International Journal of Sustainable Development &
World Ecology
ISSN: 1350-4509 (Print) 1745-2627 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsdw20
Community participation in the management of
forest reserves in the Northern Region of Ghana
Rikiatu Husseini, Stephen B. Kendie & Patrick Agbesinyale
To cite this article: Rikiatu Husseini, Stephen B. Kendie & Patrick Agbesinyale (2016)
Community participation in the management of forest reserves in the Northern Region of
Ghana, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 23:3, 245-256, DOI:
10.1080/13504509.2015.1112858
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2015.1112858
Published online: 22 Dec 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 780
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 7 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsdw20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & WORLD ECOLOGY, 2016
VOL. 23, NO. 3, 245–256
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2015.1112858
Community participation in the management of forest reserves in the
Northern Region of Ghana
Rikiatu Husseinia, Stephen B. Kendieb and Patrick Agbesinyaleb
a
Department of Forestry and Forest Resources Management, Faculty of Renewable Natural Resources, University for Development
Studies, Tamale, Ghana; bInstitute for Development Studies, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana
ABSTRACT
ARTICLE HISTORY
The 1994 forest and wildlife policy of Ghana provides the basis for community participation in
forest management through participatory forest management. Even though forest reserves in
the Northern Region are said to be managed collaboratively, fringe communities are supposedly involved only in maintenance activities of the reserve boundaries and seedling planting
in plantation programmes. The forest reserves are said to be threatened by illegal activities
from the fringe communities. This study therefore examined the nature of community
participation in the management of forest reserves.
It is a mixed method research in which structured interview schedule, in-depth interview
and focus group discussion guides were used for data collection. Respondents comprised
community members, forestry staff and NGOs. Communities’ participation was found to be
passive and tokenistic and limited to boundary cleaning and providing labour on plantations.
There is no formal collaboration between communities and Forest Services Division. Prospects
to communities’ participation lie in the continuous flow of benefits and their active involvement in management decisions. Active involvement of communities in all decision-making
processes, capacity building of communities and forestry staff, incentive schemes and awareness creation are recommended for promoting community participation in managing forest
reserves in Northern Region.
Received 29 August 2015
Accepted 19 October 2015
Introduction
The relationship between humanity and forest can be
said to be an interdependent one in that the continuous existence of the former depends upon the continuous production of resources and services by the
latter. For the relationship to be sustainable, it must
be a mutual one. Thus, our existence in an economical, quality and sustainable environment depends on
how we harness and utilize the forest and other natural resources around (Jhingan 1997).
If development is about change in the quality of
living as affirmed by Kendie and Martens (2008), then
the sustainability of that change will depend on how
the drivers of that change are managed. Invariably,
since individuals in society are the beneficiaries of
natural resources, their rational actions, collectively
or individually, may affect the sustainability of these
resources. Also, because social actions are rationally
motivated, individuals will make decisions about how
they should act by comparing the cost and benefits of
the different courses of action depending on how
informed they are about conditions under which
they are acting (Scott 2000a). As such, behaviour
patterns will develop within societies that result
from these actions. Similarly, if natural resource users
CONTACT Rikiatu Husseini
© 2015 Taylor & Francis
rikihuss@yahoo.com
KEYWORDS
Community participation;
forest reserves collaborative
management; sustainability;
Northern Region
are informed about the constraints of their resources
by involving them in management, they will be mindful of the means of acquiring them. Participation thus
makes development plans more reflective of the
needs of local people and makes them feel more
connected in the development process (Kendie &
Martens 2008).
Forest reserves are perennially vegetated areas
for either protective or productive functions
(Ghana Forestry Department 1962). They provide
reference sites for objective assessment of the sustainability of management practices (Walter &
Holling 1990). In many African countries, forest
reserves are sources of non-wood forest products
which play a crucial role in the daily life and welfare
of local people, as significant sources of food and
fodder among others (FAO 1995). Timber is the
fourth contributor to Ghana’s foreign exchange
earnings (Marfo 2010). In the Northern Region of
Ghana, forest reserves, abandoned farms and fallow
lands form the major sources for shea nuts, a major
economic crop for women (Blench 2006).
Forest reserves in Ghana cover an area of 25,594
km2, spreading across the high forest in the south to
the Savannah woodland in the north (FC 2003). There
246
R. HUSSEINI ET AL.
are approximately 280 forest reserves in Ghana today,
of which 214 are in the high-forest zone and 66 in the
northern Savannah zone (Nsenkyire 1999). Of the 66
forest reserves, covering 880,600 ha in Northern
Ghana, 24 (Djagbletey 2010) are in the Northern
Region while 16 and 26 are in the Upper East and
Upper West regions, respectively (Nsenkyire 1999).
Over the years, the world’s forests have been under
serious threat of deforestation. A Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO 2011) report indicated
an alarming rate of deforestation with global loss of
around 13 million hectares of forest yearly in the last
decade (2000–2010). The report indicated that Africa
has the second highest rate of deforestation worldwide at 3.4 million hectares annually. Ghana’s total
forest cover which stood at 8.2 million hectares at the
turn of the twentieth century has decreased to about
1.6 million hectares (Marfo 2010).
The dwindling state of Ghana’s forest resources
has been blamed on direct factors such as agriculture, urbanization, mining, illegal logging, population
increase, forest fires and fuel–wood consumption
(FAO 2001; Marfo 2010; Dartey 2014) while the
underlying causes are reported to be related to lack
of stakeholder participation in the formulation and
implementation of forest policy, the nature of the
policy itself, weak enforcement of existing legislation,
government fiscal policies, and poverty (FAO 2001;
Dartey 2014). These fundamental causes are what
the 1994 forest and wildlife policy seeks to eliminate.
An important guiding principle of the current policy
is that it recognizes and confirms the importance of
local people in pursuing all other guiding principles
of the policy, and therefore proposes to place
emphasis on the concept of participatory management and protection of forest and wildlife resources
and to develop appropriate strategies, in consultation with relevant agencies, rural communities and
individuals (FC 1994). Under the participatory management goals of the 1994 Forest policy fringe communities are expected to participate in decisionmaking for the productive management and protection of reserves through plantation development,
establishment of firebreaks, cultivation of NWFPs,
boundary maintenance and research programmes
(Boakye & Baffoe 2010).
Over the years several operations have been
revised by the FC to help achieve equitable sharing
of benefits and improved efficiency in management
mainly in Southern Ghana through plantation development programmes and community livelihood
initiatives (FC 2007). In spite of these efforts, there
remain some challenges. In Southern Ghana, the
roles of the community forest committees (CFCs)
have been reduced to boundary maintenance and
facilitation of social responsibility agreements with
timber concessionaires. In essence, communities are
providing labour rather than participating in management planning (Amanor 2003). Unfortunately,
apart from the two wildlife protected areas selected
for the Northern Savannah Biodiversity Conservation
Programme (NSBCP), CFCs seem not to exist in the
timber-poor Northern Region of Ghana. Meanwhile,
per the 1994 forest policy, the Natural resources
management
project
under
the
Forestry
Development Master Plan for 1996–2020 had the
Savanna Resource Management Project as a component designed to ensure re-establishment of local
communities as primary clients of the Forest
Services Division (FSD), and ensure equitable management of reserves in more efficient and socially
sustainable ways (FC 2007).
Yet, over 20 years after the adoption of the policy,
the Savannah woodland reserves are still battling with
encroachment and other illegal activities from the
very people who are supposed to be helping in managing the reserves (Djagbletey 2010). Although forest
reserves in the north are said to be managed collaboratively, the nature of communities’ involvement in
management activities is not known. Therefore, the
study was undertaken to
(1) establish the stakeholders in the National
Forest Plantation Programme in the Northern
Region of Ghana;
(2) determine the forest management practices in
the reserves;
(3) establish the nature of community participation
in the management of forest reserves.
Typologies and levels of community
participation
Typologies and indicators of community participation
are devised depending on the nature of the activity
and the responsibilities of the people involved.
Among the popular ones are Arnstein’s (1969) ladder
of participation and Pretty’s (1995) participation
model.
Arnstein’s (1969) ladder of participation (Figure 1)
puts emphasizes on the extent to which citizens are
empowered through participation. The outcome of
her gradation is three main levels of ‘access to
power’ with eight sub-levels or rungs: (1) non- participation, (2) tokenism and (3) citizen power.
Pretty (1995) provided typologies of participation
and characteristics in relation to conservation. His
emphasis is on power and control. The outcome is
seven types or rungs. These are as follows: (1) passive
participation, (2) participation in information giving
(3) consultation, (4) participation for material incentives, (5) functional participation, (6) interactive participation and (7) self-mobilization. Pretty (1995)
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & WORLD ECOLOGY
Figure 1. Ladder of participation.
Source: Arnstein (1969).
termed the first four rungs as levels of non-participation, rung 5 as low participation level and rungs 6 and
7 as full participation levels. Similar classification has
been made by Johnston (1982). The study was thus
guided by the typologies of participation by Pretty
(1995), Johnston (1982) and Arnstein (1969) to assess
the level and extent of community participation in the
management of forest reserves.
247
theories (Donaldson & Preston 1995). Collective action
is action by more than one person directed towards
the achievement of a common good or the satisfaction of a common interest. Success in managing a
collective good depends on how the groups are able
to organize and govern their behaviour in solving
commitment problems and monitoring individual
compliance with sets of rules, which also depends
on the rational choices made by the individuals in
the group. Understanding the behaviour patterns of
individuals in a community is thus a key to their
ability to act collectively. The rational choice theory
assumes that individuals will contribute to a collective
action only if their individual expected benefits
exceed their expected costs. Invariably, factors such
as characteristics of the group or individuals, and the
value each individual places on the resources by
weighing the likely benefits and cost of their actions
are key to achieving a common good. Understanding
the interests and values of individuals in a group or
society is therefore paramount to getting their support for collective action. Therefore, the study was
also guided by the stakeholder theory by Donaldson
and Preston (1995), which asserts that every legitimate person or group participating in the activities
of a firm or an institution does so to obtain benefits
but often the priority of the interests of all stakeholders is not obvious and therefore must be made
apparent by involving them.
Conceptual framework
Theoretical framework
This study is based on the collective action theory of
common pool resources, (Ostrom 1990), the rational
choice (Buchanan & Tullock 1962) and the stakeholder
*S.H Interaction
Stakeholders
Forestry dept
Community
(all user groups
and traditional
authorities)
NGOs
Districts Ass
EPA
Collab.process
Organizing
Planning
Implementing
Monit.& Eval.
The conceptual framework (Figure 2) is based on the
concept of participation and the theoretical framework. The framework shows that sustainable management of forest reserves can be achieved through
community participation. This can be initiated by the
Outcomes of successful stakeholder interaction
defined ownership
& tenure rights,
Benefits &
Responsibilities.
Interest analysis
Capacity building
(technical. &
financial)
Policy reform &
legal framework
(political will)
Local needs &
conditions,
Respect for local
authority & org.
structures,
Access to
conflict res.
mechanisms
Knowledge
acquisition
improved
capacity
Institutional
structures
Access rules
Forest
protection
Improved
forest
condition
Sustained
benefits
Sustainable
collaborative
management
of forest
reserves
Figure 2. A framework for community participation in collaborative management of forest reserves.
Source: Based on a generalized collaborative process from Petheram et al. 2004.
* = stakeholders’ interactive participation.
248
R. HUSSEINI ET AL.
government through Forestry Department (FSD) or by
the community through community leaders. It
requires the involvement of all stakeholders in the
collaborative processes through participatory methods in order to cater for concerns of all stakeholders
and build the capacity needed for successful planning
and implementation of management decisions. The
essence is to empower FSD and community members
through shared ownership, benefits and responsibility
in restricting access and creating incentives for users
to invest in the resource rather than over-exploit it.
Outcomes of CFM depend on how the collective
agreements are sensitive to local needs and conditions such as traditions, organizational structures and
socio – cultural and economic activities, and how
these affect the collaborative process and management decisions.
Community participation in forest management will
result in knowledge acquisition, build capacity of both
parties to take initiatives that will improve resource
management, increase flow of benefits to communities
and ensure sustainable management of forest reserves
(Figure 2). However, if the exclusionary system of management continuous where communities are deprived
of ownership and tenure rights and alienated from processes that will espouse their interest in the resources,
then the current situation will persist. The forestry officials will continue to regard communities as destroyers
and dictate to them; and communities will continue to
regard forestry officials as their enemies and flout their
orders to meet their immediate needs. Consequently,
the tragedy of the commons will set in despite CFM
policy being in place.
Table 1. Forest districts, sampled reserves and communities
for the study.
Forest
districts
Total no. of
reserves
Forest reserves
per district
selected
Tamale
5
Walewale
5
Yendi
7
Damongo
5
Total
22
Water works F/R
Sinsiblegbini
NasiaTribitaries
Gambaga
scarp WB I
Daka head
water
Kumbo
Yakumbo
Damongo
scarp
8
Total no. of
communities
per reserve
No. sampled
(40% of
total no.)
7
7
7
7
3
3
3
3
10
4
9
5
5
3
2
2
57
23
The total number of household heads in the 23
sampled communities was 14,343. Using table of sample size developed by Krejcie and Morgan (1970), a
target population of 14,343 requires a sample size of
370 at 95% confidence level to ensure representativeness. Proportionate sampling was then used to sample household respondents for each community using
the following formula:
S1 ¼ P1=14; 343370;
where P1 is the total number of households per community, 14,343 is the total population of households
in the 23 communities, and 370 is the sample of
households in the target population. This result is
shown in Table 2.
At the household level, the sampling frame consisted of the list of all households in the sampled
communities obtained from the 2000 population
and housing census report of the Ghana Statistical
Research methodology
This paper is based on a chapter of PhD thesis of the
lead author. The study was conducted on the fringe
communities surrounding forest reserves in four forest
districts in the Northern Region of Ghana. It is a mixed
method research design combing survey, in-depth
interviews and focus group discussion. Owing to the
fact that forest reserves in the region are managed by
the same forest policies, practices and forestry
agency, two reserves were randomly selected from
each of the four forest districts. This resulted in the
selection of eight forest reserves. Due to the variation
in the number of communities near each reserve,
proportionate sampling was used to get sample size
of fringe communities per reserve. Due to resource
constraint, 40% of the fringing communities were
sampled from each reserve using the following formula: S1 ¼ 40=100P1 ;
where P1 is the total number of communities per
forest reserve and S1 is sample size of the fringe
communities per reserve. This resulted in 23
communities (Table 1).
Table 2. Sample size of households in selected communities.
Selected
Total no. of
communities households
Zogbele
5006
Yohini
2882
Choggu
36
Zibogu
26
Zakariyili
15
Tugu
98
Pigu
62
Sakpule
23
Pishigu
378
Samini
268
Gbani
122
Langbinsi
805
Nakunga
93
Kpatili
24
Nawuni
8
Gushiegu
1468
Kpatugri
32
Juanayili
93
Pusuga
152
Old Buipe
42
Lito
197
Damongo
2449
Soalepe
64
Total
14343
Proportion (40%) of the
total household
population
35.0
20.0
0.25
0.18
0.10
0.68
0.43
0.16
2.64
1.87
0.85
5.61
0.65
0.17
0.06
10.23
0.22
0.65
1.06
0.3
1.37
17.07
0.45
100
Source: Statistical Services (2011).
Actual number
of households
sampled
130
74
1
1
0
3
2
0
10
7
3
20
2
1
0
38
1
2
4
1
5
63
2
370
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & WORLD ECOLOGY
249
Table 3. Stakeholders in the National Forest Plantation Programme in Northern Region.
Stakeholders
District assembly
Roles
Assists to recruit labour
through the assemblyman
Interest
Provides/create employment
ECOTECH service
Limited
Contracted to Pre-finance
the plantation prog. for FC
Profit
Community
(farmers)
Provide labour
Increase food and cash crop
production, income, sustained
access to resource; sometimes for
environmental benefits
Increased food production
Sustained access to the resources
Traditional
authorities
Provides land (off-reserve)
plantation or request for
land for farmers if plantation
is on-reserve
Forestry commission Provides technical advice to
(FSD)
farmers; monitors the
plantation
Law-enforcing
Prosecute offenders
agencies (police)
Reclaim degraded areas; increase
stocking levels of trees; reduce
pressure on the reserves
Save resources from over
exploitation and extinction
Impact of interest
on forest reserve
Positive since it boosts
farmers interest in the
reserve
Negative(once executed no
interest in the development
of the plantation crop)
Positive but sometimes
negative as it gives the
room for activities that may
kill the plantation
Same as farmers.
How can the impact be
sustained or managed
Increase financial support
from the assembly
Supervision & monitoring
must be part of the contract
Efficient supervision &
monitoring; education on
SFM; payment of realistic
rates for labour provided
Giving them some
percentage of the proceeds
from the plantation.
Education on SFM
Increase financial and
logistics support
Positive since it improves
the resource condition
(SFM)
Positive as they ensure SFM Enforcement of laws on
offenders
in the management of forest reserves in their communities, while 48 (13%) respondents are of the opinion that FSD is the only stakeholder in charge of
managing forest reserves (Table 4). The import of
this result is that the implementation of the National
Forest Plantation Programme (NFPP) in the study area
did not follow any participatory process. This is
because participatory resources management starts
with analysis of stakeholders and their vested interests (Petheram et al. 2004; Carter & Gronow 2005).
Therefore, if the implementation process was participatory, the respondents would have known the stakeholders involved. It also shows a conservatives’
instrumental approach to community participation,
where participation is considered as a means to maintain the status quo of governmental officials (Fraser
2005). Table 4 shows the distribution of participants’
responses about their knowledge on the stakeholders
in the management of forest reserves.
A chi-square test of independence used to explore
the association between the four forest districts on
respondents’ views about stakeholders in CFM gave a
p-value of 0.993 which is larger than the alpha value
of 0.05. This implies that the difference in the
responses from the four districts is not significant.
The interviews with the regional and district forest
managers showed stakeholders in the current plantation programmes in the study area to comprise: the
Forestry Commission (represented by the FSD), district
Service (Ghana Statistical Services 2000), because at
the time results of 2010 population and housing census was not ready. Households in the sampled communities were numbered and the list generated was
then subjected to a random sampling process to
obtain the required number per community.
Additionally, 87 key informants were selected. A
total of 455 respondents were sampled for the
study, the breakdown is presented in Table 3.
Structured interview schedule was used for quantitative data (survey), while the qualitative data were
obtained by in-depth interviews and focus group discussions. The quantitative data were analysed using
Statistical Product for Service Solution (SPSS) version
16 software. Descriptive statistics such as frequency
tables, percentages, and cross-tabulation were used.
Chi-square test was use to explore the association
between forest districts. The results from the indepth interviews and the focused group discussions
were categorized into appropriate themes and analysed through discourse analysis.
Results and discussion
Stakeholders in the National Forest Plantation
Programme
The study revealed that 280 (75.7%) of the 370
respondents do not know the stakeholders involved
Table 4. Management activities involving community members.
Distinct
Damango
Tamale
Walewale
Yendi
Total
Raising seedlings
Plantation dev’t
Boundary planting
Fire control
Boundary cleaning
Total
Freq%
Freq%
Freq%
Freq%
Freq%
Freq%
8
0
10
5
23
(34.8%)
(0.0%)
(43.5%)
(21.7%)
(100%)
15
6
10
14
45
Source: Pearson ᵡ2 = 22.266; p-value = 0.035.
(33.3%)
(13.3%)
(22.2%)
(31.1%)
(100%)
4
0
0
3
7
(57.1%)
(0.0%)
(0.0%)
(42.9%)
(100%)
24
15
15
15
69
(34.8%)
(21.7%)
(21.7%)
(21.7%)
(100%)
8
11
6
5
30
(26.7%)
(36.7%)
(20.0%)
(16.7%)
(100%)
59
32
41
42
174
(33.9%)
(18.4%)
(23.6%)
(24.1%)
(100%)
250
R. HUSSEINI ET AL.
assembly (DA), Ecotech Services Ltd (a private company), farmers, chiefs, and law-enforcing agencies
(police).
It can be inferred from Table 3 that community is
being represented by farmers while other user groups
such as cattle herders, women’s groups, firewood and
charcoal producers, hunters, and herbalists are not
considered as stakeholders. Meanwhile, results from
the focus group discussions revealed that activities of
these user groups are directly dependent on the forest resources. Therefore, their exclusion could jeopardize the sustainability of the forest resources
including the plantation crops. Their exclusion implies
is that the heterogeneity of community was not considered during the plantation programme. As asserted
by Eyben and Ladbury (1995), community consists of
many groups of stakeholders differentiated by gender, occupation, access to resources, education, social
characteristics and values. Accommodating the different values and interests within a community in
broader event like the NFPP is thus a key for sustainability. Equally missing from Table 3 are other partners
like NGOs and public institutions like Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) whose activities are related
to forest resource management. This finding confirms
Onencan’s (2002) findings where public sector agencies and NGOs were excluded in the management of
Lendu forest in Uganda.
NGOs are known to play a key role in ensuring
transparency, decentralization and collaborative management (FAO 2004). The two programme officers of
Evangelical Presbyterian Development and Relief
Agency and WUNZALGU development association
indicated that their activities with communities are
mainly confined to providing tree seedlings, training
on tree planting and advocacy on protecting economic trees on farms. These roles, although not
directly related to activities in the forest reserves,
have positive bearing on reducing the dependency
of community members on the reserves. Their exclusion is therefore an indictment on the FSD since the
FC considers them as stakeholders.
Forest management practices in the reserves
The study found the main management practices in the
reserves to be forest protection and plantation development. Forest protection involves protection of reserves
from fire and encroachment and external boundary
cleaning and inspection. Plantation development
according to the district managers is of twofold: the
modified taungya plantation system (MTPS) and the
National Forest Plantation Development Programme
(NFPDP). Activities in the plantations include the following: weeding, site preparation, planting, pegging, and
weeding around the plantation crop (under the taungya
plantation). Crops allowed under the plantations were
mainly annuals such as maize, millet, and groundnut.
These differ from those allowed in the high-forest zones
or Southern Ghana under the same programme where
crops are mostly perennials such as plantain, cocoyam,
and palm oil plants (Asare 2013). It was found that
although forest districts are responsible for writing and
updating all management plans, this has not been happening due to lack of funding. As such management
activities have always been ad-hoc. This confirms
Kalame et al. (2009) report that forest policies and practices in Burkina Faso and Ghana are mainly elements of
risk management and not adjustment and
improvement.
Nature of community participation
It was found that of the 370 household respondents, 196
(53%) indicated that their communities do not participate in the management of forest reserves while 174
(47%) admitted to community participation in the management of forest reserves. It was found that of the 370
household respondents, 196 (53%) indicated that their
communities do not participate in the management of
forest reserves while 174 (47%) admitted to the participation of their communities in the management of
forest reserves. The common reasons given for nonparticipation of communities include:
(1) members are not invited for any decision-making on forest reserves;
(2) members are not involved because the forest
reserves do not belong to them;
(3) members are not involved because they are
not workers of FSD;
(4) members do not participate because they do not
know the importance and benefits of the forest
reserves.
The reasons seem to imply that some respondents
feel that their community members have been alienated from management of the forest reserves. This
mindset is likely to hinder their commitment to efforts
of collaborative management.
Forty per cent (69) respondents of the 174 who
admitted to the participation of their communities in
forest management indicated fire control, plantation
development, and boundary clearing as the main
activities in which community members are involved.
A chi-square test of independence used to determine
relationship between the districts gave a p-value of
0.035, implying that there are significant differences in
the opinions of respondents regarding what management activities community members are involved in.
The difference in responses could be attributed to
lack of interest of some community members in forest
management activities as a general effect of their
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & WORLD ECOLOGY
alienation. Table 4 shows that the management activities communities are involved in.
Views from the forestry staff
The household responses were confirmed by the district forestry staff who revealed that currently the
major collaborative management project involving
community members in the study area is the NFPDP.
The forestry staff revealed that in both MTPS and the
NFPDP, community participation has always been
confined to plantation establishment, external boundary cleaning and planting, and voluntary fire control.
It was found that there was no participatory planning
and negotiations with community members prior to the
starting of the plantation activities. Community members were simply recruited as labourers by DAs, since
the major aim of the programme was to create jobs for
communities. The district managers revealed that even
though the FSD is the main implementing body for the
government, they were not part of the planning and
designing of the NFPDP programme as they got
informed about its start through circulars from the
national head office. According to the managers, similar
complaints were made by the district chief executives
(DCEs) which led to apathy on the part of some DAs. As a
result, some DAs did not see it as their responsibility to
negotiate for land from the traditional leaders. District
managers had to take up the task of negotiation for
lands which made their work difficult.
Clearly these results infer that the process of involving
communities in forest management activities was top–
down. Stakeholder involvement did not follow the initial
participatory processes that characterize collaborative
management. Collaborative management involves all
partners’ right from planning, through to implementation
and continuous review and improvement of the planned
activities (Petheram et al. 2004). The prevailing method of
involving communities can be equated to the conformist
and contributions approach to community participation
where decision-making is top–down (Fraser 2005). The
result partly confirms Ahenkan and Boon’s (2010) observation that Ghana’s forest policy is only theoretical with
attitude of forest officers being the same as the implementation of previous policies. However, the blame cannot be put totally on the forestry officers because from
their responses, FC, the highest body responsible for
regulating activities in the sector did not create the
room for proper co-ordination and collaborative process
to take place. These results show that even in the sight of
the current policy, forest administration in the Northern
Region of Ghana is still top–down.
Views from assembly members on nature of
participation
For the assembly members’ sub-sample, 18 out 21
assembly members interviewed disclosed they only
251
share information and educate community members
about fire control since their role as assembly members is to help in the development of their communities. They advise community members against
illegal cutting of trees and the prevention of bush
fires. The remaining six assembly members
(Gushiegu, Kpatugri, Juanayili, Pusuga, Saamini and
Zogbele) indicated that they are usually called upon
during the plantation programmes to help in organizing community members. When asked about the role
of the DA in the management of the forest reserves,
18 assembly members either did not have any idea on
how their DA is involved or said their DAs are not
directly involved in the management of forest
reserves.
Views from traditional leaders
Although the role of traditional leaders in forests
management according to FC (2007) is to seek genuine interests of citizens to promote improved standards of living and to offer leadership to achieve set
goals of society, the interviews with the chiefs showed
divergent views on the participation of their community members in forest activities. Thirteen out of the
23 chiefs indicated that their communities do not
participate in the management of forest reserves,
while the remaining 10 answered in the affirmative.
The common reason given by the 13 chiefs who
answered in the negative is that their community
members are not involved because they are not workers of FSD.
The responses of the chiefs confirm the views of
the majority of household respondents that community members are not involved in management of
forest reserves. This is because even the 10 chiefs
who admitted to the participation of their communities said so, in reference to boundary clearing, fire
control and plantation programmes, implying that
they are not involved in the decision-making process.
This kind of participation is similar to tokenism or
passive participation (Arnstein 1969; Pretty 1995).
Second, the divergent views from the chiefs affirm
the views from the district forest managers that
there were no proper stakeholder meetings prior to
the commencement of the plantation programme in
the study area. This is probably the reason for the
thinking of some chiefs that one needed to be a
staff of FSD to be concerned about the forest
resources. That inadequate participation does not
lead to success is pointed out clearly by Petheram
et al. (2004). According to authors, success in collaborative management is linked to the processes of
pre-negotiation and meetings among stakeholders.
Views from women leaders
‘Magazia’ (s) is the name given to community women
leaders in the study area. As the name suggests they
252
R. HUSSEINI ET AL.
are the mouth-piece of women and prevail over matters concerning women in development. Among the
principles of CFM is the involvement of all interest
groups in all decision-making processes (Scott 2000b).
Participation of women in forest management is thus
an issue of concern since they are the primary users of
non-timber forest products such as firewood, vegetables, and fruits from the reserves. Out of the 23
magazias interviewed, only the Gusheigu magazia
admitted to her involvement in the management of
forest reserves. She disclosed her role as reporting
illegal activities to the forest guards. The other 22
magazias admitted that they had no involvement in
forest management activities. However, most of them
indicated that they sometimes help in fire control
(voluntary), preparation of food for their husbands
during tree planting, and advice women against cutting fresh-wood for fuel–wood. Some said that they
were not involved because by their tradition, women
are not supposed to be involved in forest activities.
As women leaders, they all disclosed that their role
is to seek for the welfare of women in their communities which is mainly centred on naming and wedding ceremonies, funeral rites and organizing for
credit and loan facilities for women. The following
are expressions of the magazia of Kpatile community:
I play the role of a spoke’s person for the women and
organize them for general issues. I’m not involved in
the management of the FR because I have never been
invited by the FSD.
This finding confirms the over silence on the needs of
women and their representation in forest management committees as observed in the case studies
reviewed on CFM. This is a clear case of social exclusion where individuals or groups are wholly or partially excluded from participation in the society within
which they live (Rawal 2008). It is probably as a result
of the culture of the people which is further aggravated by lack of institutional structures on the part of
government for promoting social inclusion. As
revealed by the UNDP report on human development
(2007), the customary preference for male leadership
and control of resources have placed men ahead of
women in most Ghanaian societies. These gender
differences have become a major source of exclusion
for women especially in some parts of the Northern
Ghana. This is evident by their lack of visibility in the
public domain though they may not be excluded in
economic activities in general. Thus, confirming the
alienation of women in forest activities. Similar
responses were obtained from the focus group
discussions.
It was also found that out of the 174 household
heads who admitted to the participation of their communities in forest activities, 82.8% (144) revealed that
communities only participate at the implementation
of activities especially during the plantation development programmes. The common reasons given by the
144 (82.8%) respondents are that they are not invited
for any management activity apart from boundary
cleaning and plantation work. Using the ladder of
participation, the participation of fringe communities
could be described as tokenistic or participation for
material incentives (Arnstein 1969; Pretty 1995). The
pattern of involving communities is still top–down
and is likely to thwart the outcomes of any collaborative management efforts in the area.
Furthermore, the perceptions of household heads
about the roles performed by their community members were studied in relation to Pretty’s (1995) participation model to determine their level of
participation. Figure 3 indicates the frequency and
percentage of household heads, and the corresponding roles they perceived describe best the type and
level of their community’s participation and control
over the collaborative process.
Figure 3 shows that majority 120 (69%) of the 174
household heads who admitted to the participation of
their community members in forest activities,
described their participation as passive because they
are always told what to do mainly at the implementation level. Relating these findings to the various levels
of participation described by Arnstein (1969),
Johnston (1982) and Pretty 1995) shows that fringe
communities’ level of participation in the management of forest reserves range from non-participation
to tokenism (Figure 3). Based on this result, it suffices
to say that the approach to management of forest
reserves in the region is top–down disguised in the
face of collaborative forest management.
Communities collaborate in resource management
for two main objectives: benefit-sharing or powersharing depending on the role played or the position
of community members (Wily 2002). The study found
that of the 370 respondents, 203 (54.9%) of them
indicated there is no collaboration between their
community and the FSD. Twenty-seven per cent
(100) respondents disclosed that their collaboration
is for access to resources only.
Similarly, with the exception of Langbinsi assemblyman and Saamini women’s leader, all the chiefs,
assembly members and magazias revealed that there
is no formal collaboration between their communities
and the FSD. The assembly members disclosed that
they only serve as contact persons and middle men
between the FSD and farmers during plantation programmes and when there is dispute between the staff
of FSD and community members. The Langbinsi
assemblyman made it known that although he is
aware of the need for collaboration between him
and the FSD, there is currently no such agreement.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & WORLD ECOLOGY
Typology
Roles of community
Frequency/
Level of
Level of
members in the NFPP
Percentage
participation
power &
Self mobilization
Taking initiative
0 (0)
Interactive
Joint analysis of problems
253
control
High
independent of FSD
High level
0 (0)
participation
and implementation of
action plans between
community and FSD
Functional
Forming groups to meet
0 (0)
predetermined goal of
Mid- level
FSD
Participation for
material incentive
Participation
consultation
Participation
Community provides
labour in return for cash
& land for farming
participation
48 (27.6)
Tokenism
by FSD consult community
and listen to their views
on predefined projects
0 (0)
in Community answer
questions from FSD
without the opportunity to
influence proceedings of
the project
6 (3.4)
information giving
Passive
participation
Community being told
what to do or
has happened by the FSD
120 (69)
Non
LOW
participation
NON
Figure 3. Typologies and levels of community participation in the management of forest reserves.
Source: Pretty (1995), Johnston (1982) and Arnstein (1969).
The Saamini ‘magazia’ disclosed her collaboration
with FSD as a caretaker for planting materials during
tree planting activities.
The district forest managers, however, maintained
that FSD’s collaboration with communities is for ‘management and benefit sharing’. They argued that
although there is no formal agreement, there is collaboration because by providing labour community
members get employment benefits and help in managing the reserves. Comparing the survey result to
Wily’s (2002) paradigms of CFM puts the communities
under the broad category of collaboration for benefit
sharing where the community is either a beneficiary,
user, or rule follower. By Wily’s distinctions, the results
imply that the objective for management by FSD is to
gain communities cooperation by allowing them
some restricted access to the resource in exchange
for labour wages and not to delegate power to them.
To be sustainable, communities have to collaborate as
actors, or managers or rule makers (power sharing)
(Wily 2002). More so, over 98% (363) of respondents
admitted that their communities do not have any
forest committees (CFCs). This was confirmed by the
district forest managers who attributed the absence
of CFCs to the lack of timber resources in the
Northern Region of Ghana which serve as a disincentive for the people at the top management to spend
resources in constituting CFCs.
These results confirm the reports by Amanor
(2003), Petheram et al. (2004), Carter and Gronow
(2005), and Odera (2009) that Ghana’s collaborative
management is merely consultation and provision of
labour with some level of benefit sharing without
ownership and responsibility. Community participation is not fully satisfied by just receiving people’s
contributions in the form of kind or cash.
Participation must contain elements of initiative and
decision, emanating from the community itself and
when community contributions do not comprise such
bottom–up elements, the concept changes from participation to recruitment Nasikum (1990). This lack of
participation, according to Kumar (2002), does not
instil a sense of ownership in the people.
Conclusion and recommendations
Following a critical review of the findings, the study is
concluded as follows:
254
R. HUSSEINI ET AL.
Participation of forest fringe communities in the
management of forest reserves ranges from passive
to tokenism, meaning that fringe communities have
no control over access to resources and management.
This situation is an incentive for unsustainable resource
management and poverty. Communities will resist
exclusion by resulting to illegal ways to meet their
needs. Communities collaborating informally as labour
providers imply that they have no rights to decisionmaking processes; cannot take initiatives to manage
forest resources; and are denied the opportunity to
develop their ability to evolve initiatives to improve
their livelihoods and sustain forest resources for the
future. The absence of CFCs means that there are no
local structures for collaborating with communities,
thereby helping FSD to maintain their status quo.
The FC should institute sub-CFM units at the district level to serve as liaison between FSD and communities for the synthesis and advancement of FDS’s
development agenda and interests of local
communities.
The collaborative forest management unit (CFMU)
of FC should help the FSD in the region to constitute
CFCs to serve as local structures for collaborative
management.
Since plantation development is currently the only
project involving communities, it should be sustained
by a formal agreement between communities, Das,
and FSD on the modality of involving communities
and sharing of benefits.
Geolocation
Recommendations
To ensure effective community participation in the
management of forest reserves in the Northern
Region, we recommend the following concept:
FSD should initiate a formal collaborative agreement with all the user groups: chiefs, assembly persons, farmers, herbalist, women groups, hunters,
cattle herders, charcoal, and firewood producers,
through an organized participatory assessment of viability and needs for CFM in planning and implementation of management decisions.
Northern Region is located between latitude 8 30′ and
10 30′ N and lies completely in the savannah belt. It
has Togo and La Cote D’Ivoire to the East and West,
respectively, as its international neighbours. To the
south, the region shares boundaries with Brong
Ahafo and the Volta Regions, and to the north it
shares borders with the Upper East and Upper West
regions. The provisional results of 2010 population
and housing census gave the regional population as
2,468,557 at a growth rate of 2.9. Figure 4 shows the
regional map with the forest districts and political
boundaries.
Figure 4. Political and forest districts in the Northern Region of Ghana.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & WORLD ECOLOGY
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Ahenkan A, Boon E. 2010. Assessing the impact of forest
policies and strategies on promoting the development of
non-timber forest products in Ghana. Kamla-Raj 2010 J
Biodiversity. 1:85–102.
Amanor KS. 2003. Natural and cultural assets and participatory
forest management in West Africa. In: Conference paper
series No. 8. International conference on natural assets;
Jan 8–11; Tagaytay. Political Economy Research Institute
and Center for Science and the Environment. p. 35.
Arnstein SR. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst
Plann. 35:216–224.
Asare A. 2013. Head, collaborative forest management unit.
Research Management Support Centre, FC. Kumasi.
Personal communication. 2012 Mar 3.
Blench RM. 2006. Dagbani plant names. Mallam Dendo 8,
Guest Road Cambridge CB1 2AL United Kingdom.
Preliminary circulation draft.
Boakye KA, Baffoe KA 2010. Trends in forest ownership,
forest resource tenure and institutional arrangements:
case study from Ghana; p. 23. Retrieved on 10/10/2011
www.fao.org/forestry/12505.01d
Buchanan JM, Tullock G. 1962. The calculus of consent.
Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
Carter J, Gronow J. 2005. Recent experience in collaborative
management. A Review Paper. Published by Center for
International Forestry Research; p. 57.
Dartey SA 2014. 100 Years of forestry in Ghana. First national
forestry conference. Kumasi: CSIR- Forestry research institute of Ghana. September 16–18.
Djagbletey ED. 2010. Personal Communication on situational report on forest reserves. Tamale: Northern
Regional Forest Manager.
Donaldson T, Preston L. 1995. The stakeholder theory of the
modern corporation: concepts, evidence and implications. Acad Manag Rev. 20:65–91.
Eyben R, Ladbury S. 1995. Popular participation in aidassisted projects: Why more theory than practice. In:
Nelson N, Wright S, editors. Power and participatory development. London: Intermediate Technology; p. 192–200.
Food and Agriculture Organization. 2011. World deforestation decreases, but remains alarming in many countries.
Global
forest
resources
assessment
2010.FAO
Media Centre. Rome [updated 2010 Mar 25; cited 2011
Jan 21].
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 1995 Jan 17–27.
Report of the International Expert Consultation on NonWood Forest Products. Yogyakarta: Hosted by the
Ministry of Forestry, Government of Indonesia.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2001. State of
the world’s forests 2001. Rome: FAO of the United
Nations; p. 181.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2004. Enhancing
cooperation and promoting regional agreements on forests in Africa. African forestry and wildlife commission.
Fourteenth session. 18–21 Feb. Accra, Ghana.
Forestry Commission of Ghana. 1994. Forest and Wildlife
Policy, Accra: Forestry Commission; pp. 1–7.
255
Forestry Commission of Ghana. 2003. Ghana forestry commission at a glance: Forest services division (FSD) – background of forestry in Ghana; pp. 1–26
Forestry Commission of Ghana. 2007. Forestry sector programmes: Savannah resources management project.
Fraser H. 2005 July. Four different approaches to community
participation. Community Dev J. 40:286–300.
Ghana Forestry Department (FD). 1962. Annual report.
Accra.
Ghana Statistical Services. 2000. Extract from the report of
the 2000 population and housing census. Northern
Region, Tamale.
Jhingan ML. 1997. Macroeconomic theory. 4th ed. Delhi:
Vrinda.
Johnston M. 1982. The labyrinth of community participation:
Indonesia’s experience. Community Dev J. 7:3.
Kalame FB, Nkem J, Idinoba M, Kanninen M. 2009. Matching
national forest policies and management practices for climate change adaptation in Burkina Faso and Ghana: mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change. Volume
14. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).
Amsterdam: Springer.
Kendie SB, Martens P, editors. 2008. Governance and sustainable development – an overview. In Governance and
sustainable development. Cape Coast: Marcel Hughes
Publicity Group. CDS UCC; p. 1–15.
Krejcie RV, Morgan DW. 1970. Determining sample size for
research activities. Educ Psychol Meas. 30:607–610.
Kumar S. 2002. Methods for community participation: a
complete guide for practitioners. London: ITDG
Publishers.
Marfo E. 2010. Chainsaw milling in Ghana: context, drivers
and impacts. Wageningen, the Netherlands: Tropenbos
International; p. 2.
Nasikum. 1990. Percikan pemikiran FISIPOL UGM tentang
Pembangunan. Yogyakarta: FISIFOL UGM.
Nsenkyire EO. 1999. Forestry Department’s strategies for
sustainable Savannah woodland management; p. 11.
Odera JA. 2009. Changing forest management paradigm in
Africa: a case for community based forest management
systems. Research programme of sustainable use of dry
land biodiversity (RPSUD). Discov Innov. 21:35.
Onencan WK. 2002. Protectionism, natural resource conservation policy and patterns of household poverty: a case
study of Lendu forest and surrounding communities in
Nebbi District. In: Working paper series of Network of
Ugandan Researchers and Research Users No. 29.
Kampala: NURRU publications.
Ostrom E. 1990. Governing the commons: the evolution of
institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Petheram J, Stephen P, Gilmour D. 2004. Collaborative forest
management: a review. Australian Forestry. 67:137–146.
Pretty JN. 1995. Regenerating agriculture: policies and practice for sustainability and self reliance. Washington:
National Academy Press.
Rawal N. 2008. Social inclusion and exclusion: a review.
Dhaulagiri J Sociol Anthropol. 2:161–180.
Scott J. 2000a. Rational choice theory. In: Browning G, Halcli
A, Webster F, editors. From understanding contemporary
society: theories of the present. London: Sage; p. 13.
Scott P. 2000b. Collaborative forest management – the
process. A paper at the National Workshop on
Community Forestry. Kampala, Uganda.
256
R. HUSSEINI ET AL.
Statistical Service of Ghana. 2011. Northern Region. Tamale.
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2007. The
Ghana Human Development Report: towards a more
inclusive society.
Walter CJ, Holling CS. 1990. Large-scale management experiments and learning by doing. Ecology. 71:2060–2068.
[cited 2011 July 10]. Available from: www.mass.gov.envir/
forest/pdf/whatare_forestreserves.pdf
Wily LA. 2002. Participatory forest management in the United
Republic of Tanzania. Presentation at the second
International workshop on participatory forestry Africa,
18–22 Feb. Arusha, Tanzania.