Challenges to the efficacy of forestry and wildlife policies in Ghana for environmental protection : A review

Despite the promulgation of various forest and wildlife policies aimed at ensuring the sustainability and conservation of the environment since 1874, Ghana continues to trail in issues regarding environmental control, especially in mitigating the upfront menace of deforestation and pollution of the environment. The desk review study, driven by qualitative research approach with document analysis, was undertaken to unearth the recurring challenges that have been the obstacles to achieving sustainability and conservation of the Ghanaian environment and resources. The study revealed that the main recurring challenges to the sustainability of Ghana’s forest and wildlife policies are lack of stakeholder participation of local people, factorization of cultural practices, strong implementation strategies, proper documentation for equitable distribution of resources to the local people, and provision of sustainable alternative sources of livelihood for local residents. The study suggested pragmatic ways through which conservation planners could ensure the sustainability of Ghana’s forest and wildlife policies for optimum environmental protection.


INTRODUCTION
The forestry and wildlife resources in the environment offer immeasurable support to mankind (Ankomah, 2012).They provide humans with food, clothing, shelter and medicine while providing a protective shield for man against natural disasters such as flooding, hurricane and so forth (Adom et al., 2016a).The flora and fauna species in the environment take in the carbon dioxide that would have culminated in the formation of greenhouse gases, causing climate change (CBD, 2009).
Economically, the forestry resources contribute largely to the economy of nations.For instance, Ghana generated 240.9 US dollars, which is 7.6% of the total export value and 3% GDP in 2009 (MLNR, 2011).However, due to strong abuse and unsustainable ways on the part of some people and agencies toward the forest and wildlife resources, there has been the promulgation of formulated forestry and wildlife policies and strategies.Ankomah (2012) contend that these policies define the specific rules to mitigate negative impacts on the ecosystem such as deforestation while increasing the benefits derived from them.Various governmental agencies responsible for the conservation of biodiversity, such as the Ministry of Environment and other Non-Governmental Organizations have spearheaded the formulation of policies and strategies for the management and the sustainable use of the forest and wildlife resources in Ghana (Adom, 2016b).
Historically, Ghana's formal attempt for the development of a formal forestry policy was in 1906, when legislation was enacted to regulate the felling of commercial tropical tree species (Attuquayefio and Fobil, 2005).In 1927, eighteen years after the establishment of the Forestry Department in 1909, the Forest Ordinance was passed and it authorized the colonial government at that time to establish forest reserves to aid in conserving the fast depleting forest resources in Ghana (Teye, 2008).After two decades the Forest Ordinance was operational, there was still the recurring canker of deforestation of the flora species.As a result, the 1948 Forest policy came into force to monitor and regulate the seemingly lawless forestry activities in Ghana.Unfortunately, as Gyampoh (2011) noted, the policy turned out to accelerate the abuse of the forestry resources, though, it was meant to conserve it, with many scholars branding it with the accolade 'timberization'.The policy somehow endorsed the illegal logging and exploitation of the timber resources, leading to a massive decline in the forest resources.GFW (2006) revealed a rocketed increase in the volume of industrial logs from 0.56 to 1.4 million cubic meters in 1955.The forty year implementation period was marred as a great failure in the forestry sector in the country.To provide a lasting cure to arrest the high decline in the forestry and wildlife resources, the Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology (EPA Act 490) was set up in 1994 together with the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency.The new agency then developed the 1994 policy that doubled as a policy for both the forest and wildlife resources management in Ghana (Ntiamoa-Badu et al., 2001).It achieved some successes, but failed to annihilate the menace of exploitation of both the flora and fauna species in Ghana.Its diverse ills called for its numerous remedial actions in the form of introduction of some Acts and their associated amendments.Attuquayefio and Fobil (2005) mentioned of the 1997 Timber Resource Management Act (Act 547) and the 1998 Timber Resource Management Regulations which were all aimed at bringing sanity into the granting of timber rights with the sustainable management and utilization of forestry resources in view.The next year, the Forestry Commission Act (Act 571) was passed and as grounds for the establishment of the Forestry Commission in the same year, thus, 1999.They were charged with the Herculean task of saving the worsening condition in the management of the forestry and wildlife Adom 2859 resources in Ghana.Seventeen (17) years after the passing of the 1994 Forest and Wildlife Policy, the Ghana News Agency (2012) said of the policy that it failed to bring a standstill to the massive degradation of the forest and wildlife resource base.Recently, the 2012 Forest and Wildlife Policy were passed.It promises to be an improvement on the long serving 1994 Forest and Wildlife Policy.The Chief Executive Officer of the Forestry Commission, Mr. Afari Dartey, was sanguine that the policy would arrest all the lapses in the 1994 Forest and Wildlife Policy.However, a few months into full force, the new 2012 Forest and Wildlife Policy is still in anticipation of the same old poor performance as the prior forest and wildlife policies.Thus, there is the need to investigate into the past and current forest and wildlife policies to ascertain the standing blocks that have been the underlying challenges to its efficacy.Three regulatory documents have been investigated thoroughly in this paper (Table 5).It is interesting to know that the underlying causes of the failure of the forest and wildlife policies and strategies in Ghana seem to be similar, if not the same.They keep on resurfacing and hunting the agencies responsible for the conservation of the forest and wildlife resources in Ghana.The purpose of the study was to thoroughly analyse some of these past and current forest and wildlife policies, especially those that defined the formulation of policies in the forestry and wildlife sector in Ghana.The thrust of the study was guided by three research questions: 1. What are some of the forest and wildlife policies in Ghana? 2. What are the recurring challenges associated with the forest and wildlife policies in Ghana 3. How can the identified recurring challenges of the forest and wildlife policies in Ghana be remedied effectively?
This understanding is crucial because developed policies and strategies have to be constantly analysed to ascertain their strengths and weaknesses with the aim of suggesting pragmatic solutions to curb the identified challenges (Nutley et al., 2007;Morestin, 2012).This would ensure that proactive strategies are implemented by the ministries and agencies responsible for environmental and biodiversity conservation to optimize the conservation and sustainability of the biodiversity resources in Ghana.

Overview of the forest and wildlife resources in Ghana
Ghana has two predominant ecological zones: the high forest zone mainly in the South-Western part (34% of the country's total land area) and the Savannah zone occupying the remaining 66% of the total land area of Ghana (Marfo, 2010).Seventy (70%) of Ghana's population resides in the rural regions and their livelihoods are largely depended on the natural resources in their jurisdiction (Teye, 2008).Ghana implements both in-situ and ex-situ conservation practices.Currently, there are 280 forest reserves in Ghana under the management of the Forest Service Division (Forestry Commission) covering a total area of about 23, 729 km 2 or 11% of the total land area of Ghana.Out of these reserves, 75% are production reserves while 25% are protection reserves (NBS, 2016).In the field of wildlife conservation, there are 21 legally constituted wildlife conservation areas comprising of six (6) Natural Parks, Six (6) Resource Reserves, Three (3) Wildlife Sanctuaries, One (1) Strict Nature Reserve and Six (6) Ramsar Sites (GFDMP, 2016).
The current forest assessment of the high forest zone of Ghana in 2015 totals the forest area at an estimated 9.337 million hectare consisting of 1.556 million hectare as closed forest and 7.781 million hectare as open forest (GFDMP, 2016).The sizes of the closed forests keep on reducing at an alarming rate while the open forests keeps increasing due to the forest plantation introduced in the year 2000 (Table 1).
Forest estimates today continue to reduce at an astronomical annual deforestation rate of 2% (65,000 ha) valued at an annual deforestation cost of 10% of Gross Domestic Products (MLNR, 2011).Since 1990, the forest degradation rate per annum in Ghana is estimated at 45,931.03 ha (FPP, 2013).This is a worrying situation because Eighty (80) years ago, 63% of the country's forests were in pristine or near pristine condition in the forest zone (Hackman, 2014).The responsibility of ensuring the management of forest resources in Ghana is centralized and vested in the authorities of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA), Ministry of Energy (ME), Ministry of Environment, Science, Technology and Innovation (MESTI) and the Ministry of Lands, Forest and Mines (MLF) with its agencies, the Land's Commission, Forestry Commission and the Wildlife Division.The estimates show that these ministries and agencies must work extra hard at reversing the alarming degradation of the country's natural resources.This is essential because a greater part of the country's economy relies on the proceeds from the natural resources, especially the forest sector (Table 2).
In addition, Small and Medium Forest Enterprises (SMFEs) comprising of activities in wood products, nonwood products, and forest services contributed an income of three (3) million Ghana Cedis (MLNR, 2015).The total export of Ghana's wood products in 2015 was 267, 379.45 m 3 in volume contributed €135, 024, 200.64 to the economy of Ghana (GFDMP, 2016).Ecotourism services offer the country an annual revenue generation of 1.6 billion USD (Ghana Tourist Board, 2012).
There has also been various laws and regulations passed and amended as and when the need arises, to manage the forest and wildlife resources in the country (Table 3).
In terms of the level of afforestation in Ghana, there have been commendable increases since the year 2000 when the forest plantation development was introduced with an annual planting target of 20,000 ha (GFDMP, 2016).This was primarily aimed at restoring all the degraded forest lands in the country.This also opened up employment avenues for the rural poor living in the forest fringe communities in Ghana.It is estimated that the total planted forest in Ghana is 325,000 ha (Table 4).

Research design
The qualitative research approach was utilized for the study.This was due to the fact that the researcher collected and examined numerous secondary data such as previously published articles, public reports (Creswell, 2009;Narayanan, 2015) related to the forest and wildlife policies in Ghana.Multiple views from different scholarly materials to highlight the challenges and proposed suggestions were highlighted by the researcher, hence the adoption of the qualitative research approach for this research.Also, the visual texts (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994) related to the forestry and wildlife policies were analyzed to comprehend the challenges associated with their formulation and implementation.
The research was largely driven desk research and interpretative document analysis were the main research methods that guided the finding, selecting, and rigorous examination of the forest and wildlife policies in Ghana.Travis (2016) opines that desk research seeks to thoroughly analyze secondary data on forestry and wildlife policy reviews from the internet, online databases, published reports, information from government agencies and magazines.This is exactly what the researcher did to aid him in gaining a broader and deeper interpretation of the phenomena under study.The interpretative document analysis process (Hefferman, 2013) that is guided by the essential factors, namely, authenticity, credibility, and representativeness before the final stage of deducing the meanings illustrated in the examined documents.
The secondary data was analyzed quantitatively.The researcher commenced the analytical process by perusing the documents severally to gain the overall picture of their contents (Creswell, 1998).Summarization of the main ideas with the research questions of the study in focus was carried out by the researcher  1948-19941994 Forest and Forest and Wildlife Policy Conservation and sustainable development of the nation's forest and wildlife resources for the maintenance of environmental quality and perpetual flow of the optimum benefits to all segments of the society 1. Management and improvement of Ghana's permanent forest estate for preservation of soil and water, conservation of biological diversity, environmental stability and sustainable production of domestic and commercial products.2. Promotion of efficient forest-based industries, in secondary and tertiary processing, to use timber and other products from forests and wildlife and satisfy domestic and international demand with competitively priced products.3. Promotion of public awareness and involvement of rural people in forest and wildlife conservation to maintain life-sustaining systems, preserve scenic areas and enhance potential for recreation, tourism and income generating opportunities.4. Promotion of research-based and technology-led forestry and wildlife management to ensure forest sustainability, socio-economic growth and environmental stability.5. Development of effective capacity and competence at district, regional and national levels for sustainable management of forest and wildlife.

Ministry of Lands and Forestry
1994-2011

2012-Present
Source: Author's Construct from the Forest and Wildlife Policies of 1948, 1994and 2012 (MLNR).(Peshkin, 1993).Categories and themes were generated to give detailed comprehension of the secondary data reviewed (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994).The new understanding was subjected to verification with the aim of validating the claims, assumptions and theories made by scholars (Peshkin, 1993).Finally, the facts were evaluated and presented in a persuasive write-up to accentuate the challenges with the forest and wildlife policies in Ghana while suggesting proactive solutions to arrest them (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994).The 1948, 1994and 2012 Forest and Wildlife Policies were also subjected to the interpretive policy analysis (Morestin, 2012) that involves assessing their effectiveness, equity, community and political acceptability.

Analysis of some of the forest and wildlife policies in Ghana
The 1948 forest policy The 1948 forest policy was the first formal and comprehensive policy that was formulated to guide forestry development in Ghana to replace the less effective 1927 Forest Ordinance (Cap.157) (Teye, 2008).It was developed in 1946 and endorsed by the Governor-in-Council in 1948 during the era of colonialism (Gyampoh, 2011).According to the GFW (2006), the first policy was aimed primarily at regulating and monitoring the sustainable supply of industrialized timber.This was necessitated by the constant abuse of the forestry resources in both the protected reserves and off reserves.Derkye (2007) highlighted some of the strengths of this policy as factorizing the developing trends in global forest management as well as capturing the colonial experience in forest management in the policy development.Also, the policy is credited as leading to the demarcation of tracts of forest lands as reserves to protect and conserve the permanent forest estates while intensifying scientific systems of forest management that boomed the output of timber production (Kotey et al., 1998).Despite the promising objectives of the policy as well as some of its successes, the 1948 forest policy is marred by several challenges.CFMU (1999) revealed that the forest policy was very exploitative in nature.Forfeiting its chief aim of conservation and sustainable management of forest resources and endorsing the depletion of forestry resources, the 1948 forest policy, thus, lacked efficiency and efficacy.Gyampoh (2011) admits that the early foresters called the policy 'timberization' because of the unbridled and illegal harvesting spearheaded by the chainsaw operators.GFW (2006) avers that the policy gave confidence to the conversion of off-reserve forests into non-forest land use forms, resulting in massive degradation of biodiversity.Derkye (2007) rightly blamed it on the policy's emphasis on the protection and management of just 30% of the total forest tract as reserves while granting permission for the use of the remaining 70% of the forest tracts outside the forest reserves for agricultural activities.Teye (2008) adds that the policy placed great emphasis on exportation of timber to generate revenue for the newly independent state of Ghana.This only satisfied the selfish interests of the colonial administration.Also, there was an increased international demand for some tree species, particularly Wawa (Triplochiton sclerexylon) and this rose the exportation level high resulting in the wanton depletion of the forest resources.Kotey et al. (1998) regrettably stated that the colonial administration did not propose any or reinforce plans for replacement of the depleted forest resources through reforestation programmes.

Management and administration of forest resources in the 1948 forest policy:
In terms of governance related to the management or administration of the forest resources, Ankomah (2012) contend that the 1948 forest policy gave exclusive and greater authoritative rights to the central government.This lead to the deliberate sidelining and exclusion of the local people and their communities from the administration of the forest resources in Ghana.As a result, the 1948 forest policy lacked community acceptability.Derkye (2007) concurs that the component of collaboration between the government and the local communities was somehow neglected in the administration of the forest resources though the clause four of the policy encouraged the formation of a native or local forestry administration.This policy dictates did not materialize since the hands of the local communities were figuratively tied and their lips sealed in relation to the management, administration, decision-making and formulation of the 1948 forest policy.Therefore, the acceptance of the policy by the numerous local communities became a great challenge, nullifying the efficiency of the policy.

Community acceptance of the 1948 forest policy:
Another challenge to ensuring community acceptance of the 1948 forest policy was with its great emphasis on scientific forestry practices with research provisions made to that effect (Teye, 2008).The abrogation of the traditional forestry practices that heavily implemented cultural practices and beliefs in consonance with the scientific forestry practices relegated the equity in the 1948 policy document.The policy was truncated in its forestry approach to purely scientific methods focusing mainly on silviculture and regeneration (GFW, 2006).Derkye (2007) contends that the priceless skills and highly practical traditional knowledge and practices of the local people were shunned completely.This widened the gap of acceptability of the policy by local communities who are accustomed to these traditional forestry practices that hinges on their cultural beliefs and practices like taboos, totem, festivals and so forth.

Equity and fair distribution of forest resources in the 1948 forest policy:
In terms of equity and fair distribution of forest resources, the 1948 forest policy performed poorly.GFW (2006) reported that the commercial plantation development was silent on any arrangement for local people's inclusion.The local people in various communities were restrained from entering the forests while the token royalties were reluctant and under-paid to their chiefs (Teye, 2008).This deliberate marginalization led to the situation where due to the lack of equitable sharing of forest proceeds, the local communities supported illegal chainsaw operators and illegal felling of timber resources.Indeed, the active involvement of the local people in the forest management and benefit sharing was flouted by the top managers of the forestry commission (Tuffour, 1996;Ankomah, 2012).Derkye (2007) adds that the local communities were denied meaningful rights to the forestry resources and were banned from entering the forest reserves without seeking permission through prior writing.Entry was under the eagle supervision of impassionate foresters who paid little or no attention to the customary rights of the local people.Sadly, the local communities were denied access to fell the trees on their legitimate farms while no alternative sources of livelihood were provided by the government for the rural poor whose livelihood solidly rested on the forest resources (Teye, 2008).The 1948 forest policy thus became a policy of 'bones without meat' because it was merely a generalized statement of intent (Marfo, 2012).

Factors that led to the revision of the 1948 forest policy:
Owing to these gigantic limitations of the 1948 forest policy, there was a public outcry both local and international for its nullification and possible revision (Gyampoh, 2011).The indiscriminate felling of timber resources, favouring the rich, famous and affluent foreign countries led to severe environmental threats such as droughts, deforestation and wildfires in the country (Derkye, 2007).Moreover, the intense international call for the recognition of the rights of local communities as well as their involvement in forestry administration and management proposed by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development known as the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit held in Brazil in1992.In addition, the World Bank Preparatory Mission for the Forest Resource Management Project (FRMP) reported that the 1948 forest policy was incapable of dealing with the illegal and the wanton depletion of the forest resources and thus needed a revision (GFW, 2006).

The 1994 forest and wildlife policy
The 1994 forest and wildlife policy is the second formal policy in Ghana and the first formal document to highlight the management of both forest and wildlife resources in Ghana.It was to arrest the deficit of the 1948 forest policy that was only about the management of the forest resources in the country with wildlife not seen as an integral part of the forest resource management (GFW, 2006).The policy was formulated to halt the 'timberisation' of the 1948 forest policy by attempting to strike a balance between preservation and utilization of forest resources (MLF, 1994).Alhassan (2010) adds that the policy stressed on the need to boost the involvement of the private sector and local communities in the forest management, while assuring the forest-dependent communities access rights and benefits from the forest resources in their jurisdiction (MLF, 1994).
A rigorous look at the 1994 Forest and Wildlife Policy document shows promising signs of averting the challenges in the 1948 forest policy while mapping up effective strategies to curb the wanton depletion of the forest and wildlife resources in Ghana.Okrah (1999) mentioned that the document accentuated almost all the general apprehensions of the Ghanaian populace regarding the management of the forest resources.He cites the policy statements regarding the rights of local communities' access to some of the forest resources and collaborative and participatory management of all stakeholders especially the rural people.Alhassan (2010) believes that the 1994 Forest and Wildlife Policy is the 'most pragmatic policy' that turned the face of stakeholder involvement in forest management.The greater mention of participatory involvement of local communities may be because of the global call for the recognition of the rights of people, especially the rural poor and the promotion of their involvement (Derkye, 2007).The senior planning officer and coordinator of the policy review process of the 1994 Forest and Wildlife Policy highlighted one of the strengths of the policy that it brought transparency into the bidding method for Timber Utilization Contracts (TUC) as well as an efficient monitoring system for the granting of concessions to timber companies when compared to the opaque, lawless large concessions which was apparent before the 1990's.Donkor and Vlosky (2003) also mentions that the 1994 forestry and wildlife policy revised the low fines paid by Adom 2865 abusers of the forest resources and heightened the legal sanctions barring against the wanton degradation of the forest resources in the country.Due to the low fines cited in the 1948 forest policy, timber companies and chainsaw operators deliberately flouted the sanctions and illegally logged the timber resources in great impunity.Also, initiatives for the reforestation of the degraded forests were proposed by the policy which was absent in the 1948 forest policy.In addition, there was the introduction of some of the stumpage fees paid to local communities as well as Social Responsibility Agreements (SRA) between timber concessionaires and companies to undertake a developmental project or make funds available for such purposes to compensate the local communities (Wiggen et al., 2004).Moreover, the policy added more value to timber before they are exported (Teye, 2008).Despite these strengths of the policy, The Natural Resources and Governance Programme of the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources in Ghana revealed that the 1994 Forest and Wildlife Policy with all its major reforms could not prevent the depletion of the forest resources base since there were massive illegal chainsaw and mining operations in the country.The then Minister of Lands and Natural Resources, Hon.Mike Hammah said of the 1994 forest and wildlife policy that it was ineffective in putting to rest the illegalities in the forestry sector.These revelations bring to fore the question on the challenges and weaknesses of the policy irrespective of its highly hopeful paper document face value?Ankomah (2012) feels that this is a paradox in that the document had all the shining traits of potential success in its implementation processes.Unfortunately, this was not the case.
Planning, development and management decisions of the 1994 forest and wildlife policy: Tuffour (1996) contends that some level of consultation went on prior to the formulation of the 1994 forest and wildlife policy.He avers that there was an under-representation of the traditional rulers, farmers and residents of the forestfringe communities (Kotey et al., 1998).It is very evident that their suggestions were not factored into the policy development in practicality.Bonye (2008) concurs that the traditional authorities and local communities were least consulted in the policy planning stages and neither was their traditional experiential knowledge in resource management sought.Okrah (1999) points out that the isolation of the major stakeholders, especially the forest owners and the traditional authorities in the consultation stage of the policy development was a great defect of the 1994 Forest and Wildlife Policy.Teye (2008) adds that though the policy advocated for the rights of local people in forest resource management, in practicality, they did not enjoy any of such user rights since all authority and control of timber and non-timber resources were stiffly in the grip of the Forestry Department.He admits that the local people still need to obtain written permissions before they are allowed to extract even non-forestry products from the reserves even dead trees for fuel.The formation of the Forest Service's Division Collaborative Forest Management Units in the local communities as an initiative to involve the local people in forest management so that they could help in the implementation processes failed because the decision-making process was not supposed to be part of their involvement (Amanor, 2000).Again, the partnership between the Forestry Commission and the local communities is marred with mistrust and conflicts due to the often flouting of agreements, especially on the part of governmental agencies (GFW, 2006).
Equity and fair distribution of forest resources in the 1994 forest and wildlife policy: Also, the equity that the 1994 forest and wildlife policy promised remained a mirage (Alhassan, 2010).This is because the royalty are paid to the paramount chiefs and not the common farmers whose trees were cut.Thus, the delayed and under-paid royalties do not reach the rural poor who rightly deserve the payment and compensation.GFW (2006) estimates that as at 2006, the Forestry Commission owed an amount of 300 million Cedis stumpage fees to local communities.The same can be said of the social agreements with the timber concessionaires and companies.Mostly, these elements are often abrogated and if they are honoured, timber operators and companies execute the amenity or project in isolation without consulting the local communities, thus, rendering it useless to the local people (Young, 2005).Therefore, the seeming involvement of local communities to benefit from the forest resources indeed remained a 'myth' as Guri (2006) rightly opined.As such, there was lack of commitment on the part of the local communities to support the implementation of the policy.Amanor (2000) highlights that the lack of stakeholder incentives such as the equitable distribution of forest benefits to the local communities hindered the successes of the 1994 forest and wildlife policy.When the local people sense that they are unjustly cheated regarding the equitable sharing of the forest resources, many turn their back on the policy and wantonly abuse the resources in the environment.
Sanctioning and implementation of the 1994 forest and wildlife policy: Another general challenge associated with the 1994 forest and wildlife policy is with its weakness on the part of the relevant sanctioning agencies in enforcing the sanctions for the abuse of the forest resources (MLF, 2007).MSE (2002) mentions that the weaknesses of the legislations and implementing agencies which is blamed on the lack of cooperation, collaboration and networking of the policy development agency and the implementing agencies.There seems to be a discord between the agencies who are supposed to work in consonance for the better good of the country.It was clear in 1998 that the implementation of the policy became difficult due to the lack of cooperation of the local people as a result of their poor involvement (Teye, 2008).
Moreover, GNA (2010) highlights that the 1994 Forest and Wildlife Policy lacked institutional and legal systems to implement or support the activities of the local communities who solely depended on the forest resources for their livelihood.Alhassan (2010) concurs that there was no legislation to support collaborative forest management between forestry agencies and the local communities.Owing to this, the former usually flouts agreements and escapes punishment.The statutory laws always override the customary rights in such instances.
Factors that led to the revision of the 1994 forest policy: Wiggens et al. (2004) contends that the policy statement on barring the wanton depletion of the forest resources in the off reserves achieved minimal success since illegal chainsaw and mining operations still abounded in Ghana.Teye (2008) revealed that the 1994 forest and wildlife policy still faced the challenge of resource exploitation that favoured the political elite, influential timber operators and top officials of the Forestry Commission.Consequently, GFW ( 2006) views the policy document as a commendable material, but useless because of its implementation flaws that clearly exposes the gap between intentions and reality.Thus, many individuals and agencies called for the immediate cessation of the 1994 forest and wildlife policy, yearning for a revision.

The 2012 forest and wildlife policy
The 2012 forest and wildlife policy was necessitated by the alarming rate of illegal harvesting, which is estimated by the over 80% of the domestic lumber gotten from illegal chainsaw operators (GFIP, 2012).Also, it was to strengthen and make the best use of the products and services of the forestry resources in the country (GNA, 2012).It is a paradigm shift from the consumptive spirit referred to as 'timberisation' of the 1994 forest and wildlife policy to non-consumptive values while creating an equilibrium between the production and marketing of timber to satisfy especially the domestic wood demands (MLNR, 2012).The GNA (2012) mentioned that the introduction of the 2012 forest and wildlife policy was necessary due to the emerging global trends in the forest sector, such as the voluntary partnership agreement, issuance of forest certificate, Reducing Emissions from Deforestation And Forest Degradation (REDD), European Union's Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) as well as the Non-Legally Binding Instruments (NLBI) project.
The policy directions from the objectives of the 2012 forest and wildlife policy looked very promising.This view was expressed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana Forestry Commission, Mr. Afari Dartey.He was convinced that the 2012 forest and wildlife policy will ensure that culprits of biodiversity degradation will be appropriately disciplined by stringent sanctioning and prosecution procedures advocated in the document (Modern Ghana Online Radio News, 20th December, 2013).The age-long forestry problem on the laxity of sanctioning measures which was due to the lack of the judiciary being abreast with the forest laws has been catered for in the policy.The strategic direction 6.1.3mentions the factorization of forest law into the judicial law and enforcement training programmes.This would equip the law enforcing agencies on how to prosecute the culprits of the forest and wildlife regulations.Thus, Abdul-Baql ( 2015) is convinced that the policy has achieved the enforceability required to enhance its implementation.This in the long-term would largely contribute to the efficiency and efficacy of the policy.
Political and community acceptability of the 2012 forest and wildlife policy: Moreover, for the policy to win political and community acceptability as well as equity and fairness, there is room for the involvement of civil society organizations and the local people in the decision-making and resource management of the forest and wildlife resources in Ghana (GFWP, 2012).Thus, the Forestry Commission has changed the focus of its management system from government-led system to a collaborative management approach.This is to ensure greater consultation with stakeholders, especially local communities that are dependent on the forests and are willing to ensure its maintenance (Abdul-Baql, 2015).
Forestry governance system in the 2012 forest and wildlife policy: The forestry governance system has been decentralized with the sole aim of ensuring transparency, accountability and equity in the management of the forest and wildlife resources in the country.The strategic direction 6.1.2 of the 2012 forest and wildlife policy mentions that the roles of traditional authorities, District Assemblies, Non-Governmental Organizations and Community Based Organizations in forest and wildlife management have been well defined.Abdul-Baql (2015) argues that the recognition of multistakeholder interests from members of the Ghana's Civil Society Organization as well as multi-sectoral approaches in forest and wildlife planning and management with the common aim of protecting, managing and ensuring collaborative resource management among societies, governments and other stakeholders has heightened the fairness and equity of the 2012 forest and wildlife policy (Abdul-Baql, 2015).
Generally, there was no proper legislation backing the participation of local people in the previous forestry and wildlife policies.However, the strategic direction 4.1.1 of the 2012 forest and wildlife policy recognizes the need to ratify all necessary legislation and regulations to facilitate and enhance local participation and control through decentralization of forestry operations at the district levels.To avert the lack of equity and fairness in the distribution of resources to the local people in the past forest and wildlife policies, the 2012 forest and wildlife policy proposes the passing of a legislation that would allow the local people to enjoy the forestry proceeds on their farmlands.The strategic direction 4.1.1aindicates that the local people have the right to the trees on the farms.Therefore, they are to be compensated individually for any forest proceeds taken from their farmlands.

Provision of alternative sources of livelihood in the 2012 forest and wildlife policy:
The 2012 forest and wildlife policy makes provision for alternative sources of livelihood for the local people living in the forest fringe communities.The strategic direction 2.1e states the support of the creation of employment opportunities and sustainable livelihoods for the residents in the forest fringe communities through forest plantation development.The coordinator of the Ghana Forest Watch Ghana, Mr. Kingsley Bekoe admitted that the policy has ensured the creation of forest-based employment avenues such as tree planting and protection of boundaries.What has often been the setback to the cooperation of the local communities in helping in the implementation of forest and wildlife policies is with the unfair sharing of forest proceeds.As has been a common trend, royalties and stumpage fees due the local communities are on many occasions not paid, reduced woefully or are in high arrears.The 2012 forest and wildlife policy has proposed the use of consultative processes in apportioning, recovering and distributing equitably and effectively forest rent or royalties among the resource owners, state and the users of the resources (Strategic direction 5.1.1c, of the GFWP, 2012).This would bolster the interest and cooperation of local people in helping in the implementation of the policy.

Incorporation of indigenous knowledge in the 2012
forest and wildlife policy: Interestingly, the 2012 forest and wildlife policy had made provisions for the factorization of indigenous knowledge of local communities in the management of forest and wildlife resources in Ghana.This includes the religious beliefs, customs and values of local people that enhances and promotes resource management.To illustrate, the strategic direction 1.5.1c of the policy mentions the documentation of the biological, spiritual, religious, cultural and heritage values of natural sacred sites while maintaining their secrecy where it is required.Also, the strategic direction 1.5.1a of the policy called for a review of all relevant legislation to recognize the rights of local people and the customs and belief systems that led to the management of the sacred sites.Thus, the policy respects and recognizes the religious and cultural elements that are used for the management of the forest and wildlife resources in the local communities.This includes the cosmological belief systems, taboos, totemic practice and others that were shrouded in secrecy, but were powerful tools for promoting conservation and sustainable use of forest and wildlife resources.Often times, when conservation planners and foresters visit the local communities, they reveal to the people that those beliefs are pagan, satanic and superstitious.As a result, many local people are no more respecting these cultural and religious elements that promoted biodiversity conservation.Thus, it is a step in the right direction if the policy espouses the maintenance of the secrecy regarding these cultural elements that advance the course of conservation and sustainability of the forest and wildlife resources.This position taken by the Forestry Commission is in consonance with the global directive of the UNDRIP ( 2006) that stressed that the indigenous people have the right to maintain the spiritual connections that they have regarding the natural resources in the environment which must equally be respected by the larger community (Adom et al., 2017).
In terms of research into the traditional or indigenous knowledge systems for resource management, the strategic direction 5.1 of the policy indicates that the enlightenment of indigenous knowledge when used in conjunction with the scientific knowledge can enhance the management of wildlife and forest resources.Therefore, the policy encourages higher learning institutions to pursue research activities in indigenous knowledge systems that utilize the cultural elements like totem, taboos, festivals, cosmological beliefs and so forth in the management of biodiversity with conservation and sustainability in view.Abdul-Baql (2015) believes that the synergy of the indigenous knowledge of natural resource management evident in the cultural beliefs and practices of local communities would provide an incentive for the sustainable development of the forestry sector.The 2012 forest and wildlife policy have called for an institution of an annual forestry forum where all stakeholders will meet and deliberate on the efficiency of the implementation processes of the policy (Strategic Direction 6.1.1 of the GFWP, 2012).This annual policy review would help in arresting the identified challenges with the implementation in an early stage to avert dire implications.
Efficacy of the 2012 forest and wildlife policy: Despite these giant efforts and strengths associated with the current 2012 forest and wildlife policy, there are some weaknesses that challenge its efficacy.Irrespective of the fact that the policy offers some sort of alternative sources of livelihood for the local people living in the forest fringe communities in terms of offering job avenues in forest plantation and the protection of boundaries, Abdul-Baql ( 2015) is of the view that these alternative sources of employment are not better economic opportunities for communities depending on the forest and wildlife resources.He adds the livelihood opportunities of nontimber forest products for local communities were ignored entirely.He further argues that the employment avenues offered as alternative sources of livelihood cannot be strong deterrents for the many unemployed rural poor in the forest fringe communities.Derkye (2007) as well as Adom et al. (2017) argue that the absence of proper sustainable sources of livelihood for the rural people is due to the poor documentation of the agreements with the local people as assured by the Forestry Commission, timber firms and timber contractors.

Management decisions of the 2012 forest and wildlife policy:
A daunting challenge related to the 2012 forest and wildlife policy is still with the recurring problem of local community involvement in the management of the forest and wildlife resources.Though the policy highlights greatly on the participation of all stakeholders, especially the rural people in the forest fringe communities, Sarpong and Inkoom (2015) contend that recent policy review on the 2012 forest and wildlife policy revealed that the traditional authorities admitted that they were somehow engaged by the Forestry Commission in the management of the forest resources but in a minimal degree.The traditional authorities regrettably said that many concessions were given out by the Forestry Commission without their permission or knowledge.This implies that the participation of local communities is still a challenge of the 2012 forest and wildlife policy.GFIP (2012) also mentioned that the forestry and wildlife sector still need to fight the challenge of inequitable benefit sharing and poor community involvement in the management and decisionmaking processes regarding the forest and wildlife resources.The document hinted that the forestry and wildlife sector still experiences poor accountability in resource exploitation.There is also the lack of costeffectiveness in the use of resources and creation of appropriate benefits in a transparent and accountable manner.It adds that there is still more than 1.7 million meter cube of timber harvested, which is not accounted for, resulting in greater revenue loss to especially landowners in the rural communities, District Assemblies and the state.Moreover, the forestry and wildlife sector is still confronted with weak sectoral institutions due to poor capacity in technical skills in the forestry and wildlife personnel (GFIP, 2012;Abdul-Baql, 2015).This has accounted for poor work delivery with poor output in service delivery, such as the high rise in illegal forestry activities and mining operations with poor sanctioning measures.

Publicity of the 2012 forest and wildlife policy:
Another recurring challenge is with the lack of publicity of the 2012 forestry and wildlife policy to the local communities.The Daily Graphic (December 13, 2012) reported that the Forestry Commission was not doing enough to educate local people living in the forest-fringe communities on the new initiatives or developments outlined in the new 2012 forest and wildlife policy.

Recurring challenges associated with the forest and wildlife policies and their suggested remedies
The analysis of the three forestry and wildlife policies namely the 1948 forest policy, the 1994 forest and wildlife policy and the 2012 forest and wildlife policy has revealed some recurring challenges associated with their implementation that needs redress.These include: 1. Lack of effective stakeholder participation of local people 2. Lack of proper factorization of cultural beliefs and practices 3. Lack of strong implementation strategies 4. Lack of and/or proper documentation of equitable distribution of forestry and wildlife resources to local people 5. Lack of proper provision of sustainable alternative sources of livelihood for residents in the forest fringe communities 6. Poor dissemination of forestry and wildlife policies to the local communities

Lack of active stakeholder participation of local people
The active involvement of local people in the administration and management of the forest and wildlife resources has been a persistent weakness to the implementation successes of all the forest and wildlife policies in Ghana.The 1948 forest policy assigned all managerial duties to the central government making the management approach government-led.The local people were forced to be aliens of the policy, weakening its smooth implementation.Successful countries with high peaks of biodiversity resources attribute their success largely to the active participation of local people in the forest and wildlife resources administration.Adom (2016b) noted of the Brazilians that they have granted the local communities' full participation in the decisionmaking and management of their country's biodiversity.This is not casual consultations with the local people, but a giant representation of them in the management decisions regarding the sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity.The 1994 forest and wildlife policy, however, made some efforts at including the voices of local people in the management of the biodiversity resources in Ghana.That may be the reason why Alhassan (2010) reckoned that the 1994 forest and wildlife policy was emphatic on the inclusion of local Adom 2869 communities in the management and decision-making processes of the forest and wildlife resources in the country.However, this was not very effective because of the drivers that made the policy makers.Derkye (2007) argues that the mention of local communities' participation was just a paper presentation to satisfy the demands of global conventions that Ghana had ratified so as to keep enjoying the funds provided by the international bodies.Classical example is the UNCED Agenda 21, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3-14 June, 1992 that called for a grass root approach to the seeking of the views of local communities during policy consultations on the planning and management of biodiversity (Adom et al., 2017).The adherence to this global directive was probably the cause of the under representation of the local communities in the consultations that led to the formulation of the policy (Tuffour, 1996;Kotey et al., 1998).As a result, the aftermath was an eventual low impact of local community voice in the policy directives, thereby reducing the support of local people for the implementation of the policy.The participation of local communities in the 2012 forest and wildlife policy is heightened in comparison to the 1994 forest and wildlife policy.The wheel of management of forest and wildlife resources has been changed from the government-led approach to a collaborative approach between the government and the local people.This is very commendable.Though the policy is in its young state, many scholars suggest that the inclusion of local people in consultations that led to the policy development was not enough.There are many operations of the forest and wildlife sector that still excludes or is absent with the views of the local communities.For instance, concessions are often times given to timber contractors without the consent of the traditional authorities who are the leaders of the local communities (Sarpong and Inkoom, 2015).This problem of local community participation, which has been a recurring challenge in the forest and wildlife policies in Ghana can be remedied if the UNCED Agenda 21 directive that disseminates managerial power to the grass root level is implemented.Powerful lessons can be learnt from China and Japan who have established and improved their local management systems in each community or society to better handle the unique environmental challenges in their jurisdiction (Adom, 2016b;NBS of China, 2011).Ghana made progress in establishing CFCs in forest fringe communities to aid in protecting the forest and wildlife resources in their communities.Yet, their powers are limited and are not to engage in the decision-making processes regarding the managerial procedure adopted by the Forest and Wildlife Sector (Asare, 2000).Moreover, the formation of CFMU's tasked to increase the active participation of local communities (GFW, 2006) has been ineffective since the selection of representatives of the local communities on the team has not been fair.Adom (2017) warned strongly against the selection of the often advantaged in the society such as the traditional authorities, educated elders at the neglect of the vulnerable in the society such as the poor, aged and disabled.Usually, the elites in the local communities are offered this privilege by the Forest and Wildlife Commission, ignoring the often marginalized poor farmers, experienced elderly men and women, unemployed rural youth (Convention to Combat Desertification, 1995;Kotey et al., 1998) probably on the grounds of illiteracy which is very unjust.Of course, if such ones show great potentials of possessing rich experiential knowledge in forestry and wildlife management, they must be selected to sit at the decision-making and management table.The consequence of their intentional sidelining is the poor articulation of the 'real' voice of the people in the management of the forest and wildlife resources.The solution to the problem of local peoples' participation rests on allowing the genuine or true representation of the local communities which can be ascertained in a communal election or endorsement of their representatives on the CFMU.Moreover, there should be a legislative backing the activities of the CFMU's in the local communities to ground their suggestions in the management decisions of the forest and wildlife resources in Ghana.Also, the local communities' participation must pass informative and/or consultative involvement.They must be streamlined onto the highest decision-making level so that their popular requests could be realized.This is what successful countries with rich environmental resources such as Brazil, China, Japan, India and Kenya have done (Adom, 2016b).Representatives of their local communities are part of the high level stakeholders and thus, play active roles in the planning and decision-making schemes regarding the environment.As such, policy implementation becomes supportive and easy in their local communities (Pretty et al., 2009).If these practical and efficient strategies discussed are implemented, Ghana stands a better position to permanently annihilate the recurring challenge of lack of active participation of local communities in the planning, decision-making, and management of forest and wildlife resources.

Lack of proper factorization of cultural beliefs and practices
The 1948 forest policy was silent on the incorporation of traditional ecological knowledge systems such as the promotion of the cultural beliefs and practices of local communities that barred against resource abuse.The policy emphasized on the research and application of purely scientific forestry practices.However, as Adom (2016a) posits, addressing the contemporary challenge to biodiversity abuse cannot achieve any recognizable success if just a 'one-faced approach' is utilized.His assertion agrees with Golo and Yaro (2013) as cited in Adom et al. (2016) who admitted that a truncated approach to using the scientific conservation strategies in combating the wanton depletion of biodiversity while sidelining the indigenous cultural beliefs and practices would accomplish less if not fail entirely.This was the case of the 1948 forest policy which, though popular in scientific models could not curtail the massive degradation of the forest cover and wildlife resources in Ghana.On the other hand, one of the guiding principles of the 1994 forest and wildlife policy mentions the need for an incorporation of traditional methods of resource management where appropriate in resource management where it deems necessary.However, the document was silent on which of the traditional methods are appropriate and in what capacities they could be implemented in this contemporary times.The 2012 forest and wildlife policy mentions the incorporation of indigenous knowledge of local communities in the management of the forest and wildlife resources as well as respecting the secrecy associated with the religious beliefs while promoting research into the indigenous knowledge systems by higher institutions of learning that could conserve biodiversity.This improved recognition of indigenous knowledge systems in the management and conservation of biodiversity is commendable.Indeed, the traditional conservation practices evident in the cultural beliefs and practices play significant roles in restraining resource abuse.Bonye (2008) argues the use of religious beliefs and cultural practices for environmental resource management have shown beyond all reasonable doubt to be more effective and sustainable in comparison to other forms of management.
Yet, the emphasis placed on the indigenous knowledge systems as conservation strategies in the 2012 forest and wildlife policy is less in the document, though the scientific conservation practices are well emphasized and implicitly explained.Therefore, there is the need for explicit explanations of which of the indigenous knowledge systems must be used as conservation strategies to complement the scientific conservation models.Thus, to solve the recurring problem of inclusion of cultural practices and beliefs (indigenous knowledge systems) in the forest and wildlife policies in Ghana, they must be a clear roadmap showing which of the cultural elements and in what capacities they must be utilized as conservation strategies.This can be effectively carried out if the unique indigenous knowledge systems of particular societies are identified and formulated into traditional biodiversity conservation strategies for that local community or ethnic society.Moreover, the traditional conservation strategy must not be implemented in isolation but in conjunction with the scientific conservation models.

Lack of strong implementation strategies
The issue on implementation strategies adopted by the forest and wildlife policies in Ghana has been a recurring challenge to the Forestry Commission.The sanctioning measures and agencies have not been up to their task.The 1948 forest policy's implementation seems weak because the allowable cut proposed in the policy was not enforced properly, resulting in a vast depletion of the timber resources in the country with an estimate of 65,000 ha (MLF, 2001;Ankomah, 2012).The World Bank Preparatory Mission for the FRMP concluded after a review of the 1948 forest policy that it had weak implementation strategies and institutions (GFW, 2006).The enforcement of the policy that is solely in the government institutions resulted in the lack of support from the local communities due to their neglect in the management of the policy (Teye, 2008).The same implementation challenge is associated with the 1994 forest and wildlife policy.Okrah (1999) contends that the lack of participation of stakeholders, especially the local communities in the implementation of the policy was the cause of its failure.In another lens, Amanor (2000) avers that the lack of support from the local communities in helping with the implementation of the 1994 forest and wildlife policy was due to failure on the part of the Forestry Commission to offer incentives in the form of fair and equitable distribution of forest proceeds.The 2012 forest and wildlife policy is the most efficient in terms of ensuring better representation of the stakeholders in the consultations that led to the development of the policy, especially, the inclusion of local people.Thus, the improvement of collaborative management approach is intensified in the policy.However, the sustainability of such forest management approach of involving the local communities while maintaining profit is questioned by the Forestry Commission (GFWP, 2012).Probably, the agency fears that making the local communities active players in the management of the resources may incur great loss to them because of having to pay them for the services they would render.This should not be the case if the Forestry Commission would follow the policy's strategic plan 4.1.1.b. which talks of allocating greater proportions of forest proceeds to the local people.
This may have been the cause of the little involvement of the local communities represented by the traditional authorities were not involved very well in the policy development as asserted by Sarpong and Inkoom (2015).Therefore, to remedy the recurring challenge of weak implementation strategies for developed policies in Ghana, there has to be a major support from the local communities and members of the general public.Thus, measures must be put in place to include them in the planning, decision-making and more importantly, the implementation processes of the policy.Moreover, the equitable and fair sharing of the forest proceeds with the local communities must be heightened and promoted to earn the support of the local people.In addition, the Forestry Commission as an institution needs to be strengthened.This can be achieved by the introduction of Adom 2871 workers in the commission to workshops, short courses and seminars on effective implementation strategies.There is the need for the Commission to periodically upgrade the knowledge base of its staff for them to function more expediently.This would develop, strengthen and equip the human resource of the Commission in handling implementation challenges of the forest and wildlife policies.

Lack of and/or proper documentation for equitable distribution of resources to the local people
The local people have often times neglected in terms of fair distribution of forest and wildlife proceeds.This challenge is noticed in the 1948 forest policy as noted by GFW (2006) and Teye (2008), the local people were exempted from entering the forests and royalties were not properly paid.Equitable sharing of proceeds from the forests was lacking (Tuffour, 1996;Ankomah, 2012).However, Adom et al. (2017) mentioned of the ITPC (1989; Article 15) that said that local people have the legal rights to participate in the use of the forest resources.This is mainly because they are the landowners and as such must be catered for in the resource allocation.The 1994 forest and wildlife policy partly addressed this challenge of fair distribution of the forest proceeds to the local people by introducing stumpage fees and social responsibility agreement (Wiggen et al., 2004).But unfortunately, this became a paper document because due to poor documentation, the forestry officials and timber contractors flouted the agreements with the local communities regarding the equitable and fair allocation of forestry and wildlife proceeds (Derkye, 2007).This is a breach of the rights of indigenous people.For instance, UNDRIP (2006) stated in its article 37(1) that the local people owe the right to enforce the treaties and agreements that they enter with the forestry officers and timber contractors.Also, it tasks policy makers, forestry personnel and timber contractors to also respect and honor the agreements regarding the equitable sharing of the forest and wildlife proceeds.Therefore, if this is well cater for in policy development, the problem of unjust sharing of proceeds of forest and wildlife resources in local communities.Another proactive way that can remedy the recurring problem of the lack of proper documentation of equitable sharing of forest and wildlife proceeds is providing a strong legislation nationally into policy development.Countries must incorporate international conventions related to the rights of local people, particularly, the UNDRIP ( 2006) that mentions that legislation must be passed by countries to respect all forms of agreement with local communities.The 2012 forest and wildlife policy advocate the passing of legislation to legitimize the rights of local people to the proceeds of their own farms.Yet, there are still challenges as it was noted by the GFIP (2012).The document mentioned that there are poor structures put in place by the Forestry Commission to ensure proper accountability of the proceeds from the forests and thereby affects the quantity and the right compensation due the local communities.The absence of an elected member or representative from the local communities on the committee that oversees the fair and equitable distribution of the forest proceeds in the Forestry Commission is partly the cause of the situation.Moreover, there is weak supervision of the committee resulting in a potential foul play in the fair distribution and payment of the right royalties to the local communities.The Forestry Commission must ensure that proper structures are put in place to ensure that the right proportions of forest proceeds and revenue to the local communities to maintain fairness and equity in resource distribution.This committee set up must include representatives from the local communities so that they would fight for their due when the resources are shared.Also, they would guarantee that monetary gains such as stumpage fees and social responsibility agreements with timber concessionaires and companies are not flouted.

Lack of proper provision of sustainable alternative sources of livelihood for local residents
The members of the local communities rely heavily on the forest for their life sustenance.The GSS (2012) reports that a greater percentage of the local people engage in small-scale farming, logging and hunting as their main sources of livelihood.Therefore, with the shifting of total managerial powers of the forests to the government, it would mean the denial of the local people from enjoying the resources in the forests.Cobbina et al. (2015) contend that this situation has soared up the poverty rates in the majority of local communities in Ghana.Most governments failed to make proper provision for alternative sources of livelihood that are sustainable for members of the local communities so that they would not be rendered jobless.If their livelihood needs are not addressed, local people can be a nuisance and may abuse the forest resources any time they are privileged to them whether by fair or foul means.Teye (2008) concurs that the 1948 Forest Policy's blind eye to the provision of alternative sources of livelihood for the poor local people propelled some of the local people to support illegal logging operations.They may sit on the fence and watch unconcerned as foreigners and other unscrupulous persons abuse the resources which they are customarily owners.This was what happened after the promulgation of the 1948 forest policy that gave close fisted hands to the provision of alternative sources of livelihood for the local communities while giving exclusive management rights of the forest proceeds to the government and other private timber producing agencies.The results were the deplorable state of Ghana forests and a scraping off of all its resources, giving birth to the new term 'timberization' for that generation (Gyampoh, 2011;Marfo, 2012).
The 1994 forest and wildlife policy somehow gave some attention to the provision of some source of alternative livelihood for the local people living in the forest fringe communities, though it was still the use of forest proceeds.The local people were granted the rights to tend some wildlife in personal pens so that they could sell them as bush meat or export them for monetary gains.However, this was woefully inadequate and it is not an efficient and sustainable form of alternative sources of livelihood since all local people cannot engage in this venture.Also, it would even result in an over exploitation of the wildlife resources.In addition to this, the GNA (2010) reported that there was no legislation in place to support the activities of alternative sources of livelihood by the local people who depended on the forests.In a related study by Cobbinah et al. (2015) at the Kakum Conservation Area in Ghana, they realized that when alternative sources of employment were created for the local people, few of them enjoyed the opportunity because the appointments favored many people who were not from the fringe communities around the Kakum Conservation Area.The site was properly developed into an ecotourism site and this generated employment avenue for the local people.The Kakum Conservation Area's development interestingly coincides with the suggestion of Okra (1999).He suggested that if protected areas are well developed sustainably, they would be capable of meeting the basic needs of the local people living in the forest fringe communities without tying the hands of these poor people from the use of forest resources.This would ensure that the livelihood needs of the local people are met.Also, the 2012 forest and wildlife policy mentioned the creation of forest-based employment avenues like tree planting and the protection of boundaries for the local communities close to the forests.While these efforts are commendable, the allocations of the employment avenues to the local communities have often been thwarted to other persons from the cities as was the case in the Kakum Conservation Area.Therefore, strict measures and a possible legislation must be passed that authorize only or majority of the local people living in the forest fringe communities to enjoy the employment avenues.In cases where an employment avenue may require special skills, there must be skill training sessions organized for some local people who can occupy the best positions.This would greatly curb the impoverished state of most persons in the local communities, thereby ensuring proper provision of sustainable alternative sources of livelihood for the local people residing in the forest fringe communities.
Moreover, other employment prospects must be explored by the Forestry Commission with the aid of other Non-Governmental Organizations.For instance, organizations may not address the peculiar needs of buyers, eventually collapsing them.For instance, the Commission must improve and enhance the non-wood forest resource base and yield as fertile grounds for alternative sources of livelihood for the rural poor living in the forest fringe communities.This includes searching for avenues to explore the trading in non-forest products like the gathering of mushrooms, snails and so forth.Smallscale enterprises in forest and other non-forest products and services that are economically friendly and address the distinctive needs of members in the local community or adjacent communities can be set up as sources of alternative livelihood.These small and medium forest enterprises (SMFEs) added three million alternative source of income to the Ghana's economy in 2015 (NBS, 2016).Consultations with the local people about the appropriate business enterprise to set up as an alternative source of livelihood would prove very beneficial in that they would know the kind of good or service that sells and would result in gains; otherwise, setting up business enterprises based on only the discretion of the Forestry Commission and the nongovernmental.

Poor dissemination of forestry and wildlife policies to local communities
Information on forestry policies and strategies in Ghana has always not been properly communicated to the local communities.It has already been established that policy makers usually neglect or least involve the local communities in discussions and consultations that lead to the formulation of forestry policies.Unfortunately, after the development of the policy, public education about the contents of the document is not popularized, especially, in the forest fringe communities.Ankomah (2012) regrettable reported that the situation of poor communication of developed forestry and wildlife policies in Ghana is even among the conservationists working in the Forestry Commission.He realized in his research that 20% of his respondents from the Forestry Commission were not familiar with the content of the 1994 forest and wildlife policy.This underscores how poor forestry policies and strategies redisseminated in the country even among elites, how much more the local communities in Ghana.The same challenge was admitted at the launching of the 2012 forest and wildlife policy.The coordinator of the Ghana Forest Watch Ghana, Mr. Kingsley Bekoe hinted that the dissemination of the policy content of the local people residing in the forest fringe communities was woefully inadequate (Daily Graphic, December 13, 2012).Therefore, he called for an intensive education of the forest and wildlife policies to the general public, especially, the local communities to assist them in making informal decisions regarding the sustainable use of forest and wildlife resources in their environment.Of course, effective communication of forest and wildlife policies beefs up the successes in their implementation (Adom, 2016b).
The Forestry Commission is the agency tasked to carry out such education, according to the Forestry Commission Service Charter.Therefore, the Commission must intensively strategize and plan on how to educate the general public, especially, the local people.The Commission must beef up education, extension and awareness programmes of people's participation in forest and wildlife issues.The commission must take advantage of the numerous social media outlets to broadcast the developed policies.More importantly, they must organize a series of workshops, seminars and forums in towns and villages rather than focusing on only the national and district levels.Moreover, the traditional and locally accepted means of communication such as through the use of storytelling, proverbs and folklores to instruct the people on the content of the policies.Modern Information Centers must be adopted as communication vehicles for the policies.Biodiversity experts and policy makers must take advantage of taboo days within local communities to enlighten the local people on the policy document.During such sessions, the forestry officer must break down the contents of the policy to the level of understanding of the largely illiterate local people.This will deepen their knowledge and understanding of the policy and adjust their thinking as well as farming methods to suit the directives in the policy.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
The study was undertaken with the primary objective of identifying the recurring challenges associated with the forest and wildlife policies in Ghana.This was to provide potent remedies to arrest those challenges that have perpetually been associated with the forest and wildlife policies.This would enhance their efficacy in halting the high rise of deforestation and pollution of the environment in Ghana.The 1948 Forest Policy, the 1994 Forest and Wildlife Policy and the 2012 Forest and Wildlife Policy in Ghana were rigorously analysed using the interpretive document analysis and the interpretive policy analysis.The study revealed the recurring challenges included the lack of effective stakeholder participation of local people in the planning, and decision-making processes in the Forest and Wildlife Policy formulation in Ghana.It was proposed that policy makers and conservation planners of forestry and wildlife policies must actively involve the members in the local communities in all phases of the policy development processes since they are the land owners and as such major stakeholders in the forestry resources in their environment.Also, the lack of strong implementation strategies for enforcing the dictates of the policies were seen as another recurring challenge associated with the reviewed forest and wildlife policies.This was realized through the rigorous analysis that it is as a result of the neglect of the local people and the sidelining of traditional authorities living in the forest fringe communities to assist in the implementation processes of the policies.Therefore, it was suggested that the traditional authorities must be involved in the implementation processes of the forest and wildlife policies in Ghana for them to serve as agents in their local jurisdictions.
Moreover, the lack of effective factorization of cultural beliefs and practices of local communities in the management of the forests and wildlife resources was a recurring problem that has progressively been improved but still requires significant improvements.This was seen in the lack of clear-cut guidelines on which of the cultural beliefs and practices are to be utilized as well as the capacities for their implementation.It was argued that some of the cultural beliefs and practices of local communities are potent and beneficial in assisting in the conservation and sustainable use of the biodiversity resources in nature.Owing to this, it was suggested that forestry and wildlife policies must incorporate them in the management strategies while showing clearly the forms of the cultural beliefs and practices that should be utilized in local communities in Ghana.Furthermore, it was noticed that the other lapses in the forest and wildlife policies in Ghana are the lack of and/or proper documentation of equitable distribution of forestry and wildlife resources for local people as well as lack of proper provision of sustainable alternative sources of livelihood for residents in the forest fringe communities and the poor dissemination of forestry and wildlife policies to the local communities.The absence of proper documentation of agreements regarding the fair sharing of forest proceeds between the government represented by the Forestry Commission and the local communities, the payment of royalties and the provision of appropriate social amenities as compensations to the local communities are intentionally breached by the Forestry Commission and timber companies.Therefore, it was advised that due to the legal rights those local communities have with respect to the forest proceeds indicated by international conventions and by virtue of their status as landowners require that agreements with them are honored.Thus, local communities are to insist on gaining written and signed copies to formalize all agreements to curtail the recurring challenge of flouting of agreements especially on the part of the government officials.
Local communities have often been banned from entry into the forests that customarily belongs to them and have been the main source of livelihood for the people.It was realized through the analysis of the forest and wildlife policies that most often the policies do not offer any source of alternative livelihood for the local people as it was evident with the 1948 Forest Policy.Sometimes, the policy offers some form of alternative sources of livelihood as was realized in connection with the 1994 and 2012 forest and wildlife policies.Yet, it was noted that these options of alternative livelihood provided were not sustainable and multi-faceted to address the diverse employment and/or economic needs of the diverse fringe forest communities.Therefore, recommendations on how to generate diverse forms of alternative sources of livelihood for the local communities such as using the development of the forest reserves and conservation sites as eco-tourism sites to generate employment avenues that prioritize the employment of the local folks as well as assisting the local people in setting up economically viable enterprises in both forest and nonforest products and/or services have been suggested.Finally, the recurring challenge of poor dissemination of forest and wildlife policies to the general public, especially the local people were noticed in all the forest and wildlife policies reviewed.It was suggested that local means of communication such as through folklores, folk tales and proverbs, taboo days, community meeting days and forums must be utilized.Also, social media and Information Centers in local communities were suggested as powerful avenues for relaying the developed forest and wildlife policies to the general public as complements to the seminars and workshops that are usually organized at national and district levels by the Forestry Commission.
The research has sternly taken the firm stand that if the suggestions offered to curtail the recurring challenges of the forest and wildlife policies in Ghana are taken seriously and implemented, it would mitigate the deleterious situation of Ghana's forest and wildlife resources while mitigating all forms of environmental pollution.The study is tasking the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources and their functionaries especially the Forestry Commission, Timber Companies and Nongovernmental Organizations whose interests are in the forest and wildlife resources, to implement the suggestions that issue from the findings of this rigorous research as a helping hand to the efforts they have put into saving these biodiversity resources that pivots the life of Ghanaians.
There is the need for an extensive review of the scientific conservation practices in the Forest and Wildlife Policy so as to know which of the traditional conservation practices in the light of cultural beliefs and practices can complement them.This would help create a synergistic approach to tackle the biodiversity challenge in Ghana.

Table 1 .
Forest land area of Ghana from 1990 to 2015.

Table 2 .
Sector's contribution to Ghana's gross domestic product growth (prices in million Ghana Cedis).

Table 3 .
Forest legislation laws and reforms in Ghana.
Allow private plantation developers to harvest their planted trees without a TUC and the permission of landowners Revised the sanctions under NRCD 243 and PNDCL142 to increase the resistance to cause harm to forest reserves while extending its liability under Act 547 and LI 649 to include drivers and the one who hired vehicles that transport illegal timber as well as the one who gave the instruction to 'carry, haul, evacuate or transport such timber.'Revisedlaw to empower the Ministry of Lands, Forests and Mines to regulate new investments into the forestry sector and ensure that only the required plant and equipment for the country's needs are installed in the wood processing sector.Source: Author's Construct from GFDMP (2016).

Table 5 .
Presentation of the three forest and wildlife policies in Ghana.