This paper examines opposition to colonial forest control and forest legislation in the Gold Coast Colony between 1889 and 1927. In the Gold Coast, forest legislation allowing the constitution of forest reserves, came late compared to other British colonies. The paper explains why. It describes the alliance between Gold Coast customary rulers (chiefs), the indigenous educated elite and British interests that came together to oppose, first, colonial plans of land control, subsequently forest control. This alliance put together an effective, long-standing and sophisticated opposition, but eventually it collapsed, and this allowed the Gold Coast Forests Ordinance to be enacted in 1927. The paper attributes the collapse to the emergence of conflicting interests within the coalition. This was – at least partly – the result of a revised colonial policy in the Gold Coast after WWI which resulted in closer collaboration between the colonial authorities and the traditional authorities (paramount chiefs) at the expense of the educated elite. The Gold Coast Forests Ordinance confirmed customary ownership over forests and the role of traditional authorities. The paper and the Gold Coast case illustrates the limits of the colonial state and that empire forestry was not everywhere a project of seamless control and implementation, but one in need of adaptation and compromise.

本文考察了 1889 年至 1927 年间黄金海岸殖民地反对殖民地森林控制和森林立法的情况。在黄金海岸，与其他英国殖民地相比，允许建立森林保护区的森林立法来得较晚。这篇论文解释了原因。它描述了黄金海岸习惯统治者（酋长）、受过教育的土著精英和英国利益集团之间的联盟，他们联合起来反对土地控制的殖民计划，随后是森林控制。这个联盟汇集了一个有效的、长期存在的和复杂的反对派，但最终它崩溃了，这使得黄金海岸森林条例在 1927 年得以颁布。该论文将崩溃归因于联盟内部利益冲突的出现。这至少部分是第一次世界大战后黄金海岸修订殖民政策的结果，该政策导致殖民当局与传统当局（最高酋长）之间以牺牲受过教育的精英为代价进行更密切的合作。黄金海岸森林条例确认了森林的习惯所有权和传统当局的作用。这篇论文和黄金海岸的案例说明了殖民国家的局限性，帝国林业并非到处都是无缝控制和实施的项目，而是需要适应和妥协的项目。黄金海岸森林条例确认了森林的习惯所有权和传统当局的作用。这篇论文和黄金海岸的案例说明了殖民国家的局限性，帝国林业并非到处都是无缝控制和实施的项目，而是需要适应和妥协的项目。黄金海岸森林条例确认了森林的习惯所有权和传统当局的作用。这篇论文和黄金海岸的案例说明了殖民国家的局限性，帝国林业并非到处都是无缝控制和实施的项目，而是需要适应和妥协的项目。