**4. Results and discussion**

#### **4.1 Awareness of tenure rights and management of forest reserves**

Kowero et al. [15] assert that enabling policies, legislation and institutional instruments like clear tenure rights, are important in promoting sustainable management of natural resources. The study revealed that 310 household heads (representing 83.8%) interviewed (**Table 2**) are of the opinion that forest reserves are owned by the state or the government whilst only 38 (10.3%) respondents think that forest reserves are owned by the community.

It was also found that, of the 370 household heads interviewed, 306 of them (representing 82.7%) believe that forest reserves are managed by the Forest Services Division (FSD) staff while 64 of them (representing 17.3%) are of the opinion that forest reserves are either managed by community and FSD, district assembly or traditional rulers (**Table 3**).

The key informants' interview with chiefs revealed that with the exception of three chiefs (Gulkpe-Naa, the Pusuga naa and Kpatugri naa) who knew that forest reserves are owned by the traditional authorities, 17 of the sampled chiefs believe that forest reserves within their communities are owned by the state and managed by the FSD. The other three chiefs are of the opinion that reserves belong to District Assembly and managed by the government. Similarly, with the exception of the


#### **Table 2.**

*Households' awareness about ownership of forest reserves.*


(Nanumba land). Unfortunately, the reality is that almost all chiefs and community members believe otherwise as there is no legal framework to that effect. The perception of the fringe communities about tenure rights of forest reserves upholds Brown's [20] report that Ghana's forest policies have not any legislative or tenurial change to stimulate the process of community involvement in forest management. It also agrees with the findings of Ahenkan and Boon [21] that consultation processes that led to the 1994 forest and wildlife policy had limited involvement of local communities. Further, it confirms the assertion by Boakye and Baffoe [18] that, even though Ghana's forest reserves are supposed to be managed by both public and communal property regimes, management is leaned more to the former. State control often deprives fringe communities of access to forest resources due to their bureaucratic and centralized processes which distance them from management

*Rights and Responsibilities: The Reality of Forest Fringe Communities in the Northern Region…*

The lack of knowledge of communities about the ownership or tenure rights is indirectly contributing to their exclusion from forest management activities [4]. This may affect their commitment and cooperation toward any collaborative

Collective action in solving natural resource problems is more likely when users are dependent on the resource system for a major portion of their livelihood and when users have a common understanding of the problem [6, 22]. Gibson et al. [23] also assert that the value people place on their benefits and losses from development projects is critical in motivating and increasing their commitments to project sustainability. In this study therefore, we sought the opinions of respondents on the benefits derived by their communities from the forest reserves as well as their use-

**4.2 Socioeconomic importance of forest reserves to fringe communities**

The survey revealed major benefit derived from the forest reserve which include; wood for charcoal and firewood, bush meat, herbal medicine, protection from rainstorm and poles for roofing. The least mentioned benefits include ropes, provision of shade, esthetics, and chew stick. **Table 4** shows a summary of the common benefits that are derived from the forest reserves by the fringe

Given the statement by Odera's [24] that, sustained forest benefits to community members guarantees a successful collaborative forest management implementation, the enjoyment of aforementioned benefits by fringe communities in the study area is likely to boost their interest and commitment to any collaborative effort for sustainable management of the forest reserves. Notwithstanding that, the survey also revealed that not all the above benefits are enjoyed legally. Some community members harvest quantities beyond what is enjoyed on them. The study therefore sought views of both household respondents and key informants on

Admitted rights are customary rights enjoyed by communities and individuals living close to forest reserve at the time of reservation when they are not seen as harmful to the forest. These rights include cultural and religious rights such as entry into the reserve to perform some cultural rites ([25], p. 29). The household survey revealed that majority 262 of the respondents (70.8%) admitted to having the right to freely enter the forest reserves whilst the remaining 108 (29.2%) said they do not have free access to forest reserves. The most common reasons given by the 29.2%

decisions and access to benefits.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.93550*

rights and responsibilities.

communities' rights to use the forest reserves.

**4.3 Admitted rights of communities to the forest reserves**

communities.

**85**

efforts.

**Table 3.**

*Household awareness about who manages the forest reserves.*

women leader (magazia) for Pusuga and the assembly person for Damongo, who knew that forest reserves are owned by traditional authorities, the rest (22 magazias and 22 assembly person) are of the opinion that forest reserves are owned by the state and managed by the FSD.

These responses are a manifestation of the processes of development planning in Ghana which have generally been top-down and highly centralized. According to Tandoh-Offin [16], while there has been four development plans under the socalled decentralized development planning in Ghana, majority of the decisions and activities that inform all of these plans since 1992 have followed similar approaches as those before, where central government agencies continued to have dominance in the processes and activities. This results affirms Adjei et al. [17] assertion that although Ghana's decentralized forest management intervention recognizes local authorities and creates the requisite democratic space for community representation in forest governance, failure of Forestry Commission (FC) to transfer adequate decision-making power and resources among other factors have collectively undermine local authorities' capacity to be responsive and accountable to the collaborative process in forest management. To the extent that chiefs and assembly members are unaware of the ownership of forest reserves in their localities, tells the unparticipatory nature of our so-called decentralized system of development planning.

The above responses on ownership also show that fringe communities of forest reserves in Northern region are unaware of their tenure rights. Forest reserves in Ghana according to Boakye and Baffoe [18], are communally owned, but are held in trust by Government on behalf of the stool or skin landowners through the Forest Ordinance of 1927. According to Asare [19] ownership of forest is closely linked to the indigenous system of landownership. Land is communally owned and held in trust on behalf of the people through the stools and skins. Landowners therefore exert substantial control in deciding whether an area should be set aside for reservation. Though the national law grants the government the authority to constitute a reserve on any land it deems appropriate, landowners must be consulted through an arbitration process to take their concerns into consideration. What this means is that landowners whether stools or skins have immense power on setting aside an area as permanent forest estate and always have rights to revenue from the exploitation of the resource.

This was confirmed by the key informants interview with the head of operations of stool lands in the region, who revealed that, all the forest reserves in the region are situated on skin lands with the overlords being the Yaa Naa (Dagbon land), the Nayiri (Mamprugu land), the Yagbun-wura (Gonja land) and the Bimbila Naa

*Rights and Responsibilities: The Reality of Forest Fringe Communities in the Northern Region… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.93550*

(Nanumba land). Unfortunately, the reality is that almost all chiefs and community members believe otherwise as there is no legal framework to that effect. The perception of the fringe communities about tenure rights of forest reserves upholds Brown's [20] report that Ghana's forest policies have not any legislative or tenurial change to stimulate the process of community involvement in forest management. It also agrees with the findings of Ahenkan and Boon [21] that consultation processes that led to the 1994 forest and wildlife policy had limited involvement of local communities. Further, it confirms the assertion by Boakye and Baffoe [18] that, even though Ghana's forest reserves are supposed to be managed by both public and communal property regimes, management is leaned more to the former. State control often deprives fringe communities of access to forest resources due to their bureaucratic and centralized processes which distance them from management decisions and access to benefits.

The lack of knowledge of communities about the ownership or tenure rights is indirectly contributing to their exclusion from forest management activities [4]. This may affect their commitment and cooperation toward any collaborative efforts.

#### **4.2 Socioeconomic importance of forest reserves to fringe communities**

Collective action in solving natural resource problems is more likely when users are dependent on the resource system for a major portion of their livelihood and when users have a common understanding of the problem [6, 22]. Gibson et al. [23] also assert that the value people place on their benefits and losses from development projects is critical in motivating and increasing their commitments to project sustainability. In this study therefore, we sought the opinions of respondents on the benefits derived by their communities from the forest reserves as well as their userights and responsibilities.

The survey revealed major benefit derived from the forest reserve which include; wood for charcoal and firewood, bush meat, herbal medicine, protection from rainstorm and poles for roofing. The least mentioned benefits include ropes, provision of shade, esthetics, and chew stick. **Table 4** shows a summary of the common benefits that are derived from the forest reserves by the fringe communities.

Given the statement by Odera's [24] that, sustained forest benefits to community members guarantees a successful collaborative forest management implementation, the enjoyment of aforementioned benefits by fringe communities in the study area is likely to boost their interest and commitment to any collaborative effort for sustainable management of the forest reserves. Notwithstanding that, the survey also revealed that not all the above benefits are enjoyed legally. Some community members harvest quantities beyond what is enjoyed on them. The study therefore sought views of both household respondents and key informants on communities' rights to use the forest reserves.

#### **4.3 Admitted rights of communities to the forest reserves**

Admitted rights are customary rights enjoyed by communities and individuals living close to forest reserve at the time of reservation when they are not seen as harmful to the forest. These rights include cultural and religious rights such as entry into the reserve to perform some cultural rites ([25], p. 29). The household survey revealed that majority 262 of the respondents (70.8%) admitted to having the right to freely enter the forest reserves whilst the remaining 108 (29.2%) said they do not have free access to forest reserves. The most common reasons given by the 29.2%

women leader (magazia) for Pusuga and the assembly person for Damongo, who knew that forest reserves are owned by traditional authorities, the rest (22 magazias and 22 assembly person) are of the opinion that forest reserves are owned by the

**District Category of stakeholders managing forest reserve**

**Community and FSD**

**Frequencies/percentages** Damango 60 (19.6%) 7 (25.9%) 4 (17.4%) 0 (0.0%) 71 (19.2%) Tamale 175 (57.2%) 12 (44.4%) 13 (56.5%) 9 (64.3%) 209 (56.5%) Walewale 36 (11.8%) 2 (7.4%) 3 (13.0%) 1 (7.1%) 42 (11.4%) Yendi 35 (11.4%) 6 (22.2%) 3 (13.0%) 4 (28.6%) 48 (13.0%) **Total 306 (100.0%) 27 (100.0%) 23 (100.0%) 14 (100.0%) 370 (100.0%)**

**District assembly** **Traditional rulers**

**Total**

These responses are a manifestation of the processes of development planning in Ghana which have generally been top-down and highly centralized. According to Tandoh-Offin [16], while there has been four development plans under the socalled decentralized development planning in Ghana, majority of the decisions and activities that inform all of these plans since 1992 have followed similar approaches as those before, where central government agencies continued to have dominance in the processes and activities. This results affirms Adjei et al. [17] assertion that although Ghana's decentralized forest management intervention recognizes local authorities and creates the requisite democratic space for community representation in forest governance, failure of Forestry Commission (FC) to transfer adequate decision-making power and resources among other factors have collectively undermine local authorities' capacity to be responsive and accountable to the collaborative process in forest management. To the extent that chiefs and assembly members are unaware of the ownership of forest reserves in their localities, tells the unparticipatory nature of our so-called decentralized system of development planning. The above responses on ownership also show that fringe communities of forest reserves in Northern region are unaware of their tenure rights. Forest reserves in Ghana according to Boakye and Baffoe [18], are communally owned, but are held in trust by Government on behalf of the stool or skin landowners through the Forest Ordinance of 1927. According to Asare [19] ownership of forest is closely linked to the indigenous system of landownership. Land is communally owned and held in trust on behalf of the people through the stools and skins. Landowners therefore exert substantial control in deciding whether an area should be set aside for reservation. Though the national law grants the government the authority to constitute a reserve on any land it deems appropriate, landowners must be consulted through an arbitration process to take their concerns into consideration. What this means is that landowners whether stools or skins have immense power on setting aside an area as permanent forest estate and always have rights to revenue from the exploi-

This was confirmed by the key informants interview with the head of operations of stool lands in the region, who revealed that, all the forest reserves in the region are situated on skin lands with the overlords being the Yaa Naa (Dagbon land), the Nayiri (Mamprugu land), the Yagbun-wura (Gonja land) and the Bimbila Naa

state and managed by the FSD.

**Table 3.**

**Forest service division**

*Environmental Issues and Sustainable Development*

*Household awareness about who manages the forest reserves.*

tation of the resource.

**84**


#### **Table 4.**

*Summary of benefits derived from the forest reserves.*

(108) of household heads who said they are not allowed entry into the forest reserves are that, they are denied because:

Some members destroy the forest by cutting down trees for fire wood; the forest reserve is not for the community; if people are allowed to enter the forest freely, they can destroy the reserve; forest staff feel unsafe to let local people enter freely due to past experience with encroachers; and finally that some members go into the forest reserves to sell illegal drugs like marijuana.

controlled grazing, shea nuts, dawadawa fruits and canes. However, due to abuse of rights for controlled grazing, it is no more allowed in the reserves. Some forest guards believe that communities are entitled to harvest non-timber forest products, but these rights are sometimes abused. One of the forest guards replied as follows:

**Collect shea and dawadawa fruits?**

*Rights and Responsibilities: The Reality of Forest Fringe Communities in the Northern Region…*

**No (Freq/%)**

103 (92.8%)

**111 (100%)**

0 (0.0%) 70

1 (0.9%) 41

7 (6.3%) 48

**Yes (Freq/%)**

(27.4%)

106 (40.9%)

(15.8%)

41 (15.8%)

**(70%) 259 (100%)** **Harvest medicinal plants?**

> **No (Freq/%)**

78 (97.5%)

**80 (100%)**

1 (1.2%) 64

1 (1.2%) 41

0 (0.0%) 41

**Yes (Freq/%)**

(24.1%)

131 (45.2%)

(14.1%)

(16.6%)

**(78.4%) 290 (100%)**

**Harvest thatch for roofing?**

> **No (Freq/%)**

7 (4.8%)

132 (89.8%)

1 (0.7%)

7 (4.8%)

**147 (100%)**

**Yes (Freq/%)**

(28.7%)

77 (34.5%)

(18.4%)

(18.4%)

**(60.3%) 223 (100%)**

*"Community members are entitled to harvest dead wood, thatch grass, fodder, chew stick, and collect shea and dawadawa fruits without any conditions. These rights to some extent boost the interest of some good Samaritans to help in protecting the forest reserve but some community members sometimes abuse the rights" (Forest guard—*

In contrast to the views of the district managers and some forest guards, four of the eight forest guards interviewed are of the opinion that farmers do not have any right to collect any product from the reserves because those rights are confined to

In reality, the responses from these four forest guards only imply that they do not understand what user-rights are, or are unaware of the user-rights of communities over forest reserves. The lack of awareness of forest guards may serve as the basis for abuse of use-rights of communities (by way of access restriction to forest reserves) and that can be a source of conflict between them and community

A chi- square test of independence on household responses on admitted rights gave p-value of 0.000. Being smaller than the alpha value of 0.05, a p-value of 0.000 indicate that there is significance differences between the forest districts with regards to respondents' views on their rights over the forest reserves. For instance, **Table 5** shows that for harvesting of fruits and medicinal plants, almost all the respondents in Damongo, walewale and Yendi answered in the affirmative whilst for Tamale 37.3% think otherwise. The trend is different with regards to harvesting of firewood for domestic use, where all the respondents from Damongo district answered in the affirmative with only 36.8% (77) of the respondents in Tamale district answering in the affirmative. This differences are probably because some community members do not know their rights. It may also be due to the over

only off-reserve woodlands (woodlands outside reserves).

*Yendi district).*

**Harvest firewoodfor domestic use?**

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.93550*

**No (Freq/%)**

132 (78.6%)

20 (11.9%)

**168 (100%)**

*Responses on admitted rights enjoined by the fringe communities.*

0 (0.0%) 71

16 (9.5%) 41

**Yes (Freq/%)**

(35.1%)

(38.1%)

(12.9%)

(13.9%)

**202 (100%)**

Damongo 71

Tamale 77

Walewale 26

Yendi 28

**Table 5.**

Total **(54.6%)**

members.

**87**

These reasons by those who said they are denied entry into the reserves may suggest that some members are sometimes not allowed to enter the reserve not because they do not have the right, but due to the possible illegal activities they may carry out in the reserve. This is evident in the list of benefits (**Table 4**) enjoyed by communities which included harvesting of wood for charcoal and firewood for sale. As indicated by Marfo [26] the statutory law only recognizes "customary" access and use rights for domestic purposes. Therefore it is illegal for fringe communities to access non-timer forest products for commercial purposes. However, when respondents were asked about their admitted rights (**Table 5**) 78.4% of them admitted to their communities having rights to harvest medicinal plants, 70% admitted to collecting edible fruits like shea and dawadawa, 60.3% admitted to harvesting thatch grass for roofing and 54.6% admitted to harvesting firewood for domestic purposes. **Table 5** shows the admitted rights enjoyed by the fringe communities.

### **5. Response from Forestry Staff on Admitted Rights of Communities**

Like the household heads, the interviews with the district forest managers revealed that fringe communities in the study area have the right of access into the reserve (using the right paths) and the right to harvest non-timber forest products for domestic use such as thatch grass, medicinal plants, dry wood for firewood,

*Rights and Responsibilities: The Reality of Forest Fringe Communities in the Northern Region… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.93550*


#### **Table 5.**

(108) of household heads who said they are not allowed entry into the forest

**Major benefits Least mentioned benefits**

Thatch grass Stimulation of rain or good weather Grazing grounds for animals Sand winning for building purposes Fodder Forest serving as a hideout for wee smokers

Wood for charcoal and firewood Ropes Bush meat Provision of shade Herbal medicine Esthetics Protection from rainstorm Income Poles for roofing Chew stick

Some members destroy the forest by cutting down trees for fire wood; the forest reserve is not for the community; if people are allowed to enter the forest freely, they can destroy the reserve; forest staff feel unsafe to let local people enter freely due to past experience with encroachers; and finally that some members go into the

These reasons by those who said they are denied entry into the reserves may suggest that some members are sometimes not allowed to enter the reserve not because they do not have the right, but due to the possible illegal activities they may carry out in the reserve. This is evident in the list of benefits (**Table 4**) enjoyed by communities which included harvesting of wood for charcoal and firewood for sale. As indicated by Marfo [26] the statutory law only recognizes "customary" access and use rights for domestic purposes. Therefore it is illegal for fringe communities to access non-timer forest products for commercial purposes. However, when respondents were asked about their admitted rights (**Table 5**) 78.4% of them admitted to their communities having rights to harvest medicinal plants, 70% admitted to collecting edible fruits like shea and dawadawa, 60.3% admitted to harvesting thatch grass for roofing and 54.6% admitted to harvesting firewood for domestic purposes. **Table 5** shows the admitted rights enjoyed by the fringe com-

**5. Response from Forestry Staff on Admitted Rights of Communities**

Like the household heads, the interviews with the district forest managers revealed that fringe communities in the study area have the right of access into the reserve (using the right paths) and the right to harvest non-timber forest products for domestic use such as thatch grass, medicinal plants, dry wood for firewood,

reserves are that, they are denied because:

*Summary of benefits derived from the forest reserves.*

Using the reserve as a place of worship Using the forest as a place of convenience Using the reserve as recreational grounds

*Environmental Issues and Sustainable Development*

Food (fruits) Water Farmland Honey

**Table 4.**

munities.

**86**

forest reserves to sell illegal drugs like marijuana.

*Responses on admitted rights enjoined by the fringe communities.*

controlled grazing, shea nuts, dawadawa fruits and canes. However, due to abuse of rights for controlled grazing, it is no more allowed in the reserves. Some forest guards believe that communities are entitled to harvest non-timber forest products, but these rights are sometimes abused. One of the forest guards replied as follows:

*"Community members are entitled to harvest dead wood, thatch grass, fodder, chew stick, and collect shea and dawadawa fruits without any conditions. These rights to some extent boost the interest of some good Samaritans to help in protecting the forest reserve but some community members sometimes abuse the rights" (Forest guard— Yendi district).*

In contrast to the views of the district managers and some forest guards, four of the eight forest guards interviewed are of the opinion that farmers do not have any right to collect any product from the reserves because those rights are confined to only off-reserve woodlands (woodlands outside reserves).

In reality, the responses from these four forest guards only imply that they do not understand what user-rights are, or are unaware of the user-rights of communities over forest reserves. The lack of awareness of forest guards may serve as the basis for abuse of use-rights of communities (by way of access restriction to forest reserves) and that can be a source of conflict between them and community members.

A chi- square test of independence on household responses on admitted rights gave p-value of 0.000. Being smaller than the alpha value of 0.05, a p-value of 0.000 indicate that there is significance differences between the forest districts with regards to respondents' views on their rights over the forest reserves. For instance, **Table 5** shows that for harvesting of fruits and medicinal plants, almost all the respondents in Damongo, walewale and Yendi answered in the affirmative whilst for Tamale 37.3% think otherwise. The trend is different with regards to harvesting of firewood for domestic use, where all the respondents from Damongo district answered in the affirmative with only 36.8% (77) of the respondents in Tamale district answering in the affirmative. This differences are probably because some community members do not know their rights. It may also be due to the over

protective attitude of forest guards in the Tamale district as compared to those in other districts. Tamale Metropolis is the most concentrated in terms of population density and also the most urbanized district in the region, it has the highest proportion (14.3%) of the economically active population in the Northern region [13]. As such there is a likely need for more land for development, hence the need for tight precautions against encroachment. This could be a good reason to make forest guards in the Metropolis over protective of the forest reserves.

Forest and Wildlife policy (2012) as stated in its policy strategic direction Section 4.1 Subsection 4.1.2, clause f, which seeks to define forest and tree rights in all kinds

*Rights and Responsibilities: The Reality of Forest Fringe Communities in the Northern Region…*

A social responsibility agreement (SRA) may be defined as an agreement capable of being enforced in a court of law which imposes a duty on a timber contractor to provide certain acceptable social amenities to the communities whose forest the contractor operates to the tune of 5% of the annual royalties payable by the contractor. These agreements are ways of ensuring that all Timber Utilization Contract activities are done in a more socially responsible way that respect the rights of the land owners. It is usually attached as a schedule to the contract, which is legally binding. SRAs are negotiated by the FSD with the affected communities in advance

When respondents were asked whether they enjoy social responsibility benefits from the reserves, 342 of them (representing 92.4%) admitted they do not benefit whilst 28 (7.6%) indicated they benefit. The reasons given by the 28 (7.6%)

respondents, who answered in the affirmative, are that it is their social responsibility to protect the forest from intruders and fire outbreaks. Others think that their SRA is the benefits they get from the reserve like firewood, grazing fields, hunting and football pitches. Certainly, it is clear from the reasons given by the few (7.6%) who claim their communities enjoy SRA that, they do not understand the concept of

For the 342 (92.4%) who answered in the negative, some of them indicated that it was the first time they were hearing about SRA. Others said that the tree species in the Northern region are not attractive enough for exploitation due to the unfavorable climate, to warrant such social responsibility benefits. Obviously, the latter reason affirms the climate and vegetation of the region, ie. relatively dry with a single rainy season and Guinea savannah [14], which does not support the growth of tall timber tree species. Further, the interview with the forestry staff revealed that, forest reserves in the region were gazetted mainly for protective purposes and so little or negligible exploitation goes on in them. This result also agrees with Mashall [27] that the functions of forest reserves in the Northern territories were for the conservation of water supplies, shelterbelts, and prevention of erosion, shelterbelts and domestic supply of fuel wood, poles and possibly the production of a limited amount of sawn timber. This implies that production of commercial timber was from the unset not the main objective for forest reservation in the study area. Similar to the views of household heads and the forestry staff, response chiefs, assembly persons and Magazias revealed that fringe communities do not enjoy any social responsibility benefits from the forest reserves. These responses were further confirmed by the head of operations of stool lands in the region, who revealed that due to the non-productive nature of forest reserves in the region, land owners do not receive any royalties or SRA from the reserves. According to him, most revenue from the skin lands in the region come from ground rents, compensation and annual rents. These are fees taken for use of land for farming, residential, commercial and other uses related to physical development. The head of operations of stool lands in the region believes that this situation derails the interest of the chiefs in the

His response confirms Oduro's [3] observation that the current forest and wild-

life policy is silent on how to reward owners of forests, zoned for permanent protection. The author argues that although owners of production forests receive

SRA or the facility does not exist at all as indicated by the majority.

of forests and ownership systems (2012, p. 28).

**6.1 Social responsibility agreement (SRA)**

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.93550*

of the contract being advertised ([25], p. 33).

reserves.

**89**
