IntroductionThe International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) commissioned two studies in 2015 to understand how pro-poor oriented landscape level and sub-national initiatives aimed at reducing deforestation and forest degradation and enhancing livelihoods could catalyze community-based actions and responses. This brief distills the emerging business models for enhancing sustainable l ivel ihoods ( IUCN, 2015a); benefit shar ing arrangements (IUCN, 2015b); and livelihood enhancing natural resources management measures that were identified from the study.

Methodology A series of tools were used to identify the business and benefit sharing models highlighted in this brief. This includes a review of relevant literature including socio-economic surveys conducted for the two targeted landscapes i.e. Mole Ecological Landscape in the Northern Region of Ghana (Savannah Zone); and Wassa Amenfi Landscape in the Western Region (High Forest Zone). The emerging options and models were interrogated through Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with diverse stakeholders. Additionally, the Triple Bottom Line approach was used to test the emerging business models for their performance on environmental quality, social justice and the economic prosperity goals of people in the targeted areas.

Sustainable Livelihood Enhancing BusinessModels.For livelihood activities to address the drivers of deforestation and degradation, they need to provide economic and social incentives for local communities and entrepreneurs. These incentives need to address their livelihood needs while setting them on the path to sustainable businesses with multiple benefits. The business options need to link directly to their livelihood act ivi t ies and sustenance. The Conventional approaches to delivering alternative livelihood schemes are flawed (Pain, 2006) as they do not appreciate the complex detail of people's livelihoods and dependence on natural resources, hence a more business approach is required. This business approach needs to be driven by a financial support system, risk consciousness, and capacity to thrive.

The business options vary between landscapes and are determined by social and environmental factors. The interventions need to reflect the complexity of people's livelihoods, social and political environment, and gender dynamics. From the studies, agroforestry and the collection, processing and marketing of Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs) are common business options shared between the Mole and Wassa Amenfi Landscapes.

The schematic below summarizes identified business models of the two landscapes and the Triple Bottom Line benefits (social, environmental and economic) that could be derived from such enterprises.

Livelihood and Business Models for Incentivising Sustainable Landscape Management and Actions in GhanaREDD+

A BRIEFAUGUST 2017

Honey Production (men)(Mole) Ecotourism & Craft

Development of sites and informationMarketing and advertisement infrastructureMaintenance of facilitiesCapacity building

Collecting and trading NTFP

Manufacturing of soap

Processing of palmkernel & essential oils(Women) Tree Planting

Cocoa FarmingRearing of Poultry GrassCutter, Snail, Mushroom

Food Production

Agroforestry/ Forestation(Men)

Collecting Wild Fruits (Women)

Easily accessible loans & micro creditProvision of inputs and materials and equipment for business startupCapacity building for small business on business management and customer care etc.Support to process and improve quality of productsSustained and expanded access to markets

Wasa AmenfiLandscape

MoleLandscape

SupportNeed

Social Benefits Environmental Benefits Economic Benefits

Employment oppor tun i t ies , improved social status and standing in society, improved access to proteins and medicines (for NTFPs and food processing), improved human ski l ls and c a p a c i t y ; a n d e n h a n c e d understanding of rights to make demands on duty bearers.

Improved environmental awareness leading to reduction in bushfires; uptake of organic/ conservation agriculture; and reduction in poaching. Applying skills to maintain and improve tree and forest cover results in improved carbon sequestration, protection of habitats of fauna and flora, biodiversity conservation and improvedsocial and water retention capacity.

Improved access to markets; improved incomes; potentially better prices for deforestation-f ree p roduc ts ; i nves tmen t opportunities for investors; and reduction in poverty.

Potential Triple Bottom Line Benefits

Models and Types of Related BenefitsREDD+ A combination of Cash and Non-Cash benefit sharing approaches are explained below. These provide the needed incentives for community based actions, involve lower risk and ensure greater sustainability. It is anticipated that the financial services will act as a multiplier by using REDD+ rewards as bridge financing to support sustainable economic alternatives. These will in turn, lead to higher incomes for communities to support sustainable economic alternatives.

The revolving fund could also be cashless, such as a pool of services or machinery to provide services to ventures as and when needed, with flexible repayment terms. It can also be the distribution of animals, with beneficiaries returning some animal offspring to the pool to begin another cycle. Another option is to have a combination of services and cash. For this to work, capacity building on basic business finance and savings, good governance systems are required. This will enhance transparency and accountability in the funds operationalisation.

Five major Benefit Sharing Models have been proposed and are available to any of the landscapes to choose from. They are:

Community Revolving Fund:This involves the establishment of a fund, with or without a seed capital, with clear rules on how to access and pay back the credit. The revolving fund comes in many forms. A purely cash system which could include a village savings and loans scheme or a cooperative credit union scheme, both built on savings.

������������

Non-Cash Benefits

Cash Benefits

Regular extension services for farmers to improve yields, and uptake of new skills.Inputs (seedlings, irrigation pumps, ox ploughs) for farmers showing commitment toimprove productivity.Support and sustain timely access to markets for perishable NTFPs and sustain demand.Capacity building of CREMAs on rights, enterprise management etc. through training oftrainers, direct training, field visits, etc.Support improved processing, value addition and quality of products.

Funding for community monitoring teams and related forest protection expenses.Easily accessible loans and micro-credit to environmentally friendly enterprises andgroups.

2

Individual Reward System:This consists of direct rewards to individuals or groups for their specific actions that contribute to reduction in deforestation and degradation. It could be payment for community patrol teams, or rewards to an enterprise for taking initiative.

Hybrid Reward System:This model is a mix of individual rewards and community revolving fund. The financial benefits of avoided deforestation are directed proportionally at individuals or ventures and the community at large. Community benefits are best presented as social amenities that can be enjoyed by the majority, to sustain the environment that supports positive community will.

Timber Benefit Sharing Model:The timber sharing model, unlike the previous three models, is less preferred due to its inherent lack of benefits to the individual community members, especially in the case of naturally occurring trees.

With regard to Naturally Occurring Trees, 50% of the benefits goes to the Forestry Commission (FC), while the other 50% is distributed according to the Ghana Consti tut ion as fol lows: after the Office of Administrator of Stool Lands has taken 10% as administration fees, the remaining 90% is considered as 100% and distributed among the Stool Land Owner (25%), the Traditional Authority (20%) and the District Assemblies (55%).

For Plantations however, benefit sharing models like Modified Taungya System (MTS) exists where 40% goes to the FC, 40% to the farmers, 15% to the land owner and 5% to the community. In the case of Private Plantations, 90% goes to the developer, and 2% to the FC, 6% to the land owner and 2% to the community, whiles in Public Private Plantations, 80% goes to the developer, 12% to the FC, 6% to the land owner and 2% to the community.

Sharecropping Model:This model is most preferred in the Wassa Amenfi landscape, where land owners and land users agree on two-way (Abunu) or three-way split (Abusa) of the farm produce. Sometimes, sharecropping is mistaken for land sharing, with tenant farmers making claims to land, which leads to conflict. Good documentation of the share-cropping arrangements minimize conflicts over land ownership and benefit sharing.

Governance of the BenefitsIn the governance of the distribution of benefits, there is a strong preference for use of existing local multi-stakeholder platforms such as Protected Areas Management Advisory Units (PAMAUs) or Community Resource Management Areas (CREMAs); and other self-organized community groups that can meet regularly, and are open and accountable to members. Furthermore, there is preference for the collective

development of indicators for reduced deforestation and degradation, as well as the use of community-based systems to monitor and evaluate these indicators. Conflicts at the community and district levels can best be addressed through existing traditional systems, the constitutions for the community level schemes and the regular/emergency meetings of stakeholders.

Risks Associated with the Business and

Benefit Sharing Models / ApproachesInsecure land and tree tenure, poor and inadequate stakeholder consultation present major risks if not addressed at inception stages of the development the business and benefit sharing models. Ineffective systems for accessing and maintaining markets and ambiguous rules on rewards and repayments, are other major risks that need to be mitigated. Hence, creative marketing strategies to secure and maintain access to markets; continuous refinement in capacity; and effective evaluation and monitoring systems would need to be adopted and deployed at different stages of the enterprises, to minimize these risks.

Financial SustainabilityThe choice of financial services often has greater impact and spillover effects than direct payments. REDD+ rewards can be used as bridge finance to bring in more income to communities. Community revolving funds particularly use the market to recapitalize funds and to further expand reach. Also, as opposed to direct payments, financial services strengthen the continuity of the reward mechanism. Existing effective local rewards for avoided deforestation through CREMA governance systems are useful.

NTFPs in REDD+Harvesting, processing and marketing of NTFPs is an essential part of any community based business enterprise model for REDD+ efforts. The bushmeat trade contributes significantly to the national economy through income generation and protein production. According to the Wildlife Division (1998), about 384,991.8 tons of bushmeat, worth US$ 350million is harvested annually in Ghana. Out of this, about 91.731 tons valued at US$ 83,391 million is traded annually on the Ghanaian market.

NTFPs in general, can provide high profit margins. They provide additional incomes; bridge the financial gap between harvesting seasons; and provide livelihood options for local people.

A major setback is that, forest legislation, including that for NTFPs is scattered and problematic, making regulation challenging (ClientEarth and LADA, 2013). Besides the Forest Ordinance 1927, there is no legal instrument for NTFPs, leaving a lot of discretion to forest managers. There is also a lack of clarity on how grievances related to NTFP access and trade should be addressed. There is therefore the need for legal reform for the forest resources to clarify the rules of access, use and withdrawal, allocation and sharing of benefits from the various forest resources including NTFPs.

3

Prepared by: Kwame Mensah and Samuel Mensah Mawutor

This Policy Brief is mainly a synthesis of key messages from reports produced under IUCN's 'Promotingrights-based approaches to strengthen the conservation, governance and sustainable management of landscapes Phase II Project' (2014-2017) and the 'REDD+ Benefits: Facilitating countries and communities in the design of pro-poor REDD-Plus benefit sharing schemes Project' (2013-2015). Namely: Viable Nature-Based Economic and Business Opportunities/Options For Ghana and Benefit Sharing Arrangements; A Case Study of Mole Ecological Landscape & Wassa Amenfi (2015) by the Environmental Conservation Trust of Uganda (Ecotrust). It also makes use of literature from other sources, which have been duly referenced.

The 2012 Forest and Wildlife Policy (FWP) provides policy entry points for addressing this challenge. Guiding principle 3.2 (1.1.8) and strategic objectives 1 and 3 seek to develop a framework for decentralised forest and wildlife-based industries and livelihoods (MLNR, 2012). This opportunity is worth exploring, along side other potential entry points.

A comprehensive national inventory of NTFPs is critical to first, determine the stock levels, in order to guide the estimation of sustainable harvesting or collection yields for the NTFPs. A legal framework for NTFPs would need to classify NTFP permits as either commercial or non-commercial, with safeguards measures put in place to regulate both commercial and subsistence demands. The law would need to define open and close seasons and maximum timelines for processing NTFP permit applications.

Furthermore, mechanisms for addressing grievances should be well laid out for both local community people

and commercial exploiters. The Feedback and Grievance Redress Mechanism (FGRM) structures being developed for the Ghana REDD+ process could be a useful platform to hinge on. The law should also make it obligatory for the District Forest Officers to be appropriately resourced to deliver their regulatory functions.

Also, there should be clear provisions for offences, with stiff penalties to make illegal acts dissuasive and prohibitive. The law should also have clear provisions for transparency, in which both the regulators and collectors declare the volume and value of NTFPs collected periodically.

The process for developing such a legal framework, (either a separate Legislative Instrument on NTFPs or a future Consolidated Forest and Wildlife Act) would need to be very transparent; with clear timelines; and involve the various stakeholders including local communities, district assemblies, land owners, civil society, regulators and NTFP industries at different levels.

INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE (IUCN)GHANA PROJECT OFFICE

P. O. BOX GP 527 ACCRA. GHANATel: +233 54 156 6408; +233 55 663 8763

www.iucn.org

ClientEarth & LADA (2013) An overview of the legal framework of the Forest and Wildlife Sector. ClientEarth, LondonIUCN (2015a) Viable Nature-based Economic and Business Opportunities/Options for Ghana A Case Study of MoleEcological Landscape and Wassa Amenfi.IUCN (2015b) Viable Nature-base Economic and Business Opportunities/Options for Ghana: Benefit Sharing Report. Acase study of Mole Ecological Landscape & Wassa Amenfi.Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources - MLNR (2012) Forest and Wildlife Policy, Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources. Accra-Ghana.Pain M. (2006) Alternative livelihoods: substance or slogan? Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit (AREA) Briefing Paper, 2006. Kabul, AfghanistanWildlife Division (1998) Wildlife Development Plans 1998-2003, Vol 6 Sustainable Use of Bushmeat.

4