Ghana’s land tenure system is characterised as one of legal pluralism, in which customary and statutory laws co-exist in a complex mix, with a range of institutions and regulations having authority over land rights and multiple bodies responsible for resolving disputes.

Customary land is categorised by its largely unwritten nature, based on local practices and norms that are said to be flexible, negotiable and location-specific (AGBOSU et al, 2007). Customary land tenure is usually managed by a traditional ruler, earth priest, council of elders, family or lineage heads. Its principles stem from rights established through first clearance of land, conquest or settlement (AGBOSU et al, 2007).

The State land tenure system, on the other hand, is usually codified, written statutes and regulations. It is based on laws which have their roots in the colonial power and which outline what is acceptable and provide consequences for non-compliance. Management of such codified systems is usually in the hands of government administrators and bodies with delegated authority. It is instructive to note that despite the fundamental differences underlying the principles and systems for managing land under customary and statutory forms, in practice this neat distinction is not readily obvious.

Generally, five land ownership types can be identified in Ghana (ABEBRESE, 2002): a) State land referring to land that the government has compulsorily acquired under the State Lands Act 1962, Act 125. Such land is acquired in the interest of the public; (b) Vested land referring to land vested in the State under the Administration of the State Lands Act 1962, Act 123. The state acts as the trustee for the relevant stool (community); (c) Stool land (community land) which is vested in the relevant stool on behalf of the community, as represented by the chief or the traditional ruler or any in a fiduciary capacity for his people. Members of the land holding group have usufruct rights, which are equivalent to free hold. In a practical sense such land belongs to members of the land holding group and their interests are secure, inheritable and generally alienable. The alienation of such land by the stool or family requires the consent of the holder of this interest; (d) Family land, which is vested in a family whose head represents the family; and finally, (e) privately owned land, which has a free hold interest and can be purchased outright by an individual or group of persons. This type of land invariably reverts back to become family land should the owner die intestate. Public land accounts for approximately one fifth, and stool land for approximately two-thirds of land in Ghana (KATOOMBA, 2009).

A review of tree tenure and land rights in Ghana reveals that while rights to carbon are yet to be determined, issues relating to land and tree tenure are quite clear within legislation (OSAFO, 2010). There is a dual system with regards to land and tree tenure rights in Ghana, with landowners usually having no economic rights to the trees on their land (KATOOMBA, 2009). While traditional authorities can own the trees on their lands, the management and commercial rights belong to the State in both reserve and off-reserve areas (KATOOMBA, 2009).

Income from mineral and natural resources including timber is distributed according to a Constitutional formula. By this formula, the Forestry Commission (FC) deducts a management fee of 60% from timber revenues (technically known as stumpage fees) in the on-reserves and 40% in the off-reserves. An additional deduction of 10% is given to the Administrator of Stool Lands and then the remaining is shared between the District Assembly (55%), the stool (25%) and Traditional Council (20%). As individual farmers, who often hold the management responsibilities, are left out from the revenue sharing formula, the small farming population is not adequately incentivised to protect trees. They would rather keep economic timber trees off their land than risk collateral damage from timber operations to their beverage and food crops. Reform of the tree tenure regime is widely viewed as a necessary precondition for reinvigoration of the off-reserve stock, and has been proposed to be given attention in the REDD+ strategy.

In Ghana, carbon rights have yet to be clearly defined. It is recognised in the REDD+ arena that the government must decide whether carbon is viewed as an ecosystem service or as a natural resource by law. In the absence of this understanding, community resource management areas (CREMAs) provide a potential solution by allocating all management rights to the communities that make up the CREMA. Ghana’s Readiness Preparation Proposal cites this as one of the preferred mechanisms for implementing REDD+ projects.