Farmer perceptions of REDD+ livelihood interventions as incentive mechanism for reducing deforestation in the Juabuso-Bia cocoa forest landscape

IF 4 2区 农林科学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Frank Akowuge Dugasseh, Marianne Zandersen
{"title":"Farmer perceptions of REDD+ livelihood interventions as incentive mechanism for reducing deforestation in the Juabuso-Bia cocoa forest landscape","authors":"Frank Akowuge Dugasseh,&nbsp;Marianne Zandersen","doi":"10.1016/j.forpol.2025.103494","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Cocoa production in Ghana remains a vital source of rural livelihoods but is also a major driver of tropical deforestation. This study explored cocoa farmers' perceptions of how livelihood interventions under the Ghana Cocoa Forest REDD+<span><span><sup>1</sup></span></span> Program (GCFRP) affect their incomes, with a focus on the Juabuso-Bia Hotspot Intervention Area (HIA). Despite GCFRP's stated goals, gaps remain in understanding the equitable distribution of REDD+ benefits and their implications for farmer livelihoods. Using Q-methodology, semi-structured interviews, and focus group discussions, we examined farmers' experiences with GCFRP interventions. Key findings include i) livelihood interventions in the HIA appear inadequate for achieving living incomes; ii) current livelihood-enhancing mechanisms have limited coverage and poorly defined theories of change; iii) a disconnect exists between these livelihood interventions and national policies, leading to irregular and insufficient input supplies for climate-smart cocoa practices vi) farmers are more likely to reach living income status through fair producer price for current yields, rather than through increased production. We conclude that GCFRP interventions currently lack the necessary incentives to deter unsustainable practices contributing to deforestation. These findings highlight the need to revise the program's theory of change and policy alignment to better link emission reduction goals with improved farmer incomes and livelihoods. Further research across other HIAs is recommended to strengthen REDD+ implementation outcomes.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12451,"journal":{"name":"Forest Policy and Economics","volume":"175 ","pages":"Article 103494"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forest Policy and Economics","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934125000735","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Cocoa production in Ghana remains a vital source of rural livelihoods but is also a major driver of tropical deforestation. This study explored cocoa farmers' perceptions of how livelihood interventions under the Ghana Cocoa Forest REDD+1 Program (GCFRP) affect their incomes, with a focus on the Juabuso-Bia Hotspot Intervention Area (HIA). Despite GCFRP's stated goals, gaps remain in understanding the equitable distribution of REDD+ benefits and their implications for farmer livelihoods. Using Q-methodology, semi-structured interviews, and focus group discussions, we examined farmers' experiences with GCFRP interventions. Key findings include i) livelihood interventions in the HIA appear inadequate for achieving living incomes; ii) current livelihood-enhancing mechanisms have limited coverage and poorly defined theories of change; iii) a disconnect exists between these livelihood interventions and national policies, leading to irregular and insufficient input supplies for climate-smart cocoa practices vi) farmers are more likely to reach living income status through fair producer price for current yields, rather than through increased production. We conclude that GCFRP interventions currently lack the necessary incentives to deter unsustainable practices contributing to deforestation. These findings highlight the need to revise the program's theory of change and policy alignment to better link emission reduction goals with improved farmer incomes and livelihoods. Further research across other HIAs is recommended to strengthen REDD+ implementation outcomes.
农民认为REDD+生计干预措施是减少Juabuso-Bia可可林景观毁林的激励机制
在加纳,可可生产仍然是农村生计的重要来源,但也是热带森林砍伐的主要驱动因素。本研究探讨了可可农民对加纳可可林REDD+1计划(GCFRP)下的生计干预措施如何影响其收入的看法,重点关注了Juabuso-Bia热点干预区(HIA)。尽管GCFRP提出了目标,但在理解REDD+利益的公平分配及其对农民生计的影响方面仍然存在差距。采用q -方法学、半结构化访谈和焦点小组讨论,我们考察了农民采用GCFRP干预措施的经验。主要发现包括:(1)HIA的生计干预措施似乎不足以实现生活收入;Ii)目前改善生计的机制覆盖面有限,变化理论定义不清;Iii)这些生计干预措施与国家政策之间存在脱节,导致气候智能型可可实践的投入供应不规律和不足vi)农民更有可能通过当前产量的公平生产者价格而不是通过增加产量来达到生活收入水平。我们的结论是,GCFRP干预措施目前缺乏必要的激励措施来阻止导致森林砍伐的不可持续做法。这些发现突出表明,有必要修改该计划的变化理论和政策一致性,以便更好地将减排目标与农民收入和生计的改善联系起来。建议对其他hia进行进一步研究,以加强REDD+的实施成果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Forest Policy and Economics
Forest Policy and Economics 农林科学-林学
CiteScore
9.00
自引率
7.50%
发文量
148
审稿时长
21.9 weeks
期刊介绍: Forest Policy and Economics is a leading scientific journal that publishes peer-reviewed policy and economics research relating to forests, forested landscapes, forest-related industries, and other forest-relevant land uses. It also welcomes contributions from other social sciences and humanities perspectives that make clear theoretical, conceptual and methodological contributions to the existing state-of-the-art literature on forests and related land use systems. These disciplines include, but are not limited to, sociology, anthropology, human geography, history, jurisprudence, planning, development studies, and psychology research on forests. Forest Policy and Economics is global in scope and publishes multiple article types of high scientific standard. Acceptance for publication is subject to a double-blind peer-review process.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信