Introduction
Forested Landscapes in Burkina Faso and Ghana: Status and Threats
NRM Schemes in Ghana and Burkina Faso Targeting Landscapes and Livelihoods: A Brief Overview
Scheme | Summary | Actors (individuals and associations) involved | Management concept | Natural resources managed | Scope of land uses concerned | Key references |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Chantier d’Aménagement Forestier (CAF), Burkina Faso | Decentralized and participatory forest management program to stem deforestation resulting from fuelwood harvesting and land degradation throughout Burkina Faso | • Local offices of Ministry of environment and sustainable development (MEDD): training in sustainable wood harvesting and forming cooperatives; supporting the audit committee | Co-management between MEDD’s provincial offices, CAF directorate and cooperatives/Forest management units | Delimitation of forest plots with controlled annual harvesting rotations. Protection and replanting of threatened tree species | Production forests each sub-divided for 20–25 year rotational harvesting | |
• CAF Management Board: administration of forest sites and enforcement of statutory laws and voluntary regulations | ||||||
• CAF Audit Committee: audit efficacy of the quota system on wood volumes harvested, sales, taxes and revenues (financial arm) and monitoring wood extraction and regeneration activities (technical arm) | ||||||
• CAF technical unit: technical support to the Forest Management Groups’ activities | ||||||
• Forest management group: cooperative of woodcutters responsible for controlled wood harvesting and users of non-timber forest products | ||||||
• Union of cooperatives that utilize the same forest sites | ||||||
• External partners: funding CAF activities, technical support and capacity building of CAF technical units | ||||||
Modified Taungya System (MTS), Ghana | Forest restoration program in degraded forests with farmers engaged in tree planting and maintenance and benefitting from intercropping of food crops and a share in timber revenues | • Forestry Commission (FC): supplying seedlings, training and extension; marketing the plantation products; overall supervision; financial management | Co-management with responsibilities and benefits shared between the state (Forestry Commission), small-scale farmers and local communities | Degraded forest reserves with a focus on restoration | Progressive transformation of degraded forest reserves via early agroforestry systems (intercropping with food crops) to plantation forests | |
• Forest services division: the FC’s district representation | ||||||
• Resource Management Support Center (technical wing of the FC): supports the implementation of the MTS | ||||||
• MTS farmers: tree planting and maintenance | ||||||
• Administrator of Stool lands and traditional authorities: providing secure and uninterrupted access to land in the degraded forest area | ||||||
• Local community: preventing wildfires and timber theft | ||||||
• (Optional:) Timber company: timber marketing | ||||||
• (Optional:) NGO: developing alternative livelihood activities | ||||||
Community resource management areas (CREMAs), Ghana | CREMAs are part of policy reforms aiming to reconcile wildlife conservation, rural development and livelihoods in off-reserve areas. Spearheaded by the Wildlife Division with on-going devolution to local communities | • FC (National): enforcement of forest and wildlife laws | Adaptive co-management | Wildlife and habitat conservation in off-reserve areas and in zones fringing protected areas | Integrated local level wildlife conservation within productive land uses such as agriculture, hunting, and timber and non-timber forest product extraction | |
• Wildlife Division of the FC: catalyst of the CREMA, advice and monitoring | ||||||
• Forest Services Division: district representation of the FC | ||||||
• Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources (MLNR): registers the CREMA and is responsible for sustainable natural resource management in off-reserve areas | ||||||
• NGOs (e.g., Care International, IUCN, ARocha): often initiate the CREMA process and mobilize communities | ||||||
• District Assemblies: development services; formalizing CREMA rules and regulations; issuing wildlife trading permits | ||||||
• Administrator of Stool lands: providing secure access to land | ||||||
• Traditional authorities: involved in CREMA administration and conflict management | ||||||
• CREMA communities/cluster of communities: engage in CREMA activities | ||||||
• Elected Community Resource Management Committee (CRMC) (5–13 men and women): decision-making body for CREMA implementation | ||||||
• Elected CREMA Executive Committee: steering and overseeing daily operations and decision-making | ||||||
• (Optional:) Protected Area Management Advisory Board (PAMAB): assists in the management of protected areas | ||||||
• (Optional:) Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA): agricultural training and extension | ||||||
• (Optional:) Timber company: responsible for the marketing of timber if a CREMA embarks on logging |
Materials and Methods
Selection of Cases
Literature Review
Analytical Framework
Principlea
| Elaboration | Reference |
---|---|---|
Integrated approach | Integrated approaches recognize the need to reconcile multiple land uses and negotiate trade-offs between land uses, notably those between conservation and economic development objectives of people and/or communities living in around a natural resource base | |
Adaptive management and continual learning | This principle acknowledges the physical and socio-economic dynamics in landscapes and the need to instill continual learning, willingness to adapt management practices as well as underlying assumptions, norms and principles, thereby accepting a diversity of solutions, actors and institutions | |
Polycentric governance | Polycentric governance in the context of landscape approaches recognizes multiple and multilevel centers of decision making, including statutory, customary and hybrid ones | |
Multi-stakeholder negotiation | This concerns the need to involve nearby and distant stakeholders in landscape governance and the understanding that land uses, common goals and trade-offs need to be continuously negotiated | |
Capacity building | In order to enhance the equity of actors in processes of self-organization, innovation, monitoring and evaluations of resource governance, actors need to possess a certain level of know-how and experience on relevant issues. Capacity building of involved actors, especially local representatives, grassroots collectives and implementers of resource governance activities is a required component to create a level playing field during negotiation processes |
Score | Very weak 1 | Weak 2 | Moderate 3 | Strong 4 | Very strong 5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Principle | |||||
Integrated approach | No or hardly any integration of conservation and development aims | Multifunctionality embraced, but management focus on one | Multifunctionality embraced; trade-offs acknowledged, but decided in favor of dominant use | Multifunctionality embraced; trade-offs acknowledged and negotiated, but not beyond the scheme | Multifunctionality embraced; trade-offs acknowledged and negotiated with broader set of stakeholders |
Adaptive management and continual learning | Need to adapt to physical and socio-economic dynamics not/hardly acknowledged | Single-loop learninga: willingness to improve daily routines | Single and double-loop learning: willingness to reframe assumptions | Single, double and triple-loop learning: willingness to challenge underlying norms and values and accept a diversity of solutions, actors and institutionsb
| Triple-loop learning based on participatory monitoring and evaluation; room for autonomous changeb
|
Polycentric governancec
| Single center of decision-making | Co-governance with joint responsibility for setting the rules | Multi-level governance and decision-making with openness to include non-state actors (civil society, private sector) | Networked governance: mechanisms in place for horizontal and vertical interaction between operationally autonomous players | Hybrid governance: interactive decision-making involving actors at different levels and scales (horizontal and vertical) |
Multi-stakeholder negotiationd
| One actor dominates in setting goals, targets and change logic; stakeholders informed | Mechanisms in place to negotiate land use and production targets, but hardly used | Consensus about objectives, options, and targets, but no negotiation of trade-offs | Shared vision on land uses and change logic; limited space to negotiate trade-offs | Objectives and change logic negotiated based on FPICe; stakeholders negotiate about trade-offs considered as acceptable |
Capacity building (CB) | Knowledge dissemination | CB focuses on transferring skills that dominant actor considers as “desirable” | CB aligns with local knowledge and needs and targets collaborative capacity | CB enhances negotiation skills and inclusive decision-makingf
| CB enhances adaptive capacity and acts as “catalyst of change”g, and empowerment |