Godfried Bakiyem Adaba
Natural Resource Management, Governance and Globalisation
Master Thesis 2005:1
The role of agroforestry for
sustainable forest use – case study of a community-based initiative in the
Kassena-Nankana District of northern Ghana
The role of agroforestry for sustainable forest use – case a study of a community-based agroforestry initiative in the Kassena-Nankan District of northern Ghana
Godfried Bakiyem Adaba
Natural Recourses Management, Governance and Globalisation Master Thesis
2005:1
Supervisor: Maria Tengö
Centre for Transdisciplinary Research on the Environment, CTM Stockholm University
www.ctm.su.se
This thesis is written to fulfil the requirements of the Master Program Natural Resource Management, Governance, and Globalisation a transdisciplinary program held by the Centre for Transdisciplinary Environmental Research, CTM, Stockholm University. The one-year program has four course models and ends with the writing of a master thesis on a subject related to at least one of the course modules. 1. Philosophy of sustainability science Addresses the difficulties and opportunities in transdisciplinary environmental research. In lectures and seminars participants discuss methodological and epistemological issues such as explanations, causality, systems borders, and objectivity. Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology Course leaders: Agr.Dr Thomas Hahn and Dr. Annika Dahlberg 2. Natural Resource Management and Ecosystem Resilience Focuses on the ecosystem capacity to generate life-supporting services and how adaptive management can enhance this capacity and which constraints and opportunities are offered by globalisation. Department of Systems Ecology Course leader: Prof. Thomas Elmqvist 3. Ecosystem management: Collaboration in networks and organizations Investigates the social capacity to develop adaptive governance including arenas for collaboration and conflict resolution. Centre for Transdisciplinary Environmental Research Course leader: AgrDr. Thomas Hahn and Dr. Per Olsson 4. International governance of natural resource management Uses a macro-perspective on governance. The actors and social-ecological drivers of international regimes are analysed, using a few case studies that provide a historical and institutional context. Legal as well as normative perspectives are discussed. Department of Economic History Course leader: Dr. Elisabeth Corell More information on the program is available at http://www.ctm.su.se/ngg About The Centre for Transdisciplinary Environmental Research (CTM): CTM aims to catalyse environmental research and promote environmental education across the faculties. CTM is part of Stockholm University and complements the activities of the different academic departments. CTM is also in close cooperation with other Stockholm-based organisations and institutes conducting research in the environmental and sustainable development field. CTM turns science into knowledge by spreading information about natural resources and environmental issues. We also offer seminars and courses on the subject of environmental and sustainable development issues. Homepage: http://www.ctm.su.se
ABSTRACT
Many parts of West Africa have witnessed environmental degradation for many years.
Kassena-Nankana District of northern Ghana is one example of how increasing demands for
forest products especially of the rural people who depend solely on forests for their livelihood
has widened the gap between demand and supply. Finding alternative options to increase the
supply of forest products while supporting rural livelihoods has become a fundamental
concern for environmental NGOs in the area. The Gia/Nabio Agroforestry Development
Organisation (GNADO), a local Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) operating in the
district is using community agroforestry to balance the conflicting goals of environmental
sustainability, poverty reduction and food security. The GNADO project is largely seen as a
success and has attracted national awards and funding from international agencies. This study
therefore used the GNADO project as a case to understand the link between the benefits
derived from the agroforestry and the success of agroforestry projects. The results confirm
that socio-economic considerations seem to be the motivating factors for participation in the
project, indicating that economic incentive is the most important factor in promoting
agroforestry in the district. It appears that making agroforestry more remunerative and
balancing economic viability and environmental enhancement is a necessary condition for
success.
Key words: agroforestry, community-based, participation, Kassena-Nankana District, Ghana.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT...........................................................................................................................................................V 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT ............................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 AIM AND SIGNIFICANCE............................................................................................................................. 3 1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS............................................................................................................................... 3 1.5 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK....................................................................................................................... 4 1.6 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................................................. 6
1.6.1 Negative effects of agroforestry.................................................................................................................. 7 2 METHODS................................................................................................................................................... 9
2.1 THE CASE STUDY AND ANALYSIS APPROACH............................................................................................... 9 2.2 SOURCES OF DATA ..................................................................................................................................... 9
2.2.1 Primary data ....................................................................................................................................... 9 2.2.2 Secondary data................................................................................................................................... 11
2.3 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY .................................................................................................................... 11 3 CASE STUDY SETTING ......................................................................................................................... 13
3.1 STUDY AREA............................................................................................................................................ 13 3.1.1 Size and location ................................................................................................................................ 13 3.1.2 Geography......................................................................................................................................... 13 3.1.3 Climate ............................................................................................................................................ 13 3.1.4 Vegetation ........................................................................................................................................ 13 3.1.5 Population ........................................................................................................................................ 14 3.1.6 Agricultural land use .......................................................................................................................... 14
3.2 ECOSYSTEM DYNAMICS ............................................................................................................................ 16 3.3 ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ........................................................................................................................ 16 3.4 CURRENT DRIVERS OF CHANGE........................................................................................................... 17 3.5 EXISTING ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT AND GOVERNANCE IN THE STUDY AREA................................... 18
3.5.1 Indigenous protected area systems............................................................................................................ 18 3.5.2 Introduced protected area systems............................................................................................................ 19
3.6 TRADITIONAL AGROFORESTRY IN THE SAVANNAH ZONES OF NORTHERN GHANA............................... 20 3.7 NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL POLICY..................................................................................................... 22
4 RESULTS................................................................................................................................................... 23 4.1 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS.......................................................................... 23
4.1.1 Age ................................................................................................................................................. 23 4.1.2 Education ......................................................................................................................................... 23 4.1.3 Gender ............................................................................................................................................. 23 4.1.4 Number of years since joining the project .................................................................................................. 23
4.2 STAKEHOLDERS IN THE GNADO PROJECT......................................................................................... 24 4.1.1 The state........................................................................................................................................... 25 4.1.2 NGOs ............................................................................................................................................. 25 4.1.3 The local communities.......................................................................................................................... 25
4.2 AGROFORESTRY ACTIVITIES OF GNADO................................................................................................ 27 4.2.1 Most popular agroforestry systems........................................................................................................... 27 4.2.2 Reasons for adopting agroforestry............................................................................................................ 28 4.2.3 Local participation in the project ............................................................................................................ 29 4.2.4 Incorporation of local knowledge............................................................................................................. 30 4.2.5 Project monitoring ............................................................................................................................... 31
4.3 PERCEIVED IMPACT OF THE GNADO PROJECT ........................................................................................ 32 4.3.1 Environmental impact ......................................................................................................................... 32 4.3.2 Socio-economic impact of the project......................................................................................................... 34
i
5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 38 5.1 MOTIVATIONS FOR ADOPTING AGROFORESTRY ....................................................................................... 38 5.2 REASONS FOR SUCCESS............................................................................................................................. 38 5.3 PARTICIPATION........................................................................................................................................ 39 5.4 ADOPTIVE CO- MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................................. 40 5.5 CHALLENGES ........................................................................................................................................... 41 5.6 THE WAY FORWARD ................................................................................................................................. 42 5.7 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................... 42
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................... 44 APPENDIX ......................................................................................................................................................... 51
ii
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
TABLES
Number
Page TABLE 1 TRADITIONAL TREE SPECIES LEFT IN SITU IN FARMS IN THE GUINEA SAVANNAH ZONE IN GHANA ...... 21 TABLE 2 AGE, GENDER, LEVEL OF EDUCATION AND NUMBER OF YEARS WITH THE GNADO PROJECT BY
COMMUNITY. ................................................................................................................................................ 24 TABLE 3 STAKEHOLDERS AND THEIR INTEREST IN THE GNADO PROJECT............................................................. 26 TABLE 4 COMMON CROPS, TREES AND ANIMALS UNDER THE GNADO PROJECT.................................................... 28 TABLE 5 PERCENT VIEWS OF RESPONDENTS OF SELECTED ELEMENTS OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT. ....................... 31 TABLE 6 FARMERS’ VIEWS ON CHANGES IN KEY ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC VARIABLES DUE TO THE
GNADO PROJECT. ....................................................................................................................................... 36
FIGURES
FIGURE 1 STUDY COMMUNITIES BY NUMBER OF QUESTIONNAIRES COMPLETED AND IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED. ................................................................................................................................................ 11
FIGURE 2 MAP OF AFRICA HIGHLIGHTING GHANA. ....................................................................................... 15 FIGURE 3 MAP OF GHANA HIGHLIGHTING THE KASSENA-NANKANA DISTRICT. ............................................ 15 FIGURE 4 REASONS FOR ADOPTING AGROFORESTRY...................................................................................... 29 FIGURE 6 PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE GNADO PROJECT. ............ 33 FIGURE 7 IMPACT OF THE GNADO PROJECT ON HOUSEHOLDS AND INDIVIDUALS......................................... 35
iii
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Many countries in West Africa have undergone population growth; this unfortunately has not
been matched with an equally rapid rate of development of strategies to manage natural
resources that cater for the increasing demands on the resources (Ntiamoah-Baidu, 1995).
Concurrently, the traditional strategies for biodiversity conservation control that have existed
in African communities have gradually eroded. The result is degradation and severe depletion
of natural resources, with serious consequences for biodiversity conservation on the continent.
Biodiversity is defined as variety of life forms, measured in terms of biomes, ecosystems,
species, and genetic varieties and interactions between them (ibid).
Agroforestry, being one of the approaches to improving land use, is frequently invoked as an
answer to shortages of fuel wood, cash income, animal fodder and building materials in Sub-
Saharan Africa (Rocheleau et al, 1988). Agroforestry is a form of sustainable land use that
combines trees and shrubs with crops and/or livestock in ways that increase and diversify
farm and forest production while also conserving natural resources (Molua, 2005). The
ecological and socio-economic importance of agroforestry systems in preventing and
reversing deforestation and preventing desertification is now widely recognized (Boffa,
1999). They generally enhance biological diversity, provide wood and non-timber products,
promote healthy ecosystems, regulate soil and water resources and maintain carbon cycles.
They also provide various useful products for household and national economies including
food and medicinal products for humans and animals, wood for construction and fuel, and
cash income. While agroforests are typically less diverse than native forest, they may provide
social-ecological resilience which is a key feature of sustainability. Resilience is defined as
the capacity of a system to undergo disturbance while maintaining its functions and controls
(Holling, 1986). Agroforests can help relieve some of the pressure to harvest natural forests;
although their presence as such is not a sufficient condition for protection of old growth
forests (Van Noordwijk1 et al., 2003). It can be a way to increase crop yields and diversity of
species grown, but an additional benefit is the creation of a carbon sink that removes carbon
dioxide from the atmosphere, or the maintenance of carbon in existing vegetation and,
therefore, has implications for climatic change (Shroeder, 1994).
1
1.2 Problem statement
In Ghana, heavy dependence on forests for many ecosystem services has resulted in their
unsustainable exploitation. Daily (1997) defines ecosystem services are the conditions and
processes through which natural ecosystems, and the species that make them up, sustain and
fulfil human life. It is estimated that the country incurs an economic loss of about US$54
billion through biodiversity loss due to environmental degradation (particularly deforestation
and forest degradation), equivalent to four percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (GPRS,
2002). About 70 percent of the national population practice ‘slash and burn’ agriculture, and
while this form of agriculture has been practiced for thousands of years, rapidly growing
population has forced farmers to seek more and more land to meet food, fodder, and fuel
wood needs. Expansion to new territories has resulted in substantial degradation of land,
gradual disappearance of forests and decline in soil fertility. Furthermore, poverty and
declining crop yields have increased the dependence on forests for fuel wood and for
domestic energy production purposes (Boahene, 1998).
The situation in the Kassena-Nankana District is not different what pertains in the entire
country. While the district has been under cultivation many years, decades of deforestation
coupled with intensive farming practices to feed a growing population have left the
environment in this agriculturally dependent district severely degraded. The impact of
deforestation is widespread, disrupting important environmental functions which are severely
disturbing the biological integrity of ecosystems and affecting livelihoods. Loss of
biodiversity, soil degradation, depletion of water resources, loss of wildlife resources, and
desertification are common problems in the district. The result is the declining crop yields,
increasing food insecurity and poverty, compelling youths in the district to migrate to the
southern parts of the country in search for better living conditions (UNCCD website at <
http://www.unccd.entico.com/english/mak-diff12.htm> [2005-05-02].
The depletion of forest resources and increasing demand for forest products especially of the
rural people who depend on forests for livelihoods have widened the gap between the demand
and supply of forest products in the district. Finding alternative options to increase the supply
of forest products to support rural livelihoods have become a fundamental concern for the
Ghana government and environmental NGOs. Agroforestry seems to have potential to provide
options for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation (Gordon and Bently, 1990).
GNADO, an NGO operating in the Kassena-Nankana District of northern Ghana established
2
since 1989 is using community agroforestry to make fuel wood and fruits available for
domestic consumption and for sale to generate income with the aim to diverting the harsh
human activities towards the natural resource base to ensure their reforestation, protection and
preservation for generational future.
Using the GNADO project as a case, this study investigated the social, economic and
environmental impact of agroforestry in the Kassena-Nankana District of northern Ghana,
one of the districts with high rates of poverty and environmental degradation. It examined the
role of incentives and collaboration for participation in agroforestry projects in a particular
local context and how the success of the project in the district relates to incentives.
1.3 Aim and significance
The GNADO project is largely seen as a success and has attracted national awards and
funding from international agencies. The incentives that GNADO provides have been cited as
the reason for the success of the project. This study therefore used the GNADO project as a
case to understand the link between the incentives and success of agroforestry projects. The
underlying argument is that benefits from agroforestry play a significant role in determining
success of agroforestry projects. The study also explored whether elements of adaptive co-
management are included in project management as well as the level of local participation in
the project.
There are many examples of agroforestry projects in Ghana initiated by various NGOs;
however, the Kassena-Nankana District is unique in the sense that it is one of the poorest and
most degraded and considered to be under the threat of desertification. The study is significant
because it provides insights into contribution of agroforestry to the livelihoods of poor
households while promoting afforestation. The results can be useful in redirecting, improving
and strengthening the existing agroforestry projects. Since this is a case study of the Kassena-
Nankana District, the results of the study may not hold true for other agroforestry projects.
However, the information generated may give some guidelines for implementation of some
agroforestry programmes in similar areas.
1.4 Research questions
In recent years NGOs have played a significant role in the facilitation of agroforestry
programmes thereby complementing the government programmes (Rao, 1992) to meet
3
livelihood needs of the farming households and rehabilitate degraded lands. With this
background the study attempted to answer the following research questions:
1. What are the perceptions by beneficiaries about the success or otherwise of the
project?
2. What roles has collaboration played for success?
3. What elements of adaptive co-management are being employed by the project?
1.5 Theoretical framework
Ecosystems are now understood as complex systems predominated by positive and negative
feedback processes operating over a range of spatial and temporal scales. These systems
exhibit loose hierarchical structures, various emergent phenomena and relatively sudden
reconfigurations from one state to another, with some changes inherently unpredictable.
Funtowicz and Ravetz (1993) distinguish problem solving strategies for different
circumstances defined by the inherent uncertainties in the situation and the severity of
consequences arising from the decision to be made. ‘Normal science’, classified as applied
science or mission oriented research, succeeds where the relative uncertainties are low and the
stakes or outcomes associated with the decision are modest. In contrast, ‘post-normal science’
refers to situations involving complex adaptive systems where science if of little use, inherent
uncertainty is high with severe potential consequences from decisions that have to be made.
These make traditional reductionistic science and expert predictions which form the basis for
decision making of limited value.
Complex adaptive systems challenge the expectations that decision makers can carefully
manage and control societal or ecological systems. In the post-normal situation, decision
making takes on a different meaning. Decisions have to be made about how to deal with the
inherent uncertainties, what risks to take, what contingencies to plan for, and what backups to
have in place (Kay et al 1999). This makes it necessary for beneficiaries and those that will be
affected by the outcomes to have some role in decision making. Given that the ability to
forecast are limited, management and decision making strategies must focus on maintaining a
capacity to adapt to changing environmental conditions (ibid). To strengthen the capacity to
manage ecosystems sustainably to ensure continued provision of essential services requires an
understanding of not only the ecological system but the integrated social-ecological system
4
(Berkes and Folke 1998, Olsson et al., 2004b). Social-ecological systems are complex
systems, the inherent features of which are change and uncertainty (Gunderson and Holling
2002). To strengthen our capacity to deal with uncertainty and change and to sustain
ecosystem services, it is important to monitor, interpret, and respond to ecosystem feedback
(Berkes et al. 2003).
Learning to deal with uncertainty and adapt to changing environmental conditions is
becoming essential in a world where humanity plays a major role in shaping biospheric
processes (Folke et al., 2002). Successful adaptive approaches to ecosystem management
under uncertainty among other things has to monitor and develop practices that that interpret
and respond to ecological feedback as well as support flexible institutions and organizations
and adaptive management processes (Berkes and Folke, 1998). Adaptive co-management has
therefore been proposed as that can help deal with complexity because they are flexible
community-based systems of resource management tailored to specific places and situations
and supported by, and working with, various organizations at different levels (Folke et al.,
2003). Adaptive co-management is a process by which institutional arrangements and
ecological knowledge are tested and revised in a dynamic, ongoing, self-organized process of
learning by doing (Folke et al., 2002). According to Olsson et al. (2004) essential conditions
for creating adaptive co-management and building the resilience of social-ecological systems
include:
• Vision, leadership and trust
• Enabling legislation that creates social space for ecosystem management
• Funds for responding to environmental change and for remedial action
• Monitoring and responding to environmental feedback
• Information flow through social networks
• The combination of various sources of information and knowledge
• Sense-making for ecosystem management
• Arenas of collaborative learning for ecosystem management
It is also clear from the literature that the externally enforced exclusion of local communities
and the alienation of their people from the management of natural resources do not promote
local support for agroforestry (Ntiamoah-Baidu, 1995). Adaptive co-management is important
because it relies on collaboration of diverse stakeholders operating at different levels, often in
5
networks from local users, to municipal, regional and national and also international bodies
(Olsson et al., 2004a).
1.6 Literature review
Experiences from not only ‘success stories’ but also ‘failed’ agroforestry projects provide
potentially useful lessons for assessing agroforestry projects. The rehabilitation of degraded
forests in the Dormaa District of the Brong Ahafo Region of Ghana using agroforestry was
successful mainly because the project objectives were consistent with the needs and
constraints of the local communities, the local communities benefited from the project in
terms of food and income generation and the appropriate incentives were provided to the local
area in the form of equipment which were needed for effective participation (Wood &Yapi,
2004). In a similar project for community-based rehabilitation of the Nazinon Forest in
Burkina Faso, the reason for success were a very favourable political and policy environment,
the project’s emphasis on income generation and revenue sharing, the empowerment of local
communities and a strong capacity building component (ibid). A study of the Nkhalango
social forestry model from Malawi revealed that an enabling policy framework, a forest area
available to provide quick results in the form of improved income for villagers, complete
handover of management responsibilities, training efforts for beneficiaries, and linkages to
external management structures were key factors (Kaarhus, et al., 2003). In Nepal, the
formation of women saving group to solve the common problem of fodder shortage and trees
cultivated in the farmland through agroforestry contributed towards generating income of the
households and reduced pressure on the national forest land and contributed to biodiversity
conservation and production of diverse products to maintain the livelihood of the farming
households (Regmi, 2003).
In a study of agroforestry and conservation in northern Madagascar, it was concluded that the
project was partially successful in that local paid employees maintained nurseries and gave
away trees. It seemed, however, that it neither established nor sustained an agroforestry
programme that could reduce pressure on forests by providing an alternative source of tree
products. It was concluded that the project face the challenges of ensuring adequate
participation, and paying attention to the needs of women and the landless who need the
motivation to engage in agroforestry. Again when the project is based on the ability to sell the
products for a profit, it may prevent the project from being sustainable (Gezon, & Freed,
1999). However, a project in the Western Region of Ghana failed because it was designed
6
without the involvement of stakeholders especially the traditional land owners in the area,
awareness creation about the importance of the project was also lacking and finally there was
neither activities nor provisions made for identifying the needs of the local communities and
for improving their socio-economic conditions through the project (Wood &Yapi, 2004).
Participation by the local people is therefore essential for success. However, success depends
fundamentally on a proper understanding of motivations underlying farmers’ decisions
whether or not to participate. studies have generally indicated that multiple-use agroforestry
systems which incorporate short-term rotations and produce multiple outputs such as fuel
wood, fruits and nuts, and forage and which also improve soil conditions, provide more
immediate benefits to farm households than do single-purpose systems promoting long-term
goals such as timber production (Hosier, 1989). Gregersen et al. (1989) conclude that, farmers
compare the expected net benefits of tree cultivation with the benefits they could obtain from
using their land, resources and time in the next best use in the farming system. Additional
non-economic benefits such as erosion control, water conservation, improved soil fertility,
and wind protection have also been cited as reasons for farmer tree cultivation (Scherr, 1992).
1.6.1 Negative effects of agroforestry
Over the last century, agroforestry using exotic trees has developed as an integral and crucial
part of many national economies and environmental programmes. Planted trees and woody
shrubs have also proved vital in improving the livelihoods of many of the world’s poor. As a
result, countries, international organizations, programmes and industries have been
exchanging forest reproductive material on an ever-increasing scale (Haysom and Murphy,
2003). This trend is likely to continue.
Most species introduced for agroforestry have been selected for a number of traits, including
their suitability for fodder and fuelwood. In many areas of the developing world, the very high
demand for forest products has meant that local communities have exhausted their natural
supplies. In some cases, though, the aggressive, spreading nature of introduced trees has
resulted in reforestation, although with an introduced species (ibid). This in turn has provided
rural communities with continuous supply of forest products.
In agroforestry, there are several reports of trees and woody shrubs that have become
invasive. Invasive alien species is defined as “species introduced deliberately or
7
unintentionally outside their natural habitats, where they have the ability to establish
themselves, invade, out-compete natives and take over the new environment” (CBD, 2001).
They are thus a serious impediment to conservation and sustainable use of global, regional
and local biodiversity, with significant undesirable impacts on the goods and services
provided by ecosystems (ibid).
Negative effects resulting from the invasiveness of exotic trees in agroforestry include
hybridization and economic, social and environmental impacts. Hybridization can occur
between different species introduced into the same area or between an introduced and a native
species. There are few recorded instances of negative impacts of hybridization in trees.
However, some examples do exist, as documented by Pasiecznik et al. 2001 (cited in Haysom
and Murphy, 2003) in South Africa, where Prosopis species hybridize readily and of which
several hybrids already exist. Economic, social and environmental impacts are interlinked in
some aspects. In many cases invasive forestry species invade natural or semi-natural
ecosystems in developing countries and have an impact on the services that those ecosystems
provide to local communities. However, despite the large number of invasive species that
have been recorded, little economic data exists on the impact of these species and few studies
have quantified environmental impacts.
Apart from the basic benefits of agroforestry, some communities have derived additional
benefits from invasive trees (e.g. an example from North Africa showing that some degree of
invasion of grasslands by woody legumes can be beneficial for livestock grazing, particularly
in time of drought (Hughes and Styles 1989, cited in Haysom and Murphy, 2003)). In some
cases, therefore, conflicts have arisen over the positive and the negative impacts of invasive
tree species. Such conflicts include, for example, those between economic development and
conservation, which have become increasingly common as conservation agencies have
become more aware of the risks to biodiversity that can result from biological invasions
(ibid).
8
2 METHODS
2.1 The case study and analysis approach
The study employs the case study approach. A case is often unique and offers richness in
details rather than generalizations, and understanding instead of explanations. Case studies
lend themselves to study complex issues while retaining the holistic characteristics of real-life
events (Yin, 1994). By seeking to understand as much as possible about a single subject or
small group of subjects, case studies specialize in ‘thick description’ information based on
particular contexts that can give research results a more human face. This emphasis bridge the
gap between abstract research and concrete practice. This study is exploratory in nature and
this makes a case study approach is appropriate. However, the generalisability of the findings
are limited.
In order to create a rich picture of the situation, and to enhance the validity and reliability of
the results, primary and secondary data have been employed. The approach is
interdisciplinary because the subject of the thesis falls under the domain of many different
disciplines and strives for a more holistic interpretation of the event or situation under study.
The analysis builds on interpretations and processing of data collected through interviews,
questionnaire and secondary data. A qualitative study emphasizes the experiences and
perceptions of people about the project, and relates that to the literature review. Both
qualitative and quantitative data was used because they complement each other, illuminating
different aspects of the same research problem.
2.2 Sources of data
2.2.1 Primary data
Primary data was based on an interviewer administered questionnaire survey with open and
closed questions and in-depth interviews (IDIs) (See appendix for copies of the questionnaire
and in-depth interview guide). open questions were used when straight answers involving
recall was needed, however, open questions were used when explanatory answers were
required. Because I could not make to the field myself, the two complementary methods
ensured that more information was collected than would have been the case if one method
9
was used. Furthermore, the two methods made comparison of data possible especially when
there are contradictions and inadequate answers.
Data collection was done in the Kassena-Nankana District April 2005 on behalf of the
researcher by a team of two experienced research assistants. The research instruments were
prepared by myself and sent to the research assistants with information about the study as well
as literature on conducting research using questionnaires and in-depth interviews. This was
important to give the research assistants a background to the study and also to refresh their
knowledge to enhance the data collection process.
2.2.1.1 Questionnaire
The questionnaire for project beneficiary communities consisted of 36 questions covering the
following topics: demographic information, agroforestry, adaptive co-management and
impact of the GNADO project. The procedure for selecting survey respondents was as
follows: first, three beneficiary communities (Katiu, Chiana and Gia-Nabio) were purposively
selected. List of beneficiary households in each area were obtained from the managers of the
project. With this list, simple random sampling was used to select a random sample 30
households, where the head of the household answered the questionnaire. Completed
questionnaires were coded and processed with the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS) and presented in charts and graphs. Questions with open answers were arranged in
groups of similar answers to make coding and processing using SPSS possible.
2.2.1.2 In-depth Interviews (IDIs)
The in-depth interview guide for members of the beneficiary communities consisted of 17
questions. These addressed agroforestry and perceptions of the environmental and socio-
economic impact of the project. The IDI guide for project manager had 13 questions
bordering on the impact of the project and co-adaptive management.
In all 7 IDIs were conducted with two interviewees each from Katiu, Chiana and Gia-Nabio.
One interview was held with the project manager. There were plans for another IDI with the
extension officer attached to the project, however, several attempts to meet him failed. Figure
1 summarizes the number of completed questionnaires and in-depth interviews conducted.
10
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Gia-Nabio Chiana Katiu Total
QuestionnairesIn-depth interviews
Source: Questionnaire survey, April 2005.
Figure 1 Study communities by number of questionnaires completed and in-depth interviews conducted.
2.2.2 Secondary data
Apart from primary data, secondary data were obtained from GNADO including the
following:
1. End of project phase evaluation report 2000-2002.
2. Funding support document for the establishment of community resource management
project at Kayoro in the Kassena-Nankana District, 2005-2007.
3. Evaluation of women poverty reduction project supported by DANIDA, 2003.
4. Information from the official website of GNADO (http://www.gnado.org/index.htm).
The problem with the secondary data is that most of the evaluation reports were
commissioned by GNADO, therefore the absence of bias in these reports can not be
guaranteed. Furthermore, the validity of the methods used for data collection in the reports
has not been authenticated.
2.3 Limitations of the study
11
The study has certain limitations that need to be taken into account; however, some of these
limitations can be seen as fruitful avenues for future research under the same project. First of
all, due to time and resource constraints, I could not visit the study area myself and therefore
had to rely on research assistants. Even though the assistants are experienced data collectors
attached to the Navrongo Health Research Centre which is located in the study area, they are
not well versed in the topic under investigation and this may have affected the results in many
ways. Translating the questionnaires and IDI guides accurately to convey their exact meaning
in Kassem, the local language of the people of the study communities also posed a big
challenge and possibilities of misunderstandings of the questions can not be ruled out.
Another limitation of this study is the generalizability of the results. The sample size for the
questionnaires was only 30, while the 7 IDIs were held involving only 3 project communities.
This is not representative enough to enable the generalisations to be made. Due to time
constraints the research instruments where not pre-tested to identify any shortcomings and
make relevant revisions before final administration. During analysis, it was realised that there
were questions that did not elicit the kind of information needed, while others were either
inadequate or unnecessary.
The study also concentrated more on the socio-economic and environmental aspects of the
project and did not delve deep into the ecological and governance issues, although it did touch
on some of them such as adaptive co-management and adaptive management. Ecological and
governance issues of the project therefore constitute areas for further research.
12
3 CASE STUDY SETTING
3.1 Study Area
3.1.1 Size and location
The Kassena-Nankana District occupies a total of 1,675 square kilometres of sub-Sahelian
grassland on Ghana’s northern border with Burkina Faso. Administratively, the district is
divided into five main zones. The central zone, made up of Navrongo (the district capital) and
surrounding areas; the north zone that covers Paga and its environs; the south, comprising
Kologo and other surrounding villages; the east comprising of Kandiga and surrounding
villages; and finally the west covering Chiana and surrounding villages.
3.1.2 Geography
Much of the landscape is broad savannah grasslands spotted with baobab trees. The region
falls within the Guinea Savannah Zone with clay type soils, mostly coarse textured with
varying amounts of loosely packed stones and iron concretions. The soil is low in inherent
fertility and organic matter contents. The soils make tillage easy but also subject it to high rate
of wind and water erosion. This leads to the rapid decline in structure, organic matter and
fertility of soil types in the area (GNADO, 2005).
3.1.3 Climate
The district experiences a seasonal rainfall pattern often lasting between May and September,
while the rest of the year is dry and hot. Frequent dry spells and prolonged droughts are a
common feature causing serious set backs in crop and livestock production in the region.
The dry season which lasts seven (7) months from October to April is characterized by high
dry temperatures and cool nights, especially around December and January. High ambient
sunshine and daytime temperatures could reach 42 degrees Celsius in March, which is the
hottest month of the year (ibid).
3.1.4 Vegetation
The natural vegetation is degraded, because the trees are not enough to form a closed canopy.
The vegetation due to severe human activities is mostly degraded as compared to their
13
counterparts in the southern parts of Ghana. As a result, the vegetation is reduced to an open
land where only trees of economic value have been retained to give a stand of about fifteen
(15) trees per hectare (Nyarko et al., 2002).
3.1.5 Population
According to the provisional results of the 2000 Population and Housing Census, the
Kassena-Nankana District has a total of 149,019 residents, made up of 71,488 males and
77,531 females. Population indices in 1994 suggest a low growth of 0.4 per cent per annum
due to the net effect of migration over the natural increase, a situation typical of district
populations elsewhere in northern Ghana (GSS, 2000).
3.1.6 Agricultural land use
Crop farming together with livestock production constitute the principal economically viable
occupation of majority of the people of the district. Crops grown include cereals (millet,
guinea corn, maize and rice), legumes (cowpeas, groundnuts (peanuts), bambara beans) and
vegetables (tomatoes, onion, kenaf, bitter vegetables and pepper). Some farmers keep cattle,
sheep, goats, poultry and donkeys, which are main domestic and farm animals. Farmers often
keep a combination of these animals as a complementary enterprise to their crop production;
they are also kept as a status symbol. The animals also serve as an insurance against crop
failure, when they would be sold to purchase food for family consumption. Religious and
customary ceremonies such as sacrifices and dowries are also important reasons for farmers
keeping livestock (Nyarko et al, 2000). The collection and selling of firewood, as well as the
production of charcoal represent another major economic activity in the district.
Consequently, forests in the area are highly degraded due to a high incidence of annual bush
fire, overexploitation of tree resources, unsustainable farming practices and overgrazing
(GNADO, 2005).
14
Figure 2 Map of Africa highlighting Ghana.
Figure 3 Map of Ghana highlighting the Kassena-Nankana District.
Burkina Faso Ivory Coast Togo
15
3.2 Ecosystem dynamics
The Guinea savannah ecosystem in the Kassena-Nankana District, like all ecosystems, is
subject to several disturbance regimes of different temporal and spatial scales. Natural
disturbances are usually pulse disturbances with a characteristic magnitude and frequency, but
human activities usually transform these pulse disturbances into chronic disturbances
(Bengtsson et al, 2003). The mixed formations of sparse fire and drought resistant trees and
shrubs in the district are distinct characteristics of the rangeland savannah that constitute a
unique strategy to cope with low and sporadic rainfall. Trees are deciduous and shed their
leaves in the dry season are highly resilient and recover quickly from prevailing disturbance
of fires, herbivore pressure and drought (Poku, 2004).
Erosion is rampant in the area because the absorptive capacity of soils cannot cope with the
intensity of the rain, creating high amounts of runoff (Kranjac-Berisavljevic’ et al,
1999). However, the extensive root systems of grasses allow them to recover quickly from
grazing, flooding, drought, and fire which are the major disturbances. These natural
disturbances are part of ecosystem dynamics, but human impact has altered these natural
disturbance regimes with adverse consequences. Wildlife in the area has seasonal migration
patterns towards the south during the dry season, between December and April, to seek
pasture that is usually scarce in the district during the dry season (ibid).
3.3 Ecosystem services
The savannah grassland ecosystem of the Kassena-Nankana District has many ecosystem
services. These include game animals, fodder, fuel wood and medicinal products. It is an
important source of marketable goods, including animals used for labour and those consumed
as meat, milk or leather. The ecosystem serves as the original habitat for domesticated
animals such as cattle, goats, sheep and horses as well as many crops, such as millet, sorghum
and other grasses. They serve as a critical refuge for native biodiversity, and also protect soil
and water resources against degradation. In addition, savannah bush meat (various
indigenous rodents, antelopes, reptiles and gastropods) is an important source of animal
protein and revenues for local impoverished communities. The ecosystem is also an important
source of farmer crop varieties including cereals, roots, tubers and legumes.
16
What has been less appreciated until recently is that natural ecosystems also perform
fundamental life support services without which humans will not survive, including actual
life-support functions, such as cleansing, recycling, and renewal. The ecosystem of the district
has an ameliorative effect on the local climate and constitutes a natural barrier to the
harmattan winds from the Sahara, thus helping to maintain a favourable climate for
agricultural production in the south of Ghana. Cultural services provided by the ecosystem
include cultural diversity, spiritual and religious values, knowledge systems (traditional and
formal), educational values, inspiration, aesthetic values, social relations, sense of place,
cultural heritage values, recreation and ecotourism (Ntiamoah-Baidu, 1991).
3.4 Current drivers of change
The savannah ecosystem in the district contain a variety of native animal, plant and microbial
species that have developed special strategies to cope with the low and sporadic rainfall, and
extreme variability in temperatures that prevail in the ecosystem. The area currently
experiences major biophysical environmental changes, which are generally degradational in
character (Nsiah-Gyabaah, 1996) as a result of unsustainable practices to meet food and
nutritional needs of the growing human and livestock population are major drivers of change
(ibid).
The socio-economic profile of the rural population in the northern savannah zone, with few
employment opportunities, high illiteracy rate, and low household incomes is a source of
considerable stress to the ecosystem. The practice of bush burning is so deeply ingrained in
the traditional farming system that trying to suppress it would mean cutting off the means of
subsistence of small-scale farmers who do not have adequate funds to employ labour for land
clearing (ibid).
A poorly developed market system where prices of exploited natural resources do not match
their real economic value and open access to dwindling communally owned (common pool)
natural resources are other important drivers of change in the district. An example of this
driver is the big market for bush meat in the south of the country which has let to the
exploitation of many endangered animals. This is made worse by a range of inefficient public
regulating agencies with overlapping responsibilities that are unable to check activities that
adversely affect the ecosystem. One setback of the activities of these regulatory agencies is
their inability to involve key stakeholders including local communities in natural resource
17
management. There is also the lack of inter-agency coordination in planning and monitoring
natural resource use, especially at the district and sub-district levels.
3.5 Existing ecosystem management and governance in the study area
Two systems of ecosystem management currently operate in the district namely, the
indigenous management regime and protected area systems based on western knowledge and
values (forest reserves).
3.5.1 Indigenous protected area systems
Sacred groves in Ghana and other West African countries provide a good example of
indigenous protected area systems within rural communities. Ntiamoa-Baidu (1991) identified
three categories of indigenous strategies that advertently or inadvertently conserve
biodiversity in Ghana. These are strategies that:
1. Protect particular ecosystems or habitats (such as sacred groves, royal burial grounds,
sacred rivers)
2. Protect particular animal or plant species (such as totem and tabooed species)
3. Regulate exploitation of natural resources (such as close seasons for harvesting or
hunting).
These strategies are often enshrined in religious or cultural beliefs and superstitions and
enforced by taboos. The taboos have no legal backing, but the beliefs have been strong
enough to make people obey the regulations. In the past, small patches of forest were set
aside, normally close to settlements, as sacred lands that could not be touched. These lands
were strictly protected by customary laws. Such areas still exist in rural Ghana and may be
shrines, ancestral forests, and burial grounds. Collectively they are known as sacred or fetish
groves. A number of sacred groves have been destroyed as a result of urban and infrastructure
development, but many still survive in the Kassena-Nankana district.
Several categories of groves exist. Many are small (less than one hectare), often comprising
an object (such as a tree, stone, or rock) considered to be a god and its immediate
surroundings. More commonly, the patch of forest in which the royals of a particular village
were buried was protected because of respect for the dead and the belief that the ancestral
spirits lived there. Entry into such forests was prohibited, and only a limited class of people
18
(such as members of the royal family, village elders, and clan heads) were allowed access for
burial purposes (Dwomoh, 1990).
Many rivers and streams that provided the main source of drinking water for a village were
also considered sacred. The surrounding forest lands were protected on the basis that the spirit
of the river resided in the forest. Taboos associated with such sites included: prohibition of
cultivation of forest lands on the river banks, prohibition of use of fisheries resources within
the river and restrictions on access to the river on certain days. These taboos prevented
defilement of the river. Although protection of the forests along river banks was based on
religious and cultural beliefs, it served as river corridor management (ibid).
Often, patches of forests were protected because they supported sacred, totem or tabooed
species that were believed to have special spiritual or cultural values and associations. Many
clans in Ghana have a wild animal or plant species as their symbol. For example, the
crocodile is the symbol of the people of Paga; consequently, crocodiles are well protected in
the area.
These sacred groves are controlled by traditional authority.1 The responsibility for protection
of the grove is vested in the entire community, but a select group of people or family normally
has the duty to enforce the rules. The conservation strategy, which is one of preservation, is
enshrined in taboos and numerous cultural and religious rites and is maintained through
reverence for the gods and ancestral spirits. That sacred groves have survived so far is purely
because of the strong traditional beliefs upheld by the local people and the spiritual, religious
and cultural attachments to the groves. The major virtue of this strong culture-based practice
is that it encourages community participation in natural resource conservation and sustains
positive awareness of nature and the linkages between man and nature (Ntiamoa-Baidu,
1991).
3.5.2 Introduced protected area systems
In the early 1900s, concern over rapid destruction of forests and dwindling wild animal
populations in Ghana and other African countries led colonial administrators to introduce
protected area systems based on western knowledge and values. Introduced protected area
systems in Ghana comprise forest reserves and wildlife conservation areas (national parks,
1 Usually the fetish priest in charge of the god of the grove, the chief of the village, and heads of relevant clans.
19
game production reserves, wildlife sanctuaries, and strict nature reserves). Control of these
areas is vested in central government. A policy of externally enforced exclusion is pursued
and no serious attempts are made to involve the local communities in the management of the
protected areas. This situation, naturally, generates antagonism and often results in conflicts
between local communities and wildlife/forestry officers.
Forest reserves2 were established in 1927 when the Forest Ordinance was passed. Although
the primary purpose of most forest reserves in Ghana presently appears to be timber
production, the maintenance of environmental and ecological stability was a major objective
for their establishment in the early days of forest management. Thus, reserves were
established along the forest/savanna borders to prevent the advancement of savanna
vegetation into the forest zone, hilly areas were reserved to protect the headwaters of major
rivers and prevent erosion, and reserves were scattered throughout the forest zone to maintain
hydrological and climatic conditions (Ntiamoa-Baidu, 1991).
3.6 Traditional agroforestry in the savannah zones of northern Ghana
Historically, in most parts of West Africa and Ghana in particular, it is known that farmers
and other land users practise agroforestry in one form or another (MOFA, 1989 cited in Poku,
2004). Shifting cultivation, bush fallowing, and trees on rangeland and pastures are some of
the agroforestry practices that have often been referred to as traditional agroforestry systems
(ibid).
The Guinea savannah where the Kessana-Nankana District is located has a distinct traditional
agroforestry system that integrates annual crops, tree crops, and livestock. The system can be
delineated into two main practices. These are dispersed trees on croplands and dispersed trees
on rangelands. Minor practices identified in the zone include boundary planting, fencing, and
home gardens. Most of them provide fruits and nuts that are either sold or consumed in the
household. This is the case especially with the dawadawa and shea butter trees
(Butyrospernum parkii (V. paradoxa). Additionally, farmers use some of the trees for
construction of homesteads, farm implements, and local bridges. Medicinal as well as spiritual
values are also associated with some of the trees.
2 Areas legally constituted for permanent forestry production.
20
The dawadawa3, shea butter (Butyrospernum parkii), and albizia sp. trees are often associated
with crops. It is alleged that some farmers influence the spatial distribution of such trees in
order to reduce the shading effects of the trees on the associated crops. Young saplings of
such trees are uprooted to achieve not only a desired tree population, but also an acceptable
spatial arrangement. In the case of mature trees on croplands, lopping, removal of dead
branches and pruning are some of the tree management practices.
Cropping systems identified in the zone are crop rotation, mixed cropping, sole cropping, and
intercropping. An important feature of the cropping systems in the Guinea savanna zone is the
prevalence of compound farms and bush farms. The compound farm type operates around
human settlements and typifies communities in which cropland is scarce. Bush farms are
rather distant farms normally located two to three kilometres away from the homestead. This
practice operates in areas where land is relatively abundant. The zone features the maize/
cattle and sorghum-based systems, with diverse subsystems that involve crops such as, maize,
sorghum, millet, rice, cowpea, groundnut, and vegetables in different combinations.
Table 1 Traditional tree species left in situ in farms in the Guinea savannah zone in Ghana
Scientific name Common name
Parkia biglobosa West African locust bean
Adansonia digitata Baobab
Ceiba pentandra kapok
Butyrospernum parkii (V. paradoxa) Shea butter
Balanites aegyptica -
Vitex doniana Blackberry
Faidherbja albida -
Afzelia africana -
Diospynis mespiliformis Ebony tree
Gerdenia spp. -
Ficus spp. -
Tamarindus indica Tamarind
Lannea acida -
Isoberline spp. -
3 This a local name. Scientific and other names not known.
21
Source: Poku, 2004.
This traditional form of agroforestry differs markedly from that introduced by GNADO in the
sense that efforts were not made by farmers to plant trees. Rather, naturally occurring trees on
their farms were preserved. In the case of the GNADO, efforts are made to plant mostly
exotic trees species from nurseries.
3.7 National agricultural policy
Agricultural policies and practices in Ghana have gradually shifted to embrace introduction
and intensification of modern agroforestry practices as outlined in the National Agroforestry
Policy of 1986. The overall objective of the policy is to promote agroforestry practices for
sustainable land- use (Asare, 2004). However, there is often a considerable distance between
what national policy suggests and the situation on the ground, which may explain the degree
of policy effects, either anticipated or not (ibid). However, not much has been achieved in
promoting agroforestry as was envisaged by the policy.
The National Agroforestry Policy recognises the fact that an organised and co-ordinated
approach is required if agroforestry is to play a role in the promotion of sustainable
agricultural development. In the light of this the Government of Ghana, with assistance from
the United Nations Nations Development Program (UNDP) and Food and Agricultural
Organization (FAO) initiated a national programme to support agroforestry. The programme
helped establish and put in operation an Agroforestry Unit within the Crops Services
Department of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA) and a National Co-ordination
Network between the Agroforestry Unit, the Government, and NGOs with agroforestry
agendas (ibid). The agroforestry projects of the nature of the GNADO project are therefore
encouraged by the Ghana government.
22
4 RESULTS
4.1 Demographic characteristics of respondents
4.1.1 Age
In all the communities, a majority of respondents were within the economically active age
group of 19-49 (53.3 percent), the rest were above 50 years of age (46.7 percent). With an
almost 47 percent of the respondents representing the 50 years and above group, the economic
implication is that there is much dependency on the active group economically since people
above 50 years are not likely to be very productive. It must however be made clear that due to
the small size of the sample, this might no necessarily be the true reflection of the general
situation is the district.
4.1.2 Education
The general information on the communities shows that there were significant differences
according to education. The majority of respondents were illiterate (43.3 percent), 10 percent
had non-formal education, 40 percent had basic education, 3.3 percent had secondary
education, and another 3.3 percent had tertiary education.4 The high level of illiteracy among
the study population has important implications for the practice of agroforestry because
education is known to have a positive correlation with many variables. However, there has to
further research in the area to really determine the links between level of education and
agroforestry.
4.1.3 Gender
Overall, 70 percent of respondents to the questionnaire were males as against 30 percent
females. This may be because household heads were those that answered the questionnaire
and traditionally, men are usually the household heads in the study area.
4.1.4 Number of years since joining the project
The study collected information on the number of years that respondents have been involved
with the project. Majority of respondents have been with the project for 0-5 years (60
percent), 16 percent joined the project for 6-10 years, with the rest (23.3 percent) having been
4 In Ghana, basic education represents 6 years of schooling while secondary education is 7-16 years of schooling.
23
with the project for 11-15 years and more. This information is important because most trees
under the project will require many years to mature; therefore the farmer can only begin to
reap benefits from the trees after many years.
Table 2 Age, gender, level of education and number of years with the GNADO project by community.
Name of community Katiu Chiana Gia-Nabio Total
Age
19-49 7 6 3 16
50+ 3 5 6 14
Total 10 11 9 30
Gender
Male 4 8 9 21
Female 6 3 0 9
Total 10 11 9 30
Education
Illiterate 2 5 6 13
Non-formal education 2 1 0 3
Basic 5 5 2 12
Secondary 0 0 1 1
Tertiary 1 0 0 1
Total 10 11 9 30
No of years in GNADO Project
0-5 9 7 2 18
6-10 1 2 2 5
11-15+ 0 2 5 7
Total 10 11 9 30
Source: Author, 2005.
4.2 Stakeholders in the GNADO project
Brown (2004) defines a stakeholder as a person, organisation or group with interest in an
issue or particular natural resource. Stakeholders are both the people with power to control the
use of the resources as well as those with no influence, but whose livelihoods are affected by
changing use. Primary stakeholders tend to have low influence over outcomes of decisions,
24
but their welfare is important to the decision-makers. Often, the primary stakeholders are
those who stand to lose the most from decision. Secondary stakeholders can influence
decisions being made because they are predominantly decision-makers and engaged in
implementing decisions. External stakeholders are those individuals or groups who can exert
an influence over the outcome of the process through lobbying in decisions makers, but whose
interests are not important (ibid).
According to information on the GNADO website and project reports and the main
stakeholders currently engaged in the management of the ecosystem are in three categories:
they include the Government of Ghana, NGOs and the local people. The scale of management
is local with some elements of regional and national.
4.1.1 The state
The state through the Forestry Department, and the Game and Wildlife Department have
designated reserves in the project areas, however these are however few and small. The
Ministry of Agriculture is also involved in farming and agroforestry activities. Unfortunately,
there seem to be little collaboration as well as vertical and horizontal cross-scale interactions
or linkages between state institutions in resource management (top) and the local people
(down) in most communities of the district. Top-down management strategies exclude and
ignore the alternative institutional arrangements that could be created to facilitate
management (Berkes, 2002). Brown (2002) argues that the traditional top-down exclusionary
approaches to protected area are often ineffective in reaching conservation objectives because
they alienate local users. The state resource management in Ghana seem to undermine the
importance of social discourse and the need for integration of diverse stakeholder interest into
collective decisions, thus rendering them ineffective in promoting sustainability.
4.1.2 NGOs
The main NGOs engaged in natural resource management in the district include GNADO,
Adventist Development and Relief Agency (ADRA) and Action Aid. Unfortunately, there
seem to be very little collaboration, vertical and horizontal cross-scale linkages and
interactions among them.
4.1.3 The local communities
25
Local communities in the district are heterogeneous and usually have many different actors
with multiple interests with different institutions with diverse goals. The project has been able
to organise family groups of fifteen members per group to participate in project
implementation through village chiefs, elders and opinion leaders in the project areas.
Table 3 Stakeholders and their interest in the GNADO project.
Stakeholder groups Interests and livelihood links in
the ecosystem
Primary stakeholders – directly
impacted by management decisions
Local farmers Consumptive use, direct
livelihood
Social groups Non-consumptive use of the
ecosystem, direct livelihood link
local traditional authorities/leaders Direct management role, direct
livelihood link.
GNADO Direct resource management role
with chief interest in conserving
biodiversity
Secondary stakeholders – indirectly
impacted by management decisions
Ministry of Food and Agriculture Direct management role,
promotion of sustainable
agriculture
Kassena-Nankana District
Assembly
Indirect management role,
promotion of sustainable
development
Ghana Forestry Service Protection of biodiversity
Environmental Protection Agency,
Ghana
Protection of the environment
External stakeholders – not impacted
by decisions but provide funding for
project activities
Royal Danish Embassy – DANIDA Financial assistance, promoting
sustainable development
Embassy of Japan Financial assistance, promoting
sustainable development
French embassy Financial assistance, promoting
sustainable development
Global Environment Facility
(GEF/SGP/UNDP)
Financial assistance, promoting
sustainable development
Inter-Church Cooperation for
International Development (ICCO),
Holland
Financial assistance, promoting
sustainable development
OASIS of Japan Financial assistance, promoting
26
sustainable development
United Nation Convention to
Combat Desertification (UNCCD)
Financial assistance, promoting
sustainable development
United Nation Environmental
Programme (UNEP)
Financial assistance, promoting
sustainable development
Source: Author, 2005.
4.2 Agroforestry activities of GNADO
According to project reports, the objective of the project is to ensure is to promote sustainable
and participatory development by empowering rural people especially, women and youth
economically, socially, and politically, while protecting and preserving their natural resources
(GNADO, 2005). A total of 187.5 acres of woodlots (portion of a land on which small-scale
agroforestry operations are carried out) have been established under the project, using mostly
exotic tree species. The family woodlots provided alternative sources of fuel wood and
income for families. These woodlots were established on family lands because experiences
from similar projects show that many in the communities are reluctant to work in communal
woodlots because individuals do not have control over trees on communal lands.
According to project statistics, 125 farm families have so far been assisted to establish farm
family woodlots and fruit orchards from 1997-2003. The project established four tree
nurseries in Mirigu, Sirigu, Katiu and Kayoro in the district, which produce about 35,000 tree
seedlings yearly for the establishment of farm family woodlots and fruit orchards. The project
has so far supplied 45,000 woody tree and 1,800 fruit seedlings for planting from its nurseries,
with a tree survival rate of 70-85 percent between 2000 and 2002. Trees provided by
GNADO to farmers through its nurseries are eucalyptus, cassia, mango and cashew. Most of
the trees provided by GNADO are different from the native species because they are fast
growing varieties.
4.2.1 Most popular agroforestry systems
The estimated average farm size of the interviewed farmers was 2 acres, however, this may
not accurate as most of the farms are not measured and most farmers gave conservative
estimates of the sizes of their farms. The main crops planted by farmers include groundnuts
(Peanuts), maize, soybeans, bambara beans, beans, millet and vegetables. Two main types of
27
agroforestry systems were identified in the project namely, non-agri-silviculture (70 percent)
and agri-horticulture (30 percent). However, almost all respondents reared animals, but these
were mostly not part of the project. According to the in-depth interviews, the project imported
goats from neighbouring Burkina Faso for cross breeding as part of the project, but most of
them did not survive. Most participants planted a combination of the crops shown in Table 3
below.
Table 4 Common crops, trees and animals under the GNADO project
Crops Fruit trees Other trees Animals
Peanuts Mango Eucalyptus Sheep
Maize Cashew Cassia Goats
Millet Dawadawa Cattle
Beans Shea trees
Vegetables
Rice
Source: Author, 2005, based on questionnaire responses.
4.2.2 Reasons for adopting agroforestry
Farmers adapted agroforestry for different reasons. Majority of respondents adopted modern
agroforestry mainly because of the assistance by way of incentives given by the GNADO
project (20 percent), the second most popular reason was because of the many benefits that
agroforestry provided (17 percent); others adopted agroforestry because it improved farm
yields. Three percent each decided to undertake agroforestry because it increased tree
diversity, improved yields and soil fertility. Other section of Figure 4 (44 percent) included
reasons such as diversity in farm produce, encouragement from GNADO, encouragement
from the Forestry Services Department, food security and poverty alleviation, and curiosity
among others as reasons for adopting agroforestry.
28
benefits from agroforestry
17%
improved income and yields
13%improved tree diversity
3%
increased yields and soil fertility
3%
other44%
Incentives/Assistance from project
20%
Source: Questionnaire survey, April 2005.
Figure 4 Reasons for adopting agroforestry
4.2.3 Local participation in the project
The study explored the degree of involvement of local people in the management of the
project. Responses to the IDIs suggest that the project has a system of consultation with
stakeholders for their input. There are also regular meeting between staff of the project and
the local people to review results of project activities with the view to revise methods that fail
to produce positive results. The suggestions of the local people are sometimes incorporated in
decisions. The excerpts below summarize the views of respondents on their involvement in
project activities:
‘..Before management ventures into anything, it organizes a meeting of all stakeholders to
brief them on it and take suggestions from them on how best they think the activity should be
organized and executed……stakeholders [project managements, chiefs, elders and local
farmers] also meet occasionally to discuss successes and failures of their activities……when
stakeholders meet to discuss the results of past project activities, the review some of the
methods that were employed in the execution of such activities and try to identify methods that
are results oriented in order to incorporate them in future activities. If for instance trees are
29
planted, stakeholders meet at a future time to consider the success of the exercise and devise
new plans for other activities so that the work will go on well.’ – A (Male interviewee, Katiu).
‘we…meet and assess every activity that we undertake so as to know how successful we are in
such activities. If problems are identified, we note them and report to management when we
meet so that we can together figure out ways of avoiding problems in future activities. If it is
some particular species of tree is not good, we report to management.’- B (Male interviewee,
Chiana).
4.2.4 Incorporation of local knowledge
Indigenous knowledge can be defined as ‘a body of knowledge built up by a group of people
through generations of living in close contact with nature’ (Johnson, 1992). This knowledge is
constantly evolving and is embedded in local institutions. Traditional knowledge is often
transferred orally from one generation to another and has its roots in trial and error, and
lessons over many centuries of successes and failures (Folke et al, 1998). Generally speaking,
such knowledge evolves in the local environment, so that it is specifically adapted to the
requirements of local people and conditions. It is also creative and experimental, constantly
incorporating outside influences and inside innovations to meet new conditions (ibid).
With respect to the questionnaires, 63 percent of respondents agreed that the project
incorporates local knowledge, beliefs and practices into the management of the project.
Evidence from responses to the in-depth interviews also confirms the responses from the
questionnaires that there is a degree of incorporation on local or indigenous knowledge into
the project activities.
The irregular rainfall pattern and droughts in the area has often resulted in crop failures, this
makes timing of planting crops important. To reduce the impact of this problem, farmers
usually count on local knowledge to help time planting of crops and trees to ensure better
survival rates. For example, the use of mulching to reduce moisture loss around the roots of
planted trees had been embraced by the project and incorporated into project activities. An
example of how local knowledge has been incorporated in the project was given by a
respondent in the following words:
‘The project advised us to fence our trees in the dry season to protect them from animals, but we
suggested to them that the best way was to mix cow dung with water and smear that around the
30
lower parts of the tree because most of the animals did not like the smell of dung. This is a
practice that we learned from our forefathers and it has protected most trees from being
destroyed by animals without having to spend time to fence the many trees on our farms.’- C
(Male interviewee, Gia-Nabio).
‘We advised them on some of the tree species that can withstand the weather in this area based
on our experiences over the years. We also tell them of the time that it is suitable to plant so that
the trees will survive.’- B (Male interviewee, Chiana).
The response below explains how indigenous knowledge is employed by the project:
‘Before we undertake any activity, we meet the stakeholders and find out from them their
indigenous knowledge of such an activity. After we are told how it is done locally, we teach
them our way of doing it and thus, they blend their local knowledge with the new ideas we
have taught them in carrying out the activity’ – D (Project manager, male).
Table 5 Percent views of respondents of selected elements of project management.
Variable Yes No Don’t
know
Is local knowledge incorporated in project activities? 63.3 36.7 0
Are you consulted before projects decisions are taken? 100 0 0
Are you involved in planning, implementation and decision
making?
100 0 0
Are management actions reviewed based on your input? 83.3 13.3 3
Source: Questionnaire survey, April 2005.
4.2.5 Project monitoring
The field activities of the project are run mainly by extension officers with the assistance of
the extension staff from the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (Asanka, 2002). These
extension workers monitor project implementation ensure that project objectives are being
achieved. Additionally, capacities of some primary stakeholders are also being built to do
proper monitoring and data collection on project activities. This is reflected in this response:
‘We have key informants in all the communities that we operate. They inspect project
activities, meet with stakeholders and report to the extension officer any events that occur. The
31
extension officer also visits the communities to hold discussions with stakeholders and
inspects their activities. The project officer also reports to the assistant project manager’ – D.
4.3 Perceived impact of the GNADO project
4.3.1 Environmental impact
Asanka (2002) in an evaluation report on the project stated that the project areas have seen a
change in scenery with accompanying aesthetic values. Interviewees are of the view that the
project has improved tree cover in the communities, providing shade for both humans and
animals in the hot dry seasons. The trees have served as windbreaks to reduce the destructive
effects of windstorms on houses and other infrastructure. It clear from the interviews that the
project has created awareness about the importance preserving bushes in the dry season. Some
interviewees report that bush burning in the dry season has reduced since the project started
and there are now bushes available for grazing to supplement fodder stored during the wet
season. The importance of planting trees has also been emphasized by the project. However,
there is a contradiction among interviewees whether tree felling has reduced or otherwise after
the project started. While some say felling has reduced compared to the period prior to the
project, others disagreed. The following excerpts explain this point:
‘Environmental degradation was proceeding very fast at the time the project did not come to
this community, now it has reduced’ – E (male interviewee, Chiana).
‘In fact, government must intervene and help protect the environment because tree felling has
become more commonplace than in the past. Trucks come to this community to load charcoal
and wood day in, day out. This year has seen more of that than previous years’ – F (male
interviewee, Katiu).
The questionnaire included a question to ascertain the views of respondents on the
environmental impact of the project. The results show that 23 percent of respondents think
that the project has improved tree cover, soil fertility and biodiversity in their communities,
10 percent cited reduced erosion and improved soil fertility, thought that biodiversity has
improved, and 7 percent indicated that soil erosion had reduced. The majority of respondents
(57 percent) gave other reasons such as sustainable use of environmental resources,
afforestation and protection of wild animals, good farming practices, improved tree diversity,
improved availability of pasture for animals or did not know.
32
Improved soil fertility7%
Improved biodiversity
3%
Reduced soil erosion and
improved fertility10%
Improved tree cover, soil fertility and
biodiversity23%
Other57%
Source: Questionnaire survey, April 2005.
Figure 5 Percent of respondents on the environmental impact of the GNADO project.
4.3.1.1 Impact on soils
Assessing the impact of the project on the soils in the area scientifically is beyond the scope
of this study. In a project evaluation report, Asanka (2002) could not directly trace the
benefits of the project on soils, but he did find that farmers had received training in integrative
soil improvement which stressed organic manure, compost manure and non-burning of crop
residue. Some of the farmers have started to practice the use of droppings of livestock to
prepare compost to improve soil fertility on their farms.
Some of the interviewees were of the view that the project has made positive contributions of
soil fertility. Interviewees expressed the impact of the project on soil fertility as follows:
‘The project has impacted positively on soil fertility. The trees that are planted shed off their
leaves, which eventually get rotten and enrich the soil with organic matter. Hence fertility has
improved’ – C
You know it has help reduce soil erosion. The way windstorms swept off the soil in the past has
now reduced drastically as a result of the trees – G (male interviewee, Kayoro).
33
4.3.1.2 Impact on biodiversity
Not much impact in terms of biodiversity has been reported by interviewees. Asanka (2002)
reportedly observed many kinds of wild birds and insects in the woodlots. An interviewee
explains the improvement in animal biodiversity in his community as a result of the project
below:
‘…we have started seeing animals in forest that had left this environment a long time ago. There
are also some breeds, which never lived in this environment but have started coming because of
the forested nature of it’ – G
Exotic tree species that are not native to the ecosystem, but which are fast growing have also
been introduced to farmers in the project areas. This is what an interviewee had to say about
on the trees introduced by the project:
‘New tree species have been introduced to this environment since the project started. In the
past, there only shea5 trees and ‘chaaru6’, but in recent times, mahogany, ‘kancalo’6 and
dawadawa6 trees are growing in this environment’ – C
4.3.2 Socio-economic impact of the project
Some of the woodlots can be harvested for fuel wood, reducing the distance that women
travel to gather fuel wood. The sale and consumption of fruits (mangoes and cashew are
among the most cherished results of the project by the beneficiaries (Asanka, 2002). Some of
the beneficiaries who have their trees fruiting from the first phase of the project report that
income and consumption of the fruits are a major source of help to their families during the
lean season with a positive impact on child nutrition (ibid). The manager of the project
summarizes the socio-economic impact of the project as follows:
‘…if you go to Chiana7 now, you will see many woodlots. Some people have mango trees from
which mangoes are plucked for sale and the proceeds used to pay their children’s school fees
and medical bills. Many people especially women have also made money out of our activities’ –
D
5 Scientific for the shea tree is Butyrospernum parkii. 6 Local/vernacular name for a tree whose scientific name I do not know. 7 One of the GNADO project communities.
34
Figure 7 below shows the impact of the project on households and individuals in project
communities. Thirty-seven percent of respondents admitted that the project has improved
their livelihoods in general, 13 percent said it improved household income, 10 percent
claimed that food security had improved; however, 7 percent said that the project has not
made any impact at all, 3 percent did not know whether it had made any impact or not, while
30 percent gave other reasons like access to loans, education and training on using trees as
windbreaks, increase farm size, tree diversity, forest conservation and fruit tree production,
improved nutrition and access to animal traction equipment by GNADO.
Improved food security
10%
No impact 7%
Don't know30%
Other3%
Improved household income
13%
Improved livelihoods
37%
Source: Questionnaire survey, April 2005.
Figure 6 Impact of the GNADO project on households and individuals
Almost all interviewees agree that the project has had a positive impact in the lives of the
local people. As one interviewer said:
35
‘What we benefit from the projects activities help us feed our children. Some of our farm
produce goes into feeding whilst some is sold to generate income for other household needs
such as health care’ – male interviewee, Gia-nabio.
However, some interviewees mentioned seasonal droughts as a constraint to the impact of the
project. Some were of the view that but for the harsh weather condition, they would have had
better harvests.
‘….almost every farmer failed last year because of the erratic nature of the rains. In the past
years I could harvest twenty and thirty bags of groundnuts’ – male interviewee, Katiu.
Questions were in the questionnaire to collect farmers’ views on whether some key socio-
economic and environmental variables have changed or not since the inception of the project
(See Table 5). Fifty percent reported no change in time spent on collecting forest products
(such as fuel wood, medicinal plants, fruits, building materials); almost 47percent reported
that they spent more time in collecting forest products while 3.3 percent speak of a decrease.
The high percentage that reported no change or an increase in the time the spent on
collecting forest product might be attributed to the fact that it takes many years for the
impact of the trees planted to be realised, and since many of the respondents have not been
in the project for long, it might well be that the trees that their trees planted have to mature.
With regards to environmental degradation, almost 77 percent reported a decrease in since
the inception of the project; however 16.7 percent and 6.7 indicated no change and an
increase in degradation respectively. According to the interview with the project manager, a
lot of environmental awareness has been created by the project and that may explain the
perceived reduction in environmental degradation. However, some in-depth interviewees
talk of an increase in fuel wood harvesting.
Respondents’ report of an improvement in soil fertility as a result of the project (56.7), 26.7
percent and a 16.7 reported no change respectively. Capacity building of farmers in compost
making and the increased decay of organic matter from the trees and crops may have had an
impact on the soils in the communities
Table 6 farmers’ views on changes in key environmental and socio-economic variables due to the GNADO
project.
Variable No change Increased Decreased
36
Time spent on collecting forest products 50 46.7 3.3
Environmental degradation 16.7 6.7 76.7
Soil fertility 26.7 56.7 16.7
Variable Yes No Don’t know
Income 23.3 63.3 13.3
Ecosystem services 70 20 10
Local food security 33.3 56.7 10
Source: Questionnaire survey, April 2005.
Over 23 percent admitted an improvement in the incomes, 70 percent say ecosystem services
have improved while 33 percent perceive an improvement in local food security. Sixty-three
percent, 20 and almost 58 percent answered no to the question whether income, ecosystem
services and local food security have improved since the project.
All respondents to the questionnaire (100percent) described the project as a success and that
they will recommend the project to other communities.
37
5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
5.1 Motivations for adopting agroforestry
Many studies in developing countries have indicated that fuel wood demand is an important
factor in the inducement to plant trees (Dewees, 1992). Although fuel wood is a basic
necessity for all the communities studied and likely to remain one for a considerable time to
come, people are rarely motivated to grow trees especially for fuel wood. My results suggest
that other socio-economic considerations seem to be the motivation for participation in the
GNADO project indicating that economic incentive is the most important factor for
promoting agroforestry, especially in communities with high poverty levels. The literature on
this subject has highlighted the idea that agroforestry projects on individual private
landholdings can achieve marked success when economic benefit is given long-term
consideration (Singh and Balooni, 1995). This also confirms that improvements in livelihoods
and other benefits from agroforestry remains the main motivation factor for its adoption
(Regmi, 2003). Studies in other parts of Ghana confirms this view, an agroforestry project in
the Western Region of Ghana failed because it did not improve the socio-economic conditions
of the local people, while another project in the Brong Ahafo Region succeeded because local
people benefited from the project in terms of food and income generation (Wood & Yapi,
2004).Though the socioeconomic benefits are still modest at this stage of the project, the
future returns from the harvesting of mature trees are expected to further improve the farmers’
income and well-being and that expectation continues to encourage many in the communities
to join the project.
Although difficult to measure the changes in environmental conditions from the project’s start
to the present due to lack of baseline data for comparison, improvements (soil fertility,
erosion, microclimate, vegetation, etc.) are reportedly felt by some of the farmers. There seem
to be a greater deal of divergent opinions about the benefits of the project. There has to be a
follow-up study after some more years to ascertain the true state of affairs.
5.2 Reasons for success
The local people were involved in many stages of the project. This has cited in other studies
as an important ingredient for success. The use of participatory techniques may better ensure
the active involvement of farmers in all stages of project design, implementation and
38
monitoring (Chiong- Javier and Sembrano 1988). The establishment of tree nurseries to
produce both local and exotic tree species for farmers also ensured the success of the project.
According to Fisher and Vasseur (2000) establishment of on-site tree nurseries is also critical
to assure a continued supply of low-cost seedlings.
Another important reason that can be attributed to the success of the project was that
appropriate incentives were provided to the local people within the project in the form of
groundnut seed and tree seedlings for planting, livestock for breeding as well as a donkey and
a cart to needy farmers of hire purchase without interest basis. Indeed, most farmers admitted
joining in the project for this reason. However, this has been criticised as creating a
dependency and may not be sustainable because farmers might abandon the project as soon as
these incentives are no longer available. Material incentives are also said to distort
perceptions, create dependencies, and give the misleading impression that local people are
supportive of externally driven initiatives (Pretty, 1995). This paternalism undermines
sustainability goals and produces impacts which rarely persist once the project ceases (ibid).
While initial subsidies and assistance are often vital, the experience of many projects has
highlighted the need to avoid encouraging relationships of dependency and paternalism.
Therefore material incentives should be used to a limited extent or not at all (Chiong-Javier
and Sembrano 1988).
Certain features of project design and management may have contributed to the apparent
success of project. In particular, the use of consultation as opposed to the use of top-down,
non-participatory approaches which are known to lead to failure of many projects (Berkes,
2002). Project objectives were consistent with the needs and constraints of the local
communities. Furthermore, these objectives, the project implementation processes and the
expected benefits were clearly explained and understood by the local communities.
The availability of land has also been stated one of the reasons for success because there are
no competing demands for land in the area and land ownership is by inheritance therefore the
tendency of farmers to avoid agroforestry on rented lands was not an issue. There is the
availability of large tracts of land in the GNADO project communities; therefore land
availability was not a constraint on project activities.
5.3 Participation
39
Participation has been identified as one of the agricultural support institutions that must be
employed to achieve greater involvement and the empowerment of diverse groups, as
sustainability is threatened without it (Pretty, 1995). There is significant participation of the
local people in the GNADO project activities. This is in line with the principle of co-
management that requires involvement of local people in decision making and project
development. However, what is not very clear is extent to which the views of the local people
are included in decisions and whether modifications are made to project activities based on
the suggestions of the local people. The kind of participation in the GNADO project bears
semblance to what Pretty (1995) calls participation by consultation where people participate
by being consulted or by answering questions. Such a consultative process does not concede
any share in decision making, and managers are under no obligation to take on board people’s
views (ibid). The problem with this type of participation is that any achievements are likely to
have no positive lasting effect on people’s lives (Rahnema, cited in Pretty, 1995).
There is no evidence of the top-down management approach in the project; however, is the
clear that horizontal linkages with all stakeholders to promote the empowerment of the local
people are lacking. The GNADO website lists the Forestry service department and the
Ministry of Agriculture as partners in the project management; however, an interview the
project manager only mentioned links between project management and the staff of the
department which excludes the local people who are the primary stakeholders. No horizontal
institutional linkages are regarded as a right that can empower the local people (Pretty, 1995)
and promote collaborate learning, however, no such linkages were mentioned in the
interviews. It is easy to get people interested in a community initiative at the start of an
initiative, but ongoing participation may be difficult to sustain (Fabricius and Koch, 2004).
5.4 Adoptive co- management
The project has a monitoring system in place to ensure those project objectives are being
achieved. Monitoring as done by project staff as well as key members of the community who
were giving capacity building on how to monitor project activities and to report to
management. The problems however was that there are no mechanisms to respond to
ecological feedback. For example, some respondents complained high mortality of the
seedlings supplied under the project can not withstand the harsh weather conditions.
However, alternative have yet to given to them that were more resistant to the extreme
conditions in the area. Monitoring and responding to feedback by local people may help
40
increase understanding of ecosystem function and possibly help avoid challenging critical
thresholds in the diversity of ecosystems (Olsson, 2003). It will also be important to monitor
the effects of the exotic tree species introduced by GNADO to see their effects on other
traditional tree species and the ecosystem.
Local knowledge is reportedly used in the project; however, many could not give very good
examples of the types of local knowledge employed by the project. One possible reason for
this may be the translation of the question in the local language that may have conveyed a
different understanding from what was intended.
Berkes (2002) underscores the need to design and support management institutions at more
than one level, with attention to interactions across scale from the local level up. Cross scale
interactions refer to linking institutions both horizontally across space and vertically, across
levels of organization (ibid). Cross scale interactions are very important for co-management.
The GNADO project has linkages with the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA) at the
district level and there are extension workers from the ministry have played an important role
in the providing extension services for farmers. The project has what Berkes (2002) refers to
as a development, empowerment co-management organisation, which is a tree way
relationship between the local people, GNADO and MOFA.
The project uses some key individuals such as traditional and opinion leaders in the
communities to improve relationships with members of the communities and also to get
feedback on the project.
5.5 Challenges
Severe drought and poor distribution of rainfall which is a characteristic of the district
increased the mortality of seedlings in the nurseries and shrubs in the field. Infestation pests
have also led to a significant loss of seedlings. These pests are particularly damaging during
dry periods. Another major challenge of the project is how the gains will be sustained after
donor funding ceases since many of the people admitted joining the project because of the
assistance.
Yet another challenge will be to reverse the many years of environmental degradation and the
extensive felling of trees for wood fuel which has led to the need for agroforestry in the first
place. Once the conditions that lead to degradation still persist, the project might not have the
41
desired long term effect on the environment. There were conflicting responses as to whether
the spate of tree felling and charcoal production has reduced.
The tree planting activities of GNADO seemed to be skewed towards fast growing exotic
species at the expense of indigenous ones. This might be explained by the many decades that
it takes indigenous species to grow to maturity. Many of the farmers may not have the
patience for indigenous species which may not grow to maturity in their lifetime. This
preference for exotic species may have implications for the ecosystem. It is necessary for
research to be conducted on the likely effects of some of these species on the ecosystem and
measures to taken to address any likely negative effects.
5.6 The way forward
Agroforestry projects are likely to continue to be promoted in Ghana in light of growing
levels of environmental awareness and increasing concerns over environmental degradation.
However, the success of these projects will require changes to project management, as well as
to the economic, legislative, and institutional settings.
GNADO illustrates a successful case similar to what has been recorded in the rehabilitation of
degraded lands in the Dormaa District of the Brong Ahafo Region of Ghana and the
community-based rehabilitation of the Nazinon Forest in Burkina Faso (Wood and Yapi,
2004, cited in the literature review). GNADO is even more successful when compared to the
Gwira Banso Project in the Wassa West District of the Western Region of Ghana, which
resulted in failure (ibid). The institutions and non-governmental organizations that are
implementing projects must modify their approach to ensure that it is fully participatory and
that it responds to the needs of farmers. Increased emphasis on evaluation and monitoring will
be important to gain a better understanding of the factors promoting the implementation of
agroforestry in the Kassena-Nankana District. There is the need to incorporate local
institutions and governance regimes into the project.
Finally, farmers themselves have an important role to play, by becoming central actors in
development projects, articulating their opinions, and increasing levels of community
organization. The impacts of agroforestry projects on rural development and conservation
goals will depend on the commitment of all stakeholders to achieving these changes.
5.7 Conclusion
42
A major finding of this emerging from the in-depth interviews with farmers is that economic
factors are of primary importance in the decision of whether to plant trees or not. It appears,
therefore, that making tree farming more remunerative is a necessary condition for increasing
the amount of tree planting and for agroforestry to successfully compete with other activities.
Agroforestry is an extensive alternative land use with the potential to offer an attractive
balance between commercial viability and environmental enhancement (Bishop, 1992).
Adoption of intensified agroforestry in the district would increase overall household income
and the potential benefits of tree planting. Given the increased awareness of farmers regarding
the potential economic benefits of tree planting, it should be possible to harness these positive
attitudes to a strategy to alleviate the poverty of the rural people. To this end, NGOs should
develop a sustainable management system appropriate to the local physical and cultural
conditions, rooted in existing local practice and acceptable to local users, and for the
advancement of multiple objectives recognized by the people.
43
References
Asanka, SA and Ayembilla, J. (2002). Gia-Nabio Agroforestry Development Organisation,
End of Project Ohase Evaluation Report 2000-200, submitted DANIDA, Bolgatanga.
Asare, R. (2004). Agroforestry initiatives in Ghana: A look at research and development. A
presentation made at the World Cocoa Foundation conference in Brussels April 21 –22, 2004.
Bengtsson J., Angelstam, P., Elmqvist, T., U. Emanuelsson, U., Folke, C., Moberg, F. And
Nyström, M. (2003). Reserves, Resilience and Dynamic Landscapes. Ambio 32:389-396.
Berkes, F. (2002). Cross-scale institutional linkages for commons management: perspectives
from bottom-up. In: Strom, E., Dietz, T., Dolsak, N., Stern, P.C., and Stonick, S. (Eds). The
Drama of the commons, E.U Weber, (National Academy Press, Washington DC).
Berkes, F., Colding, J. and Folke, C. eds. (2003). Navigating social-ecological systems:
building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Bewket,W. (2003) Household level tree plating and its implications for environmental
management in the northwestern highlands of Ethiopia. A case stuidy in the Chemoga
Watershed, Blue Nile Basin. Land Degradation & Development. 14: 377-388.
Bishop, K. (1992). Assessing the benefits of community forests: an evaluation of the
recreational use benefits of two urban fringe woodlands, Journal of Environmental Planning
and Management, 35 (1): 63-76.
Boahene, W. (1998). The challenge of deforestation in tropical Africa. reflections on the
principal causes, consequences and solutions. Land Degradation and Development 9: 247-
258.
Boffa, J.M. (1999) Agroforestry parklands in Sub-Saharan Africa, FAO Conservation Guide
34, FAO: Rome.
Brown, K. (2002). Innovations for conservation and development. The Geographical Journal,
Vol. 168, No.1, March, pp. 6-17
44
Brown, K. (2004). Inclusive and Integrated Coastal Management, Managing Trade-Offs
between uses and users. PowerPoint Presentation at Centre for Transdisciplinary
Environmental Research (CTM), Stockholm University, Sweden, October.
Chiong-Javier, E. and Sembrano, J.O. (1988) Developing People-oriented Agroforestry. De
La Salle University Press, Manila, Phillipines
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2001. Alien species (available at
http://www.biodiv.org/programmes/cross-cutting/alien/ ).
Daily, G.C. (Ed.) (1997). Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems.
Covelo, CA, USA: Island Press, 1997
Daily, G.C., Alexander, S., Ehrlich, P., Goulder, L., Lubchenko, J., Matson, P., Mooney, H.,
Postel, S., Schneider, S., Tilman, D., and Woodwell., (1997). Ecosystem services: Benefits
supplied to human societies by natural ecosystems. Issues in Ecology.
Dewees, P.A. (1993). Social and economic incentives for smallholder treegrowing: case study
for Murang'a District, Kenya. Community Forestry Case Study 5. Food and Agriculture
Organization, Rome.
Fabricius, C. and Koch, E. (2004) ‘Rights, Resources and Rural Development: Community-
Based Natural Resource Management in southern Africa,’ Earthscan, London
Fischer, A. and Vasseur, L. (2000).The crisis in shifting cultivation practices and the promise
of agroforestry: a review of the Panamanian experience, Biodiversity and Conservation 9:6,
pp. 739 - 756
Fischer, A. and Vasseur, L. (2002). Smallholder perceptions of agroforestry projects in
Panama, Agroforestry Systems 54: 2, pp.103 - 113
Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Holling, C.S. and Walker, B. (2002).
Resilience and sustainable development: building adaptive capacity in a world of
transformations. Ambio 31:437-440.
45
Folke, K, Berkes, F, and Colding, J (1998) Ecologocal practices and social mechanisms for
building resilience and sustainability, in Berkes, F, Folke, K (eds) Linking social and
ecological systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 414-436
Funtowicz, S.O. and Ravetz, J.R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25, 739-
55. <http://www.nusap.net/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=13> [2005-05-02].
GNADO. (2004), Gia-Nabio Agroforestry Development Organisation, [Online],
GNADO.ORG. Available from: < http://www.gnado.org/tree_nrsry.htm > [2005-04-29].
Gordon, J. C. and Bentley, W. R. (1990). A hand book on the management of agroforestry
research. Winrock International. U. S. A.
GPRS (2002) Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy 2002-2004. Government of Ghana.
Gregerson, H., Draper, S. and Elz, D. (eds) (1989). People and Trees: The Role of Social
Forestry in Sustainable Development. EDI Seminar Series. The World Bank, Washington DC
Gunderson, L. H. and C. S. Holling (eds) (2002). Panarchy: understanding transformations in
human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.
Haysom, K.A and Murphy, S.T. (2003). The status of invasiveness of forest tree species
outside their natural habitat: a global review and discussion paper. Forest Health &
Biosecurity Working Papers, CABI Bioscience, December.
Holling, C.S. (1986). The resilience of terrestrial ecosystems: local surprise and global
change. In Clark, W.C. and Munn, R.E. (Eds.). Sustainable Development of the Biosphere.
Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK, pp. 292-317.
Hosier, R.H. (1989). The economics of smallholder agroforestry: two case studies. World Dev
(17): 1827–1839
Johnson, M. (1992). Lore: Capturing Traditional Environmental Knowledge. IDRC: Ottawa,
Canada.
Kay, J, Regier, H, Boyle, M and Francis, G (1999). An Ecosystem Approach for
Sustainability: Addressing the Challenge of Complexity, Futures, 31:7.
46
Koku, J.E. (2002) Environment, Livelihood and natural Resource Management in the Lower
Volta Basin of Ghana. Perspectives from the South Tongo District. PhD Thesis, Department
of Water and Land Resources Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm,
Sweden.
Kranjac-Berisavljevic’, G., Bayorbor, T.B., Turton, C.N., Blench, R. M. , Abdulai, A. S.,
Boyd, C., Obeng, F., and Drake, E. (1999). Rethinking Natural Resource Degradation in
Semi-Arid Sub-Saharan Africa: The Case of Semi-Arid Ghana. Faculty of Agriculture,
University for Development Studies, Tamale, Ghana, in collaboration with: Overseas
Development Institute (ODI), London, United Kingdom.
<http://www.odi.org.uk/rpeg/soil_degradation/ghlit.pdf> [2005-05-02].
Langill, S. (2005) Introduction to indigenous knowledge. The Overstory, Agroforestry
eJournal, # 82. Agroforestry Net, Inc.
<http://www.agroforestry.net/overstory/overstory82.html > [2005-04-29].
Michaels, S., Mason, R.J. and Solecki, W.D. (1997): Bridging Political Reality with
Ecological Necessity: the Role of Partnerships in Regional Ecosystem Management, Paper
presented at the 1997 meeting of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning, Ft.
Lauderdale, FL, USA
Molua, E.L (2005) The economics of tropical agroforestry systems: the case of agroforestry
farms in Cameroon. Forest Policy and Economics 7: 199-211.
Nsiah-Gyabaah, K. (1996) Bushfires in Ghana, IFFN, No. 15, September.
<http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/iffn/country/gh/gh_1.htm> [2005-05-02]
Ntiamoa-Baidu, Y.(1999). Indigenous vs. Introduced Biodiversity Conservation Strategies:
The Case of Protected Area Systems in Ghana, African Biodiversity Series, Number 1, May,
Produced by the Biodiversity Support Program.
<http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/africa/indigenous_vs_eng/yaaeng.htm>
[2005-05-02].
Nyarko, Philomena et al., (2000): The Navrongo Demographic Surveillance System 2000
report to the Rockefeller Foundation, Community Health and Family Planning Project,
Documentation Number 44, Navrongo Health Research Center.
47
Olsson, P. (2003). Building capacity for resilience in social-ecological systems, PhD
dissertation, Stockholm University.
Olsson, P., C. Folke, and T. Hahn. (2004b). Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem
management: the development of adaptive co-management of a wetland landscape in southern
Sweden. Ecology and Society 9(4): 2. [Online] URL:
<http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss4/art2/> [2005-05-22].
Olsson, P., Folke, C. and Berkes, B. (2004a). Adaptive Comanagement for Building
Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems. Environmental Management, vol. 34. No.1:75-90
Poku, J.A. (2004). Management of trees in association with crops in traditional agroforestry
systems. In: Gyasi, E.A.(2004). Managing Agrodiversity the Traditional Way: Lessons from
West Africa in Sustainable Use of Biodiversity and Related Natural Resources. Tokyo, Japan:
United Nations University Press.
Pretty, J. (1995). Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Development 23
(8):1247-1263.
Ramírez, R. (2000). Stakeholder analysis and conflict management. In Buckles, D. (Ed.)
Cultivating peace: Conflict and collaboration in natural resource management. IDRC,
Ottawa.
Rao, Y. S. (1992). Programs of participatory forestry development in Asia. In social science
applications in Asian agroforestry. W. R. Burch and J. K. Parker (eds.) Winrock International,
U.S. A.
Regmi, N.B. (2003) Contribution of agroforestry for rural livelihoods: A case of Dhading,
District, Nepal”. Conference paper (final draft) presented at the International conference on
“Rural Livelihoods, Forests, and Biodiversity” to be held in Bonn, Germany, on May 19-23.
Available online < http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/corporate/cd-
roms/bonn_results/papers/T3_FINAL_BishwaRegmi.pdf >
Rocheleau, D., Webber, F., Field, J.A. (1988). Agroforestry in dryland Africa. ICRAF,
Nairobi, Kenya.
48
Sala, S.O. and Paruelo, J.M. (1997). Ecosystem Services in Grasslands. In: Daily, G.C.
(Editor). Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Covelo, CA, USA:
Island Press.
Scher,r S. (1992). Not out of the woods yet: challenges for economic research on agroforestry.
Am J Agric Econ (74): 802–819
Shroeder, P (1994). Carbon storage benefits of agroforestry, Agroforestry Systems 27, 89-97.
Singh K and Balooni K (1995) Tree Growers’ Cooperatives: Farm Forestry in India. Journal
of Forestry 95 (10): 32–35
Taylor, B., Kremsater, L. and Ellis, R. (1997). Adaptive Management of Forests in British
Columbia, Province of British Columbia, Canada.
Tompkins, Adger, N.W. and Brown, K. (2002). Institutional networks for inclusive coastal
management in Trinidad and Tobago. Environment and Planning A, Vol.34 pp. 1095-1111.
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). (Undated). The Kasena
Nankana District of the Upper East Region of Ghana. GIA/NABIO Agroforestry
Development Organization (GNADO), Ghana. < http://www.unccd.entico.com/english/mak-
diff12.htm> [2005-05-02].
Van Noordwijk1, M., Roshetkol, J.M. , Murniati, Angeles, M.D., Suyanto, Fay, C. and
Tomich, T.P. (2003) Agroforestry is a Form of Sustainable Forest Management: Lessons
from South East Asia, A paper delivered at: UNFF Intersessional Experts Meeting on the Role
of Planted Forests in Sustainable Forest Management Conference, 24-28 March, Wellington,
New Zealand.
Wood, P and Yapi, A.M. (2004) Rehabilitation of Degraded Lands in Africa: Lessons
Learned from Selected Case Studies. Forestry Research Network for Sub-Saharan Africa
(FORNESSA) & International Union of Forest Research Organisations Special Programme
for Developing Countries (IUFRO- SPDC).
Yin, R.K. (1994). Case Study Research. Design and Methods. Sage Publications. London,
UK.
49
50
Appendix
A case study of community‐based agroforestry initiative in The Kassena‐Nankana District
of northern Ghana.
In‐depth interview guide for project managers
Dear Participant,
This questionnaire is for MSc thesis in the Stockholm University, Sweden. It is intended to explore the
socio‐economic and environmental impact of agroforestry in the Kassena‐Nankana District. There are
no right and wrong answers and information provided will be used for academic purposes only and
will be treated with confidentiality. Thanks for your time.
A. Agroforestry project
1. Describe the requirements for qualification for inclusion in the project for
communities and individuals?
2. What species of trees, animal, and crops does the project to farmers?
3. What is the incentive programme for farmers in the project (probe for details)?
4. Which constraints have you identified in the agroforestry system?
5. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the project?
6. What challenges have been faced?
7. What successes have been achieved?
8. What would you say is the impact of the GNADO agroforestry project on the
environment/ecosystem (soil fertility, tree cover, biodiversity etc)?
B. Adaptive co‐management
9. How is indigenous and local knowledge, innovations and practices incorporated in
project activities?
10. Are stakeholders consulted for their input on management actions and their
outcomes?
51
11. In what way are local people involved in planning, implementation as well as
decision making of the project?
12. What systems in place to monitor project implementation to determine whether
objectives are being?
13. What procedures do you have for responding to monitoring results and
incorporating such results in future decisions?
52
A case study of community-based agroforestry initiative in The Kassena-
Nankana District of northern Ghana.
In‐depth interview guide for project beneficiary communities
Dear Participant, this questionnaire is for MSc thesis in the Stockholm University, Sweden.
It is intended to explore the socio‐economic and environmental impact of agroforestry in the
Kassena‐Nankana District. There are no right and wrong answers and information provided
will be used for academic purposes only and will be treated with confidentiality. Thanks for
your time.
A. Agroforestry
1. What species of trees, animal, and crops are common in this area?
2. Which are the major constraints for planting trees?
3. Which constraints have you identified in the agroforestry system?
B. Adaptive co‐ management
5 How is indigenous and local knowledge, innovations and practices incorporated
in project activities?
6 Are stakeholders consulted for their input on management actions and their
outcomes?
7 In what way are local people involved in planning, implementation as well as
decision making of the project?
8 What systems are in place to monitor project implementation to determine
whether objectives are being achieved?
9 What procedures do you have for responding to monitoring results and
incorporating such results in future decisions?
C. Perceptions of the impact GNADO agroforestry project
10 What would you say is the impact of the GNADO agroforestry project on the
environment/ecosystem (soil fertility, tree cover, biodiversity etc.)?
11 What was the state environmental degradation in your community before the
GNADO project?
53
12 What was the state environmental degradation in your community after the
GNADO project?
13 What is the impact of the project on local community/society (e.g. farmers’
groups, women’s groups, resource management groups?
14 What would you say is the impact of the project on households/individuals?
15 What is the impact of the project of local food security, income and the
availability of wood fuel?
16 Would you say the project a success or failure and why?
17 What would you say have been the key lessons learned?
18 What would you say been the most outstanding results/ successes?
54
A case study of community-based agroforestry initiative in The Kassena-
Nankana District of northern Ghana.
Questionnaire for communities
Dear participant
This questionnaire is for MSc thesis in the Stockholm University, Sweden. It is intended to
explore the socio‐economic and environmental impact of agroforestry in the Kassena‐Nankana
District. There are no right and wrong answers and information provided will be used for
academic purposes only and will be treated with confidentiality. Thanks for your time.
Name of interviewer: ________________________________________________
Date of interview: _____________________________________________________
Name of community: _________________________________________________
Demographic information
1. Age of respondent:
Below 18
19‐49
above 50
2. Gender of respondent:
Male
Female
3. Level of education:
Basic
Secondary
Tertiary
Illiterate
Non Formal
55
4. Household size:
Agroforestry
5. How long have you been involved in agroforestry?
0‐5 years
6‐10
11‐15
11‐15+
6. What is the average Size of your agroforestry farm (hectors/ acres specify)?
7. What are your reasons for adopting agroforestry?
8. What model of agroforestry are you practicing?
Non agri‐silviculture (crops and trees)
silvo‐pastoral (trees and pasture)
agric‐horticulture (crops and fruit trees)
agri‐silvi‐pastoral (crops, fruit tress and pasture)
9. What types of crops do you grow?
10. What trees do you plant?
11. What animals do you rear if any?
Adaptiveco‐ management
56
12. Is indigenous and local knowledge, innovations and practices incorporated in
project activities?
Yes
NO
Don’t know
13. Are you consulted for their input on management actions?
Yes
NO
14. Are you involved in planning, implementation as well as decision making of the
project?
Yes
NO
15. Are managements actions reviewed based on your input?
Yes
NO
Don’t know
Impact of the GNADO project
16. What would you say is the impact of the GNADO agroforestry project on the
environment/ecosystem (soil fertility, tree cover, biodiversity etc)?
17. Is environmental degradation is a problem stable, increasing or decreasing
phenomenon in this community after the GNADO project?
Stable
Increased
Decreasing
57
18. What would you say is the impact of the project on local community/society (eg
farmers’ groups, women’s groups, resource management groups?
19. What would you say is the impact of the project on households/individuals?
20. What is the impact of the project of local food security?
21. Crop production
Stable
Increased
No change
22. Fruit production
Stable
Increased
No change
23. Sufficiency in forest products
Stable
Increased
No change
24. Time spend on collecting forest products
Stable
Increased
No change
58
25. Income
Stable
Increased
No change
26. Soil conditions/fertility
Stable
Increased
No change
27. Ecosystem services( goods & services from ecosystems)
Stable
Increased
No change
28. Environmental degradation
Stable
Increased
No change
29. Local food security
Stable
Increased
No change
30. Will you say the GNADO project a success?
Yes
NO
31. If yes/no, why:
59
32. If yes, what aspects of the local context have contributed to success?
33. If no, what features of the local or national context constrain/limit the project from
being more successful?
34. What would you say have been the key lessons learned most outstanding results/
successes?
35. Will you think you can encourage other farmers to adopt this system? Yes / No
36. If Yes / No, why?
Notes
60
