Devolution, coordination, and community-based natural resource management in Ghana’s community resource management areas

Abstract

Two key trends in efforts to deliver linked social and ecological protected area outcomes are (1) the development of governance models that devolve decision-making authority and responsibility to the local level and (2) linking protected area ‘islands’ to larger governance landscapes. This paper centers on Ghana’s Community Resource Management Area (CREMA) protected area model, and assesses how CREMAs are evaluated at the local level, which actors are perceived to be important in CREMA management, and how linkages to non-local governance structures may influence CREMA outcomes. Using a mixed method approach, results show that CREMAs are generally seen as a mechanism by which local people can more transparently and freely participate in decision-making processes related to resource management. Respondents also felt that Chiefs and associated customary tenure institutions should play a central role in CREMA governance. On the other hand, links to non-local state actors were described as ineffective because of inadequate fiscal decentralization, weak/absent lower level governance structures and inattention to conservation and development as a distinct dual project. Respondents also noted that while CREMA governance structures provide a way to build linkages to non-local actors, there are missed opportunities to embed CREMA considerations in other non-local decision-making processes.

Keywords:

• Decentralization
• Ghana
• community-based
• protected area
• natural resource management

Acknowledgements

The goal of this paper is nested within a broader goal of the Protected Area and Poverty Reduction (PAPR) Project. PAPR seeks to address challenges of reducing rural poverty and ensuring environmental sustainability by focusing on PA governance, human–wildlife interactions, cost and benefits of living in and around PAs and knowledge mobilization in Ghana, Tanzania, and Canada.

Notes

1. Current goals for Ghana are to have at least 10% of the total land set aside as PAs; Ghana currently has about 6% set aside, including designated wetlands (WD pers.com).

2. Currently, CREMAs are being formed at a wider landscape (social–ecological system) level where a CREMA can have as many as 30 communities or more. For logistical reasons, in these situations the CRMCs are organized into clusters from which the agreed number of representatives is selected onto the CEC.

3. It is important to note that while the general patterns described here hold when survey data are disaggregated to the individual CREMA and constituent community levels, there was some variability at disaggregated levels. A full discussion of this variability (and the factors that are associated with it) is beyond the scope of this paper, but is discussed in detail elsewhere (eg, Agyare et al., 2015a, 2015b).

4. In Ghana the formal state system has four levels of governance including the national, regional, and district/municipal/metropolitan assemblies and their sub structures These ostensibly facilitate a decentralized system of governance and was created by the Local Government Act of 1993 (Act 462) The General Assembly is the highest decision-making organ of the District Assembly, and many sub-committees assist with governance of the General Assembly The District Assembly is mandated to guide, encourage, and support sub-district nodes of governance, public agencies, and local communities to discharge their roles in the execution of approved development plans.

5. Subsequently, four Wildlife ‘Multi-regional’ Offices have been established to provide and/or facilitate technical and logistical support in CREMAs that are located far away from any PAs (WD, 2017 pers. com).