The potential for tree stock enhancement in cropping systems in Asikuma Odoben Brakwa District

KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, KUMASI

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES

FACULTY OF RENEWABLE NATURAL RESOURCES

DEPARTMENT OF SILVICULTURE AND FOREST MANAGEMENT

THE POTENTIAL FOR TREE STOCK ENHANCEMENT IN CROPPING SYSTEMS IN

THE ASIKUMA ODOBEN BRAKWA DISTRICT

AFRIYIE LYDIA

MAY, 2014

KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, KUMASI

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES

FACULTY OF RENEWABLE NATURAL RESOURCES

DEPARTMENT OF SILVICULTURE AND FOREST MANAGEMENT

THE POTENTIAL FOR TREE STOCK ENHANCEMENT IN CROPPING SYSTEMS IN

THE ASIKUMA ODOBEN BRAKWA DISTRICT

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF RENEWABLE NATURAL

RESOURCES, KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY, KUMASI, IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE AWARD OF BACHELOR OF SCIENCE DEGREE IN NATURAL

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

AFRIYIE LYDIA

MAY, 2014

DECLARATION

This work was the result of my field research, except for references to other people’s work which

have been properly acknowledged. It has not been submitted for the award of any other degree

apart from this. I am responsible for the views expressed and the factual accuracy of its contents.

……………… ………………...

(Afriyie Lydia) (Dr. Kyereh Boateng)

(Student) (Supervisor)

……………………. …………………………..

Date Date

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I will like to thank the Almighty God for his protection throughout my education.

I would also want to express my heartfelt gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Kyereh Boateng for His

guidance, supervision and criticism throughout this study.

My gratitude to Mr. Kwame Oduro, Dr. Ernest Foli and Dr. Victor Agyeman the executors of the

project; Advancing REDD+ in Ghana: Preparation of REDD+ Pilot schemes in Off-Reserve

Forests and Agroforests. Special thanks to my project partner Mélanie Feurer for all the hard

work on the field and friendship. My appreciation to Mr. Adonteng Samson for his assistance on

the field and in the communities. My gratitude to the chief of Bedum, Brakwa, the queen mother

of Odoben, Miss Faustina Agyako (MOFA), Moses of Cocoa Service Division and all the leaders

of the selected communities. Special thanks to all the farmers in the selected communities for

their cooperation.

My sincere thanks to Dr. Appiagyei Nkyi and all the other lectures who contributed to my work.

My gratitude to Jacob Amoako and Angella Adjei-Darko for their help during the data

collection. I will like to thank Dr. Stephen Teypketey, Isaac Nunoo and Richard Afriyie for their

assistance during the data analysis and to Dennis Kyereh for assisting me with the arrangement

of my work. To my parents Madam Comfort Boakyewaa and Mr A.K. Gyamfi, my brothers

Raphael Kusi Gyamfi, Daniel Oduro Gyamfi and Simon Opoku Gyamfi and their wives and

children as well as my grandfather Nana Amankwaah Solomon for their assistance, prayers and

financial support during my university education. Finally to Dexter Tsatsu Dziekpor Junior for

being there for me.

ABSTRACT

Climate change problems have become a global issue and tree retention in cropping systems can

enhance carbon stock to help mitigate climate change. The study was done to determine the

potential for REDD+ projects in areas outside forest reserves. Practical constraints to REDD+

projects such as tenure, the current state of tree retention and the potential to increase tree stock

to enhance climate change mitigation were assessed. The study was conducted in the Asikuma

Odoben Brakwa District in the Central Region of Ghana. Sixty farmers were interviewed to

determine the present status of land and tree tenure whilst 32 farms were measured to determine

the trees retained on farms and the potential to improve on tree retention. The study revealed that

72% of the respondents have retained trees on their farms and 93% were willing to integrate trees

if there is a mechanism to help them do so. Sixty five percent were willing to plant trees in their

existing farms. It further revealed that 68% inherited the land and have high tenure security

which can enable them enjoy carbon credit if they plant trees. Only 2% have planted trees on

their farms but almost all of them have naturally regenerated trees and have no secure tenure of

the trees. This implies that under the present tree tenure system, farmers may not be able to

benefit from REDD+ projects. The study concludes that there is a high potential for REDD+

project because majority of the farmers were willing to retain trees on their farms and most of

them inherited their lands which has high tenure security. The study recommends that

appreciable percentage of tree benefits should be given to farmers for integrating and nurturing

trees in their farms through benefit sharing reforms.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of contents page

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

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................................... ii

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………………….iv

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................... ix

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................................... ix

LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ x

CHAPTER ONE ......................................................................................................................................... 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY ................................................................................................. 1

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT .............................................................................................................. 3

1.3 JUSTIFICATION ............................................................................................................................. 4

1.4 AIM AND SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................. 4

1.4.1 Aim of the Study ......................................................................................................................... 4

1.4.2 Specific Objectives ..................................................................................................................... 4

1.4.3 Hypotheses .................................................................................................................................. 5

CHAPTER TWO ........................................................................................................................................ 6

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................................... 6

2.1 DESCRIPTION OF AGROFORESTRY ........................................................................................ 6

2.1.1 Cocoa Agronomy in Ghana ....................................................................................................... 6

2.1.2 Farmer’s Income and REDD+ Potential .................................................................................. 8

2.2 OFF‐RESERVE AREAS .................................................................................................................. 9

2.2.1 Policies on Off-reserve Timber Trees ..................................................................................... 10

2.3 TENURE IN GHANA ..................................................................................................................... 10

2.3.1 Types of Land Tenure in Ghana ............................................................................................. 11

2.3.2 Land Title Registration ........................................................................................................... 14

2.3.3 Land Tenure and Individual Land Holders .......................................................................... 15

2.3.4 Tree Tenure .............................................................................................................................. 17

2.3.5 Tenure and Community Participation ................................................................................... 19

2.4 FARMER’S PERCEPTION TOWARDS TREES ON FARMS ................................................ 19

2.4.1 Role of Trees on Farms ............................................................................................................ 20

2.4.2 Carbon Sequestration Potential .............................................................................................. 21

2.5 STAKEHOLDERS AND BENEFIT SHARING AGREEMENT ............................................... 22

2.5.1 The Forestry Commission (FC) .............................................................................................. 22

2.5.2 District Assembly (DA) ............................................................................................................ 23

2.5.3 Traditional Authorities (TA) ................................................................................................... 23

2.5.4 Farmers ..................................................................................................................................... 23

2.5.5 Chainsaw operators ................................................................................................................. 24

2.5.6 Benefit Sharing ......................................................................................................................... 24

CHAPTER THREE .................................................................................................................................. 27

3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS ....................................................................................................... 27

3.1 STUDY AREA ................................................................................................................................. 27

3.1.1 Topology and Drainage ........................................................................................................... 28

3.1.2 Climate and Vegetation ........................................................................................................... 28

3.1.3 Soil Characteristics and Crop Suitability .............................................................................. 28

3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN .................................................................................................................... 29

3.2.1 Data Sources and Data Collection Procedure ....................................................................... 29

3.2.2 Data Processing and Analysis ................................................................................................. 33

CHAPTER FOUR ..................................................................................................................................... 34

4.0 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................ 34

4.1 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................................... 34

4.2 CROPPING SYSTEM .................................................................................................................... 34

4.2.1 Type of Crops Grown .............................................................................................................. 34

4.2.3 Levels of Tree Retention in Cropping Systems ..................................................................... 36

4.2.4 Association between Cropping Systems ................................................................................. 37

4.3 LAND AND TREE TENURE ........................................................................................................ 38

4.3.1 Land Acquisition and Land Tenure ....................................................................................... 38

4.3.2 Tree Tenure .............................................................................................................................. 39

4.4 PERCEPTION ON EFFECTS OF TREES ON CROPS ............................................................ 39

4.4.1 Effects of Trees on Crops ........................................................................................................ 39

4.4.2 Extension Services .................................................................................................................... 40

CHAPTER 5 .............................................................................................................................................. 41

5.0 DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................................... 41

5.1 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................................... 41

5.2 CROPPING SYSTEM .................................................................................................................... 42

5.2.1 Cropping Systems and the Current Trend ............................................................................ 42

5.2.2 Levels of Tree Retention in Cropping System ....................................................................... 43

5.2.3 Cropping systems, Tree integration and Means of Tree Accommodation ......................... 44

5.3 LAND AND TREE TENURE ........................................................................................................ 45

5.3.1 Land Acquisition and Land Tenure ....................................................................................... 45

5.3.2 Tree Tenure .............................................................................................................................. 46

5.4 PERCEPTION OF EFFECTS OF TREES ON CROPS ............................................................. 46

5.4.1 Positive and Negative Effects of Trees on Crops ................................................................... 46

5.4.2 Extension Service ..................................................................................................................... 47

CHAPTER SIX ......................................................................................................................................... 48

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................ 48

6.1 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................. 48

6.1.1 Current levels of Tree Retention and the potential to increase tree stocks ........................ 48

6.1.2 Present Status of Tree and Land Tenure ............................................................................... 48

6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................ 49

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 50

APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................................. x

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig.3.1: The Asikuma Odoben Brakwa District……………………………………………25

Figure 4.1: Type of crops grown……………………………………………………………33

Figure 4.2: Current Trend in Cropping System……………………………………………34

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Total Population of the selected Communities…………………………………….28

Table 4.1: Demographic Characteristics of Respondents………………………………….....32

Table 4.2: Level of Tree Retention in Cropping System……………………………………...34

Table 4.3: Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index………………………………………………….35

Table 4.4: Cropping systems, Trees on farms, Tree integration and Means of Tree

Accommodation………………………………………………………………………………35

Table 4.5: Means of Land Acquisition………………………………………………………..36

Table 4.6: Potential of Tree Tenure on Carbon Benefits……………………………………....37

Table 4.7: Effects of trees on crops……………………………………………………………38

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix I: Questionnaire……………………………………………………………………x

Appendix II: Tree species Measured…………………………………………………………xiii

Plate 1: Different age classes of cocoa farm…………………………………………………..xv

Plate 2: Oil palm plantations………………………………………………………………….xvi

Plate 3: Citrus and rubber plantations………………………………………………………..xvii

CHAPTER ONE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

There is a mutual influence between climate and ecosystem services which has been recognized

through carbon sequestration by trees leading to the influence of atmospheric carbon stock which

in turn reduces global warming (Chidumayo et al., 2011).

According to the MDGs Report (2011) there is an agreement between countries to establish a

mechanism under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to

recompense nations that contribute to the reduction of carbon emissions from deforestation and

forest degradation through the REDD+ mechanism.

REDD+ is Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation as well as

conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks

(Graham and Vignola, 2011). REDD+ is a global mechanism that seeks to incentivize initiatives

in forest-rich developing countries in the tropics that effectively contribute to reductions in

greenhouse gases, (GHGs) mainly CO2 emissions from deforestation and forest degradation

(Graham and Vignola, 2011; Kwakye, 2011). It aims at compensating forest owners in

developing countries for conserving forests by putting a value on the carbon stocks, conservation

and sustainable forest management (Kwakye, 2011; Nayak et al., 2011). REDD+ is based on the

assumptions that; countries conserving forests forgo the benefits of harvesting trees and the

benefits from alternative land use hence need to be compensated. Also, cost of conservation and

sustainable forest management needs to be shared by countries benefiting from offsite ecosystem

services.

Besides, REDD+ will improve the livelihoods of forest dependent communities through value

addition to forest produce through a public-private partnership model that would enhance income

and employment opportunities for local people (Nayak et al., 2011). REDD+ mitigation can be

enhanced in off-reserve areas through agroforestry practices.

According to Chidumayo et al., (2011), “Agroforestry is a dynamic, ecologically based, natural

resource management practice that, through the integration of trees on farms and in the

agricultural landscape, diversifies and sustains production for increased social, economic and

environmental benefits”. Agroforestry systems employ both ecological and economic

interactions to promote a better livelihood and quality environment. Chidumayo et al., (2011)

stated that, agroforestry practices hold a hefty potential to climate change mitigation because tree

incorporation in cropping systems ensure continuous vegetation cover and can earn REDD+

benefit to farmers that practice them. REDD+ mechanisms have the potential to reduce carbon

dioxide emissions, address rural poverty and conserve biodiversity. REDD+ mechanism can

cause poverty if farmers are not allowed to access tree benefits. Therefore alternative livelihoods

such as agroforestry practices have the potential to prevent deforestation in the high forest zone

and reduce emissions through the production of on farm timber and fuel wood. The practice can

provide source of income and incentives from carbon credits (FAO, 2013; Minang et al., 2011).

However, one of the serious constraints that may hinder REDD+ potential is tenure. Land tenure

is the legal or customary ownership and usage of land which specify right and access to land

usage, control and transfer of ownership, related duties and constraints in a community (FAO,

2013). Tenure is a significant tool which brings to light social, legal, political, economic,

institutional and technical issues that are of importance but are mostly ignored.

According to Tenaw et al. (2009) and FAO (2013), tenure and property right influences

technological inventions for land use systems such that tenure security motivates small holder

farmers to increase productivity. Tenure affects investment in certain practices thus a relatively

short tenure can dissuade a farmer from planting trees. This is because the tenure may be secured

for short term food crop production but not on a long term basis where tree incorporation comes

into play.

Tenure security assumes the recognition of an individual’s right to land and the resources

therein. For instance, in events of peculiar disputes concerning land use right, individuals with

insecure tenure experiences the risk of land and property loss. Secure tenure therefore motivates

small holder farmers to invest in new technologies based on their legal right to lands and values

on them which will serve as an assurance in unexpected circumstances (Tenaw et al., 2009).

There is the notion that small holder farmers who work as tenants do not enjoy secure right

unlike the land owners due to the fact that security comes with right to sell or use the land as

collateral. This means that small holder farmers who integrate trees on their farms stand the risk

of losing the land and the trees on it per the will of the owner. Attempt to gain legal security

poses a threat on others losing land rights. Tenure security removes every form of worry and

doubt and motivate farmers to undertake investment decisions on land cover types to ensure the

flow of modern technology (Tenaw et al., 2009).

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT

Constraints to tree management and carbon sequestration especially lack of security in land

entitlement and benefits associated with carbon stock options have not been completely explored

in Ghana (Kumar and Nair, 2011).

The predominant farming systems that have the potential to sequester more carbon and promote

food security have not yet been analysed (Chidumayo et al., 2011).

According to Kumar and Nair (2011), lack of information on land tenure issues is one of the

most striking knowledge gaps among all carbon sequestration studies that have been done over

the years.

1.3 JUSTIFICATION

Tenure security influence farmer’s willingness to integrate trees in their farms, adopt new

inventions for land use systems and motivates small holder farmers to increase productivity

(Tenaw et al., 2009).

Tree and land tenure security will provide incentives through carbon credit and motivate farmers

to protect trees on their farms to enhance carbon stock. This will help improve the livelihood of

small scale farmers who integrate trees in their farms (Dumenu, 2010).

1.4 AIM AND SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES

1.4.1 Aim of the Study

The aim of this study is to assess the potential for REDD+ projects in areas outside forest

reserves.

1.4.2 Specific Objectives

1. To determine the current levels of tree retention and the potential to increase carbon

stocks on farms.

2. To assess the present status of tree and land tenure and its relevance to carbon stock

enhancement.

1.4.3 Hypotheses

The hypotheses for the study are that, present tree tenure is a constraint to REDD+ projects and

that, farmers will incorporate more trees on their farms if they are eligible for tree benefits.

CHAPTER TWO

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 DESCRIPTION OF AGROFORESTRY

According to Kumar and Nair (2011) agroforestry is the combination of trees and crops in a

deliberate manner which has the potential to solve problems associated with forest depletion, soil

erosion and biodiversity conservation. Woody perennials intercropped with food crops have the

ability to trap and store CO2 from the atmosphere in woody biomass and soils. The impact of

agroforestry on the ecology, economy and the society has granted the system a global attention

as sustainable land-use management. Infertile lands can be converted to agroforestry to help in

carbon stock enhancement since agroforestry lands store much carbon than crop lands with no

trees (Kumar and Nair, 2011).

2.1.1 Cocoa Agronomy in Ghana

According to Osei-Bonsu et al., (2002) (Theobroma cacao L.), cocoa is planted in Ghana under a

thinned tree canopy. Benneh (1987) stated that intercropping perennial tree crop is an effort to

distribute financial risk associated with cultivation. Research by Osei-Bonsu et al., (2002) show

that widely spaced cocoa yielded relatively lower than that inter-planted with other perennial

crops. He stated that cocoa intercropped with perennial tree crop is environmentally friendly and

economically advantageous. According to Frimpong et al., (2007) cocoa cultivation is

characterised by low technology oriented practice which employ hired labour for land

preparation and uses inorganic chemicals for pest and diseases control.

Anim-Kwapong and Frimpong (n.d) observed that about 25% of cocoa tree stocks are over 30

years old and over 60-80% of cocoa farmers are in their late 40 to over 50 years old. These

farmers have elementary educational level and are not willing to take any risk in investing in

management strategies for better yield.

The youth and the literate abandon farming, migrate from the rural areas to urban areas in search

of white colour jobs (Frimpong et al., 2007). The growing age of farmers act as a constraint since

they become ineffective and unable to contribute to communal labour sharing. Hence, cocoa

cultivation is a low input venture carried on small farms employing vestigial technology with

very little purchased input (Anim-Kwapong and Frimpong, n.d.). The inadequate available and

affordable inputs call for adoption of more labour intensive techniques. Farmers are confronted

with the choice of employing comparatively expensive labour or undertaken less farm task as

their age restrict their ability to execute more demanding tasks.

According to Anim-Kwapong and Frimpong (n.d) and Frimpong et al., (2007) lengthened

exposure to high light intensities impairs the photosynthetic mechanism of the leaves of cocoa.

Cocoa is sensitive to climatic variations due to evapo-transpiration which causes stress by

altering the environment resulting in disease infestation. A research by Frimpong et al., (2007)

indicated a connection between cocoa tree density per unit area and that of shaded trees, which

affect the intensity and quality of light reaching the cocoa trees. Low light intensities suppress

flower production having a considerable depressing effect on production. Low light conditions

can cause black pod diseases which blast the developing or ripening cocoa pod. An analysis by

Anim-Kwapong and Frimpong (n.d) indicated that over 60% of the fluctuations in dry cocoa

beans produced could be explained changes in the weather pattern.

Harun and Hardwick (1988); Anim-Kwapong and Frimpong (n.d) observed that long time

exposure of crops to light destroy the photosynthetic mechanism. On the contrary, Benneh

(1987) observed that, low light intensities suppress flower production which puts a considerable

depressing effect on production.

2.1.2 Farmer’s Income and REDD+ Potential

Anim-Kwapong and Frimpong (n.d) stated that farmers react to price by changing the degree at

which they maintain their farms. Farmers reduce or stop tending their farms as well as new

planting activities if prices are not ample to cover normal variable costs. On the contrary, if

prices outmatch variable costs, farmers will escalate farm management, initially through more

thorough harvesting and afterwards weeding and application of chemicals (Anim-Kwapong and

Frimpong, n.d.). This is an indication that if farmers can get more income from their farms or

from tree integration through REDD+ projects, they will be willing to grow trees. Again, low

income of farmers and low motivation to invest in cocoa dissuade them from adopting

recommended mitigation practices of climate change impact on cocoa production. These farmers

are vulnerable to climate change effects such as change in rainfall pattern, long term droughts,

and bush fires. Farmers therefore seek alternative livelihoods due to the difficulties they now

face in cocoa and other crop production (Anim-Kwapong and Frimpong, n.d). Farmers have a

minimum farm size which maintain their interest and do not invest in inputs when their farm

sizes are small with limited income. About 50% of farmers depend on cocoa and cocoa related

food crops for income.

According to Anim-Kwapong and Frimpong (n.d), farmers resist changing, therefore they

require an effective extension and credit systems to assist them to accept and adopt the use of

new technologies.

2.2 OFF‐RESERVE AREAS

Off-reserve areas in Ghana consist of agricultural lands, fallow lands, secondary forest and

villages dominated by farm lands which contain trees, cash crops and food crops (Dumenu,

2010; Kyereh et al., 2009).

According to Dumenu (2010), forest resources outside the confines of forest reserves are under

the supervision of farmers, stool heads and communities within which land titles rest.

Knowledge on the benefits of these resources to farmers encourages them to control and manage

them. “…Timber resources in areas outside forest reserves are not under any formal management

of Forestry Commission (FC)” Dumenu (2010). He stated that the FC only monitors the

resources in such areas by taking inventory of trees and allocating permits for logging but the

actual management practices such as nurturing, tending, pruning, thinning and protection rests

with the farmers or land owners. Off-reserve trees comprise scattered trees in agricultural lands

and secondary forest (fallow lands) as a result of trees regenerating on agricultural lands. The FC

has right over Off-reserve trees and the land owner is a key figure in terms of tree allocation on

such lands (MLNR, 2013).

2.2.1 Policies on Off-reserve Timber Trees

The country has had three forest policies, the 1948 Forest Policy, 1994 Forest and Wildlife

Policy and the 2011 Revised Forest and Wildlife Policy. The 1948 Forest Policy allowed for the

use of off-reserve timber trees without replacement.

The 1994 Forest and Wildlife Policy sought to address conservation and sustainable development

of forest and wildlife resources for the maintenance of environmental quality and perpetual flow

of optimum benefits to all segments of society. The policy did not leave out trees on farmlands as

well as those on fallow lands (Kyereh et al., 2009).

The policy together with 1996 Forestry Master Plan introduced strategies to improve and

develop the resource base, ensure transparency, equity and poverty reduction. Nevertheless,

these strategies could not stop the rate of forest degradation by illegal chainsaw operation and

other illegal activities hence the review of the 1996 Forest and Wildlife Policy.

Among the aim of the 2011 policy is to “…consolidate good governance through accountability

and transparency, enhance active participation of communities and land owners in resource

management and develop climate change adaptation and mitigation measures”.

2.3 TENURE IN GHANA

Land tenure is the legal or customary ownership and usage of land which specifies right and

access to land usage, control and transfer of ownership, related duties and constraints in a

community (FAO, 2002). According to Kassanga (1988), it is the various laws, rules and

obligations governing land holding and ownership. According to Tenaw et al. (2009) and FAO

(2002), tenure influence inventions for land use systems thus tenure security encourage farmers

to improve productivity.

Access to land depends on traditions developed by the occupations of the ancestors. Land

occupants have arrangements with land owners such as a period of 99 years usage and some also

non-formal seasonal agreement (FAO, 2002). Sadly, past governments in Ghana ignored the

relevance of land tenure issues and its impact on the livelihoods of the people (Djokoto and

Opoku, 2010).

2.3.1 Types of Land Tenure in Ghana

Land tenure consists of customary and statutory land tenure system. Customary land tenure is

based on custom, local practices, negotiable and location specific norms rather than

documentation. This type of tenure is managed by traditional rulers, council of elders, family or

lineage heads. It is believed to hold an estimate of 80‐90% of all lands in Ghana which are

developed under different management systems (Dumenu, 2010; Fiadzigbey, 2006). The Land

Title Registration Law, 1986, PNDCL 152 recognises these land titles; allodial title/freehold

title, leasehold title, lesser interests in land (Dumenu, 2010).

Right to customary land tenure is associated with the person who first cleared it, conquered it

during the times of war or settled on it through shifting cultivation (Djokoto and Opoku, 2010).

According to Fiadzigbey (2006), freehold means the owner has full right over the land.

Customary land right is vested in traditional rulers represented by the stools, skins etc. It is

acquired through purchase or gift and owners are not under any restrictions on the use of land

except by the laws of the country (Dumenu, 2010; Fiadzigbey, 2006). These lands are inheritable

and can be given to one’s family upon their death. Holders of these lands have the right to sell,

lease or mortgage.

They can as well give the land to agricultural tenancies or shareholder agreements like the abunu

or abusa thus a half share (50:50) and a third share (1:2) respectively provided they recognise the

stool head and perform customary rites (Dumenu, 2010; Fiadzigbey, 2006). According to

Fiadzigbey (2006) abunu applies when the land owner in addition to the land provides some

form of financial support to the tending of the farm, in that case the yield is shared as 50:50. On

the other hand, abusa applies when the land owner only contribute the land. In such cases the

farmer takes 2/3 of the yield and the land owner the 3rd half.

The leaseholds grant a person access to occupy the land for a certain period where the lessee

pays a token (annual rent) to occupy the land with agreement on how the land is to be used

(Dumenu, 2010).

Statutory land tenure unlike the customary is enacted by legislative body through written laws

and regulations established from laws that stem from the colonial powers which state acceptable

practices and consequences for non-conformity. This type of tenure is enforced by the

government decision makers and delegated bodies and it is armed by citizenship, constitutional

rule etc. Right to these types of land are apportioned through titles or ownership registration.

Land tenure system of Ghana was interfered with during the arrival of colonization through

legislative and judicial proceedings.

These proceedings brought about retaining of land tenure interest from the pre-colonial era and

created new interest for state control management of lands. During this period, acts were passed

declaring state control over resources such as land use, timber, minerals etc. The colonial powers

introduced new form of land ownership, title and management which vested all land use forms in

the governor making other land use types unlawful (Djokoto and Opoku, 2010). This situation

was reversed and confirmed by the 1979 and 1992 constitution of Ghana respectively.

The allodial title of lands for instance is enthroned in the stool head (the paramount chief). In this

type of land tenure, the lesser chiefs or stool heads hold land title under the paramount chief

according to their ranks in the hierarchy of the traditional political order. Among the individuals

of the community, land can also be held base on once loyalty to the chiefs. Lands are normally

apportioned to individuals of the community in order of merits (Djokoto and Opoku, 2010).

Fiadzigbey (2006) observed three different types of land holding; firstly “lands which are the

ancestral property of the king”, the king can handle and manage these as he desire provided the

entire members of the family are in support.

The second type is “lands attached to the stool which the king can deal with only with the

consent of the councillors”. Lastly “the general lands of the state over which the king exercises

paramount”.

According to Djokoto and Opoku (2010) chiefs do not exercise political rights to the other lands

belonging to individual households but rather exerts political jurisdiction. The allodial title of the

customary land gives the power to the stool precisely the chiefs to sell land to a stranger or a

non-citizen. Therefore it is possible for a stranger or foreigner to hold an allodial title to a land he

is not a native of (Djokoto and Opoku, 2010).

Currently, legislative interventions are such that the stool deprives members of the community

from their right to hunt or cultivate on such lands and can willingly release it to individuals who

do not have the right to own such lands per terms and condition that interest the chief. These

chiefs believe that the main interest in native lands should be possessed by the stool and family

heads and not the individual members of the community. Today, individual members in a

community are able to pass on lands to their descendants on the matrilineal form of inheritance

(Djokoto and Opoku, 2010).

The Act 123 of the 1962 grants the nation the authority to manage and control stool and family

lands on behalf of the people for political, chieftaincy and disputes among other reasons. Again,

all timber trees have been vested in the central government in authority of the stool that possess

the land as stated in the Concessions Act, 1962(Act 124).

The 1979 Constitution re-vested land rights in the traditional rulers while the 1992 Constitution

also entrusted part of the lands into the president which is managed by the Lands Commission

(Dumenu, 2010).

2.3.2 Land Title Registration

Over the years, measures have been put in place to promote land title registration to enhance

tenure security and agricultural investment strategies. The land title registration aims to provide

evidence of land owner and prevent tricky purchasing and mortgages. On the contrary, these land

title registration has not been successful and has resulted in land tenure doubts (Djokoto and

Opoku, 2010).

The 1999 National Land Policy of Ghana acknowledges rationale usage of land and the essence

of equitable access through land registration. The 1992 Constitution spotted the public lands,

stool lands and private freehold lands as the different land tenure systems.

The public lands which constitute about 20% of the total land area in Ghana are controlled and

managed by the state. Stool lands which form about 80% of all undeveloped lands are managed

by the traditional rulers under the customary law (Djokoto and Opoku, 2010). On the other hand,

“…the Article 267(5) states that no right over any stool land in Ghana shall be created which

vests in any person a freehold interests.

The tenor of this provision is that not even members of a stool or members of a family can

acquire freehold interests in any land in Ghana in which the stool or family holds the allodial title

taking effect from 7th January 1993…” (Djokoto and Opoku, 2010). The other part is that,

family lands are not under the laws that has been impose on stool lands by the said Act especially

if the grantee is a subject of the stool that owns the land.

The current land tenure in Ghana faces problems such as mismanagement, corruption,

indiscipline in the land market i.e. land encroachment, sale of land to more than one person,

which has resulted in conflict between traditional rulers and communities. Land tenure insecurity

as a result of contradictory concerns between land owners and the government due to negligence

to consult land owners and traditional authorities in terms of land allocation, acquisition and

management is the canker confronting land access (Djokoto and Opoku, 2010).

According to the Munden Project (2012) land tenure insecurity can serve as a threat to

investment projects on areas where farmers do not feel secured with the land tenure agreement.

In the customary system of land tenure, the various components such as crops, trees, etc. that

make up a particular land use type is seen as different from the integral component been it a

permanent or a temporal component. For instance, in dealing with mineral deposits in the soil or

components on lands such as trees, crops, animals, settlement etc. requires a separate law other

than the land laws (Djokoto and Opoku, 2010).

2.3.3 Land Tenure and Individual Land Holders

The chiefs allocated stool lands to community members and migrants due to high demand to

grow cocoa and other cash crops. Some of these lands were leased to the individuals on a long

term basis.

Others were sold to them with or without the knowledge of other community members resulting

in stool lands been possessed by community members and migrants (Fiadzigbey, 2006).

Land tenure plays a key role in the livelihoods of people such that the highest percentage of

Ghanaians depends on lands and its exploitation for their livelihoods.

The decline in agricultural production for domestic and industrial food supply and dwindling

nature of other resources is as a result of land tenure (Kasanga, 1988). The customary type of

land tenure grants access of land to members in the community for cultivation and settlement.

This practice was done in the past where there was sufficient land supply to meet the demands of

the then population. The system was flexible and it maintained the social security of the people

without any insurance welfares. The rural dwelling community found comfort in the land as well

as a resort to urban dwellers in case of loss of jobs. The customary land tenure system also

served as a means to move freely from place to place to cultivate (Djokoto and Opoku, 2010;

Kasanga, 1988).

Development and population growth after independence has resulted in unequal distribution of

land leading to insecure land tenure and food insecurity among Ghanaians. Stool farm lands have

now been sold to strangers and used as residential areas leaving the individuals limited lands,

food, income and land tenure insecurity (Djokoto and Opoku, 2010). In such cases, illiterate

farmers and those with basic education lose their means of livelihood or resort to trading on

small scale basis in other to survive since the reduction in food production can result in high cost

of food.

Also acquisition of the limited lands for agricultural purposes becomes a means of survival of the

fitters and the rich always have an upper hand over the local folks making it impossible for these

individuals to acquire land in their own community for farming.

These individuals who have been deprived access of land in their community migrate to other

communities and sometimes bigger cities in search for jobs to earn a living of which never

existed (Djokoto and Opoku, 2010; Kasanga, 1988). The means by which the state uses force to

acquire hand has nevertheless affected the livelihood of these rural dwellers.

Again Fiadzigbey (2006) stated that the state in the aim of holding the land in trust for the local

communities vest in itself the right to obtain revenue and ownership right associated with the

land. It has been noted that, the state after vesting land in itself go ahead and lease lands (Land

commission) which have already been leased by the chiefs or family heads. This act by the land

commission acting in favour of the government sometimes lead to disputes over ownership

between stool heads and individuals to whom such lands have been leased (Djokoto and Opoku,

2010). There has always been a problem of revenue allocation between chiefs and state agencies

because revenue coming from lands does not get to the chiefs. Also compensations promised by

the government to the individuals and communities over lands are not paid as expected

(Fiadzigbey, 2006).

2.3.4 Tree Tenure

According to Fortmann (1985) tree tenure is “a bundle of rights over tree and tree products, each

of which may be held by different people at different times”. They include; the right to own,

inherit, dispose, use trees and tree products etc. In the case of planted trees, right to use or

manage rests with the farmer (Timber Resources Management Act, 2002; Acheampong and

Marfo, 2011; Katoomba Group Report, 2009). Natural regenerated trees on farms are vested in

the president on behalf of the local authorities.

The FC grant permit (timber utilization contract or timber utilization permit) to concessioners to

log such trees without the consent of the stool heads or the farmers whose farms are being logged

(Dumenu, 2010).

According to Amanor (2005); Acheampong and Marfo (2011) this practice by the FC is as a

result of forest laws and policies that vest the right to regenerated tree in the government instead

of the stool heads or farmers even though these farmers have to make decisions as to which tree

to leave in their farms during land preparation and cultivation. Farmers then make the conscious

effort to tend and nurture selected trees till they reach maturity. Acheampong and Marfo (2011)

stated that usage of natural regenerated trees on farms by farmers or individuals in the

community without the permission from the FC is an offense with which farmers can be charged.

It is rather sad that farmers only have access to the saplings for poles, shelter tents and firewood.

Farmers therefore have no option than to kill the trees at the initial stage of cultivation or sell

trees to illegal chainsaw operators at maturity. Since farmers do not have any confidence in the

resource security at maturity (Dumenu, 2010; Kyereh et al., 2009). Farmers have the right to

stand against logging in their farms and receive compensations in case of crop damage which has

not gathered much momentum. This leaves poor farmers under the mercies of greedy timber

operators who have nothing to loss or gain in the issue of sustainability.

Some concessioners ignore farmers during pre-logging surveys leaving the farmers to find out

only after logging has taken place in their farms with no compensation of damaged crops

(Dumenu, 2010; Kyereh et al., 2009; Amanor, 2005). Lack of knowledge by farmers on the right

associated with planted and regenerated trees discourages them from planting trees on their

farms. Therefore programs that require farmers to plant trees with economic benefit or reward

will take roots in Ghana (Katoomba Group Report, 2009).

A report by Katoomba Group (2009) stated that, right should not be given to concessioners

without a written authorization from farmers whose farm trees are to be logged been it a natural

regenerated or planted tree.

According to Acheampong and Marfo (2011) migrants who have access to lands can plants

temporal trees on their farms and own it. Land owners have the notion that planting permanent

trees by the tenant with no proper documents between them can grant the tenant a permanent

ownership to the land. These land owners therefore prevent tenants from planting permanent

trees to secure their lands from been lost to the tenant’s family (Acheampong and Marfo, 2011).

2.3.5 Tenure and Community Participation

Resources on lands such as trees are vested in the representatives of communities; stool heads,

family heads etc. and each member of the community is expected to play a role in protecting

such resources (Djokoto and Opoku, 2010). In situations where these responsibility of resource

protection are taken from them and vested in others, individuals in the community tend to over

exploit these resources by any means they deem fit (Djokoto and Opoku, 2010; Kasanga, 1988).

Djokoto and Opoku (2010) stated that involvement of community in decision making and benefit

sharing will ensure secure benefits for the communities and enhance better conservation practice

by individual farmers by acting as spies.

2.4 FARMER’S PERCEPTION TOWARDS TREES ON FARMS

Farmers are aware of the ecological and environmental role of trees to their crops which is the

main reason why they nurture such trees.

To farmers, trees incorporation help provide shade to crops and prevent direct impact of

sunshine, minimise desiccation which causes decrease in the fertility of soil as well as crop yield.

Again, trees serve as wind breaks, prevent erosion, provide nutrient to their crops, conserve

water, sequester carbon etc. (Dumenu, 2010; Kyereh et al., 2009).

In the earlier periods, farmers preserved regenerated trees on farm lands by growing crops under

big trees in thinned stands to allow for enough sunlight and space for crops survival and good

yield. Currently, under cocoa, citrus and food crop farming systems, farmers have to nurture

trees on their farms in other to provide shade or conserve moisture in the soil for the growth of

crops. The trees are then reduced or removed at crops maturity to allow for enough sunlight and

space to promote crop growth. This management strategy by far contributes to the sustained tree

resources which unfortunately has been tempered with by the use of hybrid crop varieties which

is believed to do well under farms free of canopy. This approach has resulted in clearing of trees

by farmers for bumper harvest resulting in atmospheric carbon build-ups (Dumenu, 2010).

2.4.1 Role of Trees on Farms

Knowledge of farmers on role of trees in soil conservation, soil fertility improvement, ecological

and socio-economic aspect inform them to preserve naturally regenerated trees in their farms.

Trees farmers normally preserve include; Milicia excelsa, Triplochiton scleroxylon, Terminalia

spp., Khaya spp., Cola gigantean, Funtumia elastia, Ceiba pentandra, Daniellia oliveri, Ficus

exasperate (Dumenu, 2010).

The maximum number of trees to be incorporated have to be decided upon by farmers due to the

trade-offs they are confronted with in terms of managing trees.

For instance space that can be used to plant additional crops are been occupied by trees which

cast shade over crops reducing the amount of sunlight reaching crops. Again, trees can serve as

host to pest and diseases which infest crops and reduce market value.

Also, farmers and crops stand the risk of loss of life and damage respectively through breaking

of whole or part of tree. Decision on tree density to incorporate in farms rests on farmers and

management practices they adopt (Dumenu, 2010).

The impact of light rays on leaves in cocoa farm without shade can increase leaf shedding.

Frimpong et al., (2007) observed that, litter fall from shaded areas decompose faster at the initial

stage than areas with no shade due to the presence of microorganisms in the shaded farms.

Farmers remove shady trees on farms due to their perception that such practice facilitate high

yield of crops.

2.4.2 Carbon Sequestration Potential

Based on factors such as site features, land use types, species, age of stand, and management

practices employed, carbon sequestration potential can be considered as a direct expression of

the potential for ecological production. The amount of CO2 that can be sequestered varies

depending on type of system i.e. nature of components and age of woody perennials, site

characteristics and past land use (Kumar and Nair, 2011). Agroforestry systems have the

capacity to store more carbon than any other land use system. There is a high concentration of

carbon for tree based systems than normal crop base systems (Kumar and Nair, 2011). Trees

serve as wind break, enhance microclimate for crop production, reduce evaporation of water

from leave surfaces and offer the potential for carbon sequestration.

Research shows that agroforestry systems sequester the highest carbon during the fallow phase

(Kumar and Nair, 2011).

2.5 STAKEHOLDERS AND BENEFIT SHARING AGREEMENT

The stakeholders involved in off-reserve tree resources are; “traditional land holding authorities

(i.e. chiefs, stool heads, family heads etc.), forest fringe communities, individual land owners,

farmers/tenants, the state and its agencies (i.e. district assemblies, office of the administrator of

stool lands etc.), timber industries and chainsaw operators” (Dumenu, 2010).

2.5.1 The Forestry Commission (FC)

The FC is a stakeholder to off-reserves in terms of benefit sharing of timber revenue. “…lead

executing and operational agency responsible for forest management, protection and

development” (Dumenu, 2010). Forest Service Division under the FC is responsible for the

planning, management, monitoring and controlling of timber use in both forest and off-reserves.

The FC controls timber allocation rights, collection of revenues, timber extraction in forest

reserves and off-reserve areas (Dumenu, 2010). The delay or failure to compensate farmers on

their destroyed farm after logging is key to the slackness of sustainable forestry practices

(MLNR, 2013). The Forestry Commission has commercial rights over the trees in off-reserve

areas but the exercise of such right i.e. granting timber rights permits can only be concluded with

the permission of the land owner (MLNR, 2013).

2.5.2 District Assembly (DA)

“…Gives political and administrative direction and supervises all other administrative authorities

within the district” (Dumenu, 2010). The DA enforce bush fire laws, initiate tree planting

campaigns, regulate the activities of chainsaw operators, monitor and control illegal logging etc.

(MLNR, 2013).

2.5.3 Traditional Authorities (TA)

They are the land holding authorities and tree ownership rests with them but the state vest the

right to use in the president leaving little power and control to them. According to Amanor

(2005) government has limited the power of these authorities over their own lands. Nevertheless

they still play a vital role by settling disputes and receiving shares of revenue from trees.

2.5.4 Farmers

Farmers tend trees on their farms due to the benefits of trees on crops and not for timber revenue.

They integrate trees in their farms by pollarding and burning to encourage coppicing of trees.

Research proves that farmers have lost their tree conservators attribute to tree destroyers by

deliberately killing timber trees or preventing their growth as a result of less appreciable

economic values farmers generate from trees. The dominant farming system existing in the high

forest zones includes cocoa, oil palm and citrus in addition to arable crops e.g. cassava, plantain,

cocoyam etc. (Dumenu, 2010; Amanor, 2005).

2.5.5 Chainsaw operators

These are people who log illegally with the chainsaw machines. They do not hold any legal right

i.e. timber utilization certificate, salvage permit etc. and neither do they pay forest fees to log

timber. According to Dumenu (2010) chainsaw operators are well organized bodies supported by

business men. They work in the night with arms to stay against task force and farmers.

According to Acheampong and Marfo (2011) chainsaw operators have been banned from felling

trees but some farmers connive with them to fell trees on their farms in order to get some

benefits.

According to Odoom (2005) chainsaw operators sometimes provide remuneration in cash or

boards to farmers which in a way serve as incentive to these farmers to stay silent on such

activities. The benefits from chain saw operations have called for the support of some members

in the community in the operation (Acheampong and Marfo, 2011).

2.5.6 Benefit Sharing

According to the Revised Forest and Wildlife Policy (2011), benefit sharing is an allegiance

which passes monetary or non-monetary returns to stakeholders, individuals or communities.

Therefore revenue from trees can be passed to the communities through a direct benefit sharing

agreement such as cash payment or indirect benefit sharing such as community facilities, grass-

root development activities among others. These initiatives have different benefit sharing

agreements. Most farmers clear forest for agricultural cultivation to support their livelihood

which is as a result of inadequate or no incentives from trees. Therefore improvement on tenure

agreement and appropriate compensations will change farmer’s attitude towards trees removal.

Land registration as a means to tenure security is not substantial as anticipated.

Therefore access to land and other forms of livelihood can help achieve the aim of sustainability.

Research proves that sustainability can be achieved with flexibility in tenure agreement. If trees

are treated as cash crops and the right is vested in the farmers, they will integrate and nurture

trees in their farms. Another way is giving them a percentage of trees logged on their farms.

The ecological, aesthetic and environmental benefits of trees can be obtained by people who

comply with the rules of use and access (MLNR, 2013).

On the contrary, the economic benefit of trees is guarded by formal and customary rules and

policies unlike in the past where concessioners obtain felling permit from chiefs and compensate

farmer. This way farmers gain some form of economic benefit from trees in their farms (Forest

Wildlife Policy, 2011; Amanor, 2005). They could also fell trees for personal use and provide a

share to the stool. The right of farmers to fell or sell timber for their personal use has been lost in

the 1962 legislation that vest trees right in the president (Dumenu, 2010; MLNR, 2013). The

legislation reduced the rights of land owners, stools to grant felling permit and made local

government the main beneficiary to timber revenue. This unfairness in benefit sharing agreement

has led to the support of illegal chain saw activities by farmers (Acheampong and Marfo, 2011).

The benefit sharing of trees in off reserve areas allocates 40% of timber revenue to the FC,

13.5% to the Stool lands, 10.8% to the Traditional Council, 29.7% to the District Assembly and

6% to the Office of the Administrator of Stool Lands (Dumenu, 2010).

According to Kyereh et al., (2009) the above sharing ratio have been reviewed from 60:40

which favoured the Government to 60:40 now in favour of the landowners.

The above representations are clear indications that farmers do not receive direct economic

benefits from trees in their farms but indirect benefit through compensation from crop damage

which is nothing to write home about and sometimes not paid at all. Also some agreed benefits

instead of going to the individuals rather go to the local authorities (Dumenu, 2010).

Failure to enforce agreements on equity resource use is the resultant dwindling nature of trees in

off-reserve areas (Kyereh et al., 2009). Amanor (2005) and Kyereh et al., (2009) put forward that

the supposed equitable benefit sharing policy do not provide the basis for effective resource

management but rather provides benefit for a narrow sector such as the well-connected. While

the farmer who keeps and nurture trees on their farms are left with nothing but damaged crops

with no compensation. Dumenu (2010) stated that benefit sharing arrangements should be based

on various inputs by stakeholders so as to ensure sustainability in tree based resources.

Again, (Kyereh et al., 2009) stated that since farmers are the only stakeholders who determine

the survival of trees on off-reserve areas, they should be giving incentives to motivate them in

the protection of trees. Also, existing forest policies should be reviewed in favour of farmers who

invest into the trees on their farms. There should be an agreement between tenants and land

owners on land and tree tenure. Farmers should be made aware of the changes in the

environment, its impact in their lives and the role trees play to mitigate the problem.

CHAPTER THREE

3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 STUDY AREA

The study was conducted in the Asikuma-Odoben-Brakwa District, located on the North-central

portion of the Central Region of Ghana. It is bordered on the north by South Birim District of the

Eastern Region, on the south by Ajumako-Enyan-Essiam District, on the West by the Assin

South District and Assin North Municipal and on the East by the Agona West Municipal (Figure

3.1). It covers a land area of about 884.84 sq. km of which 575.15 and 353.94 km sq. are

agricultural land area and area under cultivation respectively (MoFA, 2011).

The district is located between latitude 5o 51” N, 5o 52” N and longitude 1o 50” W and 1o10” W

(Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development, 2013).

Fig.3.1: The Asikuma Odoben Brakwa District (Source: Asikuma District Planning Office)

3.1.1 Topology and Drainage

The district is a low lying area ranging between 15m to 100m above sea level, with outstanding

highlands and swampy areas at certain portions of the low lands. The District is drained by rivers

like Osia and Ochi with tributaries including Boyow, Atresu, Bemu, Ninsin, Suponso and

Supuma River (MoFA, 2011; MLGRD, 2013).

3.1.2 Climate and Vegetation

The District lies within the moist semi-equatorial zone, with a mean annual rainfall of 1600mm.

It experiences bimodal rainfall with peaks in May-June and September-October. The average

annual temperature ranges from 26°C in August to 34°C in March. It has a relative humidity of

80% during the rainy season and between 50% and 60% during the dry season. Vegetation cover

of the District is tropical semi-deciduous forest with four forest reserves; Baako, Supong,

Wawahi and Oboyow Forest Reserves and contains tree species like Odum, Mahogany, Wawa

etc. (MoFA, 2011; MLGRD, 2013).

3.1.3 Soil Characteristics and Crop Suitability

The District is essentially underlined by the Cape Coast granite rocks, forming the basis of high

potential of Muscovite and quarry stones in particular. Soils are essentially Batholiths and mostly

loamy, moderately deep, red and brown, well drained. Soils are known to be fertile and support

cocoa, oil palm, citrus, plantain, cassava, maize and vegetable cultivation (MoFA, 2013).

3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN

The research started with an introductory visit to the District to make known the purpose of the

visit to the chiefs and leaders of the selected communities where the research was carried out

which include Asikuma, Bedum, Brakwa, Bonsunyina and Odoben. Also, the District Assembly,

Cocoa Service Division and Ministry of Food and Agriculture all at Asikuma were visited. This

was done in order to be familiar with the study area, establish informal contacts and identify key

informants and the land use systems in the area.

3.2.1 Data Sources and Data Collection Procedure

The research put to use primary data obtained from administering questionnaires and taking

biophysical measurement from the farms of the selected respondents. The questionnaire used for

the study has been presented in Appendix I.

In order to facilitate the fieldwork and increase accuracy in the selection of respondents from the

district, a three stage multi-sampling method was used. The district was stratified into five zones

from which communities were randomly selected (Nkyi, 1989). The first primary unit was

obtained from the five selected communities within the entire district. The population of farmers

in the selected communities was obtained from MoFA in Asikuma (Table 3.1). Farmers were

selected as secondary unit based on the criteria of the four farming systems selected. A sampling

intensity of 2% was aimed at within each village but this was not met due to financial constraints

and the difficulty in moving to another village and establishing contacts after settling in one.

Within the five selected communities a total of 60 farmers were randomly selected from the

population as respondents.

Four land use systems most common in the District; cocoa (Theobroma cacao), oil palm (Elaeis

guineensis), citrus (Citrus sinesis) and rubber (Hevea brasiliensis) were selected for the study.

This was based on the fact that these farming systems are permanent cash crop farms which stay

on the land for a long time and have the capacity to store more carbon in woody biomass

together with the trees incorporated on farms. Farmers who fall in these farm categories were

sampled and interviewed and information on the number of farms and size belonging to each

farmer was obtained. A total of 32 farms were sampled as final stage unit out of the 60 farmers

interviewed and biophysical measurements were taken from these farms (Nkyi, 1989). The total

population in the District is 89,395, 71% of the population which is about 63,470 form the

agricultural and its related activities and 48,091 are farmers (MoFA, 2011).

Table 3.1 Total Population of the selected Communities

Communities Total population

Asikuma 12,391

Bedum 3,956

Bonsunyina 315

Brakwa 7,812

Odoben 8,275

Total population 32749

3.2.1.1 Sampling Protocol for Standing Tree Biomass

Cocoa farms were grouped into three age classes; 1- 4 years, 5 - 15 years and 15+ years. Out of

this, twelve farms were sampled from the total of 60 farmers interviewed which happened to be

the most common farming system practiced in the area. For each farm two plots of 20 x 20m

were measured. Within each plot, forest trees with diameter at breast height, (DBH) >3 cm were

measured using the diameter tape and tree species within the plot were identified. For the 1 to 4

year old cocoa farms, trees in the entire area were measured.

Oil palm and Citrus

Eight farms each were sampled for oil palm and Citrus which happened to be the next most

common farming systems in the area after cocoa. Unlike cocoa, there were no different age

classes available for these two farming systems. One plot of 50 x 50m was demarcated where all

the forest trees were measured at (DBH) >3 cm and tree species identified. The variation in the

plot sizes between oil palm, citrus and cocoa was due to large planting distances for oil palm and

citrus.

Rubber

Four farms were sampled for rubber, two plots of 20 x 20m was demarcated. Within each plot,

trees with diameter at breast height, (DBH) >3 cm were measured using the diameter tape.

Unlike the other farming systems, rubber-out growers are not allowed to incorporate trees in

their farms. Therefore the few measured were as a result of farmers leaving them to serve as a

resting point.

GPS was used to measure the size of the farm with the help of the farm owners in order to know

the size of the area. A plot was laid at the northern and southern portion of the farm to obtain a

representative of the farm. Care was taking to ensure that tape was not sagging or twisted. Also

tension was applied to the tape to straighten the line before a peg is placed. In situations where

the farm is weedy, a cutlass is used to cut through the desired location to be measured by the

labourer.

3.2.1.2 Species Identification

A species identification guide by Hawthorne and Gyakari (2006), which gives a comprehensive

list of woody plants of high forest zone of Ghana and their respective botanical and vernacular

names was used as a reference material during the enumeration of trees. Specimen of bark, twigs

with leaves of trees that could not be identified were collected and placed in tagged envelops to

be identified by a researcher at the Forestry Research Institute of Ghana (FORIG). Also various

uses of trees by farmers were recorded.

3.2.1.3 Diameter Measurement

The 1.3m height was measured from the soil level at the highest point at the base of the tree by

removing litter and tree debris at the ground level. This was done by measuring a 1.3m on a

straight stick using the measuring tape to facilitate faster movement in subsequent

measurements. Care was taken to ensure that tapes were not bent, twisted or dirty. Tension was

applied to the tape ends and readings were taken (Nkyi, 1989). Tree diameters were measured

using metal diameter measuring tapes and readings made to the nearest centimetre. In situations

where there were 2 or 3 main stems at 1.3m each stem was considered a single tree.

Also in situations where a forking or swelling occurred at 1.3m a diameter was taken 10cm

beyond the breast height (Nkyi, 1989). Buttress trees were rarely encountered during the

measurements because trees present were normally of small size with no buttress.

3.2.1.4 Other measurement

The area of the farm wherever possible was calculated using a GPS. Also to be able to relate the

basal area characteristics to the demographic and other farm features, assessment of the

relationship between these variables were undertaken (Nkyi, 1989).

3.2.2 Data Processing and Analysis

Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used to process responses from questionnaires.

The qualitative technique used comprises comprehensive statements and analytical descriptions.

The quantitative technique was based on the use of tables and charts. The SPSS (Statistical

Package for Social Scientist) and the Microsoft Excel computer application software were used

to aid the analysis of the primary data. The plot sizes measured in meters converted to hectares

before analysing the data to be able to standardize the sampling units so as to enable comparison

of other inventory results (Nkyi, 1989).

Tree species and their level of occurrence in farms were presented in a table to determine the

most common tree species located in the area and their uses to farmers. The basal area (g) of the

tree at breast height was calculated using the formula:

g = (π/4)* (d2)

Where g = basal area

d= diameter at breast height.

CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 RESULTS

4.1 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

The respondents consisted of 75% males and 25% females. The majority of them were between

the ages of 41-60 years. Their other demographic characteristics are presented in table 4.1.

Table 4.1: Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

Parameters Categories Percentage (%)

Gender Male

Female

Age 21-40

Education Illiterate

Primary

Tertiary

4.2 CROPPING SYSTEM

4.2.1 Type of Crops Grown

Respondents who cultivate cocoa were 48% whilst those who cultivate rubber were 5% out of

the four main cropping systems in the area. Aside that, 10% of the respondents had both cocoa

and oil palm, 2% had cocoa and rubber; and the remaining 2% had cocoa, oil palm and citrus

(Figure 4.1).

From figure 4.2, 45% of the respondents are expanding their cocoa farms, 15% are changing to

cocoa, 32% are moving to other perennial crops like rubber, 7% will stay in annual crop

production and 2% were not sure of changing.

Figure 4.1: Type of crops grown in Asikuma Odoben Brakwa District

Cocoa,

Rubber

Figure 4.2: Current Trend in Cropping System in Asikuma Odoben Brakwa District

4.2.3 Levels of Tree Retention in Cropping Systems

Table 4.2 shows the present levels of trees retained on cropping systems; old cocoa farm

recorded the highest mean number of 125 trees per ha and oil palm recorded the least of 32 trees

per ha. Table 4.3 presents the Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index of tree species richness in the

area. Citrus recorded the highest diverse tree species (21) and middle age cocoa farm recorded

the least diverse trees (14).

Table 4.2: Level of Tree Retention in Cropping System in Asikuma Odoben Brakwa District

Cropping System Minimum/ha Maximum/ha Mean Number /ha Basal Area/ha

Oil palm 8 56 32 0.330306

Citrus 4 104 54 0.377627

Young age cocoa 2.8 134.4 68.6 1.443253

Middle age cocoa 4 176 90 2.964895

Old age cocoa 50 200 125 7.200194

Change to other perennial crops

Table 4.3: Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index

Cropping System Number of species

Middle age cocoa 14 2.15286

Oil palm 15 2.31661

Young age cocoa 16 1.86793

Old age cocoa 17 2.51512

Citrus 21 2.5249

4.2.4 Association between Cropping Systems

A further look at the statistical association between cropping systems and trees on farms,

willingness to integrate trees and means of tree accommodation revealed a connection between

some of these variables (Table 4.4). The presence of trees on farms and willingness to integrate

trees has some level of association with cropping system. For instance, cocoa can accommodate

more trees because it is said to be shade loving. Rubber out-growers are not allowed to integrate

trees in their farms hence the association.

Table 4.4: Cropping systems, Trees on farms, Tree integration and Means of Tree

Accommodation

Parameters Categories Cropping Systems (%) Pearson’s Sig

Chi-square (%)

Cocoa Citrus Oil palm Rubber (χ2)

Presence of Trees

on farm

2 6.835

5 df (3)

Willingness to

Integrate more

7 3.166

0 df (3)

Means of tree

accommodation

Boundaries

New land

2 10.884

0 df (6)

4.3 LAND AND TREE TENURE

4.3.1 Land Acquisition and Land Tenure

The main land tenure systems present in the area are inheritance, leasehold and sharecropping

(Table 4.5). Respondents who inherited their lands formed the majority (68%) and sharecropping

recored only two percent. Eighty eight percent of the respondents did not encounter any problem

with land acquisition but the remaining 12% encountered problems of high cost of land,

competition from family members and land owners. Based on this, 90% of respondents will be

able to acquire more land per arrangement with land owners.

The remaining 10% will not be able to aqcuire land because their lands are finished and the cost

of acquring lands from other land owners is too high for them. The type of land that is most easy

to acquire for farming are secondary forest/ young fallow and old existing farms. At present there

are no primary forest lands available for farming.

Table 4.5: Means of Land Acquisition in Asikuma Odoben Brakwa District

Means of Land

Acquisition

% of Respondents Tenure Security Potential Effect on Carbon

Stocks

Inheritance 68 High Favourable

Leasehold 30 High Favourable

Sharecropping 2 Low Unfavourable

4.3.2 Tree Tenure

Respondents who planted trees were only 2% and 78% had trees regenerating naturally whilst

20% had a mixture of both planted and natural regenerated trees on their farms (Table 4.6)

Table 4.6: Potential of Tree Tenure on Carbon Benefits

Type of Trees % of Respondents Tenure Security Potential Effect on Carbon

Benefits

Planted 2 High Favourable

Natural Regenerated 78 Low Unfavourable

Mixture 20 Uncertain Uncertain

4.4 PERCEPTION ON EFFECTS OF TREES ON CROPS

4.4.1 Effects of Trees on Crops

According to the respondents, positive impacts that trees have on crops varied from shade

provision to wind break. On the other hand, 40% were not sure of any importance of trees to

their crops. For the negative effects of trees on crops, respondents mentioned mostly the

reduction of crop yield and branches destroying crops but 3% were not sure of any negative

effects of trees on their crops (Table 4.7).

Table 4.7: Respondents perceived effects of trees on crops

Effects Number of respondents Percent (%)

Positive effects

Shade 19 32

Wind break 2 3

Fast growth 1 2

Shade, rainfall, wind break 14 23

Not sure 24 40

Negative effects

Host pest 3 5

Competition and reduce yield 4 7

Reduce yield and host pest 5 8

Branches destroy crops 7 12

Grow tall and reduce yield 7 12

Reduce yield 15 25

Not sure 2 3

4.4.2 Extension Services

Fifty three percent of respondents meet extension agents from time to time on issues concerning

their farms but 47% do not meet extension agents. Again, majority of respondents were ready to

receive extension advice on trees whilst others regard extension advice as unimportant because

they already know most of the things taught by the extension agents.

CHAPTER 5

5.0 DISCUSSION

5.1 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

Majority of the respondents were males. Dumenu (2010) made a similar study and reported

similar figures of male (69%) and females (31%).

This representation may be as a result of men having greater access to farming lands than women

in society. Traditionally, men are regarded as the head of the family whilst women form the

subordinating group. Therefore in the selection, more males turn up for the interview which may

be a fair representation of male-female ratio of farmers. This affirms a study by Nyateng (1999)

that traditionally men often secure land for farming with their household as source of labour.

Also in some communities, some females refused to respond to the interview in the absence of

their husbands. This may be due to the traditional rules that women must follow their husbands

as stated by Tenaw et al., (2009).

The greater proportion of respondents, 63% were between 41-60 years and only 17% were

between 21-40 years (Table 4.1). This may be due to the fact that most of the youth in the area

had moved to the cities in search of jobs. This confirms a study by Anim-Kwapong and

Frimpong, (n.d) that over 60-80% of cocoa farmers are in their late 40s to over 50 years old and

that the youth abandon farming and migrate to urban areas in search of white colour jobs. This

may be a threat to agriculture since the aged do not invest in new farms. This confirms the study

by Anim-Kwapong and Frimpong (n.d.) that the growing age of farmers acts as a constraint since

they become ineffective in production.

Majority of the respondents had some level of education with only 18% as illiterates.

Respondents with basic education were more than all the others (48%).This contributed to the

farmers understanding of climate change since most of them had previous knowledge about it.

This might also encourage their participation in tree integration since they somehow know the

impact of climate change on their livelihoods. Tripp (1993) and Ardayfio‐Schandorf et al.,

(2007) noted education as an important socio-economic variable that makes participants

receptive to new innovations and generate consciousness toward natural resource conservation.

Educational level of respondents influenced their response and can encourage them to manage

their farms to sequester carbon provided they will benefit from carbon benefits without

compromising their crop yield. This supports the argument by Anim-Kwapong and Frimpong

(n.d.) that farmers have elementary educational level and disprove the fact that farmers are not

willing to take any risk in investing in management strategies for better yield.

5.2 CROPPING SYSTEM

5.2.1 Cropping Systems and the Current Trend

Cocoa is the highest land cover type practiced in the area; this affirms a study by Dumenu (2010)

and Amanor (2005) that the dominant farming systems in the high forest zone are cocoa, oil

palm and citrus in addition to the shade tolerant arable crops. These arable crops are integrated in

the first four years of cultivation to serve as a means of livelihood. Oladokun (1990) and Benneh

(1987) also observed that food crops are planted under young cocoa plantation to provide ready

source of income, shade for the cocoa trees and distribute financial risk.

However, rubber out-growers are not allowed to cultivate cassava in their farms because they

believe uprooting cassava might destroy the roots of the rubber plant. Again, cassava crop serves

as a host to pest of the rubber plant. Majority of the respondents are moving from their various

cropping systems to cocoa cultivation whilst most of the cocoa farmers are also expanding their

cocoa farms because cocoa has ready market and at the same time most economical.

An appreciable number of the respondents are changing to rubber which is a recently introduced

crop because they believe it is most profitable. Some farmers will still maintain the annual crop

production because it sustains life and only a few are not sure of changing from the type of crops

they grow. The type of crops grown may have influence on the length of time new lands are

cleared and carbon stock enhancement. Kongsager et al., (2012) observed a great amount of

carbon released when forest lands are cleared, burned and converted into agricultural lands.

5.2.2 Levels of Tree Retention in Cropping System

Cocoa farmers retained a lot of trees in their farms compared to the other cropping systems. The

number of trees per hectare recorded by cocoa may probably be because cocoa is able to

withstand shade as stated by Osei-Bonsu et al., (2002). This agrees to the study by Dumenu

(2010) who observed different tree species in various cropping systems with cocoa farming

system having the greatest. Again, the recorded number of trees in the different age classes and

their respective basal area differs. Wildi (1997) also observed different values in different age

classes in a forest inventory. It can be said that the potential for REDD+ projects in the study

area is high because the land use type that allows for the retention of more trees happens to be

the most popular and the trend is that more people are moving to cocoa cultivation.

Rubber farms recorded low number of trees and were not included because rubber out-growers in

the study area are not allowed to retain trees in their farms except a few farmers who leave trees

to serve as a resting point. Again, citrus recorded the highest number of diverse tree species

which may be as a result of loss of market for citrus which has led to the abandoning of some

citrus farms and subsequent regeneration of trees in the plots

5.2.3 Cropping systems, Tree integration and Means of Tree Accommodation

A greater percentage of cocoa farmers are willing to plant trees in gaps in their farms which

affirms a study by Oladokun (1990) that the average farmer does everything possible to

maximise the use of available land and satisfies his socio-economic needs by planting other

crops with cocoa and other perennial crops. Trees on farms are marginally dependent on

cropping system; however, there was no significant association between cropping systems;

willingness to integrate trees and means of tree accommodation. Therefore farmers will plant

trees irrespective of the type of crops they grow. The few respondents who were not willing to

participate in any tree incorporation mechanisms said they have no lands for planting trees which

proves the findings of Oladokun (1990) that the popularity of intercropping is due to the relative

amount of land left for other crops. Other reasons are due to financial constraints and some are

not interested in planting trees because of the fear that the Forestry Commission will claim

ownership at the end of the rotation which is also stated by Amanor (2005). These reasons are

linked to economic factors which prove the study by Oladokun (1990) that tree planting is

influenced by economic factors such as access to capital. Therefore farmers may be willing to

integrate trees if they are giving incentives in a form of start-up capitals to hire land, buy

seedlings and other inputs.

This is in line with the findings of Kongsager et al., (2012) that the payment of carbon credits to

farmers and communities as an incentive could stimulate their interest in the management of

trees in their farms for climate change mitigation.

5.3 LAND AND TREE TENURE

5.3.1 Land Acquisition and Land Tenure

The main mode of land acquisition is inheritance which may be because most farmers are natives

of those communities and have access to family lands.

A study by Nyateng et al. (1999) also reported most farmers acquired their lands through

inheritance. A greater percentage of respondents were willing to integrate trees and intensify

their production if there is a mechanism to assist them to do so. Ninety eight percent of the

respondents have secure tenure and will be able to participate in REDD+ projects to promote

carbon stock enhancement. This affirms the findings of MLNR (no date) and Dumenu (2010)

that if tenure agreement is improved with appropriate compensation, farmers will change their

attitude towards tree removal. Tenaw et al., (2009) confirm this that, secure tenure motivates

farmers to invest in new technologies based on their right to lands as owners which will serve as

a guarantee in unexpected circumstances.

5.3.2 Tree Tenure

The potential for carbon benefit is high for farmers who had planted trees even though only 2%

were found to have done so. On the other hand, there is an unfavourable potential effect of

carbon benefits for farmers who have retained natural regenerated trees and uncertain for those

who have a mixture of planted and natural regenerated trees.

This statement is based on a study by (Dumenu 2010) and the Forest and Wildlife Policy (1994)

that natural regenerated trees are vested in the President on behalf of the local people.

However, several studies by Timber Resource Management Act (2002), Acheampong and Marfo

(2011) and Katoomba Group Report (2009) show that the right to planted trees rest with the

farmer. Again, rubber plantation out-growers can earn carbon credit if rubber is able to attract

carbon benefits.

5.4 PERCEPTION OF EFFECTS OF TREES ON CROPS

5.4.1 Positive and Negative Effects of Trees on Crops

Farmers are knowledgeable about the impact of trees on their crops, to majority of them the

major impact is provision of shade by trees to crops. However, farmers are as well

knowledgeable of the negative effects trees have on their crops. To them, too much shade from

trees can compete with their crops and make the crops grow very tall without bearing any fruit.

Some trees serve as host and destroy fruits i.e. citrus and large branches of trees can break and

destroy crops. This perception of farmers hold base on the study by Dumenu (2010) and Kyereh

et al., (2009) that trees serve as wind breaks, provide nutrients to crops, conserve water etc. This

implies that farmers are knowledgeable on the relevance of trees and will integrate them in their

farms to enhance carbon stock.

5.4.2 Extension Service

Farmers who meet extension agents are normally those who belong to various farmers

association and those who have encountered or are encountering problems with their farms.

Farmers should be given the chance to meet the extension agents to demonstrate to them how to

demarcate lands for trees and crops in a proper manner. This can be deduced from a study by

Oladokun (1990) that the practice of intercropping is haphazard as most crops inter planted with

cocoa are invariably not subjected to proper layout and that there is the need for agricultural

scientists to devote more attention to research on tree crop based agroforestry in a form of

benefits from tree-crop based farming system, time and sequence of intercropping, appropriate

combinations etc.

CHAPTER SIX

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 CONCLUSIONS

6.1.1 Current levels of Tree Retention and the potential to increase tree stocks

It was clear from the results that the study area has a high potential for tree stock enhancement

due to the fact that majority of the respondents were willing to plant or retain trees on their farms

in gaps and along boundaries if there is a mechanism to assist them to do so. Also, the most

popular cropping system (cocoa) is able to accommodate trees and the trend is that more farmers

are moving away from other crops to cocoa farming and others are expanding their cocoa farms

because it is more lucrative. Cocoa had a high rate of tree retention and recorded the highest

basal area compared to the other cropping systems which makes it efficient for REDD+ projects.

6.1.2 Present Status of Tree and Land Tenure

The effect of land and tree tenure on farmer’s ability to benefit from carbon stock enhancement

based on the present cropping systems is mixed. Most farmers have long-term security to land

which is good for investment in carbon stocks however the tree tenure arrangement may be a

disincentive for farmers who have retained natural regenerated trees unless the present tenure

arrangement is reviewed to claim natural regenerated trees as belonging to the farmers.

6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the conclusions, it is recommended that;

1. Farmers who own lands should be encouraged to grow crops or establish plantations that

have the potential to allow more tree retention.

2. Farmers who have trees on their farms should be encouraged to retain them.

3. Incentives should be given to farmers to motivate and encourage them to integrate trees

into their cropping systems.

4. Appreciable percentage of tree benefits should be given to farmers for integrating and

nurturing trees in their farms through benefit sharing reforms.

REFERENCES

Acheampong, E. and Marfo, E., (2011). The Impact of Tree Tenure and Access on Chainsaw

Milling in Ghana, Ghana J. Forestry, Vol. 27, 68-86

Amanor, K.S., (2005). Equity in forest benefit sharing and poverty alleviation, Tropenbos

International 2005. pg. 79 Wageningen, and the Netherlands.

Anim-Kwapong, G. J. and Frimpong, E. B., (n.d.). Vulnerability of agriculture to climate change-

impact of climate change on cocoa production, Ghana.50-54

Ardayfio‐Schandorf, E., Yankson, P.W.K., Asiedu, A.B., Agyei‐Mensah, S. & Attua, E.M.

(2007). Socio‐ economic Perspectives of Off‐Reserve Forest Management in the Goaso

Forest District of Ghana. pg. 176

Benneh G., (1987). Land tenure and agroforestry land use in Ghana, “Land trees and tenure” In:

Raintree J.B. (ed.), In: Proceed of an international workshop on tenure issues in

agroforestry, Nairobi, 27–31 May 1985, 163–168

Chidumayo, E., Okali, D., Kowero, G. and Larwanou, M., (2011). Climate change and African

forest and wildlife resources, African Forest Forum, pg. 245 Nairobi, Kenya.

Djokoto, G. and Opoku, K., (2010). Land Tenure in Ghana: Making a Case for Incorporation of

Customary Law in Land Administration and Areas of Intervention by the Growing

Forest Partnership, “International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Growing

Forest Partnership” pg. 33

Dumenu, K.W., (2010). Management of Timber Resources in Areas Outside Forest Reserves in

Ghana: The Role of Stakeholders. pg. 79 Freiburg University, Germany.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), (2013). CLIM-FO Climate Change & Forestry United

Nations pg. 10

Fiadzigbey, M. E., (2006). Customary Land Administrator in Ghana – Challenges and Prospects-

Ghana. Munich, Germany pg. 11

Forest and wildlife policy, (2011). Terms of Reference (Tor) for the Revision of the Forestry

Development Master Plan. pg. 9

Fortmann, L., (1985). The tree tenure factor in agroforestry with particular reference to Africa

Agroforestry Systems 2, 229‐251.

Frimpong K. O., Asase A. and Yelibora M. A., (2007). Cocoa Farming and Biodiversity in

Ghana.28-30

Graham, K. and Vignola, R., (2011). REDD+ and agriculture: A cross-sectorial approach to

REDD+ and implications for the poor ‘Networking for equity in forest climate policy’,

REDD-net programme, UK, NORAD. 15-27

Harun R.M. and Hardwick K., (1988). The effects of prolonged exposure to different light

intensities on the photosynthesis of cocoa leaves, In: Proceedings of the 10th

International Cocoa Conference, 1987, Santo Domingo. 205-209.

Hawthorne, W. and Gyakari, N., (2006). Photo guide for the Forest Trees of Ghana, a tree

spotter’s guide for identifying the biggest trees, pg. 432 Oxford, South Park Road.

Kasanga, K., R., (1988). Land tenure and the development dialogue: the myth concerning

communal landholding in Ghana, Department of Land Economy, University of

Cambridge. 54-68

Katoomba Group Report, (2009). Realising REDD: Implications of Ghana’s Current Legal

Framework for Trees. pg. 6

Kumar B. M and Nair P.K. R., (2011). Carbon Sequestration Potential of Agroforestry System

Opportunities and Challenges, ‘Advances in Agroforestry’ Vol. 8., London, New York,

Springer. 136-285

Kwakye, Y., (2011). Addressing Forest Governance through REDD ‘West Africa Forest

Governance Forum’, Ghana–India Kofi Annan Centre of Excellence in ICT, pg. 19

Accra, Ghana, Ridge.

Kyereh B., Okae K. and Hansen C. P., (eds.) (2009). Strengthening off-reserve timber

management in Ghana. “Proceedings of a national workshop held in Accra, Ghana, on

the 27th and 28th of September, 2007”. Tropenbos International - Ghana Workshop

Proceedings 7. pg. 97 Kumasi, Ghana.

Kongsager, R., Napier, J. and Mertz, O. (2012). The carbon sequestration potential of tree crop

plantations Springer, Denmark. 12-41

Minang, P.A., Bernard, F., Noordwijk, M. V. and Kahurani, E. (2011). Agroforestry in REDD+:

Opportunities and Challenges. ASB Policy Brief No. 26, ASB Partnership for the

Tropical Forest Margins, Nairobi, Kenya. 211-215

Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development), (2013). Implementation of the District

Medium Development Plan 2012, Asikuma Odoben Brakwa District Assembly, Ghana

Shared Growth and Development Agenda , Annual Progress Report, District Planning

Coordinating Unit

Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources (2011). Terms of Reference to Assess the Design of Tree

Tenure & Benefit Sharing Arrangements in Ghana. 4-6

MoFA (Ministry of Food and Agriculture), (2011). Population census 2000, Accessed on 29th

April, 2013, available at: http://mofa.gov.gh/site/?page_id=14-45

Munden Project, (2012). The Financial Risks of Insecure Land Tenure: An Investment View.

“Prepared for the Rights and Resources Initiative” pg. 34

Nayak, B. P., Kohli, P. and Sharma, J. V., (2011). “Livelihood of Local Communities and Forest

Degradation in India: Issues for REDD+”, IHC Complex, Lodhi Road-New Delhi 3-11

Nkyi, K. A., (1989), A Survey of trees in the farming systems of the Semi-humid forest zones of

Ghana-Ashanti Region, UK, Oxford University. 35-51

Nyateng (1999). Cocoa Production under Ghana’s Structural Adjustment Programs: A study of

Rural Farmers. 12-24

Odoom, F. K., (2005). Chain sawing in the natural forests of Ghana. An assessment of the socio-

economic impacts of this practice, “FAO-Forest Harvesting Case-Study” 21-31. FAO,

Oladokun, M.A.O. (1990). Tree crop based agroforestry in Nigeria: a checklist of crops

Intercropped with cocoa ‘Agroforestry Systems’ 11: 227-241, Kluwer Academic

Publishers Netherlands.

Osei-Bonsu K., Opoku-Ameyaw K., Amoah F.M. and Oppong F.K., (2002). Cacao-coconut

intercropping in Ghana: agronomic and economic perspectives, 1-2 Kluwer Academic

Publishers, Netherlands.

Tenaw, S., Zahidul-Islam, K.M. and Parviainen, T. (2009). Effects of land tenure and property

rights on agricultural productivity in Ethiopia, Namibia and Bangladesh, Discussion

Papers no 33, Helsinki, University of Helsinki.

The Millennium Development Goals Report, (2011). Goal 7 Ensure Environmental

Sustainability, pg. 2 United Nations, New York.

Timber Resources Management (Amendment) Act, (2002). 3-4

Tripp, R. (1993). Adoption of Agricultural Technology: A guide for Survey Design pg. 23

CIMMYT. Mexico.

Wildi. J. M. (1997). Comparison of tree basal area and canopy cover in habitat models:

subalpine forest ‘National Biological Service, pg. 52 McMurry Ave., Fort Collins,

Colorado, 80525-3400, USA.

APPENDICES

Appendix I: Questionnaire No: ……………

DEMOGRAPHIC FEATURES

1. Village …………………………………………………

2. Farmer: ……………………………………………………………………………………..

3. Date: ……………………………

4. Gender: a. Male ( ) b. Female ( )

5. Age: a. 21 -40 ( ) b. 41 -60 ( ) c. 60 and above ( )

6. Educational level of farmer: a. Illiterate ( ) b. Primary ( ) c. Junior High School ( )

d. Senior High School ( ) e. Tertiary ( ).

CROP PRODUCTION

7 a) What type of crop do you grow and what is the current trend in cropping system?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………..

b) What will you predict in the next few years to come?

i) For yourself …………………………………………………………………………

ii) The community as a whole ……………………………………………………………..

iii) Give reasons for the trend ……………………………………………………………

………………………………… …

INCORPORATION OF TREES ON FARM

Cropping

system

Tree spp.

(NR or P)

Number/

Effects on crops

At what stages of

farm are trees

incorporated

Positive Negative

1. a) Can you accommodate more trees in your? a. Cocoa farm ( ) b. Oil palm ( ) c. Food

crops ( )

2. b) If yes, by what means? a. Plant in gaps b. Boundary c. Others, specify………………..

3. c) If no, why? ………………………………………………………………………………

4. a) If there is a mechanism to assist farmers to plant more trees or incorporate trees in their

farms will you be able to participate? a. Yes ( ) b. No ( )

5. b) If no, why? ........................................................................................................................

6. c) If yes, why and how? ……………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

7. a) What benefits are derived from the trees? a. Timber ( ) b. Fire wood ( ) c.

Building poles ( ) d. Ecological benefits (shade, nutrient, etc.) ( )

LAND TENURE

8. What type of land do you farm? a. Primary forest b. Secondary forest c. Recent fallow

(Acheampong/ grass)

9. a) How did you acquire your land? a. Lease hold ( ) b. Inheritance ( ) c. Communal ( )

d. Government ( ) e. Share hold ( ) Others,

specify………………………………………

b) Did you face any problem in acquiring your land? a. Yes ( ) b. No ( )

c) If yes, what problem did you encounter? a. High cost of land ( ) b. Competition from

family members ( ) c. Problem with landowners ( ), Others

specify………….....................

10. a) Is it possible to acquire new farm land? a. Yes ( ) b. No ( )

b) If yes, at what cost or arrangement? ……………………………………………………

c) If no, why? ………………………………………………………………………………

d) What type of land can be acquired in terms of ease of acquisition? (Rank) a. Primary

forest ( ) b. Secondary forest ( ) c. Young fallow ( ) d. Established farms ( )

EXTENSION SERVICES

11. a) Do you meet extension agents? a. Yes ( ) b. No ( )

b) If yes how often? / If no why? ...................................................................................

c) Do the extension agents advice on the use of trees on farm land? a. Yes ( ) b. No ( )

Appendix II: Tree species measured

Young Cocoa Farm Number of Trees Pi ln(P1i) Oil plam Number of Trees Pi ln(P1i)

Albizia glaberrima 1 -0.05088 Albizia ferruginea 1 -0.05088

Albizia zygia 1 -0.05088 Astonia boonei 2 -0.086

Anthocleista nobilis 1 -0.05088 Baphia nitida 1 -0.05088

Astonia boonei 7 -0.20136 Blighia sapida 3 -0.11518

Dalbergiella welwitschii 1 -0.05088 Bombax buonopozense 1 -0.05088

Funtumia elastica 1 -0.05088 Ceiba pentandra 2 -0.086

Glyphaea brevis 8 -0.21799 Erythrophleum

suaveolens

3 -0.11518

Holarrhena floribunda 1 -0.05088 Ficus exasperata 9 -0.31387

Khaya ivorensis 2 -0.086 Ficus sur 3 -0.11518

Mansonia altissima 2 -0.086 Holarrhena floribunda 13 -0.35872

Millettia thonningii 2 -0.086 Lannea welwitschii 1 -0.05088

Morinda lucida 40 -0.35839 Milicia excelsa 1 -0.05088

Phyllanthus muellerianus 3 -0.11518 Morinda lucida 4 -0.21514

Rauvolfia vomitoria 16 -0.30995 Phyllanthus muellerianus 1 -0.05088

Solanum erianthum 1 -0.05088 Rauvolfia vomitoria 3 -0.11518

unknown 1 -0.05088 Citrus Farm

Middle Age Cocoa Farm Albizia adianthifolia 3 -0.11518

Anthocarpu communis 1 -0.05088 Albizia glaberrima 3 -0.11518

Ceiba pentandra 1 -0.05088 Alchornea cordifolia 4 -0.21514

Celtis mildbraedii 1 -0.05088 Blighia sapida 2 -0.086

Ficus exasperata 2 -0.086 Cashew 1 -0.05088

Glyphaea brevis 5 -0.24414 Ceiba pentandra 1 -0.05088

Milicia excelsa 1 -0.05088 Cocos nucifera 1 -0.05088

Morinda lucida 7 -0.20136 Daniellia ogea 1 -0.05088

Moringa olifeira 1 -0.05088 Diospyros mobutensis 3 -0.11518

Persea americana 1 -0.05088 Ficus exasperata 4 -0.21514

Phyllanthus muellerianus 13 -0.35872 Ficus sur 6 -0.26865

Rauvolfia vomitoria 1 -0.05088 Funtumia elastica 1 -0.05088

Spathodea campanulata 1 -0.05088 Griffonia simplicifolia 1 -0.05088

Spondias mombin 2 -0.086 Holarrhena floribunda 1 -0.05088

Terminalia superba 8 -0.21799 Mangifera indica 1 -0.05088

Matured Cocoa Farm Milicia excelsa 2 -0.086

Albizia glaberrima

1 -0.05088 Morinda lucida 22 -0.36509

Albizia zygia 1 -0.05088 Musanga cecrepioides 1 -0.05088

Celtis mildbraedii

1 -0.05088 Paulinia pinnata 3 -0.11518

Citrus sinensis

1 -0.05088 Spondias mombin 1 -0.05088

Cocos nucifera

2 -0.086 Sweet Apple 2 -0.086

Erythrophleum suaveolens

1 -0.05088 Rubber

Ficus exasperata

5 -0.24414 Alchornea cordifolia 1 -0.05088

Funtumia elastica

2 -0.086 Milicia excelsa 2 -0.086

Glyphaea brevis

3 -0.11518

Holarrhena floribunda

3 -0.11518

Milicia excelsa

2 -0.086

Morinda lucida

6 -0.26865

Obontoriwa

1 -0.05088

Persea americana

4 -0.21514

Rauvolfia vomitoria

10 -0.33424

Trichilia monadelpha

1 -0.05088

unknown 1 -0.05088

Appendix III: Plate showing different age classes of cocoa

Appendix IV: Plate showing oil palm plantation

Appendix V: Plate showing citrus and rubber plantations

The potential for tree stock enhancement in cropping systems in Asikuma Odoben Brakwa District

Documents

Transcript of The potential for tree stock enhancement in cropping systems in Asikuma Odoben Brakwa District

New directions for research in prawn (shrimp) stock enhancement and the use of models in providing directions for research

Stock Exch for SMEs

Stock Idea - Moneycontrol

Weed seed decay in conventional and diversified cropping systems

Stock Idea - Sharekhan

The Use of Sluice Gates for Stock Enhancement and ... - MRAG

A guide to upland cropping in Cambodia soybean

Stock Catalog - Seattle.gov

Distribution of Crops and Cropping Patterns in Bangladesh

Employee stock ownership plan and stock price crash risk

Effectiveness of RZWQM for Simulating Alternative Great Plains Cropping Systems

Marine Stock Enhancement Potential in Nursery Habitats of Striped Mullet, Mugil cephalus, in Hawaii

Stock Trading Presentation

PAKISTAN STOCK EXCHANGE LIMITED

Population dynamics and potential of fisheries stock enhancement: practical theory for assessment and policy analysis

LH Stock Valuation

cropping techniques which reduces impact of drought

dedication - Energy Enhancement

Soil Physical Properties as Influenced by Cropping and Residue Management Soil Physical Properties as Influenced by Cropping and Residue Management'

Profitability of Various Corn, Soybean, Wheat, and Alfalfa Cropping Systems