate decision-making arena and agenda and obtain most of the benefits for themselves. The study confirms that taungya leaders took a larger share of lands allocated to the groups. Similarly, Marfo (2001) also observed that community leaders put forth significant influence and control over decisions about community interest during negotiations for benefit sharing from timber harvesting. Though this study did not focus on power relations within taungya groups, power asymmetry were evident in the participation structure within the MTS groups, affecting the MTS implementation. Farmers need to be enabled to interact more to improve their collective decision-making capabilities. Reeds (2008) points out that, power inequalities within groups present an equally important barrier to meaningful engagement.

With regards to the relationship between farmers and other stakeholders (apart from FC), it seems the latter mainly educate farmers due to the low literacy level among the farmers. Interaction between farmers and other stakeholders thus adopts a knowledge transfer rather than a shared learning approach. This leads to farmers belittling themselves, thinking they have nothing to contribute whenever they are among the other stakeholders.

51

5.2 Effect of formal and informal rules on decision-making Although there are formal and informal rules as well as norms and values governing the MTS, none of these give an in-depth procedure for farmers’ participation in decision-making. This has created an institutional void with respect to farmer participation in decision-making. Hajer (2003) refers to institutional void as a situation when there are no clear rules or norms according to which policy making is to be measured or agreed upon. In other words, a situation where institutional arrangements are absent, weak or fail to realize the roles expected of them (Abrams et al, 2015). Another area where institutional arrangements remain unclear is with respect to the signing of benefit sharing agreement (BSA). It is enshrined in the institutional arrangements regarding benefit sharing that the government has to sign an agreement with farmers to prove its commitment to paying the 40% share of harvested trees due farmers. This arrangement however did not specify when and how the agreement should be signed. Desk study revealed that only a few of these agreements have been signed with farmers. Out of the estimated 2000 fringe communities that participated in the MTS only 296 had signed the BSA with the government (FSD- FC, 2014). Recent research on MTS in Ghana have emphasized that the issue of unsigned BSA is of great concern to participating farmers (Insaidoo et. al., 2012; Derkyi 2012). Similarly Kalame et al., (2011) in their paper relating MTS to climate change and REDD+ implementation in Ghana, urged the government of Ghana to make an effort to streamline all contractual agreements between MTS farmers and the FC regarding the sharing of benefit from the planted trees.

In Ghana’s traditional system, it is often difficult to challenge decisions made by elders, opinion leaders and especially public officials and therefore makes it difficult for farmers to raise objections to decisions made, to which they may not agree. This “unwritten code" of respect for elders and trust in government has a two-sided effect on decision-making under MTS. On one hand, it allows farmers to follow prescriptions made by the FC without much scrutiny. Should such prescriptions duly take farmers interest into consideration, then the latter would show much more engagement. On the other hand, if the prescriptions are inappropriate, farmers’ inability to express their discontentment may result in subtle actions that may undermine the programme. Such a situation was experienced with the old taungya system where farmers were destroying planted trees in order to stay on allocated forest lands for a longer period because they were dissatisfied with the prescribed time for vacating the land (Agyeman et al. 2003).

52

It was further established that in some cases, decision-making, also among farmers is not based on consensus. An example is the case of plot allocation at farmer level, where most decisions were left to taungya heads. Most farmers were not happy about the committees’ decision but farmers had no option to object to decisions made with regard to plot size. This was a disincentive to many farmers and created latent conflicts among them. Lack of consensus breeds indifferences among farmers and affects achieving productive results.

The fact that farmers complain that land allocation is arbitrary without consensus, and the unavailability of a forum for appropriate grievance handling, indicates that taungya headmen and committee members should be sensitize to understand the need for consensus building. For participation to be empowering, stakeholders must be involved throughout the process and know that their participation has the potential to influence the decision (Ansari & Phillips, 2001; Carmin et al. 2003; Byr, 2007).

5.3 Existing participation structures and their effect on decision-making under MTS implementation The research showed that, the FC does not deal with individual farmers but rather with the taungya groups. Therefore, the FC encourages farmers to form groups before they can participate in the MTS. Using the groups approach is useful in allowing members to check each other’s behavior to ensure compliance with rules and regulations. Also, benefits accruing from the plantations are not given to individual farmers but to the group to be disbursed according to individual farmer input. This group approach could also play other roles to further enhance farmer participation in MTS. According to the MOTAG guidelines (2011), the MOTAGs are expected to enhance collaboration, equitable sharing and participation in forest management and decision- making. These expectations can only be realized if the MOTAGs are strengthened to fully take up their functions.

Currently, MOTAGs function as disjointed groups within local communities. They do not have a common mouth piece as MTS farmers. This weakens their participation in decision making especially at the district through to the national levels. Presently, MTS farmers are hardly represented at higher levels of decision- making and where they are represented, selection of representatives is ad hoc and based on convenience. Rectifying this situation calls for a farmers’ forum in which different MOTAGs will come together to deliberate on issues and have

53 representatives to present their concerns to the FC for consideration into decisions-making at the national level. Such representatives will then be both responsive and accountable to taungya farmers (Tosun, 2000; Marfo, 2015). Following such democratic principles will enhance effective representation of the taungya farmers within local communities in forestry decisions (Osei-Wusu, 2015). Consensus building and information flow would also be easier and effective, thus making MTS implementation easier.

Results of the study show that, the depth of participation of farmers in decision-making at the pre- canopy closure stage -the initial stage of plantation establishment where farmers plant trees along their food crops - is minimal. Though farmers even visit the plantation more often at this stage, most of the time farmers’ were only consulted and informed about decisions taken. According to Weber and Christopherson (2002), it is not enough simply to provide stakeholders with the opportunity to participate in decision-making; they must actually be able to participate. The concentration should be on how to ensure a deeper form of participation for farmers. Farmers need to be engaged rather than just being informed or consulted.

Farmers’ participation in post canopy closure activities (management, harvesting, and marketing) are even lower as compared to pre-canopy closure activities where they get foodstuff for their own use. After canopy closure, there are technical activities like pruning and thinning to be done as well as engagements and decisions regarding when and how to organize these activities. However, meetings among farmers to discuss how to undertake their responsibilities reduces after canopy closure. It was realized that, the FC does not take much time to discuss issues with regards to post canopy closure activities. Therefore, farmers do not take their responsibilities and interactions after canopy closure seriously, thereby leaving the plantation stands unattended. Since the dynamics change, clearer and more well-defined structures are crucial for enhancing farmer participation in decision- making during post canopy closure. There should be modalities specifying to the farmers the rules of engagement after tree canopy closure.

Furthermore, language or the terms used in the management, harvesting and marketing procedures of the plantation are too technical and acts as a limitation for farmers’ involvement. Reeds (2008), points out that, when decisions are highly technical, this may involve educating participants, developing the knowledge and confidence that is necessary for them to meaningfully engage in the process. There is the need to explain these technicalities to farmers in the language they understand to enhance their participation.

54

Again, though MTS farmers are required to remain on their plots after canopy closure until harvesting, there are no incentives to motivate them to be visiting the plantation to take up their responsibilities. To address this, it is imperative to create income-generating opportunities between the time of canopy closure and tree harvesting (Insaidoo. et. al., 2012). Such opportunities may include on-site seedling production, sale of thinned wood or advance payment for timber to be harvested from the plantations.

5.4 Effects of Years of involvement on participation The research showed that the number of years farmers have been involved in MTS play an important role in the extent to which they participate in decision making. Farmers with much experience in MTS are better engaged in decision-making. Farmers who had been involved in the old taungya system act as entry point into the MTS in the participating communities. The FC staff mostly fall on them whenever they go to any community to initiate plantation development programs. These farmers make recommendations on who in the community is eligible to be part of the taungya group. The research further established that, farmers in communities with long history in plantation development are in most cases selected to be part of decision-making at the district, regional and national level whenever farmers’ presence are needed in these forums The FC interact with farmers with experience which is good for stakeholder interactions. However, knowledge acquired by these experienced farmers is only shared within their local MOTAG. At the moment there is no room for experienced farmers to share the decisions and discussions they undertake at national, regional and district levels with other farmers nationwide. Thus farmers with only few years of involvement in the MTS miss the opportunity to learn from experienced farmers limiting active engagement to only a privileged few. This room could probably be created and facilitated by the Forestry Commission to foster effective discussions on matters that interests or affect them.

5.5 Lessons learnt from the MTS and implications for improving farmer participation Where decision-making processes are not clearly defined, it is difficult for farmers to participate effectively. Under the MTS, it was realized that, decisions are staggered at different levels and active farmer participation is mainly at community and occasionally at district levels. There is the need to develop clear decision making processes that involve farmers in taking decisions affecting

55 the implementation and sharing of benefits from the MTS. There should be clear guidelines, rules and regulations (institutionalized decision-making structures) regarding farmer participation in decision-making under the MTS and these must be adhered to. The process of developing the guidelines should be participatory and should involve farmers’ views, opinions and ideas.

Another lesson is that, in a system where farmers have a stake and they are involved in decision- making, they tend to do well and support the implementation of such decisions. On the other hand, if they are not involved in decision-making, they do not show any interest and tend to even neglect their responsibilities, or worse, oppose the system. When left out of decision-making, farmers only act in ways that bring them optimum direct benefits.

The next lesson is that, the unsigned BSA has adversely affected farmers’ interest and participation in post canopy closure activities. This is because the reasons for delays in signing these agreements have not been communicated to farmers. These reasons should be clearly communicated to farmers and appropriate measures taken to address them.

There were other reasons for reduced farmers’ participation in post canopy closure activities compared to pre-canopy closure activities. There are no incentives to motivate them to visit the stands after canopy closure since they do not get any foodstuffs from the forest. It was also realized that the FC does not take much time to discuss post canopy closure issue well with farmers.

Some key stakeholders have been left out in the concept development, planning and implementation of the MTS. These stakeholders can play a significant role in sustaining the MTS. Though technically, MTS has gone beyond the concept development and planning stages, these stakeholders could still be enrolled into MTS implementation.

Currently, stakeholder participation is not institutionalized. It remains ad hoc, leaving much of the decisions on who participates and how to FC. It is argued that stakeholder participation must be institutionalized, to create organizational cultures that can facilitate processes where goals and outcomes are negotiated (Marfo, 2006). According to Reeds (2008), long-term success of participatory processes may hinge on institutionally embedding stakeholder participation. Similarly, Stringer et al. (2006) noted that, participation could only work effectively in an appropriate institutional framework with a political will. This implies that, whatever institutional

56 framework that is devised for effective farmer participation should be given the required political and organizational support for implementation.

Again, power asymmetry is evident in the MOTAGs at the community level which hinders active farmer participation in decision-making. It was observed that, the power relations affect effective farmers’ participation affecting the MTS implementation. Farmers need to be enabled to interact more to improve their collective decision-making capabilities.

57

Chapter Six 6.0 Summary of findings, Conclusion and Recommendations Following discussion of the results, this chapter gives summaries of the specific findings, based on the research questions of the study, makes recommendations, reflects on methodology and provides conclusions.

6.1 Summary of findings Which stakeholders are involved in decision-making and how do they interact under the MTS? The study identified two categories of stakeholders; primary (FC, farmers) and secondary (researchers, academia, NGOs and development partners). Primary stakeholders benefit directly from revenue from the tree crop while the secondary stakeholders do not. These stakeholders have diverse roles and responsibilities under the MTS. As their main stakeholder group, the FC interacts with farmers in several ways. There is also farmer to farmer interactions and interaction of farmers and the other stakeholders. Stakeholder participation in decision-making under the MTS is mainly seen at the concept development, planning and the implementation phases. Some key stakeholders like MoFA were however left out of MTS implementation.

Which formal rules governing MTS and informal rules (social norms) among farmers enable or restrain farmer participation in decision -making? The formal rules identified were the Benefit Sharing Agreement (BSA) and land lease agreement. There were also guidelines on the MTS and for the establishment and management of the taungya groups. Desk study of the subject indicated that there were no written provisions for farmer participation in decision-making. There were no rules and regulations enabling farmer participation in decision-making.

The main informal norm existing among the farmers was the norm of not challenging elders when they give ruling or directives. Farmers were therefore to follow the technical advice of the FC field staff. Participation in decision making mostly follows this norm and so decision- making is mostly the prerogative of leaders with no objection from members. This at times raised indifference among some farmers who were displeased about decisions, consequently affecting their commitment to activities under the MTS.

58

How do existing participation structures affect implementation of the MTS in different districts? There are no specific institutionalized participation structures as well as laid down decision- making structure/process under the MTS. Decision-making among different stakeholders was mostly ad-hoc. They mainly participated in workshops and meetings at the district, regional and on few occasions the national levels. This gave room for very few farmers to be part of decision- making. This affect farmers’ commitment to their responsibilities after canopy closure thus leaving the plantation stands unattended. The FC deals with farmer groups and not individual farmers. The group approach used rather than individual farmer approach added some value to the implementation since it was easier tracking farmers in a group than individual farmers.

How do years of involvement of farmers in plantation development affect their participation in decision-making under the MTS? It was observed that, the number of years farmers have participated in plantation development plays a significant role for their involvement in decision-making processes. Farmers who had participated in the old taungya acted as an entry point into the MTS in the participating communities. FC staffs fell on these experienced farmers whenever they entered into any community to initiate a plantation development programme. Also MTS farmers in communities with long history of plantation development were mostly selected to be part of decision-making processes at the district level.

6.2 Conclusions The loss of forest cover across Ghana’s high forest zone has reached a stage that clearly shows that there is over-exploitation of timber resources. This poses a threat mostly to communities that rely on the forest reserves for their livelihoods (Ledger, 2009). To address the negative effects of deforestation and to ameliorate its effects on rural livelihoods, the Government of Ghana in 2001 launched the National Forest Plantation Development Programme (NFPDP). The modified Taungya System was used as they main strategy for plantation development. Since its inception, lots of research have been carried out to assess the performance of the MTS. These studies focused on tenure (ownership) systems, the impacts of the MTS on the livelihoods of farmers involved and governance issues but much is not known on decision making. This study therefore took an in-depth look at how farmers are involved in decision-making under the MTS.

59

It was found that although MTS involves diverse stakeholders, there is currently no institutionalized structure for decision making thus resulting in an institutional void. Though there are formal and informal rules for implementing the program they did not promote active farmer participation in decision-making. Informal norms of not challenging directives of leaders created room for elite capture in decision-making. Under the MTS, decision-making took place at different levels; national, district and the community level. Farmer participation in decision-making was mainly at the community level and sometime at the district level. The number of years farmers had been involved in plantation development influenced farmer selection for participation in decision-making especially at the district and national levels.

As issues of power dynamics within the groups could affect farmer’s participation in decision- making, there is the need for in-depth study on power relations within these groups and its effect on decision-making in the implementation of the MTS. This will inform the development of a legal document providing a structure for participation in decision-making under the MTS. The MTS beyond all doubts has been a useful initiative; its full potential would be achieved when stakeholders especially farmers are actively involved in decision making at all the levels.

6.3 Recommendations The study therefore recommends the following; 1. Although working in group is essential and gives a stronger voice, it is necessary to build the capacity of individual farmers to be able to get involved in decision making process at all levels. 2. Capacities of the Leaders of the various taungya groups should be built to understand the need for consensus building and involvement of all members (Taungya Farmers) in Decision-Making. This will reduce the cases of latent conflicts resulting from dissatisfaction. 3. There is currently no participation structure for decision-making under the MTS. There is therefore the need for an institutionalized decision-making structure vis-à-vis farmer participation in decision-making under the MTS and these must be adhered to. 4. Key stakeholders like MoFA have a role to play with regards to crops selection and productivity of the agroforestry systems. Efforts should therefore be made to integrate them in the process. 5. The design of the benefit sharing agreement with the MTS farmer groups have to be case and site specific depending on commitment to post canopy closure activities. In that case

60

the groups will not automatically receive 40% of the revenue accruing from the sale of the trees rather the percentage will depend on the management activities the group will perform between canopy closure and harvesting of the trees. 6. The dynamics of farmers’ participation and interactions among themselves to undertake their responsibilities under the MTS reduces after tree canopy closure. There should be modalities specifying detailed rules of engagement after canopy closure. 7. It is stated in the BSA that, MTS farmers are to remain on their plots after canopy closure until harvesting. However, there are no incentives to motivate them to be visiting the plantation to take up their responsibilities. Therefore creating income-generating opportunities between the time of canopy closure and harvesting is imperative. 8. The unsigned BSA is of concern to farmers; therefore, issues relating to why the signing of the BSA has delayed should be communicated to farmers and appropriate measures taken to address them. 9. Power asymmetry in the groups is very evident. Therefore power dynamics amongst group members need to be analyzed deeper in future research to identify who are the dominant and marginal actors in the groups and how a balance in power can be achieved.

6.4 Reflection on theory and methodology Largely, the research was conducted as planned. As a Ghanaian and a staff of the FC, the researcher had been working with MTS farmers for over a decade and as such did not face much difficulties regarding organization of farmer. Contacting other interviewees at the district, regional and national levels were also easier because of already established networks. Moreover, being able to communicate with farmers without an interpreter made the interviews and focus group discussions more flexible. However, the major challenge faced was with the transition from a practitioner role to a researcher role. Some farmers and interviewees from the Forestry Commission struggled to understand the new role. Much time was therefore spent at the start of each interview to explain the different role and the purpose of the research.

Reflecting on methods used, selection of participating communities could be done differently in future research. Instead of selecting communities and forest districts from one region, selection could be made from different regions in the country. This is useful as the MTS was implemented in almost all the regions in Ghana. Also, traditional norms and values vary in different regions across the country. This would help observe how the different traditional norms and values affect

61 participation of farmers in different areas. . Current time and resource constraints however made the current approach to community selection the most plausible.

The theory used was useful in revealing that among all the institutional arrangements governing MTS none specifically cover how farmers, who are one of the major shareholders, can effectively participate in decision-making processes under the MTS. Institutions supposed to bring farmers on board to participate were silent on participation processes for decision making. Thus the component of farmer participation is lacking an institutional framework under MTS. It did help to identify a gap in the institutional arrangement governing the MTS. In future the Forestry Commission and other researcher need to bridge this gap, specifying how farmers should be brought on board to participate in decision-making.

An intriguing finding made as a researcher was at Asempanye community. Even though the chief of the community was involved in the taungya group, he did not assume any leadership role but remained an ordinary group member. This was unusual because in most communities in Ghana, chiefs take a leading role in community initiatives. They are sometimes seen as the key decision makers; hence the participation of the Asempanye chief as a group member was out of the usual. In a community where we have indigenes and migrants working together, normally the views of the indigenous people overshadow that of the migrants in the community. However, in the Asempanye community the indigenes and migrants had equal voices in decision-making regarding the established plantation. These experiences are interesting to improve dynamics within modified taungya groups in the future.

62

References Abrams, J., Davis, E. J., & Moseley, C. (2015). Community‐Based Organizations and Institutional Work in the Remote Rural West. Review of Policy Research, 32(6), 675-698. Acheampong, E., Insaidoo, T. F., & Ros-Tonen, M. A. (2014). Management of Ghana’s modified taungya system: challenges and strategies for improvement. Agroforestry Systems, 1-16. Adger, W. N., Brown, K., Fairbrass, J., Jordan, A., Paavola, J., Rosendo, S., & Seyfang, G. (2003). Governance for sustainability: towards a ‘thick’analysis of environmental decision making. Environment and planning A, 35(6), 1095-1110. Adjei, P. O. W. (2015). Decentralization, Institutional Choice and the Production of Disgruntled Community Representation under the Modified Taungya Forest Management System in Ghana. Agrawal, A., & Gibson, C. C. (1999). Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of community in natural resource conservation. World development, 27(4), 629-649. Agyeman, V.K., Danso E., Marfo K.A., & Asare A.B. et al. (2010). Equitable forest reserve plantation revenue sharing in Ghana. Accra, Ghana: Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources. Agyeman, V. K., Marfo, K. A., Kasanga, K. R., Danso, E., Asare, A. B., Yeboah, O. M., & Agyeman, F. (2003). Revising the taungya plantation system: new revenue-sharing proposals from Ghana. Unasylva, 54(1), 40-43.

Amanor, K. S. (1997). Collaborative forest management, forest resource tenure and the domestic economy in Ghana. IRD Currents. No. 15: 10-16p.

Amanor, K.S. (1999). Global restructuring and land rights in Ghana: Forest food chains, timber and rural livelihoods. Uppsala: Nordiska Afrikainstitutet.

Andersson, K. (2006). Understanding decentralized forest governance: an application of the institutional analysis and development framework. Sustainability: Science Practice and Policy, 2(1), 25-35. Ansari, W.E. & Phillips, C.J. (2001). Interprofessional collaboration: A stakeholder approach to evaluation of voluntary participation in community partnerships. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 15(4), 351-368. 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.

63

Appiah, M.; Fagg, M. and Pappinen, A. (2015). A Review of Reforestation Approaches in Ghana: Sustainability and Genuine Local Participation Lessons for Implementing REDD+ Activities. European Journal of Scientific Research, Vol. 131 No 1 pp.70-99 Arnold, J.E.M. (1992). Community Forestry: Ten Years in Review. Food and Agriculture Organisation Asante, M. S. (2005). Deforestation in Ghana: explaining the chronic failure of forest preservation policies in a developing country. University Press of America. Birikorang, G. (2001). “Wood Industry and Log Export Ban Study. Consultancy Report for the Ministry of Lands and Forestry.” In: Agyeman, V.K., K.A. Marfo, K.R. Kasanga, E. Danso, A.B., Asare, O.M. Yeboah, and F. Agyeman (2003). Revising the taungya Plantation Sy stem: New RevenueSharing Proposal from Ghana. Unasylva 212, vol 54. Blay, D., Appiah, M., Damnyag, L., Dwomoh, F.K., Luukkanen, O. & Pappinen, A., (2007). Involving local farmers in rehabilitation of degraded tropical forests: some lessons from Ghana. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 10 (4), 503–518 Bromley, D. W. (1991). Environment and economy: property rights and public policy. Basil Blackwell Ltd. Brown, D. (1999). Principles and Practice of forest Co-management: evidence form West-Central Africa. London: ODI. Brown, K. (2002). Innovations for conservation and development. The Geographical Journal, 168, 6–17. Brown, K. (2003). Three challenges for real people-centered conservation. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 12(2), 89–96. Burns, D., Heywood, F., Taylor, M., Wilde, P., & Wilson, M. (2004). Making community participation meaningful. A handbook for development and assessment. Beierle, T. C., & Cayford, J. (2002). Democracy in practice: Public participation in environmental decisions. Resources for the Future. Byrd, E. T. (2007). Stakeholders in sustainable tourism development and their roles: applying stakeholder theory to sustainable tourism development.Tourism Review, 62(2), 6-13. Carmin, J., Darnall, N. & Mil-Homens, J. (2003). Stakeholder involvement in the design of U.S. voluntary environmental programs: Does sponsorship matter? Policy Studies Journal, 31(4), 527- 543. Cleaver, F. (2000). Moral ecological rationality, institutions and the management of common property resources. Development and change, 31(2), 361-383.

64

Cleaver, F. (1998). There's a right way to do it—informal arrangements for local resource management in Zimbabwe. Waterlines, 16(4), 12-14 Colfer, C. J. P. (2005). The complex forest: communities, uncertainty, and adaptive collaborative management. Resources for the Future De Groot, R. S., Wilson, M. A., & Boumans, R. M. (2002). A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological economics, 41(3), 393-408. Derkyi, M. A. (2012). Fighting over forest. Interactive Governance of Conflicts over Forest and Tree Resources in Ghana’s High Forest Zone. De Vaus, D. (2001). Research Design in Social Research. Sage Publishers. Forestry Commission (2010). Constitution for the Modified Taungya Groups (MOTAG) Draft, Unpublished Forestry Commission (2014). National Forest Plantation Development Programme; Annual Report 2013 Forestry Commission, (2011), Guidelines for the Establishment and Management of Modified Taungya Groups, Ghana: Collaborative Resource Managements Department, Forestry Commission (2005). Benefit sharing agreement for the modified taungya forest plantation of 2005 (unpublished). Forestry Commission, Ghana. Forestry Commission (2005). Land lease for the accessing of degraded forest reserve land for plantation development of 2005 (Unpublished). Forestry Commission, Ghana. Eshun, F. (2008). Community Participation in the Management of Forest Resource: A Means to Reduce Poverty for Sustainable Development The case of Kakum National Park, pp. 1-122. Eye-Smith, S. J. (1940), Comments on Government Sociologist’s Report, Accra. Fraser, H. (2005). Four different approaches to community participation. Community Development Journal. Oxford University Press. Pp. 288-297 Hajer, M. (2003). Policy without polity? Policy analysis and the institutional void. Policy sciences, 36(2), 175-195. Insaidoo, T. F., Ros-Tonen, M. A., Hoogenbosch, L., & Acheampong, E. (2012). Addressing forest degradation and timber deficits: Reforestation programmes in Ghana. ETFRN News, 53, 230-239. Kalame, F. B., Aidoo, R., Nkem, J., Ajayie, O. C., Kanninen, M., Luukkanen, O., & Idinoba, M. (2011). Modified taungya system in Ghana: a win–win practice for forestry and adaptation to climate change? Environmental Science & Policy, 14(5), 519-530.

65

Kalame, F. B. (2009). The modified taungya system in Ghana’s transitional zone. ETFRN News, 50(ETFRN News no. 50), 160. Kotey, E.N.A., Francois, J., Owusu, J.G.K., Yeboah, R., Amanor, K.S. and Antwi, L. 1998. Falling into Place. Policy that works for forests and people series no. 4. International Institute for Environment and Development, London. Kiser, L. L., & Ostrom, E. (2000). The three worlds of action: A metatheoretical synthesis of institutional approaches. Polycentric Games and Institutions, 1, 56-88. Ledger, J. (2009). Consequences of the introduction of the Modified Taungya System in Ghana’s High Forest Zone for the livelihoods of forest-fringe communities. Tropenbos International Ghana. Mayers, J., & Kotey, E. N. A. (1996). Local institutions and adaptive forest management in Ghana (No. 7). IIED. Marfo, E. (2015). The Illusion of Democratic Representation in the Redd Readiness Consultation Process in Ghana. Responsive Forest Governance Initiative (RFGI) Research Programme Working Paper Series No. 15 Marfo, E. (2009). Security of tenure and community benefits under collaborative forest management arrangements in Ghana: A country report. Accra, CSIR-INSTI. Marfo, E. (2006). Powerful relations: the role of actor-empowerment in the management of natural resource conflicts: a case of forest conflicts in Ghana. Publisher not identified. McGinnis, M. D. (2011). An introduction to IAD and the language of the Ostrom workshop: a simple guide to a complex framework. Policy Studies Journal, 39(1), 169-183. Matose, F., & Wily, L. (1996). Institutional arrangements governing the use and management of miombo woodlands. Matose, F. (2006). Co-management options for reserved forests in Zimbabwe and beyond: policy implications of forest management strategies. Forest Policy and Economics, 8(4), 363-374. North, D. C. (1999). Understanding the process of economic change. London: Institute of Economic Affairs for the Wincott Foundation. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge university press. Nielsen, J. R., Degnbol, P., Viswanathan, K. K., Ahmed, M., Hara, M., & Abdullah, N. M. R. (2004). Fisheries co-management—an institutional innovation? Lessons from South East Asia and Southern Africa. Marine Policy, 28(2), 151-160. Osei-Tutu, P. (2011). Local people's participation in forest management: the place of Ghana's community forest committee approach. Ghana J. For. 27 (3), 45–62.

66

Osei-Tutu, P., Pregernig, M., & Pokorny, B. (2015). Interactions between formal and informal institutions in community, private and state forest contexts in Ghana. Forest Policy and Economics, 54, 26-35. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge university press. Ostrom, E. Gardner, R. Walker, J. (1994): Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. Ostrom, E. (1999). Coping with tragedies of the commons. Annual review of political science, 2(1), 493-535. Ostrom, E. (2005): Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA. Ostrom, E. (2007). Institutional rational choice: An assessment of the institutional analysis and development framework Ostrom, E., & Cox, M. (2010). Moving beyond panaceas: a multi-tiered diagnostic approach for social-ecological analysis. Environmental Conservation, 37(04), 451-463. Ostrom, E. (2011). Background on the institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Studies Journal, 39(1), 7-27. Parry, G., Moyser, G., & Day, N. (1992). Political participation and democracy in Britain. Cambridge University Press Pomeroy, R. S., Katon, B. M., & Harkes, I. (2001). Conditions affecting the success of fisheries co-management: lessons from Asia. Marine policy, 25(3), 197-208. Poulton, C., Dorward, A., & Kydd, J. (2010). The future of small farms: New directions for services, institutions, and intermediation. World Development, 38(10), 1413-1428. Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biological conservation, 141(10), 2417-2431. Richards, C., Carter, C., & Sherlock, K. (2004). Practical approaches to participation. Macaulay Institute. Klevens, R. M., Edwards, J. R., Richards Jr, C. L., Horan, T. C., Gaynes, R. P., Pollock, D. A., & Cardo, D. M. (2007). Estimating health care-associated infections and deaths in US hospitals, 2002. Public health reports, 160-166. Ros-Tonen M.A. F., Derkyi, M.., Insaidoo, T. F. G. (2014). From Co-Management to Landscape governance: Whither Ghana’s Modified Taungya system? Forests 2014, 5, 2996-3021; doi: 10.3390/f5122996

67

Stoker, G. (1997). ‘Local Political Participation’ in Hambleton, R et al (1997) New Perspectives on local governance: reviewing the research evidence, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, pp. 157-196 Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (Eds.). (2008). Public participation in environmental assessment and decision making. National Academies Press. Schreckenberg, K., Luttrell, C., & Moss, C. (2006). Forest Policy and Environment Programme: Grey Literature Participatory Forest Management: an overview March 2006. Stringer, L. C., Dougill, A. J., Fraser, E., Hubacek, K., Prell, C., & Reed, M. S. (2006). Unpacking “participation” in the adaptive management of social–ecological systems: a critical review. Ecology and Society, 11(2), 39. Tosun, C. (2000). Limits to community participation in the tourism development process in developing countries. Tourism management, 21(6), 613-633. UNDP (2016). Institutional Arrangements. Available at; http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/ourwork/capacitybuilding/drivers_of_change/ins titut_arrangemt.html Weber, N. & Christopherson, T. (2002). The influence of nongovernmental organisations on the creation of Natura 2000 during the European policy process. Forest Policy and Economics 4, 1–12. Wilcox, D. (1999). A to Z of Participation. Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Wily, L. A. (2001). Forest management and democracy in East and Southern Africa: lessons from Tanzania. International Institute for Environment and Development. Wiggins, S., Marfo, K., & Anchirinah, V. (2004). Protecting the forest or the people? Environmental policies and livelihoods in the forest margins of Southern Ghana. World development, 32(11), 1939-1955. Wong, S. (2010). Elite capture or capture elites? Lessons from the ‘counter-elite’and ‘co-opt- elite’approaches in Bangladesh and Ghana. UNU/Wider Working Paper, (2010/82). Yin, R.K. (2003). Case Study Research – Design and Methods, 3rd Edition. Sage, London. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods 4th Ed. In United States: Library of Congress Cataloguing-in-Publication Data.

68

Appendix 1 Rethinking farmer participation for sustaining the Modified Taungya System of Plantation development in Ghana Interview Guide for farmers A. General knowledge about the MTS Briefly tell me what you know about the MTS program? How were you involved in the decision on land allocation? What role do farmers play in the selection of species for planting? Briefly explain your responsibilities as a farmer under the MTS? B. Stakeholders Who are the other stakeholders involve in the MTS? What are the roles of these stakeholders under the MTS? How do the stakeholders work together under the MTS? C. Rules and regulations governing MTS Briefly tell me the rules and guidelines that guide the following stages of the implementation of MTS - Planning - Establishment of the plantation - Management - Harvesting and marketing - Benefit sharing Briefly describe your involvement at these stages of the guidelines? In your opinion, how do these rules and guidelines affect the implementation of the MTS? What are some other rules not stipulated in the guidelines (accepted norms and values) that are being use in your taungya group? To what extent does the other rules affect decisions making on the implementations of the MTS? What are the measures used in dealing with issues of conflicts during decision making and encroachment among farmers? D. Participation in decision-making How do you take decisions among farmers under the MTS? - How much land to be allocated to a farmer or farmer groups - Which species to plant - When to plant

69

- Which food crops to interplant with the seedlings - Which silvicultural practices - When to leave a plot of land - Thinning - Harvesting and marketing - Benefit sharing Briefly explain how you have been participating in decisions making processes among the other stakeholders? What role did you play in coming out with the benefit sharing scheme? E. Lessons learnt What do you like about how farmers participate in decision-making under the MTS? What you unhappy about decision-making under the MTS? In your opinion, how can farmers’ participation in decision-making be improved under the MTS?

Interview guide Forestry and other officials. A. General How are farmers selected under the MTS / how do you select farmers to be part of the MTS? How do you arrive at decision on species to be planted in a particular area? Briefly explain how lands are allocated to farmers under the program? B. Stakeholders’ involvement Who are the stakeholders involved in the MTS program? How were the stakeholders selected? How do the other stakeholders interact with farmers? What are their roles and responsibilities in the MTS? C. Rules and regulations governing the MTS What are the rules governing the following stages of the MTS? - Planning - Establishment of the plantation - Management - Harvesting and marketing - Benefit sharing In your opinion, how does these rules enhance or constrain the participation of farmers in decision-making?

70

D. Decision-making under the MTS What in your opinion are the decision-making processes under the MTS? - How much land to be allocated to a farmer or farmer groups - Which species to plant - When to plant - Which food crops to interplant with the seedlings - Which silvicultural practices - When to leave a plot of land - Thinning - Harvesting and marketing - Benefit sharing Describe the role of each stakeholder in the decision making processes? Explain farmers’ participation in the development of the benefit sharing scheme? How does past experience of a district affect selection of farmers to participate in decision making? What are the challenges associated with farmer participation in decision-making processes? E. Lessons learnt In your opinion, what are the positive aspects of the decision structures that can be maintained to increase farmer participation in decision making under the MTS program?

Issues for focus group discussions (farmers) Explain the decision-making processes under the MTS Explain your participation in the decision making processes? How are you satisfied with farmers’ participation in these processes? What factors enable or constrain participation of farmers in decision-making under the MTS? What past experiences do you have on plantation development before the MTS? How has that influenced your participation in decision-making under MTS? How do you interact with other stakeholders in decision-making? Explain how farmers’ participation in decision making can be improved under the MTS?

71