Basis, levels, frequency and flow of compensation

This section had the longest discussion times because participants took a long time to deliberate on the issues. The answers given by participants are given in the following table.

Table 7: Basis of Compensation

Basis of compensation Remarks

Size of farmland 6 groups

Value of cocoa produced 5 groups

Family needs 1 women’s migrant group

Burden of loss 1 mixed group (Ashanti)

Cocoa farmers should get more General consensus

Should not be less than current earnings 1 women’s group (Brusa)

You decide for auxiliary forest workers 1 men’s group (Brusa)

While six FGs mentioned that compensation should be made on the size of farmland that each household or individual forgoes, five groups were of the opinion that the value of cocoa yield should form the basis of compensation. They were quick to add however, that implementers should take into consideration the fluctuations in cocoa prices every year in estimating the amount of compensation. The Ashanti group in Sewum indicated that compensation should be based on the burden of loss suffered by each household. Women’s concern for both family and wider society was yet clear when a migrant women’s group from northern Ghana insinuated that the basis for compensation should be family needs. In their own words, “ compensation can only be considered adequate if it caters for the needs of the family”

(Fieldwork 2012, Sewum).

Of significant concern to the indigenous Brusa women’s group in New Yaakase was the likely fall in the overall income and well-being of households. They reiterated “ the compensation the REDD+ project will offer us should definitely not be less than what we are earning now, otherwise we will be tempted to go back to using the forest or cocoa farmlands”.

This could be seen as a possible warning sign to REDD+ officials that if payments are not made on time, they could withdraw from the programme or refuse to be involved with it.

6.5.2 Levels of compensation

Two levels were suggested; according to farm size and cocoa yield. Payment suggestions ranged from Ghs2000–12,000 per month (US$872–5200) plus an initial lump sum of Ghs20, 000–50,000 (US$8720–21,000).

In addition a women’s group spoke about the need for housing for everyone. However, there was a general consensus that cocoa farmers should get more compensation than others, and priority be given to them. While eight groups indicated the need for compensation to be based on need, a few of the groups said that farmers and non-farmers should be equally compensated. They however could not decide on the level of compensation for other forest users and left that for REDD+ implementers to decide.

From their answers, one could see that it was difficult for them to isolate the researchers from REDD+ programme proponents. They saw us as working for the government even though we explained to them severally that we are only students writing on REDD+ in Ghana. This could be attributed to the fact that the focus group facilitators were employees of the Forest Services Division of the FC. This did put researchers in an ethical dilemma.

Frequency and flow of compensation

All groups preferred an initial lump sum payment, which would be followed by monthly payments, explaining that they get their cocoa money every month so they are used to that.

The women in the groups wanted an additional monthly payment of Ghs 500 for buying LPG.

Other suggestions and opinions are expressed in the table below (Table 3). Concerning the flow of compensation, some groups wanted the compensation scheme to run for as long as REDD+ exists in the area. For the loss of farmlands, the migrant women’s wanted compensation for themselves, their children and their grandchildren’s generations. This one was an emotional –filled discussion, where participants kept repeating that cocoa is basically their “life”. Their fears and suspicions regarding their future and that of future generations showed in the way they were discussing these issues. This was especially so in the women’s groups.

Table 8: Frequency and flow of compensation

Frequency and flow of compensation Remarks Monthly for 50 years (lifetime of cocoa

tree)

Monthly for 50 years, additional Ghs 500 per month for LPG

Women

One-time payment plus monthly until pension (60 years and above)

After compensation employ us on our own land for conservation work and pay Ghs 2000 per month

For loss of cocoa land, compensate our generation, our children’s and grandchildren’s generation.

“Cocoa is basically our life”

As long as REDD+ project exists.

Prefer continuous payment

Next of kin to benefit in case of death Fieldwork 2012

6.6 6.7 Institutional arrangements for managing compensation

Individual and communities preferred institutions for managing and distribution compensation were discussed in all focus groups.

6.6.1 6.7.1 Individual compensation

Payment of cash through banks was the preferred mode of payment. There was a unanimous decision on this from all groups. Everyone agreed that the safest means was to pay any money due any farmer through his or her individual bank accounts. They were strongly opposed to the idea of transferring money through the village authorities (traditional or state authorities).

Embezzlement and corruption was the reason given for this decision. A couple of them mentioned some cases of bitter experiences with village leadership regarding this. Their responses also revealed that most of them have had experiences with small-scale savings and

loans schemes known as “susu” (popular in rural Ghana). Also, most cocoa farmers were already familiar with the banking system, as COCOBOD³⁹ pays them through banks. This finding is in stark contrast to the Vietnamese case. In his study, Enright (2013) found that participants had full trust in state agencies and state-owned enterprises or banks to handle their and payments in a timely manner; which may be due to the fact that current economic benefit-sharing schemes associated with livelihoods is implemented by the government. The Ghana case on the other hand suggests that people have a strong mistrust in the government.

6.6.2 Community compensation

Participants agreed that a committee involving traditional leaders, literate and informed community members (such as school teachers, Imams and pastors), and farmer representatives should be tasked with managing community compensation as well as development projects.

Both men and women’s groups emphasized the need to include an equal number of men and women on the committee. All groups agreed that the management and distribution of funds should be a transparent and democratic one and insisted that the literate and educated community members are part of the committees so it works well. Box 3 below illustrates the preferences:

6.7 Livelihood and sustainable development impacts of REDD+ activities on local