REDD OPPORTUNITIES SCOPING EXERCISE FOR GHANA: DRAFTINTERIM REPORT

Katoomba Group and Nature Conservation Research Centre[1]

Introduction

As in other countries, there is strong interest in Ghana from the Government, NGOs and other stakeholders in developingReduced Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) projects or demonstration activities. In developing a portfolio of REDD demonstration activities it is desirable that project selection be undertaken in a systematic as opposed to ad hoc way, resulting in a representative and balanced portfolio that is coherent with strategic and sectoral priorities. It is also essential to develop a good understanding of the legal, institutional and policy framework for REDD, in order to assess what complementary progress is needed at the ‘macro’ level.

A scoping study of REDD opportunities and constraints is also an important first step for strategically orientating the ‘Katoomba Ecosystem Services Incubator’ (or ‘Incubator’) – see Box 1. The ‘REDD Opportunities Scoping Exercise’ (ROSE) involved a two day meeting of key informants in Accra over 2-3 July 2009.

Box 1. The Katoomba Group and Incubator

The Katoomba Group, a member of the Forest Trends family of initiatives, is a global network of practitioners working to promote the use of and improve capacity for developing ecosystem services payments. It seeks to achieve this goal through strategic partnerships for analysis, information‐sharing, investment, market services, and policy advocacy. The Katoomba Group includes over 180 experts and practitioners from around the world, representing a unique range of experience in business finance, policy, research, and advocacy.

In late 2007, the Katoomba Group launched the Katoomba Ecosystem Services Incubator, mobilizing comprehensive support to bring promising ecosystem services projects to market, inform policy and build capacity. The Incubator focuses primarily on communities and small to medium landowners, a sector that plays a critical role in providing ecosystem services, but which faces key barriers and challenges to finance.

The Incubator draws on its staff and a roster of partners to link global expertise and local capacity in support of partners in Latin America and Africa. By investing in capacity building, project design and technical assessment, the Incubator creates the enabling conditions and platform to leverage other finance, and positions local stakeholders for equitable participation in benefits. In 2009, the Incubator launched the West Africa Incubator, in partnership with the Nature Conservation Research Centre.

A tool to classify and prioritise potential REDD (and other forest carbon) projects, and to assess the legal and institutional framework for REDD, has been developed as an integral part of the scoping study. This tool, developed and tested in Tanzania and Uganda, is applied before embarking on the costly process of pre-feasibility and feasibility analysis and to provide input into government REDD “Readiness” and priority-setting processes. It includes a ‘project type analysis’ that considers the market and programmatic potential of different generic REDD project types, as well as providing inputs at the REDD policy or strategy level – Box 2 discusses the likely role of projects and policies in Ghana’s future REDD architecture.

Box 2. Projects and Policies in Ghana’s REDD Architecture
It is as yet unclear how a global, post-2012 REDD regime will function, but we believe that reducing deforestation and degradation will require a mix of policy and project approaches. This ROSE assessment uses a structured analytical framework to provide inputs into REDD strategies at both the policy and project levels. Policy approaches are essential for addressing many of the underlying drivers of deforestation, including issues of land tenure, forest governance, land-use planning and subsidies, though costs and emission reductions benefits may be difficult to quantify and attribute with precision.
Project-level approaches will establish specific site-specific measures and provide direct incentives to key stakeholders. Project-level activities:
  • allow for near-term abatement potential to be realized, while enabling conditions are created to deliver results through national level approaches;
  • are an attractive target for private capital, which will also need to be mobilized to achieve emissions reductions, and which will not be exclusively attracted to government investment opportunities;
  • allow for innovation and controlled learning before embarking on national level experiments;
  • can create well-structured platforms for developing contracts, establishing the appropriate level and mix of incentives, and for developing equitable and transparent benefit sharing mechanisms, whether in association with fund-based state managed or more market-based mechanisms.
  • are likely to also be politically important in demonstrating in practice how REDD incentive mechanisms can deliver positive benefits, and for building credibility and momentum behind national-level frameworks
  • have proved to be very effective mechanisms for building technical capacity.

Objectives

The main aims of the ROSE meeting were to explore and prioritise REDD project opportunities, and identify key constraints to cost-effective project development. This involved a systematic ‘REDD project type’ analysis with the aim of identifying a balanced and strategic portfolio of project types in which the likelihood of project success is maximised from an early stage, and a brainstorm type exercise aroundkey legal, policy and institutional constraints to effective and equitable REDD projects. Another aim was to promote national capacity in assessing the potential for REDD.

Approach and methods

The ROSE meeting drew onan experienced and cross-sectoral ‘expert group’ which collectively combines a strong knowledge of Ghana’s forests, deforestation and degradation (DD) drivers, legal, institutional and social issues, and the carbon market (see Annex 1 for list ofparticipants). While the ROSE meeting was not a representative multiple stakeholder meeting, the following organisations or institutions participated: Forestry Commission (including Wildlife Division), Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD); Ministry of Food and Agriculture, University of Ghana (Land Resources Centre),Tropenbos, the Sustainable Tree Crops Programme (STCP) of the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Civic Response, NCRC and CARE, as well as various consultants.Two of the participants were on the National REDD Steering Committee. The main stages undertaken by the ‘expert team’ were to:

  • Classify a set of potential REDD project types based on the forest ecosystem type, deforestation/degradation (DD) drivers and the tenure basis;
  • Agree on a set of criteria for ‘successful’ REDD projects, focusing on economic and technical viability, as well as allowing for co-benefits and policy priorities;
  • Score the project types against the selected criteria;
  • Select high potential project types based both on the scores and a more qualitative analysis of key constraints;
  • Identify the main components, both in terms of projects and policies, of REDD responses to the DD process;
  • Undertake a brainstorm analysis of the legal and institutionalgaps or issues which need to be tackled for REDD to move ahead for these project types, including an initial list of questions for clarification further research.

Following the ROSE meeting, a small in-country team will build on the initial legal and institutionalbrainstormin order todeepen Katoomba’s understanding of the constraints and opportunities and clarify questions which came out of the meeting.

Classification and initial listing of ‘project types’

For the purposes of the ROSE analysis, REDD abatement opportunities were classified by ‘project type’. This is defined as a combination of ecosystem, land tenure type and principal deforestation drivers (e.g. wet evergreen high forest in protectionForest Reserves under threat from tree/food crops).The group classifiedGhana’s ecosystems initially into six types (see the‘Initial list’ worksheet of the attached Excel spreadsheet ‘Ghana ROSE analysis 2-3July09.xls’):

  • wet evergreen high forest (found particularly in the Western Region);
  • moist semi-deciduous high forest;
  • upland high forest (also moist semi-deciduous);
  • transition zone (mainly in Abrong-Ahafo Region);
  • Guineasavanna and woodlands of northern Ghana; and,
  • coastal savanna on Ghana’s southern coastal belt.

These were then broken down by tenure type: production forest reserves; protected forest reserves; off-reserve areas (mainly trees on farms); and community forests or Community Resource Management Areas (CREMAs) in off-reserve areas. The main DD drivers for each combination were then listed, resulting in 84 possible‘project types’.

During the second stage (see ‘Scoring’worksheet), these were reduced to 21 project types, partly by eliminating areas with few trees (such as the coastal savanna zone, where most mangroves have already gone), focusing on the main 2-3 DD drivers and/or combining the drivers where they tend to act together or sequentially. The small upland high forest areas were later combined with moist semi-deciduous high forest, andit was decided to differentiate northernGuinea savanna woodland areas between riverine and otherwoodlands.

Selection of criteria

After discussing the criteria used in previous ROSE analyses inTanzania and Uganda, the group selected 15 criteria for scoring the project types (italicised criteria were new ones decided by the group):

  • Biomass or carbon levels of the ecosystem
  • Size of forest blocks and/or aggregation potential
  • Deforestation/degradation threat level or additionality
  • Opportunity cost associated with alternative (to REDD) land use
  • Clarity of land tenure
  • Clarity of tree tenure / carbon property rights
  • Probable leakage risk from a REDD project
  • Likely permanence level
  • Replicability (i.e., potential for scaling up to other similar areas)
  • Adaptability, especially to be able to respond to the potential of emerging markets, e.g., for‘organic’ and/or ‘fair trade cocoa’
  • Likely level of government interest
  • Level of community or poverty reductionco-benefits
  • Compatibility with other livelihood activities
  • Level of biodiversity co-benefits
  • Potential for bundling (combining carbon payments with other PES)

Selection of higher potential project types

Each criterion was scored 1-3 with a higher score indicating a more viable or attractive project.

Selection of higher potential project types was based mainly on the scores but also onfurther discussion of critical criteria, such as carbon or biomass levels[2], additionality, size/aggregation potential, tenure clarity and replicability, as well as strategic or policy importance. The possibility of a higher weighting forsuch criteria was discussed, but in the end it was decided to stick to an equal weighting.

Table 1 presents eight selected ‘project types’ (see also Table 2, which includes scores of key criteria, and the ‘Scoring’ Excel worksheet detailing the scores for 21 project types). The eight project types could be reduced to six if similar ones are combined – the two high forest off-reserve situations are very similar, as are the two Guinea savanna off-reserve ones. The selection also reveals some important patterns:

  • two project types were selected for each of the four main forest ecosystems, implying a balanced focus going beyond the more carbon rich high forest areas, and reflecting the major threats in the drier transition and savanna zones;
  • the main DD drivers in the high forest areas are tree crops (especially cocoa in Western Region), food crops (including in the establishment stage of cocoa) and logging, with wildfire becoming important in the drier semi-deciduous areas;
  • the main DD drivers are wildfire in the transition zone and farming in the savanna woodlands, with charcoal/fuelwood as the second driver in off-reserve areas.

Table 1. The Selected Higher Potential REDD Project Types

Ecosystem type / Tenure / Main DD driver(s) / Score
Wet evergreen HF / Protection FR / Tree/food crops + logging / 38
Wet evergreen HF / Off-Reserve (CREMA/CF)[3] / Tree/food crops + logging / 41
Moist semi-decid. HF / Production/Protection FR / Logging + wildfire / 39
Moist semi-decid. HF / Off-Reserve (CREMA/CF)1 / Tree/food crops + logging / 40
Transition zone / Production/Protection FR / Wildfire / 37
Transition zone / Off-Reserve / Wildfire + charcoal/fuelwood / 39
Guinea savanna riverine woodlands / Off-Reserve / Farming + charcoal + wildfire + grazing + sawmilling / 39.5
Guinea savanna other woodlands / Off-Reserve / Farming + charcoal/fuelwood / 36.5

Abbreviations: HF = high forest; FR = forest reserve; CF = community forests; CREMA = Community Resource Management Area

It should be noted that, although these project types were scored highest, they face some significant challenges, for example, high opportunity costs in high forest areas associated with cocoa, oil palm and current logging practices;and tree tenure was considered highly problematic in off-reserve areas unless CREMAs or community forests are introduced – off-reserve areas without CREMAs or community forests received the (joint) lowest scores of all project types due partly to the tenure problems.

Perhaps surprisingly land tenure issues[4] were only considered problematic or unclear in the production forest reserves of wet evergreen high forests in view of the establishment of cocoa farms in state managed forests. Participants felt that in other situations it should be possible to resolve land tenure conflicts, e.g., between indigene landowners and migrant tenant cocoa farmers.

Identification of REDD policy and project responses

The expert group then identified likely REDD policy and project responses for each ‘project type’ situation.(see Table 3). Key policy measures identified were:

  • introduction of CREMAs[5] and/or community forests in off-reserve areas, since these represent a shift to increased local control and participation in natural resource management, increase the scope for farmer rights over trees, and provide a facilitating framework or platform to sort out land tenure issues;
  • raising productivity and incomes on existing cocoa farms, including in the more degraded forest reserves, as well as raising farm income and livelihood alternatives in migrant source areas,while realizing that on their own these initiatives may not be sufficient to achieve REDD gains (e.g., the risk of increased in-migration);
  • improved inter-institutional coordination, particularly in respect to cocoa farming in (production) forest reserves, and involvement of traditional authorities (TAs);
  • better law enforcement, particularly as regards logging in forest reserves;
  • increased resourcing of wildfire prevention programmes;
  • empowerment and support of District Assemblies and TAs (chieftancies) in the control of illegal or unsustainable resource management practices and via strengthening traditional or customary institutions and controls, including via local by-laws (e.g., as introduced in parts of Wenchi District and elsewhere);
  • creation of grazing or livestock corridors for ‘transhumant’ pastoralists who currently burn for grass regeneration, including the introduction of water holes and farming restrictions in these areas, possibly in return for a modest payment by pastoralists;
  • possibility of subsidies for herbicide use in high fire risk areas;
  • a change in energy pricing policyto encourage use of LPG (but the opportunity cost could be rather high since LPG is an important export);
  • land use zoning especially by District Assemblies.

Allowing for some overlap between policies and projects, project suggestions included:

  • projects to raise cocoa/farm income and other ‘sustainable livelihood’ options as identified above, e.g., bee keeping;
  • onceestablished, linking CREMAs or community forests tosocial service providers;
  • rehabilitation or enrichment of forest reserves in a number of situations;
  • implementing wildfire prevention programmes, including community environmental education and improved incentives for fire volunteers;
  • establishing grazing corridors in transition and savanna areas;
  • working with TAs and District Authorities to promote sustainable charcoal systems in situations where current charcoal production is unsustainable[6];
  • improve farming productivity/income and promote alternative livelihoods.

REDD Opportunities Scoping Exercise for Ghana: Draft Interim Report. Katoomba Group 1

Table 2. Scoring of Potential REDD ‘Project Types’ including Scores of Some Key Criteria (bolded project types selected)

Forest type / Tenure / DD drivers / Total score / Carbon content / Size / Aggregation / Threat / Addit'y / Opport. Cost / Land Tenure / Tree tenure / Replic- ability
High forest - wet evergreen / Production FR / Unsustainable/illegal logging / 32 / 3 / 3 / 2 / 1 / 3 / 3 / 2
Production FR / Tree/food crops / 38 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 1 / 1 / 3 / 3
Off-Reserve / Tree/food crops / 32 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 1 / 3 / 1 / 3
Off-Reserve / Logging / 33 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 2 / 3 / 1 / 3
Off-Reserve (CREMAs/CFs) / Tree/food crops & logging / 41 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 1 / 3 / 3 / 3
High forest - moist semi-deciduous / Production/
Protected FR / Unsustainable/ illegal logging / 32 / 3 / 3 / 2 / 1 / 3 / 3 / 2
Production/ Protected FR * / Wildfire / logging / 39 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3
Off-reserve / Tree/food crops / 32 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 1 / 3 / 1 / 3
Off-Reserve / Logging / 33 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 2 / 3 / 1 / 3
Off-Reserve (CREMAs/CFs) / Tree/food crops & logging / 40 / 3 / 1 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 2
Transition zone / Production/ Protected FR / Wildfire / 37 / 2 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3
Production FR / Logging / 32 / 2 / 3 / 2 / 2 / 3 / 3 / 3
Protected FR / Illegal logging / 32 / 2 / 3 / 2 / 2 / 3 / 3 / 3
Off-reserve / Wildfire & charcoal/fuelwood / 39 / 2 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3
Guinea savanna - riverine woodlands / Off-Reserve / Farming/charcoal + wildfire & grazing + chainsawing / 39.5 / 2.5 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3
Guinea savanna - other woodlands / Off-Reserve / Farming/charcoal/ firewood / 36.5 / 1.5 / 3 / 3 / 2 / 3 / 3 / 3

Table 3. Potential REDD Policy Measures and Project Responses (as identified by ROSE expert group)

Forest type / Tenure / DD drivers / Policy Measures / Projects
High forest - wet evergreen / Production FR / Tree/food crops / Support to established cocoa farms in some production FRs; law enforcement; inter-institutional coordination (including with traditional authorities (TAs) and farmers) / Raise productivity/income on existing cocoa farms via agroforestry, new crops, timber trees, etc. (but concern that this would attract migrants and increase on reserves)
Off-Reseve (CREMAs/CFs) / Tree/food crops & logging / Introduce CREMAs/CFs; revise laws re rights to trees; develop agreements between landowners & tenant farmers / Raise productivity and income in CREMA areas; work with TAs to improve customary control/institutions; link CREMAs/CFs to social service providers
High forest – moist semi-deciduous / Production/ Protection FR inc. Uplands / Wildfire / logging / Law enforcement - illegal logging / Implement wildfire protection programs (inc. education); rehabilitation of degraded areas (inc. enrichment); alternative livelihoods in Production Forest Reserves
Off-Reserve (CREMAs/CFs) / Tree/food crops & logging / Same as wet evergreen off-reserve areas / Same as wet evergreen off-reserve areas
Transition zone / Production/ Protected FR / Wildfire / Empower DAs and TAs to pass and enforce by-laws; create grazing corridors for pastoralists; subsidise herbicides (?) / Wildfire prevention programs; incentives for fire volunteers; community environmental education (e.g. to counter 'security' problems of ‘high grass’ as a cause of burning)
Off-reserve / Wildfire & charcoal / fuelwood / Ministry of Energy policies on energy pricing - subsidise LPG (currently 4 x cost of charcoal); use LPG in schools; recognize professional charcoal makers / Work with DAs & TA to encourage sustainable charcoal (woodlots; rotation/concession basis); improved kiln technologies; research to improve stove technologies
Guinea savanna - riverine woodlands / Off-Reserve / Farming + charcoal + wildfire, etc / Land-use planning: demarcate into zones and introduce CREMAs (shift to local control); improved law enforcement / Fire control measures; grazing corridors; improved farming productivity/income; alternative livelihoods, etc.
Guinea savanna - other woods / Off-Reserve / Farming + charcoal/ fuelwood / Same as Guinea savanna riverine woodlands / Same as Guinea savanna riverine woodlands

Table 4. Legal and Institutional Gaps Analysis (discussions of ROSE expert group)