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

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

ii
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.

iii
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.

iv
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

v
LIST OF FIGURES

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

vi
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

vii
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

1
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

2
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 Management
Support Centre [of the FSD]

3
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

4
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 the
Forestry Commission] in charge of local people’s involvement in forest management)

5
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

6
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

7
people. The negative impacts of centralised forest management on local people could be
explained using the Environmental Entitlement Framework 3 (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 is
available. The framework explains how people’s access to environmental resources and consequently their
capabilities are determined by institutional factors.

8
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.

9
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-

10
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

11
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).

12
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).

13
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

14
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

15
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

16
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.

17
 NATIONAL CFC
NATIONAL CAUCUS OF
COMMUNITY FOREST
COMMITTEES

REGIONAL CFC
CAUCUS OF DISTRICT
ASSEMBLY COMMUNITY
FOREST COMMITTEES

DISTRICT ASSEMBLY CFC

CAUCUS OF AREA (ASSEMBLY)
CFC & OTHER STAKEHOLDERS

PARAMOUNTCY
AREA COMMUNITY FOREST
COMMITTEE (Optional)

AREA (ASSEMBLY) CFC

REPRESENTATIVES OF
VILLAGE/TOWN CFCs

VILLAGE OR TOWN CFC

7-11 REPRESENTATIVES
OF PRIMARY STAKEHOLDERS

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

18
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

19
 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 (SRA 5) 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 out
to local farmers to cultivate food crops while raising tree seedlings provided by the FSD. The farmers tend their
crops alongside the tree seedlings and remain on the land until the tree seedlings reach a certain level of
establishment. Because the original taungya system failed in Ghana (farmers intentionally destroyed tree
seedlings so that they will continue to remain on lands allocated to them), the FSD has adopted a modified
taungya 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 Resource
Management Act, 1997). It enjoins timber contract holders to make arrangements with communities in the
immediate vicinity of their contract areas by which they will undertake development projects in the communities
to a value of about 5% of the total value of timber to be exploited in an area.

20
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).

21
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 of
seven students.

22
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]

23
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];

24
  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

25
  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

26
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.

27
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

28
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.

29
APPENDICES

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

Appendix 2: Cases of participatory forest management examined

Passive participation
Case Ownership/ Remarks Sources
control
Joint Forest State Full potential not realised, Forestry Department Mohanty
Management, dominating Village Forest Committees instead (2000),
India of facilitating them (Mohanty, 2000; Ogra, Malhotra
2000). Approach working against women and and
the marginalised; becoming clear that this Poffemberg
approach is not an effective model for er (eds)
empowerment of forest dependent (1989),
communities; locals losing hope in approach; Ogra (2000)
approach under the control of the Forestry
Department, local elites and their wives (Ogra,

30
 2000); women being passive members of
Village Forest Committees (Mohanty, 2000;
Ogra, 2000), job provision the main incentive
for participation of local people and not the
long-term sustainability of forests (Mohanty,
2000)
Collaborative State Communities allowed access to only non- Keshav
forest commercial forest products; supporters of (2006),
management community forestry against this development as Uprety
in the Terai they see it as attempts of the government to take (2004)
Region of control over high value forest resources of
Nepal Terai; basis of benefit sharing not pragmatic;
roles not very defined; the District Forest
Office holding the major decision making
power; mechanism for effective participation of
distant and less privileged groups not clear
Joint forest State Uncertainties over cost and benefit sharing Bromley
management between state forestry agency and local people and
in Tanzania i.e. no signed agreement; decrease in Ramadhani
encroachment and illegal activities due to (2005),
policing roles by communities (FBKD, 2006); FBKD
income generation the main incentive for local (2006),
people’s participation; very little positive Louga et al.
impact on forests (Louga et al., 2006) (2006)

Participatory State Forestry Department dominance with token Wily and

forest community representation i.e. local people Mbaya
management acting as collaborants of forest (2001),
in the Mpigi protection/restoration roles determined by the Gombya-
District of Forestry Department (Gombya-Ssembajjwe Ssembajjwe
Uganda and Banana, 1999), community involvement in and Banana
forest management limited to only small (1999),
degraded and economically unviable forests; Banana et
degradation is higher in the more remote areas al. (2002),
of the district most probably due to inability and Banana et
unwillingness of village and parish forest al. (2004)
committees to devote time and effort to
sustainable forest management in view of little
motivation from the Forestry Department, forest
revenues being retained at the districts and
failing to trickle down to the village (Banana et
al., 2002; Banana et al., 2004)
Participatory Community State forestry agency collaborating with local Ibo and
forest tenure communities purposely to enable restoration of Leonard
management degraded forest areas to be achieved at low (1997)
in the Ivory cost. Community representatives made to
Coast endorse forest use plans drawn up by

31
 SODEFOR (the administrative department
responsible for reforestation). These
representatives happen to be politically inclined
local elites and chiefs who are not able to
represent the interest of the wider community.
Partnership gets community representatives to
accept policies that exclude the community
from forest management but presented under
the cloak of participatory forest management.
Approach proving very expensive - vehicles,
personnel, which has negative implications for
the forest since the idea is that ‘the forest must
finance the forest’
The taungya State Narrow policy initiative to make logging CBMPCFP
reforestation companies share some of the income from (2000)
system, plantation harvesting with communities;
Indonesia communities as passive recipients/contributors
of labour in forest management activities
(CBMPCF, 2000); Forest Farmer groups
allocated portions of degraded forests
(renewable yearly) to grow crops between rows
of planted trees so that they nurture the trees
while cropping on the land; The state forestry
agency (Perhutani) retaining ownership/control
over the forest lands; increase in timber stands
but difficulty in recruiting poor farmers; forest
encroachment rampant over the years; new
proposals for more genuine partnership which
will allow communities to play greater roles
forestry decision making and to be able to
exploit and sell timber; this proposal however
facing opposition from mainstream Perhutani
administration

Partial Devolution
Case Ownership/ Remarks Sources
control
Community Community Community groups have to go through lengthy
forestry in (on application processes for community forests; Djeumo
Cameroon contract) few successful applications; community groups (2001),
using all kinds of fake means to get their Gardner et
applications through (including fictitious al., (2001)
members and contracting out application
processes to individuals for a fee i.e.
community groups ignorant of terms of contract
and documents governing community forests;
little engagement with the wider community
and traditional authority; desire to reap financial
benefits the main incentive for application

32
 rather than a desire to develop/sustainably
manage community forests, hence applications
coming from only areas with forests in good
condition and where financial support is
available (from conservation projects or timber
contractors); timber contractors interested in
funding applications because they see
community forests as relatively easy-reach
supply of timber (Djeumo , 2001); an exception
is the communal management of the Kilum-Ijim
forest, where the communities surrounding the
forest and the push for the initiative (BirdLife
International) both have a common interest in
forest conservation, rather than timber
exploitation; there are in place local rules on
forest use that are being strongly enforced
(Lindayati, 2000)
Peasant Community Plantation establishment on communal lands; Vizarreta
participation community members not in favour of (1993)
in communal plantations due to competition with
reforestation farming land; they rather prefer land
in four distribution to individual farmers and
communities integration of tree planting with crop farming;
(Ccollana- village assemblies in favour because they see it
Chequerec, as means of securing lands previously under
Ccorao, state control; long and bureaucratic process in
Equecco- granting rights to communities to exploit their
Chacán and plantations; community members cannot access
Compone) of forest for their wood needs; logging contracts
Peru have to be given to timber contractors, which
sometimes proves unfavourable for
communities; these businessmen buy poles
cheaply and sell them back to community
members for profit; communities to pay 30% of
revenue to the Forestry Department; women
and the less privileged losing out because they
have to sacrifice potential arable and pasture
lands for community plantations and gain
nothing in return
The Community Community groups granted control over the WRF
community (on management and exploitation of forests in (2000),
forest contract) accordance to management plans approved by Reining et
concessions state forestry agency; overdue emphasis on al. (1998)
of Peten, timber exploitation; the logic is to allow
Guatemala communities benefit from their forests while
ensuring sustainability; a community had its
application refused because plan concentrated
on NTFP extraction and not timber extraction;
social and environmental impacts of logging not
taken into account; sense of tenure insecurity as

33
 communities may lose their concession rights if
they go contrary to plan; assisting NGOs
sometimes seeking their own interests (WRF,
2000); delay in the processing of applications;
concessions facing external pressures, including
illegal logging, land clearing and wildlife
poaching; many of the groups carrying out
these illegal activities having ties with powerful
economic and political interests; communities
having limited capacity to counter these threats
(Reining et al.,1998)
Community- Community Community-based forest management Pulhin et al.,
based forest (on programme under the control of the Department (2005)
management, contract) of Environment and Natural Resources
Philippines (DENR); communities granted management
rights over portions of forest under a 25-year
contract, renewable for another 25 years;
responsibilities of the communities (represented
by the People’s Organizations’) include
planning, implementation, monitoring and
evaluation of all activities in accordance with
agreed upon community-based forest
management framework and a five-year work
plan geared towards promoting the sustainable
management of the community-based forest
management area; the DENR entitled to 30%
of the revenue from the harvest of plantations
established with state funding; CBFM
contributing to improvement in forest condition
but there are issues with equitable benefit
sharing at the local level; impacts more
pronounced in areas where there is external
funding; the DENR reluctant to grant resource
use rights to community groups (People’s
Organisations)
Community- Community The central government has given autonomy Chan
based forest (on over forest management to districts; district (2003)
management contract) offices issue out one-year concessions to
in Indonesia communities to exploit their timber i.e. the Lindayati
basis of partnership is to allow communities to (2000)
exploit their timber; community leaders and
other elites taking up concessions and sub-
contracting them to timber companies to carry
out logging, defying original aim of timber
harvesting through the use of chainsaw and log
extraction using low technology pulley to
minimise logging damage to forests; limited
engagement and benefit to the wider
community; the central government has now
suspended this concession system due to

34
 massive exploitation that could not be
accounted for; the placing of monetary vale on
forests influenced people’s relationship with
forests; conflicts with neighbouring
communities over extents of forests

Complete devolution
Case Ownership/ Remarks Sources
control
The Community Village groups (clans), comprising of about 100 Salafsky et
community households, exercising exclusive control over al. (1997),
forests of their forests, ranging between 5,000 and 20,000 Glen (1993)
East New ha; they sell out timber rights to commercial
Britain, loggers, who pay less than ideal for what they
Papua New exploit; they ‘mine’ the forest often in violation
Guinea of existing forestry regulations, then move to
another clan forest; there are new attempts to
enable community groups exploit forests
themselves; though this new initiative faces
technical challenges, financial problems and
problem with equitable benefit sharing, it offers
more room for sustainable forest management
Community State Communities (Panchayats) are granted existing Keshav
forestry, forest blocks (to a maximum of 500 ha) to (2006),
Nepal manage and exploit with 25% of revenue going Bhattarai
to the Forestry Department; local Panchayats and
could also be granted portions of degraded state Campbell
lands (to a maximum of 125 ha) to reforest with (1985)
government assistance, in which case all the
revenue that accrue go to the community
(Bhattarai and Campbell, 1985); initiative
resulting in forest restoration, better social
mobilisation and income generation for rural
development (Keshav, 2006)
Community- Community Takes place on community forestlands that have Bromley
based forest been surveyed and registered under provisions and
management, of the Village Land Act (1999); full Ramadhani
Tanzania management responsibility in the hands of (2005),
village councils; villages protect and exploit FBKD
their forests and are not obliged to remit any (2006),
portion of forest revenues to the central or local Wily (1995)
government; benefits include improvement in
forest condition, decease in illegal activities and
decrease in wildfire occurrence; challenges
include limited funds and problems from
increasing wildlife populations; scepticism on
the part of the Forestry Department on the
ability of the fragile village-level institutions to
take charge of transactions that will come with

35
 exploitation of the good stands of forest; The
Forestry Department not willing to collaborate
with NGOs working to develop the capacity of
local people in forest management (Bromley
and Ramadhani, 2005; FBKD, 2006); though
approach is radical and risky, Willy (1995)
contends it is the essence of the way forward;
success contracts sharply with the expensive
donor-driven processes through which states
promote carefully-defined joint forest
management arrangements where state agencies
retain decision-making roles and communities
assume implicitly rationed roles; factors
accounting for success include the perception of
forest ownership and the desire of communities
to prove that they are capable of managing their
forests; communities have fears that the
government would want to take over forests
once they have been rehabilitated (Wily, 1995)
Community- Community Forest management entirely in the hands of Iroko
based local people; the Forestry Department plays a Foundation
management training/advisory role; communities undertake (undated),
of the Ekuri logging in line with plans prepared after a forest Equator
forest, inventory; the Ekuri Initiative, having been Initiative
Nigeria registered as an NGO, has been successful at (2004)
keeping the Ekuri forest in good condition; the
community undertakes exploitation on their
own, using low technology (chainsaw) and
labour-intensive methods; one problem is
inability to produce wood of very high quality
standard (that can meet requirements of the
international timber market); the Ekuri
Initiative won an Equator Prize in 2004; It has
support from the Ford Foundation
The Ejido Community 10 Ejidos (productive groupings of people who Richards
Forests of share untransferable land ownership) comprise (1992)
South-East the Plan Piloto Forestal (Pilot Forest Plan) of
Mexico Quintana Roo, South-East Mexico. Following a
period of unsustainable logging by a logging
company using state-issued permit, the Ejidos
requested that the state forestry authority
(Secretariat of Agriculture and Water
Resources) grants them control over their
forests; German GTZ provided technical and
financial assistance; the Ejidos were trained in
various aspects of forest management; the state
forestry authority only provides technical
assistance; control over forest management,
exploitation and marketing lies with the General
Assemblies of the Ejidos; Ejido dependence on

36
 GTZ going down; promotion of secondary
timber species; the state forestry authority now
convinced that this alternative to centralised
forest management could work; the Ejidos have
in place very organised forest management
systems; low cost of forest management,
income generation for rural development;
though there are challenges (e.g. bribery by
some community leaders and overestimation of
Annual Allowable Cut leading to
overexploitation of Mahogany in certain
places), forest management by the Ejidos offer
more room for sustainable forest management
than centralised management, factors
accounting for success include tenure security,
the creation of autonomous and flexible
institutional structures, a marketing strategy
which views the forest as the basics of
capitalisation and industrial development rather
than as an opportunity to supply an already
existing market, an appropriate policy
environment, low paternalism and high quality
of technical assistance
Community- Community The WAJIB7 approach was born as out of a Amente and
based participatory process to find a more sustainable Tadesse
management alternative to centralised forest management of (2004),
of the the Adaba-Dodola forest; village forests divided Kubsa et al.
Adaba- into blocks of average size 360 ha, each to be (undated)
Dodola forest managed by a WAJIB group; each WAJIB
(the WAJIB (consisting of not more than 30 households) has
approach), its own by-laws governing forest use and
Ethiopia protection; the state forest administration only
provides technical advise to the WAJIB groups
on how to develop and exploit the forest on
sustainable basis; positive results experienced
in terms of participation, transparency, equity,
effectiveness and efficiency; the approach has
helped strengthen civil society and local
governance; there has been an improvement in
forest cover and the state forestry
administration is convinced that the forest
dwellers are committed to sustainably manage
their forests; WAJIB user groups pay annual
rent for the forest rights granted them; part of
this rent is kept with the village administration
to support village development efforts

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

37
REFERENCES

Aggarwal, S. 2006 Community Forestry in Transition: Sixty Years of Experience in

the Indian Central Himalayas, Presented at the Eleventh Conference of the
International Association for the Study of Common Property, Bali, Indonesia, 19-23
June 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 Forest

Management in West Africa, Conference Paper presented at the International
Conference 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 More

Responsive 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 Forest

Management (PFM) towards Good Governance: the Case of WAJIB Approach in
Ethiopia, 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 Sustainable

Forest Management: the Challenge for the New Millennium, Paper presented at the
Inaugural 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 the
Inaugural 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 of

Forestry 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 Local
Governance 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

38
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 Community

Forestry Projects in Nepal’, FAO Forestry Paper 60, 31-102

Brenya N. A. 2005 The Role of Community Forest Committees in Forest

Management, BSc. Dissertation, Faculty of Renewable Natural Resources, Kwame
Nkrumah 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 on
09/05/07

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 Community

Forestry: Evidence from Terai Region of Nepal’ in Vira B. and Jeffery R. (eds)
Conflict and Cooperation in Participatory Natural Resource Management, Palgrave
Publishers Ltd., 129-149

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

Clayton E. 1985 ‘Monitoring and Evaluation of Participatory Forestry Projects’, FAO

Forestry Paper 60, 1-30

Conroy C., Mishra A., Rai A., Singh M. N., and Chan M. 2001 ‘Conflicts Affecting
Participatory Forest Management: Their Nature and Implications’ in Vira B. and
Jeffrey 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, Forestry

Commission, Ghana

CRMU 2005 Evaluation Report on Participatory Forest Management Project of the

Forestry Commission, Forestry Commission, Ghana

CRMU 2007 Update Report on the Collaborative Resource Management Programme

of 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

39
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 Forest

Committees, 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 Forestry
Network Paper 25h, London: ODI, 9-16

Geiser U. 2001 ‘To Participate with Whom, for What (and against Whom): Forest
Fringe Management Along the Western Ghats in Southern Kerala’ in Vira B. and
Jeffrey 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 in

Forest Management: The Case of Buto-buvumaForest Reserve, Mpigi District,
Uganda’, in FAO (ed) Participatory Forest Management: a Strategy for Sustainable
Forest Management in Africa, Proceedings of the International Workshop on
Community 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 Forest
Management in the Ivory Coast, London: IIED

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

Iroko Foundation (undated) Sustainable Management of the Ekuri Forests by the

Ekuri 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

40
Keshav R. K. 2006 Current Status of Community Forestry in Nepal,
www.forestrynepal.org/current-status-of-community-forestry-in-nepal, accessed on
07/05/07

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: Russell
Press

Kubsa A., Mariame A., Amente G., Lipp H. and Tsegaye T. (undated) Wajib: An
Alternative Forest Conservation Approach for Ethiopia's Forests,
http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/ARTICLE/WFC/XII/0145-C2.HTM, accessed on
21/05/07
Larson M. A. 2004 Democratic Decentralisation in the Forestry Sector: Lessons
Learned 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: A

Framework for Understanding the Institutional Dynamics of Climate Change’, IDS
Discussion Paper 359

Lindayati R. 2000 ‘Community Forestry Policies in Selected Southeast Asian

Countries’, 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 Forest

Management on Handeni Hill Forest Reserve and Adjacent Communities in Tanga,
Tanzania, Presented at the Eleventh Conference of the International Association for
the 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 Forest
Management 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 Through

Community 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 and
Unmaking of Participation in Local Forest Management in India’, IDS Bulletin, Vol. 3
(9), 26-32

Neefjes K. 2001 ‘Learning from Participatory Environmental Impact Assessment of

Community 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

41
Ogra, M. V. 2000 Who's Participating in 'Participatory' Forestry? The Promise and
Pitfalls of the Joint Forest Management (JFM) Model in India, Presented at the
Eighth Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common
Property, 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 of

Community Forest Committees , BSc. Dissertation, Faculty of Renewable Natural
Resources, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Ghana

Ostrom E. 1999 Self-Governance and Forest Resources, CIFOR Occasional Paper

No. 20

Pretty J. 1994 ‘Alternative Systems of Enquiry for Sustainable Agriculture’, IDS

Bulletin, Vol. 25 (2). 37-48

Pulhin M. J., Amaro Jr. C. M. and Bacalla D. 2005 Philippines Community-Based

Forest Management, www.recoftc.org/site/fileadmin/docs/ publications/TheGrey
Zone/2006/CFForum/policyphilippines.pdf, accessed on 16/05/07

Reining C, Soza C., Flynn S., Contreras .J, Cozo A. and Mancilla M. 1998
Community Forest Concessions, Institutional Reform, and Access to Traditional
Resource 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 of

Participatory Natural Forest Management’, Rural Development Forestry Network
Paper 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 Forest

Committee, 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 Timber
Production Enterprises in Papua New Guinea and Indonesia’, Rural Development
Forestry Network Paper 22b, London: ODI

Santhukumar V. 2001 ‘Analysing Failed Participation with the Perspective of New

Institutional Economics’ in Vira B. and Jeffrey R. (eds), Analytical Issues in
Participatory 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-Togo

Highlands, M.Sc. Thesis, The University of Montana

42
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 Community

Forestry, Rome: FAO

Uprety D. R. 2004 Peasants’ Livelihoods and Community Forest: An Example from

Nepal, www.livelihoods.org/lessons/docs/LFP_uprety.doc, accessed on 21/05/07

Vira B. 1999 ‘Implementing Joint Forest Management in the Field: Towards an

Understanding 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 Natural

Resource Management, London: Palgrave Publishers Ltd.

Vira B. and Jeffery R. (eds) 2001b Conflict and Cooperation in Participatory Natural
Resource Management, London: Palgrave Publishers Ltd.

Vizarreta L. ‘1993 Peasant Participation in Community Reforestation: Four

Communities in the Department of Cuzco, Peru’, Community Forestry Case Study
Series 7, FAO, http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/u9095e/u9095e00.htm, accessed on
18/05/07

Wily A. L. 2002 ‘Participatory Forest Management in Africa: An Overview of

Progress and Issues’ in FAO (ed) Defining the Way Forward: Sustainable Livelihoods
and Sustainable Forest Management Through Participatory Forestry, Second
International Workshop on Participatory Forestry in Africa, Arusha, United Republic
of Tanzania 18-22 February 2002, 31-58

Wily A. L. and Mbaya S. 2001 Land, Forests and People of Eastern and Central
Africa at the Beginning of the 21st Century: The Impact of Land Relations on the Role
of 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 Peten

Questioned’, WRM Bulletin No 40, http://www.wrm.org.uy/bulletin/40/Guatemala/
htm, accessed on 18/05/07

43