**3. Results**

#### *3.1. Livelihood Profile of Neighbouring Communities*

The results of the field survey revealed that about 89% of respondents were primarily peasant farmers, while 11% were engaged in other occupations, including inland fishing, petty trading, charcoal production and local artisanal activities. Others combined occupations and engaged in activities such as beekeeping, shea butter production, mostly by women in the savannah territories and small livestock raising in almost all the households of the nearby communities.

Farm sizes within the communities were, on average, small ranging between 0.25 hectares and 2.0 hectares. A wide range of crops was cultivated, depending on the ecological zone. Table 2 shows the dominant cash crops cultivated by PA neighboring communities.


#### **Table 2.** Dominant cash crops.

#### *3.2. Threats to PAs*

Threats are generally activities of human or natural origin that cause significant damage to PA resources, or are in serious conflict with the objectives of PA managemen<sup>t</sup> [56]. Based on the findings from selected PA o fficials interviewed, threats to PAs in the study area can be categorized into underlying threats and proximate threats. The underlying threats were not directly visible or perceptible, but invariably were the main root causes of challenges faced by the PAs. These, according to our analysis, cut across all the PAs and linked to the socio-economic characteristics of the neighbouring communities, as well as the governance regime of the PAs. The underlying threats identified included: poverty in nearby communities, traditional land tenure system, a rapid rate of population growth and the state-managed governance type of the PAs.

Most participants considered themselves poor, marginalized and deprived. They bolstered their claim by alluding to the fact that as farmers, they lacked access to markets to sell their farm produce and therefore earn only meager incomes; they also lacked skills to find decent jobs outside their communities as most of them have little or no formal education. There were obvious signs of marginalization and deprivation among the people as basic amenities such as medical facilities, decent housing, pipe-borne water, decent sanitation and electricity were lacking in most of the communities.

On land tenure, it was observed that apart from the state-acquired lands that were designated as PAs, landholding was mainly by families, private individuals and community/clan heads. Government, therefore, has no control over areas adjacent to the PAs and could not regulate activities that fueled PAs isolation, such as farming and tree felling for fuel. Farm plots were visibly close to the PAs, leading to crop raids by wildlife and a high incidence of human-wildlife conflicts. Another important observation was that most of the communities visited (62%) were predominantly migrant communities from other parts of Ghana, engaged in leased-hold farming arrangements with no long-term security over lands. They could not, therefore, cultivate perennial cash crops such as cocoa, oil palm and cashew because of tenure restrictions.

With regard to population growth, most participants agreed that populations had grown over the years, and that community members no longer have access to uncultivated areas to expand their farming activities. The fallow period for their farm plots has subsequently been reduced from five and six years to only two years, or only one farming season currently. There were, therefore, appeals to governmen<sup>t</sup> to provide access to the PAs, where local farmers claimed the soils are more fertile.

The proximate threats, on the other hand, have a visible bearing on the PAs and directly affect the structure, composition, and functioning of the PAs. These threats and their associated impacts are mostly site-specific and presented in Table 3. The threats are ranked according to their weighting by PA officials during interviews. Thus "6" represents the most severe threat to the PA while "1" represents the least threat.

Adjacent land use, small-scale mining and poaching were reported as the most severe threats followed by wildlife raids on farms, which affected local community support and required resources for compensation, and bush burning. The least threat reported was cross-border activities. With regard to individual protected areas, Atewa's greatest threat was illegal small-scale mining within and outside the reserve. The governmen<sup>t</sup> of Ghana's decision to mine bauxite from the PA under a Chinese Synohydro deal tended to heighten this threat at the time of interviews. Adjacent land use by neighbouring communities and agricultural encroachment ranked second and third respectively, as most severe threats, while poaching was ranked as the least threat in Atewa. In the Bui National Park, illegal gold mining ranked as the highest threat, followed by the incidence of rampant bush burning, agricultural encroachment and conflicts between wildlife officials and some community members. The situation in Kogyae was least expected, as the strict PA had existing settlements within its boundaries. Adjacent land use followed as the second most severe threat in Kogyae, then annual bush burning and poaching. In the case of Mole National Park, the most severe threat was other forms of land use, notably farming and livestock grazing close to the PA, which tends to make the PAs isolated and increases their vulnerability. This was followed by wildlife poaching and elephants' raids on farms (Table 3). In Gbele Resource Reserve, group hunting, which could involve over 50 hunters at a time, was noted as a real threat particular to the Roan Antelope population. As detailed in the table, other protected areas had their respective threats, but it was observed that the differences in the severity of threats among the PAs were the result of differences in socio-economic and cultural circumstances of the neighbouring communities.

Further analysis of threats facing the PAs, as illustrated in Figure 3, indicates that adjacent landuse had a total score of 35, being the most serious threat, followed by poaching with a score of 25 and annual bush burning, which scored 21. Illegal small-scale mining and conflicts between PA officials and community members were also noted as threats, with cross border issues involving nationals from neighboring countries and cattle grazing noted as the least serious of the threats.


**Table 3.** Ranking of Proximate Threats to Protected Areas.

Source: Interviews with PA Managers and Administrator, 2016. 1 Illegal small-scale gold mining and government's desire to mine bauxite from the reserve. 2 This includes the establishment of settlements inside the PA. 3 The settlers have accepted to be resettled by March 2020.

**Figure 3.** Analysis of Threats Facing Neighboring Communities of Protected Areas.

The threat situation from the results and analysis indicate that livelihood issues constitute the biggest threat to PAs in developing economies such as Ghana. It is evident that the underlying causes of these livelihood issues (or proximate threats) are poverty, the traditional landholding system, surging populations in nearby communities and absolute state control over protected areas, as revealed during fieldwork.

#### *3.3. Influence of Governance on Management E*ff*ectiveness*

Neighbouring community members complained bitterly about the highhandedness of PA officials and how petty offenses were criminalized. Some of the FGD participants vowed never to cooperate with the officials in the managemen<sup>t</sup> of the sites because of these tensions and because they derived no real benefits. This situation posed a significant drawback for the collaborative managemen<sup>t</sup> of these areas. Several instances of conflicts between PA officials and local community members were cited during the interviews. Digya National Park management, for instance, had, on several occasions, resorted to forced evictions of squatters from the park, the last one being in 2005 when nine squatters reportedly lost their lives on the Volta Lake through a boat accident. People from Kruwa, a neighboring farming community to Kakum National Park, had seriously resented the PA officials due to incessant crop raids by wildlife on their farms. The Shari community bordering Kyabobo National Park reportedly gunned down a PA official in 2003 while he was on patrol duties, as well as other instances of PA officials turning their arms on poachers, such as the case in Banda Nkwanta in Bui National Park in 2004, have all been documented [57]. Thus, in general terms, the relationship between PA officials and community members was largely not very cordial, partly because the state governance regime failed to recognize and collaborate with neighbouring communities. During one of the FDGs, a 22-year-old farmer in a village near Kogyae Strict Nature Reserve had this to say:

"Wildlife guards sometimes posed as friends to us, to the extent of begging us for food. They are, however, very highhanded on us whenever we kill animals that stray into our farms. When arrested, they usually tied our hands with ropes and gave us several lashes of cane before we were released." (Fieldwork, 2016).

The Wildlife Division is, however, making frantic e fforts to increase community education to improve their relationship with local communities. In Kakum, Mole and Kyabobo National Parks, community collaborative units such as Community Development Unit (CDU), Protected Area Management Advisory Units (PAMAUS), Protected Area Management Advisory Board (PAMAB) and Community Resource Management Areas (CREMAs) are being established to enhance e ffective communication between local people and PA o fficials. Unfortunately, investigations during field interviews suggested that such collaborative schemes are only successful when supported by donor funding.

The analysis from the FGDs and interviews sugges<sup>t</sup> that the governance regime of the protected areas is a major determinant of the level of local support for the PAs. In the case of formal PAs such as national parks and resource reserves, which are exclusively under state control, local participation becomes very limited as the state establishes units within the Wildlife Division such as law enforcement units, patrol units and camps for PA o fficers, all with the aim of excluding the local people without regard to the IUCN's PA managemen<sup>t</sup> categories, some of which allowed human activities on a limited scale. This, more often than not, negatively influences local perceptions and attitudes.

#### *3.4. Benefits Derived by Local People from Establishment of Protected Areas*

Collective responses received from participants at the 51 FDGs showed that 76% of the communities claimed they derived some benefits from the establishment of the PA, while 24% claimed they did not. It should, however, be noted that the apparent high percentage value scored as benefits is only relevant to the local communities if those benefits help in the enhancement of their economic livelihood conditions. Further analysis of the benefits revealed that those who derived benefit from bush meat scored the highest percentage of 52%, followed by employment benefits 45%, enhancement of micro-climate 42%, and the satisfaction derived from seeing wildlife species 40% (Figure 4). Benefits which scored 30% and below were tourism, sustainable fishing along the Volta lakeshores, the bequest value of the PAs, support for alternative livelihood activities, spiritual satisfaction and access to non-timber forest products (NTFPs).

**Figure 4.** Benefits derived by Communities from the PAs. Source: Fieldwork (2016).

Participants who claimed they benefited from tourism explained that though they derived no economic benefits, they felt delighted seeing tourists in their communities. A few lakeshore community members in Digya National Park enclave bordering the Volta Lake claimed that they derived benefits from sustainable fishing by virtue of the high productivity experienced near portions of the lake under protection. In Kyabobo, some community members claimed they benefited from donor-supported alternative livelihood activities such as beekeeping and oil palm nursery establishment in the recent past. The benefits derived from a PA tend to shape one's perception and attitude towards that establishment, but this is also dependent on the governance regime of the PA. So in a situation where absolute state control is exercised, local benefits may not meet general expectations to resolve livelihood challenges.

#### *3.5. Problems Imposed by PA Establishment on Neighbouring Communities*

Most of the local communities living close to PAs felt either disadvantaged or considered the establishment of the PA as being a problem to them. From the findings, the most serious problem listed, with a score of 60%, was crop raids by wild animals from the reserves (Figure 5). This was followed by a lack of access to bushmeat (35%) and highhandedness on the part of PA o fficials (30%). Other problems enumerated included loss of fishing grounds with regard to those along the lakeshores, lack of access to NTFPs, restricted access to mineral deposits in Bui and Atewa, and loss of fertile lands.

**Figure 5.** Problems imposed by a PA Establishment. Source: Fieldwork, (2016).

Wildlife raids on farms were one of the major problems faced by the neighbouring communities from their perspective. Elephant raids, in particular, were reportedly very devastating and most common in the vicinities of Kakum, Mole and the southern fringes of Digya. Other animals such as rodents, primates and angulates were reported to cause serious havoc to farm crops, which was a major source of conflict between PA o fficials and local communities.

When these results are compared to the analysis of threats, an interesting observation was made. The two most severe threats from the point of view of PA managers and administrators were adjacent land use and poaching. At the same time, the two highest-ranking problems, as reported by the local communities, were crop devastation by wildlife and lack of access to bushmeat. These two pairs of issues mirror each other. Indeed, it was noted that areas bordering the PAs were either communal lands or belonged to individual families. These adjacent lands were mostly under farming, and these farms ge<sup>t</sup> exposed to raids by wildlife from the PAs. Farmers' reaction to wildlife raids was mostly poaching, which unfortunately is illegal, thus bringing the communities into conflict with PA o fficials. From the point of view of the administrators, therefore, poaching was a serious threat, while local communities regarded their restricted access to bushmeat as a serious problem. Under such circumstances, local perceptions and attitudes would be that of resentment and/or passivity.

#### *3.6. Community Perception of the Establishment of PAs*

Based on the responses received on benefits derived from, and problems imposed by the PAs on the communities, the question was posed as to the extent to which neighboring communities supported the establishment of the PAs. From the responses, 50% claimed they supported the PA concept, while 35% claimed they did not support the concept. The remaining 15% remained indi fferent.

Out of the total percentage which did not support the establishment of PAs, 86% responded that crop destruction by wild animals was a problem for them. Again, 79% of the groups that dislike the idea of PA establishment claimed that PA o fficials had manhandled them or their relations. Within the same group who dislike the PA concept, 57% reported reduced farm sizes as the reason for this view. A further 23% of those who did not support the PA establishment expressed intense hatred towards PA officials. All communities whose farms were raided by elephants were emphatic that they dislike the concept of PA establishment. These communities constituted 36% of the total number of groups that disliked PA establishment. Table 4 is a summary of the above analysis showing a comparison between the percentage of respondents who disliked the PA concept and those who supported it.

**Table 4.** Problems Imposed by PA Establishment and Community Attitudes towards PA Establishment.


All the groups that accepted the PA establishment claimed they had received some education from PA o fficials, who explained to them the reasons for the PA establishment. They indicated their willingness to serve as informants against poaching, especially by strangers, and as firefighting volunteers when motivated to do so.

It is clear from the results that the state-management PA governance type, which dominates much of Ghana's conservation landscape, operates where enforcement and regulation dictate decision-making and, in a way, tends to exclude the local people. There is, therefore, little local community collaboration in the state-managed PAs system, which contravenes the multi-stakeholder approach needed for conservation success. Furthermore, the system of land tenure where individual land rights prevail does not make landscape managemen<sup>t</sup> a feasible option, so long as land remains a major source of livelihood in sub-Saharan countries such as Ghana.
