Protected areas management: A comparison of perceived outcomes associated with different co-management types
Introduction
Protected area management and biodiversity conservation management in general is complex and often consists of connected systems operating at multiple scales and multiple forms of governance (McGinnis and Ostrom, 2014). In addition to this, various actors often have varied and sometimes conflicting interests in forest and wildlife resources (Redpath et al., 2013). Therefore, if the management of protected areas (PAs) is not properly conducted, can lead to conflicts and depletion of forest and wildlife resources (Redpath et al., 2013; Young et al., 2010; Redpath et al., 2015). Until 1980s, many PAs were managed through an exclusionary approach which focused on the ecological aspect of conservation whilst overlooking the socio-economic needs of communities living adjacent to PAs (Murray and King, 2012; Pretty and Smith, 2004). This protectionist approach has led to conflicts with those local communities who depend on forest and wildlife resources for their livelihoods (Hirschnitz-Garbers and Stoll-Kleemann, 2011; Castro and Nielsen, 2001; Treves and Karanth, 2003).
Co-management of natural resources therefore emerged as an alternative to centralised approaches to ensure that local communities greatly participate and share in decision-making relating to natural resources use and management (Berkes, 2009; Sandström et al., 2014). Co-management comprises different types of relationships between the state, civil society and local communities whereby power, authority, and responsibilities for managing natural resources is shared or transferred from central government to communities or sub-national levels of government (Béné et al., 2009; Carlsson and Berkes, 2005). Ideally, co-management is expected to build local capacities, ensure that local opinions and conditions are reflected in natural resources management, lead to benefit sharing, livelihood enhancement, as well as ensure legitimacy and conflict management (Berkes, 2009; Gutiérrez et al., 2011; Ho et al., 2016; Sandström et al., 2014; Ming'ate et al., 2014). However, some scholars have questioned the effectiveness of co-management in positively impacting local communities and biodiversity conservation (Béné et al., 2009; Berkes, 2009; Gutiérrez et al., 2011). Various scholars have expressed varied views about the benefits of co-management to local communities (Gutiérrez et al., 2011; Ros-Tonen et al., 2013). For instance, Gutiérrez et al. (2011) in an examination of 130 co-management arrangements in a wide range of countries found that co-management facilitated by strong leadership can solve many of the problems related to natural resources. On the other hand, evaluations of agroforestry projects in Ghana have shown that, while co-management projects have yielded various short-term benefits, their contribution to sustaining rural livelihoods and promoting conservation in the long run are constrained by various institutional shortfalls (Ros-Tonen et al., 2013).
Several authors (see Pomeroy and Berkes, 1997; Sen and Nielsen, 1996; Pinkerton, 2003) have developed a spectrum of co-management arrangements for understanding the different types of co-management. They encompass a wide range of institutional arrangements, often based on the relative balance of responsibility and authority between state and stakeholders (Pomeroy and Berkes, 1997; Sen and Nielsen, 1996). Therefore co-management varies based on the degree and type of sharing of responsibility and authority between state and stakeholders as illustrated in Fig. 1.
These variations are manifested in different forms which could be consultative, whereby government makes all the decisions even though it interacts with other stakeholders or community-based in which government delegates control and management responsibilities to organised user groups at the local or community level (McConney et al., 2007).
While Cinner and Huchery (2014) have established that the forms, processes and rules that characterise different co-management types influence differences in outcomes, most studies on co-management have tended to focus on the processes (e.g. Armitage et al., 2008; Armitage et al., 2009) and conditions necessary for co-management (e.g. Gutiérrez et al., 2011; De Pourcq et al., 2015) without critically assessing how and why different co-management arrangements result in different outcomes. Using the social-ecological systems (SES) framework as an analytical tool, the study assessed the extent to which actors' perception of outcomes of two different co-management arrangements running simultaneously in the Mole National Park (MNP) and its surrounding communities vary as a result of different co-management types and rules and the factors accounting for such variations.
Specifically, this paper seeks to address the following questions:
- 1.
How do actors of the MNP perceive co-management to be in terms of their socio-economic, institutional and ecological outcomes?
- 2.
To what extent do actors' perceptions of co-management outcomes vary as a result of different co-management arrangements?
- 3.
What factors influence variations in co-management outcomes?
This study is based on the proposition that, the composition of actors and the degree of power devolved to local people to manage forests and wildlife resources within the context of co-management arrangements can significantly influence variations in co-management outcomes.
The government of Ghana in the year 2000 introduced a policy for Collaborative Community Based Wildlife Management with the aim of promoting and legitimising community participation in the management of PAs. This policy became necessary after it was realised that the country's forest and wildlife resources were severely depleted for economic purposes. The depletion of these resources were due in part to the states previous governance system that focused on restricting access to forest and wildlife resources especially in PAs leading to unsustainable use of these resources outside of PAs. Additionally, the failure of the State to provide incentives for people to responsibly use and manage the resources also contributed to their depletion (Forestry Commission, 2000).
This policy has culminated in two main co-management arrangements for implementing collaborative forest and wildlife management both in and outside PAs. These are the Protected Areas Management Advisory Units (PAMAU) and the Community Resource Management Areas (CREMA). CREMAs are a variant of Community-Based Natural Resources Governance (CBNRG) which are designed to give communities the opportunity to integrate wildlife management into their farming and land management systems within the boundaries of CREMAs (i.e. off-reserve areas) through the devolution of management authority to defined user communities and to benefit economically from such arrangements (Forestry Commission of Ghana, 2000; Jones and Murphree, 2004). On the other hand, PAMAUs are focal points or platforms where the management of the PA and its stakeholders, including representatives from surrounding communities come together to stimulate and exchange ideas on natural resources management in the PA and on lands owned and used by the surrounding communities.
The study therefore focused on Ghana's pioneer and largest national park, the Mole National Park (MNP) and its surrounding communities which is concurrently implementing these two variants of co-management. The MNP was established and managed after the “Yellowstone model” which was protectionist and exclusionary in nature. Whole villages were evicted in order to establish the park. While farmlands and hunting grounds were converted into what is now known as the MNP. Therefore, MNP's turbulent historical past regarding its establishment, its sheer vastness (4577 km2) which implies that its establishment affects the socio-economic well-being of about 40,000 people and its present implementation of two types of co-management arrangements makes it an ideal contemporary case to focus on within its real-world setting (Yin, 2013).
Section snippets
Co-management of protected areas: the social-ecological systems framework as an analytical tool
Humans and biological resources are often connected in complex social-ecological systems (SES) (McGinnis and Ostrom, 2014). These SESs are made up of various sub-systems consisting of various variables (McGinnis and Ostrom, 2014). In any particular SES, sub-systems such as a resource system (e.g. a protected area), resource units (e.g. forest and wildlife resources), actors (e.g. farmers, hunters, park managers) and governance systems (e.g. organisations and rules that guide the use of
Methods
Data for this study was purely qualitative as it was primarily derived from interviews and focus group discussions which were collected in two phases. The first phase was between September and December 2015 and the second phase was in December 2016. In the first phase of the data collection, focus group discussions and in-depth interviews were conducted to collect data. In-depth interviews and focus group discussions are key data collection methods used in qualitative research. In-depth
Results
This section presents findings based on the comparison of the two co-management arrangements identified in the study area using the social-ecological systems (SES) framework. A comparison of actors' perceived outcomes derived from the two co-management arrangements are also presented. Finally, factors contributing to variations in the perceived outcomes are analysed and presented.
Discussion
Our study assessed how actors in the MNP perceived co-management to be in terms of their socio-economic, institutional and environmental outcomes; examined the extent to which actors' perceptions of co-management outcomes vary as a result of different co-management arrangements and examined the factors that influence variations in co-management outcomes. In this section, we discussed our findings, particularly, highlighting on the factors that influence variations in co-management outcomes
Conclusion
We assessed the extent to which actors' perception of outcomes of two different co-management arrangements running simultaneously in the Mole National Park (MNP) and its surrounding communities vary and the factors accounting for such variations. Our findings show that the Devolved Natural Resource Management type of co-management holds great promise for achieving more positive ecological, socio-economic and institutional outcomes when local people are given the power and incentives to make
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgement
This paper was written as part of the PhD study of the first author with a scholarship from the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD) and a travel grant by Müller-Fahnenberg-Stiftung. We thank all actors who participated in the focus groups and interviews for their contributions as well as the interpreters for their support. We also want to thank the reviewers for their constructive and useful comments.
References (58)
- et al.
Adaptive co-management and the paradox of learning
Glob. Environ. Chang.
(2008) - et al.
Power Struggle, Dispute and Alliance Over Local Resources: Analyzing “Democratic” Decentralization of Natural Resources through the Lenses of Africa Inland Fisheries
World Development
(2009) Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning
J. Environ. Manag.
(2009)Is small really beautiful? community-based natural resource Management in Malawi and Botswana
World Dev.
(2006)- et al.
Co-management approaches and incentives improve management effectiveness in the Karimunjawa National Park, Indonesia
Mar. Policy
(2013) - et al.
Co-management: concepts and methodological implications
J. Environ. Manag.
(2005) - et al.
Indigenous people and co-management: implications for conflict management
Environ Sci Policy
(2001) - et al.
Evaluation of social and ecological outcomes of fisheries co-management in tam Giang lagoon, Vietnam
Fish. Res.
(2016) Good governance for terrestrial protected areas: a framework, principles and performance outcomes
J. Environ. Manag.
(2010)- et al.
Potential for Co-Management Approaches to Strengthen Livelihoods of Forest Dependent Communities: A Kenyan Case
(2014)
Moving forward in collaborative forest management: role of external actors for sustainable forest socio-ecological systems
Forest Policy Econ.
Some observations on the terminology in co-operative environmental management
J. Environ. Manag.
Two to tango: the role of government in fisheries co-management
Mar. Policy
Understanding and managing conservation conflicts
Trends in Ecology & Evolution
Promising start, bleak outlook: the role of Ghana’s modified taungya system as a social safeguard in timber legality processes
Forest Policy Econ.
Co-management: a comparative analysis
Pergamon Mar. Policy
The globalization of socio-ecological systems: an agenda for scientific research
Glob. Environ. Chang.
Co-management implementation in forested national reserves: contradicting cases from China
Forest Policy Econ.
Adaptive co-management for social-ecological complexity
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
The community resource management area mechanism: a strategy to manage African forest resources for REDD+
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B
Understanding local-scale drivers of biodiversity outcomes in terrestrial protected areas
Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci.
A comparison of social outcomes associated with different fisheries co-management institutions
Conserv. Lett.
Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research
Protected areas as social-ecological systems: perspectives from resilience and social-ecological systems theory
Ecol. Appl.
Understanding protected area resilience: a multi-scale, social-ecological approach
Ecological Applications
Conflict in protected areas: who says co-management does not work?
PLoS One
Wildlife Division Policy for Collaborative Community Based Wildlife Management
Forty years of community-based forestry. A review of its extent and effectiveness
Conducting an in-Depth Interview
Cited by (12)
Development pathways for co-management in the Sundarban mangrove forest: A multiple stakeholder perspective
2023, Forest Policy and EconomicsThe role of protected areas co-management in enhancing resistance and resilience of deciduous forest ecosystem to extreme climatic events in Bangladesh
2023, Journal of Environmental ManagementCitation Excerpt :Reduction in forest cover in the region due to a combination of factors is posing a serious threat not only to human life but also to the lives of other keystone species (Mukul et al., 2019; Malik et al., 2020). To combat the continuous deterioration of forest resources, co-management has been introduced as a continual approach to integrating local communities in forest management processes by utilizing the capacities and comparative advantages of various social actors (Rashid et al., 2013; Soliku and Schraml, 2020). This approach seeks to enhance both forest health conservation and local livelihoods by offering local communities the responsibility to manage forest resources and the opportunity to enjoy the benefits derived from them (Mukul et al., 2012; De Pourcq et al., 2016).
Catalytic and structural factors behind advancements of co-management in protected areas: Contributions for its evaluation
2022, Journal of Environmental ManagementCitation Excerpt :The legitimacy of conservation policies in these areas requires incorporating traditional knowledge in governance and ensuring the material survival (in food, health, education, and transportation) of the population involved. Incentives such as socio-economic benefits to local people have been associated with positive outcomes of co-management elsewhere (Soliku and Schraml, 2020). It is worth reflecting that although there are contradictions in public policies and income transfer programs implemented via Extractive Reserves in general (Partelow et al., 2018), they have been crucial to ensure more dignified material conditions for the traditional populations (i.e economic incentives for poor households, settlements - such as brick houses, and credits applied to production - such as fishing gears, vessels, etc.) Obviously, the State still needs to fill several gaps which affect their socioeconomic condition and quality of life, so that the effective exercise of democracy is finally achieved.