Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2021/Assessing the impact of viable Alternative Livelihood strategies on the Savanna Landscape. A Case Study of the Mole National Park

From UBC Wiki

Summary of Case Study

Conservation goals are expected to contribute to local livelihoods especially local communities that depend on them.Natural Resource Managers are confronted with the challenge of providing synergies between conservation goals and livelihood improvement of proximal communities.[1] Community-Based Forestry is touted as an effective participatory approach to natural resource management that strengthens communities' capacity to build a vibrant local community economies and ecosystems[2].  

What is the issue? Communities near Mole National Park experienced waves of displacement after the park was gazetted. The livelihood of the local communities was curtailed since they had their hunting grounds and farmlands inside the park. This resulted in conflict and resentment towards the managers of the park. The case study explores the devolution of power to local communities and how benefits accrue to adjacent communities of Mole National Park after they have undergone various degrees of turbulent transitions in the past. The vehicle for carrying out this is through Community Resource Management Area (CREMA) approach. The case study further identified policy gaps and made recommendations.

Theme: Assessing the Impact of Viable Alternative Livelihood strategies on the Savanna Landscape. A case study of the Mole National Park.
Country: Ghana
Province/Prefecture: Ghana
City: Northern Region of Ghana

This conservation resource was created by Francis Kpatakpa.
It is shared under a CC-BY 4.0.




Introduction

The major source of livelihood for local communities in Ghana is forest and wildlife resources. These resources have been depleted in the process of exploiting them.[3]

In the pursuit of biodiversity conservation goals, by policy-makers and conservationists, impact of these projects tend to be more intense in natural resource-dependent communities. Biodiversity conservation is complex and mostly require a multiscale process that affects multiple stakeholders and remains pivotal to sustainable development. Since natural resources form the basis of human existence and economic development, it requires collaborative approach to sustainably manage them. [4] 

Often, biodiversity conservation efforts result in conflict among interested stakeholders. Rural communities that normally depend on natural resources tend to suffer from shocks after the creation of protected areas which further exacerbate their poverty conditions. Drawing lessons from previous failures, communities have transitioned to a more collaborative approach in natural resource management.[4] In many countries, Community-Based Natural Resource Management was introduced to combine conservation and development goals.  The notion is that increasing the economic benefits of communities can encourage participation in conservation.[5] History has it that, when the Mole National Park was gazetted in 1971, people were forcefully evicted from their hunting grounds[3]. In some instances, the local communities who had their settlements, farmlands, shrines and cemeteries in the National Park were either coerced or deceived to vacate the park[6]. The perception of conflict by surrounding communities was caused by the effect it posed on their livelihood.[3] This case study elaborates on the institutional framework of Ghana's Community Resource Management Area (CREMA) which proved viable in providing alternative livelihood for the local communities. An expert who works closely with local people in 4 CREMAs (Murugu-Mognori, Yazori -Kumbo, Bawena-Kpulumbo and Gurubagu-Wawato) near Mole National Park was interviewed in order to get significant insight about the case study.

Historical Background of Mole National Park

The history of Mole National Park is associated with the Gonjas. The Gonjas are mostly hunters and farmers. They sojourned the savanna landscape for survival whiles battling the slave trade. The present day Gonjas are challenged with the need to find a trade-off between conservation and development since Mole was declared an important Biodiversity Spot. The British Colonial Administration designated in the 1930s some portion of the park as a Game Clearance area to control tsetse flies. Significant wildlife habitats were destroyed in the process. The Mole Game Reserve was formed in 1958 enclosing some traditional hunting grounds and sacred sites. Communities were therefore resettled elsewhere. The park was gazetted as a National Park under L.I.170 in 1971.[7]. The park suffered from Ghana's economic decline between 1979 and 1985.Poaching was increasingly perceived as a problem by the government. Mole National Park gained support from International bodies in 1990s. The year 1992 witnessed the eviction of one last community and further expansion of the park. The evictions of people from the park made the relationship between local communities and the state tense.[5] Community Resource Management Areas were introduced to ensure sustainable management of natural resources[7]. The CREMAs to some extent aim to reduce these tensions by allowing surrounding communities to define resource regulations themselves, define user rights, and support natural resource-based income-generating activities[5]. Mole National Park comprises 33 farming communities. The Local communities have outstanding cultural, archaeological, architectural, socio-economic background which makes them an attraction destination.[7]

Ecological Description of Mole National Park

Mole National Park is found at the center of the pristine Guinea Savannah Woodland vegetation, with gallery forests along the rivers and streams. The Guinea Savannah Woodland is described as the largest vegetation zone in Ghana, covering 148,000 sq.km (62% of Ghana). This vegetation type is characterized by widespread tall grasses which are interspersed with deciduous acacia trees and other trees such as Baobab (Adansonia digitata), Dawadawa (Parkia clappertoniana), Silk Cotton (Ceiba pentrandra) and Shea Tree (Butyrospermum parapodium). [7]

Plant life varies from season to season: the wet season promotes the growth of trees and grasses, making vegetation look lush and green. The dry season, on the other hand, gives the landscape a parched look. Leaves change color from green to yellow and brown, and the trees eventually shed their leaves. MNP has two diverse types of soil; groundwater lateritic soil and savannah ochrosol. The soil type influence agricultural and other subsistence activities in the Savannah landscape .[7] Besides the diverse flora, Mole National Park can boast of diverse wildlife population including over 90 mammal species including 5 primate species, species of high conservation status and tourist interest such as Elephant, Buffalo, Kob, Western Hartebeest, Roan Antelope, Defassa Waterbuck, Oribi, Bohor Reedbuck and Red-flanked Duiker. Rare and endangered species include the Yellow-backed Duiker, Black and White Colobus Monkey, Leopard and Lion. The Park is also home to 334 bird species, 33 reptiles, 9 amphibian species, and some 120 butterfly species.[7]

Economic / Livelihood Activities

The gathering and processing of NTFPs, such as wild fruits like Shea (Vitellaria paradoxa) and Dawadawa  (Parkia biglobosa), game hunting, wild honey harvesting, and small-scale trading constitute key sources of livelihood during the dry season. The NTFPs provide an important safety net for adjacent communities. Both men and women both receive substantial income from non-farming activities such as agro-processing, commerce, transport services charcoal production, firewood gathering, repair services, wage work, and seasonal migration. Gari processing and Shea butter extraction accounts for around 30 % of the labor force in the District. These are carried out by women and constitute an important safety net for households. [8]

The Gonjas engage in cultivation of millet and some maize. The Nchumuru people and some Gonjas also do farming, but mainly hunt and fish. The main product of commercial value is Shea-butter, which is still exported down to the Coast and which can be found in every market, shaped like a sugar cone and wrapped in leaves. Shea-butter is extremely easy to make: the fruit is roasted, pounded, and then boiled in large pots. The fat which swims on top is the liquid form of the product. In smaller quantities, sesame seeds are also exported from Gonja in small quantities.[7]

Land Tenure Arrangements

Land in its broadest sense, is the most important socio-cultural and economic resource in most parts of Ghana, most especially, the rural parts Ghana. About 90% of the people of Ghana depend on the land in one way or the other for their livelihood. The various lands of Northern Ghana are owned by families, clans, sub-ethnic groups, and chiefs. Family heads, clan heads "tindaanama" (meaning first settlers) and chiefs hold the land in trust for the people. [9]

Land ownership is communal under the custody of the Tendena (Earth priest), held in trust by the chief of the community on behalf of the Yagbonwura (Gonja King). The Tendena in the community exercises custodian and spiritual supervision over all natural resources found within the communities and thus plays a key role in their use. [8]

Access Rights

It was revealed that since the park is classified as International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) category II, it is protected for its ecological integrity, tourism, and research. This implies that,no form of extraction or human manipulation will be tolerated.[6] According to IUCN, a National Park is defined as a "Large natural or near natural areas set aside to protect large-scale ecological processes, along with the complement of species and ecosystems characteristic of the area, which also provide a foundation for environmentally and culturally compatible spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and visitor opportunities"[10] In the management plan of the park, they make some exemptions for extracting Non –Timber Forest Products. Extraction is permitted if only it is proven not to be found in the community or linked to tradition.Some communities have their shrines in the park so they are permitted to go and perform their annual rituals. Women are allowed to pick shea nuts in the park under guided arrangements if they do not have some in their communities. [6]

At the community level, where sustainable use of resources can make a difference to their condition, around 90% of assets from the game on farms, medicines, wild fruits, water resources, building materials, raw materials for crafts and land for farming, are common property.[8]

UBC Wiki Logo

Community Resource Management Area (CREMA)

Collaborative Wildlife Management in Ghana  

In order to tackle the challenges with wildlife management, the Wildlife division designed a Collaborative wildlife Management policy to empower the 1994 Forest and Wildlife Policy. This was developed to ensure participation of stakeholders especially, local communities, civil society organizations, and other interested stakeholders. The institutional arrangement in achieving this is through Protected Areas Management Boards (PAMABs) and the Community Resource management Area (CREMA) initiative[11].  

Relevance of CREMA [11]

The rationale for creating the CREMA approach is to provide a win- win situation for all the stakeholders involved. This is achieved through the following:  

1. CREMA helps to add value to natural resources and authority is devolved to local communities to manage the resources.

2.CREMA helps to sustain livelihoods and human well- being of local communities.

3. Habitats of endangered species are secured and the security of Protected Areas is ensured.

4.In terms of political dimensions, it ensures accountability at local levels.

5. In addition, CREMA strengthens local economies and diversifies income at community and household levels.

6. Finally, it establishes a congruency of socio-political, economic and ecological interests.[11]

Organizational Structure of CREMA  

The CREMA approach helps in devolving responsibilities to local communities to manage natural resources sustainably. Local communities tend to protect resources if only they receive financial benefits from managing them. Based on the Organizational structure of CREMA, CREMA can be defined as; a geographically defined area endowed with sufficient resources where communities of farmers have organized themselves for the purpose of sustainable resource management.[11]

The organizational structure is in two levels:  

1. Primary level also referred to as Community Resource Management Committee

2. The secondary level which is known as the Executive Committee.[11]

Institutional Arrangements

Usually, CREMA is composed of a 15-member CREMA executive committee (CEC) that consists of core executive members and other appointed representatives of the individual community resource management committees (CRMCs), drawn from decision-making persons and representation from recognized groups within the community. The CEC is in charge of the day-to-day running of the affairs of the CREMA and makes decisions by applying the CREMAs constitution, management plan and bye-laws. Periodic general meetings that involve community are also organized by the CEC.[8] In forming a CREMA, interested stakeholders, including traditional authorities, the youth group, clergy, assembly, women group come together to form Community Resource Management Committees. Community Resource Management Committee is the basic governance structure in the CREMA. In a place where there are two or more communities involved, each community has its respective Community Resource Committee out of which they select a CREMA executive committee which comprises members of each CRMC. The CREMA is one umbrella where members have their own constitution, management plan which details management actions with respect to resource monitoring, utilization, and protection. There is also an action plan which lasts for a year or 5 depending on the management plan. There is a bye-law passed by the district assembly that gives them legal basis. There is no legal backing at the national level yet. The wildlife resources bill is still in parliament. [6]

The last stage is the Devolution of authority which comes from the ministry of Lands and Natural Resources . Per the laws of the country, every resource is vested in the government. Government devolves power to the communities to manage resources. This goes alongside capacity building by the forestry commission and NGOs as stipulated in the CREMA framework. Lots of frameworks can be formed depending on CREMA and their needs.Members of CREMA are required to design a constitution which is supported by District Assembly Byelaw.[6]

Limitations to CREMA [11]

The drawbacks to the initiative are associated mostly with implementation and facilitation:

1.Failure to correctly identify local decision-making structures could result in a powerless CREMA.

2.Communities that are deeply divided over other issues may not be able to develop sufficient consensus to form a CREMA.

3.The CREMA approach is a “process” and especially in the early stages requires time, technical support and funding for that support[11].

Strength and Weaknesses of CREMA

The following strengths and weakness were identified during an interview. A significant strength of CREMA has been the community angle. Once you are able to mobilize community participation, the outcomes really gets prospective. In addition, effective governance has been established through capacity building. Local communities are now able to take part effectively in discourses and discussions related to natural resource management. Finally, recognition is one remarkable strength of CREMA. Ambassadors of different countries, other important dignitaries, Government officials, and multilateral agencies often visit the communities to see the progress that has been made. The major weakness has got to do with illiteracy.Due to lack of simple understanding, decision making is often delayed.[6]

Stakeholders

The Government of Ghana through the Forestry Commission of Ghana, Non-Governmental Organizations such as A Rocha Ghana and Ghana Wildlife Society are the major interested stakeholders because they stand to gain a lot from involving communities in managing natural resources sustainably.[6] These social actors often influence decision making.The Local communities are the affected stakeholders even though they get a collective voice when it comes to decision making[6] but they often bear the cost of conservation[8]. The District Assembly, traditional authorities, private sectors are some significant stakeholders in the CREMA. When it comes livelihood interventions, private sectors come in to provide market linkages.[6]

Impact of CREMA on livelihood of local communities

Livelihood is made up of people, their capabilities, and means of living. For a livelihood to be environmentally sustainable, it should maintain the local and global assets of people depending on them. Socially sustainable livelihood on the other hand should be able to recover from stress and shocks and provide for generations to come[12].

Several micro-enterprises dependent on the NTFPs and livelihood strategies have been supported through training, start-up support, financial and market linkages, adding value-added to thriving beekeeping and shea nut trade businesses, as well as improved and diversified ecotourism opportunities within adjacent communities.  Women’s groups trading shea nuts have been helped to obtain a sustainable premium value for their product through value-added trade links, such as fair trade and organic certification. Traditional livestock husbandry practices have improved through the start-up facilities for suitable housing and training and veterinary care[8]. So basically, three major livelihood options have been provided through CREMA. These comprise, Organic cassava production since most of the adjacent communities are predominantly farmers. This is fetching quite handsomely for the local communities. Organic processing of shea nut and shea butter production for the women and Honey production is done as well. Over 450 bee -keepers people are engaged. They are trained and provided with beehives[6].

This is done closely with private partners that buys the organic cassava, shea butter, honey and wax from the people. Under well supervised contracts and agreement.These alternative livelihood interventions have proven effective in communities since there is a available data that the incidence of poaching has reduced drastically in areas where CREMA is practiced.[6]

Benefit Sharing Arrangements[6]

This is achieved through a three-tier benefit sharing arrangement. and it depends mostly on the commodity.

  • First level has to do with the individual farmer or share processor involved. Once you process or harvest your cassava, honey or shea, you take your money or agreed fee.
  • Bonuses: Since it is an organic product, It attracts organic premium when they are exported. These organic bonuses are ranging from 20 % to 30% of the market price depending on the arrangement.  
  • A Conservation trust fund has been set up.Some premium from the organic trade is paid into the conservation trust fund. There is over 100, 000 Ghana cedis (16,333 USD) currently in the trust fund which is accrued from the livelihood activities that are on-going and they are intended to be reinvested into the community to provide social interventions in relation to conservation[6].

Recommendations

  • There is a need for more resources to be committed towards ensuring that CREMAs can continue building on and strengthening the relationships of trust established between officials and local communities. [13]
  • Efforts should be made for local communities to take ownership of CREMA. Since the initiative was proposed by the Government and NGOs. some communities find it challenging to take ownership of CREMA. They feel compelled to comply even though it is bringing them benefits[6]
  • Steps should be taken to expedite the passing of the wildlife bill since it is still before parliament.[6]
  • Despite the great successes recorded through private partnerships, more collaboration is required. [6]

Acknowledgement

Much thanks to Godwin Evenyo Dzekoto, Project Manager at A Rocha Ghana for all the time spent and valuable information provided.

References

  1. ↑ Obeng, E. A., Dakurah, I., Oduro, K. A., & Obiri, B. D. (2021). Local communities’ preferences and economic values for ecosystem services from Mole National Park in Ghana: A choice experiment approach. Global Ecology and Conservation, 32, e01904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01904
  2. ↑ Andre, M. S. (2015). Arcata Community Forest, California, United States of America. In Forest Plans of North America (pp. 53-59). Academic Press.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780127999364000084
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Soliku, O. (2021). Gendered Impacts of Conservation on Rural Communities in Northern Ghana: Implications for Collaborative Natural Resources Management. Society & Natural Resources, 34(6), 805–821. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2021.1895389
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Cobbinah, P. B., Black, R., & Thwaites, R. (2015). Biodiversity conservation and livelihoods in rural Ghana: Impacts and coping strategies. Environmental Development, 15, 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2015.04.006
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 Gilli, M., Côte, M., & Walters, G. (2020). Gatekeeping Access: Shea Land Formalization and the Distribution of Market-Based Conservation Benefits in Ghana’s CREMA. Land, 9(10), 359. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9100359
  6. ↑ 6.00 6.01 6.02 6.03 6.04 6.05 6.06 6.07 6.08 6.09 6.10 6.11 6.12 6.13 6.14 6.15 Dzekoto, G.E. (2021, November 20). Personal communication.
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 Mole National Park. (2015). Mole National Park, Northern Region of Ghana. Retrieved November 24, 2021, from https://molenationalpark.org/connect-parks.php
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 Dzekoto, G.E., & Bossu, D.  (2018) Community Resource Management Areas (CREMAs) in Ghana: a promising framework for Community Based Conservation . World Heritage for Sustainable Development in Africa / Le Patrimoine mondial pour un développement durable en Afrique. UNESCO. Retrieved November 24, 2021, from https://books.google.bf/books?id=70tSDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=godwin+evenyo+dzekoto&source=bl&ots=IP1yrUUTuN&sig=ACfU3U2Vkp73XodnsJn8zUD0WlsqxBeWOA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjw1KSgn-rzAhXkCmMBHdbeBuUQ6AF6BAgLEAM#v=onepage&q=godwin%20evenyo%20dzekoto&f=false
  9. ↑ Dittoh, S. (2005). Land tenure, traditional institutions, and sustainable development in Northern Ghana within the context of the national land policy. Ghana Journal of Development Studies, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.4314/gjds.v1i1.35000
  10. ↑ International Union for Conservation of Nature (2021). https://www.iucn.org/theme/protected-areas/about/protected-areas-categories/category-ii-national-park
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 Wildlife Division Ghana, 2004.A briefing document on collaborative Resource Management in Ghana, Collaborative Resource Management Unit, Forestry Commission Ghana, Accra, January 2004 https://www.oldwebsite.fcghana.org/library_info.php?doc=57&publication:Collaborative%20Resource%20Management%20in%20Ghana
  12. ↑ Chambers, R., & Conway, G. (1992). Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts for the 21st century. Institute of Development Studies (UK).
  13. ↑ Kumadoh, S. J., & Bartlett, D. M. F. (2012). Contribution of community resource management areas (Cremas) to conservation in Ghana. Journal of Biodiversity and Ecological Sciences, 2(3), 182-188.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Documentation:Open_Case_Studies/FRST522/2021/Assessing_the_impact_of_viable_Alternative_Livelihood_strategies_on_the_Savanna_Landscape._A_Case_Study_of_the_Mole_National_Park&oldid=711425"