EXPLORING THE SUSTAINABILITY OF PLACE: A CASE STUDY OF
COMMUNITY-BASED NATURE TOURISM
A Thesis
Presented to
The Faculty of Graduate Studies
of
The University of Guelph
by
JOY SAMMY
In partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy May, 2010
© Joy Sammy, 2010 Library and Archives Bibliothèque et ?F? Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de l'édition 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington OttawaONK1A0N4 OttawaONK1A0N4 Canada Canada
Your file Votre référence ISBN: 978-0-494-67832-9 Our file Notre référence ISBN: 978-0-494-67832-9
NOTICE: AVIS:
The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library and permettant à la Bibliothèque et Archives Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par télécommunication ou par l'Internet, prêter, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des thèses partout dans le loan, distribute and sell theses monde, à des fins commerciales ou autres, sur worldwide, for commercial or non- support microforme, papier, électronique et/ou commercial purposes, in microform, autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats. The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriété du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in this et des droits moraux qui protège cette thèse. Ni thesis. Neither the thesis nor la thèse ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci substantial extracts from it may be ne doivent être imprimés ou autrement printed or otherwise reproduced reproduits sans son autorisation. without the author's permission.
In compliance with the Canadian Conformément à la loi canadienne sur la Privacy Act some supporting forms protection de la vie privée, quelques may have been removed from this formulaires secondaires ont été enlevés de thesis. cette thèse. While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans in the document page count, their la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu removal does not represent any loss manquant. of content from the thesis.
¦+¦ Canada ABSTRACT
EXPLORING THE SUSTAINABILITY OF PLACE: A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY-BASED NATURE TOURISM
Joy Sammy Advisor: University of Guelph, 2010 Professor D. Reid
Sustainable development which integrates conservation and development has proven to be a very complicated issue; how do we humans manage our use of the environment in such a way that does not only decrease human poverty but also encourages human development while at the same time protecting and restoring biodiversity and the life-sustaining functions of ecosystems for ourselves and other species now and in the future? One approach that aims to do just that is community- based nature tourism (CBNT). CBNT aims to address the multiple demands of conservation and development encompassing the desire to link conservation and local livelihoods through tourism by providing an economic alternative to destructive habits, preserving biodiversity whilst reducing rural poverty, and of achieving both objectives on a sustainable, self-financing basis. CBNT, however does not occur in a vacuum but takes place in diverse communities that may already have strong natural resource management systems that dictate how individuals interact with nature through cultural norms and traditional beliefs and values. This dissertation presents a new conceptual framework, Political Ecological Place Systems (PEPS) and uses this framework to examine how human-environment interactions change as communities move from traditional forms of conservation to alternative forms such as CBNT through a case study of the Boabeng- Fiema Monkey Sanctuary, Ghana. Field research was conducted from May 2007 to Feb 2008, multiple sources of evidence were used including interviews, archival, NGO, academic and government documents, direct and participant observation, focus groups, a household survey and map data. It was found that tourism activities are unevenly distributed and that this fact in combination with local history has created two distinct and diverging 'places' within the sanctuary. The divergence of place has impacted the ability of the communities to work together to achieve sustainable conservation and development. Theoretically, PEPS also reveals that place transformations occur through changes in layers and focal points on different scales and that socio-natural systems operate through a system of change. Sustainability within a PEPS framework is shown to require place resiliency. Acknowledgments The completion of my doctoral degree would not have been possible without the academic support of my dissertation committee. I would like to thank Professor Alan Watson, Dr. Alice Hovorka and Dr. Ricardo Ramirez and in particular my advisor Dr. Donald Reid for the guidance he provided. I would like to thank Dr. FitzGibbon for help in the GIS lab and the staff at the Data Resource Centre. I would also like to thank the Social Science and Humanities Research Council and the University of Guelph for financial assistance. In Ghana, my field research would not have been possible without the assistance and technical support of the: Ghana Wildlife Division, Ghana Tourism Board, FFRT Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (Sunyani), Geography Department of the University of Ghana (Legon), and the Nature Conservation Research Centre. In particular I would like to express my gratitude to the members of the Nature Conservation Research Centre for their expertise and insight. I would like to thank the communities of Boabeng and Fiema especially my research assistants. I am honored to have shared in the lives of the people of Boabeng and Fiema. Medasi paaaa! I would also like to thank my Ghanaian family both in Accra and in the north for making Ghana home. Finally, I would like to thank with all my heart my friends and family! This has been a long adventure and I would not have been able to make it through without your continual support. You give me strength and inspiration and the foundation that I stand on. I am only able to explore this world because of the home you always provide for me. Thank-you!
i Table of Contents
Chapter One: Introduction
1 .0 Introduction to Research Problem 1 1 .0. 1 Research Goal and Objectives 3 1 . 1 Historical and Conceptual Themes 5 1.1.1 Rural Development 6 1.1.2 Natural Resource Management and Conservation 9 1.1.3 Tourism Development 1 2 1.2 CBNT: an integrated approach 14 1.2.1 Problems associated with CBNT 1 7 1.3 Summary 19 Chapter Two: Literature Review
2 . 0 Introduction 2 1 2.1 Conceptual assumptions and inconsistencies 21 2.1.1 What is community? 2 1 2.1.2 Conservation of what? 24 2.1.3 What is conservation for? 26 2.1.4 Tourism: economics or empowerment? 32 2.1.5 Sustainability: goal or process? 35 2.2 Exploring Theory: towards an alternative conceptual framework 37 2.2.1 Systems Theory 40 a) The system is a non-summative whole 42 b) The system is self-organising or adaptive 42 c) The system is open 44 d) The system is homeostatic 44 e) Systems Theory: limitations 45 2.2.2 Political Ecology 46 a) Themes and Avenues: conflict and environmental transformation 46 b) The approach: scale, environmental change and power 51 c) Limitations of political ecology 54 2.2.3 Place-based Theory 54 a) Community, Landscape and Values: place meanings 57 b) Place and Tourism 58 c) Limitations of place-based theory 60 2.3 Alternative Conceptual Framework: Political Ecological Place Systems 61 (PEPS) Chapter Three: Research Methodology
3.0 Introduction 67 3.1 Theoretical Perspective: Critical Realism 67 3.2 Research Approach: case study and triangulation 72
p 3.3 Data Collection (June 2007 and September 2007 to January 2008) 73 3.3. 1 Preliminary Preparations and Introductory Period 74 3.3.2 Direct and Participant Observation 75 3.3.3 Compound Survey 76 3.3.4 Participant Interviews 78 3.3.5 Focus Groups 79 3.3.6 Participant Mapping 8 1 3.4 Sample 81 3.5 Recording and Presenting Data 82 3.6 Ethical Considerations 83 3.7 Data Analysis 84 3.7.1 Qualitative Data Analysis 84 3.7.2 Quantitative Data Analysis 87 3.8 Summary 88 Chapter Four: Context for Case Study Area
4.0 Introduction 89 4.0.1 Pre Colonial Ghana 89 4.0.2 Colonialism to Independence 90 4. 1 Current Context of Ghana 94 4.1.1 Environment and Conservation 94 4. 1 .2 Religion and Land 99 4.1.3 Tourism and Development 1 03 4.2 Context: Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary 104 4.2.1 Culture and Environment 105 4.2.2 Historical Context of Boabeng and Fiema 111 a) History of Daworoh 1 1 3 b) History of the Stools of Boabeng 115 c) History of Fiema and Abudwo 117 4.2.3 Traditional Belief and Practices 120 a) Monkey Burial Ceremony 120 b) Taboos 120 4.2.4 Tourism at BFMS 122 4.3 Summary 126 Chapter Five: Analysis and Results
5.0 Introduction 128 5.1 Human-Environment Interactions: socio-ecological impact of CBNT 128 5.1.1 Agriculture 129 a) Access to farmland 129 b) Encroachment 133 5.1.2 Access to Natural Resources 138 a) Firewood and Water 1 39 b) Medicinal Plants 140
iii e) Food Stuffs and Household Materials 142 5.1.3 Traditional Environmental Interactions 147 a) Monkey Feeding and Interactions 147 5.1.4 Conservation 1 49 a) Perceptions of the Forest and Conservation 149 b) Conservation and Tourism 158 5.2 Socio-political Interactions 164 5.2. 1 Current impacts of CBNT and future development goals 1 64 a) Benefits of CBNT 164 b) Problems associated with CBNT 1 69 c) CBNT Development 170 5.2.2 Conflict and community 176 a) Profit Sharing 176 b) GWD and BFMS 179 c) Community Organisations 185 d) Boabeng and Fiema: the teeth and the tongue 1 88 5.3 Environmental Values: Cultural Beliefs and Practices 197 5.3.1 Traditional Religious and Christian Beliefs 198 a) Blending of Beliefs 1 99 5.3.2 Taboos 202 a) Observing Taboos 202 b) Rules to Taboos 204 5.3.3 Re visioning histories 204 a) Origin of the monkeys and species value 204 b) Monkey burial grounds 205 c) Oracles Predictions 206 5.3.4 Festivals and Ceremonies 207 a) Yam Festivals 207 b) Mothers Place Fiema 209 c) Monkey Festival 210 5 .4 Discussion: CBNT and Change 2 1 1 5.4.1 Human-Environment Interactions: changing realities and perceptions 215 5.4.2 CBNT and changes in Socio-political Interactions 218 5.4.3 Changing environmental values: cultural beliefs and practices 226 5.5 Conservation and Community Development: sustainable change? 230 5.6 Recommendations and Conclusions 234
Chapter Six: Discussion and Conclusions
6.0 Introduction 242 6.1 PEPS: Addressing conceptual assumptions and inconsistencies? 243 6.1.1 What is community? 244 6.1.2 Conservation of what and what for? 245 6. 1 .3 Tourism: economics or empowerment? 246 6. 1 .4 Sustainability: goal or process? 248
IV 6.2 Transformation of Place 249 6.2. 1 Layers and Focal Points 25 1 6.2.2 Place and scale 255 6.3 The hidden system of change 257 6.4 Conclusions and Summary 261
References 267
Appendix 1 Household Survey 283 Appendix 2 Natural resources used as identified by focus group participants 288
? List of Tables
Table 1, Distinction between CBET and CBNT (derived from Lawton and 15 Weaver, 2001; Hall and Boyd, 2005; Manning and Dougherty, 1999) Table 2, Goals and objectives of CBNT 1 6 Table 3 , Practical problems associated with the implementation of CBNT. 1 8 Table 4, The avenues of political ecology as represented by Robbins (2004) and 48 Peet and Watts (1996). Table 5, Semi-structured Interview and Focus Group Guide 80 Table 6, Baseline information for Boabeng and Fiema, 2007 *the number of 108 compounds and village Table 7, Education Levels for Boabeng and Fiema, 2007 108 Table 8, Compound materials and services for Boabeng and Fiema, 2007. 108 Table 9, Religious beliefs in Boabeng and Fiema, 2007 109 Table 10, Farming and livelihood information for Boabeng and Fiema, 2007 110 Table 1 1 , Costs addressed before profit sharing, BFMS Constitution, 2007 124 Table 12, Beneficiaries of profit sharing, BFMS Constitution 124 Table 13, Visitor and revenue status for 2005 and 2006 Community-based 125 Ecotourism Project sites (NCRC, 2007) Table 14, Sources of firewood for Boabeng and Fiema (% of ?), 2007 139 Table 15, Sources of water for Boabeng and Fiema (% of ?), 2007 140 Table 16, Source of local medicine for Boabeng and Fiema (% of ?), 2007 141 Table 17, Natural resource uses for Boabeng and Fiema (% of ?), 2007 145 Table 18, Percentage of those surveyed that feed Mona monkeys and reasons for 147 doing so at BFMS (% of n), 2007. Table 19, Percentages of respondents indicating that tourism contributes 159 significantly to the protection of the monkeys and the forest BFMS (% of n), 2007
vi Table 20, Motivation for conservation at BFMS (% of ?), 2007. 159 Table 2 1 , Perceived contribution of CBNT to conservation at BFMS (% of n), 1 63 2007
Table 22, Personal benefits from tourism (% of n) BFMS, 2007 and from Fargey 1 64 1990
Table 23 , Level of community benefit from CBNT (% of n), BFMS 2007 and 1 66 from Fargey (1990). Table 24, Why tourists visit BFMS as perceived by residents of Boabeng and 170 Fiema, (% of ?) BFMS, 2007 and from Fargey, 1990. Table 25, Future development goals that are shared by the villages and unique to 194 each village at BFMS derived from interview data analysis. Table 26, Religion as a percentage of village population (% of n) BFMS, 2007 198 and from Fargey, 1990 Table 27, Reasons for not farming for Boabeng and Fiema (% of ?), 2007 202 Table 28, Traditional practices that indirectly indicate strength of traditional 203 beliefs and practices (% of n) BFMS, 2007. Table 29, Timeline of events at BFMS 2 1 2/4 Table 30, Representation of the change in language at BFMS and shifting nature 225 of control and responsibility. Table 3 1 , Recommendations and practical and conceptual theoretical outcomes 234/5 for community development and conservation at BFMS. Table 32, Conceptual relationship between place meanings (layers and focal 254 points) and categories of change (episodic and incremental).
vn List of Figures Figure 1 , Illustration of the influence of CBNT on the interaction between 1 5 community and the environment. Figure 2, A representation of Hollings Curve from Holling and Gunderson (2002) 25 illustrating the dynamic nature of change of the environment (Farrel and Twinning-Ward, 2004). Figure 3 Environmental Values Spectrum. 28 Figure 4, Forest Value Definitions from (Brown, Reed and Harris, 2002, p. 59). 30 Figure 5, Illustration of the relationship between humans and environment 37 resulting from CBNT when theoretical assumptions and practical issues are integrated. Figure 6, Representation of the relationship between systems theory, political 62 ecology and place-based theory to form PEPS. Figure 7, Black and White Colobus (Colobus polykomos) monkey and Mona 105 Monkey {Cercopithiecus mona). Figure 8, BFMS Guesthouse constructed in 1996. 107 Figure 9, Subsistence farm, Boabeng. 109 Figure 10, Daworoh Shrine, Boabeng. 1 12 Figure 1 1 , Description of the Oracle. 1 1 5 Figure 12, Marker in front of Afiatiase family home, indicating place where the 115 head of the prince ofNkoranza is buried. Figure 13, The Stools of Boabeng. 117 Figure 14, The Stools of Fiema. 119 Figure 15, Example of dense forest habitat (left) and savannah forest 135 (background) with peanut and palm tree farm (right), BFMS. Figure 16, Cement markers at boundary of core forest BFMS, 2007. 136 Figure 17, Teak trees boarder at core forest boundary BFMS, 2007. 136 Figure 1 8, Burn mound used for charcoal production inside BFMS, 2007. 136
Vili Figure 19, Tree stump illustrating the use of a chainsaw inside BFMS, 2007. 137 Figure 20, Collection of medicinal plants for local market (on left) and for local 141 and wholesale market (on right), BFMS, 2007. Figure 21, The most important natural resources used, as identified by focus 144 group participants, BFMS, 2007. Figure 22, Storage shed for farm produce, old and new BFMS, 2007. 148 Figure 23, Attitudes towards conservation at BFMS (n=302), Fargey (1990). 150 Figure 24, Attitudes towards conservation for residents of Boabeng and Fiema, 150 BFMS, 2007. Figure 25, Potential agricultural attractions at BFMS including snail farming (at 176 right) and grass cutter husbandry (at left). Figure 26, D.K. Akobias Spot/Wildlife Spot showing large shade trees and 182 tourist and a close up of the burnt base of the trees. Figure 27, Monkey burial grounds Boabeng (left) and Fiema (right), BFMS 2007. 206 Figure 28, 'Cause and Effect' relationship of change as a result of CBNT at 215 BFMS.
Figure 29, Ideal relationship between costs of conservation and CBNT and 219 benefits of CBNT for stakeholders in CBNT system. Figure 30, Representation of relationship between costs and benefits between 221 Boabeng and Fiema. Figure 31, Representation of the relationship between the costs and benefits 223 among stakeholders at BFMS including the actual percentage of the profits received by stakeholders as outlined in the BFMS constitution. Non-monetary benefits and general costs are representative of the trend and are not numerically accurate.
Figure 32, Clearing of the forest for road construction, on the main road to Fiema 240 (right) (2008) and photo of the large tree stands on the tertiary road leading to Boabeng that would be threatened by road construction (left). Both roads are within the sanctuary boundaries. Figure 33, PEPS framework of scale-community relationship. 245 Figure 34, Layers and focal points and actors involved in the creation of place. 252
ix Figure 35, Representation of the relationship between changes in place and layers 255 on a temporal scale. Figure 36, Representation of a stable 'system of change.' 259 Figure 37, Representation of an unstable 'system of change.' 260 Figure 38, Conceptual representation of place resiliency and the component parts 263 of the socio-natural system.
? List of Maps Map 1, Map of Ghana, West Africa, indicating location of Boabeng-Fiema 95 Monkey Sanctuary. Map 2, Map showing villages of Boabeng and Fiema and the BFMS monkey 106 sanctuary core and buffer forest, 2007 Map 3, Farming areas used as indicated by residents of BFMS (index of names), 130 2007
Map 4, Satellite image showing deforestation within BFMS and farming areas. 134 Map 5 Encroachment identified by researcher 138 Map 6, Areas indicated by residents of BFMS that are accessed for natural 146 resource, 2007 Map 7, Areas indicated for future reforestation by residents of BFMS, 2007 152 Map 8, BFMS showing the Akrudwa wildlife corridor BFMS, 2007 1 57 Map 9, Current and potential tourist attractions at BFMS, 2007 172 Map 10, Community development sites for both communities 196 Map 11, Representation of the layering and divergence ofplace meanings at 232 BFMS
Map 12, Alternative community development and conservation recommendations 239 for BFMS
Xl List of Acronyms
BFMS Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary CREMA Community Resource Management Area CBNT Community-based Nature Tourism DA District Assembly FV Fire Volunteers GG Government of Ghana GTB Ghana Tourism Board GWD Ghana Wildlife Division NCRC Nature Conservation Research Centre NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NP National Park PEPS Political Ecological Place Systems PCV Peace Corps Volunteer TMC Tourism Management Committee UC Unit Committee UNDP United Nations Development Programme USAID United States Agency of International Development
xii Chapter One: Introduction
1.0 Introduction to Research Problem
In many developing countries, the legacy of colonialism and the protectionist approach to conservation as represented by the national parks system has left rural communities alienated from conservation and struggling to survive on marginal lands. Persistent rural poverty, environmental degradation and the inability of conventional natural resource management to sustain rural communities has acted as an impetus for alternative conservation and development approaches. Conservation and development are recognised by academics, policy makers and practitioners as 'two sides of the same coin' and as such one cannot be addressed without the other. This concept described by the Bruntland Report (1987) and popularised as sustainable development has shaped much of the international development agenda of the last two decades. The integration of conservation and development however, has proven to be a very complicated issue; how do we humans manage our use of the environment in such a way that does not only decrease human poverty but also encourages human development while at the same time protecting and restoring biodiversity and the life-sustaining functions of ecosystems for ourselves and other species now and in the future? One approach that aims to do just that is community-based nature tourism (CBNT). CBNT has evolved from the integration of natural resource management, conservation, rural development and tourism and aims to address the multiple demands of conservation and development encompassing the desire to link conservation and local livelihoods through tourism by providing an economic alternative to destructive habits, preserving
1 biodiversity whilst reducing rural poverty, and of achieving both objectives on a sustainable, self-financing basis (Agrawal & Gibson, 1999; Kellert et al., 2000; Ferraro, 2001; Reid, 2003; Mowforth & Munt, 2003; Kiss, 2004; Scheyvens, 2002; DeBeer & Marais, 2005). This has made CBNT a very attractive strategy for many developing countries that are burdened by debt and poverty (Western & Wright, 1994; Brandon & Wells, 1992). Although considered a sustainable alternative to extractive natural resource management and intensive agriculture, the reality is that CBNT places demands on rural communities and natural resources and plays a significant role in the economy, politics, ecology and culture of rural communities. The potentially harmful long term impacts of CBNT are minimised or disregarded completely in poor communities that will accept any form of development as long as it promises employment and it is assumed that by providing a monetary incentive, CBNT will encourage human-environment interactions
that contribute to conservation and a conservation ethic. CBNT, however does not occur in a vacuum but takes place in diverse communities that may already have strong natural resource management systems that dictate how individuals interact with nature through cultural norms and traditional beliefs and values. Nevertheless, to date there is a lack of research that explores the relationship between environmental values, tourism and conservation from a host community perspective. This lack reflects theoretical limitations that oversimplify the complexity of the human-environment relationship.
2 1.0.1 Research Goal and Objectives Therefore the research goal of this dissertation is to address the question: How do human-environment relationships change as communities move from traditionalforms of conservation to alternative forms such as CBNT? In order to address this goal the first objective is to develop a conceptual framework that will allow for greater understanding of the complexity of human-environment relations. The second objective is to apply the framework in the investigation of human-environment relations in the context of a rural community undergoing the transformation from a spiritual to tourism-based form of natural resource management. In order to 'measure' transformation research will identify changes in the human environment relationship in three research categories: • human interactions with the environment including natural resource management practices and environmentally dependent livelihood strategies, • socio-political interactions such as the relationships between groups within and between communities, the role of traditional and community organisations, the role of non-community actors/organisations, and • environmental values or traditional beliefs and practices including traditional animisi values, taboos, religious activities, non-traditional conservation values. The dissertation is divided into several chapters. Chapter One, continues with an introduction to the research exploring the historical and conceptual themes that have contributed to the creation of CBNT, specific reference is made to the fields of conservation and natural resource management, rural development in Africa and the history of tourism in Africa. Chapter One closes with a discussion of the problems associated with CBNT and illustrates the need to move beyond the practical to investigate
3 conceptual problems. Chapter Two, the literature review, begins with a discussion of the conceptual assumptions and inconsistencies associated with CBNT. Chapter Two provides the arena for the development of a new conceptual framework. The nature of the research is interdisciplinary and therefore three different theories are explored including systems theory, political ecology and place-based theory. These theories are used to create an alternative conceptual framework for CBNT research, Political Ecological Place Systems (PEPS). Following the literature review, Chapter Three describes the use of critical realism as the methodological theory and the research methods, techniques and analysis that will be used to conduct research. Chapter Four addresses the conceptual and practical need to understand the context of the study area by providing a detailed description of both the historical and current contexts of the study area. The rich description is derived from both document analysis and the results of the current research, partially addressing the objectives. Chapter Five, presents the results of research exploring the impact of CBNT on human-environmental interactions, social-political interactions and environmental values demonstrated through cultural beliefs and practices. This chapter provides a detailed analysis of the research findings using PEPS to understand the impacts of CBNT within the case study. Recommendations are provided to address problems identified through research and encourage sustainable conservation and development. Finally, Chapter Six, re-evaluates PEPS and provides a discussion of the contributions of the new conceptual framework to the study of conservation and development.
4 1.1 Historical and Conceptual Themes Due to the interdisciplinary nature of CBNT it is important to explore several bodies of academic literature. Limits, however, are necessary to help focus the exploration. Included in this academic literature review are the fields of: • conservation biology and natural resource management with specific reference to community-based conservation, • tourism with a specific focus on community-based tourism and development, and • the environment with a focus on developing countries and environmental values In order to understand the current status of CBNT in the development and conservation of rural areas in developing countries it is first imperative to understand the origins of CBNT. CBNT is the outcome of a slow evolution within the fields of natural resource management, conservation, development and tourism. Natural resource management and conservation will be discussed within the same section, describing the different origins of these fields and the progress to a more unified approach to environmental management. Development will be discussed tracing the changes that have occurred from the colonial to post-colonial eras with particular attention given to the dominant development theories of the times and their perspectives on rural development. Tourism development in Africa will be discussed noting the changes that have occurred from the colonial to post colonial times. The last section describes the emergence of and specific goals of CBNT.
5 1.1.1 Rural Development Development theory after the Second World War was dominated by modernisation theory. Development through modernisation was thought to be a universal linear process of economic development that would continue eternally once momentum was gained (Samater 1984; Gabriel 1991; Bromely, 1995; Dzorgbo, 2001)1. It was suggested that a dual modern/industrial, rural/agricultural economy existed and that development would occur through expanding the modern sector and simultaneously reducing and making the agricultural sector more efficient and productive. The legacy of colonialism, however, was that individual colonies were seen as a piece of a greater empire and not as separate economic units that should aim at self-sufficiency. Thus colonies specialised in one crop, creating a monoculture economy often based on a product that was not used locally. This forced newly independent African nations to enter into the world economy by establishing export driven economies. Development at the rural community level as a domestic issue in Africa was not a priority and only received attention in reference to increasing agricultural production and harnessing the rural labour force. In many African countries, the rural poor were considered 'backward' and traditional culture an impediment to economic growth. In order to move from peasant to capitalist, the modernisation of social structure and human attitude was therefore required (Hernie, 1983; Gabriel, 1991). Modernisation theory was challenged in the early 1960s, by dependency theory first put forth by Raul Prebisch of Argentina, which characterised the inequalities between rural and urban society and developing and developed countries, as a core-
1 The theory of linear development was perhaps most well formulated by W. W. Rostow's (1960) "Stages of Economic Growth".
6 periphery relationship (Gardner, 1991). Where core-periphery relationships occur, the core exploits the natural and human resources of the periphery in order to obtain growth. Within the context of the global system, the rural areas of Africa are the periphery of the periphery and as such they are subject to exploitation first as a part of the world capitalist system and secondly, as a dependent part of a national system (Gardner, 1991). In Africa, economic dependency was secured through unequal terms of trade for natural resources. The economic returns for African exports diminished as raw materials decreased in value while, at the same time, African countries were continually paying more for the import of manufactured goods. Thus, in order to obtain higher profits and compete in the global market, African countries needed to increase production. Western countries, in what became popularly known as the Green Revolution, offered technological advances that could aid in increasing the agricultural production and extraction of natural resources. The Green Revolution, which was considered a success in
Asia failed in Africa. The widespread blanket approach to natural resource management was in retrospect inappropriate for the unpredictable and heterogeneous African environment. African countries in their efforts for progress were causing environmental degradation, simultaneously incurring massive debts and increasing their dependency on donors.
The answer to this decline and rising levels of poverty was then thought to be 'market liberalisation'. However a decade later, the failure of economic and growth orientated strategies to eliminate poverty led to a focus on equity and redistribution. The basic needs approach, for example, emphasised food security, safe water supply and basic health care. Governments were active in welfare distribution and a renewed interest in
7 agriculture occurred (Ellis & Biggs, 2001). The community emerged as the 'unit' of activity for the implementation of new development projects. Community development, however, was an essentially interventionist, top-down, expert driven strategy that relied on technical means to achieve pre-set objectives (Jiggins & Rolings, 1997). The community was not a participant in development but rather required to 'get on side' with development goals. Community development although changing the unit of activity remained a top-down approach. In the 1990s, after years of foreign aid there was very little improvement if any. Donor agencies began to question the effectiveness of the top-down application of foreign aid as a method for poverty alleviation. An emphasis on people and their environment rather than production and profits began to emerge and the importance of community participation in development was acknowledged. This shift in emphasis became known as the grassroots movement or bottom-up development and remains a key element in community development today (Kiss, 1990; IIED, 1994; Hitchcock, 1996; Keough, 1998; Taylor, 1995; Reid, 2003). Community development encourages communities to be active participants in identifying problems and creating solutions (Van Vlaenderen, 2004; Chambers, 1983; 1997; Friedmann, 1992). A definition that is all encompassing, is provided by DeBeer and Marais, 'The community development approach requires participation, it allows for learning to take place, for small-scale projects to be undertaken, for the empowerment ofpeople, ownership of the product, adaptation of a project, simplicity in execution, release from poverty and finally, it addresses the abstract human needs of an improved self-image and self-reliance' (De Beer & Marais, 2005, p.53). Ideally, community development is viewed as a transformative process that not only provides lasting improvement in conditions of life and livelihoods but also facilitates
8 a political struggle for empowerment (Friedmann, 1992; Campfrens, 1997; DeBeer & Marais, 2005). The importance of community participation within this process rose to prominence and led to a variety of approaches and techniques such as Participatory Rural Appraisals (PRAs) and Rapid Rural Appraisals (RRAs) that are widely used in development (Kiss, 2004; IIED, 1994; Hitchcock, 1996; Keough, 1998; Taylor, 1995; Reid, 2003). It must be acknowledged, however that participation is by no means guaranteed by a grass roots approach, participation is best represented on a scale from passive participation, where the community is 'brought on board' with conservation and development initiatives to self-mobilisation, where the community initiates and is in control of the process (Arnstein, 1969; Little, 1994; IIED, 1994; Morse et al., 1995;
Rocha, 1997; Cleaver, 2001; Cornwall, 2003).
1.1.2 Natural Resource Management and Conservation The science of natural resource management has a distinct past from the science of conservation. However, the fields have merged as environmental paradigms have shifted from exploitation and utilisation to protection, conservation and sustainability. Changes in natural resource management and conservation are also intertwined with issues of power and politics and must not only be understood through a scientific but also in a historical context. Upon independence, the management and conservation of natural resources were suddenly thrust upon Africans who had until that point been excluded by colonial professionals (Neuman, 1998). The conservation of wildlife was presented to African governments as a choice between civilisation and savagery and thus the system of parks and reserves established by colonial governments remained. Conflicts between
9 communities living adjacent to protected areas and park and wildlife authorities gave conservation a 'bad image', which for many rural communities, remains today (Anderson & Grove, 1987; Adams & McShane, 1992; Western & Wright, 1994; Taylor & Dunstone, 1996; Weaver, 1998; Hulme & Murphee, 1999; Reid, 2003). In addition to developing conservation and natural resource management strategies, newly independent African countries were striving for economic and social growth and often viewed natural resource management and environmental quality concerns as 'holding back' progress. Most cities in Africa were small and less industrialised and signs of environmental deterioration and resource loss were not apparent. The misconception prevailed that natural resources in the 'third world' were still abundant and would replenish themselves for future generations (Ojungu, 1992). Young African governments therefore, began using commercially marketable resources and renewable resources such as soils, rangelands, forests, wildlife and fisheries with the intention that they would never be exhausted (Owen et al., 1998). Natural resource use was and still is the backbone of economic development in many African nations but currently a more holistic approach, which reflects the need for conservation, is being implemented all over Africa. This approach acknowledges that the majority of national parks and game reserves are too small to maintain ecosystems health and that the majority of African wildlife resides outside park boundaries and therefore affect communities. Thus, community-based natural resource management is just as, if not more important, for the conservation of forests and wildlife as strict protection. A theoretical foundation that encourages community conservation has developed based on common property management research and resulted in approaches such as the
10 Integrated Conservation and Development Programme (ICDP), buffer zones, ecosystems- based management and Community-based Conservation (CBC). The basic argument is that 'if communities are involved in conservation, the benefits they receive will create incentives for them to become good stewards of resources' (Agrawal & Gibson, 2001, p. 7). Community-based approaches challenge but have not replaced national parks and game reserves as a conservation method. Rather they have expanded the geographical scope of conservation to include communal and human inhabited lands and provide a framework for multiple resource use and multiple values as perceived by diverse resource users (Waltner-Toews, 2003; Yaffe, 1999; Alpert, 1995, 1996; Grumbine, 1994). Community centred conservation acknowledges that there are many environmental values that are not consumption based and that are not easily measurable or quantifiable, such as historical, cultural, recreational, amenity and spiritual values (Salwasser, 1999). In addition, the focus of conservation itself is also evolving from a species to a biodiversity and ecosystems focus. Biodiversity is the 'composite of plants, animals and microbes and is the basis for ecosystems processes' (Kim &Weaver, 1994, p. 10). The biodiversity of species and their interrelationships and interactions with the physical and chemical environment form the operations and 'life-support' of ecosystems. For this reason, optimising the environment for one economically valuable resource such as soil, water, wildlife or forests is not considered as important for conservation as sustaining the entire environment and its many interrelationships (Haney and Boyce, 1997; Owen et al., 1998). The fields of conservation and natural resource management now emphasise a more holistic approach to the protection of species and habitats, focusing on ecosystems and diversity. Cultural and traditional biodiversity conservation methods are therefore
11 tremendously relevant since they cover the broadest range of society and are particularly useful in developing countries where the majority of the population lack formal education (Attuquayefio & Fobil, 2005, p. 1 1).
1.1.3 Tourism Development Tourism planning, similar to development and conservation was traditionally a top-down macroeconomic activity aimed at creating master tourism plans to increase economic growth (Moisey & McCool, 2001; Mowforth & Munt, 2003; Reid, 2003). Tourism planning was primarily concerned with mass tourism and thus strongly associated with the expansion of capitalism (Harrison, 2001) and the modernisation approach to development. The economic benefits of tourism development received at the national level were expected to 'trickle down' and therefore benefit the poor. The negative repercussions of mass tourism, however, as demonstrated by environmental degradation, and the exacerbation of poverty led to a re-evaluation of tourism as a method of economic growth (Weaver, 1998; Yunis, 2003). Research found that communities had been actively excluded from the process of tourism development or simply ignored, yet these same communities bore the burden of increasing pressure on local infrastructure and environment and increasing social and cultural pressure from the presence of foreigners (Honey, 1999; Teye et al., 2002; Scheyvens, 2002; Briedenhann
and Wickens, 2003; Reid, 2003). Participation of communities in the development and implementation of tourism projects was recognised as a requirement if tourism was to be successful as a tool for community development (Zeppel, 1998; Campbell, 1999; Moisey & McCool, 2001). In
12 response, alternative forms of tourism such as ecotourism, adventure tourism and cultural tourism emerged, and although diverse, these alternatives aimed to be socially and environmentally, rather than profit driven and seek to minimise harm to the peoples and environments of destination areas (Schvyens, 2002). The emphasis on community involvement in tourism was accompanied by growing environmental concerns and the growth in the ecotourism sector (Weaver, 1998; Honey, 1999; McLaren, 2003; Holden, 2003). This drew attention to the environment as a key ingredient in the sustainability of the tourism industry (Wight, 2003; Burns, 2004; DeBeer & Marais, 2005). Tour operators and businesses eager to improve their image with a progressively more environmentally aware and socially conscious clientele, rapidly developed the 'green' tourism industry. Unlike past attempts at mass tourism development, ecotourism and community-based tourism was established as a vehicle for economic diversification and conservation at the local level. Burns (2004) offers a useful analysis of the shifting tourism paradigm by describing tourism approaches as occupying two distinct camps. The 'tourism first' approach emphasises economic growth and tourism-as-industry. In contrast, the 'development first' approach emphasises sustainability, social development and tourism-as-system. Tourism-as-system suggests that tourism is not a 'stand alone' entity but impacts and is impacted by the wider economy, environment and social and cultural context. Tourism is recognised by governments, NGOs and rural communities as an engine for economic growth and has become a high priority in development and environmental management planning. In fact, tourism acts to further integrate the fields of conservation and development by providing a monetary value for remote pristine
13 habitats and a diverse range of species and protected areas. Tourism, thus transforms those 'things' of ecological or cultural value into natural resources whose economic value is dependent upon conservation.
1.2 CBNT: an integrated approach The active pairing of tourism for development and conservation seemed a natural fit in Africa. The tourism industry was already well established and because of the focus on the natural environment tour operators and investors would have a vested interest in conservation. The first Lonely Planet 'bible' Across Asia on the- Cheap published in 1973 was also the start of making the world more accessible for independent more adventurous travellers. Ecotourism, the 'original' form of alternative tourism has since been joined by an array of other alternatives that reflect the values of the international community as well as the diverse range of issues that are being faced by local communities. Community-nature-tourism linkages under the caveat of nature tourism include 3 S tourism (sun, sea and sand), consumptive nature based tourism (hunting and fishing), health tourism (spas that rely on hot/sulphur springs), adventure tourism (risk, skill, physical exertion - associated with natural environments) and ecotourism (related to natural environment, education, and sustainability) (Lawton and Weaver, 2001; Hall and Boyd, 2005). Nature tourism and ecotourism are often used interchangeably by the tourism industry; however, within the literature a distinction between the two categories is present.
14 Community Based Ecotourism Community Based Nature Tourism Environmental education component No education component required required Closely associated with protected area and Associated with public/ communal lands national parks outside protected areas No cultural tourism component required Cultural tourism closely associated with nature tourism Table 1, Distinction between CBET and CBNT (derived from Lawton & Weaver, 2001; Hall & Boyd, 2005; Manning & Dougherty, 1999) For the purpose of this dissertation CBNT is used as an umbrella term that encompasses the diversity of approaches including ecotourism, adventure tourism, health tourism and consumptive and non-consumptive nature tourism. CBNT addresses the multiple demands of conservation and community development encompassing the desire to link conservation and local livelihoods through tourism by providing an economic alternative to destructive habits, preserving biodiversity whilst reducing rural poverty, and of achieving both objectives on a sustainable, self-financing basis (Agrawal & Gibson, 1999; Kellert et al., 2000; Ferraro, 2001; Reid, 2003; Mowforth & Munt, 2003; Kiss, 2004; Scheyvens, 2002; DeBeer & Marais, 2005).
CBNT
Community-Environment Interactions
Social, Political, Economic & Environmental Change
Sustainable Conservation & Development Figure 1, Illustration of the influence of CBNT on conservation and development interactions.
15 As shown in Figure 1, CBNT ideally acts to mediate the relationship between people and their environment by influencing social, political, economic and environmental change resulting in community development and conservation that is sustainable. Although not exhaustive, the list below is inclusive of the majority of goals and objectives described in the academic literature for CBNT. There is considerable ambiguity between the areas of emphasis described and the distinction between where community development goals stop and economic development goals begin for example, is not made explicit.
Goals and Objectives of CBNT Community development • Community participation, ownership and control • Empowerment • Skills training and education • Community mobilization and organization • Avenue for appreciation for traditional skills • Gender equity • Tourism should be culturally appropriate and sensitive Conservation by providing an alternative to destructive natural resource use • Decrease extractive natural resource use (e.g. mining, fishing, forestry) • Species protection and biodiversity conservation • Integration of traditional ecological knowledge and scientific ecological knowledge in resource management • Reinvestment of revenues from CBNT into conservation program • Environmental education; increase awareness of the importance of conservation with the community and tourists • Tourism should have a low environmental impact Economic development as a result of tourism • Increase employment opportunities through tourism and secondary industries (e.g. transportation, food industry) • Generation of profits from tourism creates a self-sustaining industry • Equitable distribution of revenue from tourism • Generation of foreign exchange • Decrease dependency on aid Table 2, Goals and objectives of CBNT
16 1.2.1 Problems associated with CBNT There is growing evidence that the ideal of CBNT is unable to meet the goals and objectives of development and conservation (Brown, 1998; Hackel, 1999; Stonich, 1998; 2000; Kellert et al., 2000; Gossling, 2002; Scheyvens, 2002; Campbell & Vainia-Mattila, 2003; Mowforth & Munt, 2003; Kiss, 2004; Blackstock, 2005). The marketing and romanticism of CBNT demands that a pristine and 'untouched' wilderness awash with wildlife be maintained, and that exotic, mythical and primitive cultures be visible. Practically, tourism also places demands on the carrying capacity of the environment and local infrastructure; requiring, water, roads, waste management, communications (internet and phones), foreign products such as bottled water and foods, accommodations and electricity/power. Tourism may also require a certain skill set from employees for example, the ability to speak English, drive and/or use a computer. Tourism has the unique ability to influence and even ruin the destination that it is built on yet the long- term impacts of CBNT are often minimised or disregarded completely in poor communities faced with poverty. Although each CBNT programme is unique, practical problems associated with CBNT have been divided into four broad categories that are applicable across CBNT programmes; tourism, economics, conservation and community development. These categories are reiterated here but not discussed in great detail as they are well documented in the academic literature (Blackstock, 2005; Charnley, 2005; Kiss, 2004; Macleod, 2004; Mowforth & Munt, 2003; Reid, 2003; Pickering & Weaver, 2003; Scheyvens 2002; Moisey & McCool, 2001; Weaver, 2001, 1998; Harrison, 2001, 1996; Echtner, 1999; Honey, 1999; Taylor, 1995).
17 ______Practical problems associated with CBNT Tourism • Inadequate marketing (Brown, 1998) • Inaccessible location • Small-scale community-based development requires a small-scale tourism enterprise that may not generate enough revenues to be self-sustaining (Brennan and Allen, 2001) • Lack of physical infrastructure i.e., roads, water, electricity (Honey, 1999) • Need to import products (bottled water, special food items) • Leakage (Reid, 2003) Economics • Inequitable distribution of revenues from tourism • Corruption • Number of jobs available as a result of tourism are inadequate as a means of replacing traditional employment • Jobs created from tourism are often seasonal and low-wage (Reid, 2003) Conservation • Lack of charismatic mega fauna to base tourism product on (e.g. panda) (Honey, 1999) • Small-scale community-based development required context specific, focused projects with a medium to high likelihood of success (Ferraro, 2001; Kiss, 2004). In contrast biodiversity conservation and the conservation of ecosystems encompass many biological and cultural zones, and thus a large spatial scale is required (Callicott et al., 1999; Kellert et al., 2000; Kiss, 2004; Ferraro, 2001; Song and M'Gonigle, 2001) • Physical requirements of tourism actually increase demands on environment (water consumption, electricity, firewood for cooking) • Conservation often requires immediate action and in the short term relies on rules and regulations Development • Lack of skills in community required to operate a tourism project (Dieke, 2001; Briedenhann & Wickens, 2004) • Migration of people into community once tourism program is established • Due to large initial investment required for tourism, tourism operations are often foreign owned and therefore there is a lack of community control • Unrealistic expectations of the time required and the capacity of the community to manage and control tourism • Planning for tourism is often reactive not proactive and therefore there is a lack of community participation in the initial phases of tourism development (Campbell, 1999) • The tourism industry perceives participation as costly and therefore resists community participation (Brennan & Allen, 2001; Blackstock, 2005) • Participatory development is not expedient enough in the face of immediate conservation demands (Berkes, 2003) Table 3, Practical problems associated with the implementation of CBNT
18 Practical problems are most commonly a result of the inability to integrate the goals and objectives of conservation, tourism and development in an applied setting. For example, wildlife viewing may be best achieved at dusk and dawn, but women who could act as local guides are unavailable at those times due to the need to collect water for daily family needs, thus all of the guiding jobs are filled by men, causing an inequitable distribution of benefits from tourism. This is just one example that illustrates the difficulty in addressing conservation, tourism and development goals through the implementation of CBNT. Although there are problems associated with CBNT, the reality is that CBNT as a subset of the tourism industry is growing faster than the tourism industry overall (Pickering & Weaver, 2003). In this respect CBNT is 'here to stay' and will continue to influence community development and conservation. The practical problems associated with CBNT, however, are merely the symptoms of much deeper theoretical concerns. As stated in the introduction, theoretical limitations restrict research and therefore it is vital to investigate the underlying conceptual assumptions and inconsistencies associated with CBNT. It is the lack of understanding of these conceptual problems that are at the root of the challenges faced by CBNT.
1.3 Summary Thus far, the histories of natural resource management and conservation, rural development and tourism development have been discussed. In general, these approaches are evolving from a positivist paradigm that encompasses, top-down, 'blue-print', policy driven, government and expert led development to a constructivist paradigm that
19 recognises, bottom-up participatory approaches, indigenous knowledge, diverse realities and are centred on the community as the unit of development (Jiggins & Roling, 1997). CBNT is shown to have emerged out of this shift as a means to simultaneously address conservation and development goals. The inclusion of traditional forms of natural resource management that are based on pre-existing value systems remains rare in conservation but represents a growing sector of the nature and culture tourism industry. The impact that CBNT may have on traditional conservation, however, is poorly understood. The practical problems associated with tourism were reviewed and it is clear that the goals of the 'CBNT ideal' are rarely met in practice. Practical problems will persist if the conceptual assumptions and inconsistencies behind them are not tackled. Therefore, Chapter Two will begin with an exploration of the conceptual assumptions and inconsistencies that are the root cause of practical issues.
20 Chapter Two: Literature Review
2.0 Introduction The literature review is composed of two sections. The first section considers the conceptual assumptions and inconsistencies that underlie the practical problems associated with CBNT. By incorporating conceptual inconsistencies and assumptions into the representation of CBNT, it becomes apparent that the complexity of the situation requires a new conceptual framework. Therefore, the second section of this chapter provides a review of three theories from the academic literature, systems theory, political ecology and place-based theory, with the intention of crafting a new conceptual framework for CBNT research. The final section of this chapter presents the new conceptual framework Political Ecological Place Systems (PEPS).
2.1 Conceptual assumptions and inconsistencies This section will be directed by a set of four questions (1) What is community? (2) Conservation of what? (3) What is conservation for? (4) Tourism: economics or empowerment? By addressing these questions the conceptual assumptions and inconsistencies of how CBNT is imagined will be discussed.
2.1.1 What is Community? The conceptual problems of how communities are imagined and defined are by no means new however, they are only beginning to come to the forefront of research in CBNT. The history of communities in conservation is a history of revisionism with
21 'images of pristine ecosystems and innocent primitives yielding over time to views of despoiling communities out of balance with nature...' (Agrawal & Gibson, 2001, p. 3). Currently, the concept of community encompasses the powerful ideas that communities have a homogenous social structure, with shared norms and cultural identities and that communities are small spatial units with a distinct geography (Brosius et al., 1998; Milne, 1998; Stonich, 1998; Leach et al., 1999; Belsky, 1999; Agrawal & Gibson, 1999; Scheyvens, 2002 Gossling, 2002; Reid, 2003; Campbell & Vainio-Mattila, 2003; Blackstock, 2005). As a result, the community is researched as a temporary unit (Leach et al., 1999) or as an island in isolation from other institutions and the wider political, economic, social and environmental context. Communities, however, are not 'homogeneous units of like-minded, politically similar people but a collection of individuals with differing interests whose affiliations may vary, intersect or clash on numerous planes' (Macleod, 2004, p. 136). Communities are not stagnant and are rarely isolated. It is essential to be aware of the structural inequalities within communities, including but not limited to class, ethnicity, religion and gender because this diversity influences the equitable distribution of benefits and local decision making-processes (Leach et al., 1999; Mowforth & Munt, 2003). Community is described by Butz and Eyles (1997) as being a set of social and cultural interactions grounded in shared meanings, values and interests. Communities may have a geographic location but they are more than a point on a map. Communities are a diverse composition of people with different beliefs and interests. With respect to CBNT, the entire community often becomes a part of the tourism product, whether individuals have chosen to be involved or not. In this way inequalities are encouraged as the cost of tourism is
22 carried by the entire community, yet benefits are not attributed to all (Taylor, 1995). Little is known however, of the impacts that CBNT has on the diverse groups that are present within communities. In addition, implicit in the understanding of community-based development and conservation is that 'conflict can be resolved and that ultimately, if with difficulty, heterogeneous communities will come to accept a homogenous view of what is acceptable' (Prentice, 1993, p.219 from Kellert et al., 2000). It is assumed that local control of the development process will guarantee participation and that participation represents consensus and agreement. There is no evidence however, that consensus is always attainable and the increasing awareness of diversity within communities points to the fact that multiple perspectives of reality will be evident and perhaps be irreconcilable. Conflict between and among stakeholders should be considered the norm rather than the exception (Agrawal & Gibson, 1999; Kellert et al., 2000) and as stated by Brennan and Allen, 'developmental models based on notions of self-interest and diversity within communities, rather than on notions of community spirit and stability' are required (Brennan & Allen, 2001, p.215). Community development and participatory methods must work with conflict and instability to challenge community norms and structures that engender inequality. Conflict must be treated as a learning opportunity that will encourage transformation and empowerment and heterogeneity must be made transparent in order to understand difference and encourage communication. As stated by Blackstock (2005), community development which often takes a simplified atheoretical and apolitical approach must acknowledge the conceptual difficulties of 'community'. Communities are characterised
23 by connectedness, heterogeneity and conflict that create complexity and require varied approaches to development initiatives. Greater emphasis is required to understand the linkages that communities have with 'outside' actors and the local-global relationships that are present (Agrawal & Gibson, 1999). This includes not only social linkages among people, organisation and institutions but also bio-physical linkages that house communities within larger watersheds, ecosystems or climatic zones.
2.1.2 Conservation of what?
'Conservation of what?' considers what bio-physical characteristics are the end goals of conservation. Traditionally, much of conservation was informed by the idea of a 'balance of nature' or environmental equilibrium including concepts such as vegetation succession, linear change, climax communities and homeostatic equilibrium states (Leach et al., 1999). This led to management practises that aimed for the re-establishment or maintenance of climax communities and single species protection (Simberloff, 1998). CBNT although a more holistic approach, either implicitly or explicitly assumes that a distinct and relatively stable local environment is available (Leach et al., 1999). Or if the environment is not stable it is assumed that the community existed in 'harmony' with the environment at some former time until 'disrupted' by other factors. The purpose of conservation is then to return the environment and community to some former more sustainable state (Leach et al, 1999; Bengtsson et al., 2003). This stable state is often described as the climax community such as a mature forest. It is now widely acknowledged in the conservation literature, however, that ecosystems are dynamic and too complex to be predictable (Grumbine, 1994; Stanely,
24 1995; Berkes, 2003; Bengtsson et al., 2003). Ecosystems are now thought to have several 'stable states' that are created and recreated through processes of disruption (Leach et al., 1999). The classic illustration of Hollings Curve shown in Figure 2, represents this continuous cycle of S ¡???^??&?- environmental change.
? The cycle progresses (0 through stages from » W exploitation to V ffelease conservation with the
« Weak ¦ » Strong ecosystem becoming ______Connectedness Figure 2, A representation of Hollings Curve from Holling more hi8hly connected and Gunderson (2002) illustrating the dynamic nature of change of the environment (Farrel & Twinning-Ward, and gaining caPital until 2004) through disruption, energy is released, capital is lost and the ecosystem becomes less interconnected until it is able to reorganise. The ability of the ecosystem to reorganise is often referred to as environmental health or resilience. The mature forest in this representation would have a high level of connectedness and a high level of stored capital, through a process of disruption, such as a forest fire, the ecosystem releases energy and moves into a stage of exploitation where species are re-established and eventually moves again towards a mature forest. The adoption of new conservation strategies that are able to respond to dynamic environmental conditions reflect the recent changes in the study of ecology (Grumbine, 1997; Salafsky et al., 2002; Berkes, 2003). There is a need for tourism researchers and planners to be familiar with this 'new' ecology (Farrel & Twinning-
25 Ward, 2004) in order to develop CBNT that is better able to balance conservation and tourism needs and is able to accommodate the transformative nature of the environment. The ecological parameters for conservation, such as biodiversity conservation or species protection, are set by scientific knowledge with the environment viewed as a scientific externalised entity largely devoid of any spiritual value. The environment, however is not value free and the motivations behind conservation must also be explored. The next section will explore environmental values that play a role in CBNT.
2.1.3 What is conservation for?
What is conservation for? considers the meaning of conservation as a representation of values and the role that environmental values play in conservation programmes such as CBNT. 'Humans are acknowledged to be the sole reference point of value. They are what confers 'value', 'rights', obligations and moral duty, and they decide what is and is not to be valued' (Pepper 1996, p. 35 from Cole, 1999, p. 1000). Norton and Hannon, (1997, p. 231) provide a very broad definition of environmental values as 'cultural values that are constructed from a given perspective in space and time' (from Brown, Reed & Harris, 2002 p. 53). In the context of CBNT, top-down approaches to conservation and development in the past masked the reality of multiple environmental value systems. The value system of the dominant party was either enforced or adopted by stakeholders that did not have the power to challenge or assert their beliefs. Alternative multi-stakeholder approaches to conservation and development have opened the door for diverse perspectives on human-environment relationships and diverse environmental values.
26 Environmental values are discussed within the fields of environmental psychology, human geography and conservation, and a pattern emerges across disciplines for grouping and organising environmental values. Most simply, environmental values exist on a continuum from anthropocentric to non-anthropocentric (Figure 3). The basic premise of anthropocentric values is that people are considered to be independent of their environment and are concerned with maximising personal utility according to their subjective preference (Holden, 2003; Cole, 1999). Nature is conceived as a source of pleasure that exists for the convenience of humankind. The natural environment is also considered to be essentially inert and passive, and the idea of a 'balance of nature' or single equilibrium in nature is predominant (Bergtsson et al., 2003, p. 391). Technology and free market environmentalism2 are believed to hold the answer to conservation issues and an emphasis remains on private property rights (Cole, 1999). At the other end of the spectrum non-anthropocentric values emphasise that people are just another species, neither the owners nor the stewards of this planet and that our future depends much more upon a right relationship with Gaia3 than with the never ending drama of human interests (Lovelock, 1989, p. 14). The spiritual and cultural value of the human-nature interaction is more important than economic value and all species are accorded the same moral standing as humans (Cole, 1999). The key to conservation and development lies not with technology and management but with behavioural changes. As stated by Cole, 'Rather than trying to manage the earth we must learn to live
2 Conservation will be motivated by economic forces, if a resource we humans value is scarce the price will increase and in turn we will be motivated to conserve. 3 The Gaia Hypothesis was advanced by Lovelock and Margulis in 1974 in which the earth is conceived of as a living organism that must be understood holistically.
27 with it. We have to regulate our own lives rather than attempt to regulate the ecosystem' (Cole, 1999, p. 126).
Perspective
Anthropocentric Non-Anthropocentric
Instrumentalist» Conservation Ethic of the Eco-holism/ Gaia use of the Ethic ecological Environment Hypothesis environment for conservation for the accords all non- diversity is human purposes, benefit of human entities the essential and represented by humankind same moral functioning of the traditional natural standing as human ecosystem is resource beings. emphasised, moral Value management standing given to the whole rather than the individual. Social Utility Social Cohesiveness Social Discourse Where values represent Where values are broad where values represent and objects usefulness sociological constructs that evaluative judgements facilitate coordinated resulting from action interpretation of social phenomena Economic I Future Aesthetic Recreation ! Spiritual Intrinsic Biological diversity J Cultural Therapeutic Subsistence ? Life Sustaining Learning Therapeutic I Historic Recreation Learning Life Sustaining Figure 3, Environmental Values Spectrum Likewise, environmental values according to Brown, Reed and Harris (2002, p. 53) can be derived from three different perspectives. First, the social utility perspective: where values represent an objects usefulness. The social utility perspective has been used extensively in natural resource management and is based on the view of valuation as rational, goal-directed behaviour. Second, the social cohesiveness perspective: where values are broad sociological constructs that facilitate coordinated action. Social
cohesiveness, views values as,
28 '...objects that exist within society as shared entities and individuals ascribe to various values based on their membership of certain groups (Parsons, 1951). In effect, values act as a constraining force in societies and serve to maintain order and cohesiveness...' (Mclntyre et al, 2004, p. 286). The third perspective is the social discourse perspective. Values here, similar to the social cohesiveness perspective, are seen as an integral part of the structures and institutions of society. However, within the social discourse perspective, while people embrace the values of society, they are also instrumental in constructing and reconstructing them through everyday social interactions. Values in this perspective are contextual resulting from interpretation of social phenomena and are not as stable or universally accepted as in the social cohesiveness perspective (Mclntyre et al., 2004). These perspectives loosely correspond to the anthropocentric to non-anthropocentric continuum as shown in Figure 3, but acknowledge that values are derived from social processes and are not entirely individual. Brown, Reed and Harris, (2002) also discuss values that although defined around a forest system, are applicable as environmental values in general. These values provide a more functional view of what is meant by environmental values and can be incorporated into the environmental values spectrum. It should be noted that some environmental values, such as learning values can be classified in more than one category along the spectrum, which simply illustrates the complexity and subjectivity of defining environmental values.
29 Forest Value Definitions
Aesthetic value: I value the forest because I enjoy the forest scenery, sights, sounds, smells Economic value: I value the forest because it provides timber, fisheries, minerals, or tourism opportunities such as outfitting and guiding. Recreation value: I value the forest because it provides a place for my favourite outdoor recreation activities. Life Sustaining value: I value the forest because it helps produce, preserve, clean, and renew air, soil, and water. Learning value: I value the forest because we can learn about the environment through scientific observation or experimentation. Biological diversity value: I value the forest because it provides a variety of fish, wildlife and plant life. Spiritual value: I value the forest because it is a sacred, religious, or spiritually special place to me or because I feel reverence and respect for nature there. Intrinsic value: I value the forest in and of itself for its existence, no matter what I or others think about the forest. Historic value: I value the forest because it has places and things of natural and human history that matter to me, others, or the nation. Future value: I value the forest because it allows future generations to know and experience the forest as it is now. Subsistence value: I value the forest because it provides necessary food and supplies to sustain my life. Therapeutic value: I value the forest because it makes me feel better, physically and/or mentally. Cultural value: I value the forest because it is a place for me to continue and pass down the wisdom and knowledge, traditions, and way of life of my ancestors. Figure 4, Forest Value Definitions from (Brown, Reed & Harris, 2002, p. 59) The consideration of environmental values is important for CBNT on both the conceptual and practical levels. On a conceptual level, CBNT is in and of itself a representation of environmental values. Human use of the environment is inherent in CBNT and CBNT also provides a monetary value for nature. So although conservation is paramount, CBNT is in some measure anthropocentric and therefore falls within the conservation ethic and the social utility perspective of the environmental values spectrum as shown in Figure 3. Conservation, as a representation of environmental values however, is a broader sociological construct placing CBNT in the social cohesiveness perspective.
30 The CBNT product itself is most often conceptually grounded in the non-anthropocentric or social discourse perspective where the intrinsic, aesthetic and therapeutic values for the environment are considered crucial.
The commoditisation of nature through CBNT reveals an ideological concern about the appropriateness of the economic link between tourism and rural communities. The danger of valuing wildlife and other natural resources purely in economic terms is that the other values such as 'social, cultural or spiritual values risk being omitted in decision making' (Jamal et al., 2003, p. 154). It is important to draw attention at this time to the connection between environmental values and cultural beliefs and practices, which are the focus for research. As defined by the social discourse perspective values are created through everyday social interactions. Therefore environmental values are demonstrated through beliefs and practices. Shared community norms can promote conservation by specifically prohibiting certain behaviours and encouraging others and by promoting cooperative decision-making within the community (Agrawal & Gibson, 2001, p. 1 1; Coleman, 1990). These norms and values however, cannot be taken as a set of beliefs that communities hold, never to give up. Norms come into being in relation to particular contextual factors such as CBNT, and even when they are codified and written, they do not remain static (Agrawal and Gibson, 2001. p. 12). Risk lies in loosing these values and more significantly, 'If a rural community accepts a community-based conservation program based on its economic benefits, they might also reject it if a better economic alternative comes along' (Hackel, 1999, p. 731). The question that arises therefore is, does the economic valuation of nature via tourism appropriate for the long-
31 term conservation of biodiversity and ecosystems or will it undermine less tangible but more meaningful traditional value-based natural resource management systems? On the practical level, 'The importance of values lies in the realisation that, many natural resource conflicts are more about values than they are about facts' (Yankelovich, 1991 from Mclntyre, 2002, p. 286). Research has shown that the affective (feeling) connections to the environment are important, and are perhaps more important than cognitive (thinking) connections to the environment as predictors of environmental values and behaviours (Hinds & Sparks, 2008). Therefore, 'Environmental managers must be concerned about managing the landscape for a variety of values, at different intensities, over different scales of space and time' (Hinds & Sparks, 2008), not just managing the landscape based on biological requirements for conservation. Even if environmental values are included in conservation the weakness in traditional presentations of values is that each stakeholder is considered to maintain one exclusive set of values. It is a mistake however, to think that each stakeholder represents a singular value perspective. Diversity of environmental values and the idea that environmental values interact with each other sometimes in harmony and sometimes in conflict must be recognised and included in management (Hinds & Sparks, 2008).
2.1.4 Tourism: economics or empowerment? Tourism as a component of CBNT is viewed by academics, governments and development practitioners as a tool for achieving conservation and development goals. Although it is acknowledged that tourism is an industry and as such is governed first by
32 economie considerations, the conceptual problems that this poses are unacknowledged. As stated by Butler (1991), 'It has to be appreciated that tourism is an industry and, as such, is much like any other industry... There is no more reason to expect tourism, on its own accord, to be 'responsible', than there is to expect the beer industry to discourage drinking or the tobacco industry to discourage smoking - even though many agree that such steps would be socially desirable.' (Butler, 1991, p. 208) CBNT in contrast to the tourism industry overall challenges the profit driven nature of tourism by approaching tourism from a development perspective (Dawson, 2001; Fennel, 2003). The economic self-sufficiency of CBNT however, which is a key ingredient to its attractiveness for indebted countries, can be at odds with the principles of development and conservation. The economic goals of CBNT are twofold: first, CBNT needs to generate enough employment to provide an alternative livelihood strategy for community members and second, CBNT needs to generate enough revenue to have a surplus available for re-investment in conservation and/or development initiatives. CBNT programmes have rarely been able to achieve both goals and generate enough profit to meet the needs of the business itself. Two situations tend to occur. In the first, CBNT is facilitated by an NGO, maintaining a low operating cost and providing minimal infrastructure (campsites and hiking trails), providing employment and training for community members and requiring years of operation before turning a profit. This type of CBNT is the typical destination for 'low-end backpacker tourists', who are willing to travel to rural and isolated communities but who are not willing or capable of paying large sums of money at the destination. In this situation community participation is a key ingredient in the transformation and empowerment of individuals. Participation that leads to empowerment must involve learning new skills and the establishment of a trusting
33 relationship between the NGO and community. This approach requires a significant amount of time that in the rapidly expanding nature tourism market may not be available. Alternatively, CBNT is often run by a private tour operator and aims for the 'high-end, exclusive lodge tourist'. In this situation, the accommodations are limited and luxurious yet environmentally friendly. This type of CBNT requires the employment of highly skilled individuals and quite often excludes community members from direct involvement with CBNT. The profits generated remain in the control of the tour operator but may be invested in conservation and community development. Can tourism be economically feasible on a small-scale that is more appropriate for rural community development? What incentives are there for private operators to be more involved in the community development and conservation goals of CBNT? Is there a way of bringing these two realities closer together to create a profitable program that is manageable by the community? The long term sustainability of CBNT will ultimately depend not only on community participation but also on the economic success of tourism. Just as vital, is the question of whether or not tourism is even appropriate in isolated or environmentally sensitive habitats (Mowforth & Munt, 2003). 'Green', small- scale CBNT both high and low end is considered to be benign having no to low cultural and environmental impact (Gossling, 2002; Mowforth & Munt, 2003). All tourism however, is an agent of change. The traveller that participates in CBNT may be considered qualitatively different from the power wielded by tour operators, large environmental organisations or mass tourists but their role in the process of commoditisation and environmental damage is noteworthy (Mowforth & Munt, 2003). CBNT, as a growing sector of the tourism industry, must be considered as influential as
34 mass tourism in determining how human-environmental interactions are negotiated and how political-ecological decisions are made. It is also assumed that CBNT is born of a proactive planning process but in reality planning is often reactive. NGOs and communities are often in a situation of playing 'catch-up' in a market where destinations move from unknown to trendy seemingly overnight. What tools can be created to bring communities into the process quickly and what roll can governments in particular play to create a more equitable and environmentally sustainable tourism industry within their borders?
2.1.5 Sustainability: goal or process? Sustainable development aims to reduce human impact on global ecosystems by maintaining ecosystems integrity in order to continue to sustain human life and societies indefinitely (Buckly, 2003). This involves integrating economic, ecological, social and cultural sustainability into a framework that recognises the moral, scientific, cultural, political and practical considerations that are present within the relationships between stakeholders (Lee, 1993; Alpert, 1995: 1996; Brunner & Clark, 1997; Grumbine, 1994, 1997; Yaffe, 1999; Crober, 1999; Sofreíd, 2003). Discussions of tourism in a sustainable development context commonly investigate the practical impacts of CBNT within a case study framework or remain theoretical in nature (Joppe, 1996; Zeppel, 1998; Milne, 1998; Buckley, 1999, 2003; Honey, 1999; Mvula, 2001; Moisey & McCool 2001; Weaver, 2001; Schyvens, 2002; Haas, 2002; Sofield, 2003; Pickering & Weaver, 2003; Yunnis, 2003; Mowforth & Munt, 2003; Wight, 2003; Reid, 2003; Charnley, 2005; Jones, 2005; Lim & McAleer 2005).
35 Although this research has contributed a wealth of information on participation, stakeholder collaboration and resource management techniques (Farrel & Twinning- Ward, 2004), the weakness of sustainable development is that it remains idealistic in its assumption of universally understood environmental values that are determined by scientific knowledge. Science however is not value-free, ' . . .values are so inherently part of the scientific process that failing to explore the manner in which they interact produces a science that serves unacknowledged masters. Ignoring this reality leads to bad science' (Song &M'Gonigle, 2001, p. 982). If the environment is viewed as a scientific and externalised entity largely devoid of any spiritual value, solutions to environmental problems then focus on management and technological controls. A singular approach to sustainability does not however, accommodate the diversity of environmental values that are present among the actors involved in CBNT. In fact it is easy for actors to support sustainable development yet have very different and even conflicting ideas of stewardship (Milne, 1998; Diaz &
Caceres, 2001; Weaver, 2001). Sustainability must therefore be treated as a situated concept that has different 'meanings, implications and consequences depending on the prevailing natural and socioeconomic environmental conditions' (Diaz & Caceres, 2001). Sustainability must also be conceived as a process rather than an end point or an achievable goal (Farrel & Twinning-Ward, 2004). By doing so, a more complex picture of CBNT will be developed that will address the need to represent community heterogeneity, conflict, commoditisation of nature and multiple environmental value systems.
36 2.2 Exploring theory: towards an alternative conceptual framework CBNT is affected by several problems that are both practical and conceptual in nature. The practical problems associated with CBNT are categorised as associated with; tourism, economics, conservation and community. The conceptual assumptions and inconsistencies are discussed through several questions: What is Community?
Conservation of What? What is conservation for? Tourism: economics or empowerment?, and Sustainability: goal or process? It becomes clear, through the discussion of problems and conceptual assumptions and inconsistencies that the relationship between people and their environment as mediated by CBNT is much more complex than previously represented in the literature. Figure 5, presents a more realistic 'picture' of CBNT that takes into account the conceptual assumptions and inconsistencies
as discussed.
Small Scale CBNT driven by economics or empowerment?
Situated Sustainable Dynamic Conservation and Environment Community Development Environmental
Sociocultural, Economic, Political and Ecological Heterogeneous Community operating change. at both Local and Global Scale
Figure 5, Illustration of the relationship between humans and environment resulting from CBNT when theoretical assumptions and practical issues are integrated
37 The more complex set of interactions are shown to be mediated by environmental values and will lead to socio-cultural, economic, ecological and political changes, but the question of whether or not these changes lead to sustainable conservation and community development remains. Sustainability in this re-conceptualisation of CBNT is considered to be a process, as well as, a situated concept that is defined by society. In addition, in Figure 5 the impact of CBNT is shown to be cyclical in order to illustrate the continual process of change rather than a linear progression to a static goal as represented in previous perceptions of community development and conservation (Figure 1). In this respect the goal of CBNT in order to remain sustainable is a 'moving target' and the process must continually adapt and respond to the changing political, ecological, social and cultural context.
In order to investigate the community-environment-tourism relationship, not only does research require an interdisciplinary approach to field work but also an interdisciplinary approach to conceptualising the problem. Currently however, the reductionist approach to research that is governed by disciplinary priorities that are 'specialised, predictable, deterministic, cause-and-effect science' impairs integration (Farrel & Twinning-Ward, 2004, p. 277). The most common disciplinary approaches that are used to evaluate CBNT are participatory frameworks (Taylor, 1995; Sofield, 2003; Scheyvens, 2002), dependency theory and modernisation theory from the development literature (Sofield, 2003; Reid, 2003), economic frameworks (Wunder, 2000), and conservation frameworks that evaluate the environmental impacts of CBNT (Wight 2003; Waitt et. al., 2003; Kruger, 2005; Kiss, 2004; Huybers, 2002; Horwich, 1999).
38 The study of tourism, however, is 'largely nonlinear, integrative, generally unpredictable, qualitative and characterised by causes giving rise to multiple outcomes, quite out of proportion to initial inputs' (Farrel & Twinning-Ward, 2004). Once it is recognised that tourism is realised through personal interrelations not material flows and that understanding the processes that transform economic, social and environmental structures is paramount, the limitations of disciplinary approaches becomes apparent (Carlsen, 1999, p.327). Research frameworks that have been used in the study of tourism that are not strictly from a disciplinary background are, systems theory (Carlsen, 1999; Burns, 2004; Farrel & Twinning-Ward, 2004; Holden, 2005), political economy (Brennan & Allen, 2001) environmental ethics (Holden, 2003) and sustainable development (Joppe, 1996; Zeppel, 1998; Milne, 1998; Buckley, 1999, 2003; Honey, 1999; Mvula, 2001; Moisey & McCool 2001; Weaver, 2001; Schyvens, 2002; Haas, 2002; Sofield, 2003; Pickering & Weaver, 2003; Yunnis, 2003; Mowforth & Munt, 2003; Wight, 2003; Reid, 2003; Charnley, 2005; Jones, 2005; Lim & McAleer 2005). These research frameworks, both disciplinary and integrative, have provided a wealth of information on CBNT and without this work it would be impossible to move forward in this field of research. The questions that arise however, when conceptual issues are included in the 'picture' of CBNT (Figure 5) are complex and require an alternative conceptual starting point. Taking the limitations of current research frameworks into account and addressing the complexity created by conceptual issues the potential requirements of an alternative
research framework are:
39 1. Acknowledge community diversity (e.g. class, gender, religion, ethnicity) and the role that power inequalities play in decision-making and on the distribution of benefits from tourism.
2. Investigate development based on relationships of self-interest and diversity rather than co-operation and consensus. 3. Investigate communities not as isolated entities but as adaptable entities that are linked to other actors across time and space. 4. Assume the environment is unpredictable and ever changing. 5. Investigate conservation on a geographic scale that is more appropriate to conservation goals of ecosystems integrity and biodiversity conservation. 6. Investigate the influence of social, cultural, economic, political and ecological factors on human-environment interactions with particular emphasis on the role that environmental values play. 7. Acknowledge and re-evaluate the requirements for successful tourism on a small- scale.
What theories can be applied in an integrated framework that are able to address the above requirements? Systems theory, political ecology and place-based theory, which have been explored only marginally in tourism studies, will be integrated to create an alternative conceptual framework.
2.2.1 Systems Theory The origins of systems theory are commonly attributed to Howard T. Odum, who first detailed systems thinking with specific reference to biological systems. General systems theory was furthered by von Bertalanffy (1968) who emphasised the ability for general systems theory to be relevant for not only the biological sciences but as a theory that is truly interdisciplinary. 'Systems thinking' is now commonly used in three broad areas; natural systems, engineered or designed systems and human-activity systems.
40 Although, systems thinking is useful for understanding the sectoral relationships in tourism and the temporal processes associated with tourism development (Carlsen, 1999) its has seen limited use since the beginning of the 1980s (Leiper, 1979; Carlsen, 1999; Farrel & Twinning-Ward, 2004; Holden, 2005). Getz surveyed the literature in 1986 and found that of 1 50 models identified, only 4 attempted to take a whole systems approach and Hall finds it little better in 2000 (Farrel & Twinning-Ward, 2004). In addition, Farrel and Twinning-Ward state that the systems research that has occurred is still focused on tourisms' 'industrial core'.
The systems thinking that is perhaps most closely related to the CBNT system is the research that has been conducted on agro-ecosystems. Within agricultural science, research can be traced from a 'production' focus to demonstrating a growing concern with where social systems including values and belief systems overlap and impact on natural systems (Valentine, 2005). The key to comprehending this and other socio-natural systems such as CBNT, is to understand the influence that human activity has on the environment, and in turn, how the environment shapes human society to create social systems (Bailey, 1998; Song & M'Gonigle, 2001; Farrel & Twinning-Ward, 2004; Valentine, 2005; Vanderstraeten, 2005). The human-environment relationship can be described through the four main characteristics of systems thinking. These characteristics are that systems are a non-summative whole, are self-organising or adaptive, are open, and are homeostatic. These characteristic will be further explored here in the context of
CBNT.
41 a) The system is a non-summative whole The system is a non-summative whole that cannot be reduced to it parts without altering their pattern and the system has properties that make the whole 'more than the sum of its parts' these properties are known as emergent properties (Macy, 1991; Chapman, 2004). For example, all the parts of a bicycle on their own are just parts, but together they form a bicycle that has the emergent property of motion and transportation. If the human-environment relationship within the CBNT system is considered through systems thinking it becomes apparent that it is composed of several parts. For example, the 'parts' of the human-environment relationship are mediated by traditional beliefs and values, religion, modern scientific information, politics, economics and social norms. CBNT attempts to reduce this relationship to one part, that of economics and therefore alters the pattern of relationships between the other parts and in turn changes the nature of the whole. A systems approach to CBNT, forces research to not only investigate the economic relationship between humans and the environment, but also the other 'parts' of the human-environment interaction that contribute to CBNT. As stated by Gunn, 'every part of tourism is related to every other part' (Gunn, 2002, p. 34) and only by understanding the interrelatedness of the parts will tourism be able to reach its goals. b) The system is self-organising or adaptive The system is self-organising or adaptive. Where a mismatch between input and code persists, the system searches for and encodes a new pattern by which it can function. This gives the system the ability to adapt to its environment. To continue with the bicycle example, input could be the terrain that the bicycle is travelling on, as the terrain changes
42 the rider will change gears to adapt to the environment and thereby continue to function. The emergent properties and adaptive wholes together form a complex adaptive system (Macy, 1991; Chapman, 2004; Carlsen, 2004). The idea of a complex adaptive system is developed further for human systems with Ackoffs notion of a 'purposeful system'. The purposeful system is one in which people select goals and the means by which to pursue them. 'Purposeful systems can change their goal in a constant environment or they can pursue the same goal by modifying their behaviour in a changing environment' (Valentine, 2005, p.l 15). The third possibility not raised by Valentine is of a system that includes changing goals and changing environments. Farrel and Twinning-Ward (2004), call for the examination of this third possibility that includes dynamic interactions and behaviours of natural and social complex systems and put forth the term complex adaptive tourism systems (CATS). Systems thinking also reveals that complexity will lead to adaptability. 'In all natural systems self-organisation into greater complexity represents a movement away from structural stability. As the system becomes internally more highly organised and externally interrelated with more factors, it becomes less stable and less predictable. At the same time by virtue of its complexity it becomes more adaptable.' (Macy, 1991 p.85) Typically in a rural resource-based community the introduction of CBNT will increase the complexity of the socio-natural system by establishing both agriculture and tourism as forms of natural resource management and employment, the community will also be linked to external organisations through tourism that were previously unknown. These links encourage economic exchange and also the exchange of information. Tourism now provides an alternative economic generating activity which, will help reduce the impacts
43 of fluctuations in the agricultural sector. Thus the increasing complexity of the socio- natural system has increased the ability of the system to adapt.
c) The system is open The system is open, meaning it is not only a whole but part within a larger whole. The system is a subsystem within a wider system of whose character and in whose functioning it is an integral and co-determinate component. The subsystems although hierarchical in arrangement are not unidirectional and based on traditional notions of rank and authority. The term holonarchy is used to describe the different interactions and processes among subsystems or holons (Macy, 1991). The CBNT system through this lens is a subsystem or holon within a larger system or holonarchy of socio-natural systems. The CBNT system is also open in that is responds to and influences other systems such as economic and political systems as well as ecosystems. By including CBNT into a system of natural resource management the complexity and adaptability of the socio-natural system is increased.
d) The system is homeostatic Homeostasis means that the system has the ability to maintain variables (e.g. temperature in a biological system, income in a human system) within defined limits based on inputs, controls and outputs. The system maintains this stability by adjusting inputs and outputs, through positive and negative feedback and is thus self-stabilising (Macy, 1991; Chapman, 2004). The human ability to manipulate their environments through technology however, has pushed the environment in many situations beyond its
44 ability to self-stabilise and made the normal feedback loops that would correct imbalance irrelevant. In situations such as these, environmental degradation and human health act as indicators of a 'broken feedback loop'. For example, in Tobago the sister island to Trinidad in the West Indies, the airport and ferry services once limited the number of tourist arrivals to the island. Technology has produced a fast ferry and given the airport the ability to receive international flights from large jet engine airplanes. The number of tourist arrivals in Tobago has increased to reflect this new level of access. Increasing numbers of tourists however, has overtaxed the sewage disposal systems of many hotels with the result that refuse is pumped into the ocean. This has not only destroyed the local coral reef but has led to outbreaks of illness in hotel guests and locals alike. The feedback loops in these systems if still relevant would limit human actions in order to maintain a healthy socio-natural system. Research of the tourism system must explore the connections and interactions that significantly affect the ways of life, the economic wellbeing of a system, and the people involved either directly or indirectly (Farrel & Twinning-Ward, 2004). There are several positive and negative feedback loops that are yet to be identified in the community- ecology-tourism development interaction and 'This is an important task and one which will provide a useful framework for tourism systems research in the future' (Carlsen, 1999, p. 327). e) Systems theory: limitations The four characteristics of systems thinking as described in the context of CBNT form the pillars of the alternative conceptual framework that could be used to frame
45 CBNT. System thinking is able to address the complexity of the community, the dynamic environment, ecosystems scale, and both the social and economic influences of tourism on the CBNT socio-natural system. The limitation of systems thinking is that it remains apolitical. The relationships among stakeholders involved in the development and management of CBNT are influenced by power inequalities, conflict and by historical context. Political ecology is able to address these issues and provide a structure for enquiry that will enhance the usefulness of systems theory in the creation of an alternative conceptual framework.
2.2.2 Political Ecology The discussion to follow identifies two themes of political ecology, (1) conflict and (2) environmental transformation, which are described through several avenues of enquiry (Table 4). This is followed by a discussion of the research approaches that characterise political ecology including scale, environmental change and power. Where systems theory is able to describe what the CBNT system is, political ecology is able to conceptualise how the parts of the socio-natural system interact through a political lens. In addition, political ecology is able to direct where research on human environmental systems should focus based on the identification of problems and challenges. a) Themes and Avenues: conflict and environmental transformation The exploration of human-environment interactions is not new (Robbins, 2004). The fields of geography and anthropology have a long history of inquiry into the relationships between and among culture, land use, social structure and human behaviour.
46 The demand for exploring human-environment interactions in a wider political and historical context resulted from the failure of the Green Revolution in much of Africa and the perceived threat of environmental crisis in the 1970s and 1980s (Grossman, 1998). Although not called political ecology several interdisciplinary fields, such as cultural ecology, human geography, landscape ecology and environmental economics or political economy reflected this demand and attempted to address environmental problems and their relationship to human poverty and development. Political ecology as described by Robbins (2004) is an integrated empirical research-based exploration, which attempts to 'map the politics of environmental ideas, as carefully as the politics of material ecological change, working to link the two across space and time' (Robbins, 2004). Political ecology focuses on 'human-environmental interactions linked through different scales from the international/global to the local (Blaikie & Brookfield, 1987; Grossman, 1998; Stonich, 2000); centering on the relative power of various social actors involved in access to, and management of, natural resources (Peet & Watts 1993; Stonich 1993)' (Stonich, 1998, p. 29). Political ecology also requires that the historical processes leading to current human-environment interactions and power relationships are understood (Grossman, 1998). Human-environment interactions according to Robbins can be categorised into four avenues of enquiry: degradation and marginalisation, environment and conflict, conservation and control, and environmental identity and social movement. Peet and Watts (1996), use the categories of, discourse and practise, institutions and governance, conflict and struggle, and movement.
47 Avenues of Political Ecological Enquiry Robbins (2004) Peet and Watts (1996) Degradation and Marginalisation: explains Institutions and Governance: explains 'the role environmental change in the context of its larger of communities and participation in political and economic context, emphasis is given environmental governance, the understanding of to the role ofthat state and the role of the community dynamics and the role of the economy. state'(Peet & Watts, 1996, p. 34). • Blaikie and Brookfield (1987), 'Land Degradation and Society' Environmental Conflicts: question who has Conflict and Struggle: challenges the access to resources and why. Conflicts are shown assumptions that environmental policies and to be a part of a larger gendered, classed and development practises are universally beneficial raced struggle and vice versa. to local interests. The political arena of the • Gezon, (2005), 'Finding the Global in the household is brought to attention in reference to Local: Environmental Struggles in Northern determining who has access to resources. Madagascar' • Household and gender have been a focus for feminist political ecology (Rocheleau et al., 1996). Conservation and Control: conservation, which Discourse and Practise: 'follows linkages of is usually viewed as benign, is shown to have ideas, policies and resources that are North- pernicious effects (exclusion) and shown to South, or rural-urban within advanced industrial sometimes fail as a result. countries' (Peet & Watts, 1996, p. 32) and • National parks in this context are considered explains knowledge production in particular the to be a modern tool of the state and resources environmental discourse encompassing ideas of that are supposed to be regulated by the 'free race and environment and the construction of market' are shown to be regulated more by 'global truths' historical relationships and norms at both the • Fairhead and Leach (2003) 'Science, Society level of the government and the community. and Power: Environmental Knowledge and • Brogden and Greenberg (2005) 'The Fight Policy in West Africa and the Caribbean' for the West: A political ecology of land-use • Svarstad (2005) ? Global Political Ecology conflicts in Arizona' of Bioprospecting' Environmental Identity and Social Movement: Movement: 'examines the complex relations investigation of how social movements interact between environment, identity, social movements with notions of environmental identity and may and the market' (Peet & Watts, 1996, p.37), and even become exclusive discursive structures, illustrates that movements may not be political and social struggles are shown to be empowering or liberating to poor people if they linked to basic issues of livelihood and replicate or impose new hegemonic discourses environmental protection. (Peet & Watts, 1996, p.40) • Escobar and Paulson (2005), 'The • Murry Li in Peet and Watts (1996), explores Emergence of Collective Ethnic Identities the indigenous peoples' movement noting and Alternative Political Ecologies in the that it is not clear in many circumstances Colombian Pacific Rainforest' who is defined as indigenous and therefore who is able to benefit from the popularity of the movement Table 4, The avenues of political ecology enquiry as represented by Robbins (2004) and Peet and Watts (1996).
48 These categories are not meant to represent the only avenues of political ecology enquiry but rather to provide a useful synopsis of the areas of emphasis that are commonly explored. The overlap that is clearly present between Peet and Watts and Robbins illustrates that although political ecology is a diverse field the themes of environmental transformation and conflict run throughout. Political ecology is able through the avenues presented to address the conceptual inconsistencies and assumptions of CBNT as presented previously, and to contribute to the exploration of CBNT as a socio-natural system as described through systems thinking. Conflict in political ecology is viewed largely as a result of power inequalities within a heterogeneous society and is therefore inherent in the socio-natural system. As such, 'Asymmetries of power are not simply obstacles to be overcome through better facilitation mechanisms; they are central to the processes of development and conservation' (Stonich, 2000, p. 176). At a local scale communities within the political ecology context are political units made up of several groups of self interest based on gender, ethnicity and class with multiple perspectives of the environment (Peet & Watts, 1996; Rocheleau et. al., 1996; Robbins, 2004). Political ecology therefore addresses the need to treat communities as heterogeneous units that are connected through both bio- physical and social interaction to other actors at different scales and to research the root causes and impacts of conflict within CBNT. Environmental transformation is emphasised by several of the avenues of enquiry as previously discussed and is also a focal point shared by both systems theory and political ecology. Where in system theory environmental transformation is largely apolitical, political ecology highlights that power and conflict are central to the processes
49 of development and conservation and acknowledges the subjective nature of environmental transformation. Political ecology stresses that not only are ecological systems political, but that our very ideas about ecology are directed and delineated by political and economic processes (Bryant, 1992; Bryant & Bailey, 1997; Cole, 1999; Robbins, 2004). In this respect conflict over environmental resources represents a struggle over ideas as to what constitutes appropriate environmental use (Bryant & Bailey, 1997). This struggle may take place at a local scale within communities or on a much larger global scale acted out by international environmental NGOs, human rights organisation, and institutions and governments. On a global scale, CBNT can be viewed as a representation of 'sustainability' which, is the latest in a series of largely 'western' scientific based ideas about human-environment interactions, following others such as utilitarianism and protectionism that are generated by the scientific and international community. The investigation of how knowledge in the form of scientific discourse influences environmental and social change is conceptualised through the focus on 'discourse and practise' and although not mentioned specifically by Robbins, his discussion of knowledge and power (Chapter 3 in 'Political Ecology', 2004) overlaps significantly with this avenue of enquiry. Political ecology considers the construction of 'science' that underscores environmental certainties and wisdoms (Escobar, 1996). Notions such as sustainability, conservation and biodiversity enter into the discourse and practise as described by Peet and Watts through organisations, institutions and practise, and influence material ecological change. Political ecology can thus be used to evaluate CBNT as a representation of 'sustainability' through conservation and community
50 development in the historical context of colonialism and in the current context of global environmental movements.
The conceptualisation of human-environment interactions as described by systems theory is built upon by political ecology by providing a context for socio-natural systems that are influenced by conflict, historical processes and both material environmental transformations and transformations in environmental ideals. Political ecology assumes a normative understanding that there are better alternatives to current environmental and development problems (Robbins, 2004, p. 12) but recognises that what constitutes a 'better alternative' is not universally understood. In this respect political ecology addresses the conceptual need to incorporate a situated concept of sustainability into the representation of CBNT. b) The approach: scale, environmental change and power Conflict and environmental transformations have been emphasised as the common themes that run throughout the avenues of political ecology. Political ecology also contributes to the new conceptual framework by providing a structure of enquiry that utilises, scale, environmental change and power as routes for investigations. These three tools used by political ecology research will be described in more detail and the relevance to the new conceptualisation of CBNT discussed. First, scale; environmental problems manifest themselves at different physical scales, from local, regional to global. Political ecology questions and replaces the small- scale analysis common to CBNT, which is important, because as stated by Wiens, 'the scale of observation can influence how landscape patterns and ecological processes are
51 detected' (Wiens, 1989, p. 3 86 from Zimmerer & Basset, 2003 p.289). For example, biodiversity, the conservation of which is a common goal of CBNT, at a small scale may be classified as threatened due to agricultural encroachment on forest habitats. On a larger ecosystems scale however, biodiversity may actual benefit from agriculture through the process of disturbance, which has the potential to increase the variety of species that are present. Different ecological scales are mirrored by different social and political scales. The human actors involved in the management of the environment, creation of problems and problem solving function at different scales. For example, CBNT which operates at a local scale is also incorporated into the national strategies addressing conservation and development in many developing countries. Communities involved in CBNT will be linked through NGOs to the international community and be influenced by global trends in conservation and development such as ecotourism. Likewise, it is naive for governments to treat CBNT as not subject to, nor having the same political and ecological impacts, as other natural resource management industries because of its small-scale image. The second approach to investigations of political ecology describes the temporal dimensions of environmental change. Changes in the physical environment relate to human activities at different temporal scales; the everyday and the episodic. Everyday or incremental environmental changes often go unnoticed and are cumulative, for example, in the context of CBNT, wildlife repeatedly exposed to people will acclimatise over time, which may cause behavioural changes. Episodic environmental changes are less frequent over time and can usually be described as natural disasters, such as floods or fires. Political ecology illustrates the unequal social distribution of costs and benefits of
52 incremental and episodic environmental changes as a result of political and economic inequalities. Not only do the poor usually incur a greater cost but a political ecology perspective reveals that environmental crisis might be a source of opportunity for powerful actors (Bryant & Bailey, 1997). The third dimension of the political ecological approach is that of power. Political ecology evaluates the relative power that all actors possess and how this influences the
outcomes of environmental conflicts. Power acts on all scales and determines who has
access to resources and who controls others access to resources. Resources in this case
include natural resources as well as financial, human, communication and information resources. Tourism can be viewed as an economic, political and social resource. Thus, 'The debate is currently not one of whether local communities should be involved in the development of tourism to their areas, but how they should be involved and whether 'involvement' means control' (Mowforth & Munt, 2003, p.96). Those in control of tourism projects are able to influence access to employment, training and the distribution of benefits. Thus, tourism becomes a political activity that impacts the accumulation or loss of power. Power also determines who exerts control over the environment of others by controlling the criteria for societal prioritisation of environmental projects and problems. For example, the norms and values of comparatively powerful environmental NGOs, often reflect the norms and values of the scientific community and become the dominant
ideological position influencing environmental management in developing countries (Stott & Sullivan, 2000; Escobar, 1996). CBNT in this context represents the norms and
values of environmental NGOs and tourists and has become a dominant environmental management approach in many developing countries. Power also has pernicious effects
53 on a small scale that reflects the inequalities within heterogeneous communities. In this way those in control of CBNT exert control over access to natural resources in both the local and global arena. c) Limitations of political ecology Political ecology researchers are aware of the limitations of political ecology and are perhaps the most well versed at critiquing the framework (Robbins, 2002; Clark, 2001). First, political ecology has had a predominantly political science perspective. The political ecology framework should equally emphasise current ecological perspectives acknowledging the post-structuralist science of complexity in reference to ecosystems (Peterson, 2000). It should also consider the construction of 'science' that underscores environmental certainties and wisdoms (Escobar, 1996). Second, political ecology is criticised for a lack of theory and for describing problems rather than prescribing solutions (Bryant & Bailey, 1997, p. 195; Robbins, 2004). Researchers and academics must be wary however, 'that a turn to discourse may result in a turn away from the material issues that prompted the birth of political ecology in the first place' (Bryant & Bailey, 1997, p. 192).
2.2.3 Place-based Theory Thus far systems theory has provided the basis for discussing human-environment interactions, such as CBNT, as a socio-natural system. Political ecology has highlighted conflict and environmental transformation as two features of human-environment interactions that deserve attention and provides a more detailed approach to
54 investigations of human-environment interactions through power, environmental change and scale. The conceptual framework, if viewed as a lens used for understanding can benefit from one more theory through which to focus the investigation. This focus is provided by place-based theory. Place-based theory finds its roots in geography but has also been applied in the fields of sociology and psychology. Place models 'converge on the idea that places represent not only physical settings and activities within those settings, but also the meanings and emotions people associate with settings (Brandenburg & Carroll 1995; Canter 1977; Greider & Garkovich 1994; Moore & Graefe 1994; Proshansky, Fabian, & Kaminof 1983; Relph 1976; Williams et al. 1992; Steele 1981; Tuan 1974; 1977).' (from Davenport & Anderson, 2005, p. 627). Put simply places are seen as the centres of felt value (Tuan, 1977). Places can be individual but also come to represent a set of shared values based on environmental, social and material conditions (Butz & Eyles, 1997). Places may vary in scale and through time (Low & Altman, 1992). It is worthwhile at this point to comment on the meanings of space and place. In addition to other terms such as place attachment, place dependency, sense of place and place identity; space and place have been highly debated within the academic literature (Relph, 1976; Agnew, 1987; Massey, 1994; Davenport & Anderson, 2005; Butz & Eyles, 1997; Hidalgo & Hernandez, 2001; Hinds & Sparks, 2008; Stedman et al., 2006; Kruger, 2006). It is not the purpose, of this literature review to enter into that debate but rather define the terms being used in the context of this study. Space is a physical location with objectively defined properties delineated by points, lines or routes, areas and surfaces (Smale, 2006). By ascribing meaning to space; space becomes place (Kruger, 2006;
55 Tuan, 1977; Relph, 1976). Meanings develop through lived experience of a location and are both deeply personal and socially constructed and as a consequence the meanings of place are malleable. As stated by Relph (1976) places are areas distinguishable from space because we give them meaning, but the meanings change with our intentions. This may contribute to conflict within and between communities, contradictory meanings of place and even the partitioning of places. It is also recognised that 'to be attached to a place is an important human need, perhaps the least recognised one (Weil, 1955 from Butz & Eyles, 1997 p.2). Place provides a foundation for individual and group identity (Butz & Eyles, 1997). As discussed by Hay (1998) self esteem based on interactions with place and self-efficacy, which is described as the belief in ones ability to carry out chosen activities in ones environment, in combination with the distinctiveness of place and continuity in a place contribute to the formation of place identity. Place attachment is a similar concept and is defined by Stedman (2003) as 'a positive emotional bond that develops between people and their environment' (p. 672). Place attachment however, does not necessarily coincide with satisfaction or a positive place identity. One can feel strongly attached to a place but have dissatisfactory experiences ofthat place. Most definitions of place emphasise the subjectivity of place meanings, however some authors argue that the physical environment itself plays a role in defining place and therefore place is not entirely a subjective construct (Stedman, 2003; Butz & Eyles, 1997). 'Although social constructions are important, they hardly arise out of thin air: The local environment sets bounds and gives form to these constructions' (Stedman, 2003, p. 671). Theoretically, this concept of the environment as an active participant in the
56 human-environment relationship is consistent with that of systems theory and political ecology. a) Community, Landscape and Values: place meanings Much of the place literature discusses the relationship between community, landscape and values in the formation of a sense of place (Relph, 1976; Butz & Eyles, 1997; Bow & Buys, 2003; Smale, 2006; Kruger, 2006; Stedman et al., 2006; Brown & Raymond, 2007). Community has 'tended to include a morally valued way of life and the constituting of social relations in a discrete geographical setting' (Agnew, 1987, p. 66). Communities, as described previously, are a set of social and cultural interactions grounded in shared meanings, values and interests, communities may have a geographic location but they are more than a point on a map (Butz & Eyles, 1997). Landscape, as stated previously, is not an inert backdrop but contributes to sense of place and is also an articulation of sense of place. Values about the environment, as discussed in the previous section on environmental values, are iterative in nature, are a combination of both affective (feeling) and cognitive (thinking) conceptions and are held not only by individuals but also groups and are influenced by the norms and culture of society. Place meanings, which are the derivative of values, are similarly described as occurring on a spectrum from instrumental to intangible (Cheng et al., 2003) 'The relationship between community and place is indeed a very powerful one in which each reinforces the identity of the other, and in which the landscape is very much an expression of communally held beliefs and values and of interpersonal involvements.' (Relph, 1976, p. 34) Values are 'expressed in the landscape, which in this sense is a medium of communication' (Relph, 1976, p. 34) the landscape of a place portrays community held
57 beliefs and values, all elements such as forests, buildings, and farms, may have messages and 'serve not only to unite communities but also to make them explicit' (Relph, 1976, p.34). Communal undertakings that create a common goal, or collective action in response to a threat, can strengthen meanings and create a similar set of values for a place (Relph, 1976; Kruger, 2006). However, values can also be based on strongly held individual attachments or reflect shifting group allegiances (Mclntyre et al., 2002). Collaborative partnership around a place has recently been suggested as an innovative approach to natural resource management and is termed place-based management (Cheng et al, 2003). Place, which is a distinct geographic area towards which all collaboration participants express value - is a central organising principle' in this approach (Cheng et al., 200, p. 88). Sense of place is constructed form all three elements; community, landscape and values. As stated by Agnew, sense of place is 'subjective territorial identity' which includes the physical environment, human behaviours and social and/or psychological processes (Stedman, 2003). Place therefore anchors the idea of ecosystems in systems theory and physical and temporal scale in political ecology by providing a physical location that is defined by meanings and values derived from both social interactions and interactions with the physical environment. Therefore, the scale of research in the context of this enquiry can be defined as the places affected by CBNT. b) Place and Tourism Place and space have only recently been considered in the tourism literature (Gu & Ryan, 2008; Smale, 2006). Research on place within tourism has also focused on the mass tourism industry through the globalisation and the commoditisation of place and the
58 creation of 'fake' places, for example Disneyland (Schnell, 2003; Entrikin, 1999, Relph, 1976). Gu and Ryan (2008) note that the western tourism academic literature largely overlooks the role of 'place attachment and the contribution to place identity and to self- identity on the part of residents' (p. 640). Gu and Ryan continue to suggest that a key issue in changing place is 'the degree of control that people feel they possess over the nature and rate of change of place' (p. 640). As stated by Smale (2006), 'Most research in leisure studies has been entirely aspatial, research has ignored the spatial and place- related significance of being here rather than there.' (p. 380) however, as stated by Smale (2006), place is important. Little research has occurred however, that explores the impact of alternative tourism and tourism that occurs in less developed countries. In addition, place commonly is considered largely from the tourists 'point of view' rather than the communities'.
Yet, tourism has the potential to drastically alter sense of place (Gu & Ryan, 2008). Place meanings that are historically rooted and grounded in tradition become threatened when communities must compete for places with other commoditised or generic purposes, such as tourism (Smale, 2006; Harvey, 1990). As stated by Sack (1999), '...to construct new places means that existing places are destroyed or changed, and to maintain places that allow certain practices means that other practices are excluded' (from Entrikin, 1999, p. 271). In addition, ? danger exists in objectifying places as spaces of meaning where places become organised and defined based on what are deemed appropriate behaviours, values and even classes, especially by groups in power, both socially and economically.' (Smale, 2006, p. 377) In the context of CBNT several questions arise. When a community is involved with CBNT whose values are being portrayed in the landscape? Does the landscape
59 provide a medium of communication for the community if formal communication is not working? Is place defined by those in power? Can place meanings be used to gain power? If CBNT affects landscape, is sense of place also affected? Does the implementation of CBNT create a new place that destroys the existing place? What changes does that impose on the communities' relationship with their environment both physical and spiritual? Does the maintenance of tourism practises exclude traditional practises and does this influence the meanings associated with place? Addressing questions about place meanings are important in the study of CBNT for two reasons. First, rural communities in particular in developing countries are often entirely dependent upon their environment for survival and are therefore intimately involved with place and second; unlike tourists, community members are not visitors and will therefore have a very different lived experience of the 'CBNT place' over time. The shape and form of this relationship could contribute significantly to the sustainability of CBNT and effectiveness of CBNT as a conservation tool.
c) Limitations of place-based theory Place based natural resource management is attracting attention in particular in the context of ecosystems management (Brown & Raymond, 2007; Mclntyre, et al. 2002). CBNT as a form of natural resource management, is as much about the contest over place meanings as it is about allocation and distribution of natural resources (Cheng, Kruger & Daniels, 2002, p. 98, from Mclntyre et al., 2002). However, 'one of the persistent critiques of sense-of-place research in natural resource management has been the inability to translate research findings into rational management decision models.'
60 (Brown & Raymond, 2007, p. 109). Research has been able to generate measurements of place attachment, but more indices are needed that combine several landscape values to translate place meanings into natural resource management models. In addition, how place is defined has tended to focus on positive affective relationships and experiences, with very little research on negative experiences of place (Smale, 2006). Research is required that focuses on negative and conflicting experiences of place through the eyes of the community. Political ecology by focusing attention on power and conflict, addresses one weakness of place research and the need to provide measures of place that are more applicable to natural resource management can be addressed through a wider and more diverse methodological approach to research.
2.3 Alternative Conceptual Framework: Political Ecological Place Systems (PEPS) As stated previously, a conceptual framework is conceived as a lens through which to investigate the world and guide research. Systems theory provides the broadest lens emphasising that the relationship between society and nature is a system or subsystem that is nested within larger systems. Political ecology adds detail by filtering all relationships presented by systems theory through a political lens and place theory focuses the conceptualisation further by stressing first, that values are a key to understanding political systems and second, the landscape plays an active role in the creation of values. The theories presented thus, act to complement each other revealing additional complexity with each layer of focus. The relationship between the theories is presented in Figure 6 and will be discussed in more detail. The new conceptual theory is
61 termed Political Ecological Place Systems representing the contribution of each theory to the framework.
Political Ecological Place Systems ? r
Systems Theory Political Ecology Place-based Theory
Homeostatis Sustainability Emergent properties -
(l)Open Scale Community Environmental Change _ I (2) Adaptable & Transformation "™ Landscape
(3) Power & Conflict __ I Values
Apolitical System ¦? Political System ¦? Value/Political System
Figure 6, Representation of the relationship between systems theory, political ecology and place-based theory to form PEPS. (1) If a system is open it interacts with other systems on the same scale but also across several scales. The 'scale' of place-based theory is given definition by the functional scale of the community, both geographically and politically. (2) If a system is adaptable it is able to change. Change within political ecology is conceptualised through environmental transformations (in part described by episodic and incremental environmental change). The environment within place- based theory is described as the landscape, which is also conceived of as active and therefore adaptable. The landscape also exists on a particular physical scale and is open to other landscapes within the socio-natural system. (3) Power and conflict 'politicise' the apolitical socio-natural system of systems theory and are shown to be largely influenced by values through place-based theory.
62 The socio-natural system, is characterised by homeostasis, emergent properties, openness and adaptability. Within a PEPS framework homeostasis and emergent properties originally presented in systems theory are carried through political ecology and place based theory into the conceptualisation of sustainability. The idea of homeostasis or self-stabilisation, is closely associated with the idea of sustainable conservation and development, such that a balance between resource use and resource (re)generation is attainable and ideally can be internally maintained in a homeostatic or self-stabilising system. In addition, sustainable conservation and development is conceived of as the emergent property of PEPS that is achievable if the relationships between all the parts of the socio-natural system are robust. Several ideas presented in the theories are similar or complementary (shown through the use of colour in the diagram) but in each theory a different element of the socio-natural system is emphasised. The numbers (1), (2) and (3) in the diagram highlight the relationship between the characteristics of each theory as it contributes to the overall conceptualisation of PEPS. Systems are presented as open (1) such that there is an exchange of information between different systems and (sub)systems. By distinguishing between systems and subsystems, systems theory has an element of scale. The scale within systems theory is most often portrayed of as the ecosystem, for example a drainage basin is a subsystem within a watershed system. Political ecology highlights not only the ecological scale of investigation, but also the socio-political scale for example, local, national and international. Political ecology also highlights temporal scale, acknowledging the importance of the historical context of social and environmental changes through time. Again these scales within political ecology are perceived of as
63 open. Place-based theory further defines scale as a community or as the geographical area that represents place as described by a community. Communities are themselves conceived of as open and functioning on several scales. Another idea presented by systems theory is that of adaptability (2). Adaptability ties to the ideas of environmental change and transformation in political ecology and landscape in place-based theory. Adaptability as conceived of by systems theory is largely reactive as systems adapt in order to maintain homeostasis. Adaptations, arise as a result of changes, which as described by political ecology occur through incremental or episodic events. Changes however, are shown through political ecology to lead to environmental transformations, which are interpreted by individuals and society. The interpretation of the environment and environmental transformations creates landscapes as conceived of within place-based theory, which are areas that have meanings and values. Both political ecology and place-based theory recognise that the landscape is not simply a canvas for societies values but an active ingredient in the creation of meanings. Political ecology as stated previously investigates the socio-natural system through environmental transformation and conflict and uses environmental change (episodic and incremental), scale (physical and temporal) and power to approach that investigation (3). Political ecology, specifically shows that the socio-natural system is influenced by power and interactions are conceived of as housing conflict as opposed to being neutral. Power and conflict are exposed by place-based theory to be intimately related to values. Values provide the opportunity to access greater power and power has the potential to dominate values. All interactions between power and values have the potential to produce conflict.
64 The final lens through which to focus the conceptualisation is place-based theory. Place becomes central to the overall conceptual framework (PEPS) and is used to define socio-natural systems as places. Returning, for a moment to one of the early descriptions of place by Relph (1976, p. 170), illustrates how the concept of place is nested within concepts of systems and political ecology. As stated by Relph, central to the idea of places are:
1. The idea of location and location in relation to other things. 2. Place involves an integration of elements of nature and culture: 'each place has its own order, its special ensemble, which distinguishes it from the next place' (Lukermann, 1964 from Relph, 1976, p. 170). This clearly implies that every place is a unique entity. 3. Although every place is unique, they are interconnected by a system of spatial interactions and transfers; they are part of a framework of circulation. 4. Places are emerging or becoming; with historical and cultural change new elements are added and old elements disappear. Thus places have a distinct historical component. 5. Places have meaning: they are characterised by the beliefs of humans. Like the socio-natural system places evolve out of interactions between nature and culture (point 2). Places are open and porous and are connected on multiple scales to other actors and other systems (points 1 and 3). What makes a 'place' different from a 'subsystem' is the emphasis on meanings and values (point 5). Place meanings are shaped by internal factors such as community interactions but also through external factors such as CBNT. Places are also noted by Relph to be emerging (point 4). The idea of an emerging or changing place fits well into the overall concept of sustainability presented in Figure 5, such that the process of sustainable conservation and development includes the concept of an continuously emerging place.
65 By integrating systems theory, political ecology and place-based theory an alternative conceptual framework is developed that is able to address the conceptual assumptions and inconsistencies of CBNT. The political ecological place system (PEPS) conceptualisation is far reaching in that it is applicable to a variety of human- environment interactions within socio-natural systems. This broad applicability however, is not at the cost of oversimplification. PEPS encompasses a level of detail that is capable of interpreting the complexity that is found within human-environment interactions.
66 Chapter Three: Research Methodology
3.0 Introduction
It remains important as researchers, to not only question what our research shows but also to question how research is done. Research methodology therefore not only encompasses techniques and tools that facilitate the gathering of information but also methodological theory that explores the nature of knowledge. Epistemology asks the question: 'How do I know?' and investigates the nature of knowledge and what if anything we can know. Ontology asks the question 'What do I know?' and investigates what exists and the nature of existence. This chapter will begin with a description of critical realism which encompasses the epistemology of the research4. Ontology should complement epistemology for a unified approach to theory thus, political ecology, systems thinking and place-based theory will be explored as an ontological approach to critical realism. The research approach will be presented illustrating the use of triangulation within a case study framework. The chapter will close with a discussion of the techniques and tools used for data collection and analysis.
3.1 Theoretical Perspective: Critical Realism 'Realism refers to the ontological proposition that reality exists independent of our ideas of it, and the epistemological proposition is that this reality is, to some significant extent, knowable' (Proctor 1998, p. 360). Although departing from strict realism, critical realism attempts to remain true to the empirical ontology of realism,
4 A debate remains in the literature concerning the classification of critical realism as an epistemology or a 'philosophical argument about the ontology of reality' (Yeung, 1997; Proctor, 1998). It is not within the scope of this study to enter into this debate.
67 while addressing the epistemological conceras of constructivism. 'Critical realism starts from the premise that the world exists independently of our knowledge of it and that its very independence means that human knowledge is not itself reality, but a representation of it' (Neumann, 2005, p. 10). 'Knowledge to critical realists is neither wholly objective nor subjective but is the result of the interaction between subject and object' (Proctor, 1998, p. 361). Knowledge is understood to be discursively constructed and socially and politically framed and relative to the position of the knower (Mohan & Wilke, 1980; Demeriti, 2002; Forsyth; 2003). 'Thus nature exists out there as a reality, but scientific efforts to describe or give order to it should not be confused with that reality' (Willems-Braun, 1997 and Castrée & Braun, 1998 from Neumann, p. 50). 'Critical realists view the world as a mosaic of forms underlying specific events' and 'seek to identify the structural conditions responsible for particular empirical events' (Proctor, 1998, 368). Critical realists are concerned with the correct conceptualization of problems as a necessary first step in solving them, solving problems at the immediate level is inadequate, because smaller- scale solutions often ignore important larger truths (Proctor, 1998, p. 368). Systems theory, political ecology and place-based theory have been presented in Chapter Two as new conceptualisation of how to address the problems that surround the pursuit for sustainable human-environment interactions. The conceptual 'fit' of these three theories within a critical realist perspective will be discussed. Systems thinking is derived from positivist science and was largely applied to biological systems, however it has expanded to cybernetics, information, business and socio-natural systems. The positivist tradition, similar to realism, supports the idea that knowledge is rational and there is one objective truth. The wider application of systems
68 thinking into socio-natural systems via ecosystems based management however, moved systems thinking into a different context where multiple perspectives of reality had to be acknowledged. In this context, systems thinking recognises that reality is the product of social and ecological forces that constantly influence one another (Hartman, 1993, p. 34). 'Social forces describe the habits, customs, institutions, laws, ideologies, modes of reasoning, language and so on which guide and limit our actions. These forces are the product of all the social relations we engage in such as class, political, cultural, gender, spatial and sexual relations. Social forces are the outcome of the unique articulation of social relations in time and space.' (Hartman, 1998, p. 388) Ontologically, systems thinking encompasses the idea of a dynamic and unstable environment, as previously described by the Hollings Curve; where the environment is unpredictable and a greater understanding of the environment will be derived from investigations into relationships and processes as opposed to entities. Epistemologically, within the context of critical realism, the dynamic and unpredictable environment as presented by systems thinking is considered real and external to oneself and knowable through multiple perceptions of reality based on social forces. Critical realism has been widely taken up within geography although presented primarily as a philosophical position (Proctor, 1998). Political ecology and place-based theory, which both hold a place within the field of human geography can therefore be situated within a critical realist perspective. Although not frequently discussed a few authors have put forth an argument for a critical realist epistemology for political ecology. Forsyth, (2003) discusses the need to situate political ecology within critical realism blending epistemological scepticism with ontological realism. Forsyth discusses the need to analyse environmental 'truth' statements in order to achieve biophysically grounded yet socially relevant forms of explanation (Forsyth, 2003, p. 22). Political
69 ecology thus represents an approach that will question the manner in which environmental problems are defined, while acknowledging the real impact of ecological change. Robbins, (2004) discusses the epistemology of political ecology as existing on a continuum from 'hard' constructivism to 'soft' constructivism. Hard constructivism
assumes that the environment is the invention of our imaginations. This allows political ecological researchers to investigate the politically created environments of the world. Within this system scientific 'truth' is less the result of empirical inquiry as it is constructed by political and social forces. This approach is anthropogenic in that it disallows reference to non-human actors and processes (trees, climate, wildlife) in explaining outcomes. 'Hard' constructivism makes the symbolic systems of humans, sovereign over all other reality (Robbins, 2004 p. 114). The 'hard constructivist' political ecology does not fit well with critical realism which, enables the 'environment to be considered as having an ontological basis and a dynamic role as an agent in its own right' (Eden, 2001 p.83 from Zimmerer & Basset, 2003, p.3). 'Hard' constructivism suggests the question: 'if nature is a social and discursive construct why bother preserving it? (Neumann, 2005; Irwin, 2001). The 'hard' constructivist position translated from epistemology into politics can be used to justify inactivity concerning environmental problems and is therefore considered useful for investigations of the meaning of nature but, as stated by Robbins, is generally too extreme for most political ecological
researchers.
At the other end of the spectrum 'soft' constructivism, as described by Robbins (2004), and referred to by other political ecological researchers (Hartman, 1998;
70 Zimmerer & Basset, 2003; Forsyth, 2003; Neumann, 2005) represents the critical realist epistemology by acknowledging that our scientific ideas of nature reflect social conditions and 'dominant metaphors' in which they are formed. 'Soft' constructivism allows the researcher to assume that ecological science can reveal real environmental trends, like soil erosion, while social investigation can show how meanings are created through social processes, such as desertification, that are influenced by power and politics. The researcher is able to remain objective, but it is understood that the researcher embodies a certain bias. The 'solution' for researcher bias is to combine different ways of knowing for example, local and scientific, to create a more representative understanding that has a wider context. Overall soft constructivism is epistemologically analogous to critical realism such that it describes 'the objective world as real and independent of our categorisation but filtered through subjective conceptual systems and scientific methods that are socially conditioned' (Robbins, 2004, p. 114). Similarly, the epistemological underpinnings of place-based theory specifically are not well explored in the literature, however, Brown (2004) discusses the importance of place in shaping our understanding of reality and 'realist' approaches to research. Yeung (1997), discusses critical realism in human geography and the need for a clear methodological approach to critical realist research. Space and place within place-based theory correspond loosely to the notions of reality and interpretations of reality within critical realism. Place-based theory acknowledges that multiple place meanings can exist and in the context of critical realism, 'places' represent the construction of knowledge about reality. Spaces true to the notion of reality in critical realism are understood to be real and exist outside of human interpretation of them. The conceptual combination of
71 these three theories into Place-based Political Ecological Systems as discussed in Chapter Two, facilitates a critical realist approach to research.
3.2 Research Approach: case study and triangulation The proposed research is explanatory in nature and provides both opportunities and challenges in developing methodological strategies. For these reasons the researcher has chosen to use a variety of quantitative and qualitative research methods within a case study approach. Realist research is described by Agnew (1987) as intensive, with the major questions concerning 'how some causal relationships work out in a particular setting' (p. 22). The 'particular setting' referred to by Agnew is defined in the context of this research through a case study approach. Case studies explain, describe or explore real-life situations that have no clear single set of outcomes. As stated by Downward and Mearman, 'context needs to be integrated into research efforts to define the subject of investigation, as well as, its changing nature and character' (Downward & Mearman, 2004, p. 1 10). A case study is further defined by Yin (1994) as, 'an empirical enquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context; when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident; and in which multiple sources of evidence are used.' (p. 13) Multiple sources of evidence, as presented in the quote above, can include a combination of qualitative and quantitative sources. As stated by Agnew, 'Intensive research methods are mainly qualitative, participant observation and informal interviews, or a combination of local quantitative and qualitative analysis.' (Agnew, 1987, p.22). The case study in this context defines local and can be used to set the boundaries for data collection. Multiple sources of evidence not only provide rich data but also enable
72 triangulation through converging lines of inquiry (Yin, 2003, p. 98). Triangulation allows difference sources of data, addressing the same phenomenon, to be compared and contrasted (Yeung, 1997). Data analysis will be challenged by the diversity of data however, as suggested by Downward and Mearman (2004) and Yeung (1997) triangulation is inherently multimethod and based on the 'conviction that there is no fundamental clash between the purposes and capacities of qualitative and quantitative methods or data' (Yeung, 1997, p. 64). Data triangulation aims to corroborate the same fact or phenomenon through multiple sources. In addition, triangulation is proposed as a methodological approach to critical realist research, moving from the level of events to the real causes of them in the process of analysis (Yeung, 1997; Downward & Mearman, 2004). The use of triangulation through multiple sources of data therefore encourages a theoretically consistent approach to research theory, methods and analysis.
3.3 Data Collection (June 2007 and September 2007 to January 2008) 'The contingent, negotiated and shifting nature of place meanings makes elicitation of values difficult and suggests the need to employ interpretive, rather than, or as well as, survey approaches in data collection.' (Mclntyre, et al. 2002, p.335) Data collection is facilitated through the use of tools and techniques including, interviews, archival, NGO, academic and government documents, direct and participant observation, focus groups, compound surveys and participant mapping. The use of several interpretive approaches helps to uncover values that are attached to specific places (Mclntyre et al., 2002). Social science researchers are however, rarely able to begin data collection immediately in communities to whom they are a stranger. Therefore the preliminary preparations and introduction to the communities is discussed as an
73 essential technique that precedes the implementation of other data collection tools. This is followed by a discussion of the specific tools used.
3.3.1 Preliminary Preparations and Introductory Period (May and June 2007) During an initial field study visit to Ghana in April/May 2007 three potential case studies were visited and Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary (BFMS) was determined to be the most suitable both in terms of research design and practical requirements. Ghana and specifically BFMS was chosen as the research setting for several reasons. The site is home to two villages that maintain a traditional value-based form of conservation protecting two species of monkeys. The villages are however also the home of a successful CBNT site. The presence of tourism allows the researcher to investigate changes in human-environment interactions as discussed. In addition, the researcher was familiar with Ghana and Ghanaian culture and therefore able to more readily facilitate the research process. Originally, the villages of Boabeng and Fiema were to be treated as a single unit however, the initial field study period revealed that the tourism experience of the villages were quite different and therefore the villages were treated as distinct. Before the fieldwork was able to commence several informal meetings took place with the Director and the Community-based Ecotourism Project Advisor of the Nature Conservation Research Centre (NCRC). NCRC has been involved in the development of CBNT at BFMS and these initial meetings provided essential background information about not only BFMS but also about conducting research in Ghana. It was noted at this time that the communities of BFMS were experiencing some 'researcher fatigue' and that the
74 research approach would need to take this into account. On the advice of the Director of NCRC, the proper authorities in Accra were met and informed of the proposed research; these meetings included the Ghana Wildlife Division, Ministry of Tourism and Ghana Tourism Board. NCRC documents pertaining to BFMS were made available and relevant government documents were also obtained as this time including the National Tourism Development Strategy (1997-2010), A Protected Area System Plan to Conserve Biodiversity in Ghana (GWD, 1994) and the Ecotourism Strategic Action Plan (GWD,
1997). Introductions to the village Chiefs, Fetish Priests, Queen Mothers and Elders occurred during June of 2007. As a 'guest' of the two communities the researcher sought permission from the Chiefs and Fetish Priests for research, providing a bottle of schnapps and 100,000 GHC (approximately 120 CAD) at each formal introduction. The schnapps was used to pour libations while asking for a 'blessing' from the protective deities of the communities. Time was allowed for the Chiefs and Elders to inform the communities of the researchers presence. The identification and training of research assistants was also completed at this time.
3.3.2 Direct and Participant Observation As noted by Iacono et al., 'participant observation can be a very powerful technique' (p. 41, 2009). Participant observation allows the researcher to become familiar with the community and enables the community to become comfortable with the researchers presence. Observational evidence was useful in providing additional information about the impact CBNT had on the local environment and human-
75 environment interactions. Direct and participant observation occurred throughout the field study period and a research journal was kept to record daily events. More specifically direct and participant observations provided data concerning, • the natural resources that are used in the case study communities and where they are
found
• activities involved in maintaining rural livelihoods
• the level of involvement of the communities in CBNT
• strength of traditional activities and values • the relationship between the communities of Boabeng and Fiema • the role of the Ghana Wildlife Division (GWD) in CBNT Direct observation of the tours provided at BFMS contributed to the identification of the impacts of CBNT on the traditional stories of the communities as told to tourists and the identification of areas within BFMS that experience intensive use for tourism. Direct and participant observations were enriched through photography. Pictures were taken as a record of CBNT structures, activities and areas. Natural resources identified by participants and there uses were also photographed where appropriate. Overall observational data addresses the theoretical need to understand the context of human-environment interactions at BFMS at both an individual and
community scale.
3.3.3 Compound Survey The compound survey was used to gather local qualitative data (Appendix 1). The survey data allows for generalisation albeit at a local level and provides a detailed
76 backdrop for the interpretation of qualitative data. By studying a representative sample of the population the survey approach 'seeks to discover relationships that are common' (Gable, 1994, p. 2) and to provide generalisations about the study population. Guy notes that surveys are best combined with other research methods for rich interpretation of data. A compound survey was developed, tested and revised and six research assistants, three from Boabeng and Fiema each, were interviewed and trained to conduct the survey. In Ashanti5 society, the compound is qualitatively different from a household, several households can comprise a compound. The compound was chosen for the implementation of the survey for two reasons: the ease of identification for surveyors and because in Boabeng and Fiema the compound is still most often representative of one household or several households from one family. The survey was conducted in July and August 2007 in all 111 compounds in Boabeng and 180 compounds out of approximately 300 in Fiema. Ideally, a man and a woman in each compound were interviewed for the survey with a sample size (n) in Boabeng of 242 and 360 in Fiema. The topics included in the
survey were: • general family information, e.g., education level, size of family • compound materials and sources of fuel and water • farming and livelihoods, with a particular emphasis on natural resource use • tourism, including perceived benefits and impacts of tourism • culture, including religious beliefs and practices. Traditional religious values can be a sensitive topic and preliminary observation and informal discussions revealed that some survey participants would be reluctant to
5 Ashanti is the dominant tribe of Ghana and the research villages are populated by two sub groups from within the Ashanti tribe.
77 answer direct questions. Therefore, the survey was designed to include questions that focus on indirect indicators of traditional values such as feeding the monkeys or visiting the Fetish Priest, and questions concerning traditional values were distributed throughout the survey as opposed to being lumped together.
3.3.4 Participant Interviews Semi-structured interviews were conducted in each village with a research assistant acting as translator when required. The duration of interviews varied from 1 to 3 hours. Participant interviews allow for the gathering of rich data particularly in relation to traditional values expressed through cultural beliefs and practices. Values are embedded in our 'everyday impassioned and storied talk about nature and meaning' (Satterfield, 2002, p. 335), and for this reason an informal conversational approach to interviews was preferred with a short list of issue oriented questions used as a guide (Stake, 1995). Participants were asked for a follow up interview if after reviewing the data other questions arose. A map was developed for use during interviews to help aid in the identification of areas commonly used for important natural resources, traditional activities and tourist activities as well as, for the identification of areas for future conservation and community development. Interview participants were chosen specifically for their knowledge of the traditional values, history of the villages and involvement with tourism. Interviews were conducted in both villages with the Chiefs, the Fetish Priests, Queen Mothers, Elders, and the local tour guide (Boabeng) cumulating in 14 interviews in Boabeng and 17 in Fiema. In addition, 15 interviews were conducted with all past and present members of the
78 Tourism Management Committee, 3 interviews were held with the past and present Assemblymen, 3 interviews with the Unit Committee Chair past and present, and
interviews with the Senior Wildlife Officer and the caretaker of the Guesthouse were
conducted for a total of 54 interviews.
3.3.5 Focus Groups Focus groups are defined as a 'research technique that collects data through group interaction on a topic determined by the researcher' (Short, 2006, p. 106). Sixteen focus group workshops were held, 8 in Boabeng and 8 in Fiema, based on gender, age and religion. In part the goal of the focus groups was to access the opinions of an 'average village resident' and therefore elders, and village leaders were not included in the focus groups. In this way the focus groups were able to access a different sector of the population than participant interviews and to generate a discussion around the role of community leaders and community organisations with reference to traditional beliefs and practices and CBNT. Focus groups, and semi-structured interviews, used a set of topics and a map to guide the discussion the details of which are provided in Table 5. The case study map was used where possible to identify and record locations for all topics indicated in Table 5. This allowed for the identification of areas that hold conflicting values and use patterns for the communities. In comparison to semi- structured interviews, the ability for participants to interact during focus group workshops allowed for the generation of more detailed data, in particular when discussing natural resource use and location. In addition, the focus groups made evident areas of
79 disagreement or conflict between participants and allowed the researcher to follow up on these issues in semi-structured interviews.
Topic Questions Background Name Information Age (Interviews and Focus Gender Groups) Education Level Ethnicity Mother tongue & other languages spoken Family Status (married, single, widow) Dependents Occupation and other activities that contribute to rural livelihood Duties/Role What are your duties/responsibilities in your traditional role in the (Interviews) community? Natural Resource Values: What are the most important natural resources you use and why Management are they important (survival, medicine, ceremonies, etc.,)? (Interviews and Focus Where are these natural resources found? Groups) Are they more difficult to find now than in the past? Conservation What protects the forest and monkeys? (traditional conservation or modern conservation via the CBNT or GWD) What do you think will help to protect the monkeys and the forests? If conservation includes reforestation, where should more forest be planted? Traditional Has CBNT changed how you value the monkeys? Do you value them Values/Religion more now because of tourism? Is one monkey species more important (Interviews and Focus than the other? Groups) How have the traditional beliefs changed? Why is it important to protect the monkeys? (tradition or tourism) For Christians: As a Christian do you still believe in Abudwo/Daworoh? (Try to understand how the religious beliefs of traditionalists and Christians interact) Tourism What are the advantages and disadvantages of tourism? (Interviews and Focus Do you think that the tourism is good for the community, for the Groups) monkeys/forest? How? Do you think the tourism is helping to protect the environment? Has the tourism caused any conflict between Boabeng and Fiema? Future Community What developments would you like to see for the tourism? Development and What developments do you want to see for the communities (both Conservation Boabeng and Fiema) and for your community itself? Where should these (Interviews and Focus developments be located? Groups) What should happen in the future to help conserve and protect the forest and the monkeys? Is there a struggle or conflict between the communities? What is it about? Table 5, Semi-structured Interview and Focus Group Guide ?Indicates a topic that was addressed in more detail in Focus Group discussions.
80 3.3.6 Participant Mapping The goal of map building is to represent different places of value at BFMS that can be assembled and analysed as representing different groups, for example, community leadership, Christians, Traditionalists, residents of Boabeng or residents of Fiema. There are two elements to map creation the first is recording the physical space in question and the second is identifying the meanings and values associated with the areas mapped. In order to address the first question a Global Positioning System unit (GPS) was used to record the physical boundaries of BFMS including the core forest, buffer forest, village boundaries, farming areas, tourist 'areas' and attractions and areas of traditional value. Through interviews and focus groups specific sites of traditional/cultural, environmental and political interest were also added to the maps, for example medicinal trees. The cultural and environmental values associated with different areas on the map and areas for future conservation and community development were also identified by community members through interviews and focus groups. Maps from individual interviews representing the same group, such as the community leadership were used to create a composite map as a representation of the entire group (Young, 1999). The map proved to be a particularly powerful tool during focus group discussions when discussing community conflict and future planning.
3.4 Sample As mentioned previously participants were chosen for interviews specifically for their knowledge of traditional values, history of the villages and involvement in tourism. Alternatively participants for the focus groups were chosen specifically as representatives
81 of the average village resident. Purposive sampling is defined as 'selecting groups or categories to study on the basis of their relevance to your research questions, your theoretical framework, your analytical framework, your analytical practice, and most importantly the explanation or account which you are developing' (Mason, 1996, p. 94). In keeping with this mandate, participants were selected specifically in order to help address the research goal and objectives. The compounds surveyed were chosen randomly. Due to the smaller population of Boabeng the research team was able to survey all compound.
3.5 Recording and Presenting Data The researcher lived in the villages where the research took place and was therefore able to conduct interviews in the homes or farms of the participants. Research assistants aided in identifying and contacting participants for interviews and focus group meetings. Research assistants also acted as translators when required. Notes were taken during all interviews and focus groups and transcribed. A GPS unit was obtained from NCRC that was used to record the physical boundaries of BFMS, the villages, important areas for natural resource use and high traffic tourist areas. Preliminary findings were presented to participants in a community meeting. The community meeting was attended by the GWD, the Assemblyman, local traditional leadership, current and past members of the Tourism Management Committee and research assistants. The entire meeting was translated and recorded. A report was prepared for this meeting and circulated to those in attendance, as well as to community members not in attendance. All participants were encouraged to provide feedback and
82 additional comments. Preliminary findings were also presented to the Director of NCRC and the Director of the GWD in separate meetings in Accra. All publications based on research findings will acknowledge the contribution of NCRC and the participants.
3.6 Ethical Considerations
Research was reviewed by the University of Guelph Ethics Board prior to field research. There was also a second review process with the Nature Conservation Research Centre to ensure appropriate techniques. Informed consent for participation in research was acquired through verbal agreement for both literate and non-literate study participants. The following information was reviewed before interviews: study title and objectives; nature of interview questions; request to take notes during interviews and discussions; request to quote or otherwise incorporate information provided by participant in the study; choice of identification by name or anonymity; and right of participant to refuse to answer any questions or to leave the interview at any time. Questions of the participants were also addressed. All research documents and interview materials remained in the possession of the researcher. This included interview notes, mapping exercise materials, field notes, archival information and photographs. Confidentiality and anonymity of the participants was respected throughout the research process. No participant will be referred to by name unless the individual personally wishes to be identified. Remuneration for research assistants and participants was provided but it is important to emphasise this decision as an ethical issue. As stated by Godley (2006), 'The time is long past for social scientists to expect people, especially impoverished people from developing world nations, to take time away
83 from their own labour or other affairs to freely provide information for the sake of disinterestedly contributing to the goals of science.' (p. 62) For this reason the researcher felt it necessary to compensate community members for participating in research.
3.7 Data Analysis The goal of analysis is to reduce the data and then shape the material into a form in which it can be shared or displayed (Seidman, 1998, p.101). Or as described by Stake, the 'search for meaning is a search for patterns, for consistency, for consistency within certain conditions, which we call correspondence'' (Stake, 1995, p. 78). Triangulation, as discussed previously, encourages the comparison between different sets of data in order to search for patterns in the exploration of phenomenon. In this way, data sets were analysed in comparison to each other in order to discern the impact of CBNT at BFMS. Also vital to analysis is for the researcher to identify her own interests and bias in the subject under research because at no time does the researcher enter a study with a clean slate (Seidman, 1998, p.101). Therefore, before field research began the researcher explored her own expectations and bias. The researcher was introduced to the community by members of NCRC and the GWD and needed to establish her own relationship with the community members as an researcher independent of those organisations.
3.7.1 Qualitative Data Analysis Interview transcripts must be analysed with an open attitude, seeking what is relevant. It is also important to try to avoid imposing meaning from one participants' interview on to the next and to remain flexible and allow insights from one interview to
84 guide inquiry. The interviews with traditional leaders and the focus group data were used to identify customs, norms, values and specific human-environment interactions that define environmental values. This forms the basis for analysing the influence of CBNT on human-environment interactions, ecological change and place meanings. The two approaches cited for the analysis of interview transcripts by Seidman (1998, p. 102) are to: • develop profiles of individual participants and group them in categories that make sense and/or, • mark individual passages, group these in categories and then study the categories for thematic connections within and among them. The goals of analysis are then to organise excerpts from the transcripts into categories and then search for connecting threads and patterns among excerpts within those categories and between categories that might be called themes. The process of noting what is interesting, labelling it, and putting it into appropriate files is called 'classifying' or 'coding' data (Seidman, 1998, p. 107). The research used a combination of both approaches to transcript analysis listed above. Interview transcripts were reviewed for categories such as 'human-environment interactions', 'values' and 'attitudes towards conservation' and then analysed to identify themes within these categories such as, conflict over access to natural resources. Profiles were developed for participants based on age, religion, gender and village and analysed for the differences and similarities between and among different groups. Not all profile comparison proved insightful and the analysis eventually focused on comparing the residents of each village as well as the leadership of each village including: traditional leadership, the 'tourism
85 leadership' represented by the Tourism Management Committee, political leadership represented by the Assemblymen and the 'conservation leadership' represented by the Ghana Wildlife Division. Thus interview data assessed together represents the decision makers and local expert opinions in both communities. The focus group data was analysed in the same manner as interview data to discover what impact CBNT has had on values and access to and control over natural resources for an average resident of the villages. This information was used in conjuncture with interview data to provide a detailed analysis of both villages. Map data which is also qualitative in nature was used to enhance interview and focus group analysis by adding a unique spatial element to the analysis. The research will be able to show spatially, • changing patterns of natural resource use • areas of conflict (for example, natural resource use, traditional use) • future conservation and community development plans • areas or specific points that are used for tourism It is important to be aware of the physical location of participant activities in relation to CBNT because this may have a great influence on their involvement in CBNT and access to and control over resources. Values associated with these areas were also identified during focus groups and interviews and are included in analysis with the outcome of identifying places within BFMS.
86 3.7.2 Quantitative Data Analysis The survey results included both nominal and ordinal data. Ordinal data was coded and all data was analysed using SPSS 16.0. Two non-parametric tests were used, the Mann-Whitney U Test and Frequencies. The Mann-Whitney U Test allows for the comparison of variables across two independent sample groups through the interpretation of the probability value (p) (Williams and Monge, 2001). The Mann-Whitney U Test assumes that the two sample groups have the same distribution. If the ? value is greater than 0.05 (p > 0.05) the null hypothesis (Ho), which is assumed to be equal to zero (H0 = 0), is true indicating no difference between the samples. If the P value is less than 0.05 (p < 0.05) the null hypothesis is proven wrong (Ho * 0) indicating a difference between the two independent samples. The Mann-Whitney U Test was run for 3 sets of independent samples: Village (Boabeng, Fiema), Religion (Traditionalist, Christian), and Age Group (0-39 years, 40 years and older). In order to interpret the results of the Mann-Whitney U Test further, frequencies were generated to illustrate trends and provide detail. Frequencies are calculated as a percentage of the sample (n) and were run for individual villages as well as for different religious groups and age groups. The survey data represents a wide spectrum of the population within each village and therefore provides a broader picture of the villages than could be gathered from interviews and focus groups alone. The survey data was analysed in the same categories created for interview data (religion and village) and therefore enhances the interpretation of qualitative data. The survey data proved particular useful when making comparisons between the villages.
87 3.8 Summary If the research methodology is reviewed in its entirety it is clear that it has remained theoretically consistent from the macro epistemological level to the micro data collection and analysis level. Critical realism as an epistemology puts forth the idea that there is a reality that is real and exists outside of the human experience of it, but recognises the subjective nature of interpretations ofthat reality. Systems theory, political ecology and place-based theory provide the conceptual tools to explore both the reality and understanding of reality as described in critical realism. The case study approach allows for an in depth examination of particular phenomena emphasising the importance of context, both historical and current. Triangulation, provides a complementary analytical tool to investigate phenomena through the recognition of patterns from different data sources. The data collection techniques applied for this research include, participant observation, semi-structured interviews, focus groups, map building, and a
survey.
88 Chapter Four: Context of Case Study Area
4.0 Introduction
Chapter four will address the need to frame research with an understanding of both the historical and current contexts of Ghana and the case study villages. In order to do so, a pre-colonial and colonial history of Ghana is provided that focuses on the linguistic and tribal group of the case study communities, the Akan. This is followed by a brief overview of the current context of the country presented in three sections, 'Environment and Conservation', 'Religion and Land' and 'Tourism and Development'. A more detailed history of the case study villages and the formation of Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary (BFMS) are also presented. Several versions of the history of the fetish gods and origin of the monkeys were revealed from interviews and are presented in order to represent the subjective nature of the oral histories. The chapter concludes with a detailed examination of the current, environmental, socio-economic and political conditions of Boabeng and Fiema. This examination is derived from the analysis of interviews, documents and survey data.
4.0.1 Pre-Colonial Ghana
The ancient Ghana Empire was approximately 800 km north of present day Ghana, and occupied the area between the Senegal and Niger Rivers. The Mande and Voltaic people of Northern Ghana, the Mamprussi, Dagomba and Gonja can trace their lineage back to this ancient Ghanaian Empire. In the early 13th century, people from these
89 northern tribes began to migrate south and established the Ashanti, Guan and Fante tribes of the forest and coastal zones of present day Ghana. Akan speaking peoples are organised into 7 clans; Akuapem, Ashanti, Akyem, Baoule, Brong, Fante and Nzema. The Akan kingdom of Bono was founded by the Brongs in 1298, the capital of which was Bono-Manso in present day Brong-Ahafo Region. Bono-Manso played a large role in trans-Sahara trade of gold, kola, palm and salt between the northern towns of Timbuktu and Dj enne along the Niger to the Fante, Ewe and Ga tribes and eventually the Portuguese along the coast. Akan political organisation comprised various clans, each headed by a paramount chief or Ornarmene. One of these clans, the Oyoko, settled in Ghanas sub-tropical forest region, establishing a centre at Kumasi. In the 1600s, the Oyoko formed a loose confederation of Ashanti clans. This was done in part by military force, but largely by uniting the Ashanti against the Denkyira, who had previously dominated the region. This lead to the Ashanti-Denkyira wars of the late 1700s. In 1723, the Bono-Manso were taken by the Ashanti and people fled to Techiman, which in 1740 became the Bono-Techiman state (part of the current Brong-Ahafo region) under Ashanti sovereignty. After 20 years of war (1875-95) Bono-Techiman freed itself from the Ashanti, but was induced to joined the Ashanti Confederacy restored by the Gold Coast Government in 1935 (Manoukinan,
1950).
4.0.2 Colonialism to Independence The Portuguese arrive at present day El Mina in 1471 building Elmina Castle in 1482. Other Europeans traders interested in gold and ivory, including the British and the
90 Dutch, arrived in the late 15l century and in the process built more that 50 forts and castles along the coast of Ghana (Ephson, 1970). Cape Coast Castle was built in 1653 by the Swedish, but was acquired by the British in 1663, and served as the seat of government of the Gold Coast colony until 1877 when the capital was transferred to Accra, the present capital city of Ghana (Teye et al., 2002). Ghana became an official British colony in 1874 but the Ashantihene6 was not deposed until 1896. Decades of war between the British and the Ashanti occurred before the British were able to move inland, these wars are known as the Anglo-Ashanti wars and are reviewed here briefly as they form a timeline that corresponds loosely to the events that inform the histories of Boabeng and Fiema. The first Anglo-Ashanti War (1823-1831), was the result of Britain rejecting Ashanti claims to the Fante areas of the coast. Sir Charles McCarthy of Britain, was defeated and killed in the Battle ofNsamankow and in 1826 the Ashanti began to move towards the coast again. This time the Ashanti were faced by British allied forces, including the Denkyirans, and by British Congreve rockets that caused the Ashanti to withdraw. In 1831, the Prah River was accepted as the border between the Ashanti controlled interior and coastal areas. The Second Anglo-Ashanti War (1863-1864), was the result of a large Ashanti delegation crossing the Prah River in pursuit of a fugitive. Fighting erupted between the Ashanti and British with the largest number of casualties on both sides resulting from sickness. The catalyst for the Third Anglo-Ashanti War (1873- 1874), was the purchase of the Dutch Gold Coast by the British in 1871, including Elmina which was claimed by the Ashanti. The Ashanti invaded the new British
6 Ashantihene is the title for the Chief of the Ashanti 'hene' meaning Chief can be used before or after the name.
91 protectorate and were then assaulted by General Wolseley commanding, British, West Indian and African troops. The British forces marched to the Ashanti capital of Kumasi, which was abandoned by the Ashanti and briefly occupied by the British and burned. The, Ashantihene signed the Treaty ofFomena in July 1874, to end the war. The Fourth Anglo-Ashanti War (1894-1896), began when the Ashanti turned down an unofficial offer to become a British protectorate in 1891, extending to 1894. Wanting to keep French and German forces out of Ashanti territory (and its gold), the British were anxious to conquer the Ashanti once and for all. This final war started on the pretext of failure to pay the fines levied on the Ashanti monarch by the Treaty ofFomena after the war of 1874. An expedition force of British and West Indian troops arrived in Kumasi in January 1896 and the Ashantihene, Agyeman Prempeh, directed the Ashanti not to resist and he along with other Ashanti leaders were arrested and sent into exile in the Seychelles. As a colony the role of Ghana was as a supplier of gold and slaves, after the slave trade was abolished Ghana supplied raw materials for the developing industrial production of Great Britain (Howard, 1978). The salve trade has been well documented so a detailed retelling will not be provided here. It is important to note however, that the Ashanti and other Ghanaian tribes acted as intermediaries in the slave trade, contributing to the capture and movement of Africans to the coast. It is estimated that at the height of the slave trade, the years 1721 to 1810, approximately 40-60,000 Africans a year were transported from points in Ghana. The slave trade was abolished in 1833 (Curtin, 1969). Ghana was the first African country to gain independence in 1957 and was in the 1950s and 1960s the worlds leading exporter or cocoa and produced approximately 10% of the worlds gold. Ghana was relatively well off compared to other developing
92 countries, rich in natural resources, educated, with skilled manpower and a prosperous emerging middle class (Dzorgbo, 2001). The sale, however of cheap bulk commodities in the international market-place resulted in a monoculture agricultural system dependent for profits upon the European-controlled external market (Howard, 1978). In addition to economic challenges, Ghana was the first African nation to face the challenge of transitioning from a colonial government to a democratic political system. As stated by Fawole, 'When the British departed from the colonies, they paradoxically bequeathed to the people modern institutions of governing nation-states that (also) rested precariously on authoritarian foundations.' (Fawole, 2005, p. 65) Former colonies in reality had no example of what a democracy was, although the British government at the time was considered a democracy, colonial governments were dictatorships, which set the way for single party rule and a struggle for democracy upon independence (Fawole, 2005; Howard, 1978). Ghanas first president Kwame Nkrumah maintained leadership of the country from independence to 1966 when in a military and police coup he was overthrown. From 1966 to 1983 a series of coups and political instability occurred until Flight Lieutenant Jerry Rawlings took power and was re-elected in democratic elections in 1996 for his
second term as President. Since that time Ghana has continued to hold democratic and
peaceful elections (Dzorgbo, 2001), the most recent in December 2008 with John Atta Mills of the National Democratic Congress ascending the presidency. In Ghana, the economic stagnation and decline of the 1970s and 80s, was reflected in the general deterioration of the transportation, health and education systems, communications networks, rising unemployment, food shortages, and inflation (Dzorgbo,
93 2001). In response the Ghanaian government with the involvement of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank implemented structural adjustment and economic recovery programmes in the 1980s. Unfortunately, these programmes impacted negatively on the predominantly rural agricultural population because of the removal of agricultural subsidies and the abolition of minimum guaranteed prices for agricultural products (Attuquayefio & Fobil, 2005).
4.1 Current Context of Ghana
As stated in the objectives it is important to understand the current context of the research site in order to understand the changes that have occurred as a result of the introduction of CBNT. This section will provide a detailed description of Ghana in general but will focus on issues relevant to BFMS, including the nature of the relationship between conservation, religion and land.
4.1.1 Environment and Conservation
Ghana lies on the Gulf of Guinea, and has a landmass of 238,500 sq km the population is 23,382,848 with the majority of the population residing in the southern half and coastal area of the country (http://www.ghanaweb.com). The majority of the coastline is a low, sandy shore backed by plains and scrub and intersected by several rivers and streams. A tropical rain forest belt extends northward from the shore and transitions to savannah grass land that characterises northern Ghana. The climate is hot and humid through southern Ghana and hot and dry in the north. There are two distinct rainy seasons in the south, March to July and October/November; in the north, the rainy
94 seasons tend to merge. A dry, north-easterly wind, known as the harmattan , blows down from the Sahara in January and February. The mean monthly temperature for Ghana is above 25 0C, March and April are generally the hottest months while August and December are the cooler months. The Black and White Volta form the dominant river systems draining the northern and eastern parts of the country. The history of
conservation in West Africa is not
documented as thoroughly as that of
Eastern and Southern Africa, where Boabeng-Fiema Brong Ahafo the safari industry and the formation Region of national parks dominated natural resource management. West Africa is
described in colonial documents as Map 1, The country of Ghana indicating 'impenetrable' largely as a result of location of Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary disease but also because of well- organised resident tribes (Adams & McShane, 1992), notably the Ashanti in Ghana, who limited colonisers' access to the interior forests and other wildlife resources.
The first wildlife laws in Ghana were created in 1901 when colonial governments were enjoined by the 1900, London Convention to ensure sustainable exploitation and management of game (Attuquayefio & Fobil, 2005). This was followed in 1909 by the formation of the Forestry Division in the Ministry of Agriculture. The responsibility for wildlife remained with the Forestry Division until 1953, when wildlife conservation was
7 harmattan is the hot dry wind that blows southward from the Sahara dessert carrying a characteristic red dust
95 transferred to the Tsetse Control Unit whose mandate was to eradicate tsetse flies through game shooting and habitat clearing along river and stream courses, this policy unfortunately initiated a dramatic decline of Ghana's wildlife resources. In Ghana, soon after independence (1957) the Tsetse Control Unit was disbanded and through an evolution of changes the Game and Wildlife Department was formed in 1967, which is currently referred to as the Ghana Wildlife Division (GWD) and is entrusted with the enforcement of the Wildlife Preservation Act passed in 1961. The initial collaborative management that existed between wildlife management authorities and some traditional authorities before independence was abandoned in preference for strict state management, this in combination with the preservationist attitude of the GWD has alienated communities, thus public support for the GWD has not been forthcoming (GWD, 1994 p. 24). The National Wildlife Policy of Ghana, enacted in 1974 and revised in 1994, recognises 'the socio-economic and cultural importance of wildlife resources to the local people, the role of Protected Areas in meeting the demand for bushmeat and the importance of engaging local communities in Protected Areas development' (GWD, 2000, p. 3). The lack of financial support for the GWD and the thriving bushmeat industry however, also makes implementation difficult and again points to the need to engage communities in wildlife conservation. 'Money generated from wildlife in Ghana each year is estimated to be around US $292 million. Bushmeat, alone accounts for 94% of this value. The quantity of it consumed annually ranges between 225,000-385,000 tons. At least half of this amount enters into the formal monetary economy through trade in rural and urban markets' (Wildlife Dept, Accra, 1998 from NCRC, 2000, p. 27).
96 In Ghana, household consumption of wild foods including bushmeat more than doubles during what is knows as the lean season (the end of the dry season before the rains arrive roughly March-May) (Dei, 1989 from Merode et al., 2004). The most commonly found wild meat or bushmeat is grass cutter (Thyronomys swinderiamus) and although grass cutter can be reared domestically interviews reveal that the wild meat is regarded as superior. This cultural preference contributes to a large illegal bushmeat market. Tn Ghana it is estimated that 75% of the populace eat bushmeat and all categories of animals are regarded as food. Thus the spectrum of animal species eaten ranges from monkeys, giant rats, fruit bats, monitor lizards, snakes and toads to bird nestlings, moths, caterpillars and wild honey and brood.' (NCRC, 2000) Hunting activities also provide important income in many African communities. In Ghana for example, hunters, traders (retailers) and chop bar (local restaurant) workers earn significant income from bushmeat and the trade in bushmeat is generally an inherited business that is passed from parent to son/daughter (NCRC, 2000; Ntiamoa- Biadu, 1987). Additionally, in most African communities wild animals are not only consumed, but are also used in medicine. 'Wildlife resources play a fundamental role in supporting human welfare in Ghana. The wild contributes to all aspects of rural life providing, food, fodder, fuel, medicine, building materials and other items for household use. In addition many more intangible benefits such as cultural symbols, ritual artefacts, religious/cultural sites, accrue to the people from wildlife.' (GWD, 1994, p. 19) There is also high level of dependence on 'local' medicine, in particular in rural communities, where health facilities are either distant or unavailable and when orthodox or western medicine is too expensive. In Ghana, in the early 1990s, policy initiatives such as the National Environmental Action Plan, System Management Plans for Protected Areas and
97 subsequent Protected Areas Development Programme were implemented, all sharing the goal of community involvement in conservation both within and outside of designated Protected Areas and Wildlife Sanctuaries. The Community Resource Management Areas (CREMAs) concept was then developed out of the Protected Areas Development Programme and was aimed at communities living adjacent to protected areas. Ideally, through community participation, CREMAs will incorporate wildlife management into existing land use within a framework agreed to by the GWD and in accordance with national legislation. The revenue generated will be shared by the community or CREMA, the District Assembly and the GWD according to the guiding principle that, 'those who live with and bear the cost of wildlife must be the primary beneficiaries of its management' (GWD, 2000, p. 5). The community-oriented intentions of the CREMA program are very honourable but have yet to be fully realised in practice. There are several environmental issues facing Ghana today. Unpredictable rainfall and recurrent drought in the north severely affects agriculture but also affects water levels in Lake Volta and subsequent hydro-electric energy production at Akosomobo Dam. In recent years, rolling blackouts have been reinstated throughout the country. Deforestation, for cacao plantations and for both the international export of hardwoods and the domestic markets in firewood and charcoal contribute to the annual loss of 1 .3%
(1990-1996) of Ghana's forests. In 1989, Ghana restricted timber exports to 18 tree species and in 1994 banned the export of raw logs. Approximately 4.8% of Ghana's land is officially protected but illegal logging remains a threat. Additional problems include, overgrazing, soil erosion, water pollution, and inadequate supplies of potable water and finally, poaching and habitat destruction are major threats to wildlife populations.
98 Well endowed with natural resources, Ghana has roughly twice the per capita output of the poorer countries in West Africa. Even so, Ghana remains heavily dependent on international financial and technical assistance and the unemployment rate hovers around 20% with 3 1 .4% of the population living below the poverty line. Gold, timber, and cocoa production are the major sources of foreign exchange, however, the domestic economy continues to revolve around agriculture, which accounts for 56% of GDP and is comprised of mainly small landholders, in addition, services and industry account for 29%) and 15% respectively of the economy (World Factbook, 2009, estimates from 2005). The emergent Ghanaian tourism industry, which is an important sector of the national economy, ranks third after the production of cocoa and gold (Schramm, 2007).
4.1.2 Religion and Land There are over 80 different tribes and languages in Ghana, this discussion will focus on the Akan traditions as the case study communities are both within this tribal group. Ghana is also home to several religious groups; Christian 68.8%, Muslim 15.9%, Traditional 8.5%, other 0.7%, and none 6.1% (The World Factbook, 2009, from 2000 census). Christian missionaries were very successful in Ghana and the majority of Akan were converted to Christianity in the 19th century. Religious belief and activity, however, coexist peacefully in Ghana and most people have recourse to them all according to their particular needs and wishes. Traditional Akan land tenure falls into three categories, the first is the soil or earth itself, the second is the use of the land for example, farming, and the third is the built environment or crops that are added to the land but are regarded as separable from the
99 soil in which they are rooted, for example crop trees such as palm, and houses (Manoukin, 1950). 'Family lands' are lands vested in matrilineages and every member of a lineage has the right to farm freely and guild on this land, but no member can establish exclusive ownership of family land. Family land is used most commonly for food gardens but cash crops planted by individuals on family lands belong to them and the cash crops themselves, such as kola, palm and cocoa, can be passed on as inheritance within the lineage. Other trees growing on the land are owned by the lineage as a whole and are managed by the lineage head. The land is protected by a female god Asase Yaa who is helpful if given regard and harmful if neglected. The right to use land is inherited from the ancestors and therefore land belongs to the stools8 with the Chief and Elders acting as custodians of the land on behalf of the people. In Ghana and much of Africa, land management is the responsibility of the current generation not only for future generations but also for past generations. 'The African traditional concept of land ownership enjoin(s) the living to manage and conserve the environment for future generations, while accounting for such stewardship to their ancestors.' (Abayie Boaten, 1997 from Attuquayefio & Fobil, 2005, p. 1 1) During colonialism land became regarded more and more as a commercial commodity that could be sold by the stool, as the demand for gold mining concessions increased. This led to the alienation of Chiefs and a loss of traditional power. The ancestors live in the 'land of the dead' but the royal ancestors remain at the centre of well-being of the community. The ancestors may demand offerings and are
8 The stool is a symbol of Ashanti rule much like a crown in British tradition. When an individual takes power they are 'enstooled' and likewise can be 'destooled'. In addition, the lands that are the responsibility of a Chief are called stool lands. The stool occupies a stool room that remains closed except for festivals and ceremonies and is cared for by the Chiefs' family.
100 symbolically fed at shrines in the form of a black stool of wood that are kept in stool rooms in palaces and houses. Stools, in the past were symbolically fed with human blood, gunpowder, and spider webs, and given alcoholic drink. At present stools are more commonly anointed with animal blood such as sheep or goats, eggs, kola, and alcohol.
Each stool has it own traditional or Fetish Priest that is able to communicate with the ancestors through prayer and sometimes possession and each community has an annual yam festival for the stool that acts to provide thanks to the ancestors and spirits as well as to ask for guidance and good luck for the following year. Traditional Akan religion is based upon the worship of a High God called Onyame and various spirits or deities and ancestors. Onyame is the creator and as mentioned previously, is accompanied by Asase Yaa the goddess of the earth. There are also hundreds of lesser spirits knows as abosom that are all descended from Onyame. Abosom are nature deities, water and tree spirits and are associated with local territorial and social units such as villages and lineages (Manoukian, 1950, p. 55). Traditional natural resource management practices in association with nature deities include,
• taboos on hunting or fishing for certain periods prior to the celebration of annual
festivals or sacrifices
• the use of clan or totem animals within various ethnic groups, these animals are protected by traditional law with religious and spiritual underpinnings, • laws and practices that protect specific ecosystems like riverine forests, headwaters, burial grounds, sacred groves and other traditional/religious places These efforts are very localised and observance differs significantly from one locality to the next. There is a tendency to downplay the significance of traditional conservation due
101 to the diversity and apparent lack of relevance to scientific conservation approaches. There is great potential within traditional approaches, however, for government agencies to involve communities and encourage conservation. The cultural and ecological importance of sacred groves in Ghana was recognised in colonial times through the National Forestry Policy, enacted in 1948 and more recently by the Ghanaian government through the National Environmental Action Plan of 1988. Sacred groves, which are the focus of this study, act as in situ conservation of biodiversity and are widespread throughout Africa (Liard, 1999). Resources within, are either completely protected or their use is managed through 'traditional regulatory mechanisms which have been reinforced by indigenous religious beliefs, practices and taboos - which are a combination of prohibitions and restrictions' (Telly, 2006 p. 195). Sacred groves are often the home to ancestral gods and sacred animals and can significantly contribute to the preservation of biodiversity at the local level as they act as a reservoir for species that can re-colonise the surrounding areas if land is left to fallow or if a fire has occurred.
In Ghana there are an estimated 2000 to 3200 sacred grove sites (Tufour, 1991; Gordon, 1992 from Decher, 1997). Sacred groves, outside of the forest reserve system play an important role in the conservation of the forests (Hawthorne, 1990). 'The ecological value of sacred groves rests on the fact that most of them have been more or less undisturbed for up to several hundred years' (Decher, 1997, p. 101 1). Sacred groves should be considered complementary to national parks in particular in fragmented landscapes (Mgumia & Oba, 2003). However, as stated by Mgumia and Oba, 'integrating sacred groves into formal conservation systems will require a greater understanding of
102 the specific spiritual roles they play that contribute to their preservation.' (Mgumia & Oba, 2003, p. 264).
4.1.3 Tourism and Development Tourism in Africa has its roots not with reality but with the creation by colonialists and missionaries of a mythical 'Garden of Eden' (Adams & McShane, 1992). Widely popular Victorian novels such as In Darkest Africa and Through the Dark Continent by Henry Morton Stanley describe in romantic terms pygmies, undiscovered lakes and wilderness, adventure, wild animals and riches. Victorian hunters gave rise to the safari industries of Eastern and Southern Africa, but in West Africa the impenetrability of the Gold Coast to foreign occupation and the consequent establishment of trade routes for both gold and slaves lead to the development of a tourism industry based on heritage and culture rather than wildlife. The Ministry of Tourism in Ghana is responsible for policy formation and the development of the tourism industry. The Ministry aims to promote Ghana as a high quality tourism destination thus discouraging mass tourism and to provide infrastructure, incentives, marketing and promotion to enable private sector investment (National Tourism Development Plan, 1996). The Ghana Tourism Board (GTB) is an advisory and implementation body under the Ministry of Tourism. The main function of the GTB is to regulate and control standards in tourism facilities, through such initiatives as the Ghana Tourism Awards, conduct market research, and promote Ghana on the international market. The Ghana Wildlife Department (GWD) also promotes nature tourism development and aims to encourage partnership and participation with community-based
103 organisations and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) for community based nature tourism development.
Wildlife led tourism reminiscent of Eastern and Southern Africa is unrealistic for
Ghana, however the opportunities for nature tourism development are great. The country is considered to be safe for travellers, affordable and a diversity of cultural and natural destinations are present and in relatively close proximity to each other. In Ghana community-based natural and cultural tourism occupies a small but growing segment of the tourism industry and is largely supported by the work of NGOs. Sacred groves are used for natural and cultural tourism, however, the potential for environmental harm and the degradation or loss of traditional values is also recognised (Decher, 1997). Ghana is constrained by inadequate infrastructure, visitor facilities and tourism services for high-priced nature tourism activities, inadequate training of guides, low marketing and lack of interpretive aids (signs, pamphlets). Although the private sector is now the engine of growth in the tourism industry, its investment in nature tourism has so far been minimal (GWD, Ecotourism Development Strategy, 1997, p. 23). Presently, the tourism sector has emerged as an important earner of foreign exchange ranking third after gold and cocoa and fast expanding (World Bank, 2003).
4.2 Context: Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary The discussion presented in this section is derived from the analysis of documents, interviews and survey data and is divided into several parts beginning with 'Culture and Environment', 'Historical Context of Boabeng and Fiema', 'Traditional Beliefs and Practices' and finally, 'Tourism at BFMS'. The purpose of this section is to
104 provide a detailed description of both the current and historical context of Boabeng and Fiema and the Sanctuary. As suggested by political ecology and place-based theory, a thorough understanding of context is critical for the analysis and interpretation of data.
4.2.1 Culture and Environment The twin villages of Boabeng and Fiema, as indicated on Map 2, are located in the Brong Ahafo region of Ghana, the local economy is largely dependent on subsistence agriculture and petty trade. The villages are home to a sacred grove, which as the name Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary (BFMS) would suggest, is home to the Black and White Colobus {Colobus vellerosus) and the Mona {Cercopithecus mona) monkeys (Figure 7). The Black and White Colobus population has increased since the 1997 census and was estimated in 2000 at 189-211 individuals in 14 groups and in 2003 at 217-241 individuals in 15 groups (Treichroeb et al, 2003; Wong & Sicotte, 2006). The most recent estimate of the Mona monkey population is from 1990, at 216 individuals in 13 troops (Fargey, 1991). Further research on the Mona monkeys has been limited since that time and current numbers are not available. If an increase however, in the Black and White Colobus population is any indication it can be assumed that the Mona monkey population has also increased in the past 20 years.
*3~ •¿¦^ ¦*·'<**{ «rt m 'S* :* \!» \ ^* b ï» Figure 7, Black and White Colobus {Colobus vellerosus) (left) and Red Mona {Cercopithecus mona) (right), BFMS 2007. 105 FiernáX Fiema // Gyndi Boabeng Legend I Core Forest / Boabeng x G Buffer Forest Gyiidi Village Settlements Village Cemetery , , River ? ^ Roads . . Paths ^--^""'W 0.5km Map 2, Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary, 2007 Christianity was introduced to Boabeng and Fiema in the 1970s through the Saviour Church of Ghana. At this time two satellite villages, Boabeng Gyiidi and Fiema Gyiidi (gyiidi meaning God) were built on the outskirts of the existing communities (Map 2). Some members of the Saviour Church began killing the monkeys to demonstrate their departure from the traditional religious beliefs. The inhabitants of Boabeng and Fiema led by D.K. Akobia from Boabeng, called on the Ghana Wildlife Division (GWD) for assistance in protecting the monkeys. The area was deemed to small to be included in the national wildlife system of protected areas so a local bylaw was used instead to ensure protection of the monkeys. Since 1975, and the passing of the bylaw, it is illegal to kill or 106 harm the monkeys, these offenses are punishable by fines, as well as, arrest and incarceration. In 1993, the Nature Conservation Research Centre (NCRC) became involved in the development of nature tourism at BFMS. Funding was secured from the European Commission, the UNDPs small grants programme, and the World Banks Global Environmental Fund to build a guesthouse and visitor centre and establish trails and boundaries (Figure 8). Tourism has been occurring since the formal demarcation of the sanctuary in 1975, but has seen considerable growth since these developments in the mid 1990s. Figure 8, BFMS Guesthouse constructed in 1996. A survey was conducted by the researcher and research assistants in the villages in July/August 2007. Ideally a man and a woman from each compound were asked to participate in the survey. In Boabeng, all 1 1 1 compounds of the village were surveyed (n=242) and in Fiema, 180 compounds were surveyed (n=360). Fiema is home to approximately 300 compounds but 180 compounds were deemed sufficient to gather data as representative of the entire village. The baseline data indicates that the average age, number of children, and number of persons in a compound are similar for Boabeng and Fiema (Table 6). The level of education achieved is similar for both villages as shown in Table 7. Both villages have primary schools but only Fiema has a Junior Secondary School. There are no Senior Secondary Schools (SSS) in Boabeng or Fiema so all students that wish to attend secondary school must enrol elsewhere, most commonly at a boarding school. 107 General Information Boabeng Fiema4 Number of compounds 111 300 approx Village population 844 2123 Average Age 28 29 Male 47.4% of population 47.8% of population Female 52.2% of population 52% of population Average size of compound 8 Average number of children Table 6, Baseline information for Boabeng and Fiema, 2007 *the number of compounds and village population are an estimate based on survey results. Education Level Boabeng (n=242) Fiema (n=360) None 35.3 29.2 Primary 15.3 12.8 Junior Secondary School 17.8 21.9 Senior Secondary School/Form 4 29.8 34.2 Technical Training College 1.2 1.1 University 0.4 0.8 Table 7, Education Levels for Boabeng and Fiema (% of ?), 2007 The majority of compounds in Boabeng, 73.6% are made with mud bricks with a galvanize roof compared to only 38.9% in Fiema. The majority of houses in Fiema, 45% are made from cement bricks with a galvanize roof. This could be an indication of greater wealth and/or more recently built structures in Fiema. Compound Boabeng (n=242) Fiema (n=360) Mud Bricks, Galvanize Roof 73.6 38.9 Cement Bricks, Galvanize Roof 13.2 45.0 Mud Bricks, Thatch Roof 13.2 6.1 Electricity 70.2 91.7 Table 8, Compound materials and services for Boabeng and Fiema (% of ?), 2007. The most common religious groups in Ghana are Christians and Muslims, Boabeng and Fiema differ from the national norm however, as represented by a higher percentage of people practising traditional religions. Nationally only 8.5% of the population are traditionalists, however survey results indicate that in Boabeng 25.2% and in Fiema 18.9% consider themselves to be traditionalists. 108 Religion Boabeng (? = 242) Fiema (? = 360) No Religion/Other 3.7 5.0 Traditionalist 25.2 18.9 Christian 67.8 74.2 Muslim 3.3 1.9 Table 9, Religious beliefs in Boabeng and Fiema (% of?), 2007 Livelihoods depend in large part on the local environment either through farming (Figure 9) or through the collection of wild foods and other materials. Farms are small, on average 2.31 acres in Boabeng and 2.71 acres in Fiema. Farms are commonly on family lands and are subdivided between family members and inherited from one generation to the next. In Boabeng respondents indicated an average of 14.5 years at their >*« farm and in Fiema 18.2 years. Survey results indicate that 52.1% of people in Boabeng and 32.2% of people in Fiema farm exclusively, however over 90% of the people in both Boabeng and Fiema indicate that they participate in a variety of activities in addition Figure 9, Subsistence farm, Boabeng, to farming, to maintain their livelihood. 2007 Survey results found that farm products include staple crops such as yams, cassava, maize and plantain, and vegetables including green peppers, tomatoes, carrots, cucumber and cabbage and cash crops limited to cashews, tobacco and teak. The majority of residents in both villages indicate that they primarily produce staple crops. The majority of people walk to their farms 74.5% in Fiema and 85.5% in Boabeng. In Fiema, 48.2% require less than 1 hour to reach their farms, whereas in Boabeng 69.7% require less than one hour, the farming areas that are 109 used by people in Boabeng are considerably closer to the village than the farming areas around Fiema. The breadth of livelihood strategies have been included in Table 10 to illustrate not only the variety of occupations that are pursued but also to show how heavily dependent livelihoods are on the local environment. The preparation of food and palm wine, selling charcoal or bushmeat and rearing animals all require the use of local natural resources. The GWD estimates that approximately 75% of the Ghanaian population regularly consume wild animals, mainly bushmeat, fish, insects, caterpillars, termites and snails (Asibey, 1986), and about 80% of the rural population depend on wild resources for their protein requirements (Asibey, 1987 from GWD, 1994). Livelihood Boabeng (n=242) Fiema (n=360) Farming 91.3 91.9 Transfers 11.6 8.9 Teacher 2.5 2.2 Hunter/Rear Animals 4.1 2.2 Make Charcoal 2.5 3.9 Shop or Bar Owner 3.3 3.1 Hair dresser/Seamstress 2.5 2.5 Sell and Make Palm Wine/Food 8.3 Sell farm products from house or market 6.2 33.6 Drive Taxi/Trotro 1.7 1.9 Traditional Birth Attendant 0.8 0.0 Local Doctor 0.4 0.8 Construction/Mason/Carpenter 3.3 4.4 Livestock Owners (sheep, chickens) 41.3 47.8 Table 10, Farming and livelihood information for Boabeng and Fiema (% of ?), 2007 The Chief of Boabeng is the traditional care taker of the lands surrounding the villages. The lands are divided into 'stool lands' which belong to the different stools or families of Boabeng. Permission must be granted by the Chief of Boabeng for new farms and other land developments. In addition to farming, the collection of firewood, medicine, foodstuffs and household materials play a large role in subsistence livelihoods 110 and are heavily dependent on the local environment. This will be discussed in more detail in Chapter Five. There are two organisations within each village that are considered a part of the community leadership. The first is comprised of the Chief and Elders who are together referred to as Nananom, problem solving and decision making within the villages traditionally falls within the domain of this community organisation. The Elders are the heads of the different family clans and senior members of the Chiefs family including the Queen Mother who has particular responsibility for family and womens issues. The second organisation is the Unit Committee (UC), which is composed of elected members from the villages and represents local government. Interviews with past and present UC Chairmen revealed that the UC is responsible for implementing government programs and for lobbying the government on behalf of the community. The UC and Nananom do not actively work together, however, they do consult each other if required. Another important organisation that is unique to BFMS is the Tourism Management Committee (TMC) which will be discussed in the upcoming section on tourism at BFMS. 4.2.2 Historical Context of Boabeng and Fiema Documents were reviewed and interviews with elders and other community leaders were conducted to learn the history of how Boabeng and Fiema came to be and the discussion here is derived from those sources. To date the most commonly used history for Boabeng and Fiema is that compiled by Fargey (1991). Interestingly, the details of the history provided by Fargey are quite different from the details recorded during interviews, although the 'gist' of the histories are similar. The history of Daworoh 111 and Boabeng and of Abudwo and Fiema presented here are derived from several interviews with elders and residents from the villages. Due to the controversial nature of some of the history those interviewed will remain anonymous. The majority of the interviewee accounts recorded by the researcher concur with few details varying from teller to teller. These details are provided in the versions offered here in order to accommodate the complexity of multiple histories. The histories are also told 'in the voice' of the elders interviewed, therefore they have been transcribed with few changes to the English. Before the histories are recounted important terminology is provided for ease of understanding. Fetish/Shrine: The words fetish and shrine are used interchangeably. The physical structure of a shrine is often a brass pot that may have traditionally been gold ;? and is filled with earth, the brass pot is covered with a white piece of cloth, the calico, and only revealed on special occasions or festivals (Figure 10). The shrine often sits on a raised platform that may be surrounded by other powerful objects. The shrine represents a god or pjg^g iq Daworoh , . Shrine, Boabeng, 2007 'fetish' and is cared for by a Fetish Priest. The shrine rests in a locked room and is only available to the public during festivals or on taboo days when people are able to approach, offer libations and ask for help or advice from the shrine through the Fetish Priest. The term shrine will be used to refer to the physical objects themselves and fetish or 'small gods' for the deity represented by the shrine. 112 Fetish Priest is the individual responsible for the care of the shrine and fetish. The position of Fetish Priest is hereditary. The Fetish Priest is able to communicate with the fetish and is responsible for performing ceremonies and festivals related to the shrine. As stated by Manoukian (1950), the Fetish Priest has 'a two-fold function, they perform sacrifices to the abososm and also act as their mouthpieces...people consult them about illness, misfortune, barrenness etc.,' (Manoukian, 1950, p. 56). The Fetish Priest is traditionally a powerful and respected position. a) History of Daworoh During the time of the Anglo-Ashanti wars a great hunter and warrior9 named Hene Krubrempong came to the paramount Chief of Nkoranza, the Nkoranzahene, to ask for a place to settle. The Nkoranzahene gave him permission and directed him to the area that is now Boabeng. There was a settlement here called Sesedom, which was a singular man's family, and there was also a family at Adinkonoro, who were the caretakers of the land (the present day Abanase family). This was in the early 1800s and 1831 and 1844 are the two dates that are cited as the founding year for Boabeng. The warrior first had to search for water. He came across a stream, then unknown, flowing from the roots of two big trees. Here he found a shrine with a white calico, and the shrine was surrounded by two Black and White Colobus and two Mona monkeys. The monkeys took to the trees when the warrior approached leaving the shrine in the water. He took the shrine to consult an oracle. 9 The Ashanti were known to possess no standing army and the hunt was often the training ground for the warrior, (Boaten I, 1990 African Review), in the retelling of the histories, interviewees used warrior and hunter interchangeably, which is historically accurate, and it was often said that Krubrempong carried a gun. 113 OR He went to consult the elders at Sesedom and returned for the shrine the next day, The monkeys followed the shrine and because this was so strange the warrior decided not to hunt them. The oracle, who was a woman, said that the monkeys are the children of the fetish whose name is Daworoh yaa yere. This is how the Daworoh River was named. It is also told that the oracle said that the monkeys would be a great thing for the people and so they should not be harmed. The monkeys stayed with the shrine and the hunter began to feed them. It is said that the monkeys will follow the people of Boabeng because they will follow Daworoh, so if the people of Boabeng move so will the monkeys. After Boabeng was established, and the monkeys were there, there was a war. The warriors had left to fight so to protect themselves the people of Boabeng would run away to a place called Fwakwasi to hide. Another war came and the warriors had to leave again but this time Hene Krubrempong did not want the people of Boabeng to be in danger so he asked Daworoh to transform them into monkeys so that the people could hide among the sacred monkeys and be protected. Krubrempong had fought for the Ashanti during the Denkyira wars (1823-1831) and had a small god called Gyemsi10 who helped him to defeat enemies, this time however, Krubrempong died. The other warriors returned to Boabeng but because Krubrempong did not return the people who had been transformed into monkeys remained. This is why the monkeys are considered to be the ancestors. Gyemsi is a fetish whose fetish priest is now in the Kenaase family of Fiema 114 The Oracles Oracles are women who can prophesise and see the future. The first oracle was a woman from the Abanase family, living in the area at the time. She 'channelled' Daworoh when the shrine was put on her head. The Abanase are from Techiman so when the god is being carried they speak the language of Techiman, which is Bono. There have been other Oracles since the first one who have delivered other prophecies related to the monkeys. These prophecies are: 1 . That when an elderly person is going to die the monkeys will be able to tell (because they are the ancestors). The monkeys will cry and come to the village and get dirty and cover themselves in the sand to become red. Red and black are colours traditionally worn for funerals in Ghana so the assumption is that the monkeys are 'getting ready for a funeral'. 2. The monkeys will also cry in the dry season when rain is coming. Figure 11, Description of the Oracle b) History of the Stools of Boabeng The village of Boabeng was first called Asamankoma, because the people were from a place called Amanko. It was not until 1882 that Asamankoma became Boabeng and the reason is as follows: A son of the Queen Mother of Nkoranza came to Asamankoma and slept with the wife Afiatitia of Krubrempong. Krubrempong killed the prince by cutting off his head and burying it in front of the Afiatiase family home (Figure 12). Krubrempong sent a knife and a cassava to the Queen Mother of Nkoranza, to indicate pi„ure ?? Marker in front .„ . _ . , of Afiatiase family home, that she had a choice, the knife is for war and the indicating place where the , head of the prince of cassava is for peace. The Queen Mother chose the Nkoranza is buried. 115 cassava, understanding that what her son did had been wrong. However, because the prince who may have one day become a Chief never had a proper burial, to this day the Chief of Nkoranza may never visit Boabeng. Asamankoma was at that time renamed Boabeng meaning 'brave town.' Later the Queen Mother of Nkoranza took Krubrempong to Kumasi to be killed by the Ashanti. They locked him in a room and put a knife thru his cheeks so that he was unable to speak. Daworoh found out that Krubrempong was in trouble and transformed herself into a lion and went to Kumasi and began to kill members of the royal family. The Ashanti went to the room to kill Krubrempong but every time they did he had turned into a cat. At that time the daughter of the Queen Mother of Kumasi was in labour but could not give birth. The god Akwabaan in the village of Asekyedomase was consulted and the people were told that the Queen Mothers daughter won't give birth because her child will be killed by the lion and that the man in the room has a god and that they must release the man. They returned to Kumasi and released the warrior Krubrempong back to Nkoranza. The Queen Mother of Kumasi' s daughter gave birth immediately after he was released. When Krubrempong was brought back to Nkoranza the Queen Mother of Nkoranza let him go but she collected his stool, his Chieftaincy, and gave it to the Damoama family from Ashanti, (the Damoah family are the Abuakwa, the present day Chiefs family in Boabeng). Krubrempong said that so far as they are collecting the stool from him, no Chief will ever die a Chief, they will always be 'destooled' or something will happen before they die so that they can not be buried as a Chief. His name will never vanish from the Chiefs stool. 116 The Stools of Boabeng There are four physical stools, one large and three smaller. 1 . Abanase - (large stool, with a bell in the stool) - the first people of Boabeng, first oracle is from this family, were the caretakers of the shrine at first, this is the Queen Mothers family. A man from Beretuo married a woman from Abanase and this is how the caretaking of the shrine changed families. Currently the Abanase are the Chiefs linguists. 2. Beretuo (small stool) - current caretakers of the shrine, family of the Fetish Priest 3. Atwea (small stool) - came from a village in the Ashanti region called Boman. Krubrempong had two brothers, Hene ba nini peynin (literally translated means Chief child male) and Hene ba nini kuma. One of these brothers married a woman from Boman and there children became the Atwea stool. 4. Sesedom (small stool) - one of the original families in the area and act as soldiers or guards of the chief. 5. Ayrompe - guardians of the stool, if the Chief dies the Ayrompe must take care of the stool until a new chief is enstooled. If the stool is lost they must find it. The Ayrompe are from Bomini (within the Boabenghene lands) and they were honoured or awarded with this responsibility by the Boabenghene (at some point). 6. Abuakwa (Chiefs family) - sent from Queen Mother of Nkoranza after her son was killed by Krubrempong 7. Afiatiase - are the family of Krubrempong and a daughter of the Denkyira tribe, where he had fought before coming to Boabeng. Figure 13, The Stools of Boabeng c) History of Fiema and Abudwo It is commonly stated that the god Abudwo is from a village called Akura near Kintampo and belongs to the Nkoranzahene but was in the care of the people of Bodom, near present day Fiema. The Abudwo shrine does not like blood and had been used to win victory in many wars between the people of Nkoranza (Ashanti) and Techiman (Bono) (during the period of the tribal wars) and was being hidden with the people of Bodom on behalf of the Nkoranzahene. Fiema was established by a brother and sister named Fobiri and Pinaman from the royal family (Oyoko) of the Ashanti village, Kokofu. The brother and sister were discovered in an incestuous relationship and were thrown out of Kokofu and told never to return. The exact date is unknown but it is agreed that the people of Fiema came after the 117 people of Boabeng. The brother and sister first settled at a river near Nkoranza at a place called Agintadua. The Nkoranzahene became aware that the brother and sister were robbing people so he told the Bodomhene to give the god Abudwo to them; because Abudwo does not like blood and if they became the caretakers to the shrine they would not longer be able to shed blood. The Nkoranzahene also directed them to the Boabenghene (Asamankuma at the time) for land to settle. A man named Kwabena Penynin who was from the Sesedom family showed them the land that is now Fiema. The meaning of 'fiema' is 'from the same house.' OR the brother and sister first settled at Akura the original location of the Abudwo shrine and when they came to what is now Fiema they brought the shrine and both species of monkeys with them. OR the people of Bodom were blacksmiths and were therefore not worthy of being the caretakers for Abudwo so when members of a royal family arrived, Abudwo was given to them as more appropriate caretakers for the shrine OR the Nkoranzahene wanted to move the shrine closer to him so he ordered it brought to Fiema. It is agreed by all, that Abudwo is male and Daworoh is female and that they married when Abudwo came to Fiema. However, there is considerable disagreement to the origin and 'spiritual ownership' of the monkeys. According to Boabeng folklore, as stated previously, both species of monkeys were found with the Daworoh shrine by Krubrempong and therefore the monkeys originate with Daworoh but have become the property or children of both Daworoh and Abudwo through marriage. Alternatively, 118 according to Fiema folklore, Abudwo brought the Black and White Colobus monkeys with him and met Daworoh with her Mona monkeys and when they married, as with men and women, the monkeys became the property of the man. Finally it is also said that Abudwo brought the Black and White Colobus with him and when he married Daworoh he gave her the Mona monkeys as a wedding gift. According to Fiema traditions, Abudwo is a more powerful god than Daworoh and the Chief of Fiema is more powerful than the Chief of Boabeng. This is because of the power of the shrine, but also because the Chieftaincy of Fiema originates with the royal Oyoko family from Kokofu, and the Chief of Fiema can therefore be called to fill the role of the Nkoranzahene who is the paramount Chief. According to Boabeng traditions, both species of monkeys originate with Daworoh and the Chieftaincy of Boabeng is more powerful because he controls the lands for all the sub chiefs under the paramount Chief ofNkoranza, whereas the Chief of Fiema has no land. Fiema Stools All stools are from the town of Kokofu but not all are from the royal Oyoko family 1 . Gyiiase - provide food for Yam Festival 2. Gyaase - carry the leather (elephant hide) for festivals and ceremonies 3. Kyenkyerase (Oyoko) - linguists 4. Adaasi - linguists 5. Amanfi - (Oyoko) - second in command, can act as interim Chief until a new chief is enstooled 6. Bosomkuasi (Oyoko) last family to come from Kokofu, responsible for finances of Chief of Fiema 7. (Kofikrafie) - oracles for Abudwo, carries the brass (the shrine) to the mothers place 8. Kenaase - (Oyoko) Chiefs Stool 9. Gyiinkwanta 10. Atufo - have god Aferefie, prepare medicine for soldiers, guardian or protector of Chief Figure 14, Stools of Fiema 119 4.2.3 Traditional Beliefs and Practises for Boabeng and Fiema Although there is disagreement concerning the origins of the villages, shrines and monkeys there is agreement on the traditional beliefs and practises associated with the shrines. Interviews with the Fetish Priests of Boabeng and Fiema, Nana11 Amoah Awuah Ampong and Nana Ampong-sa Boateng II respectively, were analysed in order to present the discussion of traditions and taboos associated with the fetish gods below. a) Monkey Burial Ceremony Both species of monkeys are buried like people in a coffin with a white calico12 covering. Analysis of letters written by the Fetish Priest of Fiema (1991, 1994) indicate that 8 sheep in total must be slaughtered and 1 cow for the burial of a monkey, several bottles of schnapps, a coffin, a full piece of calico and a brass bowl full of eggs are also required. This cost is born by the Fetish Priest if a monkey dies of natural causes or as a part of the fine for an individual responsible for killing a monkey. It was also indicated that these costs have been reduced in recent times, for example replacing the cow with a sheep and providing cash instead of animals. The monkeys and Fetish Priests share a burial ground and their graves are marked with signs indicating the year of burial, species of monkey or name of Fetish Priest. b) Taboos There are several taboos associated with the shrines. Taboo days are days when people in the villages do not go to farm and the shrines are open to the public. The Fetish 11 Nana is a term of respect that is used for both men and women in positions of power. 12 calico is a white piece of cloth 120 Priest will be in attendance at the shrine on taboo days and will pour libations and ask the fetish for the health and protection of the villages. Anyone who wishes to ask the fetish for help or guidance is able to visit the shrine on taboo days and can communicate with the fetish through the Fetish Priest. The weekly taboos day for Daworoh is Friday and for Abudwo is Wednesday. Other taboo days occur every 40 days that reflect the 40 day Akan calendar. These are the days that the shrine is symbolically fed, both Abudwo and Daworoh only consume eggs. It is a taboo for the Fetish Priests to eat pepper and a taboo for visitors to wear funeral cloth13 to the houses of Abudwo and Daworoh, which are the homes of the Fetish Priests, if a woman is menstruating she is unable to enter the Fetish Priests house or visit the Daworoh River. The monkeys can not be killed or harmed. If the monkeys are killed the perpetrator is punished. Traditionally, the perpetrator would be held accountable by the Fetish Priest and elders of the village and would have been required to ask the shrine for forgiveness and to pay a fine as mentioned previously for the burial of the monkey. It is believed that if a person responsible for killing a monkey does not take responsibility he or she will die themselves, often in the same manner that the monkey was killed or will suffer misfortune for the rest of their lives. As previously mentioned, if the monkeys cry in the night it is believed that something bad is going to happen or that someone is going to die. If the Black and White Colobus enter into the village and smear themselves in dirt or run around a compound that also means that someone is going to die. It was also stated that monkey behaviour can be interpreted by the elders to discern their meanings. 13 Traditionally funeral cloth and clothing is black and red and is only worn for funerals or during periods of mourning. It can be considered bad luck to wear these colours at other times. 121 4.2.4 Tourism at BFMS A Tourism Management Committee (TMC) was formed with membership from both villages and a constitution was created in early 2000. Analysis of the constitution indicates that the TMC membership should be comprised of four voting members each from Boabeng and Fiema, the Assemblyperson (here to referred to as the Assemblyman to reflect common usage) who can not hold any executive position on the committee and who will have no voting rights except in the case of a tie, the Senior Wildlife Officer in charge as a non-voting technical advisor, and four members representing the surrounding villages as non-voting members. Of the four community members in both Boabeng and Fiema, one is appointed by the Chief and Elders, one is chosen by the Unit Committee, and two are elected from the community one of whom must be a woman. The TMC is informally created such that one village does not hold a position for two consecutive terms and to evenly represent the villages through the executive positions. The TMC will have a three year term with each member serving a maximum of two terms. The TMC must meet once a month but can meet more frequently for extenuating circumstances. Observations by the researcher found that at the start of field research in May/June 2007 the third standing TMC was in the 4th year of their 3 year term of office and interviews with past and present TMC members revealed that the TMC had never had any female members. In addition, interviews indicate that the Assemblyman, which is an elected position, has always been held by Fiema as a result of Fiemas larger population size. This essentially weighs the vote, albeit unofficially, in favour of Fiema in 122 the event of a tie. By January 2008, a new TMC the fourth, had been chosen, and was in the process of gaining access to accounts and information from the previous TMC. The TMC is responsible for the overall management and development of BFMS, analysis of the constitution found that there are several rules set out in order to encourage conservation in addition to the bylaw of 1975. These rules are: 1 . No person shall make a farm within the core forest of the sanctuary 2. No person shall burn his/her farm without the assistance of the village fire volunteers 3. No person shall burn charcoal within the sanctuary 4. No person shall harm, kill, or otherwise disturb any wildlife without the express written permission of the Tourism Management Committee (TMC) 5. No person or persons shall use the name, images depicting, or likeness of BFMS without the express written permission of the TMC 6. No person shall cut down fresh trees within the sanctuary 7. No person shall beg for alms (children included) from tourists or visitors 8. No person shall dump refuse at any unauthorized point within the sanctuary or village 9. No person shall defecate in an unauthorized place in the sanctuary or village The constitution states that points 1-6 are punishable in the district court of law and points 7-9 are punishable at the local community courts consisting of the Chief, Elders and Unit Committee chairman and secretary. According to the constitution after expenses are settled all profits from BFMS, which accrue from entrance fees, accommodation fees and the sale of souvenirs are shared among the Nkoranza District Assembly, the Ghana Wildlife Division and the communities of Boabeng and Fiema. The costs that are addressed before profit sharing are as follows: 123 Costs addressed before profit sharing Frequency Guest House Expenses Monthly Salaries (Watchman, Caretaker, local tour guide) Monthly Newspapers Monthly Rents (Wildlife staff and local tour guide) Annually Management Committee sitting allowance Monthly Filling of water tank Annually Tools (cutlass, Wellington boots, lawn mower) Monthly Maintenance Expenses Periodically Miscellaneous Expenses Periodically Table 1 1 , Costs addressed before profit sharing, BFMS Constitution After expenses are addressed, the profits are shared as follows: Beneficiaries of Profit Sharing Share Nkoranza District Assembly 20% Ghana Wildlife Division 20% Nkoranza Traditional Council 5% Boabeng-Fiema Development Fund 10% The surrounding villages: Bomini, Bonte, Busunya, Akrudwa 1 & 2, Senya, Konkrompe 5% The Communities of Boabeng and Fiema 40% 40% Subdivided Landowners 10% Elders of Boabeng/Chief 5% Elders of Fiema/Chief 5% Fetish Priest of Boabeng 5% Fetish Priest of Fiema 5% Boabeng Unit Committee 5% Fiema Unit Committee 5% Table 12, Beneficiaries of profit sharing, BFMS Constitution The Boabeng-Fiema Development Fund is meant for joint projects for the two villages and other sanctuary costs for example the maintenance of road signs. As the breakdown indicates the villages themselves receive only 5% of the profits from the tourism, which is administered by the UC. The UC Chairmen both past and present when interviewed indicated that the villages never pooled their funds to address projects jointly. The UC is required by the constitution to submit project proposals and render accounts in order to receive funds, however, this rarely if ever happens. Rather the UC is given the 5% by the TMC and how the money is used is entirely decided by the UC. 124 Visitor Numbers Revenue (old GHC) Original CBEP Sites 2005 2006 2005 2006 Amedzofe 2533 2175 46,594,000 63,912,000 Liati Wote 2965 3424 53,370,000 75,290,000 Tafi Atome 2490 3885 67,820,000 120,802,000 Xavi/ Avu Lagoon 411 667 8,398,000 22,472,000 Tongo 1035 1119 19,630,000 28,656,000 Sirigu 1463 2812 39,296,000 71,720,000 Paga 5026 4181 99,468,000 117,312,000 Wechiau 1710 2465 139,780,000 206,908,000 Red Volta 283 339 6,094,000 10,056,000 Boabeng Fiema 12,450 13,817 236,208,000 279,741,000 Bobiri 1978 1727 46,604,000 54,790,000 Bunso 689 939 16,002,000 20,100,000 Wassa Domama 670 734 12,060,000 17,740,000 Taño Boase 617 554 11,106,000 15,635,000 Sub Total 34,320 38,838 802,430,000 1,105,134,000 Table 13, Visitor and revenue status for 2005 and 2006 Community-based Ecotourism Project sites (NCRC, 2007) BFMS is the most successful CBNT site in Ghana, with 13,817 visitors reported in 2006 being significantly more than any other site in Ghana (Table 13). The revenue listed in old Ghanaian Cedis (GHC) is the equivalent to $26,160 CAD, which again is a significant sum of money. Analysis of NCRC documents reveal that BFMS has provided local benefit; the site has completed some community initiated projects using the funds generated from the ecotourism enterprise including a six-bed room guest house, guttering in the community, support for local funerals, and student scholarships (NCRC, 2007). Despite the popularity of BFMS as a destination, survey data and interviews indicate that individuals do not feel that they benefit from the tourism. The vast majority of those surveyed 97.2% in Boabeng and 97.1% Fiema report having no direct benefit from tourism. This is reflected in an earlier study conducted in 2007 that noted that the people of Boabeng and Fiema 'feel ambivalent at best' about the tourism and that there is a 'great deal of dissatisfaction and resentment among the 125 villagers about how the Sanctuary is run and how the revenue from tourism is managed' (Symon, 2007, p. 6). A community tour guide is on staff as outlined by the constitution, but interviews with this guide reveal that he/she works only part time and is not involved in any book keeping or administrative duties. The GWD has been involved as technical staff at BFMS since its inception and although technically responsible for the protection of the sanctuary observations by the researcher found that the GWD staff have assumed responsibility for several of the day to day tourism operations including acting as tour guides, collecting entrance fees, writing receipts and keeping the visitor log book. The wildlife officers occupy the visitor centre and the Senior Wildlife Officer had also assumed several financial responsibilities normally held by the TMC including depositing money into the bank accounts and paying the recipients of the profit sharing. 4.3 Summary The Ashanti people of Ghana have maintained strong political systems through the pre-colonial Anglo-Ashanti Wars and the struggle for independence and progress in the process of creating modern day Ghana. According to the Akan belief system there are two central gods Onyame and Asase Ya (the earth goddess) that oversee a very active spiritual world that provides a connection between the current generations and the ancestors. There is a strong spiritual presence within the land with several gods and spirits acting as guardians and residing in sacred groves. Lands are passed from one generation to the next through the matrilineal line and all Akan have access to family lands for farming. 126 The Ghanaian economy relies heavily upon the export of natural resources, although the majority of people remain dependent upon subsistence agriculture. Recurrent drought and habitat destruction through deforestation and poaching are the largest environmental threats in Ghana today and for this reason alternatives to agriculture such as tourism are required. The Ministry of Tourism and Ghana Tourist Board are the government agencies responsible for the development and promotion of tourism. Although the quintessential safari will never be the trade mark for Ghanaian tourism there is great potential for a more diversified community and culturally inclusive nature-based tourism within Ghana. BFMS is the site of a community-based tourism program, although residents remain heavily dependent upon subsistence agriculture and wild resources to maintain their livelihoods. Tourism at BFMS is managed by the TMC and is based on the traditional religious beliefs in two small gods, Abudwo and Daworoh, that protect two monkey species the Black and White Colobus and the Mona monkey. There is some variation in oral histories however, it is agreed that Boabeng was present before Fiema and that the small gods are married and together protect the monkeys. 127 Chapter Five: Analysis and Results 5.0 Introduction This chapter will present both qualitative and quantitative results of the research and the analysis of these data. The results are a combination of all data including semi- structure interviews, focus groups, researcher observation, document analysis, map data and the survey. The presentation of results is divided into three sections in order to explore the impact of CBNT at BFMS; human-environment interactions, socio-political interactions and environmental values including cultural belief and practices. Where possible comparisons will be made with research that was conducted in 1990 (Fargey, 1991) essentially before the rapid growth of CBNT. No distinction was made between Boabeng and Fiema in the 1990 survey however it is useful to illustrate the changing trends in perceptions at BFMS over time. 5.1 Human-environment interactions: socio-ecological impact of CBNT This section will discuss the changes that have occurred to agriculture, the use of wild materials (natural resources) and conservation as a result of CBNT. Agriculture, as described previously is the dominant livelihood within the villages and is discussed with reference to access to farmland and encroachment. The use of wild materials also contributes significantly to the maintenance of rural livelihoods and forms a significant part of village residents' daily interactions with their environment. The use of wild materials is divided into three categories including, firewood and water, medicinal plants and, foodstuffs and household materials. Finally the discussion of environmental 128 interactions ends with a discussion of traditional environmental interactions, specifically interactions between residents of the villages and the two monkey species present. 5.1.1 Agriculture a) Access to farm land The most immediate impact of the sanctuary was on the six stools in Boabeng whose land was procured for protection in 1975. These stools are compensated through profit sharing as outlined in the constitution of the sanctuary. Interviews with the Chief and Elders of Boabeng reveal that the loss of this land for the sanctuary has been accepted as necessary for the protection of the monkeys. Interviews also reveal that currently the most pressing issue is the lack of ability to access new farmland. Most of the farmland surrounding the villages are family lands and are therefore administered by the leadership of each family clan. The different farming areas, as identified by residents of Boabeng and Fiema, are shown in Map 3. Using family lands is the most attractive option for subsistence agriculture as the use of the land is free. With the growth of Boabeng and Fiema, however, farms are continually subdivided from one generation to the next creating very small farms, survey results indicate that on average farms are 2.31 acres in Boabeng and 2.71 acres in Fiema. Residents of the villages indicate in interviews that small farm size and lack of new farmland also make it difficult to leave land to fallow which decreases soil fertility over time and generates a dependency on costly fertilizers. 'Tourism affects the farming because we have to farm in the same place over and over because there is no land to move to. And we are farming on the same land our parents and grandparents farmed and now the land is no 129 more rich, but we can't move out.' Focus Group Participant (Young Christian Men), Boabeng 'The land is as it was, but the workforce is increasing.' Elder, Boabeng Index of Farms 1 Bomma 2 Adwuam 16 17 3 Ammamene 4 Daworohanafor 12 15 5 Tankom 6 Akrudwa 7 Temma 14 8 Aduane Ede 13 9 Subibi 10 Sesedom 1 1 Nkaneem 11 12 Mintim 10 13 Adinkonoro 14 Ameokrom/ 8 Nkwayire 15 Konkrompe 6 16 Serekye 1 7 Akyere -? e 2 5 I _4 e TankorR 0.5km «S Map 3, Farming areas identified by residents of Boabeng and Fiema Legend ] Core Forest Residents of Boabeng in particular are restricted Buffer Forest Village Settlements by the sanctuary as the village is bordered on Village Cemetery three sides by the core forest. Farm River 'The land is not spoilt, but because Roads of the tourism there is no new Paths farmland to go to and you have to go 130 far.' Focus Group Participant (Older Christian Men), Boabeng 'Because the forest is protected, must go far to farm, but the land where I am farming is not fertile.' Resident, Boabeng In contrast, Fiema is only bordered by forest on one side (Map 3) so residents have relatively good access to farmland. Residents of both villages also report that their farming is affected by the successful growth of the Mona monkey population. One resident of Boabeng estimates that 30% of his crop is lost annually to the Mona monkeys and this sentiment is echoed in the quotes below from residents of Fiema. 'Because of the monkeys14 the farming is difficult, monkeys will destroy your crops.' TMC Member, Fiema 'The monkeys eat our crops and if we rear fowls the monkeys pick the eggs, the monkeys come into the compounds as well, but that is no problem.' Focus Group Participant (Young Christian Men), Fiema It was also stated in focus group discussions that it is difficult for residents of Boabeng and Fiema to get loans from the bank for agricultural investments such as fertilisers and equipment. It was proposed by focus group participants that the bank staff in the area know that the people of Boabeng and Fiema have small farms and limited access to new land because of the sanctuary and are therefore less likely to be able to pay loans back. Positive change to agricultural practice that has occurred as a result of BFMS is the training of Fire Volunteers (FV) who, as a constitutional rule, are required to assist farmers in the controlled burning of their farms. The FVs have been supported by the TMC although not consistently. 14 monkeys in the context of the quotes refers to the Mona monkeys, Black and White Colobus are commonly referred to as the Colobus. The full names of the different monkey species will be used to distinguish the species within the content of the dissertation but remain unaltered within quotations. 131 'There used to be fire all the time but now they have the Fire Volunteers so the forest does not burn as it did before.' Resident, Boabeng Fire Volunteers are also on call to combat bush fires that may threaten the sanctuary, surrounding forests and farms. Another change that has occurred as a result of the sanctuary, which is perceived as positive by residents, is to communal (or community) farming. Communal farms are administered through the Unit Committee and Nananom, with the produce sold to raise money for community projects. Taboo days are commonly used to volunteer for communal labour and if unable to volunteer, community members are required to pay a fee or 'community tax' instead. Interviews with the Chief of Boabeng found that communal farming in Boabeng has ceased to occur with the explanation that the profits from tourism received by the community make it unnecessary. The same sentiment is echoed, by a resident of Boabeng, in the quote below, 'In the old days when there were no visitors there was no money for the community, always used communal labour, so now communal labour has decreased because we get money from tourism to pay for work instead. Now no more tax paying from community for communal labour, get money from TMC to hire people.' Focus Group Participant (Old Traditionalist Men), Boabeng Interviews with the Chief of Fiema, however, found that communal farming continues even though the community receives the same percentage of the profits as Boabeng. It is logical that the larger population size in Fiema requires more financial support that is not adequately met by the share of the profits from tourism and therefore communal labour and community 'taxes' are still required. 132 b) Encroachment Interviews with residents reveal that in the past farming and other activities such as grazing animals, occurred inside the sanctuary boundaries. Residents planted plantain, cocoa, mangoes, oranges and other crops that are consumed by both monkeys and people, following the logic that the monkeys are benefitting from these farms, as well as, the farmer. Since the creation of the sanctuary however, farming is not permitted inside the core forest, as stated by the constitution 'no person shall make a farm within the core forest of the Sanctuary'. The use of the buffer forest, as evidence from analysis of the constitution and interviews, is not clearly outlined nor well understood. According to the GWD staff, no farming should occur within the sanctuary boundaries (core and buffer forest), but the common understanding within the villages, is that farming is permitted in the buffer forest within strict guidelines concerning the use of fire and removal of large trees. 'Outside of the boundary lines you should be able to farm, but the Wildlife15 will tell you not to farm.' Elder, Boabeng 'Should increase the forest but the farming areas are very scarce, you can farm in the buffer forest, we [the TMC] were going to plant trees in the buffer forest but it will worry the people too much.' TMC Member, Boabeng Analysis of the constitution shows that there are no constitutional rules that refer to farming in the buffer forest specifically. 15 Wildlife refers to the Ghana Wildlife Division staff 133 ema 4 - / Boabeníz Map 4, Satellite image (2000) of BFMS and surrounding area, illustrating different habitats. Legend Forest Village Settlements/Farms & deforested areas BFMS Farm Areas River Roads 134 Map 4, presents a satellite image from the research site (ESRI, 2000). The lighter blue patches on the satellite image indicate deforested land. The village sites are recognizable within the sanctuary and the neighbouring village of Akrudwa. Other light blue patches on the image clearly illustrates land that has been used or is in use for agriculture. A typical farm within the savannah forest is illustrated in Figure 15. The community farming areas are indicated, but evidence of farming within the sanctuary boundaries is also clearly visible. Dense areas of forest are indicated by the darker black- blue colour and a picture is provided (Figure 15) that demonstrates dense forest habitat. Boabeng is shown to be almost completely surrounded by dense forest and the Akrudwa forest fragment used by the monkeys is discernable to the south west of BFMS. It is also clear from the satellite image that the majority of land around Fiema has been cleared for farming. Figure 15, Example of dense forest habitat (left) and savannah forest (background) with peanut and palm tree farm (right), BFMS. In addition, observation by the researcher confirmed that the demarcation between the core forest and buffer forest is not clearly marked or maintained, the boundary is overgrown, thus making the cement markers (Figure 16) difficult to locate. Teak trees 135 were also used to identify the boundaries (Figure 17) however, the teak have reportedly been cut in some areas and replanted in such a manner as to decrease the size of the protected forest. Researcher observation found obvious evidence Figure 16, Cement of farming inside the boundary marker BFMS, 2007. core forest in particular on the footpath leading from Boabeng to the Betiene River (Map 5) and focus group discussions established that animals are left to graze inside the core forest on the edge of villages, although this is clearly against the rules Figure 17, Teak tree of the constitution. boundary BFMS, 2007. Two other rules clearly defined within the constitution are, 'no burning of charcoal within the sanctuary and no felling of fresh trees within the sanctuary'. Despite this, evidence of charcoal production was found by the researcher within both the buffer and core forests (Figure, 18). The production of charcoal entails first cutting down a tree and then slowly burning it under a mound of earth. Likewise, fresh or live trees are cut for sale in the local timber market and valuable species such as Figure 1 8, Burn mound use for charcoal production, BFMS, 2007. mahogany are harvested for export. The use of chainsaws are commonly associated with 136 cutting trees for timber and tree stumps were found by the researcher inside the core forest that had clearly been cut with a chainsaw (Figure 19). The Senior Wildlife Officer in multiple interviews proposed that the attitude of village residents toward charcoal production and timber Figure 19, Tree stump export is that it is, 'just one tree' thus less harmful illustrating the use of a chainsaw inside BFMS, 2007. than clearing land for agriculture. Further discussions with the GWD staff reveal that charcoal production does contribute significantly to deforestation throughout Ghana and if not managed adequately can also lead to bush fires, further adding to habitat destruction. The GWD staff also suggested that the potential for deforestation is high at BFMS if residents continue to violate the rules of the sanctuary. Map 5 indicates areas of natural resource use that include, the collection of medicinal plants and bee keeping, which are allowed within the sanctuary. Teak tree plantations outside of the sanctuary boarders and charcoal production, farming, felling of trees, within the sanctuary boarders. Another constitutional rule that is commonly broken is 'no person shall defecate in an unauthorised place in the sanctuary or the village'. This is a much larger issue than would first appear as the majority of people do not have access to latrines and therefore have no other alternatives. Several residents of the villages when asked to identify priorities for community development projects list the building of latrines. As the populations of Boabeng and Fiema grow the lack of proper facilities will be a problem not only for tourism development and conservation but also for community health. The 137 need to expand and improve the provision of proper waste management and sewage disposal is recognised by the Ministry of Tourism as vital for both host communities and the tourists that visit (National Tourism Development Plan, 1996, p. 198.) Fiema Boabeng Legend Core Forest BetieneR ° Buffer Forest Village Settlements Village Cemetery Resource Use River Roads Paths 0.5km Map 5, BFMS with areas of natural resource use (farms, charcoal production, timber harvesting) indicated, 2007 5.1.2 Access to Natural Resources Focus group discussions and the survey ascertained that the people of Boabeng and Fiema depend upon the use of wild materials to supplement subsistence agriculture as a means of securing their livelihoods. Analysis of the constitution revealed that some use of wild materials is permitted within the sanctuary including the collection of dead 138 wood and water and the collection of medicinal plants. Other activities such as palm oil and palm wine production and bee keeping are permitted in the buffer forest and were found by the researcher to be occurring there (Map 5). a) Firewood and Water Access to deadwood within the sanctuary is unrestricted for residents of Boabeng and Fiema. As stated by Saj in Ecological influences on the social organization of 2 Colobus vellerosus at Boabeng-Fiema 'Only trees within the 1.92 km sanctuary are protected at the local level—the Management Committee prohibits the cutting of large trees within this area (the cutting of 'dead' trees is allowed), but this ban is not enforced by district or national law.' (Saj, 2005, p. 86). Deadwood is the primary source of firewood in the villages and survey results found that in Boabeng, 79.3% use firewood as their main source of fuel with only 13.6% using firewood and charcoal, compared to Fiema where 49.4% use firewood and the same percentage use firewood and charcoal. The majority of firewood is collected from farms in both villages (Table 14) however, 26.2% of those surveyed in Boabeng also use the core forest for the collection of firewood, compared to only 5.8% in Fiema. This is a statistically significant difference (P=O-OOO) based on the Mann-Whitney U Test. Interpretation of the statistical data along with focus group data indicate that those in Boabeng have greater access to the core forest than residents of Fiema and therefore use it more often to collect firewood. Source of Firewood Boabeng (n=229) Fiema (n=360) Farm 99.6 95? Core Forest (Sacred Grove) 26.2 ^8 Forest ¡8.3 ¡3.9 Table 14, Sources of firewood for Boabeng and Fiema (% of ?), 2007 139 The Daworoh River, which originated in the core forest has been dry for approximately 40 years. But the nearby Betiene River remains an important water source for the people of Boabeng. Observation by the researcher found that it is used frequently for washing clothing, collecting sand for washing pots and for the collection of water for household and farm use. Interviews with residents of Fiema found that they do not have easy access to river water and are therefore highly dependent upon boreholes and rainwater as shown in Table 15. Water Source Boabeng (n= 242) Fiema (?= 360) Borehole 96/7 100 River 32,6 0? RainWater | 43.8 | 77.2 Table 15, Sources of water for Boabeng and Fiema (% of ?), 2007 A small fee is paid for the use of boreholes in both villages, however lack of alternatives makes this water source essential for residents of Fiema. Observation by the researcher established that residents of both villages also collect rainwater for home use. Overall, fuel and water are essential for daily survival but as 'wild resources' are more immediately available to residents of Boabeng. b) Medicinal Plants The local environment is also used for the collection of medicinal plants. 71.1% of those surveyed in Boabeng and 85.6% in Fiema indicate using local medicine. As stated by Falconer, 'Despite the stigma of 'fetishism' that Christianity and modernisation has placed on traditionalism, traditional herbalists have remained in almost every community in Ghana. Even more importantly knowledge of plant medicine is not confined to the specialist healer. The most common and 140 important use of medicinal plants is self-administered first aid.' (Falconer, 1992 from GWD, 1994, p. 20). This national trend remains true for Boabeng and Fiema where local medicine is most commonly prepared by the individual users themselves, as indicated in Table 16, or obtained from a herbalist. Medicinal plants are collected from the forest, savannah and the sanctuary. Source of Local Medicine Boabeng (n=242) Fiema (n=360) Does not use local medicine 28.5 14.4 Herbalist 29.8 47.5 Self made 46.7 54.7 Fetish Priest 4.1 5.3 Table 16, Source of local medicine for Boabeng and Fiema (% of ?), 2007. Interviews with a local herbalist in Boabeng reveal that overall medicinal plants are easier to find now than in the past. Since bush fires have decreased medicinal plants are more readily available in the forest, however medicinal plants of the savannah are more difficult to find due to farming and the prevalence of an invasive vine known locally as achampong or 'power line', which grows in disturbed areas. Interestingly, the equivalent interview in Fiema, with a Fetish Priest and Priestess who act as local doctors, revealed that medicinal plants are considered more difficult to find now due to the reduction in the size of the forest, drought and the burning of land for farms. Figure 20, Collection of medicinal plants for local market and personal use (on left) and for local and wholesale market (on right), BFMS, 2007. 141 e) Food Stuffs and Household Materials Focus group participants were asked to (1) list their current use of natural resources, (2) the natural resources that in their opinion are the most important, and to (3) indicate the best places to find these natural resources. Participants indicate collecting 34 types of fruits, 34 types of leaves and seeds for food, 30 different plants including trees and grasses for construction materials and the production of tools, 9 different kinds of mushrooms, a minimum of 30 different species of medicinal plants and 13 different animals ranging from giant land snails and crabs to squirrels and rabbits (Appendix 2). Each of the sixteen focus groups emphasised that there were many more plants that they collect from the forest and savannah but that they are too numerous to name them all. The most important natural resources listed by focus group participants from both Boabeng and Fiema are medicinal plants for personal use, and food stuffs for use at home but more importantly for sale as a source of income. Figure 21, provides a synthesis of the most important natural resources as identified by focus group participants. Focus groups as discussed in the Methods Chapter were delineated by age, gender, religion and village. Data analysis found that religion is not a significant influence on human- environment interactions and therefore the data presented is grouped by age, gender and village. The resources that are collected by members of both communities are shown in the overlapping areas of the Venn diagram and a few trends are demonstrated by these data. First, the use of some natural resources is gender specific and influenced by village. The palm tree for example is used by both men and women and serves several functions. Palm nuts are used by women to make palm oil, men tap the trees for the sap which, is 142 used to make palm wine and akpeteshie (distilled alcohol), which is sold by both genders and the tree leaves (palms) are used by men for roofing and weaving. Second, women in particular benefit from the use of wild resources as several local 'herbs and spices', such as prekasay (Tetrapleura tetraptera) and dawa dawa (Parkia biglobosd), pa and other fruits such as mango are collected and sold at the market for cash. Similarly, the cost of rearing domestic animals is supplemented through the collection of wild grasses as feed. Third, the focus group data also indicates that residents of Fiema are able to either access or grow fruits such as bananas and papayas but residents of Boabeng are not, although mangos are accessed by residents of both villages. The more prevalent Mona monkey population in Boabeng as mentioned previously makes growing fruit trees and other foods near the village virtually impossible. Boabeng and Fiema differ drastically in a few areas of natural resource use. A much larger percentage of people, 20.7% are involved in hunting for bushmeat in Boabeng, than in Fiema at only 0.8% (Table 18). The constitution indicates that 'no person shall harm, kill or otherwise disturb any wildlife', and participants indicate that they only hunt outside of the sanctuary boundaries. A taboo against dogs is present within the villages as dogs would not only disturb the monkeys but are also commonly used for hunting. Personal observations revealed that small animals such as birds are hunted and used for home consumption. 143 Boabeng Fiema Water •Water •Palm Tree •Firewood Mango •Mango •Timber Honey •Papaya Men under 40 years of age •Sand •Banana •Raffia Fiema Boabeng Medicinal •Medicinal •Firewood Plants •Palm Tree Plants •Timber Men over 40 years of age •Charcoal •Bush Meat Fiema Boabeng •Medicinal •Pa Palm Plants •Dawa dawa Tree •Papaya •Banana •Mango Women under 40 years of age •Pepper Fiema Palm Tree •Medicinal Plants Boabeng Pa •Water Dawa dawa »Sand Prekasay »Banana Women over 40 years of age Mango Figure 21, Most important natural resources identified by focus group participants of Boabeng and Fiema, categorised by gender and age. Venn diagrams indicate shared resources in the overlapping of the circles representative of each village. 144 Natural Resource Use Boabeng Fiema (n=242) (n=360) Firewood 26.4 21.1 Medicine 38.0 55.0 Bushmeat 20.7 0.8 Food Stuffs (dawa dawa, pa, palm nuts, fruits, leaves) 52.9 5.3 Household Material (raffia, bamboo, grass, wood for 41.3 6.9 construction of house/making tools, leaves to feed animals, palm branches) Table 17, Natural resource uses for Boabeng and Fiema (% of ?), 2007. Almost half of those surveyed, 41.3% in Boabeng, compared to only 6.9% of the people of Fiema use the forest and savannah for the collection of household materials and 52.9%o of those surveyed in Boabeng compared to only 5.3% in Fiema use the environment for the collection of food stuffs. Results of the Mann-Whitney U statistical analysis indicate that with the exception of firewood collection, a significant difference between the villages does occur (P=.000) for all categories shown in Table 18. Interpretation of this and researcher observations leads the researcher to infer that both villages are dependent upon their local environments with significant overlap between villages when considering the most important natural resources. There is also overlap between the villages when considering the areas accessed for natural resources (Map 6). Residents both villages access riverine habitats but it is clear that access to forest and savannah habitats is not the same for residents of Boabeng and Fiema. As shown on Map 6 residents of Fiema have easy access to savannah lands whereas resident of Boabeng are able to access the savannah but also have easier access to forest and riverine habitat. Thus residents of Boabeng indicate using more wild resources across all categories. 145 Fiema Boabeng BetieneR 0.5km Map 6, Areas indicated by residents of Boabeng and Fiema that are accessed for natural resources. Legend Core Forest Buffer Forest Village Settlements Village Cemetery Boabeng Natural Resource Use Fiema Natural Resource Use River Roads Paths 146 5.1.3 Traditional Environmental Interactions a) Monkey Feeding and Interactions Interviews reveal that in the past, before tourism, people from the villages used to feed the Mona monkeys to keep them close. The GWD staff indicate, and researcher observations reflect that feeding the Mona monkeys was also featured in the tour at BFMS. Interviewees indicate that the Mona monkeys became more prevalent in the villages and because they were being exposed to a wider variety of human foods, as a result of the tourism, they began to steal food in particular from children. 'The tourists feed the monkeys things like bread and ground nuts1 so now the monkeys know that as food, and will take it from your compound, before the monkeys never took those items.' Resident, Boabeng 'Tourists feed the monkeys toffee and biscuits so now the monkeys are used to human food and will take it from us, whereas the monkeys did not take these foods before.' Focus Group Participant (Older Christian Women), Boabeng In 2003, the GWD stopped feeding the Mona monkeys on their tours and began asking people in the villages to do the same. This was to encourage the Mona monkeys to disperse and mate with other groups to avoid inbreeding and disease (Senior Wildlife Officer, Interview). Just over half of the people surveyed in Boabeng and Fiema, however indicate that they continue to feed the Mona monkeys (Table 18). Mona Monkey Feeding Boabeng (n=242) Fiema (n=360) People who feed Mona monkeys 52.1 53.3 Traditional Reasons 12.0 7.8 Non-traditional reasons 9.5 40.6 Monkeys take food themselves 19 0.3 Table 18, Percentage of those surveyed that feed Mona monkeys and reasons for doing so at BFMS (% of n), 2007. 16 peanuts 147 'People take maize and cassava to feed the monkeys like a child, monkeys come to house and you throw them food to eat and watch how they eat like a human being.' Elder, Boabeng In Boabeng, a small majority of people indicate feeding the Mona monkeys for traditional reasons, which include the idea that the monkeys are their ancestors. In Fiema, a much larger majority feed the Mona monkeys for non-traditional reasons, which are most often expressed as amusement. Interviews indicate that the majority of people seem to enjoy the monkeys presence, as stated by one participant in Fiema 'monkeys also make people happy, just to see them lifts your spirit'. Unfortunately, the Mona monkeys as mentioned previously, are responsible for considerable crop damage, and food storage that is 'monkey proof, as shown in Figure 22, is a major concern in the villages. ! r Figure 22, Storage shed for farm produce, old (left) and new (right) BFMS, 2007. Many people report that although they do not actively feed the Mona monkeys the monkeys simply take food from the compounds. In Boabeng, 7% of those surveyed indicate that they do not feed the Mona monkeys because they were advised not to by the GWD, none surveyed in Fiema offered this response. Several people surveyed, 26.9% in Fiema and 5.8% in Boabeng, indicate that they do not feed the Mona monkeys because they do not have enough food for themselves. Observations by the researcher support the 148 survey and interview data; people enjoy the activities of both species of monkeys and although the Mona monkeys can cause considerable damage they are tolerated with patience. The Black and White Colobus spend the majority of their time in the forest canopy and the majority of their diet is composed of leaves so they are therefore not affected by feeding. The Black and White Colobus do forage near to the villages and at times enter the villages to eat the clay that is used to build the houses. Residents enjoy the presence of the Black and White Colobus as well but do not interact with the same familiarity as with the Mona monkeys. Research has shown that the Black and White Colobus population has increased (Wong & Sicotte, 2006) and both species populations are perceived to have increased by people in the villages. In this sense the conservation at BFMS has been successful. 5.1.4 Conservation a) Perceptions of the Forest and Conservation Goals Current research is able to draw on Fargey's 1990 survey data when considering how attitudes towards conservation may have changed at BFMS. Although participants were not asked the exact questions posed by Fargey in his survey, the interviews and focus groups in this research did address current perceptions of forest health and conservation issues such as, perceived threats to the forest and the potential for reforestation. 149 !The size of the sanctuary is large enough 1 The sanctuary ~ 40 should be ^ 30 enlarged More trees should be planted BFMS 1990 Figure 23, Attitudes towards conservation at BFMS (n=302), Fargey (1991). -tsr ¦ Replant inside the sanctuary, but do not t increase the overall size of the forest * Replant inside the sanctuary before increasing the overall size Vi 26.3 U of the forest 4£& Increase the overall size of 1 the sanctuary Boabeng 2007 Fiema 2007 Figure 24, Attitudes towards conservation for residents of Boabeng and Fiema, BFMS, 2007. Analysis of interview and focus group data found that overall perceptions of the forest have changed since the 1990 survey and that at present, residents of Boabeng and Fiema have different perceptions of forest health. Interview results presented in Figures 150 23 and 24 reveal that compared to only 10.9% in the 1990 survey, all respondents of Boabeng and Fiema interviewed in 2007/08 suggest that more trees should be planted, with the degraded areas within the core forest and buffer forest being the first to receive attention. In Fiema, the area known as Gyiiakyi was referred to specifically and in Boabeng Aduane Ede and Daworohanafor as shown on Map 7. Of residents surveyed in 1990, 58.4% felt that the size of the sanctuary was large enough, when compared to present research it was found that 2 1 . 1 % of interviewees in Boabeng still feel that the size of the sanctuary is sufficient however, no interviewees in Fiema indicate that same. There is a much higher level of support for increasing the overall size of the forest in Fiema (84.2%) ofthose interviewed) compared to Boabeng (26.3% of those interviewed). In Fiema, interview participants generally perceived the forest to be smaller than in the past but the quality of the forest, assessed as the ability to access medicinal and food plants was considered to be the same. In contrast, interviews in Boabeng reveal that the forest is perceived to be the same size as in the past but qualitatively different. Medicinal and food plants are thought to be more abundant due to the reduction in the use of fire, but fewer large trees are reported to be present. In addition, Boabeng respondents indicate that there are more bare patches present in the forest that are evidence of abandoned farms, these are perceived as lowering the quality of the forest even though they are reverting to natural habitat and therefore contributing to forest conservation. 151 Fiema Gyiiakyi/Chocose Boabefig Aduane Ede Daworohanafor 0.5km Map 7, Areas indicated for future reforestation by residents of BFMS, 2007 Legend Core Forest Buffer Forest Village Settlements Village Cemetery Fiema Conservation Wdi Boabeng Conservation ,—, River ^ Roads m m Paths 152 Analysis of interview and survey data suggests that at present residents of both villages understand the importance of the forest as habitat for medicinal and food plants and feel that these resources need to be protected. Other benefits that are derived from the forest identified by residents are access to medicinal plants, increased rainfall, cooler temperatures, protection of the villages from rain and wind storms, and education; because people are able to come to BFMS to learn about different tree species. 'The forest prevents bushfires and I go to the forest for pleasure, the forest helps to protect the village from wind.' Focus Group Participant (Old Christian Women), Fiema 'The forest protects us again strong winds and it provides rain, because of the forest we get more rain and the vegetation is good for us.' TMC Member, Boabeng When the villages are considered separately however, it is clear that in Boabeng the desire to protect the forest and forest resources is tempered by the need for agricultural land and fuel whereas in Fiema, the majority would increase the overall size of the forest which again points to the current inability of residents of Fiema to access forest resources. 'It is a good idea to increase the forest so that the monkey population will increase, even though the monkeys chop17 our crops we still want them to increase.' Focus Group Participant (Old Christian Men), Fiema ? would not increase the forest because our farmland is already too small, at this time we would even farm into the core forest but we are not allowed.' Focus Group Participant (Old Traditionalist Women), Boabeng 'The size of forest is fine now, don't enlarge it because it affects the farmland, people won't have land to farm.' Elder, Boabeng 'We should only protect what forest we have now because we need land for farming.' Past TMC member, Boabeng 17 to chop or chopped is Ghanaian slang for taking or eating, in the context of the quote it implies that the monkeys eat the crops. 153 Formal expansion of the protected area is recognised by NCRC and the GWD as a development that would require negotiations with the 7 communities surrounding BFMS and it is understood by NCRC and the GWD that significant alternative income generating interventions would be required (NCRC, 2007). There are also several perceived threats to the forest, the most frequently mentioned in interviews and focus groups is fire. Fires occur naturally in the dry season but bush fires are most commonly a result of the use of fire to flush out animals for hunting and the loss of control over fires used purposefully to clear land in preparation for farming. Ghana was wracked by bush fires in the 1982/83 dry season with significant loss to agricultural land and natural forest as well as the destruction of entire villages and loss of life (Ampadu-Agyei, 1988). Although these fires occurred over 20 years ago they remain prominent in the minds of Ghanaians. Another perceived threat that was mentioned by interviewees is the lack of non agricultural employment for youth combined with the desire for 'quick money' leading to destructive activities such as timber harvesting and charcoal production. 'Youth go and burn charcoal and farm [inside the sanctuary] because there is no work for them... There is no work for the youth, this will cause the downfall of the sanctuary. That is why they are cutting. Cutting inside the sanctuary is increasing again.' Resident, Boabeng Similarly, participants cited 'chainsaw operators' as a serious threat to forest conservation. Chainsaw operators are held responsible for the felling of large trees (used for timber), which in the process of falling also destroy other valuable plants. Other perceived threats include hunting and erosion from roads. In light of the need for alternatives, it was recommended by some interviewees that trees be planted specifically as fuel to decrease the need for illegal charcoal 154 production. Focus group participants, in particular the young women of Boabeng suggest that planting fuel trees on individual farms should be a conservation goal. A community 'fuel forest' was considered by the focus group and rejected on the grounds that regulating the harvest in a communal forest would be too difficult. Planting fuel trees has caused some disagreement in the past with the GWD as fuel trees are commonly non- native fast growing species that are considered invasive and do not contribute to the natural ecosystem (Senior Wildlife Officer, Interview). There is an immediate need, however, to balance the demand for fuel trees with reforestation. A continued lack of fuel only serves to increase pressure on the natural forest for deadwood, while increasing the likelihood that people will pursue charcoal production due to a lack of alternatives. Another conservation goal suggested by participants was to plant fruit trees such as mango, plantain, and banana, inside the sanctuary and around the edge of the villages to address both the need for reforestation and the desire to deter the Mona monkeys from stealing food from compounds and destroying farms. 'Plant fruit trees specifically for the monkeys inside the village and near or in compounds so that the monkeys come and pick those fruits and stop eating the people food! The monkeys will take the fruits and run back to the forest, instead of stealing yams or searching inside the compounds when they can't find something to steal quickly.' Focus Group Participants, (Young Traditionalist Women), Boabeng Beyond increasing the overall size of the forest residents did not have specific conservation goals related to the Black and White Colobus. Primate research conducted by the University of Calgary at BFMS (Teichroeb, Saj, Paterson & Sicotte, 2003; Saj, 2005; Wong & Sicotte, 2006) was reviewed by the researcher and two suggestions specific to the conservation of the Black and White Colobus were drawn from them. First, the development of wildlife corridors should be explored as a way of connecting 155 forest fragments and thereby increasing the useable habitat for the Black and White Colobus. It was found that trees with a diameter at breast height (DBH) over 75cm and less than 3 metres between tree crowns are considered sufficient to provide the Colobus with an arboreal pathway (Wong & Sicotte, 2006). It was also found that the corridor connecting BFMS to Akrudwa (Map 8) was already in use and therefore it is relevant to further explore the use of corridors at this site (Wong & Sicotte, 2006). Secondly, as reported by Saj, 2005 'the five most common tree species in this area are Cola gigantea, Anogeissus leiocarpus, Monodora myristica, Myrianthus arboreus and Holarrhenafloribunda. They account for 42.3% of the trees surveyed; none are black and white Colobus food trees. The top 5 food trees of the Black and White Colobus accounted for only 8.3% of the trees surveyed' (Saj, 2005, p. 70) and were identified as the Moraceae, Leguminosae and Bombacaceae (27%, 23% and 19% of the diet respectively) with seeds and unripe fruits forming an important part of the diet when they are available: Albizia coriaria, Aubrevillea kerstingii, Trilepisium madagascariense (Teichroeb et al., 2003, Saj, 2005). It was also found that Colobus density is most influenced by food availability (Wong & Sicotte 2006), although other factors such as gender ratio and mating habits are also central, this finding suggests that increasing food availability would support the growth of the Colobus population. 156 3 Fiema Boabeng 1 9 6 7 Akrudwa 0.5km Map 8, BFMS showing the Akrudwa wildlife corridor and surrounding forest fragments (2007). Legend Forest Fragments Core Forest 1 Tankor Buffer Forest & Forest Fragments 2 Konkrompe 3 Senya Village Settlements 4 Bomini Village Cemetery 5 Bonte River 6 Kwaase 7 Akrudwa #2 Roads 8 Kuma Paths 9 Akrudwa #1 157 It was also suggested by a member of the TMC that the villages should be more involved in conservation. Fire Volunteers should participate in the maintenance of fire belts and patrols organised so that illegal activities are reported and fines administered. At present, people with illegal farms are 'advised to stop' but are not held accountable through the protocol outlined in the constitution. He suggested, 'The community should be more involved in the decision making about protecting the forest. When someone is found farming in the forest they should be reported, but instead people are only advised that they should stop, reporting is not forthcoming.' TMC Member, Boabeng The difficulty involved in 'telling on' your neighbours and relatives was discussed by the researcher and members of the community leadership in some detail but an alternative approach of community enforcement was not obvious. Research conducted by Saj (2005) notes that the GWD were considered necessary as an Outside check on illegal activities' such as timber extraction and poaching 'that would be difficult to regulate if left to the villages alone.' In addition, 'Several villagers said they would find it difficult to report law-breakers to authorities because of family and community ties.' (Saj, 2005, p. 86). As discussed in more detail in upcoming sections, at present the GWD is not considered by residents to be actively involved in protection of the forest and are not believed to provide any significant motivation for conservation. b) Conservation and Tourism Survey and interview data was collected in order to explore the complex relationship between conservation and tourism. Several different questions were used to try to determine what residents thought about, and what the impact is, of tourism as a method of conservation. Residents were initially asked how much they thought tourism 158 contributed to the protection of the monkeys and the forests with responses ranging from none and some, to 'plenty'. As shown in Table 20, overwhelming respondents indicated that tourism contributes 'plenty' or significantly to conservation. For example, 'Tourism is good because people know the name of BFMS and because there are lots of big trees that are protected, trees like mahogany and wawa, that are not cut because of the tourism.' Elder, Boabeng 'If there was no tourism the forest would not be safe, the forest would have been farmed, but we can't because of the tourism' TMC Past Member, Boabeng 'Yes' tourism contributes significantly to the Boabeng Fiema (n=360) protection of the: (n=242) Monkeys 87.6 93.9 Forest 87.1 91.1 Table 19, Percentages of respondents indicating that tourism contributes significantly to the protection of the monkeys and the forest BFMS (% of n), 2007 In addition, residents of Boabeng and Fiema indicate that they would support conservation outside of tourism to protect resources for future generations. This suggests the development of a conservation ethic that is independent of tourism and traditional beliefs. However, when participants were asked what they personally thought was protecting the monkeys and the forests tourism still comes in second to traditional beliefs (Table 20). Motivation for Conservation Boabeng (n=242) Fiema (n=360) Traditional Beliefs 62.0 30.6 Tourism 15.7 29.4 For future Generations 15.3 11.9 Income 9.5 15.8 GWD/Laws 4.5 13.6 Community Development 1.7 9.4 Table 20, Motivation for conservation at BFMS (% of n), 2007. 159 Traditional beliefs remain the most frequently cited motivation for protection in both villages, with results of the Mann-Whitney U Test indicating a statistically significant result (P= 0.000) with stronger support for traditional beliefs in Boabeng (62%) than in Fiema (30.6%). In Fiema, tourism at 29.4% almost equals traditional beliefs as a 'motivator' for conservation, whereas in Boabeng, tourism occupies a distant second place with only 15.7% of residents indicating that tourism provides the motivation for protection. The interview and focus group data provided below support the statistical analysis and illustrate the emphasis on traditional beliefs over tourism as the motivation for conservation for residents of Boabeng. 'Traditional beliefs are still more important than the money from tourism.' TMC member, Boabeng (Christian) 'Tourists come to see the monkeys, but monkeys are not protected because of the tourism they are protected because of the traditions because our forefathers were told to protect the monkeys for the future, so for example when the harmattan comes we protect the forest from fire.' Focus Group Participants (Old Traditionalist Women), Boabeng 'People come from other countries as tourists and give us money, if not because of the small god there would be no tourism.' TMC past member, Boabeng 'If there was no tourism we would still protect the monkeys because we are afraid [of punishment from the small gods] and because the monkeys are like brothers and sisters.' Focus Group Participants, (Older Christian Women), Boabeng Interview analysis reveals that although there are a range of opinions, the majority of participants in both villages feel that if there was no tourism the monkeys would be safe but the forests would not. The forests would be in danger from farming and from the harvesting of commercially valuable timber. Creating farms in the forest is believed by 160 some to help the monkeys by providing a source of food and therefore legitimises the use of the forest for farms. Other participants offer that conservation of the forest and monkeys is better achieved through tourism. As expressed by one participant in Boabeng, 'tourism helps protect the monkeys and farming does not, so the tourism is a better use of the forest even thought it means people get less food' (Participant, Boabeng). It was suggested by some participants that the only area that would continue to be protected as sacred, if there was no tourism, is the core forest boarded by the roads inside the sanctuary. This forest immediately surrounds the origin of the Daworoh River where the shrine was originally found. No one interviewed in Boabeng suggested that the monkeys would be in any danger without tourism because of the strength of traditional beliefs. In Boabeng, participants expressed the idea that hunting the monkeys and eating their meat was unimaginable and completely distasteful. In Fiema, it was proposed that hunting for bush meat would be a threat to the monkeys if they were not protected through tourism. It is doubtful that residents of Fiema would consume monkey meat, instead danger would mostly likely exist from the use of traps for hunting other animals that inadvertently catch or injure monkeys (Personnel Communications, Senior Wildlife Officer). An active market for bushmeat as discussed in Chapter One, including monkey, exist in Ghana. As stated by Saj (2005) 'In random checks of bushmeat markets across Ghana, Ntiamoa- Baidu (1998) reported 6 primate species for sale, including Colobus vellerosus.'' (Saj, 2005, p. 68). It is realistic to assume, therefore, that hunting for monkeys would occur in the villages as a means to earn a cash income. 161 If traditional beliefs remain the motivation for conservation but tourism is still thought to be significant, how is CBNT working? What about CBNT make residents think that tourism contributes to protection? Participants were asked to explain why they think tourism helps to protect the monkeys and the forest. The responses include that tourism contributes to conservation through education, through the presence of the GWD and the rules and laws of the constitution, monetary benefits and in Fiema, responses included that tourism helps to make use of the sanctuary (Table 21). Tourism provides a, 'source of money for the community and even individuals benefit from selling. Because of tourism the name of BFMS is spread all over the world and in Ghana people know the communities. The forest is safe because of the tourism and this helps to protect peoples' houses from wind storms, wind does not take roofs off of houses.' Focus Group Participant (Young Christian Men), Boabeng 'The community gets the money, they collect it from the sanctuary for street bulbs, to fix the boreholes and to send people to solve community problems; the Chairman, community leaders can get money from the TMC to travel.' Focus Group Participant (Old Christian Women), Fiema 'Have made laws for protection: if you go in for firewood, to hunt, to shoot gun you will be punished, people are following the rules... if someone kills a monkey you will be in jail because we are getting something from them and you will get sick from Abudwo, a man will conceive [get a swollen stomach], you will die.' TMC Member, Fiema A small percentage of respondents 14.9% in Boabeng and 4.4% in Fiema indicated that traditional beliefs are the only thing protecting the monkeys and that tourism does not contribute to conservation at all. As shown in Table 21, 42.1% of respondents in Fiema and 18.6% in Boabeng feel that tourism contributes to conservation through education. Education campaigns at BFMS have focused on bush fires and tree planting. The GWD who are precievd as the enforcers of 'rules and laws' also provide some motivation for conservation. The GWD 162 will be discussed in more detail later but it is relevant at this time to contrast the role of the GWD with the role of tourism as a method of conservation. 33.1% of respondents in Fiema but only 12.0% of respondents in Boabeng indicate that the GWD and the rules and laws they enforce are an avenue for tourism to contribute to conservation. It was stated that if the people of the villages did not believe in the small gods and the sacredness of the monkeys no amount of enforcement by the GWD would protect the monkeys. Many participants suggested that a 'fear of prosecution' at the hands of the GWD exists but that if the GWD did not catch a wrong doer eventually the smaller gods would. Participants in both villages stated that for non-traditionalists the presence of the GWD contributes to the protection of the monkeys. Tourisms contribution to Conservation Boabeng Fiema (n=359) (n=242) Education 18.6 42.1 GWD/Laws 12.0 33.1 Monetary Benefits 10.7 1.9 Make use of the sanctuary 0.0 12.2 Table 21, Perceived contribution of CBNT to conservation at BFMS (% of n), 2007 If the results presented in Table 20 and Table 21 are considered together several ideas become clear. First, tourism contributes to conservation through non monetary benefits such as education and not through economic benefits as commonly assumed in the literature and second, the GWD also contributes to conservation through the enforcement of rules and laws. It is interesting to note that the role of the GWD echoes the role of traditional leadership and the small gods in that both facilitate conservation through fear of punishments and not a sense of empowerment. 163 5.2 Socio-political Interactions Socio-political interactions include a wide range of relationships between individual actors as well as organisations. At BFMS, socio-political interactions are influenced by the presence of CBNT. The first part of the discussion presented here is traditional in that it includes an exploration of the benefits and costs of CBNT for residents of Boabeng and Fiema and how the current status of CBNT affects the potential for future tourism developments. The discussion then broadens to explore the impact that CBNT has on the relationship between the communities and other actors at BFMS. Sources of conflict such as the profit sharing agreement will be examined and the role of the actors involved such as the GWD and community organisations will be explored. The final section will discuss the impact that CBNT has had on the relationship between the communities themselves. 5.2.1 Current impacts of CBNT and future development goals a) Benefits of CBNT The results presented here are derived from interview, focus group and survey data analysis and are focused on the benefits and problems associated with CBNT as perceived by the communities. Where possible comparisons are made with Fargey's data from 1990. Personal Benefit from I Boabeng I Fiema I BFMS (n=302) Tourism (n=241) (n=360) 1990 Yes 2,9 2J5 54/7 No 1 97.1 I 97.2 1 45.3 Table 22, Personal benefits from tourism (% of n) BFMS, 2007 and from Fargey 1991. 164 In 1990, when residents of BFMS were asked whether or not they felt they personally benefitted from tourism, those surveyed were split almost evenly in their responses (Table 22). Of the 54.7% that felt they benefitted in 1990, 56.5% cited interactions with tourists and 42.2% cited small gifts (sweets, money) as the benefits they personally received. In 2007, almost 100% of respondents in both villages felt that they did not personally benefit from tourism. Although more residents in both villages feel that they interact with tourists, the most common interaction cited as 'talking', at 71.9% in Boabeng and 53.3% in Fiema. It is clear however, that increased interactions with tourists has not corresponded to an increased perception of personal benefits from tourism. In addition to individual benefits participants' perceptions of community level benefits was also explored. In 1990, 29.4% of respondents from both villages together (n=302) indicated that their communities benefited from tourism. Currently, more respondents overall feel that their communities benefit from tourism, but that in general CBNT has not lived up to expectations. 'The community as a whole benefits but as individuals we do not benefit. There are benefits like the Guest House and the toilets, but the monkeys take our maize from farm!' Focus Group (Young Traditionalist Women), Fiema 'The road should be paved and toilets should be built, should have gutters, the expectations that I had for what tourism would bring to the community have not been met' Elder, Boabeng In Boabeng, there is greater polarisation of opinions, respondents feel that either the communities benefit 'plenty' or not at all with very few respondents occupying the 'middle ground'. Whereas in Fiema 29.4% of respondents occupy a 'middle ground' 165 indicating that there are 'small' benefits for the community as a result of tourism (Table 23). Level of community benefit from tourism Boabeng Fiema BFMS (n=241) (n=360) 1990 (n=302) None 60.4 51.9 31.2 Small 6.2 29.4 29.4 Plenty 33.3 18.6 Table 23, Level of community benefit from CBNT (% of n), BFMS 2007 and from Fargey(1991). In 1990, 31.2% of respondents indicated that the communities did not benefit from tourism in the 2007 survey a much higher percentage, 51.9% in Fiema and 60.4% in Boabeng, indicate the same. Again the trend in data indicates that as tourism has increased so has the level of dissatisfaction of residents. The two most frequently cited advantages of tourism as described by respondents from both Boabeng and Fiema are that it helps to protect the monkeys (Table 19 previous section) and provides money for community projects. Community projects are funded largely through the TMC but are administered by the Unit Committees and include but are not limited to repairing the boreholes, replacing street lights, grading the roads and fixing the road gutters. 'The tourism has helped the communities to develop, it is the main source of income, everything we do we fall on the TMC for funds.' Past Assemblyman, Fiema 'Get money from tourism to do development projects, toilets at school, to buy tables for students, money to repair boreholes, and electricity. The leaders in community get money from tourism to do their work.' Focus Group Participant (Young Traditionalist Men), Fiema In addition work that was previously accomplished on a voluntary basis as communal labour, for example maintaining the grounds at the Guest House, is now paid 166 for through the TMC. Several of the community projects that were referred to by respondents are however either incomplete or are not actually funded through the TMC but through government initiatives. It is reasonable to assume that the attention the villages have received as a result of tourism provided the impetus for some government funded infrastructure development, however it is also clear that there is some confusion in general concerning what community projects are funded by the TMC, by the government or through Peace Corps Volunteers. In general, there is little understanding within the villages of who foreign tourists are. Visitors that come for a day to BFMS are clearly tourists and are categorised by some residents as the 'day visitors' but other foreign visitors including Peace Corps Volunteers, that live in the villages for two years and researchers that reside at BFMS for anywhere from one month to a year are also considered to be tourists that simply stay longer. This adds to the dissatisfaction and confusion when it comes to determining how the community benefits from tourism. Projects that were undertaken by Peace Corps Volunteers in the past, specifically pit latrines, are provided by community participants as examples of how the communities have benefitted from tourism, and several participants wonder why other visitors do not contribute as much. Individual 'sponsorship' is similarly cited as a benefit from tourism however, it is not tourists who are sponsoring young people in the villages but more often researchers who have visited BFMS many times. In addition to financial benefits, tourism was also considered to have a positive impact on conservation. Members of both villages cite the protection of the forest and protection against forest fires as major benefits of tourism. It was stated by respondents in 167 Boabeng that tourism in particular helps to protect some of the large trees like mahogany and wawa (Triplochiton scleroxylori) that are normally harvested for export. The monkey population is perceived by residents to have increased and spread to surrounding communities and this is thought to encourage other villages to work towards protecting their forests as well. Other non-monetary benefits associated with tourism are a sense of pride both in the villages and in the monkeys. People are proud that visitors come to the sanctuary to see the monkeys and feel that it is important for others to learn about the monkeys. There is a subtle difference however, between the two villages concerning the manifestation of their pride. In Fiema, pride was expressed specifically related to the Colobus and not the Mona monkeys and in Boabeng cultural pride was expressed quite strongly, whereas this was not conveyed in Fiema. Participants in Boabeng express that tourism 'helps with the traditions' explaining that questions from tourists encourage people in the village to remember and learn their own history. The youth of Boabeng were mentioned specifically as being more interested in their own culture and traditions because of the attention received from tourists. In addition, people in Boabeng express feeling proud of the fact that their ancestors protected the monkeys and the impression this give outside of BFMS. As stated by interviewees tourism, 'helps to encourage people in the village to know their own history because outsiders are learning their history.' Elder, Boabeng 'helps with the traditions because when tourists come they ask questions and so people here remember the traditions because they are repeating them.' Elder, Boabeng and finally, 168 Our parents were careful to keep the monkeys and the forest and now I am benefitting from what they did. When I go anywhere in Ghana I tell people I am from the place with the monkeys, where they live with human beings, because our ancestors were great, we must still support them.' Resident, Boabeng Tourism is given credit for creating a good relationship between the Outside world' and the villages but the feeling of pride in traditions and culture specifically was articulated more strongly in Boabeng. b) Problems associated with CBNT Initially, when participants were asked about the negative impacts of tourism the responses were that there is nothing bad about tourism, however some further questioning reveals that there are disadvantages to tourism but in general they are thought to be outweighed by the advantages as previously described. The most frequently mentioned disadvantage of tourism for both villages is that the Mona monkeys steal food from homes and destroy crops at farms but there is no compensation from the TMC or government for the losses. Likewise, no 'back yard' gardens or fruit trees can be planted because of the Mona monkeys. 'Due to tourism, we can't grow pineapple, pawpaw and plantain in the village, people used to grow them.' Focus Group Participant (Old Christian Men), Boabeng Similarly, long travel times to reach farms and restricted access to farmland are disadvantages of the sanctuary as previously discussed. As stated by one participant 'the monkeys should be protected but those protecting the monkeys also need to be protected' (Participant, Boabeng). 169 In general community members welcome visitors, however there are a few problems associated specifically with the domestic tourists received at BFMS. It was reported that Ghanaian tourists often ask for large discounts or refuse to pay the entrance fee. Ghanaian tourists, who are in general wealthy and from the largest cities of Accra or Kumasi, also reportedly insult local people as being rural, backward and somehow beneath the urban Ghanaian. Ghanaian tourists, in particular school groups, reportedly litter, make enough noise to scare the Mona and Colobus monkeys away and feed the Mona monkeys inappropriate foods, which encourages them to steal from the compounds. 'Some tourists come with conflict, some say Boabeng children are like monkeys, and ask if we have been eating with the monkeys, mostly the questions that are inappropriate come from Ghanaian school groups. They say that people in Boabeng are the monkeys and insult people here.' Focus Group Participants (Older Christian Women), Boabeng 'Some [people in the village] can feel ashamed in comparison to the visitors and some feel motivated to change.' TMC Past Member, Boabeng The disadvantages of tourism discussed here are more frequently reported by residents of Boabeng. Tourists do not commonly visit Fiema and therefore residents of Fiema are less likely to be exposed to both the advantages and disadvantages of tourism. c) CBNT Development Why do tourists visit BFMS? Boabeng Fiema (n=360) BFMS (n=302) (n=241) 1990 To see the monkeys 89.3 90.6 90.0 To see the forest 37.2 25.7 30.3 Culture 5.8 11.7 9.3 2.1 9.7 n/a I Attractions/To Learn 1 1 1 Table 24, Why tourists visit BFMS as perceived by residents of Boabeng and Fiema, (% of ?) BFMS, 2007 and from Fargey, 1991. 170 When residents of BFMS were asked why tourists visit the site the most common response (Table 24) is that people come to see the monkeys. Less than half of those surveyed indicate that tourists come to see the forest and a very small percentage of residents think that tourists visit in order to learn about the culture. Interview analysis reveals a more complex understanding of tourist activities as illustrated in the quotes below, although the emphasis remains on seeing the monkeys. 'People come to see the natural environment and the animals. The fact that people leave the forest and the animals and do not harm them is what tourists come to see.' Focus Group Participant (Young Christian Men), Boabeng 'Show them [tourists] monkeys, there are paths in the forest, people go from Boabeng to Fiema and back again, the game officers take the tourists.' Elder, Fiema 'Tourists come because it is a wonder to them that human beings live with monkeys and some people come to learn18.' Focus Group (Young Traditionalist Women), Boabeng This narrow understanding of tourism, has changed little since 1990 and limits the potential for the development of different attractions at the site. 18 the tourists who 'come to learn' refers to researchers at BFMS, which as discussed previously illustrates the confusion associated with who tourists actually are 171 Fiema /? 2 . fa Bpabeng 6W 8 > 0.5km Map 9, Current and potential tourist attractions at BFMS Legend Potential Tourism Developments P 1 Old Sesedom Village Site 2 Mothers Place I I Core Forest 3 Abudwo Shrine Lj Buffer Forest 4 Daworoh Shrine Village Settlements 5 Forest Hike Village Cemetery Current Tourist Attractions O ,—, River 6 Fiscus mmm Roads 7 Monkey Cemetery 8 Bar „ . Paths 9 Guest House 172 & k*K ESR mm SS? t WEM **<> The Daworoh shrine (number 4, Map 9), located in Boabeng, is the most obvious traditional attraction that would be of interest to visitors. A range of opinions emerged when residents of Boabeng were asked if the shrine should be open to tourists. Everyone interviewed agreed that tourists should be able to visit the Daworoh shrine if a fee is paid or a voluntary donation is made. Some suggested that tourists should only be able to visit the shrine on taboo days (Fridays) when the door to the shrine room is traditionally open and the Fetish Priest is present. The majority of interviewees suggested that the door to the shrine could be opened on any day but in this case a fee would be mandatory and the Fetish Priest must be present. The money generated would in part be used by the Fetish Priest to make the appropriate prayers and pour libations to secure the blessings of Daworoh for disturbing her on non-taboo days and could also be used by the Fetish Priest to help host traditional festivals. 173 The Fetish Priest is open to the idea of tourists visiting the shrine and has even tried to encourage this by asking the Senior Wildlife Officer to include a visit to the shrine at the end of the current tour. The GWD guides however, reported that they had not been asked to direct tourists to the shrine. When the Senior Wildlife Officer was asked about this apparent miscommunication he indicated that he had not encouraged the inclusion of the Daworoh shrine in the tour, although he felt it would be an excellent addition, as this would contribute to conflict and competition between Boabeng and Fiema as Boabeng would be seen as 'getting more' from the tourism than Fiema. Interviewees were also asked about whether or not tourists should be allowed to take pictures of the shrine. This generated a mixture of feelings with most interview participants feeling that visitors should not be allowed to photograph the shrine or should have to pay an additional fee to do so. The intrusive nature of being photographed without permission was also discussed and the conclusion in general was that visitors should seek permission to photograph residents of the villages and pay a small fee either directly to the person photographed, or as a part of their entrance fee. Focus group participants from Fiema when asked about potential tourism developments most commonly suggested the development of attractions within and around Fiema in order to attract tourist to their village specifically. The most frequently mentioned attractions were the monkey cemetery at Fiema and large trees that surround the village. 'Should show tourists the cemetery in Fiema and the big trees around Fiema.' Focus Group (Young Christian Men), Fiema 174 Discussions with residents of both Boabeng and Fiema took place during focus group workshops concerning possibilities for future tourism developments. The most frequent reply was that there should be a shop with handicrafts available for sale to tourists including traditional cloth made from the bark of the kyenkyen tree (Antiaris toxicaría), wood carvings, kente cloth and baskets. Some suggested that kente weaving and basket weaving workshops should be established so that tourists can learn about the entire process, see demonstrations and have the chance to try weaving themselves. This idea has potential however, other community-based tourism sites in Ghana are already well known for the interactive experiences they offer such as kente weaving, cloth (adinkra) stamping, or bead making. Thus, some thought would be required to create a unique experience to establish a niche for BFMS that builds on the reputation the site already has. Only one participant suggested that visitors might be interested in local farming and animal rearing, 'People are rearing grasscutter, rabbits, snails and tortoise, so people could go and see them and pay something to the owner.' (Resident, Boabeng). The development of agricultural tourism in addition to nature and cultural tourism at BFMS would require some training but little to no capital investment. The diversification of attractions at the site would encourage longer stays which could generate a significant increase in profits through the fees paid for accommodation and food. Agricultural tours that would be relatively simple to establish could include grass cutter rearing, giant land snail farming and visits to palm farms to see the production process for palm wine and akpetshie, a local alcohol. Similarly, a medicinal and edible plant tour could be offered, which would require minimal capital investment. 175 1 m* ZÏÈÊZà \ L Figure 25, Potential agricultural attractions at BFMS including snail farming (at right) and grass cutter husbandry (at left). 5.2.2 Conflict and community Conflicts as discussed in the literature review must be acknowledged within community development processes. Stakeholders must learn to work with conflict and accept that not all conflicts can be resolved. Traditional and new conflicts at BFMS has been encouraged by CBNT and the impact that these conflicts have on conservation and development will be discussed here. The first source of conflict discussed is the profit sharing as outlined in the BFMS constitution, the second conflict discussed is that between the GWD and the communities and between community organisations, the third conflict discusses is the conflict between the communities themselves. a) Profit Sharing The division of profits from BFMS known as profit sharing was negotiated and written into the constitution between 2002-2004 (Table 12, Chapter 4). Initially, the profits from BFMS were split equally between the two villages after expenses were paid, however as the profits grew a more structured approach to the profit sharing and the 176 inclusion of other stakeholders was developed. As alluded to in the previous section, many community residents are not happy with the present division of the profits. The Nkoranza Traditional Council, is the traditional ruling body for all of the lands in the Nkoranza district, including BFMS, and therefore receives 5% of the profits. As illustrated in Table 12 however, the GWD and the Nkoranza District Assembly secure the largest percentage of the profits. Details on how the profit sharing was negotiated are difficult to obtain but interviews with community leadership, reveal that there was 'pressure from above', and it is clear that the District Assembly and GWD were capable at the time of exerting enough influence and pressure to secure 40% of the profits for themselves. The justification for the arrangement with the District Assembly, disclosed in interviews, was that infrastructure developments necessary for the successful development of tourism would require their assistance, so in exchange for development assistance a share of the profits from the sanctuary would be provided. GWD staff as stated previously had been placed at BFMS in the mid 1970s to aid with the protection of the monkeys. It was reported in interviews that when the sanctuary began to make money the GWD decided that the TMC could manage the sanctuary on their own and therefore the GWD staff should be removed. In order to keep the GWD staff at the sanctuary, which was deemed necessary at the time by the TMC, a share of the profits would need to be paid to the GWD head office in Accra. It was around this time that the GWD staff also began acting as tour guides. Research reveals that at the time of negotiations, a 20% share of the profits for the GWD was thought to be too high, but the GWD would accept nothing less than what was being received by the District Assembly. 177 'The GWD was prepared to negotiate and reduce their percentage but only if the District Assembly did the same thing, Wildlife [GWD] does not feel it is fair for the District Assembly to take more than them because the District Assembly makes empty promises but Wildlife is actually doing.' Senior Wildlife Officer This exchange between the GWD and the District Assembly suggests that the more powerful stakeholders were able to manipulate negotiations in their favour. Interestingly, document analysis reveals that the constitution has never been fully ratified by all parties but profit sharing payments began in 2004. At the time of research there was considerable dissatisfaction within the communities with the profit sharing arrangement. 'The District Assembly can take the whole program at BFMS and develop it for us and take the profits or they can give up there 20% because they are not responding to us so why should they get the money.' Assemblyman 'The government benefits from the tourism that happens at Boabeng and Fiema, while we have to use our own money to do things in the community so the government should give us something, like a tractor to help with the farming.' Focus Group Participant (Young Traditionalist Men), Fiema In the researchers experience unequal social and political power, combined with culture and custom, make it very difficult in Ghana to confront authority figures. The TMC was reported to have written two letters in 2007 to the head office of the GWD in Accra asking that the relationship between the sanctuary and the GWD be reevaluated. These letters received no response. In addition, districts were being redefined in 2007 with BFMS no longer falling under the Nkoranza District Assembly but rather the new district capital of Busunya in 2008. Those interviewed seemed willing to wait and see 178 what the relationship would be like between the TMC and new District Assembly before initiating renegotiation with that party. b) GWD and BFMS This discussion is focused on the roles and responsibility of the GWD at BFMS first from a policy perspective and second, from a 'day to day' standpoint, exploring the operation and maintenance of the tourism program and the relationship that GWD has with the communities. BFMS is not directly under the mandate of any GWD policies, however analysis found that BFMS appears in GWD documents in such a way that blurs the boundaries of responsibility. A 1994 report prepared for the GWD entitled A Protected Area System Plan To Conserve Biodiversity in Ghana describes Ghanas wildlife protected area system as comprising, 'six National Parks, six Resource Reserves, one Strict Nature Reserve and three Wildlife Sanctuaries, all under the administration of the Department of Game and Wildlife...' (Grainger, 1994, p. 59). BFMS along with Bomfobiri and Owabi are included as the Wildlife Sanctuaries, under the departments administration. In the same document, BFMS is described as a 'local sacred grove protected with assistance from the GWD...' (Grainger, 1994, p. 69). The GWDs, Ecotourism Development Strategy (1997) states, '...the Department has responsibility for the protection of five coastal wetland areas designated under the RAMSAR Convention and one community initiated monkey sanctuary' (p. 7). Alternatively, the document states that community initiatives including BFMS, are 'examples of community initiatives that are occurring outside the GWD system,' but that the GWD should be involved as 'technical advisors to be of assistance to the community' 179 (Ecotourism Development Strategy, 2007, p. 36). Finally, the Wildlife Division Policyfor Collaborative Community Based Wildlife Management, (2000), which details the development of Community Resource Management Areas (CREMAs) does not name BFMS as a CREMA but states, 'Since the 1970s the Wildlife Division has supported BFMS (a traditional initiative) to preserve some primates believed to have been bequeathed to the twin community.' (GWD, 2000, p. 2). These policies allude to involvement, assistance and administrative responsibility, yet also designate BFMS as being a 'traditional or community initiative' and 'outside the GWD system'. The BFMS constitution refers to the GWD as technical advisors. Interviews reveal that the common understanding within the villages of this role is that the GWD staff are responsible for patrolling the sanctuary and are capable of arresting individuals for harming the monkeys and cutting down trees. In contrast, according to GWD representatives at BFMS, although capable of arresting individuals who harm the monkeys, the breaking of any 'forest' related rules are allegedly the responsibility of the community leadership or the Ministry of Forestry and not the GWD. Interviews reveal that in the early days of the sanctuary the relationship with the GWD was one of mutual consultation. It was stated by a past Assemblyman that representatives from the communities used to travel to Accra and to the regional Minister in Sunyani for advice and that the TMC, GWD and NCRC used to work together. 'Previously, the Wildlife [GWD] helped, they arrested people for gun shots and cleared the trails, now if there is a gun shot they don't follow it, they don't do anything, they don't weed the trails, they are collecting the money' (Resident, Boabeng) 180 The current relationship is described by a member of the TMC as 'cordial' and he added that the TMC 'can't take any decision without calling the [Wildlife] Officer'. The need to get permission from the GWD when making decisions concerning the sanctuary was repeated often during interviews and illustrates the power that the GWD exerts at BFMS. When senior officials of the GWD were asked in interviews if the communities of BFMS were technically capable of making their own decisions about conservation at the sanctuary, barring harming the Mona and Colobus monkeys, answers were not forthcoming. Interviews and focus group discussions reveal that the authority of the GWD is more keenly felt in Boabeng than in Fiema. One example of what is considered an unfair double standard for residents of Boabeng concerns the harvesting of the teak tree boundary surrounding some parts of the sanctuary. Residents of Boabeng had wanted to harvest and replant the teak tree boundary but were unable to do so as the GWD 'would not allow it.' The teak boundary surrounding Fiema, on the other hand has already been cut and replanted apparently without the GWD being aware. Another incident that illustrates the dominance and unease in the relationship between the community and the GWD concerns the owner of the bar known as Akobia's Spot or 'Wildlife's Spot' in Boabeng where visitors end their tour (Figure 26). Interviews with the owner found that on several occasions she had requested the assistance of the GWD to rid snakes from several large shade trees located next to the establishment, both for the safety of visitors and her family. The GWD had reportedly refused and in response she burned the trees around the base in order to kill them. This event illustrates the lack of power and inability of community members to access technical support form 181 the GWD, which caused this community member and stakeholder in CBNT to damage trees that have both an environmental and tourism value. \ L.V rzs¡ K3 Figure 26, D.K. Akobia's Spot/Wildlife Spot showing large shade trees and tourists (left) and a close up of the burnt base of the trees (right) BFMS, 2007. Observation by the researcher, determined that the GWD staff all reside in Boabeng and therefore have a much more immediate presence in the community. The need for residents of Boabeng to 'seek permission' from the GWD while those in Fiema act without consultation is a point of frustration for residents of Boabeng that feel their actions are being restricted unfairly. To further add to the confusion the GWD officers at BFMS have, since the early 2000s, assumed responsibility for all tourism related activities. The role of the GWD staff as tour guides was discussed during interviews and focus groups and analysis found that this has generated considerable resentment in the communities as the GWD staff are not local and are seen as taking away employment opportunities from community members. 'GWD officers can go now, there are people in the communities who are educated enough and skilled enough to do the jobs of tour guide and collecting the money, the monkeys would be safe now without the Wildlife officers at BFMS.' (TMC member) GWD are 'needed here but instead of being tour guides they need to go and patrol the forest and stop people from hunting and cutting trees and then local people could be trained as tour guides.' (TMC member) 182 'Because GWD have become tour guides they don't take tourists around the village or tell them about the shrines because they themselves are not from here. They should tell tourists about the village.' Focus Group Participant (Older Christian Men), Boabeng The day to day handling of money at BFMS was another area of considerable conflict between the communities and the GWD. At the time of research, accommodation fees and the Guest House records were maintained by the caretaker employed by the TMC but tourist payments, receipts and the visitor log book for tours were controlled by the GWD staff (Researcher Observations). These two pools of money were reported in interviews with TMC members to be collected quarterly by the Senior Wildlife Officer and handed over to the TMC for the appropriate sharing among beneficiaries. The District Assembly, GWD and Traditional Council were paid by cheque but the remainder of the beneficiaries were paid in cash. The day to day control over finances generated a great deal of debate and argument with almost no party being free from accusations of corruption. A range of opinions are present in the communities concerning the role of the GWD. Several residents interviewed feel that that since the GWD is collecting 20% of the revenue from BFMS they should be performing duties to protect the sanctuary as if it were one of the GWDs protected areas. The majority of residents interviewed believed that the wildlife staff should be removed and the revenue sharing stopped and that the communities should be responsible for the overall protection of the sanctuary and tourism. Fewer respondents indicated that the GWD should stay and continue to play the role they presently fill. 'IfGWD is here to protect the monkeys and the forest that is okay but if they are not doing that we don't need them anymore.' Resident, Boabeng 183 'In general people in the communities do not want to share the profits with the GWD, no other community with a community sanctuary are required to send money to the GWD. I personally feel it won't help to kick them out, they are seen as security people. There are trees in the forest that are worth a lot of money like the mahogany, and these would be in danger if not for the presence of the GWD. The GWD has shirked some responsibilities, they should patrol the forest but instead they treat BFMS as a resting place, when they come here it is like heaven, but their presence is needed.' Resident, Fiema 'We need the GWD Officers here but they need to work together with the TMC TMC Member In general respondents in Boabeng were quite frustrated with the GWD staff and felt that they do not fulfill their duties and the onus for picking up the slack, specifically the maintenance and clearing of trails and the collection and disposal of garbage, falls on them. Residents of Fiema, in general, are not as strongly opinionated about the duties of the GWD as they are not in frequent contact with them. A member of the TMC from Fiema, expressed the idea that people in Fiema do not really know the GWD officers he said that he 'would like some of the GWD officers to come and live in Fiema, they all live in Boabeng and the Fiema people do not know them' (TMC Member, Fiema). The unofficial merging of tourism and the GWD has also influenced how places and organisations are recognised within the communities, such that the 'wildlife division' and 'tourism' have become synonymous. The TMC, which is meant to be a community- based organisation with one wildlife officer as a technical advisor, is commonly referred to as the 'Game Committee19' or 'Wildlife Committee'. A member of the UC reported that they receive their quarterly payments from the 'Game and Wildlife' which is actually the TMC, similarly, the Visitor Centre is referred to as the 'Wildlife Office' and the bar in Boabeng where the tour ends is commonly known as 'Wildlife's Spot'. Although the 19 The GWD was formerly known as the Game and Wildlife Department 184 language used to identify places or organisations may not seem a serious issue common usages reflects and can reinforce the dominance of the GWD at BFMS. The sanctuary rules and punishments for breaking the rules are clearly outlined in the constitution, but the lack of clarity within GWD policies with regard to the official duties of the GWD staff at BFMS has resulted in a situation where the party responsible for enforcement remains vague. In addition, the shift in the role of the GWD staff at BFMS from conservation officers to tour guides contributes to feelings of frustration and anger within the communities. The environmental costs are immediately apparent: deforestation as a result of charcoal production and timber harvesting and farm encroachment are occurring within the sanctuary with no consequences for the perpetrators. The community leadership and the GWD, apathetic in response to violation of the sanctuary rules are continually communicating that forest protection is someone else's responsibility. c) Community Organisations There are three community level organisations in each village that together are responsible for the majority of decision-making and community development: the Unit Committee (UC), Nananom (traditional leadership and elders) and the TMC. The UCs, comprise 10-15 members and represent the villages within local government and are responsible for implementing policy and developments passed down by the District Assembly. Nananom are the traditional leaders and elders including the Chief and Queen Mother. Interviews with past and present TMC member found that the TMC is comprised of three chosen representatives from each village that represent a choice by the UC, 185 Nananom and the community. The Senior Wildlife Officer is a non-voting member and the Assemblyman is meant to be neutral but has the power to vote in the event of a tie. The Assemblyman is an elected position within local government that represents both villages as they are considered one political unit. However, interviews reveal that because the population of Fiema is approximately double that of Boabeng, and residents tend to vote for their own; the position of Assemblyman has never been held by a resident of Boabeng. Initially, the villages had agreed to alternate the position, starting with Fiema, but this has never occurred. This essentially weighs the TMC in Fiemas' favour albeit unofficially. The Chief, Queen Mother and Fetish Priests of both villages as members of Nananom receive a percentage of the profits as outlined in the constitution. The Fetish Priests and Chiefs are also reported to receive money from the TMC for traditional festivals. However, there is dissatisfaction expressed from both organisations. TMC interviewees report that in the past the Chiefs frequently borrowed money from the TMC and never paid it back. As stated by a past TMC member, 'During my time the Boabeng and Fiema Chiefs used to come for money and I would advise the new TMC not to do that. Use the money to do some development projects in the community because during my time Chiefs chopped20 all the money.' TMC past member, Fiema The situation at present has not appeared to change as a current member of the TMC similarly states, 'Nananom from both Boabeng and Fiema come in for loans, but we [TMC] never get it back, this is not the right way.' The most frequently cited complaints from Nananom are that they are not consulted for their opinions or to participate in decision-making and that the TMC never 20 chopped in the context of this quote implies that the Chief took the monkey but did not return it i.e. corruption 186 renders accounts. The TMC is meant to render their accounts to the community quarterly however, this has not occurred since 2003 when the 3rd TMCs term of office began. When asked directly one TMC member said that the TMC was 'wasting their time' to try to explain to the residents what the TMC was doing. He stated that the villagers are 'mostly illiterates and therefore do not understand' and that 'when the TMC wants to meet the community people won't come, so people will say they get no benefit from tourism.' This lack of transparency and communication has lead to an uneasy and antagonistic relationship between the TMC and Nananom and the community in general. In general residents of Boabeng and Fiema have no idea how decisions are made to use the profits from tourism and are not consulted in anyway. Contributing to the lack of transparency is the relationship between the UC and the TMC. In most rural communities the UC generates their budget through community taxes, and communal labour is used to maintain community projects and infrastructure. Boabeng and Fiema differ from other rural communities in that the largest percentage of the UCs budget comes from the TMC. The majority of residents however are not aware of this, as illustrated by the quote below. 'They [community residents] don't realise what they get from the community projects; the electricity and the water pipes, the money came from the TMC people in other communities have to pay taxes for these developments but here they don't, they don't know that the money has come from the TMC, because it is the UC that decides how to spend the money.' Guest House Caretaker According to the constitution the UC is supposed to submit a project plan to the TMC for approval before receiving any funds and are then supposed to follow up with an account of how the budget was spent with clear records of all cash flows. Interviews with the UC Chairmen and TMC members found that in practice the UCs are simply given the 187 communities percentage of the profits by the TMC without question or follow up. Although this informality is the norm it contributes to the lack of financial accountability and responsibility of the UCs and TMC. The UCs, TMC and Nananom are the main governing bodies of the villages yet do not actively work together. The UC Chairmen of Boabeng and Fiema report that they have never worked together on community projects and have never pooled their funds for joint initiatives. The UC Chairmen meet only to organise paid communal labour to maintain the Guest House. If there is a problem in the villages, such as outbreaks of sickness for example, malaria or cholera, the UCs meet in order to send a message to the District Health Unit. Similarly in an interview with the UC Chair of Fiema it was stated that 'the UCs may meet with the TMC before the harmattan season to discuss the prevention of forest fires.' Members of these organisations report in interviews that they would come together to address problems, however these meetings are rare and are reactive. As stated by the UC Chair of Fiema 'The UC and the TMC only come together for problems, mostly to discuss issues with the sanctuary.' (Unit Committee Chair, Fiema) d) Boabeng and Fiema: the teeth and the tongue The title for this section refers to a popular saying in Ghana that states 'a husband and wife are like the teeth and the tongue, sometimes the teeth may bite the tongue but without both the mouth cannot chew.' Boabeng and Fiema are comparable to the teeth and the tongue, distinct and unique villages, that often have a difficult relationship but still share a purpose. Residents of both Boabeng and Fiema when asked in interviews and 188 focus groups if there was a 'struggle between the communities' would more often then not say no, however an underlying tension between the villages became immediately apparent to the researcher during fieldwork and was confirmed through introductory conversations with the Chiefs and Fetish Priests. A historical conflict between the villages is acknowledge to exist by residents and the community leadership, but the exact nature of conflict both historical and current was a difficult subject to broach. Interviews with residents of the villages, but in particular with the Chiefs, convey that an ability to claim superior traditional power remains an important part of the current identity of each village. The Chief of Boabeng is the traditional caretaker of the land and thus has power over natural resources and development within the traditional system. Boabeng was recognised by all interview and focus group participants as having been established first and therefore as the 'eldest sibling' between the two villages is deserving of respect. Alternatively, the Chief of Fiema is acknowledged to be of the royal Oyoko blood line and able to act on the behalf of the paramount Chief of Nkoranza as the 'second in command' if required. This according to the Chief of Fiema affords him more political leverage than the Chief of Boabeng in the traditional hierarchical system. 'The conflict between the two communities is historical, Boabeng was the first to settle but Fiema was given the power to rule, so Boabeng is under Fiema, now however, it looks as if the two are battling for ownership of the tourism.' Past Assemblyman, Fiema 'The Fiema people were not living here, they came after Boabeng and had to get permission from the Chief of Boabeng as directed by the Nkoranzahene to settle here.' Focus Group Participant, (Old Christian Men), Boabeng In the non-traditional political system Boabeng and Fiema are considered one political unit represented by one Assemblyman in the District Assembly. As mentioned 189 previously however, Fiema has approximately twice as many people as Boabeng and therefore twice as many votes, which affords Fiema more political clout in non- traditional politics. This reality was acknowledged by several focus groups in Boabeng 'Now if anything from the government comes the Fiema people get it because their population is more.' (Focus Group Participant, Old Christian Men, Boabeng). Similarly, focus groups in Fiema recognised the imbalance but do not necessarily consider it a source of conflict, 'There is no conflict between Boabeng and Fiema, Fiema is bigger than Boabeng so for anything Boabeng comes here, so there is no conflict.' (Focus Group Participant, Young Traditionalist Women, Fiema). The continual re-election of representatives from Fiema for the position of Assemblyman does contributes to conflict between the two villages as residents of Boabeng do not feel well represented. The creation of the monkey sanctuary and tourism has forced the villages to work together but in so doing has intensified the differences between the villages. 'If not for the sanctuary the communities would have been applying for developments 'one - one' as separate entities, but now they are the Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary so they must do things together and this is a problem because Boabeng does not want projects to go to Fiema and Fiema does not want projects to go to Boabeng.' Guest House Caretaker The implementation of community development projects is another issue that is a source of considerable tension. Ownership of the monkeys' will be discussed in more detail in section 5.3, however it is also an issue that strains the relationship between the communities and as demonstrated by the quotes below is intertwined with CBNT and community conflicts. 'Struggle for ownership of the sanctuary started when we saw that there was potential for tremendous development, when we [the sanctuary] were young there was no struggle.' Past Assemblyman, Fiema 190 'When money started to enter into communities the Chiefs started to claim ownership of the monkeys. It has divided the communities.' Past Assemblyman, Fiema 'The biggest reason for the conflict is from the tourism and from Fiema wanting to get money after they saw that there was going to be something coming from the tourism.' Focus Group Participant (Older Christian Men), Boabeng 'The conflict is partially the history because Boabeng came first and Fiema came second, and now Fiema is trying to claim ownership of the monkeys, but, it is also political.' Resident, Boabeng Traditional 'ownership' of the monkeys is in particular a pressing issue for Fiema due to Fiemas' current lack of access to the forest and the monkeys. Many residents of Fiema said they would like to see more monkeys around their village because then they might see more tourists. 'Yes the communities benefit equally, the money is divided in two, so each takes a part. The monkeys belong to both Boabeng and Fiema so if tourists come they must also come to Fiema, it is not good that people only go to the forest and to Boabeng, must also come to Fiema.' Focus Group Participant (Old Traditionalist Women), Fiema 'The forest is bigger in Boabeng than in Fiema, but Fiema people want tourist to come to Fiema, but if tourists went to Fiema they would not see anything, so Fiema people are jealous of the forest in Boabeng.' Focus Group Participant, (Young Traditional Women), Boabeng But barring some major reforestation the only way to build a stronger connection to the monkeys is through historical claims (discussed in greater detail in Section 5.3.3). Alternatively, many residents of Fiema do not care that all the tourists go to Boabeng as long as the profits are shared equally between the villages. The debate over 'ownership of the monkeys' is interesting as it is a traditional and historical issue but is also currently a growing problem as Ownership of the monkeys' is becoming synonymous with 'ownership over tourism' and all the money, power and prestige that is associated with it. 191 It is important to understand that the conflict between Boabeng and Fiema does not directly impact the day to day interactions of residents. Many families are split between the two villages and researcher observation found that the flow of people and goods between the two villages is common. Where the impact lies is in the inability to work together to address problems that are relevant to both villages. The most glaring examples of this are in the construction of shared community structures, such as the health clinic and community centre. Construction of a health clinic, meant to serve both communities began in 2004 and is partially funded by the government. The clinic is located in Boabeng but to date remains unfinished. When residents of Boabeng and Fiema were asked why the clinic has never been completed the explanation boils down to the inability of the villages to maintain shared financial responsibility for a project located in one village only. 'Fiema people are many so they want to cheat Boabeng, so when some development comes they want to take more than Boabeng, for example, when the boreholes came Fiema wanted 4 or 5 and only wanted Boabeng to have 1 or 2.' Focus Group Participant (Young Traditionalist Women), Boabeng 'The struggle [between the villages] is no big deal, we are married to each other. What Boabeng people get Fiema people want, and what Fiema people get Boabeng people want. If the government has a contract for anything, like the clinic, both communities will struggle to get it.' Focus Group Participant (Young Traditionalist Men), Fiema It had been proposed by community leaders that community projects would alternate between the two villages so upon completion of the clinic in Boabeng a community centre would be built in Fiema to serve both villages. The villages however, remain unable to agree on a location for the community centre and therefore this project remains dormant. Similarly, conflict occurs over the construction of tourism related facilities. 192 'When it is raining there is no place for visitors to shelter, they are supposed to build a community centre for that purpose and for the communities to use, but Fiema won't agree, they [TMC] wanted to put it at the park in Boabeng but Fiema won't agree to give their percentage of the development fund to build the community centre there, they said build it at the Guest House, but that is not practical because the tourists come here into Boabeng. This causes some struggle.' TMC Member, Boabeng Arguably, because tourists stop in Boabeng the construction of some tourist related facilities should be located there for example a car park, resting area and latrines. Sharing financial responsibility for tourism related structures located in Boabeng has proven to be unworkable to date. When residents were asked how to address the struggles between Boabeng and Fiema it was recognised that the elders from the two villages must come together to try to solve their problems. It was also noted that, 'The problems won't be easy to solve, it is not so tense but it [the struggle between Boabeng and Fiema] is difficult to solve, people will accept solutions when the two communities are together but then there is always someone to start the struggle again and ask people why they agreed to this or that.' Participant, Fiema The ability to effectively implement a project not only requires the cooperation of Nananom, but also the UCs, as the implementation body for most village development, and the TMC as the source of financial support for the UCs. At no point, however, do these leadership bodies meet within villages or between Boabeng and Fiema to discuss tourism and community development. 193 BFMS shared community Communitygoals: Boabengdevelopment Communitygoals: DevelopmentFiema development goals Services and Infrastructure Health Clinic Police station Market (shared by both Paving the roads Community Centre villages) Toilets Post Office and Internet New teacher housing Alternative non-farm Café Loans employment (e.g. Upgrade Primary Night School for Adults tomato processing School Senior Secondary plant) Gutters for roads, and School Senior Secondary and 'clean up' or Vocational schools beautification of village Food storage to keep agricultural produce safe from monkeys Fix and build houses Natural Resource Management Cash crops (mangos, • Fuel Trees Assistance to plant a oranges) food for palm oil plantation monkeys and for people Tractors and fertilizer to sell Tourism Development Increase New larger Guest House Increase the number of accommodations tourists Swimming pool Training to produce handicrafts (carving, weaving, pottery) Accommodation for night watchman Bar at Guest House Vehicle for Guest House (suggested by Chiefs of both villages) Table 25, Future development goals that are shared by the villages and unique to each village at BFMS derived from interview data analysis. Interviews with community leadership (UC chairs, past and present Assemblymen and Chiefs) as well as residents of the villages was analysed to determine what community development goals were unique to each community and what goals were shared. The goals are summarised in the Table 25 and are presented within three 194 categories services and infrastructure, natural resource management and tourism development, and second the need to protect produce stored in homes from the Mona monkeys. Alternative employment is emphasised as a shared community development goal through non-farm employment, which includes training in the areas of soap production, animal rearing, mechanics, masonry, electrical, and sewing (seamstress/tailor). The desire to have a vocational school and the production of handicrafts to sell to tourists also speaks to the development of non-agricultural skills. It was also suggested that a tomato processing factory could provide non-farm employment, while supporting local farmers. Another shared goal is improved housing, this goal addresses two community needs, first to improve living conditions and second to improve storage facilities for agricultural products. Identifying shared community goals as a priority and securing equal financial commitments from village organisations in Boabeng and Fiema would be a good start at tackling the immediate needs of both villages. Even so, participants recognise that the inability to identify sites for shared community structures such as a health clinic, police station or secondary school, also delays community development. Some residents suggest that there should be two of everything, for example, a health clinic would be located in both Boabeng and Fiema, however most recognise that this is impractical. Others suggest that shared community structures alternate between the villages as per the original plan. When asked if there is a location that would provide equal access to residents of both villages, an area between the two villages, known as Gyiiakyi by residents of Fiema and Chocóse by residents of Boabeng, is recognised as being 'in the middle' and the best 195 location for equal and unrestricted access to shared structures. This area however, is also part of the core forest and the understanding is that the villages would need to seek permission from the GWD to build there and that permission is not likely to be granted. This area is also considered to be 'Fiemas forest' and although suggested by some residents of Fiema as a location for shared developments it is an uneasy choice. The area Konkrompe Road Fiema íakyi/Chocose Boabeng Legend Core Forest Buffer Forest Village Settlements Akrudwa Road Village Cemetery Fiema Development Boabeng Development River Roads 0.5km Paths Map 10, Sites identified for community development by residents of BFMS, 2007 196 around the Guest House was found during focus groups and interviews to be the best location for shared development as it is considered 'neutral territory' by residents of both villages and is easy to access. It was recommended that developments specifically for Boabeng should be built along the Akrudwa Road (Map 10) and developments specifically for Fiema should be located along the Konkrompe Road (Map 10) as recommended by the development plans of 1991. Understanding and prioritising community development goals does not however, address the need for tourism infrastructure that is most logically located in Boabeng. 5.3 Environmental Values: Cultural Beliefs and Practices The results presented thus far have discussed the impact CBNT and the sanctuary have had on human-environment and socio-political interactions and the potential for conservation and development. This section explores the impact that CBNT has had on values both socio-cultural and environmental. The first section presents a discussion of the changing nature of traditional and Christian religious beliefs. This is followed by an exploration of how traditional rules known as taboos are changing in the communities. The impact that CBNT has had on local history is also examined through the myth of the origin of the monkeys, the monkey burial grounds, and the oracles predictions for Boabeng and Fiema. This section closes with a discussion of changes occurring to festivals and ceremonies, specifically the yam festivals, ceremonies that occur at what is known as the Mothers Place in Fiema and the Monkey Festival. 197 5.3.1 Traditional Religious and Christian Beliefs In Boabeng 25.2% and in Fiema 18.8% consider themselves to be traditionalists, which shows a significant increase compared to 1990, when only 6.9% of BFMS identified themselves as Traditionalists (Fargey, 1991). It is interesting to note that both Fetish Priests in Boabeng and Fiema were practising Christians before being called back to the villages to fill the traditional family role of Fetish Priest. Religion Boabeng (n=242) Fiema (n=360) BFMS 1990 (n=302) Traditionalist 25.2 18.8 6.9 Christian 67.8 74.0 81.3 Table 26, Religion as a percentage of village population (% of n) BFMS, 2007 and from Fargey, 1991. The selection of quotes provided below demonstrate the strength of traditional beliefs and were chosen specifically because they are all from Christian members of the communities. 'The only reason why the monkeys are here is because of the small gods, if the small gods leave the monkeys will leave as well, Abudwo and Daworoh still have power. No one is above the laws and the community has used the traditions to set the laws so as Christians you follow the laws.' Focus Groups Participant (Young Christian Men), Fiema 'If there are no gods the monkeys would not be here. So that means Abudwo and Daworoh are here. The gods have power, now because of Christianity people are no more following the gods but still they have power.' Focus Group Participant (Young Christian Women), Fiema 'If not for the power of Abudwo and Daworoh the monkeys would not stay in the houses; there are other places that have monkeys but the monkeys don't stay, this proves that Abudwo and Daworoh have power. Because Abudwo and Daworoh are in Boabeng and Fiema the monkeys stay here!' Focus Group Participant, (Older Christian Men) Boabeng Clearly, religious affiliation is not entirely a good indicator of the strength of traditional practises and beliefs as these are often incorporated into Christian practises or simply 198 maintained 'on the side'. Therefore, in order to gauge support for traditional beliefs and practises several questions were asked that considered 'indirect indicators' such as observing taboos, visiting Fetish Priests, attendance at festivals, and interactions with the monkeys. The blending of traditional and Christian belief systems will be discussed and followed by a detailed discussion of the indirect indicators used to gauge the strength of traditional values. a) Blending of Beliefs When conducting interviews and focus groups with people who identified themselves as Christians the researcher asked about Christianity and the relationship with protecting the monkeys. It was noted that in the past when Christianity first came to the villages there was conflict between Christians and Traditionalists but that this stopped with the formation of the sanctuary and the passing of the bylaw. Christian respondents indicate that they maintain a belief in the fetish gods and traditional beliefs are incorporated into Christian beliefs in several ways. Most often participants expressed the idea that the Christian God created everything including the fetish gods and the monkeys and that because all creatures on earth are the responsibility of the Christian God caring for and protecting the monkeys is also a good Christians' duty. 'As Christians we also pray to protect the monkeys.' Focus Groups Participant (Old Christian Women), Fiema 'The biggest power is for the Christian God, and Daworoh and Abudwo are the children of the Christian God.' Elder, Boabeng '[Christian] God created humans and created small gods, so if you are not able to worship Him, you can worship the small gods.' Elder, Fiema 199 The Christian God is said to have given responsibility for the monkeys to the fetish gods but still protects them both as well. A variation on this idea but similar, is that the Christian God is said to care for people and the fetish gods care for the monkeys. The fetish gods are generally agreed to have less power than the Christian God but both are given respect for example, when people are pouring libations they speak to both the 'supreme God' and the 'smaller gods'. Continuing with the idea that there is a division of responsibility between the Christian and fetish gods, the fetish gods are most commonly said to be responsible for punishing people if they harm the monkeys and were considered by some respondents to be 'Satan's actors'. Punishments most commonly include, madness, sickness most often in the form of a swollen belly and bad luck. 'If you kill a monkey you will have problems, become mad, have sickness, and this is because of the gods because the gods still have power.' TMC Past Member, Boabeng In this case the Christian God, is responsible for rewarding good behaviours. Many respondents maintain, however, that the fetish gods are also responsible for good deeds including aiding people to have children. Christians with traditional duties and responsibilities often retain them but have developed self imposed limitations in order to maintain Christianity, for example the player of the talking drums in Fiema stated that he believed in both the Christian and fetish gods and that he 'will do what is needed at Abudwos' house, but does not eat the food cooked there anymore.' Other respondents indicate similar restrictions, in particular with reference to participating in eating and drinking foods prepared for festivals and ceremonies and pouring libations. 200 'If the Fetish Priest needs help I will go, I won't pour libations but if the Fetish Priest needs advice I can do it.' TMC Past Member, Boabeng Another approach to the blending of Christian and traditional beliefs is through continuing to respect the fetish gods, shrines and ancestors but not necessarily maintaining belief. As stated by one participant from Fiema, 'Christians still give credit to the shrines even if they don't believe, the shrines kept them safe until they saw the light so they still give respect to the shrines.' This respondent identified himself as a traditionalist and continued by saying, 'We know now about biology and that the shrines could never have produced the monkeys, but we can still give the [fetish] gods credit for their long protection of the people and the monkeys.' This participant was the only one to mention biology or allude to evolution, however scientific beliefs as illustrated here do not detract from traditional values. Several other respondents echoed the idea that the fetish gods should be respected for the protection of their ancestors for centuries before the arrival of Christianity (or science). Another approach has been the separation of the monkeys from the traditional religious beliefs, such that the continued protection of the monkeys is considered to be an integral part of culture and custom. For example, one respondent noted, 'There is less belief in the [fetish] gods themselves but the belief in the animals is strong.' Resident, Boabeng 'If you are a Christian it doesn't mean you have to neglect your custom.' TMC Past Member, Fiema Likewise it was stated by a participant in Boabeng, 'The monkeys are no more my religion but they are my culture.' Several participants indicated that the monkeys are now for the entire community and not just the responsibility of traditionalists. 201 'In the past people thought the whole thing was for the Fetish or only for the gods but now treat the monkeys as community properly, so they feel responsible for the monkeys as well as the gods being responsible for the monkeys.' TMC Member In this way traditional practices that help to protect the monkeys are upheld and are accredited to culture as opposed to religion. 5.3.2 Taboos a) Observing Taboos Traditionally the people of Boabeng and Fiema do not go to work on their farms on taboo days. Observing this tradition is taken as an indication of the strength of traditional beliefs. In Boabeng, 88.8% of those surveyed indicated that one of the reasons they do not go to their farms are taboo days, a smaller percentage, although still the majority of people, 59.4% indicate the same in Fiema. The same question was asked with regards to church as a comparison. It is interesting to note that there is a statistically significant difference (P = 0.000 Mann Whitney U Test) between the villages with regard to observing taboo days with a stronger showing in Boabeng than in Fiema but no statistical difference (P = 0.444) between the villages with regard to attending church, indicating the people in Boabeng and Fiema behave differently for the observation of taboo days but similarly for the observation of the Christian 'day of rest'. Reason for not Farming Boabeng (n=242) Fiema (n=360) Church 66.1 67.2 Taboo days 88.8 59.4 Table 27, Reasons for not farming for Boabeng and Fiema (% of ?), BFMS, 2007. Other indirect indicators of the strength of traditional beliefs and practises are illustrated in Table 28. The percentage of people that visit the Fetish Priest is nearly the 202 same for the villages, exhibiting no statistical difference (P=O. 586), however, the reasons for doing so are quiet different. Survey data shows that in Boabeng 83.9% of respondents visit the Fetish Priest to greet him, compared to only 61.4% in Fiema (P=.000). Greeting is a sign of respect and these results point toward stronger support for traditional beliefs in Boabeng than in Fiema. This interpretation is corroborated by a higher percentage of the population in Boabeng attending monkey funerals (74.4%) and visiting the monkey shrine (79.8%). In Fiema, the higher representation of people visiting the Fetish Priest for festivals and to consult the elders seems atypical however, it can be explained by the fact that the Fetish Priest in Fiema is also the Chief, and therefore persons visiting him are likely there on village business as opposed to traditional religious activities. This is supported by the survey results indicating that only 12.2% of those surveyed in Fiema visit the Fetish Priest to pour libations, a traditional activity, which is not statistically different from Boabeng (P=0.245). Traditional Behaviours Boabeng Fiema (n=360) (n=242) Visit Fetish Priest 90.1 91.4 Greet 83.9 68.3 Pour libations 14 12.2 Festivals 5.8 23.3 Problem solving/discussion with elders 4.5 22.8 Feeding Monkeys 51.7 53.3 Attend Monkey Funeral 74.4 57.5 Visit Monkey Shrine 79.8 61.4 Table 28, Traditional practises that indirectly indicate strength of traditional beliefs and practices (% of n) BFMS, 2007. The Fetish Priest of Boabeng reported that on average 4-6 people visit the shrine each week, but sometimes no one will visit. He also stated in interviews that sometimes people visit in the night because they don't want anyone to know. In comparison, the 203 Fetish Priest of Fiema reported that on average 3 people per week visit the shrine but that weeks may pass with no one coming. b) Rules to Taboos When the constitution for the sanctuary was created several rules were included that restricted residents interactions with their environment in addition to the traditional taboo and bylaw of not harming the monkeys. In interviews, residents continue to refer to most sanctuary rules as rules but the cutting down of trees inside the core forest is frequently cited as a taboo. Several participants offered that trees inside the sacred grove, were traditionally protected as the home of the monkeys however there is no consensus on this tradition. Other interviewees report that although the forest was traditionally protected, this did not eliminate cutting trees or farming within the sacred grove. What is evident is that since the formation of the sanctuary and creation of the constitution the prohibition against cutting trees has transitioned to become a taboo and is attributed more to the ancestors and traditional beliefs than to the constitution for the sanctuary. 5.3.3 Re-visioning histories a) Origin of the monkeys and species value The conflict concerning the origins of the monkeys reflects the current perceived value of each monkey species as influenced by tourism and primate research. Interviews with elders reveal that the traditional beliefs make no distinction between the two species of monkeys, each are valued equally as children of the gods. Currently the Black and White Colobus is listed as a vulnerable species (IUCN, 2009) and has been the subject of 204 primate research since 2000 (Personnel Communication, University of Calgary graduate researcher). The attention that this species has received has essentially elevated its status and changed perceptions of the taboos surrounding the monkeys as demonstrated by the quote below, 'If you kill a Mona you are not in as much trouble as if you kill a Colobus.' Chief/Fetish Priest, Fiema The changing status of the two monkey species has led to variations in the folklore concerning the origins of the monkey species. This has enabled Fiema to exert a link to the monkeys and identify the Black and White Colobus as the property of Abudwo and therefore Fiema (see Chapter Four). 'Abudwo came from a village near Kintampo, Abudwo was brought to Fiema and the Colobus came with the god. The Monas belong to Boabeng.' Focus Group Participant (Young Christian Women), Fiema The assertion by residents of Fiema that the Colobus are the traditional property of Abudwo has not gone unnoticed in Boabeng where it is suggested by residents that people in Fiema are wrongly trying to 'claim ownership' over the monkeys. The folklore of Boabeng consistently claims that both species of monkeys were found with the Daworoh shrine. b) Monkey Burial Grounds It is agreed by interviewees in both Boabeng and Fiema that the burial ground at Boabeng has been present since the establishment of the village. It is well maintained and is visited by tourists as a part of the tour. There is some disagreement however, concerning the date of establishment of the burial ground at Fiema. According to many in Fiema the burial ground has been present since the time Fiema was established. Others in 205 Fiema, and many in Boabeng, state that the burial ground in Fiema was established more recently (in the last 10 years) and many in Boabeng did not even realise there was a burial ground in Fiema. 'There is a cemetery at Boabeng and now there is one at Fiema but that is only because of tourism, there did not used to be one at Fiema' Resident, Boabeng According to the Fetish Priest/Chief of Fiema the monkey burial ground at Fiema is the original and the burial ground at Boabeng was initially for the Fetish Priests and not for monkeys, but because the people of Boabeng wanted to 'gain more recognition' they began to bury the monkeys there as well. *-w Vv ? \ VW. ?3& I ^l? Figure 27, Monkey burial grounds Boabeng (left) and Fiema (right), BFMS, 2007. c) The Oracles Predictions Tourism has also been incorporated into the legends of the shrines. Interviews with elders reveal that an oracle is claimed to have said that if the communities protect the monkeys 'white people will come to the communities'. The personal experience of the researcher however, ascertained that the inclusion of white people in the retelling of the legend is fairly new, because during the researchers first visit to BFMS in 2002/2003, white people were not included in the story of the shrine. 206 Interviews with elders who are known for their knowledge of the history of the communities and the shrines revealed that what the oracle is actually claimed to have said is that 'something good will come' and that the people of the villages do not actually know what that good thing is but now interpret the oracles prediction of 'something good' to mean tourism. 5.3.4 Festivals and Ceremonies a) Yam Festivals Yam festivals are annual events that are held throughout Ghana and are associated with shrines and Fetish Priests as well as Chiefs. For example in both Boabeng and Fiema the Chiefs of the Stools have their yam festivals and the Fetish Priests have theirs. The yam festival is meant to show thanks for the harvest of new yams and to ask for a prosperous planting and growing season for the current year. New yam is prepared according to custom and symbolically fed to the shrine in the case of the fetish and the stool in case of the chieftaincy and it is only after this that others are able to eat the newly harvested yams. Observation by the researcher found that the yam festival for Daworoh is better attended than that of Abudwo although, as stated by the Fetish Priest and Queen Mother of Boabeng it is not as well attended as it was in the past. In 2007, approximately 20-30 adults attended the Daworoh Yam Festival (personal observation). Not everyone of the Fetish Priests stool (family clan), the Beretuo, attended the festival as some members of the family have converted to Christianity. Although, some traditions associated with the yam festival for Daworoh have stopped being practised, for example the shrine used to be 207 carried so that prophesising would occur through an oracle. Now the current Fetish Priest is being instructed by elders of the Beretuo family on how to properly conduct the yam festival for Daworoh. Personal observation by the researcher found that the yam festival for Abudwo in Fiema was not well attended in 2008 when there were less than 10 people present. The Fetish Priest for Fiema explained that the yam festival was small because he prefers to emphasise the monkey festival that was planned for later in the year and that asking people to come from surrounding villages twice is too much for one year. Other traditions associated with the yam festival for Abudwo have also ceased, for example water is supposed to be collected from a river to cook the new yams however, now borehole water is used. 'Some traditions are out moded, so have to change to match with present living for example, at first when celebrating the Yam Festival for Abudwo, the women used to go to take water from Bommosua River but now they take pipe water early in the morning before other people come.' TMC past member, Fiema In addition, the Fetish Priest and elders from Fiema should attend the yam festival of Daworoh in Boabeng and in return the Fetish Priest and elders of Boabeng are supposed to attend and send palm nuts or palm oil for Abudwos yam festival in Fiema. This mutual attendance at yam festivals was reported by interviewees and focus group participants to have stopped in 2003. 'Abudwo and Daworoh are husband and wife, so for the yam festivals the people of Fiema used to come and collect palm nuts from the Fetish Priest of Daworoh to prepare soup for Abudwo, just like a husband and wife for people, but they don't do that anymore.' Focus Group Participant (Older Christian Women), Boabeng 208 Discussion with the elders of Boabeng corroborate this finding. They point out that although the yam festivals for Abudwo and Daworoh are separate events, the Fetish Priests from each village used to attend the others yam festival or send the walking stick if they were unable to attend. b) Mothers Place, Fiema In Fiema, the shrine for Abudwo was traditionally carried to the 'mothers place' (see Map 9) throughout the year on special ceremonial days. Several interviewees indicate that the traditions in Fiema are not as strong as in the past because Abudwo does not visit the mothers place anymore. It was reported that visiting the mothers place stopped around 2003 because there was no one to carry the shrine. 'Small gods don't have as much power as before. At first used to send gods to mothers place but now don't do it.' Elder, Fiema 'The traditions are weaker now because the Fetish Priest and elders are not doing their work well. We don't have someone to carry the [small] gods anymore. There are certain families to do it, but they are all Christians now.' TMC past Fiema The person to carry the shrine is traditionally a woman from the Kenaase family who is accompanied by a man who carries the elephant skins on which the shrine normally rests. The last woman to have carried the shrine converted to Christianity and a new person has not been appointed. Christianity and a lack of leadership on the part of the Fetish Priest and elders is offered by participants as an explanation for the discontinuation of these ceremonies. Many traditional ceremonies are becoming less well attended by people in the communities such as the yam festival, or have stopped altogether, such as visiting the Mothers Place. In spite of this, the ability to prove a connection to the monkeys has 21 the walking stick is a symbol of a Chief or Fetish Priest and is used as a representation ofthat person 209 become more important than the traditional meaning of the festivals themselves. This is illustrated through the conflict concerning the ownership of the monkeys and the creation of the Monkey Festival. c) Monkey Festival A 'monkey festival' as mentioned previously was created by the Chief/Fetish Priest of Fiema to celebrate world tourism day in 2007. This festival is technically for both communities but was held in Fiema with the intention that the following year it would be held in Boabeng. Chiefs and dignitaries from the surrounding villages were invited and interviewees indicate that the festival was well attended. The following year in 2008, the yam festival for Abudwo in Fiema was overshadowed by the promise of the monkey festival. Traditional activities were to be shifted from the yam festival to the monkey festival, however the monkey festival did not occur. In essence the shrine in Fiema was not celebrated either through traditional or modern festivals. This essentially eliminates the opportunity for people in the community to participate in what is arguably the most important annual festival for the Abudwo shrine. People in the communities who were asked said that they enjoyed the monkey festival very much but it is still not as important as the yam festival for Abudwo and the general feeling is that the traditional leadership is not doing their job. 'The monkey festival is bigger than the Yam Festival but not more important, because the Yam Festival is our custom.' TMC member past, Fiema 'We attended the monkey festival last year and thought it was very good because people come from villages all around and you get to meet many people. But the yam festival is more important because it is for Abudwo 210 who brought the monkeys and if we did not do the yam festivals the monkeys would leave.' Focus Group (Old Traditionalist Men), Fiema 5.4 Discussion: CBNT and Change The results of research were presented in three categories; human-environment and socio-political interactions and environmental values including changing cultural beliefs and practices. These categories are by no means discrete with changes in one impacting and influencing practice in another. Provided below is a timeline of events that shows the changes that have occurred in each category of research in context to each other through time. The categorisation is more general, divided into community, tourism and environment to allow for the identification of trends that enable a more holistic understanding of the changes that have occurred at BFMS as a result of CBNT. In the early 1970s, when BFMS was being formed the socially defined religious communities of traditionalists and Christians had the greatest influence on environmental values within the villages. Protection of the monkeys and forests at the time were the domain of traditionalists and if an individual was not a traditionalist they could choose to live outside the taboos that defined environmental values. This created two very distinct socio-cultural as well as geographic communities, as some Christians following the Saviour Church of Ghana physically moved outside of the main village sites to form satellite settlements known as Boabeng Gyiidi and Fiema Gyiidi. The formal demarcation of the sanctuary and arrival of the GWD created new rules and protocols that echoed traditional environmental values, but applied to both traditional and Christian religious communities. Although a stigma was still attached to being a traditionalist, the rules were widely accepted within the villages. 211 In the mid 1990s, another wave of change occurred with the arrival of CBNT. In general, the communities received many benefits from CBNT before 2000, such as scholarships for students and infrastructure developments. In 2000, constitutional negotiations were initiated, including the profit sharing arrangement and the GWD staff assumed the role of tour guides. Visitor numbers increased rapidly from 100-150 in 1990, to over 12,000 in 2005. Despite the success of tourism the communities experienced a decline in direct benefits. Other benefits of tourism were still realised after 2000, such as the construction of the Guest House, but the focus had shifted away from the community. During the same time period from 2000 to 2004 there was a steady decline in the support for traditional festivals in both villages but in particular in Fiema. Table 29 also illustrates that beyond the initial demarcation of the sanctuary very little has been done to encourage conservation of the forests. Year Community Tourism Environment 1975 By-law passed 1982 Fires during dry season destroy large tracks of forest in northern Ghana 1987 Last large bush fire in Fiema 1991 100-150 visitors recorded BFMS boundary mapped at BFMS Colobus population 8 groups, 128 individuals (Fargey, 1991) 1993 Pillars erected that mark the boundary of the CF (GEF) 1995 Boreholes dug in villages Borehole dug at Guest (GG) House (GG) 1996 Guest House built (UNDP/NCRC) Tourist attractions are monkey cemetery and core forest 1997-2000 1st TMC term 1997 scholarships for students, caretaker for Guest 10 Colobus groups, 163 support yam festivals House paid l/3rd of individual (Kankam, (TMC) profits (until 1999) 1997) Electricity is brought to Profit sharing is 50/50 Boabeng and Fiema 212 iGG) 1999 Grating of link road (GG) 2000-2003 2^TMC term 2000 support Fire Volunteers, Constitution for BFMS is University of Calgary maintain electricity poles created and profit sharing annual field school and bulbs, support yam negotiations begin program begins festivals, school repairs Feed Mona monkeys on 14 groups, 189-211 and scholarships for tours Colobus (Saj et al., 2004) students (TMC) Build summer hut, Plant tree species to help KVIPs (PCV) library, urinal at Guest attract the monkeys and Last TMC to render House, buy chairs, bed fill in forest accounts to the sheets, mattresses for communities Guest House (TMC) Make road signs and signs for monkey graves (TMC/UNDP/NCRC) GWD staff become guides 2003-2008 3rd TMC term begins 2003 15 groups, 217-241 individual Colobus (Wong and Sicotte, 2006) GWD stop feeding Mona monkeys on tours 2004 In Fiema, stop tradition Profit sharing payments of visiting the Mothers begin with DA and GWD Place each receiving 20% Nananom stop mutual Legend of shrine attendance at yam delivered on tours with festivals oracle indicating Construction of health 'something good will clinic, Boabeng come' (incomplete) (GG) cell phone provided for TMC stopped using Chief Wildlife Officer, communal labour to power mower for Guest maintain Guest House House, tiled bath house, start building house for night watchman (incomplete), TV, clock and radio bought for Guest House (TMC) 2005 Guest House gets electricity (TMC) 12,450 visitors (NCRC, 2006) 2006 New mattresses, tables small bush fire in Fiema and chairs for Guest House (TMC) 13,817 visitors (NCRC, 2006) 2007 Complete construction of Legend of shrine shrine room Boabeng delivered on tours with (USAID/NCRC) oracle indicating 'white 213 Begin construction of IT people will come' Centre/post office (GG) letters are sent from the community to GWD asking for the removal of the Wildlife Officers Monkey Festival, Fiema 2008 4'"itti TMC term begins Table 29, Timeline of events at BFMS. Support organisations indicated in brackets (Government of Ghana - GG) Several goals of CBNT as outlined in the literature (see Chapter Two) have been successfully met at BFMS. The Black and White Colobus and Mona monkey populations have increased and spread to neighbouring forest fragments. The villages surrounding BFMS have also begun to support the protection of the forest and monkeys such that the area under conservation is slowly expanding. The number of visitors to BFMS has increased ten-fold and the money generated from CBNT has been used to address some development needs. These successes do not equal sustainability however, and BFMS has reached a stage in its development where many difficult problems need to be addressed for the CBNT system to function and move forward. Figure 28 illustrates the format of the discussion to follow. As stated in the objectives of the research, the conceptual framework Political Ecological Place Systems (PEPS) developed in the literature review will be used to explore the environmental, socio-political and cultural changes presented in the results and summarised in Table 29. The discussion will explore how changes in human-environment interactions, as a result of CBNT, can impact the attainability of sustainable conservation and development through different lived experiences of a place. Finally, the chapter will close with an exploration of how the changes have influenced conservation and development goals, including recommendations for sustainable development that address both practical and conceptual conservation and development needs. The discussion of recommendations 214 will address the 'divergence of place meanings' which is presented as the most pressing conceptual issue that has developed as a result of CBNT at BFMS. Different lived Different Environmental perceptions of experience of conservation & CBNT Socio-political place & Cultural development Change (current & future goals) Figure 28, 'Cause and Effect' relationship of change as a result of CBNT at BFMS. 5.4.1 Human-Environment Interactions: changing realities and perceptions 'The people of Fiema have no resources, no good forest, they must come to Boabeng to collect pa, water, their land belongs to the Chief of Boabeng, but because there are many people in Fiema there is conflict between Boabeng and Fiema.' Focus Group Participant (Old Traditionalist Women), Boabeng The environment at BFMS has undergone several changes that impact not only the ecology but also the social-ecological relationships both real and symbolic. The creation of the sanctuary was accompanied by the formal demarcation of boundaries separating protected land from farmland and by the creation of rules that restricted access to most natural resources excluding the collection of medicinal plants and deadwood. As discussed previously however, residents of Boabeng and Fiema pursue a variety of livelihood activities that depend heavily on the local environment with the majority of 215 residents involved in subsistence agriculture. It would appear from the statistical data, that the people of Boabeng rely on natural resources from the local environment more than the people of Fiema. Considering that the livelihoods in both villages are predominantly subsistence agriculture and when all evidence (statistical, interview, focus groups and map data) are taken into account it is clear that relative to Boabeng, people in Fiema simply have less access to natural resources and therefore do not use wild resources as much. Although access to the forest around Boabeng is not restricted to residents of Boabeng, interviewees in Fiema repeatedly referred to that area as 'Boabeng' s forest' and therefore 'off limits' for people from Fiema whereas 'Fiema's forest' is limited to the core forest area between the two villages (Gyiiakyi/Chocose). The limited access to the forest for residents of Fiema has made the Gyiiakyi/Chocose forest a very valuable cultural and natural resource. The patterns of natural resource use reflect differing abilities to access forest resources, not a difference in the need for those resources. It is reasonable to suggest that limitations in access to natural resources as experienced by residents of Fiema has produced a perception of natural resource scarcity and a desire to promote the expansion of the sanctuary forest. In Boabeng, alternatively, access to natural resources is not as limited and farmland rather than the forest is perceived as scarce, thus encroachment into the sanctuary due to a lack of farmland is a problem particularly around Boabeng. These perceptions create the desire in Boabeng to focus conservation on improving the quality of the existing forest, before the overall expansion of the forest, which would necessitate the loss of more farmland. The areas identified as appropriate for reforestation, if the 216 need for farm land was not a limiting factor, are illustrated in Map 7. The map shows that there is very little overlap between the two communities with both groups focusing on building 'their forests'. The different perceptions of forest-farmland scarcity expressed by residents of Boabeng and Fiema has encouraged a different emphasis for conservation goals. Another human-environment CBNT induced interaction that changed slowly over time is the relationship between the villagers and the Mona monkeys. The Mona monkeys, fed on tours in the past and were exposed to a wide variety of human foods and are reportedly more gregarious and more populous as a result. The abundance of food makes migration unnecessary for the Mona monkeys and leads to lack of interaction with other Mona monkey groups. Inappropriate foods and inbreeding has the potential to lead disease. Although the Mona monkeys are no longer fed on tours and the residents of BFMS were encouraged not to feed them, almost half still do. Organising a response to this change in human-monkey interaction has proven difficult as it needed to address social and cultural behaviour in order to influence human actions and through that, the behaviour of the Mona monkeys. In addition, because of the proximity of the sanctuary to the village and farms the residents of Boabeng compared to Fiema experience more of the negative impacts of the growing Mona population. As stated previously, Mona monkeys raid crops and frequently enter compounds to steal food. The benefits on the other hand, of greater human-monkey interactions are twofold, first traditional environmental values are reinforced and second, as the monkeys are the main attraction of CBNT the residents of 217 Boabeng are able to demonstrate and exert a stronger relationship with tourism through their interactions with the Mona monkeys. Environmental transformations are perceived through lived experience of a place. The physical layout of the sanctuary has provided residents of Boabeng greater proximity to the core forest than residents of Fiema, thus altering lived experience of place. Greater access to the forest coincides with reduced access to farmland but also increased interactions with the monkeys. The unequal access to forest and wildlife resources has consequently contributed to not only difference in the lived experience of place for residents of Boabeng and Fiema but also in the divergence of place meanings as demonstrated by 'Fiema's forest' and 'Boabeng's forest'. This divergence not only impacts current access to natural resources but in turn, to follow through with the 'cause and effect' relationship illustrated in Figure 28, influences future conservation and development goals. 5.4.2 Changing Socio-Political Interactions CBNT, as stated in the introduction to this research, is meant to address the multiple demands of conservation and development encompassing the desire to link conservation and local livelihoods through tourism by providing an economic alternative to destructive habits, preserving biodiversity whilst reducing rural poverty, and of achieving both objectives on a sustainable, self-financing basis (Agrawal & Gibson, 1999; Kellert et al., 2000; Ferraro, 2001; Reid, 2003; Mowforth & Munt, 2003; Kiss, 2004; Scheyvens, 2002; DeBeer & Marais, 2005). Ideally as shown in Figure 29, sustainable conservation and development proposes that those stakeholders bearing the 218 highest costs of conservation (Stakeholder 1) should receive the highest benefits and it follows that stakeholders bearing fewer costs (Stakeholder 4) receive fewer benefits. The benefits however, should at both ends of the spectrum outweigh the costs of conservation and of tourism. High 1 Benefits 1 Costs Low Stakeholder 1 Stakeholder 2 Stakeholder 3 Stakeholder 4 Figure 29, Ideal relationship between costs of conservation and CBNT and benefits of CBNT for stakeholders in CBNT system. Attempts were made to attain this ideal and ensure that the relationship that each village had with CBNT was equal. They are equally represented on the TMC and receive an equal percentage of the profits, therefore the villages should have equal responsibility and equal opportunities to participate, contribute and benefit from tourism. Benefits within CBNT are most often assumed to be monetary but as discussed in the literature review and demonstrated by research, can include but are not limited to, skills development, strengthening culture and tradition, infrastructure and education. Benefits, both monetary and non-monetary are meant to encompass and produce empowerment which, from a PEPS perspective, can be considered an emergent property of CBNT. One non-monetary benefit shared by both communities is that residents have a sense of 219 themselves in Ghana and in the world because of tourism. Residents are proud that the villages are known internationally and that people come from far away to visit BFMS. Tourism however, is closely associated with the core forest, monkeys and monkey cemetery, which together provides the basis for the physical attractions to CBNT. As previously discussed, these attractions are associated more with Boabeng and the core forest surrounding the village. The resulting uneven distribution of tourism has contributed to an unequal distribution of the non-monetary or cultural benefits and costs associated with tourism (Figure 30). Residents of Boabeng, subjected to visitors daily, report greater cultural benefits from CBNT, such as a renewed interest in traditions, but also demonstrate a more palatable level of frustration. Residents of Boabeng, are more apt to point out the negative impacts of tourism, such as litter, noise and feelings of inadequacy, and to discuss corruption and question what contributions CBNT makes to their lives and community. Residents of Fiema, conversely, do not maintain any tourist attractions, have limited access to the forest and monkeys and therefore do not interact regularly with tourists. Residents of Fiema consequently, do not experience the costs of CBNT but also do not report significant cultural benefits as a result of CBNT. This less ideal relationship is represented in Figure 30. 220 High 1 Costs • Cultural Benefits ' $ Benefits Low Boabeng Fiema Figure 30, Representation of relationship between costs and benefits between Boabeng and Fiema. Figure 30, shows that Boabeng and Fiema receive the same monetary benefits from CBNT, but Boabeng experiences both higher costs and higher cultural benefits from CBNT than Fiema. If the cultural and monetary benefits for Boabeng do not outweigh the costs, Boabeng experiences a net cost as a result of CBNT. The figure also illustrates that for Fiema the costs and cultural benefits of CBNT can be less than the monetary benefits such that overall, the residents of Fiema can experience a net benefit. While it is difficult to directly compare monetary and non-monetary benefits, what becomes evident is that although Boabeng and Fiema are 'twin villages' and the monetary benefits they receive are equal, the rapid growth of tourism and its impact is not a shared experience. The imbalanced distribution of CBNT and consequently the costs and benefits of CBNT in the context of BFMS have several consequences. First, inequalities fuel both current and historical conflicts between the communities. Second, as with future conservation goals, Boabeng and Fiema are rarely able to agree on tourism development 221 goals. Therefore the tourism product at BFMS has not diversified to stimulate development nor to take advantage of the growth in their tourism market. Third, on a conceptual level, tourism place values reaffirm traditional place values such that tourism contributes to a strong sense of place for residents of Boabeng that is associated with traditional values and their local environment. In contrast, residents of Fiema have limited access to tourists, monkeys and forest resources and therefore do not derive a sense of place from CBNT. The limited role that tourism plays in Fiema means that residents of Fiema are not invested in tourism development. Again the disparate costs and benefits of CBNT have contributed to a divergence of place experiences and meanings for residents of Boabeng and Fiema. Obviously the communities are not the only stakeholders at BFMS. The political scale of CBNT far exceeds the ecological scale such that regional and national level stakeholders are included and, as outlined by PEPS, the scale of research is important for accurately interpreting results. The reality at BFMS as shown in Figure 31 is that the highest monetary benefits are received by the stakeholders (GWD and DA) bearing few direct costs of conservation and CBNT and that in comparison the stakeholders who bear the highest costs (the communities represented by the Unit Committees) receive the lowest monetary benefits. Overall, non-monetary benefits are low relative to both monetary benefits and costs. Non-monetary benefits only have the potential to begin to outweigh monetary benefits (% of the profits) in Boabeng where the positive and negative impacts of CBNT are the most direct. 222 30 25 ? % of the Profits C 20 WD fi •c j2 15 !Non- monetary Benefits g io Oh pp 1 Costs Wl' ' ' ???? •o co Cm ce 00 ce CJ U C a -¦ ? O CO pa pa ^ d 60 s G ? "? U Cm 'ß J- ? PQ ? ? O ? ce D 3 N es ? C ti-. Js ce li 'S O 2i ? o Figure 31, Representation of the relationship between the costs and benefits amoung stakeholders at BFMS including the actual percentage of the profits received by stakeholders as outlined in the BFMS constitution. Non-monetary benefits and general costs are s schematic representative of the trend and are not numerically accurate. Previous to CBNT and the formalisation of profit sharing, which also formalised the involvement of other stakeholders, the costs and benefits of CBNT were borne almost exclusively by the residents of Boabeng and Fiema. The GWD were present at BFMS and bore costs of conservation through the secondment of their staff at the sanctuary but bore none of the costs of CBNT. As the potential for benefits from CBNT grew however, and profit sharing came into effect, the balance of benefits, power and control shifted towards the larger stakeholders. The GWD secured the monetary benefits of tourism to offset their costs of conservation and likewise the DA secured the monetary benefits of 223 tourism to offset their costs of promised development. The conservation and development investments expected by the communities based on the monetary benefits received by the GWD and DA had at the time of research not come to fruition (demonstrated in Table 29, Timeline of events at BFMS). This imbalance has contributed to inequalities within the CBNT system that occur on a much larger socio-political scale than CBNT itself. The shifting nature of control, as the role of the GWD evolved from one of protecting the monkeys and the forest to one of managing and implementing CBNT is not only reflected in profit sharing but also in the use of language at BFMS. In 1975, what was formerly a taboo became a bylaw and power to enforce this bylaw was entrusted to the GWD. This transfer of authority was necessary due to the immediate need to protect the monkeys. In the early 1990s, the sacred grove was officially mapped and became known as the Sanctuary comprised of the core forest and buffer forest. The constitution was created which formalised the relationship between the stakeholders involved at BFMS and also captured many traditional taboos as rules. At this time the communities also saw the development and rapid growth of tourism. As shown on the table below at some point between the demarcation of the sanctuary boundaries in 1991 and the start of negotiations to create the constitution in 2000 the control of CBNT began to shift away from the communities to the GWD. From the communities perspective changes in terminology have not always been associated with a loss of control as changes can lend authority and strength to ideas. At BFMS the reincarnation of the taboo as a bylaw in 1975 was initiated from within the communities and is a point of pride, representing the significance of the traditional beliefs beyond the bounds of the villages. Alternatively, changes in language that are driven by 224 external actors that define a place as belonging to one stakeholder to the exclusion of another are equally as powerful if detrimental. The dominance in this case of one set of terms associated with the GWD, over another associated with the communities and traditions, in combination with disparate costs and benefits, influence over organisations (e.g. TMC) and the physical possession of objects and locations associated with tourism (e.g. visitor centre, log books), represents control and power over physical place and place meanings. Year Changing use of Language 1975 Taboo Bylaw 1991 Sacred Grove Sanctuary: core and buffer forest GWD transitions focus from conservation to CBNT 2000 Traditional taboo Constitutional rules Current Visitor Centre Wildlife Office Akobia's Spot Wildlife Spot Tourism Management Wildlife Committee Committee (TMC) Table 30, Representation of the change in language at BFMS and shifting nature of control and responsibility. From a PEPS perspective, more stakeholders participating in CBNT should act to increase the resilience and adaptability of the socio-natural system, providing the opportunity for the system to draw on resources from a much wider field. Ideally, the formal recognition of the sanctuary and profit sharing should not have taken authority away from local leadership but instead encouraged more parties to assume responsibility for the development of BFMS. Instead we see the movement of power away from the local without the equivalent transfer of responsibility. Scale is a factor that influences the inequalities between actors. As stated previously the political scale of CBNT far exceeds the ecological scale. In and of itself this diversity of scale should not be a problem 225 however, scale also has a physical component such that a larger political scale often corresponds with a greater physical distance from the CBNT place. If sense of place evolves out of ones' interactions with a place it is reasonable to assume that those stakeholders acting at a larger scale, lacking frequent and meaningful interactions with place, will not share the same sense of place as stakeholders residing at or in the CBNT place. If sense of place is embedded in the landscape, it is therefore detrimental to the CBNT system to have stakeholders in positions of superior power and control that are disconnected from that landscape (both in terms of values and geography). Contradictions of scale, rewards, responsibilities and power and control result in an unstable CBNT system. Imbalance in a social-political system, much like a biological system, is not sustainable and an unstable system will correct itself or it will cease to function. Using PEPS as a lens, the unstable CBNT system can be identified by the presence of conflict and the stagnation of community and tourism development and conservation. Conflict and stagnation are practical problems that can be addressed but will continue to arise if the conceptual issues behind these problems are not challenged. 5.4.3 Changing Values: Cultural Beliefs and Practices CBNT has over the years made it acceptable to protect the monkeys and removed the stigma attached to being a traditionalist. Hence, a higher percentage of BFMS residents identify themselves as traditionalists now than in 1990 and the current proportion of traditionalists at BFMS is higher than the national average. The acceptance of both religions as being valid and the identification of traditional beliefs as 'culture and conservation' as opposed to 'religion' allows Christians to maintain their Christianity 226 while participating in traditional activities. Traditionalist beliefs in this way have become the cultural norm of the two villages, making it acceptable, and indeed desirable, to maintain 'traditional' environmental values thereby encouraging a conservation ethic. Many participants expressed that the protection of the monkeys is now considered a community responsibility whereas in the past protection of the monkeys was for traditionalists only. The 'neutralisation' of traditional beliefs as a result of tourism in combination with modern education, has nevertheless generated a corresponding loss of traditional authority. Members of the traditional leadership, Nananom, the Chiefs and the Fetish Priests report lower attendance at festivals and an overall decline in respect for traditions. This puts the Fetish Priests, in particular, in a difficult position. They are still seen by the communities as the traditional caretakers of the shrines and therefore responsible for the well-being of the monkeys, but now have a limited capacity to punish wrongdoers through traditional avenues. Importantly, although traditional authority has decreased it has not detracted from the belief in the ability of the small gods to punish wrongdoers. An interesting and perhaps unexpected outcome of CBNT is that it has inspired a reinterpretation of the communities' histories. In addition to reinterpreting the origin of the villages and monkeys, tourism is understood as the fruition of the oracle's prediction that 'something good will come' to presently mean 'white people will come'. At BFMS the reinterpretation of the oracles' prediction has meant not only that the traditions have remained prominent, but also that the communities do not question the validity of tourism, whether they are benefitting from it or not. Place-based theory emphasises that places have a distinct historical component (Relph, 1976) and that traditional place 227 meanings can be jeopardised in the face of tourism. What the research suggests is that traditional place meanings are malleable and that traditional beliefs and culture can be simultaneously reinforced while supporting current meanings of place. This is also demonstrated by the transition of rules to taboos where, for example, 'no cutting of trees' has become cemented as a traditional value that simultaneously reinforces current conservation oriented meanings ofplace. The addition of CBNT, has also provided fuel for traditional disagreements by changing the interpretation of the communities histories and traditional beliefs and practices. At present a conflict between the villages has developed over what is authentic and original and over the monkeys as objects associated with tourism and traditional authenticity. As stated previously, the lack of forest, and therefore monkeys, surrounding Fiema has meant that the village has limited access to established tourist attractions and the perceived power and prestige that tourism brings. Although, tourists are able to visit Fiema while at BFMS they rarely do, giving many in Fiema the impression that they have nothing to do with tourism. The Monkey Festival, as discussed in the results, created and hosted by the Fetish Priest/Chief of Fiema was one attempt to address this imbalance and gain greater access to tourism. Since the ability to attain more access to current attractions, however is limited, the Fetish Priest/Chief of Fiema is also attempting to assert a firmer connection to the traditions by establishing a monkey cemetery in Fiema and by 'claiming ownership' of the Black and White Colobus. The research suggests that the Black and White Colobus are perceived to have a higher relative 'tourism and prestige value' compared to the Mona monkeys. Thus, in the context of current conservation and tourism values there is 228 more to be gained by asserting a link to the Black and White Colobus. The Black and White Colobus are identified as a vulnerable species by the IUCN and have been the subject of research since 2000. The Black and White Colobus receives international attention while the Mona monkeys are considered an amusing pest. The traditional value of the Black and White Colobus has been heightened by CBNT while the traditional value for the Mona monkeys has remained the same. This has altered how the communities and in particular residents of Fiema value the monkey species placing greater value on the Black and White Colobus. The desire to strengthen traditional connections reflects the transformation of place meanings through CBNT. In Fiema this is limited to the strongest symbols of tourism associated with the monkeys. The small gods and other non-tourism related traditional beliefs and practices receive virtually no attention as they are not valued equally as a CBNT resource. Traditional duties and festivals in Fiema, such as the Yam Festival for Abudwo and visiting the Mothers Place, have been overshadowed by the pursuit of tourism related activities such as the Monkey Festival. In addition, shared traditional practices such as the mutual attendance at the annual yam festivals for Daworoh (Boabeng) and Abudwo (Fiema) that would have reinforced the creation of shared place meanings have ceased to occur. The general population of Fiema would prefer that traditional festivals and ceremonies are maintained and expressed dissatisfaction with the traditional leadership. Boabeng is markedly different. Surrounded on three sides by forest, residents are confident of their connection to the monkeys and forests both as objects associated with tourism and as symbols of tradition. Residents of Boabeng do not need to demonstrate 229 traditional authenticity, yet this does not mean that residents of Boabeng are not bothered by Fiema's claim to the Black and White Colobus. The struggle over Ownership of the monkeys is a great source of dissatisfaction and represents a conflict between the two communities that has been almost completely generated by CBNT. The feelings about community identity expressed by residents of both villages is that what makes them distinct is what makes them important; distinct from the rest of Ghana and also distinct from each other. Previous to CBNT, the desire for distinction from each other, lead the Chiefs and residents of each community to emphasise their different traditional roles and responsibilities. Under the influence of CBNT cultural beliefs and practices have been reinterpreted and contributed to a transformation of place meanings. 5.5 Conservation and Development: sustainable change? The most pressing theoretical issue that has emerged from the research is the divergence of place meanings within a socio-political framework that does not allow for these changes. The uneven impact of CBNT, combined with the intensified historical struggle between the communities, the physical layout of the sanctuary and proposed future development of the villages has created two distinct and diverging places (Map 11). The present research has uncovered a divergence of place that has been an unfortunate and previously unforeseen outcome of CBNT development. The lack of shared place contributes to a lack of shared goals, encourages conflict, and inhibits the sustainability of conservation and development. As the place meanings of the communities diverge however, they remain simultaneously united and confined by their 230 designation as one political unit and one 'tourism' unit. Tourism development at BFMS has branded the communities as 'the twin villages of Boabeng-Fiema' which forces them to act as one unit for both marketing as an attraction and functionally through the TMC. The singularity of BFMS as a socio-political and tourism entity is not reflected in development plans. Fargey recommended in 1990 that Fiema expand to the north-west and Boabeng to the north-east, (indicated by arrows on Map 11) thereby increasing the distance from each other in order to leave the forested area between the villages intact. Previous to this recommendation, the residents of Boabeng had begun to build along the road linking the villages and if the communities had been left to grow uninhibited they would have eventually met 'in the middle'. Development along this road was at the time halted by the GWD in order to protect the forest there and thus far the villages have expanded in the recommended directions. The divergent expansion of the villages has made the construction of shared community structures a source of considerable conflict and by cementing the physical division between the communities has contributed to the traditional, cultural, political and ecological divide. The ability of the GWD to control land use also challenged community held place meanings and demonstrated the dominance of conservation values. Place meanings for Gyiiakyi/Chocose have nevertheless continued to evolve. Map 1 1 illustrates the Wildlife/Tourism place which overlaps with Fiemas place in the core forest between Boabeng and Fiema. Currently the social, tourism and ecological value of Gyiiakyi/Chocose as 'Fiema' s forest' and the only physical link that residents of Fiema have to the monkeys and subsequently tourism exceeds its community development value and its eradication is largely unacceptable to residents of Fiema. 231 Fiema ^"'. Legend /¦¦ Öoabeng Core Forest V Buffer Forest Village Settlements Village Cemetery Fiemas Place X. Boabengs Place Neutral Place 22 Wildlife/Tourism Place River Roads 0.5km Paths Map 11, Representation of the divergence ofplace meanings at BFMS. The inability to find a location for shared development and the ongoing conflict between the villages has brought development in the communities to a halt. This lack of development is contributing to dissatisfaction with CBNT as reflected by the respondents repeatedly saying that feel they 'get nothing' from tourism, resulting in a negative feedback loop encouraging environmentally destructive behaviours such as encroachment for farming and felling trees for charcoal production. On a practical level encroachment, is a response to inadequate access to agricultural land. On a conceptual level, 232 encroachment, interpreted through the PEPS lens represents a form of conflict and environmental transformation. If official forms of communication between stakeholders within the CBNT system are inoperable the landscape can be used as an alternative medium of communication. In this respect, dissatisfaction with CBNT as discussed in the results is expressed by encroachment upon protected land. In addition, the presence of encroachment illustrates that as discussed by Bryant and Bailey (1997), conflicts over natural resources are indeed a manifestation of the ideological struggle of what constitutes appropriate environmental use. In the case of BFMS, 'conservation and preservation' remain the dominant environmental paradigm and surpass community needs and concerns. In order to meet the goals of sustainable communities and sustainable conservation, there is a need to create a shared sense of place. That sense of place is ultimately grounded in interactions between people and personal interactions with the environment. Future development must focus on bringing the villages together physically so that the actual village sites interact. The creation of a shared physical place will foster a shared sense of place and engender shared interests and cohesive action because problems and goals will be shared. It should be noted that shared place meanings are not static place meanings; the continual evolution of shared place is inevitable but the participation in this process by all actors should be emphasised for sustainability. 5.6 Recommendations and Conclusions The creation of shared sense of place requires a flexible and adaptive approach to not only development but also conservation. The following recommendations address the 233 changes to human-environment and socio-political interactions and cultural beliefs and practices identified in the present research an that are a result of CBNT. These recommendations are made with the awareness that diverse environmental values, from utilitarian to spiritual, must be acknowledged. Recommendations are discussed and summarised in Table 31, that are practical in nature but also address conceptual requirements for the creation of a sustainable CBNT system. Recommendations Practical Outcome Conceptual/Theoretical Outcome 1 . Village growth along loss of Gyiiakyi/Chocose forest create shared sense of place link road patch loss of traditional environmental allow villages to merge values in Fiema decrease access to natural resources for residents of Fiema cut off Fiemas link to tourism resources 2. construction of Conserve Chocose/Gyiiakyi address conflict and contribute to shared community allow for implementation of shared sense of place structures only in Guest community development House area 3. Relocation of conserve Chocose/Gyiiakyi and address conflict and contribute to Boabeng to Guest Akrudwa wildlife corridor shared sense of place House area provide enough space for create a more sustainable Boabeng to expand conservation and development allow for implementation of approach at BFMS shared community and tourism reinforce traditional values and development goals generate environmental values more equitable distribution of based on CBNT for residents of tourism, by providing Fiema opportunity for residents of address power imbalance between Fiema to participate in tourism the communities 4. Planting fuel and meet immediate livelihood needs challenge dominant preservationist food trees of residents place meanings demonstrate responsive empower communities conservation approach contribute to development of a decrease illegal charcoal conservation ethic production empowerment 5. Monkey proof food increase livelihood security address changing CBNT system as storage decrease access to 'human foods' Mona monkey population grows for Mona monkeys thereby encourage traditional encouraging dispersal, environmental values and a interbreeding and a more robust conservation ethic genetic diversification of Mona monkey groups 6. Corridors increased area of protection for expand the physical area of the conservation Mona and Colobus monkeys CBNT place thereby increasing biodiversity protection the potential for the development include other forest fragments of shared environmental values to and therefore other communities surrounding communities 234 in conservation encourage a more holistic approach to conservation that is not species oriented but focused on an ecological system 7. Tourism education manage expectations of increase power of communities in communities negotiations with other ownership of tourism stakeholders, create a more development balanced CBNT system 8. Diversified tourism generate economic development empower residents of Fiema product distribute tourism attractions through CBNT between Boabeng and Fiema shared sense of place derived from tourism strengthen traditional values in Fiema via tourism sustainable CBNT 9. Render accounts encourage transparency and empower community residents decrease conflict generate conservation ethic based increase understanding within on benefits from tourism communities of the costs and benefits of CBNT 10. Regular meetings address conflicts between generate shared sense of place between the TMC, UC communities through common goals and actions and Nananom strengthen community leadership increase power and control of the communities through a unity, add in creating balance within the CBNT system Table 31, Recommendations and practical and conceptual/theoretical outcomes for community development and conservation at BFMS. The first set of recommendations (Table 31, numbers 4 to 6) concern conservation. As the village populations continue to grow a reliable and accessible source of fuel will become one of the largest environmental concerns at BFMS. Although this action is not supported by the GWD, the cultivation of rapidly growing fuel trees should be revisited as well, other alternative sources of fuel must be identified. These actions are necessary if the long term protection of the forests is to be successful. If these actions are not carried out the illegal harvesting of trees for charcoal production, which already occurs will have a devastating impact on the forests. Similarly, the planting of food trees that are consumed by both humans and monkeys should be explored further and included in reforestation efforts. Research by the University of Calgary, as previously discussed, has identified the most common plant food species consumed by the Black and White 235 Colobus, therefore the cultivation of food trees could address both food security for residents and conservation needs. Planting food trees can be coordinated with reforestation efforts such that the bare patches within the core forest are replanted first, this would not affect agricultural land and is an approach that is agreed upon by residents of both villages giving the opportunity to strengthen the relationship between the communities by addressing a shared conservation goal. The active involvement of residents in conservation that meets household livelihood needs will also encourage stewardship of natural resources and allow residents to participate in conservation as opposed to being subjected to it. This in turn could contribute to the development of a strong sense of place that is based on a conservation ethic and positive interactions with the local environment and wildlife. The second set of recommendation concerns the production, management and impact of CBNT (Table 31, numbers 7 to 10). The research shows that the communities do not have a good overall understanding of tourism as a cultural phenomena nor as a business. It is unclear to most residents how profits from tourism are used, who tourists are, what products or souvenirs are marketable, what will attract tourists and how to develop those attractions. This is understandable as most residents are unaware of the activities of the TMC, have never had the opportunity to be a tourist or visit other CBNT sites. Therefore, tourism education is required that addresses both a practical and conceptual understanding of tourism. Programmes are needed to aid residents with skills such as basket weaving, carving, soap production, and food preparation that are adaptable to the tourism industry. In addition tours must be developed that diversify the product provided by BFMS and distribute the tourism attractions more equitably between 236 Boabeng and Fiema. The TMC must render accounts publicly in a format that is accessible on a regular basis. How the money generated from tourism is spent to meet expenses and how profits are managed by the UCs must be transparent. To this end the TMC, UCs and Nananom should be proactive and meet regularly. Understanding tourism as a cultural phenomena must also be addressed, who tourists are both international and national, what their expectations are, what impacts they may have both positive and negative needs to be discussed with residents of both villages in order to manage expectations. Finally, tourists themselves must be better educated upon arrival at BFMS. Issues such as noise, littering, taking photos and giving gifts ought to be addressed in order to manage the impact of CBNT. With respect to the larger approach to conservation and development three recommendations have been generated from the research to address the need for a shared sense of place (Table 31, numbers 1 to 3). The first is to recognise that 'acres of land protected' does not always ensure better conservation and accept the loss of the Gyiiakyi/Chocose forest in the name of development and the creation of shared sense of place. The second option, as suggested by members of both communities, is to build shared community structures in the are around the Guest House. This land presently used for farming is considered to be a 'neutral place' by members of both communities (Map 11), and therefore structures that are meant to be shared by the communities would be equally accessible. The Gyiiakyi/Chocose forest would remain protected both as a resource for residents of Fiema and as a corridor for the monkeys. The third potential approach, that is perhaps more drastic but also has the potential to be more effective, is to relocate the village of Boabeng entirely. Relocation was suggested by one resident of 237 Boabeng and the Senior Wildlife Officer. Although the relocation of a village may seem extreme it is the one suggestion that would address several practical conservation and development issues (Map 12). Fiema' s forest would remain protected ensuring access to natural resources for residents and habitat for monkeys. The Akrudwa wildlife corridor which, if Boabeng continues to expand as planned will come under increasing pressure form human encroachment, would also be protected contributing to the conservation of the monkey populations. Relocation would provide enough land for Boabeng to expand and the communities could grow towards each other, enabling equal access to community structures, and away from the core forest. In addition residents of Boabeng would have the opportunity to construct better compounds and structures that would protect their produce from the Mona monkeys and ideally residents of Fiema would be able to receive the same infrastructure investment. This suggestion is of course not without challenges, in particular the need for infrastructure such as water and electricity, but it is also not without benefits. Shared community facilities such as a market, transportation terminal and police station would be located along the main road and easily and equally accessible to residents of both Boabeng and Fiema. The current road leading to Boabeng, which is an unrecognised tertiary road would not need to be maintained. Abandoning this road is economically more attractive but also more suitable for conservation. Upgrading this road to meet the growing needs of Boabeng would require the cutting down of several large tree stands and increase the potential for vehicle-wildlife incidents (Figure 32). If Boabeng was relocated the village Would remain near to current farming areas and therefore not 238 • Fiema • New Boabeng Map 12, Recommended conservation, community and ^^ tourism developments o.5km for BFMS. Legend Core Forest Buffer Forest Village Settlements Village Cemetery New Boabeng Site Reforestation New Tourism Facility Proposed direction of village development River Roads Paths 239 negatively impact current agricultural practice. Finally, if a high end tourist facility is built at BFMS, as proposed by NCRC for future tourism development, the current village site of Boabeng could be used without the need to clear any forest for construction of facilities or roads and with water and electricity already available. *?» t M Figure 32, Clearing of the forest for road construction, on the main road to Fiema (right) (2008) and photo of the large tree stands on the tertiary road leading to Boabeng that would be threatened by road construction (left). Both roads are within the sanctuary boundaries. Relocation of Boabeng as a conservation and development alternative would also address the conceptual issue of shared sense of place by allowing the villages of Boabeng and Fiema to grow together physically meeting along the main road from the Guest House to Fiema. As the physical separation of Boabeng and Fiema has encouraged different lived experiences of place and subsequently different conservation goals the physical connection of the villages has the potential to generate shared place meanings through interactions in a common place and through interactions with a common place. Shared environmental values which can be generated through shared place makes for better conservation. The introduction of CBNT at BFMS has changed the context for conservation and development yet the approach to address these goals has yet to similarly 240 evolve. As discussed in the literature review, it is necessary to recognise sustainability as a situated concept that is a process that must continually adapt and respond to changing contexts. To this end it is time to revisit land use at BFMS with a focus on the current context and for the potential of change to encourage shared place meanings. 241 Chapter Six: Contributions to Theory and Conclusions 6.0 Introduction This chapter is intended to move back to the theory after the in-depth examination of the issues in the case study by revisiting Political Ecological Place Systems and evaluating its effectiveness as a conceptual tool in the investigation of CBNT. The conceptual assumptions and inconsistencies associated with CBNT will be revisited and new insights derived from the use of PEPS will be discussed. The discussion will continue with an exploration of the contributions that PEPS can make to the theory and literature of conservation and development including an exploration of the transformation of place meanings and the proposed 'system of change'. The chapter will close with a discussion of place resiliency and conclude with a brief review of the chapters. As discussed in the literature review practical problems associated with CBNT such as the distribution of economic benefits are closely associated with more abstract issues such as power and control over tourism. Although well documented, the significance of addressing practical issues should not be ignored as the consequences are often immediate. Practical problems are however, only the symptoms of greater conceptual issues. As stated by Proctor, 'Theory, far from being unrelated to actual events, is necessary to inform our understanding of these events and point to necessary components of a workable solution. If there is insufficient formulation of what the problem is (as informed by theory), then solutions cannot ultimately do what they are intended to do.' (Proctor, 1998, p. 367) The need within CBNT research for a more robust theoretical perspective led in the present study to the development of a new conceptual framework (PEPS). PEPS is used as an analytical tool for research. The use of PEPS to interpret the research findings 242 provides insights into how human-environment, socio-political interactions and cultural practices and beliefs change as a result of CBNT. The analysis found that scale is an important factor when investigating the impact of CBNT. It is often assumed, as stated in Chapter Two, that a larger scale is necessary to adequately evaluate the impact of ecological conservation. The present research illustrated that a smaller scale is required to truly understand the impacts of ecological, socio-political and cultural change in a community. Another important result of analysis is a new perspective on sustainability. Overall the study found that place meanings can diverge under the influence of an external stimulus such as CBNT, and that a shared sense of place is required for sustainable conservation and development. Several recommendations were made in the preceding chapter that addressed both practical and conceptual issues faced by CBNT, and conservation and development in general. 6.1 PEPS: Addressing conceptual assumptions and inconsistencies Five questions were presented in Chapter Two that highlighted the need for a more robust conceptualisation of human-environment interactions: • What is community? • Conservation of what? • What is conservation for? • Tourism: economics or empowerment? • Sustainability: goal or process? The ability of PEPS to address these questions and the new perspective this framework brings to these questions will be explored here. 243 6.1.1 What is community? The literature describes communities as diverse, indiscreet and based on notions of self-interest and conflict. The importance of the physical location of community is acknowledged, however, downplayed in comparison to the impact of other socio-political factors such as gender, ethnicity and religion. The present research has uncovered the importance of geographic location of communities on the influence to access to ecological, cultural and economic resources. Physically discrete resources are also shown by the research to contribute to discreet communities demonstrating the impact of an active landscape as presented in PEPS. PEPS also reveals that communities are situated in place and while this leads to the generation of place meanings, communities are also the products of place. This cyclical relationship is open and can be influenced and altered through economic, political, social and cultural stimuli. The changes that occur as a result of external stimuli influence the structure and composition of communities and subsequently the creation and transformation of places. PEPS has also shown that although communities are open to stimuli and influenced by inputs from larger economic, political, social and cultural scales, it is difficult for communities to similarly affect change on a larger scale. As demonstrated by the research the flow of information and influence is not unidirectional but it is also not balanced as illustrated in Figure 33. Therefore communities as actors that influence change are shown through PEPS to be most effective on a small scale. 244 Greater influence of actors and ideas from a larger political, economic, environmental & cultural scale on the community. Community ability to influence \ political, economic, x enviornmental and cultural change is limited to a smaller scale. Figure 33, PEPS framework of scale-community relationship. 6.1.2 Conservation of what and what for? The environment represented at the non-anthropomorphic end of the environmental values spectrum (Figure 3) is presented as an active, continuously changing organism. Conservation of this 'organism' has recently taken precedent over conservation of the component parts of the organism. Thus, ecosystems and biodiversity, not species, are the focus for conservation efforts. It was also stated in Chapter Two that multiple resource users have multiple environmental values ranging from utilitarian, to aesthetic, to spiritual. In the social discourse perspective of values presented in Chapter Two, values are described as an integral part of the structures and institutions of society. While people embrace the values of society, they are also instrumental in constructing and reconstructing them through everyday social interactions. PEPS suggest that values are not only constructed from social interactions but also from environmental interactions. Values are therefore contextual resulting from interpretation of social and environmental phenomena, such as CBNT, and are not stable or universally accepted 245 (Mclntyre et al., 2004). A PEPS analysis reveals that where social and environmental values meet, both conceptually and physically, places are generated. Places therefore become a focus for conservation efforts and the physical location of place is shown to play an important role in conservation and the formation of values associated with conservation. PEPS has also illustrated that the creation of a conservation ethic does not always result from economic gains from conservation. As demonstrated by the research, a conservation ethic associated with a place can also be generated from spiritual and instrumental values. Values, and in particular spiritual values, were shown through the cast study to be both adaptable and enduring. Conservation ethics that are derived from spiritual and other non-economic values deserve more attention in the development of alternative approaches to conservation. The focus then shifts from conservation of the environment to the conservation of values and places that foster a sustainable relationship between people and their environment. This shift is a fundamental change in how conservation is conceived and influences how academics and practitioners should approach the planning and implementation of conservation. 6.1.3 Tourism: economics or empowerment? The discussion presented in Chapter Two questioned the role of tourism as a development tool. Is tourism a tool for economic development or for social and political development? Can tourism address both? Tourism has great potential to generate economic benefits but the distribution of those benefits, as influenced by power and politics, requires greater attention. Tourism, similar to other economic and political 246 activities, is embedded in the social and cultural dynamics of the community. As such, tourism acts as a forum for playing out the politics of every day life. PEPS suggests that the influence of 'power and politics' on economic development has two potential outcomes. The first outcome is corruption and conflict and the second outcome is the creation of empowerment and a conservation ethic. If tourism is to be an effective conservation and development tool a focused effort to manage the outcomes of tourism is required. Corruption and conflict are often the result of power imbalances between participants in CBNT. Addressing these issues is difficult but can be aided by a management structure that is equitable and transparent. Conflict and corruption are also reduced when all participants are equally invested in CBNT. The creation of a conservation ethic was explored in the previous section but empowerment as an outcome of CBNT will be discussed in more detail here. Empowerment, within a PEPS framework is situated within place. As such, empowerment needs to be investigated with attention to scale and within a cultural context. The scale of empowerment is often assumed to be the community. It is however, individual members of the community that derive a sense of empowerment from community benefits. Unfortunately, community benefits without adequate communication and dissemination of information are often not recognised by individuals. The positive impacts of community tourism are therefore lost if community members are unaware of the gains received and development begins to 'break down' below the community scale. In addition, within an economic framework of empowerment as traditionally presented by community-based tourism, the ability to generate and take advantage of economic opportunities is more frequently at the scale of the individual. 247 Individuals for example, can be engaged in economic activities provided by tourism such as guiding, catering, and craft/souvenir production. Economic opportunities for community groups are possible, for example cooperatives, but require a committed and focused effort to be successful. Opportunities for empowerment can also be influenced by cultural norms. The opportunity for individuals to earn a cash income is often desirable however, the accumulation of personal wealth can be considered inappropriate, in particular within a traditional system that is based on acceptance via conformity and a rigid hierarchy. Depending on the cultural context economic gains are often not kept by individuals but redistributed to family and relatives. Individuals in this case are often not motivated to achieve personal gains due to the potential for social disruption and therefore access to benefits from community-based tourism are difficult to achieve. 6.1.4 Sustainability: goal or process? The literature review explored sustainable conservation and development and presented sustainability as a situated concept that must be recognised as a process rather than a finite goal. While real and measurable goals are achievable the ever-changing context for sustainability requires the constant re-evaluation of conservation and development objectives. Sustainability was further explored within PEPS and presented as an emergent property of a self-stabalising and adaptive socio-natural system. If the socio-natural system is defined by places as suggested by PEPS, then it follows that for places to be sustainable they must also be self-stabalising and adaptive. 248 Places, to return to Tuan's definition, are centres of felt value. Values, as discussed in Chapter Two, include cognitive (thinking) values and affective (feeling) values. This research has shown that affective values, which encompass spiritual and traditional beliefs, can contribute more to the formation of place meanings than cognitive values. It is therefore time to reject the long held belief that economic/cognitive values are the most important values motivating conservation and development. The idea that sustainability is at least in part a product of affective values associated with place shifts the focus of the conservation and development agenda. Similar to the previous discussion of conservation, the question that arises is: What do conservation and development goals contribute to the creation and maintenance of affective values that foster place meanings and sustainability of place? Society, ultimately, acts to conserve and protect what is valued therefore the creation of places that have the emergent property of sustainability must include the creation of or maintenance of affective values that contribute to place meanings. 6.2 Transformation of Place PEPS has proven an effective instrument for addressing the conceptual assumptions and inconsistencies of conservation and development. It is now pertinent to ascertain what new insights PEPS can contribute to further the theoretical understanding of conservation and development, the first contribution to be explored is the transformation of place. As societies transition from traditional to 'modern' forms of conservation traditional value systems may in theory be destroyed. In contrast, the research has shown that traditional values are resilient in the face of competing and 249 complementary value systems. This suggests that the construction and reconstruction of values described by the social discourse perspective is not necessarily a process where existing place meanings are destroyed by new place meanings, but rather a process of change and transformation. This study suggests that place meanings are transformed in five different ways as outlined below, • place meanings can diverge leading to conflict and the inability to address conservation and development needs, • place meanings can diverge but reduce conflict by allowing actors to define and function within places free of the challenge of other place meanings • place meanings can converge creating shared sense of place and potentially reduced levels of conflict, • place meanings can be destroyed and replaced by other place meanings, and finally • place meanings can be layered and coexist The dissertation investigated two of the theoretical forms of place transformation presented above in the empirical research: divergence of place meanings; and the layering and coexistence of place meanings. AU proposed theoretical outcomes of place transformation deserve investigation in an empirical setting and can be considered for future research. Ideally transformation of place meanings would be a shared experience leading towards sustainable conservation and development. This research however, highlights the fact that perceptions of transformations of place are influenced by both historical and current context and that diverse stakeholders will generate diverse and divergent place meanings. The transformation of values and corresponding place meanings therefore 250 becomes central to the creation of sense of place and the process of sustainable conservation and development. The mechanisms by which places are thought to transform are through changes in layers and focal points and through a proposed 'system of change'. These ideas will be discussed and how these ideas are integrated within PEPS are presented below. 6.2.1 Layers and Focal Points The research demonstrated that place meanings can diverge as a result of stimuli both external and internal to the socio-natural system. If divergence of place meaning is possible it stands to reason that convergence is also possible, but how are these changes occurring? PEPS presented the idea of episodic and incremental change applied to both ecological and social processes. PEPS will be used now to further explore the mechanisms of place transformations. It is proposed that place values occur in two different forms, layers and focal points that contain both a spatial and temporal element. The research in Chapter Five shows that layers are conceptualised as translucent sheets of meanings and values that occur over a wide geographical area. As illustrated in Figure 34, several layers of value (Layers A, B and C) can be maintained for one area. Layers are likely to overlap and are not often exclusive. Layers can coexist without conflict but that relationship is contextual and can change as the socio-political, ecological and cultural contexts evolve. The layers in Figure 34 are shown to change (moving down the figure) as the place transforms. 251 Place Actor 1 Layer C Actor 3 FocalPoint Layer A Focal Point Layer B B Actor 2 i Place Actor 1 ¡ Layer ¡ C Actor F°calPoint LayerA \\ /,_,(; V-U>Focal \ ?A V-'''; Layei;! Point J Actor 2 B x7***¦ B" ~ "-'' Place /TOcaì\ í Point ! Actor 1 LayerA ; i Layer ', Focal Point V " Actor ? Layer C i 3 Figure 34, Representation of the transformation of place through interactions between layers, focal points and actors. 252 The actors, which can be but are not limited to individuals, communities or organisation (Actors, 1 , 2 and 3 in Figure 34) can ascribe to several layers of meanings simultaneously, or be associated with only one layer of meaning. The relationship that actors have with different layers can also change over time. Focal points are conceptualised as small areas or objects (natural and of human design) that act to focus or anchor layers and overall place values. A focal point can carry many values over time but rarely simultaneously. Focal point values are more often exclusive and represent specific or dominant actors. Focal points act to concentrate place meanings and values and are highly treasured and highly contested as a result. Together the relationship between layers, focal points and actors creates place. When layers, focal points and actors change the entire place transforms. As illustrated in Figure 34 fluctuations within place ideally do not affect the overall sustainability of place meanings. As layers, focal points and actors evolve, the place adapts and responds to these internal changes and continues to exist. As a result of this research and through the use of PEPS it is suggested that place meanings, derived from layers and focal points, can transform through two different processes: (1) episodic; and (2) incremental. These processes of change are informed by political ecology. Political ecology suggests that environmental changes occur in two ways: both rapidly, as an episodic event; incrementally or slowly over time. The present research would suggest that social change can occur in similar ways and, to carry the hypothesis to its completion, socio-natural change and the values associated with socio- natural systems can also change incrementally or through episodic events. It is proposed that episodic changes occur at focal points and are often accompanied by conflict and sudden changes in place meanings (Table 32). Incremental 253 changes, in contrast, occur to layers and are punctuated by smaller conflicts or sustain less intense conflict over longer periods of time. Incremental changes result in the gradual transformation of place meanings, such as the gentrification of an urban neighbourhood. Incremental changes are also conceptualised as occurring to an entire layer but originating at the conceptual and physical periphery of layers and places. Focal points are conceptualised as being anchored to a layer and if the focal point meaning changes it will rapidly spread throughout the entire layer an example from the research is control over access to the visitors centre. Until recently the visitors centre, a focal point of place values at the sanctuary, was controlled by the GWD. GWD control of this focal point infused a layer of place meaning within the sanctuary (Map 1 1) with the conservation values of protection and exclusion. Community control of the visitor centre rapidly changed the values connected with the associated layer to community held traditional and cultural values. The change in meaning of this layer in turn transformed the entire sense of place from a place dominated by a protectionist approach to conservation to a place of community-based conservation and development. Place Meaning Types of Change Layer Focal Point Episodic Through focal point change Intense conflict & short time ______frame Incremental Small and/or less intense Through layer change ______I conflicts & long time frame Table 32, Conceptual relationship between place meanings (layers and focal points) and categories of change (episodic and incremental). As discussed in this research the temporal dimension of PEPS adds another element of complexity to the conceptualisation of place transformation. Layered and 254 focal point changes can occur in a linear fashion such that place values are transformed through current changes creating new place meanings. But change is also proposed to occur in a non-linear fashion or retroactively as demonstrated by the revisionist histories of the communities. The meanings and values ascribed to a layer from the past are transformed as a result of current stimuli and context. As shown in Figure 35, the change of Layer B in the past to Layer Bi influences the current Place Meaning 2 into the future Place Meaning 3. Revisionist changes may be difficult to identify as they become written into the current interpretations of the past, however they are important to the overall understanding of how to achieve sustainable conservation and development in continually changing contexts. MMI MMI I I change change Temporal Scale "" I '" I I Place Meaning 1 Place Meaning 2 Place Meaning 3 ' Layer A Layer A Layer A t -f Layer B — — -. — -f. Layer Bi Layer Bi Layer C Figure 35, Representation of the relationship between changes in place and layers on a temporal scale. 6.2.2 Place and Scale The transformation of place meanings within a real world context is constrained by the challenge of multiple scales. In the previous section, place meanings were shown to be influenced by changes within a temporal scale. This section will explore the creation and transformation of place meanings across both ecological and socio-political 255 scales. As discussed previously the socio-political scale of CBNT or any form of community-based conservation can far exceed the ecological scale. If place meanings are in part derived from personal interactions with the ecological place it is reasonable to assume that actors who are able to frequently interact with a place will develop a different set, or stronger place meanings than actors who do not. Based on this and the research carried out in the case study, the researcher concludes that actors who are a part of the socio-natural system defined by CBNT that have frequent interactions with the ecological place develop place meanings that are more likely to encourage investment in sustainable conservation and development. Conversely, actors who do not interact frequently with the ecological place will develop different or lack strong place meanings, which may discourage investment in the sustainable conservation and development of place. Cheng argues that place-based research should not inherently privilege residents- in-place, but rather include all parties that care about a place to which they share common identities (2003, p. 101). The research shows however, that common identities, may be dependent upon the ability to interact with an ecologically defined place and this place may occur on a small scale or be inaccessible to all actors. If actors do not or are unable to interact with the ecological place, common place meanings may be impossible to achieve. The affect of scale on the formation of common identities and place meanings reintroduces and reiterates the importance of the physical expression of place. Accepting that common place meanings are essential for sustainable conservation and development leads to the questions: Is it possible without frequent place-interactions for place 256 meanings to be scaled up? What mechanisms can be developed to generate common place meanings at a larger scale? The researcher concludes that it may be possible for some actors to form a bridge between the small scale ecological place and the large scale socio-political place. These actors who function across scales would essentially act as liaisons, transferring place meanings and establishing a relationship between small-scale and large-scale actors. Another approach to the creation of common place meanings is to determine what value or meaning is essential in the unification of intent and action which encourages the development of this common thread across scales. This research has demonstrated that the challenges posed by multiple scales has contributed to the difficulty of applying place-based management. As stated previously, research must recognise the importance of being here, rather than there (Smale, 2006) and apply this understanding to the implementation of place-based management. If it is not possible to scale up place meanings, as demonstrated by the case study research, then the functionality of a place-based approach to conservation is optimally defined by the scale of the physical-ecological place not the scale of the socio-political or socio-natural system. Place-based conservation in this framework then occurs nested within a systems approach to conservation and development. 6.3 The hidden system of change This discussion will address how the interactions and relationships between actors within a socio-natural system are conceptualised through PEPS. The CBNT system is understood to be comprised of several interacting 'parts' that ensure the overall ability of 257 the system to function. Socio-political and economic parts such as stakeholders, values and infrastructure interact with ecological parts such as rivers, forests and wildlife through processes such as deforestation, agriculture, and wildlife viewing. This study reveals that there is a 'hidden' system that operates simultaneously influencing all parts and processes of the socio-natural system. This system includes power, control, responsibility, rewards and accountability. The parts of this 'hidden system' have been largely conceived of as passive or as the product of other system processes. For example, participation by stakeholders in community-based conservation will facilitate skills development and reinforce traditional knowledge leading to an increase in power and control. PEPS suggests that the 'hidden system' should not be conceived of as an outcome of the socio-natural system but rather as the system that generates change. This perspective then flips the conceptual focus of sustainable conservation and development such that human-environment, socio-political and cultural changes are not mediated and managed through skills development, empowerment, forest protection and wildlife but rather through the relationships and balance between power, control, responsibility, rewards and accountability. The relationships between the parts of the system of change are enacted through different actors. Although fluctuations will occur with different actors obtaining different levels of power, control, accountability, rewards and responsibility in general, for a socio- natural system to function, these parts must maintain stability. Figure 36 presents a schematic representation of a stable system of change. The parts of the system are equally represented for both Actor A and B, but it is recognised that one actor may have more power than another or more accountability than another but that overall the relationship 258 between the actors is stable. Stability does not mean equal or unchanging but rather, a constant state of fluctuation within an acceptable range so that no one actor obtains a level of power, control, or rewards to a degree that the relationship between the stakeholders becomes inequitable and the system becomes unstable (Figure 37). Actor A Actor B Control Control Power Power Rewards Rewards Responsibility Responsibility Accountability Accountability Figure 36, Schematic representation of a stable 'system of change'. Figure 37 presents a schematic representation of an unstable system of change and illustrates the imbalance that can occur between actors. In this representation the parts of the system of change are inequitably distributed between the actors such that Actor A has responsibility and control and Actor B has accountability, rewards and power. The relative 'size' of the squares also represents the inequitable distribution of the parts, for example Actor A has a small amount of control relative to responsibility. This is one representation of the imbalance of parts between actors but there is potential for several 259 other combinations of parts within the system of change. For stability to be maintained the CBNT system must be resilient, encompassing flexibility and endurance. The symptoms of systems instability as mentioned previously, are conflict, corruption, environmental degradation and stagnation. Actor A F Actor B nJSS'WVWnü usaras* SsBwS SEES?! Figure 37, Schematic representation of an unstable 'system of change'. A critical part in the conceptualisation of the system of change is the need for accountability. Accountability is akin to a feed back loop in a biological system that acts to maintain equilibrium. Within a socio-natural system, however, power and accountability interact such that the ability of an actor to hold another accountable is a function of power. Two questions that arise that are theoretical in nature but with practical implications are: Is it possible for an 'accountability actor' to function internal to the system? Or must the 'accountability actor' be external to the system in order to 260 remain unaffected by fluctuations within? The researcher concludes that for accountability to be effective as an internal part of the system of change, the 'accountability actor' must have at a minimum, equal power to the most powerful actor within the system. If a balance of power is impossible the 'accountability actor' must be found external to the system of change. It should be noted that external to the system of change is not necessarily external to the socio-natural system. It is also vital that the accountability actor is able to function at all scales of the system of change. The amorphous nature of the proposed system of change means that the system is able to function on several scales. The definition of scale is broadened to include physical scale, socio-political scale as well as temporal scale. Temporal scale is of particular interest in the context of cultural beliefs and values. As demonstrated in this study different cultures may have different conceptions of what is past and what is present and therefore perceive sustainability to include not only responsibility to future generations but responsibility to past generations as well. Sustainable conservation and development is then approached through the balance between the parts of the system of change at different physical, socio-political and temporal scales. 6.4 Conclusion and Summary The strength of a PEPS perspective of sustainable conservation and development is the emphasis on change and transformation. PEPS has shown through the present case study research that socio-natural systems evolve through a process of place transformations that include the episodic and incremental transformation of layers and focal points and that the success or failure of the system is a function of the (in)stability 261 of the 'system of change'. Figure 38, presents the relationship between place transformation and the system of change. This relationship will be discussed and the conceptualisation of place resilience presented as the desired outcome of sustainable conservation and development. The system of change is understood to influence the relationship between actors as shown by the arrows in the diagram. As stated previously, a balance between power, control, responsibility, rewards and accountability must be maintained for the system of change to remain functional. The result of the stability or instability of the system of change is the transformation of place. It is postulated that the transformation of place will be sustainable if the different parts of the system of change remain in balance. Transformation of place has several potential theoretical outcomes: • the divergence of place meanings • the convergence of place meanings • the destruction and replacement of place meanings • the coexistence and layering of place meanings The relationships presented in Figure 38 are also all shown to occur within a multi-scale socio-natural system. Scale is understood to include ecological, political and temporal dimensions making place resiliency across scales a more complex issue than originally perceived. 262 control power rewards responsibility accountabilityfe> A Place Layer C Actor 2 4G Actor 1 Focal Point ayer A A Focal Point Layer B B Transformation of place mediated by the system of change I Place Resiliency ; Figure 38, Conceptual representation of place resiliency and the component parts of the socio-natural system. 263 Returning to Figure 38, the combination of place transformations and systems of change produce place resiliency. This research found that place resilience encompasses a more robust conceptualisation of sustainable conservation and development. Place resiliency is characterised by constant fluctuations within the 'system of change', and the creation of shared places through the process of place transformations. A resilient place has the ability to absorb and respond to changes within and external to the socio-natural system without jeopardizing the overall ability of the place to function. The internal parts of a place are still subject to change and may completely transform over time however, if a place is resilient it will maintain functionality. For example, the actor that holds the most power may at some point be the actor to hold the least power and if a place is resilient the sustainability of conservation and development will not be threatened by this change. Similarly, place meanings may change and evolve but for the place to remain resilient some aspect of place meanings must continue to be shared. Place meanings are more likely to be 'selected' and 'passed on' by actors within a continuously changing context if they are shared. In addition if a wide diversity of actors exists the conservation and development of the place will be more sustainable, or the place will be more resilient if a greater diversity of actors share place meanings. For example, if a farmer, activist, local politician and international conservation organisation share place meanings that act to conserve a river, when the context changes for that river in such a way that may threaten the health of the river and overall place meanings (e.g. the establishment of a fish nursery or creation of a dam) the place will be more resilient and be more likely to be conserved because of the diversity of actors involved. Place resilience is challenged when 264 the socio-natural or socio-political scale of the system exceeds the scale of place meanings. Therefore, it is vital to determine the optimal scale for place resiliency when designing, implementing and managing conservation and development. The question posed at the beginning of this dissertation was how do we humans manage our use of the environment in such a way that decreases human poverty and encourages human development while at the same time protecting and restoring biodiversity and the life-sustaining functions of ecosystems for ourselves and other species now and in the future? Community-based nature tourism (CBNT), as a socio- natural system that combines human development and conservation was used as an avenue into research in an attempt to address this larger societal question. Therefore the goal of research as outlined in the introductory chapter of this dissertation, was to identify how human-environment interactions and environmental values (cultural beliefs and practices) change as communities move from traditional forms of natural resource management to alternativeforms such as CBNT. It was argued that the practical problems associated with CBNT were rooted in conceptual assumptions and inconsistencies that required a more robust conceptual framework. To this end, systems theory, political ecology and place based theory were integrated to create a new conceptual framework Political Ecological Place Systems (PEPS). PEPS addresses the theoretical challenges of CBNT and provides the opportunity for a more thorough approach to research. Chapter Three, outlined the research methodology. Critical realism was described as the chosen methodological theory and the case study approach, triangulation and the tools and techniques used to gather data were reviewed. Chapter Four, provided a comprehensive account of the historical and current 265 context of the research area in order to understand the impact of CBNT on human- environment and community interactions, addressing the first goal of research and providing the basis for understanding and interpreting the data presented in Chapter Five. Chapter Five addressed the second goal of research by providing a rich description of the social, cultural, political, economic and ecological changes that have occurred at the study site as a result of CBNT. Chapter Five also provided the arena to 'test' the new conceptual theory, which proved to provide great insights into the impacts of CBNT on conservation and development. Chapter Five closed with recommendation for managing change that addressed both practical and theoretical challenges. In Chapter Six, Political Ecological Place Systems was revisited and the theoretical contributions to the conceptualisation of sustainable conservation and development were explored. Place transformation and systems of change were proposed as new conceptualisations derived from a PEPS approach to research. Research has contributed to the practical management of conservation and development through a more complex conceptualisation. PEPS has also proven to have the potential to be a valuable tool in the exploration of socio-natural systems. 266 References Adams, J., & McShane, T. (1996). The myth ofwild Africa. Berkeley: University of California Press. Alpert, P. (1995). Incarnating ecosystems management. Conservation Biology, 9(4), 952- 955. Alpert, P. B. (1996). Integrated conservation and development projects examples from Africa. BioScience, 46, 845-855. Agnew, J. A. (1987). Place andpolitics in Massachusetts. Allen and Unwin Inc. Agrawal, A., & Gibson, C. C. (1999). Enchantment and disenchantment: The role of community in natural resource conservation. World Development, 27(4), 629-649. Ampadu-Agyei, O. (1988) Bushfires and management policies in Ghana. The Environmentalist, 8(3), 221-228. Anderson, D., & Grove, R. (1987). Conservation in Africa: People, policies andpractice. New York: Cambridge University Press. Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal ofAmerican Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216-224. Attuquayefio, D. K., & Fobil, J. N. (2005). An overview of biodiversity conservation in Ghana: Challenges and prospects. West African Journal ofApplied Ecology,! , 1-18. Asibey E. O. A., (1986). Wildlife andfood security. Pages prepared for FAO Forestry Department, Rome Bailey, K. D. (1998). Social ecology and living systems theory. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 15(5), 421-428. Belsky, J. M. (1999). Misrepresenting communities: The politics of community-based rural ecotourism in Gales Point Manatee, Belize. Rural Sociology, 64(4), 641-666. Bengtsson, J., Angelstam, P., Elmqvist, T., Emanuelsson, U., Folke, C, & Ihse, M. (2003). Reserves, resilience and dynamic landscapes. A Journal ofthe Human Environment, 32(6), 389-396. Berkes, F. (2004). Rethinking community-based conservation. Conservation Biology, 18(3), 621-630. 267 Blackstock, K. (2005). A critical look at community based tourism. Community Development Journal, 40(1), 39-49. Blaikie, P., & Brookfield, H. (1987). Land degradation and society. London and New York: Methuen and Co. Ltd. Boaten I, N. (1990). Asante: The perception and the utilization of the environment before the twentieth century. Institute ofAfrican Studies, Research Review, 6(2), 19-26. Bow, V., & Buys, L. (2003). Sense ofcommunity andplace attachment: the natural environmentplays a vital role in developing a sense ofcommunity. Paper presented at the Social Change in the 21st Century, Queensland University of Technology. Brandon, K. E., & Wells, M. (1992). Planning for people and parks: Design dilemmas. World Development, 20(4), 557-570. Breidenhann, J., & Wickens, E. (2004). Tourism routes as a tool for the economic development of rural areas-vibrant hope or impossible dream? Tourism Management, 25, 71-79. Brennan, F., & Allen, G. (2001). Community-based ecotourism, social exclusion and the changing political economy of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. In D. Harrison (Ed.), Tourism ant the less developed world: Issues and case studies (pp. 203-221). Oxon UK: CABI Publishing. Brandenburg, A.M. & Carroll, M.S. (1995). Your place, or mine: the effect ofplace creation on environmental values and landscape meanings. Society and Natural Resources, 8, 381-98. Brogden, M. J., & Greenberg, J. B. (2005). The fight for the West: A political ecology of land-use conflicts in Arizona. In S. Paulson, & Gezon, L. L. (Eds.), Political ecology across spaces, scales, and social groups (pp. 41-60). New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Bromley, D. W. (1995). Development reconsidered: The African challenge. Food Policy, 20, 425-438. Brosius, P. J., Tsing, L. A., & Zerner, C. (1998). Representing communities: Histories and politics of community-based natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources, 11(2), 157-168. Brown, D. (1998). Participatory biodiversity conservation: rethinking the strategy in the low tourist potential areas in tropical Africa. Natural Resource Perspectives, 33, 1-19. Brown, G. G., Reed, P., & Harris, CC. (2002). Testing a place-based theory for environmental evaluation: an Alaska case study. Applied Geography, 22, 49-76. 268 Brown, G., & Raymond, C. (2007). The relationship between place attachment and landscape values: Toward mapping place attachment. Applied Geography, 27, 89-1 1 1 . Brunner, R. D., & Clark, T. W. (1997). A practise-based approach to ecosystems management. Conservation Biology, 11(1), 48-58. Bryant, R. L. (1992). Political ecology: An emerging research agenda in third-world studies. Political Geography, 11(1), 12-36. Bryant, R. L., & Bailey, S. (1997). Third worldpolitical ecology . London: Routledge. Buckley, R.C. 1999. Sustainable tourism and critical environments. In T.V. Singh & S. Singh (Eds.) Tourism in Critical Environments, (pp. 21-34). New York: Cognizant Communication Corporation Buckely, R. (2003). Case studies in ecotourism. Cambridge, USA: CAB International. Burns, P. M. (2004). Tourism planning: A third way? Annals of Tourism Research, Sl(I), 24-43. Butler, R. (1991). Tourism, environment and sustainable development. Environmental Conservation, 18(3), 201-209. Butz, D., & Eyles, J. (1997). Reconceptualizing senses of place: Social relations, ideology and ecology. Human Geography, Series B, 79(1), 1-25. Callicott, J. B., Crowder, L.B. & Mumford, K. (1999). Current normative concepts in conservation. Conservation Biology, 13(1), 22-35. Campbell, L. M. (1999). Ecotourism in rural developing communities. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(3), 534-553. Campbell, L. M., & Vainia-Mattila, A. (2003). Participatory development and community-based conservation: Opportunities missed or lessons learned? Human Ecology, 31(3), 417-437. Campfens, H. (1997). Community development around the world. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press. Canter L. (1977) Environmental impact assessment, McGraw-Hill College Carlsen, J. (1999). A systems approach to island tourism destination management. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 16(4), 321-327. 269 Chapman, J. (2004). Systemsfailure: Why governments must learn to think differently. London: Demos. Chambers, R. (1983). Rural development: Putting the lastfirst. England: Addison Wesley Longman Ltd. Chambers, R. (1997). Whose reality counts? Putting thefirst last. England: Intermediate Technology Publications. Charnley, S. (2005). From nature to ecotourism? The case ofNgorongoro conservation area, Tanzania. Human Organization, 64(1), 75-89. Checkland, P. (1989a). Soft systems methodology. In J. Rosenhead (Ed.), Rational analysisfor a problematic world: Problem structuring methodsfor complexity, uncertainty and conflict (pp. 71-100). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Checkland, P. (1989b). An application of soft systems methodology. In J. Rosenhead (Ed.), Rational analysisfor a problematic world: Problem structuring methodsfor complexity, uncertainty and conflict (pp. 101-120). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Checkland, P., & Scholes, J. (1990). Soft systems methodology in action. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Cheng, A. S., Kruger, Linda E., & Daniels, Steven E. (2003). "Place" as an integrating concept in natural resource politics: propositions for a social science research agenda. Society and Natural Resources, 16, 87-104. Clark, J. (2001). Contributions to the critique of political ecology. CNS, 12(3), 29-36. Cleaver, F. (2001). Institutions, agency and the limitations of participatory approaches to development. In B. Cooke (Ed.), Participation: The new tyranny! (pp. 36-55). London, UK: Zed Books. Cole, K. (1999). Economy environment development knowledge. London: Routledge. Coleman, J. S. (1990) Foundations ofsocial theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press Cornwall, A. (2003). Whose voices? Whose choices? Reflections on gender and participatory development. World Development, 31, 1325-1342. Crober, A. M. (1999). The ecosystems approach to ecosystem management. Unpublished PhD, University of Waterloo, Waterloo. 270 Curtin, P. (1969). The Atlantic slave trade: A census. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press. Davenport, M. A., & Anderson, D. H. (2005). Getting from sense ofplace to place-based management: An interpretive investigation of place meanings and perceptions of landscape change. Society and Natural Resources, 18, 625-641. Dawson, C. P. (2001). Ecotourism and nature-based tourism: One end of the tourism opportunity spectrum? In S. F. McCool, & N. R. Moisey (Eds.), Tourism, recreation and sustainability: Linking culture and the environment (pp. 41-54). UK: CABI Publishing. DeBeer, F., & Marais, M. (2005). Rural communities, the natural environment and development- some challenges, some successes. Community Development Journal, 40(1), 50-61. Decher, J. (1997). Conservation, small mammals, and the future of sacred groves in West Africa. Biodiversity and Conservation, 6, 1007-1026. Dieke, P. U. C. (2001). Human resources in tourism development: African perspectives. In D. Harrison (Ed.), Tourism in the less developed world: Issues and case studies (pp. 61-75). Wallingford Oxon UK: CABI Publishing. Diaz, S., & Caceres, D. M. (2001). Ecological approaches to rural development projects. Artigo, 17(Supplement), 210-208. Dzorgbo, D. S. (2001). Ghana in search of development. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Echtner, M. C. (1999). Tourism in sensitive environments: Three African success stories. In T. V. Singh & S. Singh (Eds.), Tourism development in critical environments (pp. 149- 162). New York: Cognizant Communication Corporation. Ellis, F., & Biggs, S. (2001). Evolving themes in rural development 1950s-2000s. Development Policy Review, 19(4), 437-448. Entrikin, J. N. (1991). The betweeness ofplace. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press. Entrikin, J. N. (1999). Political community, identity and cosmopolitan place. International Sociology, 14(3), 269-282. Ephson, I. (1970). Ancientforts and castles ofthe gold coast (Ghana). Accra, Ghana: Hen Publications Escobar, A., & Paulson, S. (2005). The emergence of collective ethnic identities and alternative political ecologies in the Colombian Pacific rainforest. In S. Paulson, & L. L. 271 Gezon (Eds.), Political ecology across spaces, scales and social groups (pp. 257-277). New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Fairhead, J., & Leach, M. (2003). Science, society andpower: Environmental knowledge andpolicy in West Africa and the Caribbean. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fargey, P. J. (1991). Assessment ofthe conservation status ofthe Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary. Kumasi, Ghana: Wildlife and Range Management Department, Institute of Renewable Natural Resources, University of Science and Technology. Fargey, P. J. (1992). Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary - an example of traditional conservation in Ghana. Oryx, 26(3), 151-156. Farrel, B. H., & Twinning-Ward, L. (2004). Reconceptualizing tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(2), 274-295. Fawole, W. A. (2005). Colonial history and the search for democratic nationhood: The case of anglophone West Africa. In W. A. Fawole, & C. Ukeje (Eds.), The crisis ofthe state and regionalism in West Africa (pp. 57-70). Dakar: Council for the Development of Social Science Research in West Africa. Fennel, D. (2003). Ecotourism. London: Routledge. Ferraro, P. J. (2001). Global habitat protection: Limitations of development interventions and a role for conservation performance payments. Conservation Biology, 15(4), 990- 1000. Forsyth, T. (2003). Critical Political Ecology: the politics of environmental science. London: Routledge. Friedmann, J. (1992). Empowerment: The politics ofalternative development. Cambridge, USA: Blackwell Publishers Inc. Gable, G. G. (1994) Integrating case study and survey research methods: an example in information systems. European Journal ofInformation Systems 3(2), 1 12-126. Gabriel, T. (1991). The humanfactor in rural development. London: Bellhaven Press. Gardner, A. A. (1991). Development theory and the poorest countries. Unpublished MA, Guelph: University of Guelph. Gezon, L. L. (2005). Finding the global in the local: environmental struggles in Northern Madagascar. In S. Paulson, & L. L. Gezon (Eds.), Political ecology across spaces, scales and social groups (pp. 135-153). New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. 272 Ghana Wildlife Division (1994). A protectedArea system plan to conserve biodiversity in Ghana. Accra: Government of Ghana Ghana Wildlife Division, (1997). Ecotourism development strategy. The Protected Areas Management and Wildlife Conservation Project IUCN, Accra: Government of Ghana Ghana Wildlife Division (2000). Wildlife division policyfor collaborative community based wildlife management, Ghana. Accra: Government of Ghana Ghana Web (2010). http://www.ghanaweb.com Gossling, S. (2002). Human-environment relations with tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(2), 539-556. Greider., & Garkovich, D. L. (1994) Landscapes: The social construction of nature and the environment. Rural Sociology 59(1), 1-24. Grossman, L. S. (1998). The political ecology ofbananas contractfarming, peasants, and agrigarian chante in the eastern Caribbean. Chapel Hill, USA: The University ofNorth Carolina Press. Grumbine, R. E. (1994). What is ecosystems management? Conservation Biology, 8(1), 27-38. Grumbine, R. E. (1997). Reflections on "What is ecosystem management?" Conservation Biology, 11(1), 41-47. Gu, H., & Ryan, C. (2008). Place attachment, identity and community impacts of tourism - the case of a Beijing huton. Tourism Management, 29, 637-647. Gunn, C. A. (2002). Tourism planning: basics, concepts, cases. New York: Routlegde. Haas, P. M. (2002). UN conferences and constructive governance of the environment. Global Governance 8(1), 73-91. Hackel, J. D. (1999). Community conservation and the future of Africa's wildlife. Conservation Biology, 13(4), 726-734. Boyce, M. S., & Haney, A. (1997). Ecosystem management: Applicationsfor sustainable forest and wildlife resources, London: Yale University Press. Hall, M. C, & Boyd, S. (Ed.). (2005). Nature-based tourism in peripheral areas : Development or disaster? Toronto: Channel View Publications. 273 Harrison, D. (2001). Less developed countries and tourism: The overall pattern. In D. Harrison (Ed.), Tourism and the less developed world: Issues and case studies (pp. 1-22). New York: CABI Publishing. Harvey, M. J., Hunt, J., & Harris, CC. (1995). Gender and community tourism dependence level. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(2), 349-366. Harrison, D. P. (1996). Fragile environments, fragile communities? An introduction. In M. F. Price (Ed.), People and tourism infragile environments (pp. 1-18). West Sussex: England: John Wiley and Sons Ltd. Hawthorne, W. (1990). Field guide to the forest trees of Ghana. Ghana Forestry Series 1. Natural Resources Institute, for the Overseas Development Administration, Journal of Tropical Ecology, 7, 414-414. Hay, R. (1998). Sense of place in developmental context. Environmental Psychology, 18, 5-29. Hettne, B. (1983). The development of development theory. Acta Sociologica, 3, 247- 266. Hidalgo, M. C, & Hernandez, B. (2001). Place attachment: Conceptual and empirical questions. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology, 21, 273-281. Hinds, J., & Sparks, P. (2008). Engaging with the natural environment: The role of affective connection and identity. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology, 28, 109-120. Hitchcock, R. K. (1996). Biodiversity preservation and indigenous peoples in Africa. Indigenous Affairs, 3, 50-53. Honey, M. (1999). Ecotourism and sustainable development: Who own paradise? Washington D.C: Island Press. Holden, A. (2003). In need of new environmental ethics for tourism? Annals of Tourism Research, 30(1), 94-108. Holden, A. (2005). Tourism studies and the social sciences. London: Routledge. Horwich, R. H., & Lyon, J. (1999). Rural ecotourism as a conservation Tool. In T. V. Singh & S. Singh (Eds.), Tourism development in critical environment (pp. 102-1 19). New York: Cognizant Communication Corporation. Howard, R. (1978). Colonialism and underdevelopment in Ghana. New York: African Publishing Company. 274 Hulme, D., & Murphree, M. (1999). Communities, wildlife and the 'new conservation' in Africa. Journal ofInternational Development, 1 1(2), 277-285. Huybers, T., & Bennett, J. (2002). Environmental management and the competitiveness ofnature-based tourism destinations. Cheltenhan, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. Iacono, J., Brown, A. & Holtham, C. (2009). Research methods - A case example of participant observation. The Electronic Journal ofBusiness Research Methods. 7(1),39 - 46. International Institute for Environmental Development. (1994). Whose Eden? An overview ofcommunity approaches to wildlife management: Russell Press. IUCN (2009) The IUCN red list ofthreatened species http://www.iucnredlist.org/ Jamal, T., Everett, J., & Dann, G. M. S. (2003). Ecological rationalization and performative resistance in natural area destinations. Tourist Studies, 3(2), 143-169. Jiggins, J., & Roling, N. (1997). Action research in natural resource management. In C. Albaladejo, & F. Casablanca (Eds.), Pour une méthodologie de la recherché action, (pp. 1-24). Paris: INRA/SAD. Jones, S. (2005). Community-based ecotourism: The significance of social capital. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(2), 303-324. Joppe, M. (1996). Sustainable community tourism development revisited. Tourism Management, 17(7), 475-479. Keough, N. (1998). Participatory development principles and practice: reflections of a western development worker. Community Development Journal, 33, 187-196. Kellert, S. R., Mehta, J. N., Ebbin, S. ?., & Lictenfeld, L. L. (2000). Community natural resource management: Promise, rhetoric and reality. Society and Natural Resources, 13(8), 705-715. Kim, K. C, & Weaver, R. D. (1994). Biodiversity and landscapes: A paradox of humanity. New York: Cambridge University Press Kiss, A. (2004). Is community-based ecotourism a good use of biodiversity conservation funds? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 19(5), 232-237. Kruger, L. E. (2006). Recreation as a path for place making and community building. Journal ofthe Canadian Associationfor Leisure Studies, 30(2), 383-392. Kruger, O. (2005). The role of ecotourism in conservation: panacea or Pandora's box? Biodiversity and Conservation, 14, 579-600. 275 Lawton, L., & Weaver, D. (2001). Nature-based tourism and ecotourism. In B. Faulkner, G. Moscardo, & E. Laws (Eds.), Tourism in the 21st century: Lessonsform experience (pp. 34-48). London: Continuum. Leach, M., Mearns, R., & Scoones, I. (1999). Environmental entitlements: Dynamics and institutions in community-based natural resource management. World Development, 27(2), 225-247. Lee, K. N. (2001). Appraising adaptive management. In C. C. Geisler, L. E. Buck, J. Schelhas, & E. Wollenberg (Eds.), Biological diversity: Balancing interests through adaptive collaborative management (pp. 3-24). Washington D. C: USA: CRC Press. Leiper, N. (1979). The framework of tourism: Towards a definition of tourism, tourist, and the tourist industry. Annals of Tourism Research, 6(4), 390-407. Laird, S. (1999). Forests, culture and conservation. In D. A. Posey, (Ed). Cultural and spiritual values ofbiodiversity: A complementary contribution to the global biodiversity assessment. Intermediate Technology Publications for UNEP. London. Little, P. D. (1994). The link between local participation and conservation. In D. Western, & Wright, M. (Eds.), Natural connections: Perspectives in community-based conservation (pp. 347-370). Washington D.C: Island Press. Lim, C, & McAleer, M. (2005). Ecologically sustainable tourism management. Environmental Modelling & Software, 20(11), 1431-1438. Low, S. M., & Altman, I. (1992). Place Attachment: A conceptual inquiry. In S. M. Low, & I. Altman (Eds.), Place attachment. New York: Plenum Press Lovelock, J. E. (1989). The greening of science. Resurgence, 138, 12-19. Macleod, D. V. L. (2004). Tourism, globalization and cultural change: An island communityperspective. Toronto, Canada: Channel View Publication. Macy, J. (1991). Mutual causality in Buddhism and general systems theory: The dharma ofnatural systems. New York: State University ofNew York Press. Manning, E. W., & Dougherty, T. D. (1999). Planning tourism in sensitive ecosystems. In T.V. Singh & S. Singh (Eds.), Tourism development in critical environments (pp. 1-20). New York: Cognizant Communication Corporation. Manoukian, M. (1950). The Akan peoples of the Gold Coast. In D. Forde (Ed.), Ethnographic survey ofAfrica I (pp. 9-64). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mason, J. (1996) Qualitative Researching London: Sage. 276 Massey, D. (1994). Space, place and gender. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Merode, E., Homewood, K. & Cowlishaw, G. (2004). The value of bushmeat and other wild foods to rural households living in extreme poverty in Democratic Republic of Congo. Biological Conservation, 118, 573-581. Meyerowitz, E., & Flight, C. (1972). The chronology of Bono-Manso. The Journal of African History, 13(2), 348-350. Meyerowitz, E. (2007). A note on the origins of Ghana. African Affairs, 51(205), 319- 323. McLaren, D. (2003). Rethinking tourism and ecotravel. USA: Kumarian Press Inc. Mclntyre, N., Yuan, M., Payne, R. J., & Moore, J. (2004). Development ofa values- based approach to managing recreation on Canadian crown lands. Unpublished manuscript, Lakehead University: Canada. Mgumia, F. H., & Oba, G. (2003). Potential role of sacred groves in biodiversity conservation in Tanzania. Environmental Conservation, 30(3), 259-265. Milne, S. S. (1998). Tourism and sustainable development: Exploring the global-local nexus. In M. C. Hall, & A. A. Lew (Eds.), Sustainable tourism: A geographical perspective (pp. 35-48). UK: Addision Wesley Longman Limited. Ministry of Tourism (1996) National tourism developmentplanfor Ghana 1996-2010, Ministry of Tourism Ghana, United Nations Development Programme, World Tourism Organization, Ghana Moisey, R. N., & McCool, S. F. (2001). Sustainable tourism in the 21st century: Lessons from the past; challenges to address. In S. F. McCool, & N. R. Moisey (Eds.), Tourism, recreation and sustainability: Linking culture and the environment (pp. 343-352). UK: CABI Publishing. Morse, R., Rahman, A., & Johnson, K. L. (Ed.). (1995). Grassroots horizons: Connecting participatory development initiatives East and West. Oxford, UK: Intermediate Technology Publications. Mowforth, M., & Munt, I. (2003). Tourism and sustainability: Development and new tourism in the third world. London: Routledge. Mvula, C. D. (2001). Fair trade in tourism to protected areas - a micro case study of wildlife tourism to South Luangwa National Park, Zambia. International Journal of Tourism Research, 3(5), 393-405. 277 Nature Conservation Research Centre (2000). Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary management implementation, Accra: Ghana NCRC (2007) Community Based Ecotourism Project Phase II Progress Report, Accra, Ghana Neuman, R. P. (1998). Imposing wilderness: Struggles over livelihood and nature preservation in Africa. London: University of California Press. Neuman, R. P. (2005). Makingpolitical ecology. London: Hodder Education. Ntiamoa-Baidu, (1987). West African wildlife: a resource in jeopardy. Unasylva 39, 27- 35. Omara-Ojungu, P. H. (1992). Resource management in developing countries. England: Longman Scientific and Technical. Owen, O. S., Chiras, D. D., & Reganold, J. P. (Ed.). (1998). Natural resource conservation (7th ed.). USA: Prentice Hall. Peet, R., & Watts, M. (1996). Liberation ecologies: Environment, development, social movements. London: Routledge. Peterson, G. (2000). Political ecology and ecological resilience: An integration of human and ecological dynamics. Ecological Economics, 35, 323-336. Pickering, C, & Weaver, D. B. (2003). Nature-based tourism and sustainability: Issues and approaches. In R. Buckley, Pickering, C, & Weaver, D. B. (Eds.), Nature-based tourism, environment and land management, (pp. 7-10). OxonUK: CABI Publishing. Proctor, J. D. (1998). The social construction of nature: Relativist accusations, pragmatist and critical realist responses. Annals ofthe Association ofAmerican Geographers, 88(3), 352-376. Reid, D. G. (2003). Tourism, globalization and development: Responsible tourism planning. London: Pluto Press. Relph, E. (1976). Place andplacelessness. London: Pion Limited. Robbins, P. (2003). Political ecology in political geography. Political Geography, 22, 641-645. Robbins, P. (2004). Political ecology. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing. Rocha, E. M. (1997). A ladder of empowerment. Journal ofPlanning Education and Research, 17, 31-44. 278 Rocheleau, D., Thomas-Slayter, B., & Wangari, E. (Ed.). (1996). Feministpolitical ecology: global issues and local experiences. London: Routledge. Sack, R. D. (1993). The power of place and space. Geographical Review, 83(3), 326-329. Saj, T. (2005) Ecological influences on the social organization ofcolobus vellerosus at Boabeng-Fiema.Ghana. Department of Anthropology, University of Calgary Salafsky, N., Margoluis, R., Redfrod, K. H., & Robinson, J.G. (2002). Improving the practice of conservation: A conceptual framework and research agenda for conservation science. Conservation Biology, 16(6), 1469-1479. Salwasser, H. (1994). Ecosystem management can it sustain diversity and productivity? Journal ofForestry, 6(10). Samater, I. M. (1984). From "growth" to "basic needs" the evolution of development theory. An Independent Socialist Review, 26(5), 1-13. Satterfield, T. (2002). A Primer on Values Research. In Assessing the Cultural Significance ofNatural Heritage . Marta del a Torre and Randy Mason, (Ed). Los Angeles, CA: The Getty Conservation Institute Scheyvens, R. (2002). Tourismfor development: Empowering communities. England: Pearson Education Limited. Schnell, S. M. (2003). Creating narratives of place and Identity in "Little Sweden, USA". Geographical Review, 93(1), 1-29. Schramm, K. (2007). Slave route projects: Tracing the heritage of slavery in Ghana. In F. De Jong, & M. Rowlands (Eds.), Reclaiming heritage (pp. 71-98). Walnut Creek, California: Left Coast Press, Inc. Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A guide for reseachers in education and social sciences. New York: Teachers College Press. Simberloff, D. (1998). Flagships, umbrellas and keystones: Is single-species management passe in the landscape era? Biological Conservation, 83, 247-257. Smale, B. (2006). Critical perspectives on place in leisure research. Journal ofthe Canadian Associationfor Leisure Studies, 30(2), 369-382. Sofield, T. H. (2003). Empowermentfor sustainable tourism development. Oxford: Pergamon Elsevier Science Ltd. 279 Song, S. J., & M'Gonigle, R. M. (2001). Science, power, and system dynamics: The political economy of conservation biology. Conservation Biology, 15(4), 980-989. Stake, R., E. (1995). The art ofcase study research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Stanley, T. R. J. (1995). Ecosystem management and the arrogance of humanism. Conservation Biology, 9(2), 255-262. Stedman, R., Amsden, B. L., & Kruger, L. (2006). Sense of place and community: Points of intersection with implications for leisure research. Journal ofthe Canadian Associationfor Leisure Studies, 30(2), 393-404. Stedman, R. C. (2003). Is it really just a social construction? The contribution of the physical environment to sense of place. Society and Natural Resources, 16, 671-685. Stonich, S. (1998). Political ecology of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(1), 25- 54. Stonich, S. (2000). The other side ofparadise. New York: Cognizant Communication Coroporation. Stott, P., & Sullivan, S. (Ed.). (2000). Political ecology, science, myth andpower. London: Arnold. Svarstad, H. (2005). A global political ecology of bioprospecting. In S. Paulson & L. L. Gezon (Eds.), Political ecology across spaces, scales and social groups (pp. 239-256). New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Symon, S. (2007). Distribution oftree species in two sacred groves in Ghana, West Africa. St. Peterburg, Florida: Eckerd College. Taylor, G. (1995). The community approach: does it really work? Tourism Management, 16(7), 487-489. Taylor, V. J., & Dunstone, N. (Ed.). (1996). The exploitation ofmammalpopulations. London: Chapman and Hall. Teichroeb, J., Saj, T., Paterson, J., & Sicotte, P. (2003). Effect of group size on activity budgets of colobus vellerosus in Ghana. International journal ofPrimatology 24:4 p. 743-758. Telly, E. M. (2006). Sacred groves, rituals and sustainable community development in Ghana. Paper presented at the Conserving Cultural and Biological Diversity: The Role of Sacred Natural Sites and Cultural Landscapes, Tokyo. 280 Teye, V., Sonmez, S.F., & Sirakaya, E. (2002). Resident's attitudes towards tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(3), 668-688. The World Factbook 2009. Washington, DC: Central Intelligence Agency, 2009. httpsi/À^^^w.cia.gov/library/pubHcations/the-world-factbook/index.html Tufour, K., (1989) Population, forests and woodlands in Ghana. Paper presented at the National Workshop on Population, Resources, Environment and Development Oct 25- 27th, Accra, Ghana Tuan, Y. F. (1977). Space andplace. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Valentine, I. (2005). An emerging model of a systems agriculturalist. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 22(2), 109-118. Vanderstraeten, R. (2005). System and environment: Notes on the autopoiesis of modern society. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 22(6), 471-481. Van Vlaenderen, H. (2004). Community development research: Merging communities of practice. Community Development Journal, 39, 135-143. Waitt, G., Lane, R., & Head, L. (2003). The boundaries of nature tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 30, 523-545. Waltner-Toews, D., Kay, J., Neudoerffer, C, & Gitau, T. (2003). Perspective changes everything: Managing ecosystems from the inside out. Frontier Ecology Environment, 1, 23-30. Western, D., & Wright, M. (Ed.). (1994). Natural connections: Perspectives in community-based conservation. USA: Island Press. Weaver, D. B. (1998). Ecotourism in the less developed world. New York: CAB International. Weaver, D. B. (2001). Sustainable tourism: Is it sustainable? In B. Faulkner, G. Moscardo & E. Laws (Eds.), Tourism in the 21st Century Lessonsfrom Experience. London: Continuum. Wight, P. (2003). Planning for resource protection and tourism management in protected areas: A practical perspective. In G. Wall (Ed.), Tourism, people, places andproducts (pp. 121-149). Waterloo: Department of Geography Publication Series: University of Waterloo. Wong, S., & Sicotte, P. (2006). Population size and density oicolobus vellerosus at the Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary and surrounding forest fragments in Ghana. American Journal ofPrimatology, 68, 465-476. 281 World Bank (2003), Ghana poverty reduction strategy 2003-2005 Wunder, S. (2000). Ecotourism and economic incentives - an empirical approach. Ecological Economics, 32, 465-479. Yaffe, S. L. (1999). Three faces of ecosystems management. Conservation Biology, 13(4), 713-725. Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. California: Sage Publications. Young, M. (1999). Cognitive maps of nature-based tourists. Annals oftourism research. 26(4), 817-839. Yunis, E. (2003). Sustainable tourism: World trends and challenges ahead. In R. Buckely, C. Pickering & D. B. Weaver (Eds.), Nature-based tourism, environment and land management (pp. 11-16). Oxon UK: CABI Publishing. Zeppel, H. (1998). Land and culture: Sustainable tourism and indigenous peoples. In M. C. Hall, & A. A. Lew (Eds.), Sustainable tourism: A geographicalperspective (pp. 60- 74). UK: Addison Wesley Longman Limited. Zimmerer, K. S., & T. J. Bassett (Ed.). (2003). Political ecology an integrative approach to geography and environment-development studies. New York: The Guilford Press. 282 Appendix 1 Household Survey Signatures (verbal or written consent) We are asking for your agreement to participate in research through this interview. The information will be used only for research and will not be given to any other organizations. Participants Signature_ Date You are free to withdraw from the research at any point and you should feel free to ask questions if anything is not clear. Thank-you Ms. Joy Sammy School of Environmental Design and Rural Development University of Guelph GENERAL INFORMATION Name: 1.Male( ) Female ( ) Age: Number of Children: 2.Village:___ 3. Ethnicity:. 4.StOOl: 5. Mother tongue and other languages spoken: 6. Muslim ( ) Traditionalist/Animist ( ) Christian ( ) Church: Position in Church: 7. Education Level: No schooling ( ) Primary ( ) JSS ( ) SSS ( ) or Form 1,2, 3, 4,5, Technical Training College ( ) Where? University ( ) Where? Other schooling or Training ( ) Explain? 8. Married ( ) Single ( ) Widow ( ) Divorced ( ) Other ( ) 283 HOUSEHOLD 1. House Number: 2. Are you the head of the compound or acting as the head of the compound? Yes( ) No( ) 3. Who is the head of the compound? 4. How are you related to the head of the compound? 5. What is the compound constructed from? Mud Bricks ( ) Cement ( ) Grass/Thatch roof ( ) Galvanize roof ( ) 6. Does the compound have electricity? Yes ( ) No ( ) 7. What is the source of water for the compound? Borehole ( ) River or Spring ( ) Rain Water ( ) 8. What is the source of fuel? Charcoal ( ) Firewood ( ) Gas ( ) 9. Who collects the firewood? 10. Where is the firewood collected? Farm ( ) Sacred Grove ( ) Other ( ) I don't know ( ) 11. Do you use local medicine? Yes ( ) No ( ) 12. Where do you get local medicine? Herbalist ( ) Make it yourself ( ) Fetish Priest ( ) Other ( ) FARMING and LIVELIHOODS 1 . How do you get money? Farming ( ) Make Charcoal for selling ( ) Teacher ( ) make Palm wine for selling ( ) Sewing/Tailoring ( ) make Palm Oil for selling ( ) Drive Taxi/Tro-tro ( ) make Honey for selling ( ) Barber for men ( ) Prepare food for selling ( ) Do Hair for women ( ) Hunter/sell bushmeat ( ) Research with Calgary people ( ) Sell at Market ( ) Construction ( ) Sell at Farm ( ) Carpenter ( ) Sell from house ( ) 284 Guide for Tourists ( ) Shop Keeper ( ) Bicycle Repair ( ) Run a drinking 'Spot' ( ) Chemist ( ) Electrician ( ) Mason ( ) Transfers ( ) Other ( ) 2. Where is your farm? 3. Is your farm on family lands? Yes ( ) No ( ) If No Explain? 4. How long have you been farming there (years)? 5. How big is your farm (in acres)? 6. How much time does it take you to get to your farm? Less than 1 hour ( ) 1-2 hours ( ) 2-3 hours ( ) 3-4 hours ( ) Over 4 hours ( ) 7. How do you get to your farm? Walk ( ) Bicycle ( ) Both bicycle and walking ( ) Other ( ) 8. What do you farm? Yam ( ) Palm Nut ( ) Okro ( ) Maize ( ) Tobacco ( ) Tomato ( ) Ground nuts ( ) Cashew ( ) Garden Egg ( ) Beans ( ) Cassava ( ) Agushi ( ) Others ( ) 9. Do you go to farm everyday or are there days when you do not go to farm? Why? Church ( ) Taboo Days ( ) Market Day ( ) Local Festivals ( ) Funerals ( ) Others ( ) 10. Do you keep animals? Yes ( ) No ( ) Sheep ( ) Goats ( ) Chickens ( ) Others ( ) . 285 1 1 . What kinds of things do you collect from the forest and the bush for traditional or subsistence use? Dawa dawa ( ) Rafia ( ) Wood for construction of house ( ) Pa ( ) Bamboo ( ) Wood for making tools (hoe, mortar, pestle) ( ) Palm Nuts ( ) Grass ( ) Leaves to feed to animals ( ) Fruits ( ) Firewood ( ) Palm Branches for brooms ( ) Leaves for food ( ) Bushmeat ( ) Medicine ( ) Others ( ) TOURISM 1. Have you heard of the Tourism Management Committee? Yes ( ) No ( ) 2. Are you a member of the Tourism Management Committee? Yes ( ) No ( ) What is your position on the TMC? Years of service? 3. Have you ever attended a meeting of the TMC? Yes ( ) No ( ) 4. Have you ever borrowed money from the TMC? Yes ( ) No ( ) Why 5. Do you interact with tourists? Yes ( ) No ( ) How? Talk to Tourists ( ) Take them to forest ( ) Taxi or Tro-Tro driver ( ) Don't talk to tourists ( ) Others ( ) 6. Do you know why tourists come to Boabeng-Fiema? Yes ( ) No ( ) Why? 7. Do you feel that you benefit from tourism? No ( ) Only Small ( ) Plenty ( ) Why? 8. Do you get money from tourism directly? Yes ( ) No ( ) 286 9. Do you think that the tourism helps to protect the monkeys? No ( ) Only Small ( ) Plenty ( ) 10. Do you think that tourism helps to protect the forests? No( ) Only Small ( ) Plenty ( ) Why? CULTURE 1 . Do the monkeys ever come into your compound? Yes ( ) No ( ) Why? 2. Do you or anyone in your compound ever feed the monkeys? Yes ( ) No ( ) Why? 3. Do you ever go to the sacred grove? Yes ( ) No ( ) Why? collect firewood ( ) collect plants for medicine ( ) see the monkeys ( ) to get to my farm ( ) to get to other villages ( ) Others 4. Have you ever been to a monkey burial? Yes ( ) No ( ) 5. Do you visit the monkey shrine? Yes ( ) No ( ) 6. Do you visit the Daworoh or Abodwo Fetish Priests? Yes ( ) No ( ) Why? to greet ( ) to pour libations ( ) Other ( ) 7. Do you know why the monkeys are protected? Yes ( ) No ( ) 287 Why? THANK - YOU VERY MUCH! ME DA ASE PAAAA Appendix 2 Natural resources used as identified by focus group participants Description Local Name/English Scientific Name Uses Name Fruits Liana Askonkrotia Cola caricifolia Tree Abesa tree Fiemawotuwah Lecaniodiscuc Dwendwenwaa cupanioides tree Moto Monodora tenuifolia tree Mango tree Pawpaw tree Orange Tree/grass Banana tree Akonkodie/Akata Bombax buonopozense Fruit and wood for construction Small plant Asempete Atomah Spondias mombin tree Kankano tree Akonkwa tree Aboboma Xylia evansii tree Asantwerewa liana Anfrema tree Atwea Diospyros viridicans tree Sour orange tree Adwea Dacryodes klaineana Brain fruit tree Pa/Kanto Zanthoxylum xanthooxyloides Kwabedwea Parinari excelsa Aboto Pentadesma butyracea 288 Ayaka Laccosperma secundiflora herb Kwaku bese Carapa procera tree Cocoa tree Makubay/Kyinka (Red Coconut) tree Apre (sweet apple/soursop) Asoma-nua/ Parkia filicoidea Samandwea liana Anfrema liana Kwaadwe (fruit) Babdua (plant) Leaves Asonkono Ayoyo Asangana Bush Adjoguo Like a tiny garden egg used to make soup Anubrie Bush, leaf Swee Bonhon bush Nsusa Like a caper, bitter used in soup Tree Prekasay Tetrapleura tetraptera Seed pod used to flavour soup, add to pot while making soup but then take out (like a bay leaf) Kontomery Asiepiriwa Tree Dadiae. Seed pod Foto Giyphaea brevis Tree Doma Erythrophleum Leaf for food and suaveolens medicine Sakrabremu Found in rainy season only Vine Sweet potato Use leaves for food Vine Guava Use leaves for food and meds and fruit to eat Bush Asankanaa 289 Cassava leaves Asukroko Like cocoyam/root and leaf Small plant Bosom meradwira Alefu Asantwerewa Leaves for food and meds leaf Aworomo Used to wrap kenkey leaf Nsuha Used to wrap kenkey Construction materials (woods and grasses) Wawa Triplochiton scleroxylon For house construction Odum Milicia excelsea Construction Sapellay Wabere/Watapuo Cola gigantean Krankam (Shea) Kokodemkrun/owudi Vernonia confería fokEtE Otwentorowa Vitex ferrungine Krayire Mortar and pestle Kokowa Nwoo Liana Pene Used for glue Papao Sese Holarrhena floribunda Wonton Monis mesozygia Kane Anogeissus leiocarpa Kyen- Antiaris toxicaría Construction and kyen/chenebetien meds Awiemfosamina Albizia ferrunginea Ngonenkyene Cleistopholis patens Roofing Ananta/Kapok Cynometra anata Use fruits to make pillow Bosontua (Devil Mortar and pestle Tree) Sante Mortar and pestle Papa Mortar and pestle Raffia/Tonton Weaving Guinea grass roofing Bamboo Fencing/roofing liana Sibire Used as rope Palm tree Kyinka/Makubay Leaves used as 290 roofing fruit is called twie used to eat Fentenko Walking sticks Roots/Seeds Kakaduru (wild Zingiber officinale ginger) Wild peppers Piper guiñéese Liana - Habayire natural yam Tree Dawa dawa Cola milleni seasoning Palm tree Abay (palm) Elaeis guineensis Palm nut - oil Leaf- roofing, brooms Palm wine Grow mushrooms Liana like Tweaaye Fruit like a mango yam when cooked Mushrooms Asansea Baweawe Domo Nkewanra Mpenpena Forkotea Siema atwea Bush meat Fish/River Giant land snail resources Crabs Tilapia Red fish Mud fish Bush Meat Grass Cutter Rabbit Squirrel Partridge Rats Duiker Bats Apesay 291