Faculty of Science and Forestry
SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT OF THE MODIFIED TAUNGYA
SYSTEM IN DORMAA DISTRICT OF GHANA: 15- YEARS AFTER
IMPLEMENTATION
Badu Yeboah
MASTER’S THESIS
BIO-ECONOMY AND NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ECORES)
JOENSUU 2016
2
Badu Yeboah 2016. Sustainability Assessment of the Modified Taungya System in Dormaa
District of Ghana: 15- Years after Implementation. University of Eastern Finland, Faculty of
Science and Forestry and CSIR-FORIG/UEF Graduate School, Master's thesis in Bio-Economy
and Natural Resources Management (ECORES), 55 p.
ABSTRACT
Plantation development has been identified as one of the essential strategies required to meet
the demand for wood resources in Ghana. In the year 2000, degraded portions of the PamuBerekum Forest Reserve were rehabilitated using the Modified Taungya System (MTS) in the
Dormaa District, Ghana. The MTS is a forest management strategy, which is more
decentralized; communities are given portions of degraded forest reserves to grow food crops
together with trees, and further nurture trees into maturity under an agreement in which roles
and benefit sharing are specified. 15-years after the establishment of these plantations, this
study evaluated the growth, numbers and diversity of trees within farmers’ fields. It also
assessed the contribution of the systems to income generation and determined the motivational
factors that contributed to the successful implementation of the systems by local communities
in the Dormaa district, Ghana.
The overall objective of this study is to develop socio-economic management guidelines for
implementing sustainable rehabilitation of degraded forest lands with an effective local
partnership. Data for the study were collected from 41 farming household from three
communities living close and around the Pamu Berekum forest reserve through personal
interviews. The tree survival and growth data were also collected.
The study revealed that more than 85 % of the trees that were planted in farmers’ fields survived
and were well managed. The average height of surviving tree ranged from 9-16 m. The average
diameter of the surviving trees ranged between 18 cm-23cm. The average number of standing
trees per hectare was 442 trees. The dominant surviving tree species was Terminalia superba
and Afzelia africana being the least surviving species. Cocoyam and plantain were the major
crops that were intercropped with trees. A formal written land-use agreement prior to the
participation of the MTS was a motivational factor for their participation and maintenance of
the systems.
Key Words: Agroforestry, community participation, Pamu-Berekum Forest Reserve, growth
analysis, degraded forest recovery, incentive mechanism
3
FORWORD
Deforestation and Degradation in Ghana continues to threaten the livelihood options of many
rural dwellers especially those living close to forest reserves whose livelihood depends mainly
on the existence of these forest resources. In 2001, the Ghanaian Government launched the
Modified Taungya System (MTS) as a decentralized mechanism to reduce degradation of forest
resources and build community resilience for improved rural livelihoods.
After over a decade of the MTS implementation in Dormaa District, its viability to achieve or
deliver livelihood security, forest resource recovery, and poverty reduction at the local arena
remain unknown and require monitoring and verification. This research was designed to fill-in
the gap in knowledge by highlighting on how the Modified Taungya System has improved the
livelihoods of local people as well as improved forest cover and resource availability through
community-based partnership.
I am sincerely grateful to the Almighty God for sustaining me throughout this piece of work.
I am also particularly indebted to the late Dr. Dominic Blay who started the research with me
and Dr. Mark Appiah, my principal supervisor, first for the fruitful discussions we had on the
choice of the topic and second for his role as a supervisor.
In spite of his tight schedules of duty he had time to read through the drafts and offered fruitful
suggestions and guidance which have made the work reached this stage. I am indeed grateful.
In the same vein, my appreciation goes to all Staff of Forest Services Division, Dormaa District
and all my lecturers of the UEF Graduate School whose effort made this piece of work a
success.
The various contributions made by the following people to the successful
Completion of this thesis is hereby acknowledged: Mr. Justice Niyuo, Mr. Francis Ottopa Mr.
Hector Banda, Mr. Benjamin Kumi and all course mates, am grateful to you.
Finally, my gratitude goes to my lovely wife Faustina Yeboah and my daughter Princess Sika
Yeboah for their patience, advice, support and encouragement for me to pursue my dream. May
the Lord bless you.
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES …………………………………………………………………….…… 6
LIST OF FIGURES ………………………………………………………………………... 6
LIST OF ACRONYMNS ………………………………………………………………..…. 7
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 8
1.1
Background of the Study ............................................................................................. 8
1.2 Problem Statement .......................................................................................................... 10
1.3 Research Objectives ........................................................................................................ 11
1.4 Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 12
1.5 Organization of the thesis ............................................................................................... 12
1.6 Justification for the study ................................................................................................ 12
2.0 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK...................................................................................... 13
2.1 The Taungya System ...................................................................................................... 13
2.2 The historical context of Taungya System’s development in Ghana ............................. 13
2.3 Forms of Taungya System .............................................................................................. 16
2.4 The Modified Taungya System ....................................................................................... 19
2.5 The MTS in the context of Sustainable Livelihood (SL) Approach ............................... 20
2.6 Socio-economic implications of taungya Systems ......................................................... 21
2.7 Cost and benefit sharing of forest resources in Ghana ................................................... 23
2.8 Sustainability .................................................................................................................. 24
3 MATERIALS AND METHODS .......................................................................................... 27
3.1 Study Area ...................................................................................................................... 27
3.2 Data collection ................................................................................................................ 29
3.3 Research Ethics and Limitations ..................................................................................... 30
4 RESULTS .............................................................................................................................. 31
4.1 Socio-economic characteristics of respondents .............................................................. 31
4.2 Motivating factors that influence continued participation .............................................. 34
4.3 Responsibility Sharing .................................................................................................... 35
4.4 Benefit Farmers Enjoyed under the Modified Taungya System ..................................... 35
5
4.5 Survival rate of the trees planted .................................................................................... 36
4.6 Growth data of the trees planted ..................................................................................... 38
4.7 Land -use agreement ....................................................................................................... 38
4.8 Motivation factors for initial decision to participate....................................................... 39
4.9 Incentives Received ........................................................................................................ 39
4.10 Prioritised benefits from the Modified Taungya System .............................................. 40
4.11 System component ........................................................................................................ 41
5. DISCUSSION....................................................................................................................... 42
5.1 Impact of socioeconomic characteristics on MTS implementation ................................ 42
5.2 The characteristic of the MTS practices and the sustainability issues ............................ 42
5.3 Tree growth and survival rates under the MTS .............................................................. 44
5.4 Implications of the study results ..................................................................................... 45
6 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 46
APPENDIX .............................................................................................................................. 53
6
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.Socio-economic characteristics of Respondents ………………………………….... 33
Table 2. Income levels of Participating households ………………………………………... 35
Table 3. Motivating factors that influence continued participation under the MTS ………... 36
Table 4. Survival rate of Species planted under the MTS ………………………………….. 37
Table 5. Growth data of the Trees planted ………………………………………………..... 38
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Map of southern Ghana showing Study sites in Dormaa District in a dry semideciduous forest zone ……………………………………………………………………….. 27
Figure 2. Major roles played by Farmers in the implementation of MTS …………………. 35
Figure 3. Benefit Farmers Enjoyed under the Modified Taungya System ………………..... 36
Figure 4: Tree Species planted by farmers under the MTS
………………………………. 37
Figure 5: Motivation to participate ………………………………………………………... 39
Figure 6: Incentives Received by Farmers under the MTS ……………………………….... 40
Figure 7: Prioritised Benefits under the Modified Taungya System ……………………….. 41
Figure 8: System Component under the Modified System ………………………………… 41
7
LIST OF ACRONYMS
DFID
Department for International Development
FC
Forestry Commission
FD
Forestry Department
FAO
Food and Agricultural Organization
FSD
Forest Services Division of (Ghana Forestry Commission)
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
IPCC
Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change
IUCN
World Conservation Union
JHS
Junior High School
MTS
Modified Taungya System
NGO
Non –Governmental Organization
NTFP
Non-Timber Forest Products
UNDP
United Nations Development Programme
UNESCO
United Nations Education Scientific and Cultural Organization
SA
Sustainability Assessment
SL
Sustainable Livelihood
8
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
Forest loss and degradation currently continues to be one of the most serious environmental
challenges facing Ghana. With the continued growth in the country’s population and competing
land uses, Ghana’s forests are getting lost at a faster pace. Although the exact total area of
degraded or deforested land is not unknown. According to Damnyag (2012) and Boafo (2013),
the main causes of forest loss and degradation in Ghana include clearing of forest for cultivation
of cocoa and farming of other crops; harvesting of fuel wood; mining; forest fires; infrastructure
development; and both legal and illegal logging. Behind these main causes, there are also other
factors such as lack of institutional capacity for environmental management, lack of awareness
about the effects of human activities on the environment, and limited human and financial
resources to implement reforestation and other management programmes (UNDP Ghana 2010).
The Modified Taungya System (MTS) has been seen as one of the options for rehabilitation
and restoration of degraded forest lands. According to Blanford 1958, Taungya system is
reported to have started in Myanmar (Burma) and means hill (Taung) cultivation (ya). Taungya
was a local term for shifting cultivation, and was subsequently used to describe the process of
restoring forest. More importantly, the taungya system consists of growing annual food crops
together with the tree during the early years of plantation establishment (Agyemang et al, 2003).
The Forestry Department provides fertile lands to local farmer to raise both the food and tree
crops and also take proper care of the trees until the canopy of the trees closes (Nair 1993,
Agyemang et al., 2003). After two to three years farmers are to leave their farms for the planted
timber trees to grow in a relatively short time (Agyeman, 2003). Unfortunately, because
farmers are not consulted in decision making and also had no future benefits of the established
trees (Milton, 1994, Birikorang, 2001) they tended to neglect the tree crops (Amoah, 2009).
Also most farmers’ deliberately killed the tree crop so that they would not be asked to stop
farming on that piece of land when the tree canopy closes.
In contrast to the Taungya system, the MTS is a more localized forest management practice
in which forest communities are given portions of degraded forest lands within reserves to
inter-plant food crops with forest trees, and further nurture trees into maturity under an
agreement in which roles and benefit sharing are specified. In this arrangement, both the
9
Forestry Commission of Ghana and the selected local communities have roles and also future
benefits from the planted trees at maturity. The MTS was introduced in Ghana in 2002 in
a bid to support both rural livelihoods and Ghana’s deforestation problem (Ledger et al.,
2008). It is an improved version of the old taungya system, which was suspended in 1984 partly
due to inadequate co-operation from farmers. Under the MTS, farmers receive land from the
Forestry Commission, Ghana to grow food crops together with the planted forest trees. The
legally binding arrangement amongst the major stakeholders indicates that, when the timber
is sold, the benefits must be shared
among the following stakeholders: the
Forestry
Commission (40%), the farmers (40%), the traditional landowners (15%) and the forestadjacent community (5%). Regarding the cultivated food crops, the farmers are fully (100%)
entitled to the crops and associated benefits.
Forest Stakeholders have over the years proposed the Modified Taungya System (MTS) as a
sure way of ensuring the sustainability and protection of the environment (Andersson, 2006).
In order to ensure sustainable forest resource, local people’s participation in forest resource
control must be a topmost priority. (Ribot and Larson, 2005; Ribot and Oyono, 2006). The MTS
provides the incentive to increase the participation of forest-based communities and local
structures in forest resource management.
The MTS has been implemented over a decade but its viability to achieve or deliver livelihood
security, forest resource recovery, and poverty reduction at the local communities has not been
evaluated and require monitoring and verification. This study assessed 15-years old plantations
established through the MTS with the aim of reporting the growth, numbers and diversity of
trees within farmers’ fields after these years of management by local people. It also assessed
the contribution of the systems to income generation and determined the motivational factors
that contributed to the commitment shown by the local people in the Dormaa district of Ghana
to sustainable manage those established systems. This knowledge will be useful guidelines for
implementing such rehabilitation and restoration interventions in other parts of Ghana.
10
1.2 Problem Statement
The forests contribute significantly towards the provision of vital socioeconomic and
environmental goods and services that have positive impact on the well -being of the poor rural
communities; local, national economies and global environmental health. Forests in Ghana
cover approximately 22% of Ghana’s land area (FAO 2010) and contribute to 6 % of the GDP
of the country and the main source of livelihoods for about 2.5 million people in rural areas
(Acheampong and Marfo 2011). Continuous forest loss is a particular environmental challenge
in Ghana, where Non-timber forest products (NTFPs) provide income for 2.5 million people
living in or very close forest dependent communities (Acheampong and Marfo, 2011; Domson,
2007). Thus, the forest is of significant value to the government of Ghana as well as to the rural
people and as such restoring the forests to sustainable productive levels if very essential.
Unfortunately most rehabilitation and restoration programmes have been largely exploitative
and unattractive to local people who are key land users. Often, the needs of the local
communities were not considered when such programmes are being implemented.
Consequently, most national and international development programmes had not been
sustainable or have failed. For example, According to Borlaug and Dowswell, 1988, the Green
Revolution Technologies failed because greater number of low income farmers from
developing countries were not able to get fertilizers and other inputs used under the programme.
Ghana, like any other developing countries has put in place different intervention over the years
to reforest degraded lands. These programmes have mostly been based purely on proving
technical expertise (Amoah, 2009). Consequently the outcomes of these interventions have not
been encouraging. In many cases, farmers were not beneficiaries of the trees they planted. Thus,
were not given any reward for their inputs in tree management. Such schemes are doomed to
fail if the social, economic and environmental problems of the local communities are not taken
into consideration (McNamara, 1973, FAO, 1984). The MTS now presents a promising land
use model. After over a decade of the implementation of the MTS, its capacity to achieve or
improve local livelihood, forest resource recovery, and poverty reduction generally at the local
level has not been studied. Little information is available on the current status of the Modified
Taungya Systems in Ghana and for that matter in the Dormaa District where some taungya
plantation is over 15 years old. It is still unknown if the MTSs have been sustainable and
achieved their objectives, which are to in increase tree numbers on farm land and improve local
livelihoods through increased production of food crops and increased income. The incentive
11
mechanisms that enhanced or discouraged management of the system are also poorly
documented.
Forest - dependent communities have a significant role in improving forest management
and their involvement in its management hence the decisions affecting forest management
can therefore contribute significantly to effective management of these resources (Appiah et al,
2015). Full involvement of forest-dependent communities is essential to improved selfgoverning and service accountability. This enhances social unity because local communities
recognize the value of working in partnership with each other and with other forestry
bodies (Kiptot and Franzel, 2011). Continued involvement of local communities also adds
economic value both through mobilizing them to contribute to forest restoration and
through
skill
development,
enhancing
their prospects for engagement and increased
community fortune (Kiptot and Franzel, 2011).
Against this backdrop, this study assesses the sustainability of the MTS at Dormaa District in
Ghana over the past 15 years using eight (8) sustainability criteria; Recognition of Social
Groups, Survival Rate, Adoption Rate, Land-use Agreement, Responsibility Sharing, Benefit
Sharing, System Component and Incentives.
1.3 Research Objectives
The overall goal of the study is to develop socio-economic management guidelines for
implementing sustainable rehabilitation of degraded forest lands with an effective local
partnership. Specific objectives of the study is to assess the current status of the Modified
Taungya System (MTS) established in the Dormaa District in the Brong Ahafo Region of
Ghana after 15 –years of establishment using the underlisted as sustainability criteria:
a. Recognition of Social Groups
b. Survival Rate
c. Adoption Rate
d. Land-use Agreement
e. Responsibility Sharing
f. Benefit Sharing
g. System Component
h. Incentives
12
1.4 Research Questions
This study addresses these research questions:
1.
What is the survival and growth status of planted trees
2. What motivates local farmers for a sustainable local participation in Modified Taungya
System?
3. What benefits and Incentives do local farmers derive from to participating in the
Modified Taungya System?
4. What are the prioritized needs of farmers for local participation in the Modified Taungya
System?
1.5 Organization of the thesis
This study was organized under five chapters. Chapter one gives a background of the study.
Chapter two focuses on the Conceptual framework of the study. It illuminates readers on the
various concepts in the research areas of Modified Taungya System and Sustainability. Chapter
three discusses materials and methods for the study. Chapter four deals with the results of the
study and Chapter five also deals with the discussions, findings, conclusions and
recommendations of the study.
1.6 Justification for the study
Integrated forest management combines national objectives and community requirements and
it is needed for further development and improvement of tropical rural areas (Eighth World
Forestry Congress, 1978). In addition, the World Bank has announced a major shift in its
support of forestry activities, and will now place more emphasis on the environment and rural
forestry (Darko, 2009). According to Bene et al., (1977), the first Priority is increasingly being
given to combined production system which would integrate agroforestry in order to improve
tropical land use. These approaches such as the MTS are seen as an advanced responses to
meeting the contradictory goals of income enhancement and good forest governance Ministry
of Land and Forestry, 1994; Chamshama and Nduwayezu, 2003; Castréu, 2005). While the
MTSs are particularly relevant for sustainable livelihood empowerment very little research have
13
been conducted on the specific performance and sustainability of the MTS. These data are
needed to inform decision makers and development practitioners about the growth and
sustainability of the MTS and how those systems can be implemented and improved.
2.0 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 The Taungya System
Kio (1972) described taungya system as a system of plantation establishment in which willing
shifting cultivators are engaged to establish and tend tree crops together with temporary
agricultural crops. However, it is worth noting that taungya system and shifting cultivation are
essentially two different land use systems both in time and space. While shifting cultivation is
a successive or rotational scheme of growing food crops, taungya system on the other hand
consists of the simultaneous combination of both food crops and forest plantation on the same
piece of land.
Taungya system was however considered as a low-cost mechanism of governments for forest
plantations development that engaged farmers who are willing to plant and care for forest crops
whilst being allowed to grow food crops in between the young tree crops for three to four years
(Enabor, 1975, Goswami, 1982, Watson, 1983). Thus, Taungya is a land use system in which
local farmers cultivate food crops and forest tree crops on the same piece of land.
2.2 The historical context of Taungya System’s development in Ghana
In Ghana, taungya system was introduced as far back as in 1928 when the then Forestry
Department was charged with the responsibility of establishing forest plantations for the
production of wood in the long term and also to meet the needs of farmers for fertile land in
areas where farm land outside the national permanent forest estate was infertile and limited
(Brookman-Amissah, 1978). This was in the right direction, because in most tropical countries,
people living in forest fringe communities are usually part of the poorest and least powerful of
the stakeholders. They are socially and economically marginalized and face escalation of socioeconomic stress due to lack of education, legal or political support. So, interested farmers were,
however, given new land to continue the taungya system.
14
According to Forestry Department (1991) taungya practice started as early as 1929 in the
Brimso forest reserve with Senna siamea as the major tree species. However, in Upper Sawsaw
forest reserve, Cedrella odorata and Terminalia ivorensis species were used to establish
taungya plantations in 1937 and covered 120.5 hectares by 1990.
The Forestry Department now Forest Service Division (FSD) provided assistance in the form
of pegging the farm and planting the seedlings. The farmers were required to care for them
indirectly when carrying out any cultural practices on the food crops. Forestry Department
(1991) indicated that the area (about 33,954.4 hectares) under forest plantations developed
through taungya system is more than twice the area (16,021.9 hectares) under industrial
plantations developed through industrial plantation strategies.
In all the ten regions of Ghana, according to Forestry Department (1991), Brong-Ahafo region
is ranked as the most successful in terms of taungya plantations development. This success is
attributed to the farmers’ commitment and patronage. In Brong-Ahafo Region, taungya
plantation development was initiated in Bosomoa forest reserve in 1941 with much success
covering about 6500 hectares. Teak constituted the main tree species used in taungya
plantations in Brong-Ahafo Region.
Taungya plantation establishment intensified in Ghana between 1969 and 1985 (FD, 1985) as
part of the Operation Feed Yourself Programme. Despite the supposed advantages of the
taungya system, it has not been widely adopted and has virtually come to a halt due to the
problem of co-partnership since farmers had no right in the benefit sharing.
In Ghana, the traditional taungya introduced came to a halt, and in many cases, the local people
or farmers still suffer hardships due to socio-economic difficulties with the taungya system.
The system has therefore not realized its full potential from an agronomic, forest management
and environmental position. This is possibly because of several inherent limitations that are
mainly social, economic and political in nature.
Under the traditional taungya arrangements governing the taungya scheme, Ghanaian taungya
farmers were not entitled to any rights of benefits accruing from the planted tress apart from
the produce from the agricultural crops at the initial stages of the plantation establishment
15
(Milton, 1994). They were also not involved in policymaking processes in any aspect of forest
governance structure (Birikorang, 2001).
The tendency for taungya farmers to pay more attention to their agricultural crops to the neglect
of the tree crops made the system unreliable in the past that resulted in its discontinuation in
1985. Other reasons for the suspension of the taungya system included the inability of the
Forestry Commission, to provide effective supervision, inadequate financing mechanism,
misapplication of power by public officials, especially in land apportionment and lack of an
equitable benefit-sharing framework among stakeholders (Agyeman et al., 2003). These
reasons led to the mishandling of the system by the partaking farmers, which included:
a) Participating farmers intentionally destroyed planted seedlings to extend their occupancy
over portions of land since a successful plantation meant the cessation of cultivation on
allocated plots. The only incentive for the taungya farmers was their continued access to
the allocated land for farming purposes thus the successful establishment of the planted
tree seedlings posed a threat to their incentive.
b) Farmers failed to control the weeds around the planted tree seedlings thereby hindering
their growth.
c) Farmers unlawfully cleared other areas in forest reserves, whether degraded or not, which
were not assigned for taungya purposes.
d) Farmers planted food crops, which were not well-suited with the tree crops.
e) Farmers cleared excess land for plantation development more than what is needed for the
Taungya.
f) Farmers did not practice this principle of agroforestry on their own land outside the reserves
suggesting that the taungya system had not had the desired impact on the participating
communities.
g) Corrupt practices on the part of the Forestry Department staff, especially in plots allocation
and the general abuse of power by the officials created fertile grounds for the failure of the
system Irrespective of the problems with the failed traditional taungya system, forest fringe
communities still viewed the taungya system as one of the most beneficial forest tenure
systems and requested the Ghana Government to re-introduce it albeit with changes to
make it more efficient. The Ghana Government has therefore re-introduced the taungya
with modifications termed as Modified Taungya System (MTS).
16
2.3 Forms of Taungya System
2.3.1 The Shamba System
The Shamba System is an advanced form of taungya system practiced on state forest land in
Kenya. Since the early 1900s, the Shamba system, which is an agroforestry system, has been
used in Kenya to establish forest plantations (Oduol, 1989). Shamba system, which was meant
to start exotic forest plantations with minimum establishment cost, was quiet successfully
mainly because of the following reasons;
a) accessibility of adequate cultivable land
b) existence of a eager land-hungry farming populace
c) accessibility of a market for extra food produced
d) Security or protection against wild animals.
According to Evans (1982) and Lowe (1987) Shamba system features were adapted later in
Nigeria and Trinidad respectively. The Shamba system when properly practiced could allow
the continuous production of food crops along with tree species from the same piece of land to
meet most of farmers social and economic needs.
The economic benefits of Shamba system are derived from the sale of agricultural products.
The system also provides full-time employment to most Shamba farmers who have no other
sources of income. For the Forestry Department, Shamba System is a cost-effective method of
tree establishment. Apart from providing a weed-free area for tree planting, it also ensures
weeding around young trees for 2-3 years so that tree survival rates increase. In addition to the
weeding benefits, fire control is also an important reason for inter-planting agricultural crops
with tree crops in taungya system (White, 1985). Other social benefits provided by the Forestry
Department to participants in the Shamba system included free accomodation, medical
facilities, welfare, schools, and infrastructure (Wanyeki, 1981).
The Shamba system seems to be the most appropriate land-use-system for sustainable forest
management and reduction of poverty. The combination of agriculture and forestry when
properly implemented reduces environmental degradation and also provides means of
reconciling the often-conflicting interest of tropical foresters and farmers. The system also
17
satisfies most socioeconomic needs of small scale farmers who participate in it, and save the
forest from the destruction practices of shifting cultivation (White, 1985). Irrespective of the
enormous benefits associated with Shamba System, it is also characterized by a number of
drawbacks.
2.3.2 Forest Village System
Forest Village System is practiced in Thailand and combines the advantage of reforestation and
subsistence agriculture. This system increases income and community stability (Segustron,
1976; Gregersen, 1982). There are many opportunities for workers to earn wages in the Forest
Village system and since majority of the rural people have few assets other than their capacity
to work, they seem to benefit from the Forest Village System.
Gajaseni (1988) noted that weeding was an important activity in teak plantation that children
up to 10-12 years of age performed. In addition, there are at least three thinning’s that need to
be carried out during a single rotation of teak. Finally labour is required during final harvest of
teak. Income from the Forest Village taungya system operations is important in sustaining rural
families and keeping them in the countryside.
The Forest Village System has been effectively practiced in many countries such as Kenya,
Gabon, Uganda, India, Nigeria and Cambodia where there is large natural resources base and
high land hunger for local people. The system provides lands for local farmers for food crop
production who would have caused forest destruction. This approach is viable alternative to
resource depletion, environmental degradation and shifting cultivation. With suitable scientific
back-up and organization enhancement, the system can substantiate itself to be quite suitable
and flexible under other situations with comparable land-use problems and socio-economic
restrictions (Nair and Fernandes, 1984, Nair, 1986). Wanyeki (1981) found out that;
a) The Shamba practice, mostly at the time of clearing contributes to about 40% of reported
fires in Kenya.
b) the damage to crops by wild animals such as elephants, buffaloes discourages some
participants, particularly in remote areas
c) grazing land for both livestock and wild animals has been reduced as result of cultivation
of grasslands in the forest areas
d) it requires good and timely supervision
18
e) in some areas the number of participants far exceeds the available land, thus leading to
illegal clearing.
2.3.3 Tumpangsari
This is a system of taungya employed by the Forestry Estate Enterprise in Indonesia for
reforestation, especially teak (Siregar, 1990) in arid or dry areas, and the expectation is for an
80-year rotation.
In Tumpangsari, local farmers enter into agreement with the Forestry Estate Enterprise. This
local agreement specifies the total area to be planted, the duration of the food crops on the land,
the kind of crops(food crops and forest tree crops) to be planted as well as benefits to be received
for tree planting and tending. In this system, each family is allotted 0.25-hectare plot to be intercropped with the planted tree seedlings for two years, and the agricultural crops include dry
land rice, maize, pepper, peanuts soybeans. Under certain conditions cassava also is permitted.
On sloping land, erosion control structures are built with stones or dead tees and branches.
Other control measures include drainage ditches, and planting along contours (Wiersum, 1982).
Income from Tumpangsari is important in sustaining rural families and keeping them in the
countryside. For example, in Indonesia, annual crops from modern taungya (Tumpangsari)
contribute only 20% of household revenue but farmers can sustain their families from related
plantation activities such as logging operations and collection of forest product, and underemployment is less for those who participate in Tumpangsari ( Kartasubrata, 1986).
2.3.4 Intensified Taungya cultivation
Increasing use of high-yielding agricultural crop varieties and modern cropping practices were
incorporated in the taungya system in Indonesian agricultural enterprise in the 1960.
In 1972
the Indonesian State Forest Enterprise tested the feasibility of such agricultural improvement
for the taungya system that proved successful with dry land rice production by increasing yield
of rice from 700 kg to 3740 kg per hectare (Wiersum, 1981).
19
According to Wiersum (1981), the system was developed further, by the Forest Faculty of the
Gadjah Mada University. Kartasubrata, (1997) and Wiersum (1982) mentioned that the system
for intensive taungya system was developed with the following characteristic features:
a) utilization of selected high-yielding varieties of the main food crops;
b) better practices for land preparation and soil tillage;
c) minimum use of fertilizers;
d) control of pest and diseases
e) timely planting and fertilizing with respect to the rainfall
2.4 The Modified Taungya System
The Government of Ghana from July 2001 to December 2002 with support from donor partners
engaged key stakeholders on the revision of the old Taungya system. (Agyemang, 2003).The
dialogue involved key stakeholder groups including farmers, landowners, local communities
and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
After the consultative process, Local farmers would principally be owners of Modified Taungya
products, with the Forestry Commission, landowners and forest-adjacent communities as
shareholders. Previously, the Forestry Commission was the owner of plantations established
using the taungya system, and only land-owners, not farmers, received benefits from the tree
crops. All key stakeholders in the modified taungya system would be eligible for a share of the
benefits accruing from the plantation (Agyemang, 2003).
Under the Modified Taungya System (MTS), being operated in Ghana, taungya farmers are
now fully involved in the planting and tendering of the food and tree crops. The farmers tend
food and tree crops that are planted in a mixture on the same plot until such a time that the
canopy closure of the growing trees makes it impractical to continue with crop cultivation.
When the canopy closes, the taungya farmers will continue to maintain the trees until maturity.
Other essential features of the Modified Taungya System are as follows:
a) Farmers will essentially be owners of the plantation products with the Forestry
Commission, landowners and forest fringe communities as shareholders. The rights of
taungya farmers are guaranteed under the Timber Resources Management Amendment
20
Act, 2002 (ACT 617), which states that “no timber rights shall be granted in respect of land
with private plantation; or land with any timber grown or owned by any individual or group
of individuals”. However, under the previous taungya system, the Forestry Commission
was the owner with landowners as the only beneficiaries. Farmers benefited from the food
crops but did not receive any benefits from the tree crops.
b) Farmers will be responsible for pruning, maintenance and tending, while the Forestry
Commission will be responsible for training the farmers to perform their taungya roles
effectively. It is also the duty of the Forestry Commission to supply equipment and tools,
stock inventory, auctioning or marketing of taungya products. Taungya Farmers are
therefore entitled to a share of the benefits accruing from the plantation according to the
benefit-sharing framework, which ensure greater benefit flows to participating farmers
(Agyeman et al., 2003).
2.5 The MTS in the context of Sustainable Livelihood (SL) Approach
People’s livelihood sustainability are often associated with Poverty and vulnerability.
Livelihood sustainability has different meaning to different people because of the variety
of forms that livelihoods can take. A livelihood is the ability to secure a means of living that
is sustainable to the present as well as the future generation without risks or loses (Chambers
and Conway 1992, Majale, 2002).
Livelihood indicators used in this study were revised from the sustainable livelihood (SL)
framework advanced by the DFID (DFID, 1999). The framework establishes the relationship
between identifiable livelihood assets, institutional arrangements or stakeholders and defined
livelihood outcomes.
In the SL framework, assets include the Natural/Environmental Resources capital e.g. Land,
water, wildlife, biodiversity etc. Other physical capital comprises access to adequate water and
sanitation, energy, transport, accommodation, communication, and equipment for livelihood
productive activities.
Human resource capital encompasses knowledge, skills, ability information, ability, health to
labour etc. that together enable people to achieve their livelihood objectives by pursuing
different livelihood strategies . For social capital , it include the trusted relationships,
membership of groups, networks, access to wider institutions and other social resources
21
upon which people draw in quest of their income targets. Financial resources such as regular
remittances or pensions, supplies of credit, savings, and other financial resources that are used
to achieve livelihood objectives fall under the financial capital category. Consequently, access
to required assets is essential to generate adequate income, increased well-being, reduced
vulnerability, improved food security, and contribute to a more sustainable use of natural
resource base on which local livelihoods depend to escape poverty (Kollmair and Gamper,
2002; Krantz, 2001; Majale, 2002; DFID, 1999).
Regarding its feasibility and applicability as an appropriate livelihood analysis tool, in all spatial
circumstance being in doubt (Morse et. al., 2009). In this regard, the SL approach has been
criticized as being over-elaborated. Therefor when using the SL approach, the uniqueness of
specific spatial context within which it is applied ought to be appropriately taken into
consideration to account for the real variations in the livelihood assets required and their
corresponding livelihood outcomes (see Morse et. al., 2009). There are suggestions for example
by Mclean (2002) for the accumulation of two new assets-institutional knowledge and
institutional or partisan assets. Nevertheless,
emphasis of SL framework should follow a
holistic and humanistic approach which should attempt to highlight the fundamental causes and
dimensions of poverty and not to focus only on some few factors (DFID, 1999, Majale 2002).
In this regard it is appropriate to use the SL approach as a guide to ascertain the kinds of
livelihood assets the MTS as an environmental governance strategy transfers to the local
actors and the livelihood outcomes delivered to the local people involved in the MTS.
2.6 Socio-economic implications of taungya Systems
Inter-cropping not only gives the farmers an income, it’s also controls the weeds which
otherwise compete with the tree seedlings. In addition to the weeding benefit, fire control is
also an important reason for inter-planting (White, 1985).
Several million people live in villages surrounding forest areas. Most of them are small farmers
or farm labourers, and about half of them are under-employed or unemployed. Such social
conditions place great pressure on forestlands. Hence, forest policy should not emphasize only
on management of forest areas for commercial timber and non-timber forest products
purposes, but be directed at increasing employment opportunities, rural community
22
development and poverty alleviation (Atmosoedardjo and Wahyudi, 1980; Wirjodarmodjo and
Bratamihardjo, 1984).
Wiersum (1982) iterated that taungya gradually evolved in response to changes in socioeconomic conditions and was included in the forestry regulation as an obligatory technique for
teak plantations establishment. Taungya system is adjusted in areas of high population density
to meet current socio-economic conditions.
According to Becking (1928) and Beckman (1948), introduction of taungya system in an area
is based on several reasons including;
a) decreasing the establishment costs of teak plantations
b) obtaining an additional revenue from the farming during the early stage of tree
plantations
c) achieving better maintenance of the young tree stands
d) reclaiming waste lands using agriculture before the establishment of tree plantations
e) contributing to solving local shortages of good agricultural lands.
Hellinga (1953) also reported that taungya was mainly considered as an alternative means of
forest recovery, which contributes to improving the wellbeign of the local people was subsidiary
to the successful establishment of timber plantations. Again, he stated that a prerequisite of
taungya is forestry and the primary objective of the forest enterprise may not be hindered by
increased food production.
The use of taungya was very profitable for the Forest Service as it decreased labour costs for
planting from 86-116 man-days per hectare for planting techniques involving clearing line and
making planting holes to 62 man-days per hectare. The other 58 man-days per hectare needed
for taungya cultivation were contributed free-of charge by the taungya farmers in exchange for
their right to agricultural produce.
There are certain socio-economic conditions which give rise to taungya, and that the
development of the systems independent to an extent, the population density, amount of fertile
and forested land, and degree of development (Wiersum, 1982). He also iterated that in region
where taungya is being practiced have certain common socio-economic characteristics such as;
23
a) large economic gains attained through illegal harvesting of indigenous timbers, and
consequently there is a need to control the harvested lands
b) a need for reforestation activity
c) large human resource with need for subsistence and employment.
Taungya systems incorporate secure terms of use and access for rural communities to pursue
farming as well as forest plantation development over the long term. While taungya system has
been used most widely in humid and sub-humid areas, it might also be applied in dryland Africa
for the rehabilitation of grazing lands or the establishment of woodlots. It could be useful in
any situation where deforestation and land degradation can be treated by a mixture of temporary
cropping with tree establishment (Rocheleau et. al., 1988).
2.7 Cost and benefit sharing of forest resources in Ghana
In Ghana, a key issue concerning collaborative forest rehabilitation programmes is about how
the cost or responsibility and benefit are evenly distributed among the key stakeholders (Blay
et al, 2007). The National Forest Policy of 1994 provides a framework for the implementation
of the benefit sharing under forest plantation development (Ministry of Lands and Forestry,
1994). Relevant measures such as social responsibility agreements were included in the area of
collaborative forest management where a maximum of 5% of annual royalties accruing from
the operations of logging companies (concession agreements now known as ‘Timber Utilisation
Contracts’) are used for the provision of social amenities to the communities living in or close
of the contract areas. This is usually done to inspire the equitable sharing of benefits arising
from the utilization of forest resources, knowledge and practices of indigenous communities,
for sustainable natural resources management. However, the full knowledge of cost borne by
local communities for their inputs in forest restoration programmes enhance the introduction of
a better social responsibility agreement or incentive mechanisms.
24
2.8 Sustainability
2.8.1 Concept definitions
Sustainability is achieved when all people on Earth can live well without compromising the
quality of life for future generations (Jucker, 2006). The term sustainability has become
popular in policy-oriented research as an expression of what public policies ought to
achieve. The principal inspiration came from the Brundtland Report of 1987 [1]. Since then
the concept has shifted in meaning. According to UNESCO (2006), Sustainability means that
the critical activities of an economy, policy, environment among others are (at a minimum)
ecologically sound, socially just and economically viable, and that they will continue to be so
for future generations.
Cortese and Rowe (2006) also define the concept of Sustainability as a vision for the world in
which current and future humans are reasonably healthy; communities and nations are secure,
peaceful and thriving; there is economic opportunity for all; and the integrity of the lifesupporting biosphere is restored and sustained at a level necessary to make these goals possible.
To achieve this vision, all the four dimensions of sustainability must be addressed. Clough et
al (2006) however define the term sustainability as “a process that helps to create a vibrant
economy and a high quality of life, while respecting the need to sustain natural resources and
protect the environment”. The definition also agrees with the principle that the environment
must be protected for the future generations as well.
2.8.2 History of forest resources sustainability
The sustainability concept originated from the idea in forestry that one should never harvest
more than what the forest can yield in new growth. The word Nachhaltigkeit (the
German term for sustainability) was first used with this meaning in 1713. The main
concern was preserving natural resources for the future: In the old, our ancestors were
worried about their prey becoming extinct, and the early farmers were more apprehensive
about maintaining soil fertility. Traditionally, it is believed that community consists of
“many dead, few living and countless others unborn” and as such the resources must me n
25
Protected for the unborn as well. A theory on the optimal rate of exploitation of nonrenewable resource which is still relevant today was formulated by Harold Hotelling, an
American economist, in 1931.
Sustainability is a natural topic of study for economists and resource managers as, the scarcity
of resources is of central concern for science. A famous example is the work of Thomas
Malthus, who published his theory about looming mass starvation (due to the inability
of available agricultural land to feed an expanding population) in 1798.
A milestone in
capturing the attention of global public policy was the report of the Club of Rome
which predicted that many natural resources crucial to our survival would be exhausted
within one or two generations. Therefore, the report of the UN World Commission on
Environment and Development (Brundtland Report named after its chairperson), was
welcomed for showing a way out of impending permanent loss of resources. This report
adopted the concept of sustainability and has since given the concept the widespread
recognition it enjoys today.
2.8.3 Sustainability assessment
Sustainability assessment is a comparatively new field which has become associated with the
broad field of impact assessment (Ness et al 2007, Bond et al. 2012). The International
Association for Impact Assessment (2014) defines impact assessment as “the process of
identifying future consequences of a current or proposed action”.
There are two views, respectively considering impact assessment or sustainability assessment
as the overarching field. On the one hand, impact assessment could be considered to comprise
different approaches and processes, some of which may be well known and widely used (for
example strategic environmental assessment, health impact assessment, risk assessment
environmental impact assessment) while others may be more recently developed sustainability
assessment (SA). In fact, Bond et al. (2012) consider sustainability assessment as a “recent
framing of impact assessment”, sometimes called its “third generation” following
environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment. On the other hand,
others consider SA, and not impact assessment, as an umbrella term, including indicator
development, product-related assessment and integrated assessments, such as impact
assessment (Hacking et al. and Ness et al. 2007). However, he difference in points of views
26
may be result of the different fields that are involved in sustainability assessment practices
(Bond et al. (2012).
There is a wide range of Sustainability Assessment practices and various definitions by different
authors and fields. The most “all-inclusive” definition is the one proposed by Bond et al. 2012
that defines it as “any process that directs decision-making towards sustainability”. Given the
importance to consider sustainable development as a decision-making strategy,
Bond et al. (2012), suggests Sustainability Assessment contribute to a better understanding of
the resources sustainability and its contextual interpretation. It also integrates sustainability
issues into decision-making by identifying and assessing (past and/or future) sustainability
impacts and fosters sustainability objectives (Bell, S.; and Morse, S.2003Baber 2004, Bebbington
et al. 2007, Nooteboom 2007, Funtowicz et al.1999)
Sustainability Indicators
Sustainability Indicators (SI) are tools in decision-making for sustainability and of any
Sustainability Assessment (Pintér et al. 2012). There are many SI-initiatives by various
stakeholders including for example governments at various levels, communities, businesses,
higher education and universities, and non-governmental organizations that have applied it in
different contexts around the world, for different purposes and using a multitude of
methodologies (Pintér et al. 2012). Pintér et al. (2012) speak suitably of a real “indicator zoo”.
Nevertheless considerable improvements can be made, such as the influence on decisionmaking, which is largely insufficient (Pintér et al. 2012).
27
3 MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 Study Area
Dormaa Municipal is among the twenty seven (27) Political districts within the Brong Ahafo
Region of Ghana. It is also one of the oldest districts in the country. As the population
increased with associated development and expansion in basic infrastructure, the district
attained the status of a municipality and later ‘gave birth’ to two other districts, the
Dormaa East and West districts. The district was created by the Local Government Act 1993
(Act 462).
Figure 1. Map of southern Ghana showing Study sites in Dormaa District in a dry semideciduous forest zone
The Dormaa municipality is located at the western part of the Brong Ahafo Region of Ghana
and lies within longitudes 3°West and 3° 30’ West and latitudes 7° North and 7o 30’ North. It
is boarded in the north by the Jaman South district and in the east by the Dormaa East district,
in the south and south-east by Asunafo and Asutifi districts respectively, in the west and
south-west by Dormaa West and in the west and north-west by La Cote d’Ivoire. The
28
municipal capital is Dormaa Ahenkro, located about 80 kilometres west of the regional
capital, Sunyani. The total land area of the municipality is 1,210.28 square kilometres ( about
three percent of the total land area of Brong Ahafo Region).
Relief and drainage
The elevation is between 180 metres and 375 metres above sea level.
The high range can
be found near Asunsu in the north-western part of the municipality most of which is
occupied by the Pamu Berekum Forest Reserve. The highest point is a little over 375 metres
above sea level. Most of the rivers in the municipality have catchments areas. The rivers are
mostly perennial due to the double maxima rainfall pattern that is experienced in the area.
Notable among them are the Bia, Nkasapim and Pamu rivers.
Climate and vegetation
The municipality is located within the wet semi-equatorial climate region with a double
maxima rainfall regime. The mean annual rainfall is between 125mm and 175mm with the rainy
season starting from May until June. The second rainy season starts from September to October.
The dry seasons are quite pronounced with the main season beginning around the latter part of
November and ending in February. It is often accompanied by relative humidity of 75 %– 80%
during the two rainy seasons and 70 - 72 percent during the rest of the year. The highest
mean temperature is about 30ºC and occurs between March and April and the lowest about
26.1ºC occurring in August.
The major vegetation types are the Semi-Equatorial forest, semi-deciduous forest and
high grassland. There is a vast stretch of cultivable unused forestland and extensive
forest reserves. The unused forest is located at the extreme north-east where it extends to
Dormaa East and Asutifi districts. The forest reserves are Mpameso (197.67 square kilometres),
Pamu (116.80 square kilometres) and Tain (297.6 square kilometres). The tree species found in
the reserves include, Tectona grandis (Teak), Milicia excelsa (Odum), Triplochiton
scleroxylon(Wawa), Cylicodiscus gabonensis (Denya), Khaya ivorensis (Mahogany). Others
are
Entandophragma cylindricum (Sapele), Terminalia ivorensis (Ofram), Terminalia
ivorensis (Emire) and A
extraction.
ntiaris toxicara(Kyenkyen) which have given rise to timber
29
3.2 Data collection
3.2.1 The selection of the study area and communities
The Pamu - Berekum forest reserve is located within the Dormaa Municipality of the Brong
Ahafo Region of Ghana was selected for this study due to the fact the forest Reserve has a long
standing history of annual bush fires that Modified Taungya System (MTS) has been
implemented there for over a decade.
Selection of the farming communities for the study was purposive. In all, three (3) farming
communities that have implemented the MTS were selected for the study. The communities
include Ntabene, Twumkrom and Abonsrakrom. Names of farmers (both males and females)
involved in taungya plantations in each of the three farming communities were sought through
contacts with the Range Supervisor for the Pamu Berekum forest reserve. The list was updated
during the preliminary visits from the taungya herdsmen and some farmers. By using stratified
random sampling, fifteen (15) farmers were selected from each of the three (3) farming
communities. In all 41 farmers were selected.
Due to the multiplicity and the diverse nature of the socio-economic and biodiversity issues
associated with the implementation of taungya system, the study used different of approaches
to gather information that addresses the objectives of this study. The approaches used were:
i.
Desk top review of relevant literature including project reports and scientific
publications
ii.
Consultations with the staff of Ghana Forestry Commission at Dormaa District,
specifically the Range supervisor in charge of the Pamu Berekum forest reserve as well
as taungya headmen and participating farmers.
iii.
Field observation visits: Preliminary visits were made to the selected communities, in
the course of which the relevant taungya herdsmen, and farmers of the area were
contacted, and the rationale for the study was explained to stakeholders within the
participating communities and sought for their cooperation and support. A thorough
familiarization was made with them and their cultural values and taboo days were noted.
During the field visits a list of active participating taungya farmers was obtained from
the forest officers and the taungya headmen of the study area.
30
iv.
The study used individual interviewing using semi-structured questionnaire and direct
measurements of tree growth as the primary data source.
Information solicited from respondents on the implementation of the MTS included aspects on:
a. Recognition of social groups
b. Survival rate of planted trees
c. Adoption rate
d. Land-use agreement
e. Responsibility sharing
f. Benefit sharing
g. System component
h. Incentives
3.2.2 Data Analysis
Information such as the socio-economic characteristics, incentives received, benefits enjoyed
Land –use agreement, and responsibility sharing, motivation for continued participation, system
component, growth and survival rate of the trees etc were solicited from the 40 respondents
from the three farming communities. The data was edited, coded and further subjected to
analysis by the use of descriptive statistics (Pie chart, Bar chart percentage, mean, standard
deviations) through the application of Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version
22.
3.3 Research Ethics and Limitations
There were a number of ethical considerations that were followed before and during the data
collection process. The consent of farmers were sought and the objective of the research were
explicitly made known to them before administering the questionnaires.
31
4 RESULTS
4.1 Socio-economic characteristics of respondents
Participating communities
Three communities close to the Pamu-Berekum forest reserve were selected for this study.
These communities have participated in the Modified Taungya System (MTS) for over a
decade. They include Twumkrom, Abonsrakrom and Ntabene. Table 1 presents the results of
the number of respondents from each of the three (3) communities. Results from the field
depicts that a majority of the respondents; farmers who practice the MTS, were from
Abonsrakrom which represents 51.2%. Twumkrom had the least representation with 6 (14.6%)
farmers. Details are presented in Table 1.
Sex of respondents
The study reveals that a majority of the farmers interviewed are female who represented 53.7%
of the respondents’ whiles 19 (46.3%) male farmers were interviewed.
Residential status of respondents
With regards to the residential status of the respondents, a majority 28 of them representing
68.3% of the farmers are natives of the communities selected. 12 farmers representing 29.3%
of the farmers are also migrants who have settled in the communities. Only one (1) farmer
representing 2.4% of the respondents is a non-native permanent settler. Thus, the indigenes are
those who are mostly involved in the practice of the MTS in the Dormaa district.
Major occupation of respondents
The survey results show that a majority of 95.1% (39) of the farmers’ major occupation is
farming whiles only 2(4.9%) work as petty traders.
32
Age of farmers
As part of ascertaining the social characteristics of the farmers, data on the age was collected.
From the data collected, a majority of 61% of the farmers are between the ages 46 and 60 years.
Followed by 46-69 years was 31-45 years who were represented by 29.3%. Only 4 representing
(9.8%) of the farmers are 60 years and above.
Education level of respondents
The educational background of the farmers’ shows that a majority of the farmers are educated
even though the highest level attained is Junior High School (JHS). Inference can be made from
the results that a majority of 58.5% of the farmers have completed JHS whiles a minority of
9.8% of them have attained primary education. Thirteen (13) farmers representing 31.7% do
not have any formal education.
Marital Status
With respect to the marital status of the farmers, a majority of 34(82.9%) are married while
7(17.1%) are divorced.
Family Size
The results of the survey shows that most of the family sizes of the farmers is between 1-5
(51.2%) whiles only 2 (4.9%) farmers have their family sizes above 10. Moreover, family size
of 6-10 emerged the second household family size of the famers interviewed.
Income levels of households
Before the MTS, 12.2% of the farmers were identified to be having the household income 300
and below (Table 2). After the MTS, those farmers within that income category reduced by
29.3% after the MTS. Again, there was a 60.1% increase in the category of farmers whose
income level were between 301 and 600. Notwithstanding, after the MTS the percentage of
farmers whose income are between 601 – 900 increased from 29.3% to 48.8% indicating a
60.0% increment in that income category. Finally, the study explored a 28.7% increase in those
33
farmers whose income ranges between 901 and above between the periods; before and after the
MTS.
Table 1.Socio-economic Data of Respondents
Variable
(N)
(%)
Major occupation
Farming
39
95.1
Self-employed petty trader
2
4.9
Male
19
46.3
Female
22
53.7
31-45yrs
12
29.3
46-60yrs
25
61
Above 60yrs
4
9.8
Primary
4
9.8
JHS
24
58.5
None
13
31.7
Married
34
82.9
Divorced
7
17.1
1-5
21
51.2
6-10
18
43.9
above 10
2
4.9
Native
28
68.3
Non-native permanent settler
1
2.4
Migrant farmer
12
29.3
Abonsrakrom
21
51.2
Twumkrom
6
14.6
Ntabene
14
34.2
Gender
Age
Education level
Marital Status
Family Size
Residential Status
Participating communities
34
Table 2. Income levels of Participating households
Before MTS* Income
After
MTS* % Change
Income
GHC 300 and below
12.20%
29.30%
41.6%
GHC 301-600
22.00%
36.60%
60.1%
GHC 601- 900
29.30%
48.80%
60.0%
GHC 901 and above
4.90%
17.10%
28.7%
*Modified Taungya System (MTS)
4.2 Motivating factors that influence continued participation
Two major factors were identified as the drivers of future participation of the MTS by the
farmers in the selected communities. The factors identified include; land for farming and source
of income (Table 3). Most of the dwellers in the three (3) communities that were selected for
the study are farmers. The results of the shows that the major rationale behind the farmers opting
for MTS in the future is fertile lands for farming which was represented by a majority of 63.4%
of the farmers.
Income (cash) to the farmers was also identified as a motivating factor for future participation
in MTS by the farmers of Abonsrakrom, Twumkrom and Ntabene. The result of the field data
suggests that source of income being a driver for participating in MTS is represented by 36.6%.
Consistent with the findings of Appiah (2001), that suggest that majority of farmers who
expressed interest in planting trees gave increasing income in the long term as a critical
motivation for planting trees.
35
Table 3. Motivating factors that influence continued participation under the MTS*
Factors
Fertile
Frequency
Land
for
26
63.4
Source of income
15
36.6
Total
41
100.0
%
farming
*Modified Taungya System (MTS)
4.3 Responsibility Sharing
Data was collected on the responsibility sharing of the MTS project in the communities. The
study explored three main roles that were played by the farmers in the MTS project as (i) taking
care of the trees (ii) weeding and (iii) planting. The results presented in Figure 2 shows that a
major role played by the farmers in the MTS project was planting trees (22 farmers) which were
followed by weeding (20 farmers).
Taking Care of the trees
Weeding
Planting
4
20
22
Figure 2. Major roles played by Farmers in the implementation of Modified Taungya System
4.4 Benefit Farmers Enjoyed under the Modified Taungya System
With regards to benefit sharing, the study looked at the future benefits the farmers would derive
from the MTS project and the current benefits that they are enjoying. The results from the field
shows that, regarding the benefits that the farmers enjoyed, out of the three (3) major benefits
that were identified, majority of the farmers considers food stuffs as the most important benefit
36
of the system. The remaining two benefits; land and cash income from sales of tree products
were also mentioned by some (fifteen (15)) farmers each.
17
FOOD STUFFS
15
15
INCOME
LAND
Figure 3. Benefit Farmers Enjoyed under the Modified Taungya System
4.5 Survival rate of the trees planted
This section discusses the growth and survival rate of the trees that were planted by farmers in
the three communities under the Modified Taungya System. The analysis looks at the farmers
land sizes, number of seedlings that were planted and the number of seedlings that are currently
standing. All the farmers identified local species as the type of species that they planted. The
results of the study shows that all the farmers interviewed have their farm sizes to be about one
hectare. Moreover, the study explored that the number of seedlings given to the farmers for
planting in their respective farms/plots were 625 seedlings per farmer per hectare.
With regards to the number of seedlings that are standing, the average number of seedlings that
were counted as standing per has was an average of 441 trees for the three communities. Across
the three communities the maximum number of trees currently standing per hectare per the
farmer’s field ranged between 200- 600 trees with a standard deviation of 81.6.
37
Table 4. Survival rate of Species planted under the MTS*
N
Minimum
Size of land occupied
41
1ha
by respondent
Number of seedlings
41
625
planted
Number of seedlings
that are currently 41
200
standing
*Modified Taungya System (MTS)
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
1ha
1ha
.000
625
625.00
.000
600
441.68
81.698
Considering the types of trees/species that were planted, the field results presented in Figure 4
show farmers’ preferences and the most planted tree species as follows: Terminalia superba
(ofram) which represented 18% of the types of trees that were planted. 17% of Khaya ivorensis
(mahogany), Terminalia ivorensis (emire) and Nauclea diderrichii (kusia) were also planted
the farmers in the three (3) communities. 15% of the species planted were Ceiba pentandra.
10% of Entandophragma cylindricum (Sapele) survived on the farms. The least planted species
are Antiaris toxicaria (kyenkyen) and Afzelia Africana (papao) which represent 3% each.
Regarding the dominant surviving trees, the results show that the dominant surviving tree is
Terminalia superba (Ofram) which was identified by 27 farmers. The least dominant tree was
also identified as Afzelia Africana (papao) which was represented by 3 farmers.
Entandophragm
a cylindricum
10%
Khaya ivorensis
17%
Terminalia
superba
18%
Nauclea
diderrichii
17%
Terminalia
ivorensis
17%
Ceiba pentandra
15%
Antiaris
africana
3%
Afzelia Africana
3%
Figure 4: Tree Species planted by farmers under the MTS
38
4.6 Growth data of the trees planted
The trees that were assessed under MTS were 15 years old. With respect to the height of the
surviving trees, the average height of the surviving trees was 16.22m whiles the minimum
height of the surviving trees was 9m with the tallest surviving trees being 20m.
Data was also collected on the diameter of the surviving trees. The results presented show that
the average diameter of the surviving trees in the communities was 17.84cm whiles the
maximum diameter of the surviving trees was 23cm. The minimum diameter of the surviving
trees was 13cm
Table 5: Growth data of the Trees planted
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
of
41
15
15
15.00
.000
Average diameter of
41
13cm
23cm
17.84cm
2.825cm
41
9m
20m
16.22m
2.833m
Average
age
surviving trees
surviving tree
Average height
of
surviving tree
4.7 Land -use agreement
All the farmers in the communities agreed that there has been a formal land-use agreement prior
to the participation of the MTS. This section looks at the type of land use agreement of the
system between the farmers and the other stakeholders as well as the parties involved. It also
looks at whether the agreements were favourable to the farmers or not. The study revealed that
the type of agreement that was reached by the farmers and the stakeholders involved in the
system were written agreements. The study further revealed that the parties involved in the
MTS were the Farmers, the Government of Ghana and Traditional Authority. All the farmers
indicated that the land use agreement was favourable to them.
39
4.8 Motivation factors for initial decision to participate
Three major factors were identified as the drivers of MTS participation by the farmers in the
selected communities. The factors identified include land, foodstuffs and income. Most of the
dwellers in the three (3) communities that were selected for the study identified land and
foodstuffs as the major motivational factors for their participation in the MTS. The results of
the survey indicate that land and foodstuffs were identified by 27 (65.8%) farmers each as their
motivational factor embarking on the MTS in their communities
Income that would be generated from the MTS followed foodstuffs and land. The results of the
field data suggests that income being a driver for participating in MTS is represented by 20
(48.7%)
28
28
30
20
25
20
15
10
5
0
Food stuffs
Figure 5:
Income
Land
Motivation factors that affected farmers initial decision to participate in the
Modified Taungya System (MTS) farming
4.9 Incentives Received
With respect to the incentives that were received by the farmers for participating in the MTS,
seven (7) factors were identified; wheel barrows rice, raincoats, uniforms (overall), cutlasses,
cooking oil and wellington boots. Results presented in Figure 6 shows that raincoats were the
most received incentives by the farmers from participating in the MTS. Raincoats were
represented by 16 (39.02%) farmers. Followed by raincoats were cutlasses which were also
represented by 14 (34.1%) farmers in the three (3) forest reserve communities. The results imply
that most of the incentive packages that were offered to the farmers were farming materials.
40
Notwithstanding, the least identified incentive packages are wheelbarrows and uniforms
(overalls) which were identified by 4 (9.7%) farmers.
WHEEL BARROW
4
RICE
8
RAINCOAT
16
UNIFORM (OVERALL)
4
CUTLASS
14
COOKING OIL
12
BOOTS
10
0
5
10
15
20
Figure 6: Incentives received by farmers under the Modified Taungya System (MTS)
4.10 Prioritised benefits from the Modified Taungya System
In order of priority, the most prioritised incentive that was received by the farmers was land
which was identified by 13 (31.7%) of the farmers. From Figure 7, inference can also be made
that cash is ranked the second incentive that were also received by the farmers. Details of the
prioritised incentives are presented in Figure 7.
41
13
11
10
FOODSTUFFS
CASH
LAND
Figure 7: Prioritised Benefits under the Modified Taungya System
4.11 System component
The system component of the MTS looks at the extent to which the farmers included food crops
together with the tree species. The data collected reveals that all the farmers planted their tree
species with vegetables and other food crops. Inference can be made from Figure 8 that
cocoyam and plantain are the major crops that were combined with the tree species which was
identified by a majority of 15 farmers. Vegetables were also identified by 15 farmers as a
combination with the tree species. The results shows that the least combined food crop were
maize and yam which were identified by 9 and 12 farmers respectively.
The farmers’ rationale for embarking on those combinations was to gain additional income.
15
15
9
cocoyam
maize
plantain
12
yam
15
vegetables
Figure 8: System Component under the Modified Taungya System
42
5. DISCUSSION
5.1 Impact of socioeconomic characteristics on MTS implementation
There were more female farmers representing 53.7% of responded in the study area. The
implication is that female/women are more engaged in the MTS. This suggest that women are
more likely to benefict from the positive impacts of MTS and are also the likely victims than
males of land use problems including soil fertility. This findings are in agreement with
numerous studies (e.g. Appiah, 2001, Appiah et al 2015) that suggest that females are mostly
involved in small-scale agricultural practices as observed in the study area
The findings of the study also show that majority (61%) of the farmers who participate in the
MTS are between the ages 46 and 60 years. This age group is commonly involved in agricultural
practices in rural Africa (e.g. Appiah, 2001, Appiah et al 2015). With respect to the age of the
farmers, the results suggest that there might be a problem recruiting young people into
practicing the MTS in these communities. It is a common practice that young people migrate
to the cities for other jobs they see as much better compared to farming.
Obviously, the results show that the practiced MTS have impacted on the income of the
participating farmers. For instance, the findings of the study shows that after the MTS was
introduced, the percentage of farmers whose income ranged between 601 – 900 increased by
about 20% for that income category. This show that the MTS has the potential to bring about
resource sustainability while providing food and cash income to farmers. This finding are in
agreement with other studies by Agyeman, (1998), Appiah, (2001), Appiah et al (2015)
5.2 The characteristic of the MTS practices and the sustainability issues
Benefit Sharing
Under the MTS benefits sharing agreements, both the Forestry Commission and the farmers
receive (40%) each, 15% goes to the traditional landowners and the remaining 5% to the forestadjacent community. The farmers are entitled to 100% of the benefits from the food
crops. The findings of the results show that the selected communities under this study comply
43
with this MTS benefit sharing framework and this has generated the kind of local support
reported in this study. With regards to the benefit sharing, the study found out that a majority
of the farmers enjoyed food stuffs from the Modified Taungya System (MTS) project.
Currently, majority of the farmers are enjoying foodstuffs as the major benefit from the MTS.
All these arrangements and benefit have contributed the level of participation and continued
interest in the managing the MTSs. It was revealed that all the farmers in the three communities
that were interviewed have participated in the MTS for over 15 years now.
Land-use Agreement
All the farmers indicated that the land use agreement was favourable to them. It was found out
that all the farmers in the communities had a formal land-use agreement prior to the
participation of the MTS. The type of agreement that was reached by the farmers and the
stakeholders were written agreements. The parties involved in the agreement were the Farmers,
the Government of Ghana and Traditional Authority. This was also a motivational factor
participating in the MTS activities
Responsibility Sharing
Findings from the study revealed three main roles that are played by the farmers in the MTS
project; taking care of the trees, weeding and planting. The major role played by the farmers in
the MTS project was found out to be planting trees which were followed by weeding.
System Component
Findings from the study reveal that cocoyam and plantain are the major crops that were
combined with the tree species which was identified by a majority of 15 farmers. Also,
Vegetables were also found to be identified by 15 farmers as a combination with the tree
species. The farmers’ rationale for embarking on those combinations was to gain additional
income.
44
Supplies to farmers as incentives
The study found seven (7) incentives that motivated farmers to participate in the MTS. The
incentives included wheel barrows rice, raincoats, uniforms (overall), cutlasses, cooking oil and
wellington boots. Findings show that raincoats are the most received incentives by the farmers
from participating in the MTS which was identified by 16 (39.02%) farmers. Followed by
raincoats were cutlasses which were also represented by 14 (34.1%) farmers in the three (3)
forest reserve communities. In order of priority, the study found out that the most prioritised
incentive that was received by the farmers was land which was identified by 13 (31.7%) of the
farmers.
5.3 Tree growth and survival rates under the MTS
All the farmers identified local species as the type of species that they planted. At the time of
the growth measurements, the trees were about 15 years old. The average height of these
surviving trees is 16.22m whiles the minimum height of the surviving trees is 9m. The
maximum height of the surviving trees is recorded to be 20m. Further the average diameter of
the surviving trees is 17.84 cm whiles the maximum diameter of the surviving trees is 23cm.
These growth records are typical of such local tree species (Appiah 2013). However in some
cases growth rates of planted local species have had similar growth capacity as exotic species
following good field cultural practices. This suggest that plantation development through the
MTS could help in the recovery of endangered or threatened local tree species (Appiah 2011).
Generally, the survival rate was good. The total number of seedlings that were planted per
participating farmers was 625 seedlings. 15 years on, the average number of seedlings that
survived and are currently standing was 441.68. This results indicates the potential of the MTS
as a tool for forest tree species recovery.
The study further revealed that the most planted tree species are Terminalia superba (Ofram)
which was followed by Terminalia ivorensis (Emire), Khaya ivorensis (mahogany). The least
planted species were Antiaris toxicaria(kyenkyen) and Afzelia africana(papao). Regarding the
dominant surviving trees, the study found out that the dominant surviving tree is Terminalia
superba (Ofram) whiles the least dominant tree is Afzelia africana (papao). With the increased
interest in the planting of local tree species, the conservation of biodiversity is an additional
ecological benefit that the MTS can bring about.
45
Findings of the study also show that all the farmers have their farm sizes to be about 1 hectare.
This result corresponds with farm size data recorded for many rural areas in Ghana (e.g.
Agyeman, 1998). Smaller farm sizes often have limitation on how many trees a farmer can plant
to avoid heavy tree canopy cover over crops.
5.4 Implications of the study results
Producing better forest management decisions will require a number of careful judgements
based on facts. There is, therefore, a need to assess and develop an understanding of
community socioeconomic settings and resource use status. From the results of the study, in
order to ensure full participation and gain the continued support of local farmers for forest
management practices including MTS, the security of tenure and access to land must be
guaranteed.
To further enhance sustainability of projects, in agreement with Appiah (2015), authority should
be given to the local people and provide them with tangible benefits that includes farming inputs
(planting materials) and tools and equpments (boots, tools etc). Granting of authority to local
people to manage their forests for their own benefits is an incentive that encourages local
support in sustainable forest management practices, and in these cases encouraged local
support for the project actions.
Finally, the capacity of the farmers should be built to improve their forest management
practices. According to Appiah (2015), local people’s participation alone is enough to bring
about the desired outcome until it is supported with capacity-building measures (e.g.,
education and skill building) for participating farmers. By these measures, the project will
boost local peoples’ self-confidence in forest resource management by increasing the feelings
of both understanding and having the capacity to manage their own land resources.
Local farmers mostly participate in Projects that generate, or have the potential to guarantee
their livelihood options (Appiah et al, 2015). Thus, local interest is expected to be low if the
systems or practices are unprofitable or insufficient to meet local needs, even if they are socially
and environmentally acceptable.
The survival and growth rates show that MTS is a sustainable approach both technically and
economically to rehabilitate degraded areas. With the current standing tree population on
46
farmers land there is the potential for the trees to provide a micro-climate that can facilitate the
regeneration of other forest species.
6 CONCLUSION
Contrary to the Old Taungya System, the Modified Taungya System has the support of local
communities due to the favourable arrangement between the farmers and the other stakeholders
about role and benefit sharing and land access procedures. The study has shown that the
implementation of the Modified Taungya System in the Dormaa district, Ghana has improved
the livelihoods of the farmers. The trees that were planted have a sound survival rate that also
guarantees significant future economic benefits to farmers.
The study concludes that the MTS has been properly supported by the communities due to the
community-based implementation approach and should serve as one of a model reforestation
and rehabilitations of degraded lands as well as for reducing poverty among local communities.
47
REFERENCES
Acheampong, E. and E. Marfo 2011. “The impact of tree tenure and access on chainsaw milling
in Ghana.” Ghana Journal of Forestry, Vol.27: 68-86.
Andersson K. 2006. Understanding Decentralized Forest Governance: An Application of The
Institutional Analysis and Development Framework. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy
2(1):25-35. Published online July 12, 2006
Appiah, M. 2013. Growth responses of Milicia excelsa (Iroko) seedlings to water deficit:
Implications for provenance selection in Ghana. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific
Research. Vol 3 (11), pp. 222-229.
Appiah, M. 2011. Changes in species composition in a deciduous agroecosystem in Ghana
following plantation establishment. Agroforestry Systems, 82:57-74, DOI: 10.1007/s10457011-9459-3.
Appiah M, D. Blay, L. Damnyag, F. Dwomoh, A. Pappinen, and O. Luukkanen, 2007.
“Involving local farmers in rehabilitation of degraded tropical forests: some lessons from
Ghana”. Environment, Development and Sustainability, pp503–518
Appiah M. 2001, Co-Partnership in Forest Management: The Gwira-Banso Joint Forest
Management Project in Ghana, Environment, Development and Sustainability pp343–360
Appiah, M, Fagg M. and Pappinen A. 2015. A Review of Reforestation Approaches in Ghana:
Sustainability and Genuine Local Participation Lessons for Implementing REDD+ Activities.
European Journal of Scientific Research Vol. 131, No 1 April, 2015, pp.70-99
Agyeman, V. K. 1998. Impact of Social Forestry in Northern Ghana. Report Submitted to
Biodiversity Support Programme (BSP), USA, 30.
Agyeman, V. K., Kasanga, K. R., Danso, E., Marfo, K. A., Whiteman, A., Asare, A. B., Yeboah,
O. M., and Agyeman, F. 2003. Equitable Forest Reserve plantation Revenue Sharing in Ghana.
Report for FAO
Atmosoedardjo, S. and Wahyudi L. 1980. Forest Management on Java in the Development era.
Nederlands Bosbouw Tijdschrift 52(6) 153-165.
48
Baber, W.F. Ecology and democratic governance: Toward a deliberative model of
environmental politics. Soc. Sci. J. 2004, 41, 331–346.
Bebbington, J.; Brown, J.; Frame, B. Accounting technologies and sustainability assessment
models. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 61, 224–236.
Bell, S.; Morse, S. Sustainability Inidcators—Measuring the Immeasurable? Earthscan:
London,UK, 2008.
Birikorang, G. 2001. Wood Industry and Log Export Ban Study. Consultancy Report for the
Ministry of Lands and Forestry, Ghana.
Blanford, H. R. 1925. Regenration with the Assistance of Taungya in Burma. Indian Forest
records xi, Part III, 41 .
Boafo, J. 2013. The impact of deforestation on forest livelihoods in Ghana. Africa portal. A
project initiative. Backgrounder No. 49.
Bond, A.; Morrison-Saunders, A.; Pope, J. Sustainability assessment: The state of the art.
Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 2012, 30, 53–62.
Boulanger, P.-M., and Bréchet, T. 2005. Models for policy-making in sustainable development:
The state of the art and perspectives for research. Ecological Economics, 55, 337–350.
Brooks, A.C. 2008, Gross National Happiness: Why Happiness Matters for America – and How
We Can Get More of It, Basic Books, New York.
Costanza, R., Wainger, L., Folke, C., and Mäler, K.-G. 1993. Modelling complex ecological
economic systems, BioScience, 43(8), 545–555.
Dahl, A.L. Achievements and gaps in indicators for sustainability. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 17, 14–
19.
Damnyag, L. 2012. Valuation of ecosystem services for assessment of cost of deforestation,
and analysis of its drivers with implications for sustainable forest management in Ghana.
Dissertationes forestales 142. University of Eastern Finland. 44p.
Domson, O. 2007. “A Strategic Overview of the Forest Sector in Ghana.” Louisiana Forest
Products Development Center Working Paper, No. 81.
49
Enabor, E. E. 1975. Socio-economic Aspects of Taungya in Relation to Traditional Cultivation
in Tropical Developing Countries. FAO Soils Bull. No. 24, Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations, Rome, 191-202.
Enabor, E. etal, 1982. Taungya System: Socio economic Prospects and Limitations. In
Macdonald, L. H. (ed) Proceedings of the Workshop on Agroforestry in the Humid Tropics.
The United Nations University, Tokyo, Japan,
59-64.
Evans, J. 1982. Plantation forestry in the tropics. Oxford University Press, New York,
Evans, J. 1992. Plantation forestry in the tropics: tree planting for industrial, social,
environmental and agroforestry purpose (2nd ed., 403). Oxfoed: Claredon Press.
Faucheux, S., Pearce, D., and Proops, J. (eds) 1996 Models of Sustainable Development,
Edward Elgar, Brookfield, Vt.
Funtowicz, S.; Martinez-Allier, J.; Munda, G.; Ravetz, J. Information Tools for Environmental
Policy under Conditions of Complexity; European Environment Agency: Copenhagen,
Denmark, 1999.
Gosmami, P. C. 1982. Agroforestry Practices and Prospects as a Combined Land-use System.
Indian For. 108: 385.
Gregersen, H. M. 1982. Environmental Constraints Versus Economic gain in Tropical forestry.
In Mergen, F. (ed) The International Symposium on Tropical Forests Utilizationamd
Conservation. Yale University, Connecticut, 108-124
Hacking, T.; Guthrie, P. A framework for clarifying the meaning of triple bottom-line,
integrated, and sustainability assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2008, 28, 73–89.
Hellström, D., Jeppsson, U., and Kärrman, E. 2000, A framework for systems analysis of
sustainable urban water management. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 20(3), 311–
321.
Kio, R. P. 1972. Shifting Cultivation and Multiple Use of Forestland in Nigeria. Com. For.
Rev. 51: 144-148.
Levings, C.D. 2004, Knowledge of fish ecology and its application to habitat management, In
Groulx, B.J., Mosher, DC., Luternauer, J.L., and Bilderback, D.E. (eds) Fraser River Delta,
50
British Columbia: Issues of an Urban Estuary, Geological Survey of Canada, Bulletin 546: 213–
236.
Litfin, K.T. 1994, Ozone Discourses: Science and Politics in Global Environmental
Cooperation, Columbia University Press, New York.
Lowe, R. G. 1987. Development of Tuangya in Nigeria. In Gholz (ed) Agroforestry: Realities,
Possibilities and Potentials. Martinua Nijhoff, Dordrecht, 137-154
Marinova, D., and McGrath, N. 2005. Transdisciplinarity in teaching and learning
sustainability, in Banse, G., Hronszky, I., and Nelson, G. (eds) Rationality in an Uncertain
World, 275–285, Edition Sigma, Berlin.
Mburu, O. M. 1981. Agroforestry in Forest Management in Kenya. In: Buck, L. (ed),
Proceedings of the Kenya National Seminar on Agroforestry, 19-22. ICRAF, Nairobi.
McNamara, R. S. 1973. One Hundred Countries, Two Billion People. Praeger, New York, USA.
Meadows, D., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., and Behrens, W. (1971), The Limits to Growth,
Universe Books, New York.
Nair, P. K. R. (1984). Soil Productivity Aspects of Agroforestry, ICRAF, Nairobi.
Nair, P. K. R. 1986. Alternative and Improved Land Use Systems to Replace ResourceDepleting Shifting Cultivation. In: Strategies, Approaches and Systems for Integrated
Watershed Management. FAO Conservation Guide 14: 61-84. FAO, Rome.
Nair, P. K. R. 1989. Agroforestry Systems in the Tropics. Kluwer, Dordrecht..The Netherlands.
Ness, B.; Urbel-Piirsalu, E.; Anderberg, S.; Olsson, L. Categorising tools for sustainability
assessment. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 60, 498–508.
Nooteboom, S. Impact assessment procedures for sustainable development: A complexity
theory perspective. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2007, 27, 645–665.
Oduol, P. 1989. The Shamba System: An Indigenous System of Food production from Forest
Sreas in Kenya. In: Nair P. K. R. (ed) Agroforestry Systems in the Tropics. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Dordrecht, 401-410.
51
Pintér, L.; Hardi, P.; Martinuzzi, A.; Hall, J. Bellagio STAMP: Principles for sustainability
assessment and measurement. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 17, 20–28.
Rocheleau, D. E., and Malaret, L. 1988. Use of Ethnoecology in Agroforestry systems research:
an example of agroforestry technology and pest management research in Kenya.In W. Miller,
ed. Proceedings of the annual farming systems research symposium. Morrillton, Arkansas,
USA:Winrock International.
Ribot, J.C. and Larson, A.M. 2005. Democratic Decentralization through a Natural Resource
Lens: An Introduction. Routledge Taylor and Francis Group. pp.1-4
Ribot, J.C and Oyono, P.R. 2006. Introduction: Decentralization and Livelihoods in Africa.
Africa Development. Vol. 31. No.2: 1
Segustrom, G. 1976 .Creating Work and caring about Workers in Tropical Countries. Unasylva
114: 2-9
Speth, J.G. 2004, Red Sky at Morning: America and the Crisis of the Global Environment, Yale
University Press, New Haven and London.
Todorov, V. 2006, System sustainability and development sustainability: Modelling problems
(Is E-conometrics of sustainable development possible?), Management and Sustainable
\Development, 18(3-4), 136–140 (in Bulgarian).
Todorov, V., and Marinova, D. 2009, Sustainometrics: Measuring sustainability, MODSIM
2009 International Congress on Modelling and Simulation, Modelling and Simulation Society
of Australia and New Zealand, in this issue.
Turco, R.P., Toon, O.B., Ackerman, T.P., Pollack, J.B., and Sagan, C. 1983, Nuclear winter:
Global consequences of multiple nuclear explosions, Science, 222(4630), 1293–1300
Wiersum, K. F. 1982. Tree Gardening and Taungya on Java: Examples of Agroforestry
Techniques in the Humid Tropics. Agroforestry Systems 1: 52-70.
Wiersum, K. F. (ed) 1981 Observations on Agroforestry on Java. Forestry Faculty Gadjah Mada
University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia & Department Forestry Management, Wageningen
Agriculture University. Wageningen, the Neitherlands, 132.
52
Yunis, E. 2004, Indicators to measure sustainability in tourism, 7th International Forum on
Tourism Statistics, Stockholm,
53
APPENDIX
QUESTIONNAIRE
A. SOCIO- ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
1. Name of Farming Community: ……………………………………………………..
2. Sex of Respondent: Male[
]
Female[
]
3. Category of Respondent: Native[ ] Non-native Permanent Settler[ ] Migrant[ ]
4. Major Occupation: Farming [ ]
Petty Trading [ ]
Salary Work [
]
Artisan [
]
others (please specify)…………………..
5. Age of Respondent: 16-30yrs[ ] 31-45yrs[ ] 46-60yrs[
] above 60yrs[
]
6. Household annual cash Income level:
Current income level (GH¢): [0-300] [301 - 600] [601 - 900] [901-1500] other[ ]
Before the project income (GH¢): [0-300] [301 - 600] [601 -900] [901-1500] other [ ]
7. Educational level: Primary [
] JHS [ ] SHS[ ] Tertiary[
Technical/Vocational/Commercial[
8. Marital Status: Married [ ]
Size of Family: 1-5[
]
] None[
Single[
6-10[
]
]
]
]
Divorced[
above 10[
]
Widowed[ ]
]
B. ADOPTION RATE/ PARTICIPATION
9. Did you participate in the Modified
Taungya System (MTS) Project? Yes [ ] No[ ]
If Yes, for how long?.....................................................................................
Are you prepared to Participate in any future MTS project?
Yes [
]
No [
]
If Yes Why? ………………………………………………………………………….
If No, Why ?...................................................................................................................
54
C. BENEFIT SHARING
10. What benefit did you get from the MTS Project?
List them ………………………………………………………………………
What current benefit (short term) are you enjoying from the project?
...............................................................................................................................
D. RESPONSIBILITY SHARING
11. What role did you play in the MTS Project?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
E. SURVIVAL RATE
12. What was the size of your farm ?
………………………………………………………………………………………
13. How many trees/Seedlings did you plant?..................................................
14. How many trees are still standing(currently)? ……………………..……
15. What type of species did you plant? Local species [
]
Exotic species[
]
16. List the specific trees species that you planted
above…………………………………………
17. Which tree species are the dominant surviving trees?........................................
………………………………………………………………………………………
F. GROWTH DATA
18. What is the age of the tree…………… …………………………..…………………
19. What is the average diameter (cm) of each of the surviving trees?..........................
20. What is the average height (m) of each of the surviving trees?................................
G. INCENTIVES
21. Did you get or will you be getting any incentive(s) from the MTS Project?
Yes [
]
No [
]
22. If Yes, what motivated you to participate or sustain the MTS Project?
55
………………………………………………………………………………………
23. What incentives did get from the MTS Project?.....................................................
24. List the benefits you got from participating in the MTS Project in order of your
priority.
……………………………………………………………………………………
H. LAND-USE AGREEMENT
25. Did you have any formal/documented land –use agreement? Yes[ ] No[ ]
26. If Yes, who were the parties involved?
............................................................................................................................
27. What kind of land –use Agreement was it?
Oral [ ]
Written[ ]
other specify…............................................…........
28. What are the terms in the agreement?..................................................................
……………………………………………………………………………………
29. Was the agreement favourable to you? Yes [ ]
No [
]
If yes Why?....................................................................
If No Why?........................................................................
I. SYSTEM COMPONENT
30. Did you plant tree species together with food crops? Yes [ ] No [ ]
31. What was the tree – crop combination?...........................................................
32. List them……………………................................……………………….......
33. Why that combination?....................................................................................