Volume 2, Issue 1, February 2017, Page: 1-11
Gender-Based Differences in the Commercialisation of Rattan and Bamboo as Livelihood Support Option for Rural and Urban Poor in Ghana: Opportunities and Challenges
Martin Amoah, Department of Construction and Wood, University of Education, Winneba, Ghana
Joseph Asomani, Department of Construction and Wood, University of Education, Winneba, Ghana
Raphael Kwasi Dzakpasu, Department of Construction and Wood, University of Education, Winneba, Ghana
Frank Asafuah, Department of Construction and Wood, University of Education, Winneba, Ghana
Received: Dec. 16, 2016;       Accepted: Jan. 3, 2017;       Published: Jan. 19, 2017
DOI: 10.11648/j.ajere.20170201.11      View  2850      Downloads  122
This study investigated the gender-based differences in the commercialisation of rattan and bamboo in Ghana, the opportunities available to rural and urban poor communities engaged in the value chain of rattan and bamboo resource and the challenges they face in their quest to earn a living from the industry. Using snowball sampling, 106 actors in the value chain of the industry were sampled from rural and urban communities where rattan and bamboo are harvested, processed and marketed. Questionnaire and semi-structured interviews were the main data collection tools. The results showed that even though males dominate the value chain, females play two important roles: harvesting and supplying of raw rattan and bamboo to processors. Whereas rural males and females are mostly engaged in the harvesting of the resource their urban counterparts are engaged in the processing and marketing of products from the resource. The limited role played by women in the value chain was partly due to their low self-efficacy resulting from gender stereotype and their traditional roles in the home. Those involved in all the stages of the value chain reported daily income of about USD8.00 and this diminishes to 19.8%, 23%, and 36% of it for harvesters, processors and marketers, respectively. The amount accrued to harvesters was found to be lower than the average daily wage of hired labour, suggesting that the commercialisation of rattan and bamboo has not improved the economic status of rural people. Economics of scale and product quality were the main inhibiting factors for successful commercialisation of the resource. Policy interventions aimed at increasing rural participation in the value chain should include removal of gender stigmatization, providing rural artisans with technical and marketing support, and establishing cottage industry as part of effort to integrating rural businesses communities’ into local tourism. International visibility of rattan and bamboo industry in Ghana, which thus far has remained poor, requires urgent attention from governmental and non-governmental agencies.
Value Chain, Low Self-Efficacy, Gender Stereotype, Economics of Scale, Product Quality
To cite this article
Martin Amoah, Joseph Asomani, Raphael Kwasi Dzakpasu, Frank Asafuah, Gender-Based Differences in the Commercialisation of Rattan and Bamboo as Livelihood Support Option for Rural and Urban Poor in Ghana: Opportunities and Challenges, American Journal of Environmental and Resource Economics. Vol. 2, No. 1, 2017, pp. 1-11. doi: 10.11648/j.ajere.20170201.11
Copyright © 2017 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Ruiz-Pérez, M, and Arnold, J. E. M. 1996. Current issues in non-timber forest products research. Bogor, Indonesia. Center for International Forestry. 259p.
Neumann, R. P., and Hirsch, E. 2000. Commercialisation of Non-Timber Forest products: Rev. Anal. Res., CIFOR. 175p.
Arnold, J. E. M. and Ruiz-Pérez, M. 2001. Can non-timber forest products match tropical forest conservation and development objectives? Ecological Economics 39 (3): 437-447.
Ambrose-Oji, B. 2003. The contribution of NTFPs to the livelihoods of the ‘forest poor’: evidence from the tropical forest zone of South West Cameron. Int. Forestry Rev. 5 (2): 106-117.
Peters, C. M., Gentry, A. H. and Mendelson, R. O. 1989. Valuation of an Amazonian rainforest. Nature 339: 655-656.
Sunderland, T. and Ndoye, O. 2004. Forest products, Livelihoods and Conservation: Case Stud. Non-Timber For. Products Syst. Vol. 2- Africa. CIFOR.
Hossain, M. F., Islam, M. A., and Numan, S. M.2015. Multi Purpose Uses of Bamboo Plants: A Review Paper. International Research Journal of Biological Sciences, ISSN 2278 – 3202
Dove, M. R. 1993. A revisionists view of deforestation and development. Environmental Conservation20: 17-24.
Southgate, D., Ritchie, M. C. and Canelos, P. S. 1996. Can tropical forest be saved by harvesting non-timber forest products? CSERGE Working paper GEC96-02. 19p.
Shackleton, S. E. 2006. The significance of the local trade in natural resource products for livelihoods and poverty alleviation in South Africa. PhD Thesis.
Shackleton, C. M. and Schackleton, S 2006. Household wealth status and natural resource use in the Kat River valley, South Africa. Ecol. Econ. 57 (2): 306-317.
Shackleton, S., Campbell, B., Lotz-Sisitka, H. and Shackleton, C. 2008. Links between the local Trade in natural products, livelihoods and Poverty Alleviation in a Semi-Arid Region of South Africa. World Development 36 (3): 503-526.
Khanal, M. 2015. Importance of Bamboo in Poors’ Livelihood in Nepal. 10th World Bamboo Congress, Korea. Proceedings of a meeting held 17-22 September 2015, Damyang, Korea.
Marshall, E., Newton, A. C., and Schreckenberg, K. 2003. Commercialsation of non-timber forest products: First steps in analyzing the factors influencing success. Int. Forest. Rev. 5 (2): 128-137.
Lynser, M. B.; Tiwari, B. K.; Nongbri, B.; Kharlyngdoh, E. 2015. Bamboo Mat Making and its Contribution to the Rural Livelihood of Women in South Meghalaya, India. Bamboo Science & Culture. 2015, Vol. 28 Issue 1: 23-31. 9p.
Facolner, J. 1992. Non-timber forest products in Southern Ghana. A Summary Report. ODA Forestry Natural Res. Inst. 235p.
Tabi-Gyansah, E. 2001. Analysis of the spatial distribution of NTFPs in the tropical forest of Ghana. ETERN News 32: 21-22.
Creswell, J. W. 2009. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Approaches. 3rd Ed. London: SAGE.
Denscombe, M 2008. Communities of practice: a research paradigm for the mixed methods approach. J. Mixed Methods Res.2 (3): 270-283.
Cohen, L, Manion, L, Morrison, K 2011. Research methods in Education. 7th Ed. London: Routledge.
Heckathorn, D. D. 1997. Respondent-driven sampling: a new approach to the study of hidden populations, Social Problems, 44 (2): 174-199.
Oteng-Amoako, A., DarkoObiri, B., Britwum, S., Afful-Mensah, J. K., Asiedu, J. and Ebanyenle, E. 2000. A study of the production-to-consumption system of rattan in Ghana. For. Res. Inst. Ghana/ Int. Network for Bamboo and Rattan.
Patton, M. Q. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3rd Ed. London: SAGE.
Shackleton, S., Paumgarten, F., Kassa, H., Husselman, M. and Zida, M. 2011. Opportunities for enhancing empowerment in the value chains of three African non-timber forest products (NTFPs). Int. Forest. Rev. 13 (2): 136-151.
Ella, A. B. 2004. Sustainable harvesting of non-timber forest products: the role of gender in the Philippines. Proc. regional workshop for poverty reduction. Beijing, China. 1-2 September, 2003. FAO Corporate Document Repository. http://www.fao.org.docrep. Accessed on: 12/6/2012.
Wissinki, D. 1996. Galip (Canariumindicum) as a cash crop in West New Britain, Papua New Guinea: experiences of the Kandrian Gloucester integrated development project. In: Stevens MC, Bourke RM, Evans BR (eds). South Pacific Indigenous Nuts, 84-91. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra, Australia.
Anokye, R., Bakar, E. S., Ratnasingam, N., and Bakar, N. N. 2016. The Effects of Nodes and Resin on the Mechanical properties of Laminated Bamboo Timber produced from GigantochloaScortechinii. Construction and Building Materials 105: 285 – 290.
TeVelde, D. W., Rushton, J., Schrenkenberg, K., Marshall, E., Edouard, F., Newton, A. and Arancibia, E. 2006. Entrepreneurship in value chains of non-timber forest products. For. Policy and Economics 8: 725-741.
Belcher, B. and Schreckenberg, K. 2007. Commercialisation of Non-Timber Forest Products: A reality check. Dev. Policy Rev. 25(13).
Byron, N. and Arnold, M. 1999. What futures for the people of the tropical forests? World Development. 27 (5): 789-805.
Adu-Anning, C. 2004. The rattan industry in the Ashanti and Western regions of Ghana. In: Sunderland, T., Ndoye, O. (eds). Forest Products, Livelihoods and Conservation. Case Studies of NTFPs systems. Vol.2-Africa. CIFOR.
Ahenkan, A. and Boon, E. 2010. Assessing the Impact of Forest policies and Strategies on Promoting the Development of Non-Timber Forest products in Ghana. J. Biodiversity 1 (2): 85-102.
Widayati, A., Jone, S. and Carlisle, B. 2010. Accessibility Factors and Conservation Forest Designation Affecting Rattan Cane Harvesting in Lambusango Forest, Buton, Indonesia. Hum Ecol. 38: 731-746.
Evans B. R. 2000 (eds). South Pacific Indigenous Nuts, 84-91. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra, Australia.
Amoah M. et. al. Unpublished.
Osei-Tutu, P., Nketiah, S. K., Kyere, B. and Owusu-Ansah, M. 2012. Small and medium Forest Enterprises in Ghana. Sourcebook on enterprise characteristics, activity centres, product markets, support institutions and service providers. IIED Small and Medium Forest Enterprise Series No. 28. Tropenbos International and International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK. 55p.
Obiri, B. D. and Oteng-Amoako, A. A. 2007. Towards a sustainable development of the bamboo industry in Ghana. Ghana Journal of Forestry. 21 & 22: 14-27.
Skills Development Fund. 2012. SDF awards to four organisations. http://www.sdfghana.org/new/.
Browse journals by subject