CHAINSAW MILLING IN GHANA: CONTExT, DRIVERS ... - Fornis.net

Chapter 2. Evolution of chainsaw policyThe Interim Felling Procedures, as enumerated by Smith (1996) and Kotey et al.(1998), had several key features:• Applications to the Forestry Department (FD) for the felling of trees forcommunity projects had to be accompanied by project documents (includinga bill of quantities) approved by the DA.• Before felling began, the trees would be inspected by the FD, DA, logger, acommunity representative and the farmer involved. Farmers could raise objectionsover a tree being felled on their farms, even in concession areas. Any treefelled on a farm against the wishes of the farmer was considered illegal.• A Forest Officer would issue a felling permit before felling commenced.• After felling, farmers could bring any complaints about the felling operations tothe attention of the Forest Officers.• A certificate of conveyance was issued by the FD for all logs, boards, charcoalor firewood produced for commercial sale before they were moved from thesite.• Staff at roadside checkpoints of the Timber Industry Development Division(TIDD) would stamp and sign the felling permits accompanying lumber intransit and send copies of permits to the FD each month.• All chainsawn lumber on the market was expected to be governed at all timesby the felling permits and the certificates issued by the FD and be available forinspection by either FSD or TIDD staff whenever necessary.Odoom (2005) reviewed the measures and observed that they could not curbchainsaw operations; there were inadequate checks in the rural areas and the bulk ofthe chainsawn lumber that found its way into the urban markets was not inspectedas required. With evidence that the Interim Felling Procedures were not helping thesituation, several policy instruments were employed from about 1997 to deal withillegal timber operations.Timber task forces — composed of the staff of FSD, police and the military — wereformed in 1996 to track down culprits and confiscate chainsawn lumber, equipmentand vehicles from CSM operations. This largely failed to stop illegal chainsawoperations.The Timber Resource Management Act, 1997 (Act 547) and its accompanying TimberResources Management Regulation, 1998 (LI 1649) were promulgated following amajor policy review of chainsaw operations (Agyeman, Agyeman and Kyere 2004),and chainsaw milling was consequently banned in 1998. Two studies havereviewed the factors that led to the ban on chainsaw milling (Kotey et al. 1998;Agyeman, Agyeman and Kyere 2004). The latter, for example, pointed out thefollowing reasons:• high levels of waste and inefficiency when converting logs to lumber;• skewed economic rent that enabled wood processors to capture the lion’sshare of economic revenues at the expense of forest owners and localcommunities;9