Local Knowledge and Response to Deforestation and Climate Change Phenomena Among Different Livelihood Groups

About 85% of Ghana‟s deforestation is human-induced, based on the quest for livelihoods. The Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation plus (REDD+) initiative aimed at mitigating climate change by providing incentives to conserve forest lands, is criticized as largely favouring rich investors and owners of large forests lands instead of the poor whose activities account for 85% of total forest loss. The poor, mostly rural dwellers, therefore have very little motivation to preserve forest resources under REDD+. This study explores the viability of an enhanced knowledge and appreciation of forest ecosystem services as an alternative approach to motivate poor people to invest in forest preservation.To achieve this, the local knowledge of poor forest community dwellers regarding deforestation and climate change was critically examined. Literature abounds on rural farmers‟ knowledge of their environment but very little is known about the knowledge held by other forest inhabitants whose livelihoods do not depend on forests but are equally affected by distortions in the forest‟s ecosystem. The study thus sought to construct the current local knowledge of deforestation as exists among two main livelihood groups (individuals whose livelihoods depend on forest resources and those whose livelihood activity does not depend on forest resources). The study employed the mixed methodological approach in its design. Questionnaires and interviews were used to gather information on the respondents‟ knowledge on deforestation and climate change. Contingent evaluation method was used to ascertain respondents‟ response to deforestation and climate change in terms of their willingness to pay to conserve forests. This was done in two phases. The first WTP bids were solicited from respondents immediately after gathering information on their current knowledge of the phenomena. The second WTP bids were solicited after respondents were given information about Forest Ecosystem Services and its importance in to the ecosystem human existence. This enabled the study to draw meaningful conclusions about the potential for enhanced knowledge of Forest Ecosystem Services to serve as motivation to poor rural dweller to conserve forests. The study did not find significant differences between local knowledge of deforestation held by the two livelihood groups. There were no significant differences between the two groups in their local experiences and perceptions of climate change. Both livelihood groups showed a lot of concern about deforestation since the difference in the level of concern showed was not statistically significant. Both groups had a positive response to deforestation and climate change as evidenced by the fact that both were willing to pay an average of GHC 8.2 (USD 2.4) to preserve secondary forests in the community. With enhanced knowledge of forest ecosystem services, both livelihood groups increased their mean willingness to pay amounts to GHC10.8 (USD 3.1). The study thus concludes that the extent of livelihood diversification in the rural economy is such that even individuals whose main livelihood activities do not rely on forest resources, value the importance of the forests in meeting subsistence needs, thus are equally aware of and concerned about the problem of deforestation and climate change as individuals whose main livelihoods depend solely on forest resources. Knowledge of forest ecosystem services presents a viable alternative to incentivise all community members (rich, poor, farmers, non-farmers) to place a high premium on forest conservation