Search Results (2)

In multifunctional landscapes, expanding economic activities jeopardise the integrity of biodiverse ecosystems, generating conservation-development trade-offs that require multi-stakeholder dialogue and tools to negotiate conflicting objectives. Despite the rich literature on participatory mapping and other tools to reveal different stakeholder perspectives, there is limited evidence on the application of such tools in landscape-scale negotiations. This paper addresses this gap by analysing a participatory mapping process in Ghana’s Western Wildlife Corridor, where a community-based landscape governance system called the community resource management area (CREMA) exists. Data from three participatory mapping workshops and focus group discussions with community and institutional actors reveal that increasing demand for food and natural resources and climate change impacts are drivers of landscape degradation, resulting in declining faunal and floral biodiversity and reduced ecosystem services. Meanwhile, community actors prioritise the expansion of farming land, while institutional actors prioritise forest conservation. However, scenario building and participatory mapping helped communicate each other’s aims and reach a negotiated consensus. Finally, power relations, cultural and traditional rules, and differences in knowledge affected deliberations and decision-making. We conclude that scenario building and participatory mapping can contribute to an inclusive landscape approach, provided that well-functioning multi-stakeholder platforms are in place and facilitators adequately navigate power imbalances and recognise different kinds and degrees of knowledge. Full article

Community Resource Management Areas (CREMAs) in Ghana combine conservation and development objectives and were introduced in the year 2000. In some cases, they have connected collectors of shea (Vitellaria paradoxa) nuts with certified organic world markets, which can be understood as a ‘market-based’ approach to conservation. This paper examines how the benefits of this approach are distributed and argues that shea land formalization is crucial to this process. It makes this argument by drawing on interviews within two communities bordering Mole National Park. One community accepted to engage with, and benefitted from this approach, while the other did not. The paper analyzes narratives from different actors involved regarding why and how the market-based approach was accepted or rejected. It shows that, contrary to the neoliberal principles that underlie market-based conservation, a utility maximization rationale did not predominantly influence the (non-)engagement with this conservation approach. Instead, it was the history of land relations between communities and the state that influenced the decisions of the communities. We highlight the role of traditional authorities and NGOs brokering this process and unpack who in the communities profited and who was left out from benefits from this market-based conservation initiative. Full article