LOCAL PEOPLE’S PARTICIPATION IN FOREST MANAGEMENT: THE

PLACE OF GHANA’S COMMUNITY FOREST COMMITTEE APPROACH

Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of requirements for the Master of

Philosophy degree in Environment, Society and Development

Department of Geography

OSEI TUTU, PAUL

FITZWILLIAM COLLEGE

JUNE 2007

Cover photo obtained from CRMU (2007), used with permission

ii

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this dissertation is my own work. Where reference is made to the

work of others, it is clearly indicated and acknowledged in the text and in the list of

references. No part of this work has been submitted for any other degree, diploma or

qualification at this or any other institution. Its length, excluding the footnotes,

references and appendices, does not exceed the prescribed 10,000-word limit.

………………

Osei Tutu Paul

June 2007

iii

ABSTRACT

From the late 1970s, there has been a trend towards local people’s involvement in

forest management in many countries of Africa, Latin America and Asia. This shift in

management strategy has been necessitated by a desire to achieve social justice,

effectiveness and efficiency in forest management as the previously centralised

management strategy failed to achieve these in many countries. Though the

fundamental idea has been widely accepted, approaches to involving local

communities in forest management have varied from place to place. This study

compares Ghana’s Community Forest Committee (CFC) approach to involving local

communities in forest management to approaches being employed elsewhere. It was

based on study of recorded cases of state agency and local people collaboration in

forest management. Seventeen cases from Africa, Latin America, Asia and the Pacific

were studied. The cases were categorised into three groups of participatory forestry

approach, using the bases of the partnerships between state forestry agencies and local

people in the cases studied as the basis of categorisation. The three categories into

which the cases studied were put are ‘passive participation’, ‘partial devolution’ and

‘complete devolution’. The levels of success of the cases studied, in terms of forest

sustainability, social inclusion, effectiveness of partnership and benefit to local

communities, were found to be highest for the ‘complete devolution’ category.

Factors accounting for success of cases in this category include a sense of ownership

of forest resource, technical and financial support from NGOs and a desire by

communities to prove that they are capable of managing their forests. After an

examination of Ghana’s CFC approach, it became quite clear that the approach

belongs to the ‘passive participation’ category. It was concluded that from the better

results of cases in the ‘complete devolution’ category, it is reasonable to expect that

the CFC approach could yield more positive results if greater levels of

decentralisation could be made to characterise the approach.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My heartfelt gratitude goes to my supervisors, Dr. Tim Bayliss-Smith and Dr.

Elizabeth Watson for their guidance and useful suggestions that helped make this

dissertation a reality. I also thank Mr. Asare, the Head of the Collaborative Resource

Management Unit of the Resource Management Support Centre, Ghana for explaining

various aspects of Ghana’s CFC concept to me on telephone and also sending me

some useful literature on the concept. My gratitude also goes to my Ghanaian friends

Matilda, Gyima, Armani and Eric for sending me some useful literature on the CFCs

from Ghana. To my family in Ghana, I say a big thank you for your prayers and

emotional support. Finally, I will like to say thank you to my lovely course mates and

all the wonderful friends I made in Cambridge for making my period of study in

Cambridge a memorable one.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

DECLARATION ....................................................................................................... i

DECLARATION ...................................................................................................... ii

ABSTRACT............................................................................................................. iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...................................................................................... iv

1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................. 1

1.1 Background ............................................................................................... 1

1.2 Objectives.................................................................................................. 3

2.1 Study Methodology.................................................................................... 4

2.2 Limitations of Study .................................................................................. 5

3. PARTICIPATORY FOREST MANAGEMENT................................................ 6

3.1 Definition of the Concept ........................................................................... 6

3.2 Origin of the Concept................................................................................. 7

3.3 Trends...................................................................................................... 10

3.4 Ghana’s Community Forest Committee (CFC) Approach......................... 13

3.4.1 Origin............................................................................................... 13

3.4.2 Formation of committees.................................................................. 16

3.4.3 Membership of the committees......................................................... 16

3.4.4 Hierarchy of CFCs ........................................................................... 17

3.4.5 Roles of the CFCs ............................................................................ 18

3.4.6 Motivation for CFC members........................................................... 21

3.4.7 CFCs in practice............................................................................... 21

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...................................................................... 23

4.1 Typology of Participatory Forestry Approaches ....................................... 23

4.2 The Place of Ghana’s CFC Approach in the Typology ............................... 26

5. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH......... 28

APPENDICES ........................................................................................................ 30

REFERENCES........................................................................................................ 38

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

Figure 1: Hierarchy of Community Forest Committees ........................................... 18

vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ACFC Assembly Area Community Forest Community

ACM Adaptive Co-Management

CBMPCFP Community-Based Management Planning for Community

Forestry Project

CBNRM Community-Based Natural Resource Management

CF Community Forestry

CFC Community Forest Committee

CIFOR Centre for International Forestry Research

CRMU Collaborative Resource Management Unit

FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation

FBKD Forestry and Bee Keeping Division

FD Forestry Department

FSD Forest Services Division

GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (German

Technical Cooperation)

IDRC International Development Research Centre

IDS Institute of Development Studies

IIED International Institute for Environment and Development

ITTO International Tropical Timber Organisation

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature

JFM Joint Forest Management

NGO Non Governmental Organisation

NTFP Non Timber Forest Product

ODI Overseas Development Institute

PFM Participatory Forest Management

RMSC Resource Management Support Centre

SIDA Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency

SRA Social Responsibility Agreement

TUC Timber Utilisation Contract

WBI World Bank Institute

WRM World Rainforest Movement

1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

This dissertation examines different approaches to involving local people in forest

management and compares Ghana’s Community Forest Committee (CFC) approach to

approaches being employed elsewhere. It is the first comparative study of Ghana’s CFC

approach to involving local people in forest management and contributes to addressing the

information gap on Ghana’s participatory forest management efforts.

For a long time, forest management by state institutions with the exclusion of local

communities was the norm in many countries of Africa, Latin America and Asia. Forest

reservations in these countries and their subsequent centralised management were based on

the premise that local communities are incapable of ensuring the sustainability of their forests,

and that without external (mostly state) intervention, management by local communities of

such resources will lead to the their destruction. This idea is popularly called ‘the tragedy of

the commons’ (Hardin, 1968). State appropriation of common forest estates in these countries

was justified by deliberate presentation of forest loss crisis, portraying local people as the

main agents behind the crisis (Amanor, 2003; Amanor and Brown, 2003). Amanor (2003)

explains that local farming systems (such as shifting cultivation of West Africa) were

portrayed as destructive, likewise the predominant local method of animal husbandry

(pastoralism). To avoid the perceived crisis of total forest loss in these areas, unoccupied and

some occupied forestlands had to be put under permanent reservation to be managed by

trained foresters.

Over the past few decades, the failure of centralised forest management to ensure forest

sustainability in many of these countries, coupled with realised social inequity associated with

centralised forest management, has led to a situation where attempts are being made to

involve local people in forest management. Increasingly, the ability of local communities to

play some roles in forest management is being realised and participation has come to form an

integral part of the new paradigm of development and resource management being promoted

by multilateral and bilateral donors in these countries (Vira and Jeffery, 2001a). One key

motivation underlying the idea of participatory forestry is the conviction that the management

2

of forest resources is more likely to be effective when local resource users are actively

involved and made to benefit from forest management (Ingles et al., 1999).

Participatory forest management attempts have taken various forms, with varying levels of

decentralisation in forest management. This brings to fore Geiser’s assertion that

participation is a complex process, subject to different interests by different actors and

meaning different things to different people (Geiser, 2001). Sheffy (2005) distinguished

between shallow participatory approaches and deep participatory approaches, a strategy being

classified as shallow or deep based on the qualities of decision-making and negotiation,

particularly in the inclusiveness of multiple parties and interests. Going by this classification,

shallow participation refers to those participatory approaches characterised by limited party

involvement in a limited set of activities while deep ones are those characterised by all party

involvement in most project activities (Sheffy, 2005).

While some of the participatory forest management attempts have been very successful,

others have been less successful. The success of a participatory forestry approach has been

seen to depend on factors such as the level of participation in the design of interventions, the

ability to break the influence of local power structures, and the extent to which the agency

promoting the participatory process identifies with the local situation (Nelson and Wright,

1995 [cited in Santhukumar, 2001]). Other success determining factors identified by

Thompson (1992) are characteristics of the resource, attributes of the community, and rules or

institutions that structure how resources are to be governed, managed and used.

Ghana has a long history of forest management with high emphasis on the timber value of

forests. The policy governing forestry in Ghana has vested all naturally generated timber

resources in the state. However, centralised forest management, characterised by grant of

timber rights to timber companies has failed to ensure sustainability of the nation’s forests.

Evidence for this is provided by the rapid rate at which the nation’s forests under state

management have disappeared over the years (Forest Watch Ghana, 2006; Kotey et al., 1998;

ITTO, 2005). The country lost about 80% of her forest cover between 1900 and 1990 (Forest

Watch Ghana, 2006). Attempts to deal with the problem of unsustainable forestry have

included attempts to involve local people in forest management, and the Community Forest

Committee (CFC) approach, launched in 1994, is one main avenue through which local

people’s participation in forest management is being sought throughout the forest zone of the

3

country. The CFC is an innovative community institutional set up established in forest fringe

communities under the facilitation of the Forest Services Division (FSD), to serve as a link

between the wider local community and the FSD (CRMU, 2005). Found in about 100 local

communities as of 2003 (ITTO, 2005), the committees have now been established in over

1000 communities (Asare1, 2007, pers. comm.)

Once the idea of involving local people in forest management has been widely accepted, there

is merit in subjecting the theoretical and practical implementation of the concept to some

scrutiny. Given that Ghana’s CFC approach is just one of the many forms of participatory

forest management approaches being employed in forest management, a study of how this

approach compares with other participatory forestry approaches will be useful. Such a study

can help bring to light the strengths and weaknesses of the CFC approach, which could serve

as basis for further research into how the approach could be improved. This dissertation

therefore explores the main ideas behind the CFC approach, how the approach is being

executed and how it compares with participatory forest management approaches being

employed elsewhere.

1.2 Objectives

The specific objectives of this study are to:

Explore the forms of participatory forest management approaches that are being

employed in forest management generally;

Categorise the forms identified to produce a typology of participatory forest

management approaches;

Explore features of the various participatory forest management approaches that are

accounting for their success or otherwise;

Identify the place of Ghana’s CFC approach in the typology.

1 Asare is the head (Manager) of the Collaborative Resource Management Unit of the Resource ManagementSupport Centre [of the FSD]

4

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1 Study Methodology

The study was based on the review of recorded cases of collaboration between state forestry

agencies and local communities in forest management in Ghana and other countries. The

cases examined were obtained from published material, grey literature, conference papers and

online sources like the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) website, the Food and

Agriculture Organisation (FAO) website and the Digital Library of the Commons. In all, 17

cases from Africa, Latin America, Asia and the Pacific were studied. While some of the cases

examined were cases involving one specific community or forest area, others were regional or

national in distribution. The cases were categorised into different participatory forest

management approaches, the basis of the partnership between the state forestry agency and

the local community in each case examined serving as the basis of categorisation. The two

main bases of state forestry agency and local community partnerships identified are:

For benefit sharing where local people are seen as users, who need to be given a

certain level of access to forest resources and/or to be made to benefit from the

exploitation of their forests, while playing certain defined roles in forest management.

For power sharing where local people are seen as owners and managers of forest

resources.

Using this basis of categorisation, the 17 cases examined were categorised into three main

types of participatory forest management approach (Appendix 2). This approach to

categorising participatory forest management cases was used by Wily (2002), who developed

five seemingly overlapping categories. Luttrel et al. (2005), using the ownership and

institutional arrangements surrounding participatory partnerships between state forestry

institutions and local communities, identified 15 categories of participatory forest

management. In this study, the cases examined were put into three broad categories of

participatory forest management approach to allow unambiguous categorisation of cases with

widely varying geographical and institutional backgrounds, and recorded with varying levels

of detail. Features peculiar to individual cases were noted. Their levels of success in terms of

forest sustainability, effectiveness of collaboration, social inclusion and benefit to local

people were also noted. Ghana’s CFC approach was examined through study of literature on

the approach and a telephone interview with the head of the Collaborative Resource

5

Management Unit2. It was then compared with the participatory forestry approaches being

employed in other places by finding its place in the typology developed.

2.2 Limitations of Study

The first obvious limitation has to do with the fact that the study reviewed cases of

participatory forest management as recorded by authors. There is therefore no guarantee that

what is recorded about a case is exactly what pertains on the ground, neither is there guarantee

that circumstances have not changed since the records were made. In trying to reduce the

effects of this limitation, attempts were made to examine each case from multiple records by

different authors. Another limitation had to do with a difficulty in categorising cases with

varying geographical backgrounds, institutional backgrounds and recorded in different styles

and with varying levels of detail. The categorisation into three broad categories helped deal

with this limitation. Difficulty in obtaining information on how specific CFCs are operating in

practice also served as a limitation to this study.

2 The Collaborative Resource Management Unit is the unit of the Resource Management Support Centre [of theForestry Commission] in charge of local people’s involvement in forest management)

6

3. PARTICIPATORY FOREST MANAGEMENT

3.1 Definition of the Concept

The concept of involving local communities in forest management has taken various forms.

Terminologies that have been used to describe the various forms include Community Forestry

(CF), Adaptive Co-Management (ACM), Community-Based Natural Resource Management

(CBNRM), Participatory Forest Management (PFM), Joint Forest Management (JFM) and

many others (Arnold, 1992; Vira, 1999; Luttrell et al, 2005). Vira (1999: 255) sees the terms

Co-Management, Joint Forest Management (JFM) and Participatory Forest Management as

different terms all referring to management partnerships between state agencies and local

communities in forest management. The FAO has defined community forestry as ‘any

situation that intimately involves local people in forest activity’ (FAO, 1978 [cited in Arnold,

1992:1]). Luttrell et al. (2005:7) defined participatory forestry ‘as processes and mechanisms

that enable those people who have direct stake in forest resources to be part of decision-

making in some or all aspects of forest management, from managing resources to formulating

and implementing institutional frameworks’. The FAO sees participatory forestry projects as

‘…interconnected actions and works executed primarily by local community residents to

improve their own welfare.’ It draws attention to the fact that though there may be outside

inputs in the form of extension, training, guidance, technical help, financing, etc., the focus is

on local people getting actively involved in a project for their own benefit (FAO, 1978 [cited

in Clayton, 1985: 1]). Geiser (2001) sees participation as a purposive interaction of a social

actor with other social actors with a view to achieving specific outcomes.

Participatory approaches to forest management thus bring forest stakeholders together to work

towards the sound management of a given forest estate. The main stakeholders that can be

identified in a participatory forest management process are state forestry agencies and local

people (Vira, 1999). Realising the possible difficulty of achieving effective partnerships

between these stakeholders who have historically been uneasy allies, Vira and Jeffery (2001a)

advocate that participatory strategies need to be actively promoted. NGOs could play vital

roles in this direction by virtue of their neutrality (Conroy et al., 2001). Vira and Jeffery

(2001a) advocate that participatory approaches must be built on existing local systems of

resource use and control where they exist. Orissa [cited in Vira and Jeffery (2001a)] identified

three types of such local organisations: those promoted by the government; those that

7

emerged due to actions of a local NGO; and traditional governance regimes that were

instituted without any external influence. For partnerships based on externally induced

institutions of resource use and control, Santhakumar (2001: 248) asserts that ‘success

depends on their compatibility with the material and economic incentives of the situation at

the local level’ [italicised words added].

The process of negotiating participatory strategies may involve the dilution of interests of

certain social actors (Vira and Jeffery, 2001a). The issue of concern is whether the social

actors losing out in such dilution will be the weak ones, as has most often been the case in

many social processes (Conroy et al. 2001; Neefjes, 2001). Social actors adapt and mould

participatory strategies to suit their interests (Vira and Jeffery, 2001a) and actors’ attitudes to

participation have been seen to result from incentives that emerge from the physical,

technical, economic and institutional circumstances in which they are embedded

(Santhakumar, 2001).

3.2 Origin of the Concept

Vira and Jeffery (2001a) made the observation that literature on participatory resource

management has evolved considerably; from an early pessimism about community action,

through a relatively uncritical view that informed community-based conservation initiatives,

to a current understanding of community as a complex and dynamic unit, characterised by

internal differences.

The emergence of the idea of involving local people in forest management was in a way

fostered by a realisation that the previously dominant strategy (centralised forest

management) was inadequate in terms of ensuring sustainable forest management and

catering for the needs of multiple forest stakeholders (Anderson et al., 1998 [cited in Vira and

Jeffery, 2001a]). Centralised forest management was justified in most developing countries

by deliberate presentation of forest loss crisis, portraying local people as the main agents

behind the crisis (Amanor, 2003; Amanor and Brown, 2003). Local farming and animal

husbandry systems were portrayed as being destructive. To avoid the perceived crisis of total

forest loss in these countries, unoccupied and some occupied forestlands had to be put under

permanent reservation to be managed by trained foresters. Because of its associated social

cost to local people, centralised forest management received a lot of opposition from local

8

people. The negative impacts of centralised forest management on local people could be

explained using the Environmental Entitlement Framework3 (Appendix 1). With respect to

previously common forest resources under centralised management, the environmental goods

and services in the framework refer to the forest which a community is endowed with. Due to

changes in institutions governing access to forest resources following state appropriation of

previously common forest estates, local people lost their entitlement to products they used to

obtain from such forests. Centralised forest management therefore negatively affected their

livelihoods and bred in them negative attitudes to forests and the state institutions mandated to

manage them (Kotey et al., 1998; Gombya-Ssembajjwe and Banana, 1999). Participatory

forest management therefore emerged to alter institutions of forest governance so as to restore

partially, if not fully, local peoples’ entitlement to their forests and thereby change their

attitudes to forests and state forestry institutions (Jeffery and Vira, 2001b; Kotey et al. 1998;

Vira, 1999).

Arnold (1992) traced the origin of the idea of involving local people in forest management to

the 1970s, a period that saw a growing focus on development through rural-led initiatives. On

the international scene, Arnold (1992) notes that moves towards participatory forestry during

the period include a series of meetings organised by the FAO with support from SIDA to

review the then forest management regimes and to propose what needed to be done. These

meetings culminated in the 1978 state-of-knowledge FAO publication ‘Forestry for Local

Community Development’. Also, 1978 saw the issue of World Bank’s influential ‘Forestry

Sector Policy Paper’ which signalled the beginning of a major shift in forestry activities from

industrial forestry towards forestry to meet local people’s subsistence needs and

environmental protection. Another important event that took place that year was the Eighth

World Forestry Congress, which had the theme ‘Forests for People’. Arnold (1992) notes that

due to these series of events, the exposure of the concept was so rapid that field programmes

and projects of participatory forestry nature had started taking shape by 1979.

According to Arnold (1992), the early programmes to involve local people in forest

management in most developing countries took the form of local communities’ engagement in

woodlot establishment on communal lands to produce fuel wood for local use. This is because

3 The environmental entitlement framework was developed by Leach et al. (1997) as an extension of Sen’s(1981) entitlement analysis, which explained why some people may starve in a society even when some food isavailable. The framework explains how people’s access to environmental resources and consequently theircapabilities are determined by institutional factors.

9

decline in fuel wood availability was perceived as the local forestry issue of highest priority.

The high dependence on fuel wood for energy in these countries (about 20% in Asia and Latin

America, and 50% in Africa [Arold, 1992]) was seen to be posing a threat to forests. Besides,

supply was seen to be declining, compelling people to resort to the use of crop and animal

residues as sources of fuel rather than for soil enrichment (Eckholm, 1975 and 1979; Arnold

and Jongma, 1978; FAO 1981; de Montalembert and Clement, 1983 [all cited in Arnold,

1992]). Projections suggested an impending crisis of fuel wood shortage in developing

countries due to decline in wood stocks and increase in population. This justified the focus on

community woodlots during the initial phase of community involvement in forest

management in most developing countries. The high emphasis on fuel wood in the early

participatory forestry programmes led to the neglect of other possible benefits that the

programmes could offer to local people such as food, income and employment. Arnold

(1992) talks of deliberate attempts to exclude any form of income-generating activities from

the early participatory forestry programmes on the grounds that they were inconsistent with

the perceived subsistence aims of the programmes. In this sense, the early participatory forest

management programmes took the form of communities’ involvement in the creation of new

forest resources, rather than in the management of existing ones.

With time, a number of patterns that were at variance with what had been assumed or

intended began to emerge. Much greater success was achieved with participation involving

individuals than communal groups; neither individuals nor groups appeared to share the

perception that priority should be accorded to planting trees to provide fuel wood; by contrast,

individual farmers in many places pursued the planting of trees for sale and for other purposes

of economic value such as fodder and fruit with considerable vigour; the growing of trees as

cash crops attracted considerable criticism in some countries on the grounds that it had

negative impacts on food supplies, rural employment and, in some cases, on the environment

(Arnold, 1992). These patterns called for a need to assess what was being done and to respond

to the lessons being learnt. With time, there was a gradual shift from engaging local people’s

participation in forest resource creation towards their participation in the management already

existing (mostly reserved) forests.

10

3.3 Trends

From the community woodlot based form of participation, the participatory forestry agenda

assumed new dimensions. The first of these was a form that engaged local people as users

whose cooperation is needed for forest sustainability (Wily, 2002). According to Wily, local

people’s cooperation was sought and bought by legalising their access to forest resources

and/or sharing with them the revenues generated by the forestry sector. ‘Forest buffer zone

developments also flourished, with the intention of helping communities turn their eyes from

the forest’ (Wily, 2002: 32).

With time, this form of partnership gave way to another form that recognised that local

people’s ‘participation becomes a great deal more meaningful and effective when local

populations are involved not as cooperating forest users but as forest managers and even

owner-managers in their own right’ (Wily, 2002: 32). Wily asserts that increasingly,

‘custodianship, not access, is becoming central to agreements and relations’ and notes that ‘so

far, this shift is seeing most delivery in respect of forests that have not been formally drawn

under government jurisdiction and/or tenure’ (Wily, 2002: 31-32).

Wily (2002) observed that in line with these paradigm shifts, institutional issues have become

very important.

‘They pose the main challenge to the development of effective and democratic norms of local-

level governance over forests’. ‘The need for a stronger and legal institutional form to

entrench local roles is being felt everywhere to enable formal divestment and the exercise of

meaningful jurisdiction’. Also, ‘issues of accountability are becoming pivotal, both to those

with whom management agreements are signed and, internally, to make local forest managers

accountable to the wider communities on whose behalf they act’ (Wily, 2002: 32).

Benefits that have accompanied local people’s involvement in forest management to people,

to national economies and to conservation have been immense (Wily, 2002). However, the

benefits have varied from one participatory forestry case to another, and have been found to

depend on how truly participatory an initiative is. A typology developed by Pretty (1994)

highlights varying levels of participation in resource management, from passive participation

(where local people are only told what is going to happen or what has happened) to self-

11

mobilisation (where local people take initiatives independent of external institutions and hold

active control over resource management).

Among local people, incentives for participation in forest management tend to be high in

areas where resource scarcity/degradation has direct impacts on local livelihoods (Vira, 1999;

Sodeik, 1998; Bhattarai and Campbell, 1985). Vira (1999) notes that local incentives for such

partnerships are very high in areas where impacts of resource degradation on local livelihoods

has led to local initiatives aimed at resource development and conservation. Because such

local initiatives show little resilience to changing local conditions, local people see

partnerships with state agencies as means of obtaining legal recognition for their initiatives to

make them more resilient to changing circumstances.

For state forestry agencies, incentives for collaborating with local people in forest

management include a desire to end the long history of mistrust and conflicts that have for a

long time existed between the two social actors, so that local knowledge and structures can be

used to develop more effective and efficient forest management strategies (Vira, 1999). It is

envisaged that through such partnerships, forest management will be made more responsive to

the needs of local people.

In another respect, Vira (1999) asserts that a desire to meet the requirements of donor

agencies is a reason for the apparent acceptance of the participation agenda by state forestry

agencies. Because of the critical role of donor agencies in forestry projects in most developing

countries, local people’s participation have become a common component of most forestry

projects in the developing world. But like many other social initiatives, wide acceptance of

the idea may be on rhetorical basis with little practical commitment (Vira and Jeffery, 2001b:

1). According to Arnold (1992), even projects which have sought to identify local needs,

aspirations and possibilities have in practice done so more on the basis of the views of

planners and others from outside than that of local people themselves. Due to this, he

remarked that though the concept of participation took root quickly, in practice, it has been

and still is, more frequently preached than practised.

In connection with this, Vira (1999) asserts that there is a clear line of distinction between

attitudes of senior forestry officers to participatory forestry and that of lower level (field)

officers. While the former exhibit a high level of acceptance of the participatory forestry

12

agenda and therefore formulate policies that favour participatory forest management, the latter

who have the responsibility of implementing policies have been less receptive of the

participation agenda (Vira and Jeffery, 2001b; Kerkhof, 2001; Sodeik, 1998; Vira, 1999;

Chakraborty, 2001). Vira (1999) explained that the difficulty of field level forestry staff to

wholly accept participatory forest management could be due to the fact that under traditional

(centralised) forestry, field forestry staff acted as guardians of the forest with the exclusive

right to do so. Participatory forestry however demands a radical change in roles of these

officers to facilitators of local people’s involvement in forest management. The

accompanying reduction in management authority wielded by the field forestry staff makes

participatory forestry less acceptable to them. This implies that there is no certainty that the

adoption participatory forestry strategies at senior organisational levels will translate into

working practices at the field level (Vira and Jeffery, 2001a; Vira, 1999).

Sodeik (1998) notes that devising a forest management strategy that not only combines

diverging interests of different stakeholders (local people and state forestry agencies), but also

takes into account the several aspects of community forest management is no easy task. She

sees this task further complicated by a difficulty in identifying local groups who are both

willing and able to collaborate with state agencies in forest management. According to Vira

and Jeffery (2001a), if participation is to be deeply embedded in project interventions, then it

must go beyond participation in project implementation to participation in project planning

and design, though this may mean a dilution of original objectives of the implementing

agency. Vira (1999) draws an important conclusion that the outcome of a participatory forest

management initiative depends on the interaction between characteristics of the local

community and the attitude of field workers, noting that the latter is more adaptable relative to

the former. Sodeik (1998) notes that a preparedness to take the necessary time is important for

overcoming organisational challenges that participatory forestry initiatives may experience at

the field level. Arnold (1992: 26) made an observation that ‘the process of learning about, and

improving the application of participatory forestry is a continuous one, and one in which we

are at a relatively early stage on the learning curve’. However, one main feature that has

distinguished participatory forestry from traditional forestry is a deliberate attempt to make

forestry more responsive to the needs of local people under participatory forestry (Clayton,

1985).

13

As a concluding note, it is worth noting that though participation has an important role to play

in forest management, it constitutes just one aspect of the struggle against forest deterioration

in developing countries (Vira and Jeffery, 2001b). Besides, the success of participatory

strategies at forest conservation does not necessarily mean equity in benefit flows to all

groups in the local community (Kerkhof, 2001; Chakraborty, 2001). Vira and Jeffery (2001b)

noted that due to the high enthusiasm that characterise moves towards decentralised forest

management, people sometimes lose sight of the fact that state forestry institutions remain

important stakeholders in forest management. They advise that analysis of participatory

forestry projects must not assume that participation is the ‘silver bullet’ that will solve forest

deterioration problem in developing countries. According to them, more modest claims of

even the apparently successful participatory forestry projects will help ensure that the issue of

social inequality (which they see as the root cause of environmental deterioration) will be

more clearly addressed in such projects.

3.4 Ghana’s Community Forest Committee (CFC) Approach

3.4.1 Origin

Ghana is a tropical West African country bordered by Togo to the east, Cote d’Ivoire to the

west, Burkina Faso to the north and the Gulf of Guinea to the south. It covers a land area of

23.95 million hectares. About one-third (8.2 million hectares) of the land area is covered by

tropical high forests and the remaining two-thirds by savannah woodlands. About 16% of

Ghana’s land area has been put under conservation protection in the form of forest and

wildlife reserves. Forestry in Ghana has mainly concentrated on the one-third southern

portion of the country that lies in the high forest zone. Within this zone are about 214 forest

reserves covering a land area of about 1.634 million hectares (Kotey et al., 1998). A forest

reserve condition scoring by Hawthorne and Abujuam (1993 [cited in Kotey et al., 1998]) put

only three of the reserves in the ‘Excellent’ class and 25 reserves in the class ‘Good-Okay’.

The remaining reserves fell into varying grades of degradation. Because forestry has

traditionally concentrated on reserved forests, little is known about the condition of forests

occurring outside the reserved areas though they have been the source of the bulk of the

country’s timber production [about 70% between 1960 and 1972 and 80% in 1994] (Kotey et

al., 1998).

14

The history of Ghanaian forestry is well documented (Kotey et al., 1998; The 1994 Forest and

Wildlife Policy of Ghana). Forest reservations in Ghana date back to the period between 1874

and 1939. A Forestry Department was created in 1909. The colonial system of indirect rule

led to strengthening of traditional institutions during the period. Chiefs had the mandate of

negotiating timber concession agreements with loggers.

The period 1940-1953 saw a decline in the control that traditional authority had over forest

resources and the alienation of local communities from reserved forests. The period rather

saw an increase in the influence of the state and timber concessionaires on forests. The first

formal forest policy was adopted in 1948. This policy vested all timber resources (in both

reserved forests and off-reserve forests) in the state to be managed by trained foresters on

behalf of the people of Ghana. Though the policy did not take away the ownership rights of

landholding traditional authorities, in practice these authorities and local people had virtually

no say with respect to how forests on their lands were managed. The policy promoted the

‘mining’ of timber resources in off-reserve forests and the conversion of these forest areas

into farmlands. This form of forestry remained the norm until the 1980s when it became

apparent that the under-resourced Forestry Department (now Forest Services Division) was

helpless at finding a solution to the massive degradation of the country’s forests. The forests

outside the reserved areas suffered more degradation. Estimates indicate that only 27, 000

km2 of tropical high forest remained intact in the off-reserve areas of Ghana as of 1987

(World Bank, 1987 [cited in RMSC, 2004]). The need for a reform of the forestry sector was

recognised. The reform led to the adoption of the 1994 Forest and Wildlife Policy. Among the

main emphases of this policy are local people’s participation in forest management and

conservation of off-reserve forest resources. The emphasis on local people’s participation is in

response to the recognition that the Forestry Department is not in a position to sustainably

manage the nation’s forest resources alone. The emphasis on the sustainable management of

off-reserve forests on the other hand is in response to a realisation that the mostly degraded

reserved forests will not be able to meet demand for forest resources, which is expected to go

up with increase in population (FD, 2004).

Due to the general orientation towards decentralisation and local people’s involvement in

natural resource management during the period, Ghana’s collaborative forest management

efforts received a lot of support from donor agencies. The Community Forest Committee

(CFC) concept was born out of an ITTO and Government of Ghana sponsored ‘Piloting

15

Collaborative Forest Management Systems for Off-Reserve Areas in Southern Ghana’ project

(Asare, 2000a, Asare, 2000b; Amoako-Nuamah, 2000). The original project aim was to

devise innovative schemes by which timber and forests outside the reserved areas would be

managed by communities and timber concessionaires with technical assistance from the

Forest Services Division (FSD). Under the project, consultations were held with major

stakeholders associated with forest management outside forest reserves to identify important

forestry issues requiring attention. A strategic plan was formulated to address the issues. At

the early stages of project implementation, it became apparent that there was the need to form

exclusive management structures at the community level to link up with the FSD in the

execution of project activities (Asare, 2000a: 14). Asare (2000b) reasons that the institution of

such a community-level management structure was necessitated by the following reasons:

The lack of an acceptable, recognisable and informed body through which the FSD

could liaise with the array of local stakeholders to ensure that local aspirations with

respect to forestry issues would be articulated. The lack of such a body made regular

FSD contacts with local stakeholders difficult.

Unlike the case for forest stakeholders like timber companies and the FSD, there was

no voice to represent community interest in forest policy making at the district,

regional and national levels.

There was a huge lack of awareness and knowledge of forestry issues among local

people. Local people were ignorant of their rights with respect to access to forest

resources and exploitation of timber on their lands and there was no body within easy

reach to seek advice on such issues from.

The lack of a local body to monitor the forest management roles being played by the

FSD.

The innovative community institutional set up that emerged out of the process was given the

name ‘Community Forest Committees’ in view of the fact that local people were already

conversant with the term ‘committee’ (Asare, 2000a). The CFCs were to serve as the official

mouthpiece of local communities on forest management issues at the regional and national

levels, while improving the capacity for community involvement in forest management at the

local level. They were not to replace broader collaboration of the FSD with local people, but

16

to act as local institutions facilitating the widespread participation of local people in forest

management (Asare, 2000b).

3.4.2 Formation of committees

According to an ‘Operational Guideline on Community Forest Committees’ (Asare, 2000a),

CFC formation in a given community is to follow the steps below:

Organisation of public campaigns in the target community on the need to form a

community forest management committee;

Conduction of a participatory rural appraisal (PRA) to determine the form of

management structure the committee should take;

Community education to explain the CFC concept and modalities for selecting

representatives to all local interest groups;

Election of representatives for the various local interest groups;

Holding rallies to introduce the selected representatives to the entire community;

Joint formulation of working modalities and programme for the selected CFC

members.

All these are to take place under the facilitatorship of the FSD. To enable the elected CFC

members play their expected roles effectively, their capacities are to be built through training

on Ghanaian forestry and allied subjects. They are to be given handbooks that contain all the

necessary information the CFCs will need to know about Ghanaian forestry. Information

provided in the handbook include provisions of the forest policy and forestry laws concerning

issues like access to timber and non-timber forest resources, plantation development, timber

exploitation by timber companies, etc. Additional training could be provided on workshop

management, participatory rural appraisal and on other matters when the need is felt.

Membership of the CFCs is to be on voluntary basis, meaning that members are not paid for

their services. They are however to be provided with the necessary facilities, motivation and

legal backing to enable them function effectively (Asare, 2000b; Amoako-Nuamah, 2000).

3.4.3 Membership of the committees

According to the guidelines, membership of the CFCs in each community should range

between seven and eleven people. The members are to be elected from all identifiable groups

17

in the community. It is envisaged that a typical CFC would comprise of the Unit Committee

Chairperson, the Assembly Man, representatives of traditional authority, landowners/farmers,

women groups, youth groups, migrants, tree planters, local forest users (like NTFP collectors,

hunters), and representatives of such bodies as the police, Ministry of Food and Agriculture,

etc. Each group is to elect one or two representatives to serve on the CFC (Asare, 2000a;

Asare, 2000b).

The tenure of office for elected CFC members is to be two or four years. Members can serve

for a maximum of two consecutive terms in office. Though the elected members are to

champion the cause of the community in general on forestry issues, they are required to pay

particular attention to the concerns of the particular group they represent. Committee

members are required to hold regular meetings with the groups they represent and with the

wider local community. Major decisions on forest management and other important issues are

not to be taken by the CFCs alone, but in consultation with the whole community. Committee

members are to be answerable at all times to the groups they represent. Groups could call for

the removal of their representatives if they are not performing as expected of them. Though

the CFCs are supposed to work closely with the FSD, they are in principle a wholly

independent body and may monitor the activities of the division as they see fit (Asare,

2000b).

3.4.4 Hierarchy of CFCs

It is envisaged that the CFCs will function at the various levels of Ghanaian social set up,

namely, the village, TUC/local area, district, regional and national level (Asare, 2000a).

While membership for the village level CFCs is to be derived from primary local groups, that

for an assembly area CFC (ACFC) is to be derived from representatives of the village level

CFCs. The ACFCs are to elect their executives in line with the laid down democratic

procedures that prevail at the village CFC level. In like manner, higher levels of CFCs will

derive their membership from the lower levels, ending with a national level CFC. According

to the CFC guidelines, the national level CFC is to be consulted on major forestry-related

policy issues, just as has traditionally been the case for the other forest stakeholders. It is to

act as a pressure group with a level of influence equal to (probably stronger than) that of the

other forest stakeholders. Figure 3.1 depicts the envisaged hierarchy of the CFCs.

18

(Optional)

Figure 1: Hierarchy of Community Forest Committees [Source: Asare, 2000a]

3.4.5 Roles of the CFCs

Though the actual roles of a CFC are to be determined by the mandate the community in

question gives to the committee, it is envisaged that the committees will be involved in three

main areas of forest management, namely, forest policy formulation, forest management

NATIONAL CFCNATIONAL CAUCUS OFCOMMUNITY FOREST

COMMITTEES

REGIONAL CFCCAUCUS OF DISTRICT

ASSEMBLY COMMUNITYFOREST COMMITTEES

DISTRICT ASSEMBLY CFCCAUCUS OF AREA (ASSEMBLY)CFC & OTHER STAKEHOLDERS

PARAMOUNTCYAREA COMMUNITY FOREST

COMMITTEE

AREA (ASSEMBLY) CFCREPRESENTATIVES OFVILLAGE/TOWN CFCs

VILLAGE OR TOWN CFC7-11 REPRESENTATIVESOF PRIMARY STAKEHOLDERS

19

planning and execution of forest operations (Asare, 2000a, Asare, 2000b). Details of these

roles as reported by Asare (2000a) and Asare (2000b) have been highlighted below:

Forest policy formulation: In line with provisions of the 1994 Forest and Wildlife Policy,

local communities (represented by the CFCs) are to contribute towards the formulation of

forest policies at the national, regional and district levels. The CFCs are to become an integral

part in the making of all major decisions concerning forestry just as timber trade associations

like the Ghana Timber Association and the Ghana Timber Millers Organisation are consulted

whenever major forest policies are being introduced. The envisaged procedure is that

workshops and meetings will be held at which the CFCs will be invited to present their views.

After policies have been drafted, they are to be presented to communities and their comments

sought through the CFCs. It is hoped that by involving local communities in forest policy

formulation this way, they will be more receptive of the policies and be committed towards

their implementation. Also, it is hoped that policies formulated this way will be more

responsive to the conditions and concerns of local people, which will make their

implementation more practicable.

Forest management planning: Current policy provisions on forest management planning

require consultations with communities and landowners with a view to incorporating their

views in the drafting of forest reserve management plans. Since local communities are

represented by CFCs, it is expected that CFCs shall be consulted at all stages of forest reserve

planning process. CFC executives are required to append their signatures on forest reserve

planning documents to ascertain that they, being representatives of their communities,

endorse the agreements, observations or arrangements contained in the documents.

Community execution of forest operations: It is envisaged that the CFCs will serve as

avenues through which the FSD would assign tasks, roles and responsibilities to communities

in return for commensurate rights, benefits and remuneration. The envisaged aspects of forest

operations in which communities are to be involved include:

Employment of local knowledge and expertise at spotting and identifying tree species

during forest inventory exercises. Their knowledge is also to be employed in the

location and assessment of NTFPs as well as any rare resources that forests may have.

CFCs involvement in mobilising local people for forest reserve protection activities

such as forest boundary demarcation and maintenance, checking on illegal forest

20

activities, etc. The CFCs are also to champion wildfire prevention campaigns in

communities and to mobilise local people for action in the event of wildfires.

With respect to degraded forest regeneration, the CFCs are expected to act as

managers of community nurseries and to provide training to the community members

on plantation establishment techniques after undergoing ‘training of trainer’ course

themselves. They are to ensure that local community interests are catered for in

negotiations on issues such as access to land in degraded forest reserves for taungya4

farming, access to credits and grants for plantation establishment, and on other such

issues.

On timber exploitation by timber companies, the CFCs are to be consulted during the

process of awarding timber contracts. They are to ensure that the interest of their

communities and the sustainability of their forests are catered for in the granting of

timber exploitation rights to timber companies. Their roles in this direction include

determination of timber utilisation contract (TUC) coverage areas, involvement in

negotiations on Social Responsibility Agreement (SRA5) with timber contract holders

and monitoring the implementation of development projects under SRA. Other roles

include monitoring operations of TUC holders, arbitration in cases of compensation

payments to local people affected through timber exploitation, checking whether

reforestation operations by timber companies conform to TUC requirements or not,

negotiating for community access to timber for local use and for local people’s access

to NTFPs.

The CFCs could mobilise communities for productive income-generating ventures

that will help reduce their dependence on the forest for livelihood needs. Such

ventures include bee keeping, snail rearing, mushroom cultivation, grass cutter

rearing, tree plantation establishment, etc. The CFCs could act as guarantors for local

people to help them access loans for tree planting activities.

4 The taungya system originated from Burma. By this system, portions of degraded forest reserves are given outto local farmers to cultivate food crops while raising tree seedlings provided by the FSD. The farmers tend theircrops alongside the tree seedlings and remain on the land until the tree seedlings reach a certain level ofestablishment. Because the original taungya system failed in Ghana (farmers intentionally destroyed treeseedlings so that they will continue to remain on lands allocated to them), the FSD has adopted a modifiedtaungya system which makes farmers benefit from trees that get established on lands allocated to them(Agyemang et al., 2003).

5 SRA is a provision of the 1994 Forest and Wildlife policy and its supporting legislation (the Timber ResourceManagement Act, 1997). It enjoins timber contract holders to make arrangements with communities in theimmediate vicinity of their contract areas by which they will undertake development projects in the communitiesto a value of about 5% of the total value of timber to be exploited in an area.

21

3.4.6 Motivation for CFC members

Though a need to motivate community members who volunteer as CFC members has been

felt, the guidelines makes no explicit mention of where such motivation is to come from and

how it is to be delivered. It was just mentioned that motivation for the CFCs could come from

the portion of timber revenue given to the District Assemblies, from the portion given to the

traditional landowners (paramount chiefs), from the FSD, from forestry-oriented NGOs and

from externally-funded forestry projects (Asare, 2000a, Asare, 2000b).

3.4.7 CFCs in practice

As has already been mentioned, the available information on how specific CFCs are operating

in practice is very scanty. The few available sources of bits of information that were consulted

include a couple of Bachelor theses from the Faculty of Renewable Natural Resources and

reports from the CRMU and the FD. A telephone interview with the head of the CRMU also

provided some information.

The CFC concept has been most functional at the local community level. Within the high

forest zone of Ghana, the committees have been established in all the forest districts and in

most forest fringe communities in each forest district. Currently, CFCs have been established

in over 1000 communities (Asare, 2007, pers. comm.). CFC formation in the communities

largely followed the guidelines (CRMU, 2005).

Though the original idea was to collaborate with local people for off-reserve forest

management, CFCs have in practice been equally involved in the management of reserved

forests. It has been reported that the CFCs have helped to bring down illegal timber operations

considerably through arrests (in some cases), reports of illegal activities to the FSD and the

police, and by their mere presence. They have also helped to maintain forest reserve

boundaries (through contracts with the FSD to clear the boundaries for remuneration) and to

prevent/control forest fires. They have led communities in seedling production and in forest

reserve regeneration through the taungya system (FD, 2000; CRMU, 2004; Brenya, 2005;

RMSC, 2005).

22

Their activities have however been handicapped by a number of setbacks (CRMU, 2005;

Brenya, 2005; Osei-Kwarteng, 2004). These include the absence of a legal backing, lack of

facilities and lack of motivation. From a study of CFCs in two communities in the Offinso

District of Ghana, Brenya (2005) observed that lack of facilities and motivation in cash and

kind is serving as a major hindrance to the effective execution of roles of CFC members, in

view of the dangerous nature of some of their roles. She mentioned a case in one of her study

communities where a CFC member, in an attempt to check on an illegal timber operation, was

severely injured by the illegal timber operators (who normally operate fully armed). Even in

some cases where CFC members were able to arrest illegal timber operators, the FSD

normally takes away the confiscated lumber without rewarding the CFC members who took

the risk to arrest the illegal operators6.

Though the CFCs were to serve as institutions facilitating the participation of local

communities in forest management, in some communities they have become extensions of the

FSD at the community level with little engagement with the wider local community on

forestry issues. From a study of CFCs in the Atwima District of Ghana, Osei-Kwarteng

(2004) observed a very low level awareness of community members on how CFCs in their

communities were established, their roles in forest management and benefits being derived

from the CFC concept. Brenya (2005) also made an observation of very little cooperation

between community members and the CFCs as a result of which the CFCs find it difficult

mobilising community members for control action in the event of forest fires.

The CFCs have been particularly active in forestry projects in off-reserve forest areas (where

there is less FSD domination), e.g. in some plantation projects taking place in the off-reserve

areas (Asare, 2007, pers. comm.).

6 This observation was made during a student platform research into ‘causes of community-level forest conflicts’in four communities in the Goaso Forest District of Ghana in 2005. I was part of the research team made up ofseven students.

23

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Typology of Participatory Forestry Approaches

The three broad categories of participatory forest management approaches into which the

cases examined were put, and some features common to the cases in each category have been

described below:

Passive participation: cases in this category were commonly characterised by partnerships

where state forestry agencies hold control over decision-making and planning processes.

Collaboration with communities or community groups is limited to their engagement in

performing certain tasks defined by the state agencies. The main incentive for local people’s

participation is job provision as they are paid for services they render in such partnerships.

Their motivation to play roles in forest management disappears when the paying contract

ends. In cases where local committees were expected to play voluntary roles, there was little

or no motivation for them to play those roles. In some cases, communities were given limited

access to certain forest products and/or were entitled to a percentage of forestry revenues. The

forests in the cases under this category were mostly reserved forests under state management.

This category corresponded to Pretty’s (1994) ‘passive participation’ and to Sheffy’s (2005)

shallow participation. Two out of the six cases that fell in this category reported positive

results of the partnerships in terms of decrease in illegal forest exploitation and increase in

timber stands respectively. The cases that fell in this category are:

Joint forest management, India [Mohanty, 2000; Malhotra and Poffemberger (eds),

1989; Ogra, 2000];

Collaborative forest management in the Terai Region of Nepal [Keshav 2006; Uprety,

2004];

Joint forest management in Tanzania [Bromley and Ramadhani, 2005; FBKD, 2006;

Louga et al., 2006];

Participatory forest management in the Mpigi District of Uganda [Wily and Mbaya,

2001; Gombya-Ssembajjwe and Banana, 1999; Banana et al., 2002; Banana et al.,

2004];

Participatory forest management in the Ivory Coast [Ibo and Leonard, 1997]; and

The taungya reforestation system, Indonesia [CBMPCFP, 2000]

24

Features peculiar to individual cases have been highlighted in Appendix 2.

Partial devolution: the cases in this category were commonly characterised by grant of

control over forest areas to communities or community groups on contract basis. The

communities or community groups have to go through long and bureaucratic application

processes. In one case [community forestry in Cameroon (Djeumo, 2001; Gardner et al.,

2001)], it was reported that community groups were resorting to all means to get their

applications through. These included fictitious members and contracting out applications,

resulting in situations where the community groups themselves were ignorant of the terms of

community forest contracts. Community groups were entering into this type of partnership out

of a desire to exploit community forests rather than a desire to sustainably manage them.

There was little or no engagement of community groups with the wider community. Wily

(2002) commenting on this type of partnership explained that it may take time for local

communities to recognize that, by entering into user-bounded agreements, they are implicitly

accepting the government’s recognition of their interests as limited to their rights of use. As a

result, they may be abandoning more deeply rooted tenurial claims to forests. Moreover, as

licensees or registered user groups, their rights may be withdrawn at any time by the state

forestry agencies. She further notes that the requirements for community groups in such

partnerships often go beyond the requirements that state forestry administrations have

conventionally placed on themselves and have actually implemented in the forests they

manage. One reason for the stringent requirements is the low level of official confidence in

local people’s ability to sustainably manage their forests. The requirements are therefore to

establish conditions that both test and bind local-level management authority to certain

practices (Wily, 2002). Wily (2002) also mentions that in some countries, forestry

administrations are wary of the growing involvement of facilitating non-governmental

agencies in this arena and therefore use these bureaucratic processes as means to delay,

restrict or control it. Whatever the reason may be, these bureaucratic processes result in costly

and time-consuming application processes, which tend to discourage local actors who may

have genuine interest in managing their forests sustainably.

One out of the five cases that fell in this category reported positive results in terms of

improvement in forest condition. The cases that fell in this category are:

Community forestry in Cameroon [Djeumo, 2001; Gardner et al., 2001];

25

Peasant participation in reforestation in four communities (Ccollana-Chequerec,

Ccorao, Equecco-Chacán and Compone) of Peru [Vizarreta, 1993];

The community forest concessions of Peten, Guatemala [WRM, 2000; Reining et al.,

1998];

Community-based forest management, Philippines [Pulhin et al., 2005]; and

Community-based forest management in Indonesia [Chan, 2003; Lindayati, 2000]

Features peculiar to individual cases have been highlighted in Appendix 2.

Complete devolution: the partnerships in this category were commonly characterised by total

hand over of control over forest areas to communities or community groups. The state forest

agencies only play advisory/technical support roles. Five out of the six cases that fell in this

category reported positive results of the partnerships in terms of forest sustainability, social

inclusion, effectiveness of partnership and benefit to local communities. Sceptical state

agencies who felt uncomfortable granting total control over forest areas to communities were

seen to be getting convinced that this apparently radical alternative to centralised forest

management could work. Factors accounting for success of cases in this category include a

sense of ownership of forest resource, technical and financial support from NGOs and a desire

by communities to prove that they are capable of managing their forests. One main challenge

found with this approach is that, in cases where communities undertake forest exploitation

themselves using low technology and labour-intensive techniques, they are not able to

produce wood of very high quality and in sufficient quantities that can meet requirements of

international timber trade. This category corresponds to Pretty’s (1994) ‘self-mobilisation’

and to Sheffy’s (2005) ‘deep participation’. The cases that fell in this category are:

The community forests of East New Britain, Papua New Guinea [Salafsky et al.,

1997; Glen, 1993];

Community forestry, Nepal [Keshav, 2006; Bhattarai and Campbell, 1985];

Community-based forest management, Tanzania [Bromley and Ramadhani, 2005;

FBKD, 2006; Wily, 1995];

Community-based management of the Ekuri forest, Nigeria [Iroko Foundation

(undated); Equator Initiative, 2004];

The Ejido Forests of South-East Mexico [Richards, 1992]; and

26

Community-based management of the Adaba-Dodola forest (the WAJIB approach),

Ethiopia [Amente and Tadesse, 2004; Kubsa et al. (undated)]

Features peculiar to individual cases have been highlighted in Appendix 2.

Mention has to be made of the fact that from the tone of some of the recorded cases, it could

be inferred that they were authored by pro-community authors. They therefore concentrated

on the limitations of approaches that involve local people passively in forest management and

this could in part be responsible for the seemingly little positive results of passive

collaboration partnerships. However beyond this possible reason, Aggarwal (2006) opines

that communities have less incentive for sustainable natural resource use in the absence of

tenure security. Also, Ostrom (1999) explains that autonomy over rules and control over

resource use without any external influence is required for effective communal resource

management.

Larson (2004) reasons that one reason for states’ reluctance to grant total control over forest

areas to communities is a treatment of forest resources as public goods that need to be

managed by the state for the benefit of all citizens and not just the people who live closest to

the resources. The large size of forests and perceived low capacity of local people could also

be another reason why state agencies are reluctant to grant total control over forest areas to

local people.

4.2 The Place of Ghana’s CFC Approach in the Typology

After a careful examination of Ghana’s CFC approach, it became quite apparent that the

approach belongs to the ‘passive participation’ category. This is not to say that all the CFCs in

the about 1000 communities in the forest zone of the country are characterised by passive

relationships with the FSD. There could be isolated cases where CFCs are playing very active

roles in all aspects of forestry projects, as have been found with certain forestry projects

taking place in off-reserve areas (Asare, 2007, pers. comm.). Two other unique cases are two

intact forest patches (the Adwenase and Namtee forests) of sizes 171 hectares and 190.5

hectares, respectively, located in the Central Region of Ghana which have always been under

the exclusive management of local people for historical reasons (RMSC, 2004). The FSD has

intentions of equipping the local communities with mobile sawmills to enable them exploit

27

their forests on their own (Asare, 2007, pers. comm.) However, in the majority of cases where

there are no ongoing funded projects to provide motivation for the active engagement of local

communities, the partnerships between the FSD and CFCs tend to be very passive.

28

5. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Though the idea of involving local people in forest management has been widely accepted,

approaches to achieving this participation have varied from place to place. Wily (2002)

observed that ‘while practical and legal opportunities for communities to re-secure certain

forest reserves on case-by-case basis exist in principle in several new laws, the stronger trend

is towards a hardening of the distinction between those estates that governments will continue

to control, and those where local management of various types may evolve’ (Wily, 2002: 17).

From the study of 17 cases of local people’s involvement in forest management, it is quite

clear that the results of participatory forest management initiatives in terms of forest

sustainability, effectiveness of partnerships, social inclusion and benefit to local communities

tend to be better when there is complete devolution of control over forest areas to

communities or community groups. With Ghana’s CFC approach belonging more to the

‘passive participation’ category, it can be expected that our collaborative forest management

efforts would yield more positive results if more control over forest areas was devolved to the

CFCs.

However, there are some issues that need to be looked at and properly dealt with before

complete devolution of control over forest areas would yield the desired outcomes. One such

issue is the customary land tenure system of southern Ghana which puts land custodianship in

the hands of paramount chiefs, who in most cases reside in towns and cities far from the forest

areas. Though forest fringe communities may have their own local leaders, these leaders (who

may be migrants) do not own the land and therefore cannot own the forests on them. This

could be a setback to complete devolution of control over forest areas to local communities.

One other has to do with the high heterogeneity of local communities, which is known not to

auger well for effective communal resource management (Ostrom, 1999). The large size of

the reserved forests also raises questions on the ability of communities to effectively manage

these forests if they are given the opportunity. Finally, the perception of the forest-fringe

communities themselves concerning communal management of forest resources needs to be

assessed. This is necessary because communal forest management tend to be more effective

when they are locally generated and not externally motivated. Thus, the willingness of

communities to manage their forests sustainably and their perceived ability to do so have to

29

be assessed and appropriately dealt with for complete devolution of control over areas to yield

the desired results.

It is accordingly recommended that further research be conducted into the future possibility of

transferring complete control over forest areas to local communities in Ghana.

30

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Environmental entitlement framework (Leach et al., 1997)

Appendix 2: Cases of participatory forest management examined

Passive participationCase Ownership/

controlRemarks Sources

Joint ForestManagement,India

State Full potential not realised, Forestry Departmentdominating Village Forest Committees insteadof facilitating them (Mohanty, 2000; Ogra,2000). Approach working against women andthe marginalised; becoming clear that thisapproach is not an effective model forempowerment of forest dependentcommunities; locals losing hope in approach;approach under the control of the ForestryDepartment, local elites and their wives (Ogra,

Mohanty(2000),MalhotraandPoffemberger (eds)(1989),Ogra (2000)

31

2000); women being passive members ofVillage Forest Committees (Mohanty, 2000;Ogra, 2000), job provision the main incentivefor participation of local people and not thelong-term sustainability of forests (Mohanty,2000)

Collaborativeforestmanagementin the TeraiRegion ofNepal

State Communities allowed access to only non-commercial forest products; supporters ofcommunity forestry against this development asthey see it as attempts of the government to takecontrol over high value forest resources ofTerai; basis of benefit sharing not pragmatic;roles not very defined; the District ForestOffice holding the major decision makingpower; mechanism for effective participation ofdistant and less privileged groups not clear

Keshav(2006),Uprety(2004)

Joint forestmanagementin Tanzania

State Uncertainties over cost and benefit sharingbetween state forestry agency and local peoplei.e. no signed agreement; decrease inencroachment and illegal activities due topolicing roles by communities (FBKD, 2006);income generation the main incentive for localpeople’s participation; very little positiveimpact on forests (Louga et al., 2006)

BromleyandRamadhani(2005),FBKD(2006),Louga et al.(2006)

Participatoryforestmanagementin the MpigiDistrict ofUganda

State Forestry Department dominance with tokencommunity representation i.e. local peopleacting as collaborants of forestprotection/restoration roles determined by theForestry Department (Gombya-Ssembajjweand Banana, 1999), community involvement inforest management limited to only smalldegraded and economically unviable forests;degradation is higher in the more remote areasof the district most probably due to inability andunwillingness of village and parish forestcommittees to devote time and effort tosustainable forest management in view of littlemotivation from the Forestry Department, forestrevenues being retained at the districts andfailing to trickle down to the village (Banana etal., 2002; Banana et al., 2004)

Wily andMbaya(2001),Gombya-Ssembajjweand Banana(1999),Banana etal. (2002),Banana etal. (2004)

Participatoryforestmanagementin the IvoryCoast

Communitytenure

State forestry agency collaborating with localcommunities purposely to enable restoration ofdegraded forest areas to be achieved at lowcost. Community representatives made toendorse forest use plans drawn up by

Ibo andLeonard(1997)

32

SODEFOR (the administrative departmentresponsible for reforestation). Theserepresentatives happen to be politically inclinedlocal elites and chiefs who are not able torepresent the interest of the wider community.Partnership gets community representatives toaccept policies that exclude the communityfrom forest management but presented underthe cloak of participatory forest management.Approach proving very expensive - vehicles,personnel, which has negative implications forthe forest since the idea is that ‘the forest mustfinance the forest’

The taungyareforestationsystem,Indonesia

State Narrow policy initiative to make loggingcompanies share some of the income fromplantation harvesting with communities;communities as passive recipients/contributorsof labour in forest management activities(CBMPCF, 2000); Forest Farmer groupsallocated portions of degraded forests(renewable yearly) to grow crops between rowsof planted trees so that they nurture the treeswhile cropping on the land; The state forestryagency (Perhutani) retaining ownership/controlover the forest lands; increase in timber standsbut difficulty in recruiting poor farmers; forestencroachment rampant over the years; newproposals for more genuine partnership whichwill allow communities to play greater rolesforestry decision making and to be able toexploit and sell timber; this proposal howeverfacing opposition from mainstream Perhutaniadministration

CBMPCFP(2000)

Partial DevolutionCase Ownership/

controlRemarks Sources

Communityforestry inCameroon

Community(oncontract)

Community groups have to go through lengthyapplication processes for community forests;few successful applications; community groupsusing all kinds of fake means to get theirapplications through (including fictitiousmembers and contracting out applicationprocesses to individuals for a fee i.e.community groups ignorant of terms of contractand documents governing community forests;little engagement with the wider communityand traditional authority; desire to reap financialbenefits the main incentive for application

Djeumo(2001),Gardner etal., (2001)

33

rather than a desire to develop/sustainablymanage community forests, hence applicationscoming from only areas with forests in goodcondition and where financial support isavailable (from conservation projects or timbercontractors); timber contractors interested infunding applications because they seecommunity forests as relatively easy-reachsupply of timber (Djeumo , 2001); an exceptionis the communal management of the Kilum-Ijimforest, where the communities surrounding theforest and the push for the initiative (BirdLifeInternational) both have a common interest inforest conservation, rather than timberexploitation; there are in place local rules onforest use that are being strongly enforced(Lindayati, 2000)

Peasantparticipationinreforestationin fourcommunities(Ccollana-Chequerec,Ccorao,Equecco-Chacán andCompone) ofPeru

Community Plantation establishment on communal lands;community members not in favour ofcommunal plantations due to competition withfarming land; they rather prefer landdistribution to individual farmers andintegration of tree planting with crop farming;village assemblies in favour because they see itas means of securing lands previously understate control; long and bureaucratic process ingranting rights to communities to exploit theirplantations; community members cannot accessforest for their wood needs; logging contractshave to be given to timber contractors, whichsometimes proves unfavourable forcommunities; these businessmen buy polescheaply and sell them back to communitymembers for profit; communities to pay 30% ofrevenue to the Forestry Department; womenand the less privileged losing out because theyhave to sacrifice potential arable and pasturelands for community plantations and gainnothing in return

Vizarreta(1993)

Thecommunityforestconcessionsof Peten,Guatemala

Community(oncontract)

Community groups granted control over themanagement and exploitation of forests inaccordance to management plans approved bystate forestry agency; overdue emphasis ontimber exploitation; the logic is to allowcommunities benefit from their forests whileensuring sustainability; a community had itsapplication refused because plan concentratedon NTFP extraction and not timber extraction;social and environmental impacts of logging nottaken into account; sense of tenure insecurity as

WRF(2000),Reining etal. (1998)

34

communities may lose their concession rights ifthey go contrary to plan; assisting NGOssometimes seeking their own interests (WRF,2000); delay in the processing of applications;concessions facing external pressures, includingillegal logging, land clearing and wildlifepoaching; many of the groups carrying outthese illegal activities having ties with powerfuleconomic and political interests; communitieshaving limited capacity to counter these threats(Reining et al.,1998)

Community-based forestmanagement,Philippines

Community(oncontract)

Community-based forest managementprogramme under the control of the Departmentof Environment and Natural Resources(DENR); communities granted managementrights over portions of forest under a 25-yearcontract, renewable for another 25 years;responsibilities of the communities (representedby the People’s Organizations’) includeplanning, implementation, monitoring andevaluation of all activities in accordance withagreed upon community-based forestmanagement framework and a five-year workplan geared towards promoting the sustainablemanagement of the community-based forestmanagement area; the DENR entitled to 30%of the revenue from the harvest of plantationsestablished with state funding; CBFMcontributing to improvement in forest conditionbut there are issues with equitable benefitsharing at the local level; impacts morepronounced in areas where there is externalfunding; the DENR reluctant to grant resourceuse rights to community groups (People’sOrganisations)

Pulhin et al.,(2005)

Community-based forestmanagementin Indonesia

Community(oncontract)

The central government has given autonomyover forest management to districts; districtoffices issue out one-year concessions tocommunities to exploit their timber i.e. thebasis of partnership is to allow communities toexploit their timber; community leaders andother elites taking up concessions and sub-contracting them to timber companies to carryout logging, defying original aim of timberharvesting through the use of chainsaw and logextraction using low technology pulley tominimise logging damage to forests; limitedengagement and benefit to the widercommunity; the central government has nowsuspended this concession system due to

Chan(2003)

Lindayati(2000)

35

massive exploitation that could not beaccounted for; the placing of monetary vale onforests influenced people’s relationship withforests; conflicts with neighbouringcommunities over extents of forests

Complete devolutionCase Ownership/

controlRemarks Sources

Thecommunityforests ofEast NewBritain,Papua NewGuinea

Community Village groups (clans), comprising of about 100households, exercising exclusive control overtheir forests, ranging between 5,000 and 20,000ha; they sell out timber rights to commercialloggers, who pay less than ideal for what theyexploit; they ‘mine’ the forest often in violationof existing forestry regulations, then move toanother clan forest; there are new attempts toenable community groups exploit foreststhemselves; though this new initiative facestechnical challenges, financial problems andproblem with equitable benefit sharing, it offersmore room for sustainable forest management

Salafsky etal. (1997),Glen (1993)

Communityforestry,Nepal

State Communities (Panchayats) are granted existingforest blocks (to a maximum of 500 ha) tomanage and exploit with 25% of revenue goingto the Forestry Department; local Panchayatscould also be granted portions of degraded statelands (to a maximum of 125 ha) to reforest withgovernment assistance, in which case all therevenue that accrue go to the community(Bhattarai and Campbell, 1985); initiativeresulting in forest restoration, better socialmobilisation and income generation for ruraldevelopment (Keshav, 2006)

Keshav(2006),BhattaraiandCampbell(1985)

Community-based forestmanagement,Tanzania

Community Takes place on community forestlands that havebeen surveyed and registered under provisionsof the Village Land Act (1999); fullmanagement responsibility in the hands ofvillage councils; villages protect and exploittheir forests and are not obliged to remit anyportion of forest revenues to the central or localgovernment; benefits include improvement inforest condition, decease in illegal activities anddecrease in wildfire occurrence; challengesinclude limited funds and problems fromincreasing wildlife populations; scepticism onthe part of the Forestry Department on theability of the fragile village-level institutions totake charge of transactions that will come with

BromleyandRamadhani(2005),FBKD(2006),Wily (1995)

36

exploitation of the good stands of forest; TheForestry Department not willing to collaboratewith NGOs working to develop the capacity oflocal people in forest management (Bromleyand Ramadhani, 2005; FBKD, 2006); thoughapproach is radical and risky, Willy (1995)contends it is the essence of the way forward;success contracts sharply with the expensivedonor-driven processes through which statespromote carefully-defined joint forestmanagement arrangements where state agenciesretain decision-making roles and communitiesassume implicitly rationed roles; factorsaccounting for success include the perception offorest ownership and the desire of communitiesto prove that they are capable of managing theirforests; communities have fears that thegovernment would want to take over forestsonce they have been rehabilitated (Wily, 1995)

Community-basedmanagementof the Ekuriforest,Nigeria

Community Forest management entirely in the hands oflocal people; the Forestry Department plays atraining/advisory role; communities undertakelogging in line with plans prepared after a forestinventory; the Ekuri Initiative, having beenregistered as an NGO, has been successful atkeeping the Ekuri forest in good condition; thecommunity undertakes exploitation on theirown, using low technology (chainsaw) andlabour-intensive methods; one problem isinability to produce wood of very high qualitystandard (that can meet requirements of theinternational timber market); the EkuriInitiative won an Equator Prize in 2004; It hassupport from the Ford Foundation

IrokoFoundation(undated),EquatorInitiative(2004)

The EjidoForests ofSouth-EastMexico

Community 10 Ejidos (productive groupings of people whoshare untransferable land ownership) comprisethe Plan Piloto Forestal (Pilot Forest Plan) ofQuintana Roo, South-East Mexico. Following aperiod of unsustainable logging by a loggingcompany using state-issued permit, the Ejidosrequested that the state forestry authority(Secretariat of Agriculture and WaterResources) grants them control over theirforests; German GTZ provided technical andfinancial assistance; the Ejidos were trained invarious aspects of forest management; the stateforestry authority only provides technicalassistance; control over forest management,exploitation and marketing lies with the GeneralAssemblies of the Ejidos; Ejido dependence on

Richards(1992)

37

GTZ going down; promotion of secondarytimber species; the state forestry authority nowconvinced that this alternative to centralisedforest management could work; the Ejidos havein place very organised forest managementsystems; low cost of forest management,income generation for rural development;though there are challenges (e.g. bribery bysome community leaders and overestimation ofAnnual Allowable Cut leading tooverexploitation of Mahogany in certainplaces), forest management by the Ejidos offermore room for sustainable forest managementthan centralised management, factorsaccounting for success include tenure security,the creation of autonomous and flexibleinstitutional structures, a marketing strategywhich views the forest as the basics ofcapitalisation and industrial development ratherthan as an opportunity to supply an alreadyexisting market, an appropriate policyenvironment, low paternalism and high qualityof technical assistance

Community-basedmanagementof theAdaba-Dodola forest(the WAJIBapproach),Ethiopia

Community The WAJIB7 approach was born as out of aparticipatory process to find a more sustainablealternative to centralised forest management ofthe Adaba-Dodola forest; village forests dividedinto blocks of average size 360 ha, each to bemanaged by a WAJIB group; each WAJIB(consisting of not more than 30 households) hasits own by-laws governing forest use andprotection; the state forest administration onlyprovides technical advise to the WAJIB groupson how to develop and exploit the forest onsustainable basis; positive results experiencedin terms of participation, transparency, equity,effectiveness and efficiency; the approach hashelped strengthen civil society and localgovernance; there has been an improvement inforest cover and the state forestryadministration is convinced that the forestdwellers are committed to sustainably managetheir forests; WAJIB user groups pay annualrent for the forest rights granted them; part ofthis rent is kept with the village administrationto support village development efforts

Amente andTadesse(2004),Kubsa et al.(undated)

7 WAJIB [Waldayaa Jiraatoota Bosonaa]: forest dwellers association in local language

38

REFERENCES

Aggarwal, S. 2006 Community Forestry in Transition: Sixty Years of Experience inthe Indian Central Himalayas, Presented at the Eleventh Conference of theInternational Association for the Study of Common Property, Bali, Indonesia, 19-23June 2006, dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/archive/00001817/00/AggarwalSafiaCommunity.Pdf,accessed on 25/05/07

Agyeman V. K., Marfo K. A., Kasanga K. R., Danso E., Asare A. B., Yeboah O. M.and Agyeman F. 2003 ‘Revising the Taungya Plantation System: New Revenue-Sharing Proposals from Ghana’ Unasylva, Vol. 54 (212), 40-43

Amanor K. S. 2003 Natural and Cultural Assets and Participatory ForestManagement in West Africa, Conference Paper presented at the InternationalConference on Natural Assets, January 2003, The Philippines,www.wrm.org.uy/countries/Africa/west.pdf accessed on 16/04/2007

Amanor K. S. and Brown D. 2003 ‘Making Environmental Management MoreResponsive to Local Needs: Decentralisation and Evidence-Based Policy in Ghana’,ODI Forestry Briefing Number 3

Amente G. and Tadesse T. 2004 The Contributions of Participatory ForestManagement (PFM) towards Good Governance: the Case of WAJIB Approach inEthiopia, ODI, http://www.odi.org.uk/fpeg/publications/greyliterature/articipatory%20forest%20management/Amente&Tadesse/index.html, accessed on 15/05/07

Amoako-Nuamah C. 2000 Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration Towards SustainableForest Management: the Challenge for the New Millennium, Paper presented at theInaugural and Training Workshop for Community Forest Committees, Kumasi,Ghana, 8-9 April 2000

Arnold J. E. M. 1992 Community Forestry: Ten Years in Review, Rome: FAO

Asare A. 2000a Operational Guidelines on Community Forest (Management)Committees, Kumasi: Resource Management Support Centre

Asare A. 2000b The Concept and Role of Forest Committees, Paper presented at theInaugural and Training Workshop for Community Forest Committees, Kumasi,Ghana, 8-9 April 2000

Banana Y. A, Gombya-Ssembajjwe W. S. and Bahati J. 2002 Decentralization ofForestry Resources in Uganda: Realities or Rhetoric?, http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/archive/00000788/, accessed on 16/05/07

Banana Y. A., Vogt N. D., Gombya-Ssembajjwe W. S., and Bahati J. 2004 LocalGovernance and Forest Conditions: The Case of Forests in Mpigi District of Uganda,Presented at the Tenth Conference of the International Association for the Study of

39

Common Property, Oaxaca, Mexico, 9-13 August 2004, dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/archive/00001552/00/BananaLocal_040420_Paper 348a.pdf, accessed on 16/05/07

Bhattarai N. T. and Campbell G. J. 1985 ‘Monitoring and Evaluation of CommunityForestry Projects in Nepal’, FAO Forestry Paper 60, 31-102

Brenya N. A. 2005 The Role of Community Forest Committees in ForestManagement, BSc. Dissertation, Faculty of Renewable Natural Resources, KwameNkrumah University of Science and Technology, Ghana

Bromley T. and Ramadhani H. 2005 Participatory Forest Management in Tanzania:Lessons Learned, www.fao.org/Participation/PFMTanzania-lesson.html, accessed on09/05/07

CBMPCFP 2000 Annual Technical Report (January-December 2000), drinfo.idrc.ca/archive/corpdocs/117582/COMMUN.PDF, accessed on 15/05/07

Chakraborty N. R. 2001 ‘Problems of Intra and Inter-Group Equity in CommunityForestry: Evidence from Terai Region of Nepal’ in Vira B. and Jeffery R. (eds)Conflict and Cooperation in Participatory Natural Resource Management, PalgravePublishers Ltd., 129-149

Chan H. 2003 The Crisis of the Commons: Three Case Studies in Indonesia, Malaysiaand Thailand, http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/archive/00001100/, accessed on 17/05/07

Clayton E. 1985 ‘Monitoring and Evaluation of Participatory Forestry Projects’, FAOForestry Paper 60, 1-30

Conroy C., Mishra A., Rai A., Singh M. N., and Chan M. 2001 ‘Conflicts AffectingParticipatory Forest Management: Their Nature and Implications’ in Vira B. andJeffrey R. (eds), Analytical Issues in Participatory Natural Resource Management,London: Palgrave Publishers Ltd., 165-184

CRMU 2004 Status Report on Development of Forestry Forum, RMSC, ForestryCommission, Ghana

CRMU 2005 Evaluation Report on Participatory Forest Management Project of theForestry Commission, Forestry Commission, Ghana

CRMU 2007 Update Report on the Collaborative Resource Management Programmeof the Forestry Commission, Ghana

Djeumo A. 2001 ‘The Development of Community Forestry in Cameroon: Origin,Current Situation and Constraints’, Rural Development Forestry Network Paper 25b,London: ODI, 1-16

Equator Initiative 2004 Equator Prize 2004, http://www.equatorinitiative.net/content.lasso?cid=157, accessed on 09/05/07

40

FBKD 2006 Participatory Forest Management in Tanzania: Facts and Figures,http://www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/Wkggrp/TILCEPA/CCA%20legislations/Leaflet%20on%20pfm%20status.p, accessed on 22/04/07

FD 2000 Report on Inaugural and Training Workshop for Community ForestCommittees, Kumasi, Ghana, 8-9 April, 2000

Forest Watch Ghana 2006 Forest Governance in Ghana: An NGO Perspective,www.fern.org/media/documents/document36433644.pdf, accessed on 20/02/07

Gardner A., Demarco J. and Asanga A. 2001 ‘A Conservation Partnership:Community Forestry at Kilum-Ijim, Cameroon’, Rural Development ForestryNetwork Paper 25h, London: ODI, 9-16

Geiser U. 2001 ‘To Participate with Whom, for What (and against Whom): ForestFringe Management Along the Western Ghats in Southern Kerala’ in Vira B. andJeffrey R. (eds), Analytical Issues in Participatory Natural Resource Management,Palgrave Publishers Ltd., 19-36

Glen B. 1993 Papua New Guinea: East New Britain Logging Tragedy,http://nativenet.uthscsa.edu/ archive/nl/9309/0011.html, accessed on 21/05/07

Gombya-Ssembajjwe W. S. and Banana Y. A. 1999 ‘Community Participation inForest Management: The Case of Buto-buvumaForest Reserve, Mpigi District,Uganda’, in FAO (ed) Participatory Forest Management: a Strategy for SustainableForest Management in Africa, Proceedings of the International Workshop onCommunity Forestry in Africa, 26-30 April 1999 Banjul, the Gambia, 63-70

Hardin G. 1968, ‘The Tragedy of the Commons’, Science Vol. 162, 1243-1248

Ibo J. and Leonard E. 1997 Forests, Farmers and the State: Participatory ForestManagement in the Ivory Coast, London: IIED

Ingles A. W., Musch A. and Qist-Hoffmann H. 1999 The Participatory Process forSupporting Collaborative Management of Natural Resources: An overview. Rome:FAO

Iroko Foundation (undated) Sustainable Management of the Ekuri Forests by theEkuri Community, Nigeria, http://www.irokofoundation.org/pages/ekuri.html,accessed on 09/05/07

ITTO 2005 Status of Tropical Forest Management: Ghana, http://www.itto.or.jp/,accessed on 18/04/2007

Kerkhof P. 2001 ‘Local Management of Sahelian Forests’ in Vira B. and Jeffery R.(eds) Conflict and Cooperation in Participatory Natural Resource Management,Palgrave Publishers Ltd., 99-112

41

Keshav R. K. 2006 Current Status of Community Forestry in Nepal,www.forestrynepal.org/current-status-of-community-forestry-in-nepal, accessed on07/05/07

Kotey N. A., Francois J., Owusu J. G. K., Yeboah R., Amanor K. S., Antwi L. 1998,Falling Into Place: Policy that Works for Forests and People, Nottingham: RussellPress

Kubsa A., Mariame A., Amente G., Lipp H. and Tsegaye T. (undated) Wajib: AnAlternative Forest Conservation Approach for Ethiopia's Forests,http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/ARTICLE/WFC/XII/0145-C2.HTM, accessed on21/05/07Larson M. A. 2004 Democratic Decentralisation in the Forestry Sector: LessonsLearned from Africa, Asia and Latin America, www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/pdf_files/interlaken/AnneLarson.pdf, accessed on 12/07/07

Leach M., Mearns R. and Scoones I. 1997 ‘Environmental Entitlements: AFramework for Understanding the Institutional Dynamics of Climate Change’, IDSDiscussion Paper 359

Lindayati R. 2000 ‘Community Forestry Policies in Selected Southeast AsianCountries’, IDRC Rural Poverty and Environment Working Paper 6, Ottawa: IDRC,http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-82086-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html, accessed on 18/05/07

Luoga, E. J., Kajembe, G. C. and Mohamed B. S. 2006 Impact of Joint ForestManagement on Handeni Hill Forest Reserve and Adjacent Communities in Tanga,Tanzania, Presented at the Eleventh Conference of the International Association forthe Study of Common Property, Bali, Indonesia, 19-23 June 2006,http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/archive/00001956/, accessed on 17/05/07

Luttrell C., Schreckenberg K., Thassim L. and Moss C. 2005 Participatory ForestManagement and Poverty Reduction: A Review of the Evidence,http://www.odi.org.uk/fpeg/activities/environmental_governance/SO137/impact.html,accessed on 18/04/2007

Malhotra K. C. and Poffemberger M. (eds) 1989 Forest Regeneration ThroughCommunity Protection: The West Bengal Experience, http://www.odi.org.uk/fpeg/publications/greyliterature/joint%20forest%20management/Malhotra/index.html,accessed on 15/05/07

Mohanty R. 2000 ‘Institutional Dynamics and Participatory Spaces: The Making andUnmaking of Participation in Local Forest Management in India’, IDS Bulletin, Vol. 3(9), 26-32

Neefjes K. 2001 ‘Learning from Participatory Environmental Impact Assessment ofCommunity Centred Development: The Oxfam Experience’ in Vira B. and Jeffrey R.(eds), Analytical Issues in Participatory Natural Resource Management, London:Palgrave Publishers Ltd., 111-127

42

Ogra, M. V. 2000 Who's Participating in 'Participatory' Forestry? The Promise andPitfalls of the Joint Forest Management (JFM) Model in India, Presented at theEighth Conference of the International Association for the Study of CommonProperty, Bloomington, Indiana, USA, May 31-June 4 2000, http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/archive/00000318/ accessed on 17/05/07

Osei-Kwarteng E. 2004 Forest Stakeholders Perceptions on the Activities ofCommunity Forest Committees , BSc. Dissertation, Faculty of Renewable NaturalResources, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Ghana

Ostrom E. 1999 Self-Governance and Forest Resources, CIFOR Occasional PaperNo. 20

Pretty J. 1994 ‘Alternative Systems of Enquiry for Sustainable Agriculture’, IDSBulletin, Vol. 25 (2). 37-48

Pulhin M. J., Amaro Jr. C. M. and Bacalla D. 2005 Philippines Community-BasedForest Management, www.recoftc.org/site/fileadmin/docs/ publications/TheGreyZone/2006/CFForum/policyphilippines.pdf, accessed on 16/05/07

Reining C, Soza C., Flynn S., Contreras .J, Cozo A. and Mancilla M. 1998Community Forest Concessions, Institutional Reform, and Access to TraditionalResource Rights: The Case of Carmelita and the Maya Biosphere Reserve Petén,Guatemala, The World Bank/WBI’s CBNRM Initiative, http://srdis.ciesin.columbia.edu/cases/guatemala-006.html, accessed on 13/05/07

Richards E. M. 1992 ‘The Forest Ejidos of South-East Mexico: A Case Study ofParticipatory Natural Forest Management’, Rural Development Forestry NetworkPaper 13C, London: ODI

RMSC 2004 Report on a Workshop on Participatory Forest Management in Ghana,18-23 February 2004

RMSC 2005 Report on Training and Inauguration of a Community ForestCommittee, Akyiaakrom, Ghana, 13 May 2005

Salafsky N., Cordes B., Leighton M., Henderson M., Walt W. and Cherry R. 1997‘Chainsaw as a Tool for Conservation: A Comparison of Community-Based TimberProduction Enterprises in Papua New Guinea and Indonesia’, Rural DevelopmentForestry Network Paper 22b, London: ODI

Santhukumar V. 2001 ‘Analysing Failed Participation with the Perspective of NewInstitutional Economics’ in Vira B. and Jeffrey R. (eds), Analytical Issues inParticipatory Natural Resource Management, Palgrave Publishers Ltd., 247-265

Sen A. 1981 Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation,Oxford: Claredon Press

Sheffy J. 2005 Attempts at Participatory Forest Management in the Ghana-TogoHighlands, M.Sc. Thesis, The University of Montana

43

Sodeik E. 1998 ‘Designing Participatory Strategies for Forest Projects in West Africa:Two Cases in Benin’, ODI Rural Forestry Network Paper 24e, 1-10

The 1994 Forest and Wildlife Policy of Ghana, http://www.fcghana.com/publications/forestywildlife_policy/index.html, accessed on 27/04/07

Thompson T. 1992 A Framework for Analyzing Institutional Incentives in CommunityForestry, Rome: FAO

Uprety D. R. 2004 Peasants’ Livelihoods and Community Forest: An Example fromNepal, www.livelihoods.org/lessons/docs/LFP_uprety.doc, accessed on 21/05/07

Vira B. 1999 ‘Implementing Joint Forest Management in the Field: Towards anUnderstanding of the Community-Bureaucracy Interface’ in Jeffery R. (ed)Discourses of Community and Participation, New Dehli: Sage Publications, 255-275

Vira B. and Jeffery R. (eds) 2001a Analytical Issues in Participatory NaturalResource Management, London: Palgrave Publishers Ltd.

Vira B. and Jeffery R. (eds) 2001b Conflict and Cooperation in Participatory NaturalResource Management, London: Palgrave Publishers Ltd.

Vizarreta L. ‘1993 Peasant Participation in Community Reforestation: FourCommunities in the Department of Cuzco, Peru’, Community Forestry Case StudySeries 7, FAO, http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/u9095e/u9095e00.htm, accessed on18/05/07

Wily A. L. 2002 ‘Participatory Forest Management in Africa: An Overview ofProgress and Issues’ in FAO (ed) Defining the Way Forward: Sustainable Livelihoodsand Sustainable Forest Management Through Participatory Forestry, SecondInternational Workshop on Participatory Forestry in Africa, Arusha, United Republicof Tanzania 18-22 February 2002, 31-58

Wily A. L. and Mbaya S. 2001 Land, Forests and People of Eastern and CentralAfrica at the Beginning of the 21st Century: The Impact of Land Relations on the Roleof Communities in Forest Future, IUCN Eastern Africa Programme,http://www.app.iucn.org/dbtwn-wpd/edocs/2000-019-07-pdf, accessed on 11/05/07

Wily A. L. 1995 Establishing the First Village-Owned and Managed Forest Reserves-Duru- Haitemba, Tanzania, http://www.odi.org.uk/fpeg/publications/greyliterature/Participatory%20forest%20management/Wily1995/index.html, accessed on 25/05/07

WRM 2000 ‘Guatemala: Community Forest Concessions Initiative at PetenQuestioned’, WRM Bulletin No 40, http://www.wrm.org.uy/bulletin/40/Guatemala/htm, accessed on 18/05/07