A Thesis Submitted to the Central European University, Department Of

CEU eTD Collection

A thesis submitted to the Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy of Central European University in part fulfillment of the Assessing biodiversity threat mitigation A case study ofConservatio Kakum Degree of Master of Science Brittny Dawn ANDERSON ANDERSON Dawn Brittny (2004 to 2012) to (2004 July Budapest , 2012

n Area n

efficacy

CEU eTD Collection EuropeanCentral University. availableplace is fromthe Head oftheDepartment ofEnvironmental Sciences and Policy, may exploitation and disclosures which conditions information take under the Further on Budapest. Conservation (2004 2012). Area to B Anderson, (3) agreement. whichprescribetheof terms ofUniversity, anypermission will the such conditions and andcontrary, may made be not by availablefor use parties third without the written thesis vestedis inthe Cent (2) (in writing) of the Author. accordancesuch madethe in with of instructionspermission made maybe copies without not This pageLibrarian. mustform part ofmade. such any copies c Further from Details theLibrary. in Central may University obtained lodged European the be given and accordanceinstructions Author mayin with made ofbe bythe or full, extracts, only (1) Notes on copyright and the ownership of intellectual property rights:

For bibliographicFor and reference purposes this thesis should be referred to as: which thisrights in of property may intellectual any The ownership described be of in this Author.eit text Copyright rests the Copies process) thesis any with (by

. 2012Assessing bio

ral European University, subject to any prior agreement prior any the to to subject European University, ral

diversitythreat mitigation Master of Science thesis, Central European University, ii

efficacy tudy of Kakum A: casestudy opies any(by process)

her in

CEU eTD Collection of learning. application for another degree or qualification of this or any other university or other institute No port Author’s declaration

ion of the work referred to in this thesis has been supportof has submittedin thisthesis an in to referred ion of work the

iii

Brittny DawnANDERSON Brittny

CEU eTD Collection Keywords: the Protected Areas (PAs) 2012) diversitybio threatmitigation for thedegree of Master DawnANDERSON of Science and entitled:Brittny S KCA. in ersity biodiv effective in allocating their limited resources tomitigate threats that are most harmful to temporal period t community- KCA in biodiversity to illustrated thespatia introduced component here,of 2012.Thegeospatial to from threats biodiversity 2004 biodiversity Kakumto in Conservation Area where a paucity of data exists. The Assessment(TRA) uses threats asa proxy measurement ofbiodiversity and auseful is tool mitigation threat KCAin management bystaff 2012. to from 2004 improvement necessary is determine effectiveness, conservation guarantee not preservation;does Kakum National Park, hreats ubmitted by:

natural environment natural

driven driven

based Modified Threat Reduction Assessment (TRA), threats to biodiversity, Kakum Conservation Area, objectives fulfilled.are An evaluation of management

by globalization and development and have not been effectively mitigated by management mitigated KCA effectively been not have and

threats have caused Ghana, protectedGhana, area l changesl

are a vital are vital a componentconservation strategies of intended to are communityare

CENTRAL EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY EUROPEAN CENTRAL from reveal successesreveal and highlight whereareas further effort and . The objective of resear this efficacy of each threat of

the current environmental crisis. STRACT OF THESIS THESIS OF ABSTRACT

effective management strategies are modified , geospatial representation of threats, threats, of representation geospatial ,

: Acasestudy (2004 of Area : to Conservation Kakum - a a reduction of these threats since based The The over the temporalperiod. , Ghana Month and and ofMonth Year July submission: T iv . Managementstrategies

used in this research revealed nine threats

and and have emerged and determined ch toassessis theeffectiveness of

The establishment of aPA

monitoring

an overall 44% 44% overall an strategies is importantto employed to A Threat ReductionA Threat necessary to ensure increasedthe over most critical threats

Assessing 2004.

. KCA hasKCA been , 2012. However, reduction reduction

preserve mitigate CEU eTD Collection love you and I would like to dedicate this thesis to you. with the courage to follow my dreams. I will never be able to properly thank you for all you have given me but I lov your and Dad, Mom Sanden, you were right… TIA. Thank you to my grandparents who always make me feel like the most special girl in the world. I couldn’t see itmyself. helped to calm me during my mome I feel especially fortunate to have had the support of Hayley, Hailey and Clarissa (in order of appearance) thank you for lending keeping me laughing throughout the entire proce kindness Danie our whimsicalmonths together. BREMEN, to Jacob and the kittens that shared their love of life, laughter and the occasional bak with me during is a It management and conservation of Kakum. It was a pleasure working with you and learning from you. This research would not have been possible without the support of the Wildlife Division team responsible for the department that work hard on a daily basis to the of and staff (Irina Kriszta) support to and the faculty be extended must also appreciations deserved Well Departm I would like to use this opportunity to express my appreciation for their generosity provided to me by the understanding of KCA and conservation efforts in Ghana. me introducing to queries, Kakum and the community of Abrafo. Your guidance has endowed me with a deeper during my field research and especially Mr. Edward Wiafe, for your patience with my endless questions and culture, Ghanaian of intricacies materialme my supportto with prior and research, field thank to wouldlike It gratefully mentor process. Your support and feedback throughout has for wish better a not could beenme. to One invaluable I would like to extend my sincerest to gratitude to my supervisor, Brandon Anthony, for guiding me through this would like I

lso necessary to express my thankfulness to those wonderful women that accepted me as an integral part of l and Ben, thank you for opening your home and sharing your fabulous shelter with me, your friendship, .

ent of Environmental Science and Policy that enabled me to travel to Ghana to conduct this research.

and the opportunity to explore Ghana. Most of all thank you for making the mundane hilarious and to thank the people who have helped me through the completion of this academic journey.

ing encouragement and support (even of the most outlandish ideas) have endowed me

Ernestina Anie and and Anie Ernestina

Diane Matar for ensuring I knew what I was getting myself into and providing nts of frustration and reminded me of the light at the end of the tunnel when ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

make CEUthe experience what it is. ss.

Ebenezer Ebenezer

v Jovan

Akua Addo Akua Sheperd who has shown mewho shown has great patience kindness, and - - Boadu whointroduce Fiagbedzi

an ear an

who took wonderful care of me of care wonderful took who to metime time and again.

d me tosome of the

CEU eTD Collection 2.10. Ghana 2.9. Threat Reduction Assessment 2.8. Management monitoring methods2.8. Management 2.7. Monitoring protected of areas2.6. Management THESIS OF ABSTRACT 2.5. Protected areas and theirrole in biodiversity conserva conventions international of 2.4. The role CONTENTS OF TABLE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 2.3. The role of international institutions 2.2. Anthropogenic pressures on biodiversity diversity2.1. Biological - 2 CHAPTER 1.3. Organizationalstructure and1.2. Justification objective 1.1. Background - 1 CHAPTER S ABBREVIATION OF LIST FIGURES OF LIST TABLES OF LIST 2.10.5. Protected Areas 2.10.5. Protected 2.10.4. Tourism 2.10.3. Agriculture 2.10.2. Bushmeat and 2.10.1. Economics environment the ...... LITERATURE REVIEW LITERATURE INTRODUCTION ......

......

...... TABLE OF CONTENTS OF TABLE

......

...... vi

......

tion

...... IV VI XI IX 18 21 20 19 18 18 17 15 13 11 V X 9 8 6 4 2 2 5 1 1 4

CEU eTD Collection 4.3. Threats to biodiversity in Area in Conservation biodiversity Kakum to 4.3. Threats - 4.2. Community 4.1. Context - 4 CHAPTER 3.7. Limitations 3.6. Reflectionworkshop of 3.5. Data Processing and3.5. DataProcessing Analysis 3.4. Quantitative Research 3.4. Quantitative Researc3.3. Qualitative Selection 3.2. Site 3.1. Research Design - 3 CHAPTER 2.11. Kakum Conservation Area Conservation 2.11. Kakum 4.4. Additional Challenges 4.4. Additional 4.2.3. Gathering terrestrial plants terrestrial 4.2.3. Gathering harvesting 4.2.2. Loggingand wood 4.3.1. Hunting and collecting terrestr4.3.1. Hunting and collecting 3.4.2. Geospatial Threat 3.4.2. Geospatial Modelling Workshop Assessment Reduction Threat Modified 3.4.1. 3.3.3. Interviews Meeting and3.3.2. Preliminary Workshop Preparation 3.3.1. Literature Review 2.11.2. Rele Monitoring and Habitat KCA2.11.1. Wildlife in 4.4.2. Organization 4.4.1. Funding lines 4.3.9. Utility and service aquatic resources and4.3.8. Fishing harvest 4.3.7. Roads and railroads activities and other 4.3.6. Work areas and recreation 4.3.5. Tourism and perennialnon4.3.4. Annual 3.4.2.2. Geospatial dat threat 3.4.2.2. Geospatial 3.4.2.1. Key assumptions of geospatial modeling 3.4.2.1. Keyassumptionsof threat 3.4.1.3. Calculation of TRA of 3.4.1.3. Calculation Index Key assumptions of the TRA the 3.4.1.2. Keyassumptionsof method 3.4.1.1. Participant Selection 3.4.1.1. Participant

...... vance of application of TRA in KCA RESULTS METHODOLOGY

...... based threats

......

...... h

......

a collection ......

...... -

......

timber crops ......

...... ial animals

...... vii

......

...... 58 53 53 48 41 39 39 38 37 37 36 34 34 33 31 32 32 31 30 30 27 30 30 26 21 59 71 63 61 74 74 73 70 68 76 41 29 CEU eTD Collection TION SHEET TION INFORMA WORKSHOP –TRA I APPENDIX REFERENCES P MA SITE WORKSHOP –TRA IV APPENDIX REDUCTION OF DEFINITION AND TS THREA OF –DESCRIPTION III APPENDIX - II APPENDIX 6.1. Fulfillment of research objective - 6 CHAPTER TRA FEEDBACK FORM FEEDBACK V–TRA ABSTRACT 5.3. Applicability 5.2. Inconsistencies 5.1. Relevance - 5 CHAPTER 4.5. Con 5.3.2. Geospatial Component5.3.2. Geospatial 5.3.1. Threat Reduction Assessment 5.1.1. Further researchopportunities5.1.1. Further 5.3.2.1. Further methodological opportunities development 5.3.2.1. Further clusion

...... CONCLUSION DISCUSSION ......

......

SHEET CACULATION INDEX TRA ......

......

...... viii

......

...... 100% 100 86 85 84 83 82 83 82 79 78 88 94 98 86 97 99 79 CEU eTD Collection Table 7. Primary threats to biodiversity in KCA in 7.Primary2012 biodiversity Table to from threats 2004to Table 6.Description ofTable of threats definition and reduction100% Table 5. Threat Reduction Assessment Index 4.SpeciessightingsTable on recorded patrols 3.Kakum AreaTable data Conservation meteorological summarygeographical and Table 2. Value of protected areas Table 1.Lexicon threats ofTable anthropogenic biodiversity to

...... LIST OF TABLES TABLES OF LIST

...... ix ......

......

...... 79 45 44 23 27 11 7 CEU eTD Collection

Fig. 7. Monthly visitors to KCA’s Canopy Walk 7.MonthlyvisitorstoFig. KCA’sbydemographic Canopy KCA to Walk 6.Visitors Fig. Canopyfirstofyear Quarter for the each Fig. 5. Monthly evidence of poaching incidents recorded 5.MonthlyevidenceKCAFig. in incidents of poaching Fig. 4. Threats to Kakum to biodiversity 4.Threats Fig. in Area’s 2012 Conservation Kakum to biodiversity 3.Threats Fig. in Area’s 2004 Conservation approach 2.Methodological Fig. 1.KakumFig. Area Conservation

......

...... LIST OF FIGURES FIGURES OF LIST x

......

...... 65 64 56 47 46 29 25 CEU eTD Collection

WWF WPA WD WCPA TRA RAPPAM PAMAB PA KNP KCA IUCN GHCT FC DPSIR CITES CEPA CBD AARR

Convention on Biological Diversity Diversity Convention on Biological Assin Attandanso Resource Reserve World WideWorld Fund for Nature Wildlife Protected Area Wildlife Division AreasWorld Commission onProtected Threat Reduction Assess Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Areas Management Area Board Protected Management Advisory Protected Area Kakum National Park AreaKakum Conservation International Union Ghana Heritage Conservation Trust Forestry Commission Driving forces, Pressure, State, Impact, Response Fauna and Flora InternationalTradeEndangeredConvention Species in on the Wild of Conservation Pu Education and

S ABBREVIATION OF LIST for the Conservation of Conservation Naturefor the

ment

blic Awarenessblic xi

CEU eTD Collection been working to protect the PA from threats (Jachman 2008). However, the effectiveness of effectivenessof (Jachman However,the PA2008). threats the from working protect been to responsibilityof the biodiversity.endowed with KCAmanagementprotecting actively have 1996). Once was it gazetted asawildlife reserve, themanagement KCAat team has watershed originally establishedKCA was as a timber reserve like many other PAs in West Africa levels present globally (Terbor sameconservationchallenges that the faces now the but 1960s, conservation during d The resources. teams totarget and refine their efforts, 2009). biodiversity development deployment and ofmanagement strategies management strategies is necessary toensure that aPA fulfils theofPA.effective boundaries ofthe Theemployment within protection ecosystem the al and (Lockwoodlocally globally et reduceenvironment and of the biodiversityloss , crisis. Pro Conservation globally been address current initiativeshave to expanding envi the 1.1. Background

epletion of biodiversity severe is inWest Africa. Ghana was aregional in leader of biodiversity ofrichness all protectedthe Ghana in areas (UICN/PACOKCA, 2010). The e The

tected areas (PAs) are

protection threats valuation ofmanagement effectiveness is crucial to enable PAmanagement

within PA a (Lockwood et al. for many including communities gh 2004). Kakum Conservation Area (KCA) has one ofhighest one the (KCA) Area has Conservation Kakum gh 2004). CHAPTER 1 - 1 CHAPTER created , . 2006). The. 2006). establishmentof a is an island an sea a is of in biodiversity of land. cultivated

making

as INTRODUCTION 1 part

the best usethe of financial limited and human

which providewhich

of conservation strategies to to conservation strategies of et al 2006; Chapeet with the additional ofobjective ensuring the regional capitol, regional the are necessary to effectively

s its written objectives. The

many ecosystem services PA . 2005; IUCN2005; .

does not not does ensure the CapeCoast (WD protect the the protect ronmental ronmental

- become supress WCPA WCPA

are are

CEU eTD Collection determine their respective KCA their determine changes within fromJune of 2004to 2012.A June review The Anthony 2010). and Matar Anthony2008; 2004; Jacobson and and Mugisha 2001; Margoluis Salafsky 1999; Margoluis and (Salafsky biodiversity asto proxy a of the measurement threats through has been employed globe around the theproviding theoretical framework. simple TheTRAmethodology a is effective yet tool that (TRA) willemployed be geospatial a and component be will introduced utilized, and Ghana. To theachieve objective of the literature, followedby contextualization a of the situation Kakum at Area Conservation in review a of fromthrough biodiversity will discussed be employed conserve human to impacts of importance biodiversity,challengesthe ofFirst, the prot 1.3. Organizationals effectiveness ofmanagement to effortsfurther and , academia. Additionally to more increasing or decreasing, leaving the opportunity forfurther, a more- in The superficial assessment RAPPAM ofthe KCA through 1.2. Justification and objective Ghana managementin needs that to improved be effectiveness (UICN/PACO 2010). (RAPPAM)determined that poaching is the primary threat to wildlife in (WPAs) anmanagem evaluationconducted of evaluatedamann in systematically thorough been IUCN not er.The effortshas their thorough in Ghana. The Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management assessment of biodiversity resourcesshouldfocused. be objective Theassess research ofthis tothe is

methodology will reveal, andrank map out the threats to biodiversity, tructure the results

mitigate biodiversity

this research, amodified Threat Reduction Assessment to measure the ent effectiveness in could enable could threat 2

mitigation

threats effectiveness of PA managementto determine staff where

in KCA contribution valuable a is ecting biodiversity and initiatives

did not determine if threats were from 2004 to 2012. 2004to KCAfrom in eight Wildlife Protected Areas

depth assessment. A KCA concluded and conservation efforts

CEU eTD Collection recommendations compared to underlying causes of the threats, research. The fourth chapterreveals the results of theresearch. Thechapter fifth discusses the used to collect the necessary data and empirical research. It also details the limitations of the importance of assessing management effectiveness. The third chapter discusses the methods the challenges presented wh literature review, which examines thenecessity of conservation strategies inaglobal context, The research presented documentin this into structured is 6 chapters. The second chapter is a challenges of biodiversity KCA. conserving in KCA documents and interviews with staff and communitymembers further will explore the previous research for application and research ile striving to conserve biodivers conserve striving to ile ,

and relevance,its present s

the contributions to to contributions the . The fin chapteral . The concludes thestudy. 3

details

the the ity in PAs and finally discuss PAs finally in and ity inconsistencies of the results research and makes

future

the the CEU eTD Collection pa protect employed to initiatives and biodiversity the challenges of protecting of importance biodiversity, the methodologythe e provide chapter to The purposefor ofis justification this the topicchosen for this study and anthropogenic intervention. Anthropogenic modifications of the natural environment ofnatural the and the modifications intervention. Anthropogenic anthropogenic will only biodiversity thus conservation and research of scope this within arethe not 1992).Monitoring StochasticCentre processes Deterministic and stochastic processes cause biodiversity loss(World Conservation populations, which increases stress o wealthy but regions they are alsowith regions the highest of levels poverty and exploding species and of ecosystems” (Lockwood al et ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes from sources including, all inter alia, terrestrial, marine and otheraquatic ecosystems and the 2ofArticle Convention of the as: Biological Diversity “variability among organisms living Conservation 1992). MonitoringBiodiversityis Centre bythe defined Na United and form thecomplexweb of organisms essential are that for ecosystem services (World Biod The Earth’s resources, allhumanon which non- and d 2.1. Biological address the importance ofmanagement evaluation. ragraphs intended to contextualize to intended situationragraphs the iversity, asanatural resource, provides basicmaterials suchmedicine asfood, and fuel; iversity mployed toachieve theobjectives of theresearch. This chapter will discuss

biodiversity frombiodiversity anthropogenic

CHAPTER 2 - 2 CHAPTER n biological 2004). (Terborgh n biological resources focus upon deterministic processesfocus upondeterministic directly caused by LITERATURE REVIEW LITERATURE . 2006, 12). The tropics are 2006, are the Thetropics most 12). biologically 4

of Kakum Conservation Area in Ghana and Ghanaand Conservation in of Area Kakum

human life dependent, is are finite. impacts. This will be followedby be This will impacts. diversity within species, between

tions in CEU eTD Collection places phenomenon anthropogenic economic, forcescircumstances to are Driving related s portrayedare as: of consequences and environmental Weterings 1999).problems (SmeetTherelationships and the origins relationshiphumandepicting system betweensystem the environmental and a is Weterings 1999). framework TheDPSIR and manner (Smeet Response EnvironmentThe European Agency usesPr the forces, Driving pressuresic on2.2. Anthropogen biodiversity disruption of the fragmentation and ecologicalprocesses 2004). (Terborgh fromextinctions Secondaryoccur extinctions 2004). (Terborgh occurring because of habitat bi conserving species, There incompa However, in to regards degradation,environmental past the 50yearsareperiod a of time ofenvironmentpollution the have dramaticallythe industrial increased since revolution. ofdocumentation e repercussion caused because of it are potentially irreversible. There is ample evidence and • • • • •

exists pressure on the environment and modify its state. A lexicon of anthropogenic threats to threats of anthropogenic A state. lexicon modifyits environment and pressure onthe t impacts the statethe the resulti “

he societal Driving forces and human history (Lockwood human otherin history any to rable due to

(DPSIR)

many forms of biodiversity howevermanyloss of forms biodiversity that shapethat consumption production and odiversity requires the facilitation of conditions odiversity thethat facilitation requires ofultimately prevent conditions

of the environmentand its resulting from resulting in environmental and changes quality

ng pressures environmental , on

responses to thesechanges inthe environment”

irreversibility irreversibility (World Monitoring Centre Conservation 1992). Therefore, cosystem and biodiversity decline. Human modification, extraction decline. and Human biodiversity and cosystem framework to articulate environmental indicators in a comprehensible

patterns et al. ;

the most acute is the extinctionofmost the the acuteis 2006). . Consumption and production and . Consumption

systems analysisportraying essure, State, Impact, ocial and demographic and ocial

CEU eTD Collection facilitated collaboration, environmental awareness, created bestpractice standards and conservation strat speaking, protection. Briefly through their workthey increased international have guidedInternational institutions have the international discourse on globalenvironmental 2.3. The role of international institutio protection. globalmovement a focused onenvironmental been of has 2004).ofacuteandissuethere (Terborgh Because the nature tropics widespread this remnants of natural ecosystems wi the soon consumptionnatural only and to continue landscapes growth deteriorate population lawlessness, poverty,social unrest” 2004,(Terborgh, 17). overpopulation, inequities of power wealth,and exhaustion socio create subsequently and environmental state current useful framework understandThis is to the relationships linkages and that of theimpacts is recognized a response by society is triggered (SmeetWeterings and 1999). of environment the Environmental particular a location. chemical phenomenapressures in of areState indicators descriptive quantity quality the and of biological physical, and illustrated in table 1. biodiversity outlinedis by the InternationalUnion f - economicfactors “t , have subsequent impacts on environmental functions. impacts subsequent onenvironmental severity have Oncethe

he greatesthe challenges involve of conservation non- ll be found in protected areas; this is especially true in the ns

or theofor Conservation Nature (IUCN) and

social If of rapidlandpatterns use change, desire to preserve it. Due to these of resources, natural corruption,

, which affect the state scientific issues:

influe nce the egies, CEU eTD Collection

11. Climate change 11. Geological10. events Pollution 9. genes Invasive and8. problematicspeciesother and Natural7. system modifications disturbance and intrusions Human 6. 5. Biological resource use Transportation4. and corridors service mining and production Energy 3. and aquaculture Agriculture 2. Residential1. and commercial development Threats 1) (level Direct Source: table adapted from Salafsky Table Table o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

8.2 problematic8.2 species native livestock2.3 farming andranching 11.3 temperature extremes droughts 11.2 habitat11.1 shifting andalteration earthquakes/tsunamis10.2 volcanoes10.1 air 9.5 garbage9.4 and waste solid effluents agriculturalforestry and 9.3 9.2 industrial and military effluents household9.1 sewage andurban waste invasive8.1 non 7. dams7.2 andwater management/use fire and7.1 fire suppression war,6.2 civil unrest andmilitary exercises 6.1recreational activities fishing5.4 and harvesting aquatic logging5.3 and wood harvesting gathering 5.2 terrestrial plants hunting5.1 and terrestrial collecting shipping4.3 lanes utility4.2 andservice lines roads4.1 andrailroads renewable3.3 energy mining3.2 andquarrying oil3.1 and gas drilling woodand2.2 pulp plantations annual2.1 andperennial nontimber crops commercial 1.2 and industrial areas housingand1.1 urban areas 6.3 work6.3 andother flight4.4 paths marine2.4 andfreshwater aquaculture tourism and1.3 areas recreation 2) (level Subcategories 11.4 storms11.4 and flooding avalanches/landslides10.3 9.6 excess energy introduced8.3 genetic material 1 . 3 other ecosystem modifications water resources animals Lexicon of anthropogenic threats to biodiversity

-borne pollutants

and severe weather andsevere

-native/ali

activities

en species

et al

2008, 4- 2008,

orpersecution controlof specific species. deliberateincluding and harvesting unintentional effects; also fromThreats consumptive of use bio “wild” themthat use including ass fromThreats long, narrow transport corridors and the vehicles fromThreats produ aquaculture and expansion and intensification, silviculture, including mariculture, fromThreats farming ranching and a as result of agricultural footprintsubstantial settlement Human Definition species or habitat. rangeofnatural variation that could wipe out a vulnerable otherwarming and severe climatic orweather events outside the -termLong climatic changes that may be linked to global fromThreats catastrophic events. geological fromenergy point and nonpoint sources. Thr uction, spread introd and/or increase in abundance. havepredicted to harmful effects onbiodiversity following their orpathogens/microbes, genetic thathavematerials or are fromThreats non human welfare. natural“managing” or semi fromThreats actions thatconvert ordegrade habitat servicein of biological resources. andhabitats species non-consumptiveassociated with uses of fromThreats human activities that alter, destroy disturband 7 eats from introduction of exotic and/or excess or materials

native and native plants, animals, s orother nonagricultural land auses with ction ofnon

ociated wildlife mortality. wildlife ociated natural systems, often-natural to improve - biological resources.

logical resources

CEU eTD Collection Development Programme (UNDP), International Unionfor Conservation of Nature through United UnitedProgrammeNations (UNEP) Nations the the Environment and (Lockwood initiatives conservation supportfor local vided networkspro and communication established protected areas protected are the Ramsar Convention, major international environmental conventions relating specificallyto biological diversity and al (Lockwoodet binding times are at agreeduponobligations, which mutually International conventions providea framework for interaction among document and nations 2.4. The roleofinternational c goalallprotected categories key areas a in (Lockwoodconservation is al et permitted. of gradient human expressed intervention butan Biodiversity rather nature protected areas (Chape of enhancedissemination dataand collection communication, consistency, improve ensure categorization system protected for areas to provide aglobal framework that attempts to There over are 1000 different termsglobally. area’ a Thecreated for ‘protected IUCN has with ecosystem culturalvalues”and 2008,nature associated (Dudley services 60). - long effectivethe achieve means,to other or legal managed, through the IUCN since2008 as: “A clearly defined (Chape academia conservationorganizations and of conservationscience basis and baseto management. That continues built be upon by WCPA principleinter the and The IUCNthe been have Conservancy and Nature Conservation International(CI) WorldWide Fund forNature (WWF),World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA), et al et . 2006). et Themajor international environmental institutions are the United

al . 2003). The categorization is described as is non- 2003). described a Thecategorization onventions

8 geographical space, recognized, dedicated and geographical space, recognized, the the

et al et Convention on the International Convention in onthe Trade . 2005). Protected areas are defined by , among others. among others. national bodiesnational the to contributing

term conservation ofterm conservation 2006). . 2006). . hieratical in 2006). The 2006).

(IUCN), (IUCN), CEU eTD Collection for appropriated thatland important is ecological processes biologicaldiversityand nature, vitally is Thusit modified exploited. and 2004). mostfrequently land This is (Terborgh A port large 2.5. Protected areas and theirrole in biodiversity conservation al (Lockwoodet sustainability are equitably thatitsexteriorsupport ofpark and effectively, the shared benefits ensures accountable makingis ensure to authority management obj ensure the goal of biodiversity conservation is achieved in protected areas. The decision al. (Lockwood is priority conservationa management protected effective areas et biological in of the degrading. ofare areas threatened or manyThus,assessing theglobally, quality protected (Buck Despite the increasing number ofprotected areas thebiological diversity crisis contin al et CBD(Chape the (CBD)Biological LockwoodDiversity 2008; al (Dudley et Protection ofWorld the Cultural and Natur Heritageal Convention and the Endangered Speci of each the world’secological wassetregions” bythe seventh Conference of the Parties biological diversity” conserve (Lockwood al et “establish a systemprotected ofareas orareas where special measures need tobe taken to Article 8ofunder the CBD develop to includingsignatories, Ghana(Conventionon Biological Diversi gainedThe CBDwidespread acceptance and has of as May 2012had 193 parties 168and et al 2006; Chapeet et al et . 2001). Althoughareacovered2001). the numberof and protectedis areas increasing ion ofion the earth’s surface encompasses land thathumans have appropriated es of Wild ofes (CIT FloraFauna and . 2005). . 2005; IUCN. 2005; . 2006, al Chapeet - WCPA 2009). Effective management necessary is to In situ 9 .

06). A conservation target of “at of 10% target “at least A2006). conservation . 2005). . 2005).

conservation management strategies to ES) . , 2006). the the ty n.d.). Members are required Membersn.d.). are ty ectives being are achieved Convention Concerning theConvention

Convention on . ues ues

of of - CEU eTD Collection PAs conservation separate fromconservation separate utility. anthropogenic of Recognition value intrinsic for PA Terborghhumans (Lockwood2006; 2004). value Intrinsic includes ofthe biodiversityvalue has been nature understooda farbeyond value having placedupon by as value, value the it material satisfaction of humans. Its value beyondis that of a resource; across ti existing natural a being resource, as reducedto valued be only for mustnot the Nature (Chape vanish to biodiversity exploitation are increasing placing extreme pressureon the natural env al et number of protected areas globally over the past few decades (Chape perceived threats to nature” (Chape McNeely acknowledged the that establishment of protected areas to be “cultural response to wild OverAshokasites MauryanEmperor 2005). ago created to twomillennia of preserve India spatialaside a areafor conservation not newal is a human phenomenon in (Chape history et Although the term ‘pro occur. to evolution natural Theyalso contain. provide ecosystems habitats they natural environmentfor the an and - anthropogenically Protected areas function asa refuge for species and ecosystemfu situ

life out of ethical concern (Chape al et . are the are ofcornerstones biologicaldiversityconservation al (Chapestrategies et conservation maintains the preservation of biological diversity in its natural state. 2006) should not be surprising as levels of pollution, areas of land modification and of land of areas levels pollution, surprisingas be 2006) not should modified tected area’tected relativelyis inthe recent conservation lexicon, setting

landscapes. et al et . 2005; al Lockwood et et al et . PAs 2005). Thus, the dramatic increase in the an area . 2005; al Lockwood et 10

perform a vital role in the conservation of

. 2006). nctions that are not adapt to adapt not are that nctions . 2006) et al et

. 2005; Lockwood ironment, causing me and space . 2005). In In d .

CEU eTD Collection from al significant cent a ninein increase et per 2003,demonstrating 1982(Chape in nearly over twentyJust - management objec The WorldConservation Monitoring Centre named of categories (1992) broad three p of 2.6. Management 2. valuetable as intrinsic in beyond outlined because of management objectives and funding requirements. Protected have areas worth managers is important inbut many casesmust alsobalanced be with valuesanthropogenic

• • • Table Table Source: adopted from Lockwood Biodiversity conservation. Protection of criticalsoils and water catchment; The supply timber; of as such products o o o o

2 . Individual value Individual (non value Community Off On Value of protected areas of protected Value - - o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o site goodssite and services site goodssite and services

three per cent of the world’s remaining tropical humid forests were protected tives of Tropical Humid Forests: Spiritual well mentalPhysical andhealth Satisfaction (experiential and existence) generations for future Legacy Social well Spiritual meaning Identity Culture Fisheries, Agricult and airquality and quantity Water non- Human and Education Scientific knowledge and research andRecreation tourism Fauna and products Flora rot ected a

- being

et al - being reas - material) human support life

2006, 103. 2006,

Value ofProtected AreasValue ure and human settlement protection

. CEU eTD Collection protected areas do not have effective protection or management plans (Terborg case. M the not this is however isparks, safein thatnature perception a There2003). is the biological diversity existing in the park from the ominous outside world. In some cases some cases In world. outside from theominous in park the biologicaldiversity existing the the in tropics are almost ubiquitously underpaid oftenputand their lives danger toin protect employ PAsthreats many PA’sra outside To from protect 1992,Monitoring Centre CBD 2007?). commercialscale clearance, fuel collection and resource extraction (World Conservation of70% deforestat not habitatbut to: to destructionlimited shifting are cultivationlead include (accounting for exploitation, pollution, invasive species climateand change effects (CBD 2007?). Factors that primary biodiversity threats to in Ghanaare l threatened(Lockwoodet al. increasingly becomes PAs also within contained degradation occursand natural resources are depleted ofoutside biodiversity PAs the al et land(Chape conversion fauna proximate and most the extremeunder due to threat primarily extraction impoverishmentofand flora are tropics the in 2004). located Protected Areas (Terborgh on paper exists only wield they some casesloggers, poachers, miners orfarmers have overtaken the l Many protected areas in thetropics indevastating are state, existingin ofa state neglect. In employmentthe institutions. and science ofstrong good that (2004) 2004,adamantly states Terborgh 76). (Terborgh their boarders nonexistent. is “West Africa one is of conservation’s worst case scenarios” areasprotected onlypaper as exist and parks, the protection grant they biodiversity within ion ion in transmigration, Africa), population roads, pressure, logging, large

12 and conversion, use, habitat degradation, over

. 005; Terborgh 2004).2005; As environmental

ngers or guards. PA rangers/guards guards. PA or rangers/guards ngers

nature can with can ‘saved’ be only nature and protection the and h 2004).

2006). The Some Some any any - - CEU eTD Collection Therefore,1993). managem always understanding systems ofwill However, the natural (Lee complex incomplete be and managers trends. make of changes inform to of and patterns Monitoring those helps sense Conservationstrategies ensure musttheweb of interactions remains intact (Terborg 2004). and space and part are ofinteractions ofweb a supports that the ecological system. in constantorganismsa are frequentlyunpredictable and state of change flux,timeand across subject alteringand statist to uniform, continually al Willigand Begon2008). et (Scheiner fundamental partofprincipals as their heterogeneity, evolution and contingency homogeneous is the neither static. Thegeneral The Earth nor 2.7. Monitoring strategies (Bleher techniques are 1999). Margoluis (Salafsky and resources of the and use subsequent valuable monitoring implementation, lead tocan ineffective program measuringoutcomesinefficientor incidental or design, implementation. Inability to accurate value, regarding strategy and may divergent need, opinions community membershave who limited of including stakeholders not governments,and diverse but to agencies funding components, also andis but social practice.a political Managementmust balance the desires not protectedinvolves natural areas diversityin only sciencemanagementThe biological of integrity areas 2001). 2004; the (Terborgh Bakarr superio their guards, nor neither frequently

et al. Traditio 2006). used to assess the effectiveness of protected area management ent is always required to make decisions without having makedecisions complete to required always is ent nally, biologically indicators through complex monitoring complexthrough nally, indicators biologically . rs have the authority to make arrests in an attempt to maintain (1996) describe ecologicalcommunity structures as - “non ly measurely links between project activities outcomes and 13

ical eventsofical random Thus, change.” ory of ecology identifies ory identifies of ecology CEU eTD Collection of theiroutside institution unable to effectively articulate or success failures with supporting evide demand establishment (Salafsky and Margoluis 1999). Protected area managers thus are arewhich failing and orrequire modification interventionswhere have absentand been managers cannot conclude which interventions have been successful and should be c Without a mechanism tomeasure the short 1999). Margoluis indicators is often a diff biological monitoring of whichConsistent cyclicalfluctuations, frequentlyoccur. by natural Shortpatterns. slowrelatively time changes over a require and long- term, project outcomes periodic (Salafsky Margoluis and 1999). Biological exhibitindicators Most Partnership,2010).of paucity oftena There data requi is Indicators 1999;biodiversity data (Salafsky2010Biodiversity requires Margoluis baseline and monitor to indicators 1999). biological Using Margoluis and parameters (Salafsky varying conservation project success rely primarily on biological indicators using a c management area effectiveness ofMost measure methods 2008). protected (Anthony that are There regardingchallenges monitoringtheofpresented state biodiversity the and conservat of techniques biodiversity practiceand enhance the to society and the in environment changes Ideallyknowledge. management strategies understanding this complexity are sensitiveto monitoring ion. - term assessments of biological indicators may indicate results that are skewed methods are incomplex and nature practicalare not for measuring short icult task to implement . Failure to. Failure may doso negatively impact policycreation, funding 14 - , term success ofmanagement strategies park as theyas demand extensive effort (Salafsky and

term time investment to demonstrate true red for abaseline. nce to nce personnel ombination ofombination ontinued,

CEU eTD Collection et al et assumptions Salafsky Margoluis and 1999; predicted (Salafsky hypothesized outcomes must be predicted so that actual results can be compared with objectives must be clearly defined, casual co useexplicit indicators. of To biological evaluate program interventions and program goals Several methodologies toevaluateexist the managementeffectiveness of the PAswithout monitoring m 2.8. Management conservation success or failure. may findmanagers difficulty in collecting and accurately and1999). (Salafsky Margoluis thementionedDue to above constrains protected area duepractical economic to technological and lim simpleand methods program evaluation (Salafsky Margoluis and 1999). Few are methods (Salafskyprogram and 1999). evaluation AMargoluis need to exists low use Availability resources financial and of limits human man sitesanddifferent (Salafsky Margoluis 1999). among comparison easy vastly to themself lend not monitoring methodsBiological do Indicators Partnership, 1999,2010Biodiversity d Margoluis 2010). an interventions (Salafsky untrained personnel to accurately interpret and inform decisions related to project careful sampling, sophisticated mathematical and statistical analysis. Results difficultare for specialists such ascomputer experts. Most biological assessment methods special require technical equipment and trained Biological approaches often require complex aswell datasets ascollection and analysisby and as the wholarea a conservation of biodiversity othersupportthatwould communityor the awareness opportunities, ofto be benefit protected - graphical information systems, regular censuses, censuses, systems,basedregular graphical geo information

ethods

nnections between intervention activities and

itations in economically constrained projects e (Salafsky 1999). (Salafsky e Margoluis and agers from implementing an ideal ideal froman implementing agers analysing . the data tomeasure 2001). This allows This 2001). - cost, efficient

CEU eTD Collection biological, social, economic cultural values and of the site (Lockwoodet al. the management to The tooluponthe regards focuses effectiveness in outcomes). and planninputs,process, sixing, elements (context, outputs management effectivenessthrough al. (Lockwood et scale national a methodology a developedby WWF is tool the management assess rapidly to on effectiveness Various methodologies exist toevaluate themanagement effectiv and(Salafsky Margoluis 1999). likelihood that projects be upon modified could based successfully previous mistakes (Hockings mitigation of is threats an essential element ofeffective the management of protected areas and The identification 1999). Margoluis program(Salafsky and designing strategies impactthat the state, and theresp A pressure- tools for monitoring protected area management strategies are: and(Salafsky Margoluis 1999). Outlinedby al Lockwood et programstrategies uponinitial reflect managers then and to determine effectiveness their • • • • • • • • Timely Compatible managementwith community and expectations non and Creditable, honest - Documented for review Statistic Simple Replicable Cost effective (low cost) et al et state-

ally valid . 006). Failure to accurately understand understand accurately 2006). to therelationships theFailure casual reduces response model, demonstrates which thestate of thesystem,pressures the

onses that can be used tocounter the pressures, is useful in corrupt

2006). The The 2006).

WCPA

has developedhas atooltoassess .

eness ofPAs. The (2006) the ideal assessment

2006). The RAPPAM

CEU eTD Collection assess the effectiveness of conservation through the5 ConservancyNature has developed computerized a tool strategies to 2005, 452). The TRAmethodwill be utilizedto examineeffectiveness of the management WCPA to“[i]dentify is thestrengths and weaknesses of aprotected system area al et (Chape ofmanagement effectiveness o keyfor a the methodology by tool WCPA created reportingThe TRA facilitate the to provides 1999). TRA becauseof Astooluseful Margoluis a the the is attributes:following decisions regarding which specific interventions should focusedbe upon(Salafsky and Jacob Mugishaand 2004;son Matar It 2001; informs Anthony2008; 2010). and management strategies are effective (Salafsky and Margoluis 1999; Margoluis and Salafsky asglobally tool a to outcomesmeasures conservationproject determines and whether monitorTRA to threa used is 2.9. Threat Reduction Assessment biodiversityas to of proxy a threats (Salafsky Margoluis and 1999). measurement area the measure outcomes toprotected conservationproject through Margoluis Assessment (TRA) a is simple yet effective tool devel sources, strategies, success measures) (Lockwood al. et 3. 2. 1. managers, staff, community members, makers funding and providers.managers, policy staff, community Data expressed i change at each site, sites because it “unitless”is and is calculated based upon thepercentage of threat Can be useful increating astandardized index that compares vastlydifferent project It has the capacity to influ mitigate the threats to biodiversity in KCA . n the TRA index can be easily understood byproject used and easily be can n the TRA index

ts beents has as measurement proxy ofa It biodiversity. used n abroad scope. The first step required as determined by the ence project design project design ence and project design,monitor

oped byNick andSalafsky Richard - S Framework (systems, stresses, to help protected area managers

2006). The Threat TheThreat Reduction 2006).

. CEU eTD Collection (Jachman bushmeatfragmentation, and et al. hunting to due ofhabitat Ghana have in outside decreaseddensity PAs Wildlife in populations 2.10.2. Bushmeat difficul increasing onpressure the environment and todue thesepressures Ghanais reporting 2003). Social,economicimproved conditions (Stern environmental factors are political and poverty,which to wouldsubsequentlyeconomic reduce lead Ghanato development in wouldsupporttargeted curve theory Kuznets (UNTheenvironmental activities 2002). farming in households participating primarily from under linewere nationalliving poverty the natural resources for more onproximate dependent be degradationto they tend because impacted byenvironmental in rural areas than urban areas (UN 2002). Marginalized people are disproportionally approximatelyproduct is 14billion US dol Sub- regional, the above ranked is and Ghana was 135ranked ofout 187countries thein UNDP Human Development 2011 Index 2.10.1. Economics and the environment per 51.5%14yearsold 2.0% yearand is be onaverage ofpopulation under (UNto 2012). the average (Jachman et al. 100 is density 238533 km The following paragraphs willcontextualize the research. Ghana, locatedWestern in Africa is 2.10. Ghana and distribution of distribution someand ties reaching CBD targets CBD reaching (CBDties targets 2007?). 2

and and people/km has

an estimated population estimated an of24million Population approximately people. their p

2011; UN growth2011; Population 2012). from 2015 to is 2010 projected species show evidence of declining trendsinforested areas in Ghana 2

and is only slightly outsideareas slightly lower only forested than the is and national roductive activities. Fiftyeight cent per

Saharan average (UNDP 2011). gross domestic Its lars (UNlars disproportionally Poverty is 2012). higher 18

2011).

Numbers, density, dispersion Numbers, density,

of people of as people identified CEU eTD Collection infrastructure development has enabled bushmeat Improved trade. ofbushmeat causes the principle oftransformation the are urbanization now at estimated around US$350 million have ofpractices transformed subsistence hunting into comm protein) is a factor in the decline of species caused by bushmeat utilization. Traditional Ghana. humanand in (economic Increased lack ofrural activities population, alternatives and Hunting for bushmeat is a traditional practice and an integral part of human species (IUCN2011 (CBD There are 2007?). 215threatened species Ghana, in 49of which are fo rest dwelling approximately 80% of 80% total approximately agricultural production (UNCassava, 2002). maize, plantain, crops ( cash The farming activities in Ghana include subsistence farming, cultiv 2.10.3. Agriculture KCA. deficiency of and research datatodetermine how particular activities impact biodiversity in hunt and populations - long a duiker and population the ( duikers examinedrelationship study the 2001). bytrade threats posed bushmeat conservation initiatives to(Bakarr the reduce A recent three 2001) Syndrome”“EmptyForest (Bakarr populations fragments depleted manyDue Western to in the remainingforest exhibit Africa of supplementary income as onbushmeatsource (Bakarr rely farmers Many hunting - phase programmeincluding public sensitization,researchcultural and

Cephalophus sppKCA. Cephalophus in concludedhunting) impact strongly It to that is suspected WD

1996). Small, family operated farms familyproduce Small, operated technology rudimentary using 1996).

). ing activities was recommended (Wiafe and Amfo

between incidents of between huntingthe incidents and abundance of forest term study examining the relationship between duiker . In 2001 Conservation International International launcheda . In 2001Conservation annually annually 2001).(Bakarr growth Population and 19

from areas rural to reachurban centres. ercial bushmeatercial trade, which is ation of and food crops - Otu 2012). There is aThere2012). is Otu

livelihood livelihood

- 2001). based based CEU eTD Collection demark1990. Officially foreed forest areas has decreased from nearly10 million hectares to less than 2 million hectares in makingagricultural the practice destructive and unsustainable. Since 1920 Ghana’s closed and(Palo 1996).Yirdaw Seventy percentlogging. of deforestation commercial and agriculturecollection to lands, fuelwood cultivation, conversion shifting of highest deforestati the rates of one had Ghana has primary Vigneri2011). forand the 70,000farmers livelihood (Kolavalli 1994). subs cultivated vegetablescocoyam are for primarily and the increase in touris created a local ecotourism strategy and undertaken entrepreneurial endeavours to benefit from villages have not realized theex Tourism KCA potential in the attract has to communities incomeadjacent most forbut andof importance value about ofconservation. experience the andthe to nature learn visitors ecotourismdestination KCA income generates allowing governmentGhanawhile forof the number of of visitors all PA’s inGhanadue tothe canopy walk (Jachman et al. largest foreign exchange earner in Ghana (Jachman et al. dome gross the to 6.7% contributes Thetourism sector 2011). Ghanaby increased since2005International tourismin has per 22% year (Jachman et al. 2.10.4. Tourism Yirdaw and 1996). (Palo Cocoa the is primary cash of crop;one primary isGhana’s itscultivation and exports

m at KNP (Appiah KNP m at

sFallow have period shortened been due to population pressure st reservesover contain 80% pected benefits of Mesomagor, Onehas ecotourism. village, - Opoku 2011). in Ghanain 20

caused by been agriculturehas caused shifting on primarily to Itdue Africa. is istence orlocal (Kyei trade

2011). KCA2011). the attracts highest

stic product and is the fourth the fourth is and product stic of the natural closed f

2011). - Agyare Agyare As an As an orests

CEU eTD Collection (WD as such the produivory and oftrade cts bushmeat otherwildlife trade biodiversity of allPAs Ghana in is threatened by illegalhunting, which is supported bythe hunting primaryIllegal wasdetermined the to be 2004). (Terborgh to threat those species The which adapts well to human presence, 1998. An additional elevenspecies only were confirmed one The inhabiting park. baboon, eleven species disappeared had from parks, and national perhaps the entire country,bythe charismatic megafauna inhabiting the sixparks the at time of establishment. Devastati representations of thecountry’s diverse ecosystems. were There forty nat six to establish Ghanawasable ofresources devastatingwildlife populations; extraction natural other countries in the West African region were traumatized by civil wars, which led to illegal Ghana was an exemplary mode 2.10.5. Protected Areas logged bytimberlogged People near natural companies. reserve to access had living the its resources leaders from thesestates had theright the tolease land and allowed portions of to Assin Abura and the Attandanso, Twifobelongs Denkyera states. Heman,Traditional Reserve Kakum established KCAin 1952.Traditionally waspreviously Forest KCA land Conservation 2.11. Kakum 2010). Ghana (UICN/PACO of 5.6% protectstotal a network This protected area network. Ghana’s Reserves, twoWildlife Sanctuaries, one Strict Nature Reserve and five coastal wetlands form Protected A CBD level national ona (CBD Currently 2007?). Protected Areas in Ghana have been themost effective areas for the implementation of the ional parks shortlyobtainingas after independencecreated ional parks 1960. were in Theparks reas (WPAs) a covering total of Seven 13476000ha. National Parks, six Resource

Area conservation in West conservationin of Africa halfal ago.century While

was the only species encountered i 21

in Ghana there are twenty a 2009). 2009). - one species of n all parks.six the forest to be be to forest the - one Wildlife

ngly, CEU eTD Collection between zone the land. transformed Abeen buffer agricultural into KCA has surrounding extraction by the Forest Department in close proximity to KCAmajority but the of land ple70,000 peo reside adjacent to KCA. There fourare forest reserves managed timber for anthropogenically- by surrounded tropical evergreenforest ( displayed in 3 table Conservation 1992) Monitoring Centre Kakum Conservation Area’s ecosystem classified is as a tropical humid forest (World 1994). ofPA the (Kyei ofidea community wasfoundsupportive the be the to them however discontent that their access totheresources contained within KCA were no longer available to acquired from elsewhere or illegally from the KNP (Appiah were where previouslythat providedbythe area par KNP, were villagers prevented from accessing natural its resources. Currently the products andmushrooms, sponges, - fuelwood (Appiah natural resources such as thatched roofing, we meat, basket Prior to the establishment of the park residents living in close proximity to the area used the March touristsin to 1994(Kyei opened (Appiah the - landover resources and and whotherelinquished communitywere traditional right Division leaders authorities their ofJuly 1989. Themanagement ofareabecame the responsibility the of Ghana the Wildlife Administration created KCA of an aspart integrated household economic (Kyei supplement their to activities . Its v . egetation in 1996 was determined to be a representative sample of representative a be to determined in 1996was egetation WD 1996a modified land. It is estimated 65,000 that between and ). The park provides provides Thepark isolatedan remnant). of virgin forest - Opo Agyare 1994). Additional geographical and meteorological data is ku Kyei 2011; 22 Opoku With 2011). establishment the of the

tourism development and program in - Agyare 1994). The Central Regional TheCentral 1994). Agyare - - Agyare 1994). Itwas officially k is presently located presently located k is must be Opoku 2011). People expressed expressed Opoku People 2011). aving, plants, medicinal - Agyare CEU eTD Collection b a Table Average Relative Humidity MonthlyTemperatureAverage Rainfall of Highest Months Rainfall Pattern RainfAnnual Altitude Area coordinates Central Biome Location humansameAARR’s allowable intervention the to KNP as (Wi level ma not are AARR of concentrations of of biodiversity all protected inareas Ghana (UICN/PACO Because 2010). managed IUCN category protected II area (Appiah Attandaso Resource Reserve (AARR) asdepicted infig. 1. Park (KNP)Assin and National of Kakum comprised (KCA) Area is Conservation Kakum Oduro 2009). boundaries ofConservation Kakum Area and cultivated fields non is , status c

- Kyei World Conservation Monitoring Centre 1992 BirdLife International 2012 2012 International BirdLife

KNP’s status, hunting activities status, and theextractionKNP’s of speciesa

3 1994 Agyare Kakum Conservation Area GeographicalMeteorological and Summary Data Kakum .

AAR Kakum Kakum

R could allow for morehuman allow interventionKNP.R could than all Conservation Area

naged asseparate entities onebut as entity.

eographical and meteorological data s

85% 85% 20.2 May Bi 1500 135 36,600 ha 1 Tropical Humid Forest Region,Central Ghana 23 o

- 19.00' West

modial ° - c – C – - 250m

KCA has one of one Opoku KCA the 2011). highest has

June and September September and June 1750 mm -

31.6 b c

° C.

5 Kakum Park National

o c c ummary

26.00' North

a re Thisdecision constricts afe 2012). 2012). afe

prohibited. - – However, existent (Boafo and (Boafoexistent and

October b

c D

KNP and and KNP is astate ue to its to ue CEU eTD Collection

Assin Attandanso Resource Reserve National ParkKakum The objectives of KCA out set as inthe management plan are 2008). wasstrategy implemented2004 in and review a is quarterlybasisconducted ona (Jachman and annually relevantstrategy revisions are development strategyor place.was in Since 1996, the park is to management no management plan, the to 1996KCA Prior implemented 1996(WD in 1996). m The GhanaWildlife Division (WD)Commission ofForestry (FC) the is responsiblefor park IV. IV. III. III. V. II. II. - (Appiah anagement I. I.

To improvethe WD staff welfare and increase their capabilities. To integrate developmentTothe integrate ofreserve with the of that the local communities. of theTo exploit tourismpotential reserve the on game based recreational, viewing, t of conservation for the necessary conditions the To ensure To increase numberrevenueTo and increase the to Park ofits generation the potential. visitors Nationaldistrict intoregionalTo the and integrate Park development process, on based develop it for tourismsustainably and potential Park's the To exploit To activ T o improve inspirational and cultural interest. within the reserve and the sustainable utilization of selected exploitable resources. support for the conservationofPark'ssupport the resources. intoespecially thatof the surrounding communities, to ensure cooperation andtheir recreational, educational and aesthetic appeal. National Park and maintain them asan example of atropical rainforest ecosystem. ely protect and conserve all natural resources and aesthetic features inKakum WD

field staffwelfare, discipline, motivation and capabilities.

Opoku 20 11). Their most recent park management plan was

to be made Anmanagement 1996). adaptive be (WD to 24

(WD 1996): he unique biological features reassesses their management

CEU eTD Collection Fig. Fig.

Source: GADM2012, Wiafe 1 .

KakumConservation Area

and Amfo

- Out 2012 25

CEU eTD Collection data collection. Accr complied inPA’s included and the The quarterly report. are reports sent to headthe office in la on species incidentsor the in PA. 2004 Prior to KCA wasad monitoringat to as hoc displayed in table 4. The data collected bythe patrol staff the only is long (WD 2009a wildlife species seen, distribution, the state of habitat and any incidents of illegal activities PA staff patrol conductswildlife and habitat staffmonitoring. Patrol records and reports 2.11.1. Wildlife and Habitat Monitoring in KCA - (Appiah Trust (GHCT) funding Conservation from GhanaHeritage the KCAmanagementup bythe team of Large amounts of external funding have ceased and currently KCA thevast receives ofCouncil Sites and SmithsonianMonuments the and Institution (Appiah- International, from of Government addition Ghana.In the Program Development obj their To achieve cked a systematic approach necessary for long its budgetits from FC.funding the TheFC KCA allocates to based upon is budget drawn the a and distributed and a among PAs the ). ).

the US International Development Agency,the U.S. Committeeon International The spe

ectives

cies recorded by PA patrol staff as part of their regular duties is for technicalfor assistance, which was matched withmillion 2.4 dollars KCA received a 3.4 a grantfrom Unitedmillion dollar Nations the received

however . External parties conduct additio parties . External . It bothIt continues receive supportandto technical 26

- term effectiveness (Wiafe 2012). This data is KCA

received funding from Conservation received nal nal Opoku 2011). ad hoc - term data collected Opoku 2011).

research and majority

and and CEU eTD Collection full involvement of all major actors.” An adaptive management approach enables quickly mobilize public mustbe ensure to to wildlife,facing opportunities harnessed support conservation effortsbecome more to targeted addressing underlying causes of the threat threats and where further efforts and resources must be extended. As(2011) Bakarr “as states valuable todetermine howmanagement been staff succes have sful at mitigating particular (UICN/PACO 2010).more A through assessment of the threats to biodiversity in KCA is in KCA. Invasive species were the only other threat to biodiversity revealed in their report poaching determined(UICN/PACO Theassessment the 2010). that mainthreat is to wildlife The RAPPAM concludedthatmanagement effectivenessmust be improved Ghana in WPAs Ghana. of an eight in management evaluationconducted ofThe IUCN effectiveness 2.11.2. Relevance ofapp Nile Monitor ( Bongo ( Bush Buck ( DuikerBlack ( ( Bay Duiker silvicultor ( Duiker Yellowback maxwellii Maxwell Duiker ( pygmaeus AntelopeRoyal ( ( Potto ColobusOlive ( petaurista petaurista Spot ( Monkey (mona) Lowe’s Bush Baby ( ( Elephant Cercopithecus lowe campbelli Source: WD. Quarterly Reports 2004 to 2012, Kingdon 1997, Borrow and Demey Demey and Borrow 1997, Kingdon to 2012, 2004 Reports Quarterly WD. Source: Table - nose Monkey ( Monkey nose 4 Perodicticus potto . Boocercus enryceros Species sightings recorded on patrols ) ) ) Loxodonta cyclotis Loxodonta

Tragelaphus scriptus) Galago senegalensis Cephalophus dorsalis Varanus niloticusVaranus Cephalophus niger) Procolobus verus Neotragus Cephallophus Cercopithecus ) Cephalophus

lication of TRA in KCA Species sightings recorded on patrols )

) )

i ) )

) )

)

Cusimanse ( ( Python African ( Pangolin ( Crowned Eagle Horn Bill ( Pel’s Flying Squirrel ( Giant Forest Squirrel ( ( Mongoose Cusimanse ( Porcupine ForestGiant Hog ( HogRed ( River ( Leopard PalmCivet ( 27

Panthera pardus) Manis gigantea

Tockus fascitus ( Mungos gambianusMungos Atherurus africanus africanus africanus Atherurus Crossarchus obscurus Crossarchus obscurus Nandinia binotata Nandinia Potamochoerus porcusPotamochoerus Python seb Stephanoaetus coronatus Hylochoerus meinertzhageni) Anomalurus pe Protoxerus stangeri

) )

ae)

)

) )

li )

)

) ) )

CEU eTD Collection systematicallyassess thesuccesses project oftheir pre unanticipated results become ‘opportunities to learn’ and change rather than ‘failure to management theassumption is that resource management inherently is uncertain and therefore TRA well is suited t more targeted. management toreview their progress and learn frommistakes to ensure future efforts are and reveal where threats where reveal expandedcontractedspatially.and have or effectiveness and determine degree threats towhat hav management review enablea of will the conservation. This challengesexpose of its KCA 2004 fromto 2012. June June Interviews and a of materialreview support data and will tothei determine map biodiversity, threats rank the reveal, and out Salafsky owntheir conservation strategies to increase the likelihood of future successes (Lee 1993, From of theresults the assessments conservation managers able are to learn from and adapt dict’ (Lee 1993). Adaptive management provides a framework for managers to for framework a provides management Adaptive 1993). (Lee dict’ et al.

2001). The modified TRA with the additional geospatial threat component threat willmodified additional geospatial the The TRAwith 2001). o be partof adaptive an managementA cornerstone approach. of adaptive 28

and seekfor improvement opportunities e decreased orincreased within KCA r respectiver changes within . CEU eTD Collection sectionof methodology the discusses thelimitations of theresearch. methodology describedthe paragraphs in subsequent is of fulfill andprocessing analysis. collection, conduct research, to data methods utilized various the address chapterThis will Fig. Fig. 2 . Methodological a Methodological the objectives of research. A the through explanation and justification of the pproach Fig. 2 Fig. CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER ides a brief overview of the overview brief a ides prov - METHODOLOGY

this chapter.this component Thefinal methodological methodological

stepsto taken

CEU eTD Collection research literature regarding themanagement of protected areas, monitoring mechanisms and articles provided online sources by internationally To focusrecognized institutions. the thatprovidedthe foundation includedSources for this research academic jour books, indicators, protected internationalareas, policies and institutions provided foundation.the relevant scientif The initial ofphase research included data collection throughcomprehensive a review of 3.3.1. Literature Review 3.3. Qualitative Research methodology possible. participate made research the data through availabladditional the reviewa of collection workshop as well as participate in interviews and allow the researcher to collect body that manages was site, the willing to participate in TRAthe geospatialdata and resource reserve (AARR) are that managed asone entity. In ad Ghana ( levels of in the conductKCAofhighest biodiversity researchcontains one to in. the country Africa’s vanishing rain forest. It is situated in Ghana, a politically stable and reasonably safe Kakum Conservation Area was selected for this study because represents it aremnant ofWest 3.2. SiteSelection additional geospatial data was acquired with during fromthe. workshop consultation experts collected through the modified TRA workshop, meeting, interviews data design. Qualitative research The systematic approach harnessed qualitative quantitative and research methods within the 3.1. Research Design UICN/PACO 2010 UICN/PACO ic literature. Literature concerning biodiversity conservation, environmental

and review a WD ofdocuments produced

) and encompasses

was collected through the literature review, a 30 a fully protected wildlife reserve (KNP) and a

e onsite files. Willingness ofWD staff to WD from documents, GIS databases,

dition thedition WD FC, the of the . Quantitative data was preliminary and and nal nal CEU eTD Collection after amandatory research permit was obtained from the the Following workshop. KCA wasset preliminaryTRAupwith meeting, the staff workshop cultural local informationcollection theof regarding norms execution the support TRA to identification appropriate participants was helpful forthe the It in TRA also workshop. identify ato suitable time for the modified TRA. period Themeeting also allowed for the experts Duringmeeting the helped the with meetingexperts. A washeld twolocal preliminary 3.3.2. Preliminary Meeting and Workshop Preparation depth. and breadth appropriate review of literature a to compose synthesised The wasthen mentioned information sources. Division (WD) the and Forestry Commission of (FC) addition Ghana, in to the above collected primarily through a review of locally sourced information onGhanaand Kakum the Area wasConservation wasgathered. information This articles reports. institutional and To contextualize academic background, journals research review anincluding depth in ofmodified TRAwas the approach collected sitting in an office). Some interviews were arranged before hand while others were conducted appropriateness of situation (hiking the bythe determined the through were conducted with WD stakeholders. local staff and The format of each interview was conductedwithwere WD additionaldozen an informalunstructured, staff interviews and of official documents accessible to thepublic. Nineteen formal, semi availableoverview an through readily KCA not thorough information on to acquire conducted document titled “Reporting progress at protected area sites” (Stolton al et World the in Bank/WWF included select questionnaire with management staff the utilizing Multiple 3.3.3. Interviews

interview methods were employed to collect additional data. A structured interview 31

Wildlife Division of Ghana

documentation from the Wildlife the from documentation - protected area versus structured through a review of review a of through . 2005) was

interviews .

- CEU eTD Collection was attributes: becauseoffollowing The tool sen cho the method appropriate measuring an conservation in success is for KCA. project The TRA tool between conservation practitioners (Salafsky et al. by developed actions and of for biodiversitythreats classifications conservationunified lexicon modification now facilitates the prioritization of emerging or mounting threats. The standard increases of threats enhancing reduced’modification the enables threat category.indexcalculate to The reductions and developedtool byAnthony for (2008)inclusion allows the of valuesinto negative the ‘% and was applied with the TRA tool(Matar and Themodification ofTRAAnthony 2010). the classifications of threats and actions (Salafsky et al. forlexicon biodiversity standard conservation unified 2012.The June in workshop management adoptionofapproac adaptive the an mitigated in tobiodiversity threats Kakumto management strategies AreaConservation since modified effectivenessof wasutilizedto 2008) the The determine TRAmethod(Anthony 3.4.1. Modified Threa 3.4. Quantitative Research of and context local managementillustration the of the implementation strategies. and TRAthe collected fromInterviews workshop academic literature. deeper provideda Interviews consent. verbal gave were conducted obtained during tosupplement information person Each spontaneously. interviewed wasinformednature the about of inte the the IUCN allows for systematic identification of threats and improve information sharing • Practical and costeffective, o o Does not require externally created baseline data techniques, collected through simple ondata Based t Reductiont Assessment Workshop

the accuracy of the tool. This is an important adjustment as the

2008). 2008). 2008) provided the providedthe 2008) conceptual framework h in 2004 until the date ofTRA the 2004the date h in until

rview and and rview CEU eTD Collection following criteria: experts Six theparticipated in modified TRA They workshop. selected based were upon the 3.4.1.1. Participant Selection workshop.the a and the to assessment wereprior contacted 2012.Participants areaon1June Kakum Conservation TRA (MatarAnthony and wasconductedsetting Theretrospective workshop 2010). at onsite Previous studies have i following: the contained It participant. waseach to booklet given a and workshop attendance sheet method andparticipants theunderstood purpose ofTRA.Pa the the interactiveTo TRA begin facilitator wasgiven short, a presentation bythe ensureallto • • • • • • • • • • sked to have any relevant support documents at hand to be utilized to supportdocumentshand utilized andbe at torelevant during any referenced sked have A description ofthreats A TRAI An Expert knowlExpert preventing project overcomemanagers frequently potentialto Has the challenges the site, biodiversity changes in the throughout Reflects is It sensitive tochanges over Identifies threats and assesses changes inthreats, History with the KCA. involvementIntimate monitoringprocesses, managementand in the modifiedthe assumpt key and TRA process from conducting any monitoring any from or of conducting failureof the project. success a

information sheetthatcontainedinformation methodological detailed explanationsofsteps and ndex calculation sheet

edge of thesite, ndicated that TRA the is most effective when conducted a in workshop

and definition sheetreduction of 100%

short periods of shortperiods time, (Appendix II) 33

ions ,

(Appendix I) (Appendix

rticipants were recorded on an ,

(Appendix I

I I) ,

CEU eTD Collection management staff. Thetarget condition wasdefined as biodiversitythe in KCA. Biodiversity selected because that is when the adaptive manag appropriate to the be timeframe2012, wasselected ass for the allowsclassificationmore legally for human June June 2004to present the date, intervention. At present, AARRunder the as same is restrictions KCA although 2012) its (Wiafe Although the two protected areas have separate classifications they are manag ofconsisting Park Kakum (KNP) National Assin and Attandaso Resource Reserve (AARR). by appropriate be the participants. Spatially the assessed workshop Kakum Area, Conservation confirmed and and byfacilitator temporally to spatially theboth defined assessmentFirst, was TRA of 3.4.1.3. Calculation Index assumptionsofmodified TRAmethodare ( Fundamental the TRA the 3.4.1.2. Keyassumptionsof method

3. 2. 1. • • Changes in all Changesin all threats measured. be can estimated or Expertshave the abilit All threats to biodiversity at a given site can be identified human is biodiversity - destructionof All A detailed site map The to biodiversity termsto in impacted, intensity, of area urgency. and ofexperts KCA the have ability to identify, distinguish and all rank threatsthe direct are threats.magnitude frequency human or to activity due consideredanthropogenic as phenomena notare considered asthreats. However, threats have that increased in of all threats at any given time. systematically, either qualitatively or quantitatively, assess the percentage of change descriptions and level 1 defi level and descriptions IUCNclassification ofdirect threats sheet 1and including 2category level (Appendix

nitions VI

) . (table 1) 34 . Losses ofinduced. Losses biodiver

ement approach wasement approach adopted by KCA Salafasky and 1999 Margoluis ): . At an At . essment. June 2004 was y given point in time, in point y given sity natural to due ed as one entity. entity. one as ed y to y to

CEU eTD Collection 1999): for (Salafsky Margoluis and order increase validity. For the defined start dateof the assessment period, each threat was ranked in s the reduce helped to This assessment. the into incorporated relevant materials were encouraged. The use of material allowed for further evidence to be Participants then order threats according to relative importance. Discussion and the use of of threats across sites to occur without loosing valuable detail caused by standar specific explanation of each threat, which was recorded. This was done to enable comparisons categori of Conservation Area. Each threat was then categorized according to the IUCN standard lexicon activities that Kakum adve(Margoluis in rsely 2001) Salafsky and affect biodiversity anthropogenic weredirect as defined Threats own words. KCA in their in period, assessment Collectively participants were asked to list all threats to biodiversity, concentrating on the 1999). Margoluis includes species present, habitat condition and area and ecosystem(Salafsky and functions worksheet and the distinct 100% threat reduction’ wasdefined. with ‘100% reduction’ defined as total elimination of the threat itwas indicated on the as scoring recommended byAnthony (2008). If participants felt that they strongly disagreed threat reduction’ as the absolute abolishment of a threat to decrea For each threat ‘100% threat reduction’ was defined. The TRA facilitator defined ‘100% threats. threats. To utilize amore detailed description of threats, each was identified 2 at sub es es and(Margoluis 2001). Salafsky b. a. c.

Intensity: t Area: Urgency: percentage of habitat(s) in the site that the threat will affect the immediacy of thethreat he impact of thethreat on a small scale within the overall area

Participants were alsoasked toproduce asite 35

ubjectivity of theassessment and se ambiguitystandardize and dization.

- CEU eTD Collection (Ormsby et al. tool, wasusedsoftware digitize to of power GIS the protectedTo areas. harness to suited space. This is beneficial in prescribing action. geographical occurrence in future and understanding ofphenomena. GISpresent enhances modelgeospatial and technology illustrate digitally computer to method a using is of (GIS) KCA during thesame time period assessed during theTRA. Geo Geospatial data was utilized Threat Modelling 3.4.2. Geospatial 1999). Margoluis dividingthreats, it bythe sumrankings total then and ofby the multiplied 100(Salafasky a percentage. Then thefinal TRA index score was calculated by adding up the raw scores for all The by raw werecalculated scoresforrankingby then multiplying total each the threat increasing validity. uponrelied assign to a percentage of change for decreasing each threat, subjectivity and was evidence uponhard and Again, 2008). agree percentages (Anthony collectively discuss fo managementin llowingadaptive 2004. Immediately approach participants were asked to degree towhich theeach threat had decreased or increased sincethe implementation of the the ofreflecting change percentage a individually to instructed assign then were Participants 2008). 2008).

TRA index= ∑ TRA index=

in this research to display

, analyze, , analyze, manage display and the geographicaldata raw scores/total rankings*100

36 Geographical management techniques are well are techniques Geographical management

ArcGIS version 10, of astate theart changes in threats biodiversity to in graphical informationgraphical system

nd nd - CEU eTD Collection useful where there apaucity is of spatial data and limited resources. representation can that be used toeducate staff of and variety a changes of threats. It can help management focus resources and produces auseful visual the spatial illustrate to useful modified TRA is addition the This to identifyand hotspots. Modeling threats to biodiversity using a spatiotemporal method was used toillustrate 3.4.2.2. Geospatial threat data collection assumptions fundamental The geospatial modeling 3.4.2.1. Keyassumptionsof threat KML2SHP (Zonumwith software Online 2010) Solutions settlement using digitized locations earthKMLwasconvertedGoogle author file the and The used tocreate abase map. The base map included thefollowing features: com To 2. 1. • • • • • All threats to biodiversity at a given s can identified be agiven site at threats biodiversity to all of The location systematically rank intensityand of rank atthe eachsystematically urgency threat time. given any threats to biodiversity, time,point ofin experts KCA ability the have to identify the location of allthe direct GIS datasets on settlements (Wiafe Amfo and - GIS datasets onand elevation (METI NASA 2011); GIS datasets on administrative borders of Ghana (Hijmans et al. GIS data setsonhydrography(Lehner2008); GIS data Resource Reserve (Wiafe Amfo and - ParkAttandanso Assin and National onthe ofboundaries Kakum sets GIS data mence the geospatial component of research this digital data sets were collected and

of modeling the geospatial threat compone

Out 2012); 37 ite canite be ranked

Out 2012). Out

stakeholders. It is particularly . Experts have the ability to

2007); nt are

. At any given. Atany

threats, CEU eTD Collection specifivalues in 2=medium,the from a In caserequired 3(1=low, where different 1to threat 3=high). assigned and each For participantsthreat time period, theranked both intensityandon urgency scale a drawn on separate maps. (s) location map provided.Theapproximate TRA detailed the onthe during identified wasdrawn of process,each collection approximate threat the location(s) geospatialthreat the To begin wasgiveneach to the It booklet contained following:workshop participant. component. collection method threat A data purposeofgeospatial and the understood A short, interactive presentation was given by the facilitator to ensure all participants specific map layer in ArcGIS 10. Any differentiation in assigned values was map ArcGIS values specific assigned in differentiation layer in 10. Any imported into ArcGIS 10 platform.After digitization of thes workshop the weredigitisedand threat during then maps acquired geospatial drawn The hand and3.5. DataProcessing Analysis the spatial data collected and increased validity. complimentary evidence tobe integrated into the assessment. This reduced t allowed material for additional the wereof Theuse encouraged. materials support The geospatial data collection was done asacollaborative process. Dialogue and the use of and urgency of specific threats over the temporal per each threat mostwas severewithin the PA • • A detailed site map An the geospatial threat data collection process and key assumptions (Appendix I)

information sheetthatcontainedinformation methodological detailed explanationsofsteps and of each threat du c c locations it wasnoted on (Appendix VI) (Appendix ring the twoperiods of study,2004 June 2012, June and were

the map. Thisnecessary was todetermine where and useful to determine the changes of intensity changes the determine to useful and 38

. iod

e threats each was assigned a

indicated. he subjectivity of ,

CEU eTD Collection numerical value of eachwas layer used toshow A which relied on the expertise of workshop participants is subject to bias (Salafsky is to and expertiseofsubject relied bias which participants onthe workshop results maybe misleading (Salafsky and Margoluis TRA 1999). geospatialdata and collection accurately identify, rank, assess the progress of thethreats or locate them on the map the workshopdonot assumptions.If and the ofunderlying participants accuracy explicitness the effective approach where there is a paucity of data. The dependentonthe liability re is isexperts andlocal draw also subjectivehowever to threats pinpoint subjective.Allowing is biologicaldiversityand to proxy a threats as uses The TRAmethod be to unable existsare of they data paucity a where 1999). (SalafskyHowever, Margoluis explicit and produce a quantitative measurement of biodiversity health and are more consistentand measure project successhave thetheoretical advantageofdesigned directness is as it to are There tolimitations allscientificemployed. methodologies Biological methods to used 3.7. Limitations feedback to the facilitator process.workshop were Participants then asked to upon reflect the andworkshop give the interviewafter Thequestions for wasuseful guiding discussion. of discussion this reflectto upon workshop. the Threat mitigation and indirectthreats were principlethe themes the TRAFollowing d an geospatial data collection process, 3.6. Reflectionworkshop of to biodiversity at two specific temporal of

map the superimposition displaying of all threats for each timeproduced. The was period each threat utilized. utilized. . As afinal result derived from GIS analysis, the

(Appendix V) (Appendix

periods . 39 were created.

a spatial gradient of the intensity and urgency urgency and gradient ofintensity the spatial a an informal was discussion ignited

two two maps representing threats , it is a simplified yet CEU eTD Collection examinedd understoo and ofperiod the objectives study. the time the inarea ofover biodiversity the study to of knowledge threats best the had have to believed participatedwere inworkshop the that personnel the however 1999) Margoluis 40

CEU eTD Collection Strategy wasStrategy adopted by PA the management Management fromAdaptive temporally 2004,when defined the June was AARR.KNP It and experience with the WD KCA. at The assessment was defined spatially asKCA comprised of from of ranged seven fortwo to years 7years. Theemployees managementposition a having WD a had participant but WD forwhomwas nolonger worked the KCA holding at employee ofparticipants currentlyheldAll the KCAmanagement with positions exceptionthe of one Odumase adjacent tothe protected area. There were five participants present thewo at on 2012The modifiedwasconducted 1June the TRA WD at workshop officeAbrafo in 4.1. Context existing. onadditionalfac insight theframework above will presented.providevaluablebe within These information and brief a management overview Finally, barriers and offit that do not additional challenges management and WD staff face eliminating each threat willbepresented then and discussed discussed andpresented state of each during theidentified TRA process, detail the definition reduction of 100% give ofresults will introduction brief the paragraphs a The following documents interviews. and sourced ge TRAworkshop, This chapter willpresent thequalitative and quantitative research findings from theModified

threat threat Junein 2004and 2012. June

ospatial threat andcollectedduringospatial threat modelling data review a of locally tors thattors prevent themost effectivemanagement PA fromKCA in within the discussions of the individual threats. CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 41 -

RESULTS RESULTS (Jachman 2008) The geospatial illustration of threats will be

, to Juneto , ;

define

2012.

and and The challenges

describe describe each threat The target rkshop. the the . CEU eTD Collection lines were were withinlines erected park boundaries, marking the appearance of new a threat to ‘fishing and harvest aquatic resources’, was completely eliminated while telecommunication threat, 2012.One June 2004to of from reduction 44% June positive showeda The TRAIndex intensitythe urgency and ofthreat each values in specific locations it was noted on the map. Thisnece was requiredassigned different threat a case where the In 2=medium, 3=high). 3(1=low, 1 to from urgencyscale and ona bothintensity the ranked and participants threat timeeach period, in displayed 2004 is maps onlater drawn and 2012,were June The approximate locati 2012. percentage of change for each threat was then calculated from theJune 2004 date toJune threat affects, urgency its it areathat relative wasranked eachonthe threat methodology chapter, the in As described threat for appropriate future anda not TRA.remain considered thus the the site had occurred it was not acurrent threat howeverpreliminary discussion the determinedexperts that becauseonly prospecting around indisplayed t identifiedprincipal nine TRA participants The expert 1999). area andand (Salafsky Margoluis ecosystemand functions present, habitat condition species KCA in biodiversity including the as wasdefined condition by the experts by the ab le 5 le

and “100% reduction “100% and of intensityforand June 2004 .

fig. Other threats such as ‘mining and quarrying’ were Other were threatsthe such ‘miningmentioned quarrying’ as and during presented in on(s) of each threat during the two ofperiods study, June 2004 and

3 and the threats to biodiversity table 6 table on a gradient ona . over the temporalperiod . This awarded each threat with a relative score. The digitized. The location of threats to biodiversit to ofdigitized. Thelocation threats 42 or nor

a histor

in 2012 are displayed byfig. 2012 displayed in are in KCA in biodiversity to threats ical threat to biodiversity but must ssary toillustrate ”

was defined for each

spatially For 4. For y in in y

as as CEU eTD Collection TRA Score. Ranking Total The willthreats. threats presented be byrelative impor or66% more. Effective enforcement law were patrols thesetop and reducing to attributed and ‘hunting and collecting terrestrial animals,’ all showed a significant positive reduction of no change. The top threatsthree ‘logging wood and ‘gathering harvesting’ terrest perennialand crops’ are which legally permitted only and on small a ofsection land, showed KCA. in impacts adverse onbiodiversity had increasing‘Annual tourism has Ghana, however conservation and in destination centre profileeducation tourist high KCA biodiversity. a to is threat be alterationsto causedimportant during an staff,patrols specifically park workofthe KCA exhibited anegative increase on biodiversity, ‘utility and service lines’. The increased traffic on existing roads that transect

the index. Interestingly, management also considered index. Interestingly,managementthe considered also 43

tance from theto lowest highest the rial plants,’ Table No. 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

b a

TRA Calculation Index 5

. TRA Formula Index

Threat Reduction Assessment Index see table below see http://www.iucnredlist.org/te see U R resources F A W T G L animals H ishing and harvesting aquatic and aquatic harvesting ishing ourism and recreation areas andogging wood harvesting oads and railroads and oads tility and service lines nontimber perennial and cropsnnual athering terrestrialplants unting and collecting terrestrial ork and other activities other and ork

Threat

CEU eTD Collection

chnical Total Raw Raw Total

Score 54.11

- documents/classification

TOTAL threat IUCN IUCN code 4.2 4.1 5.4 2.1 6.3 1.3 5.2 5.3 5.1 ÷

- schemes/threats Ranking Total Area 123 45 1 2 4 3 8 5 6 7 9 Criteria Rankings (relative)

- classification Intensity 45 = 1 2 5 4 3 6 7 8 9

- scheme

Urgency - ver3 45 0.440 x100 1 5 4 6 2 3 7 8 9

Convert to % to Convert

Ranking Total Total 123 13 13 13 14 20 23 27 3 9

% Threat Reduced - 100 - - 100 66 90 70 - 30 40 = 0 3

Raw Score Index TRA TRA 54.11 - 44.0 (%) 13.2 20.7 18.9 - - 0.39 13 2.7 5.6 - 0 3

Table No. 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 6

Description ofthreats and definition of100% reduction nontimber crops nontimber crops perennial and Annual activitiesWork other and Tourism and recreation areas Gathering terrestrialplants harvesting andLogging wood terrestrial animals andHunting collecting Utility and service lines railroads Roads and aquatic resources harvesting and Fishing

Threat

CEU eTD Collection

Ranking Total Total 13 13 13 14 20 23 27 3 9

% Threat % Threat Reduced

- 100 - - 100 66 90 70 - 30 40 0 3

roads) electricity (All lines follow current Service lines telecommunications and Roads that transect park. PA from collection and Fishing ofboundary PA. All crops (permitted and illegal) within negatively in thepeople boundaries of KCA that permitted other WorkWD staff of and All tourismactivities within K KCA. of boundaries Gathering terrestrial plants fromwithin currently) occurring commercial logging woodFuel collection live animals by tourists (very rare). (bushmeat,Poaching ivor

. 45

Description ofthreat

impacts biodiversity

1 km PA. into of aquatic species

y), removaly), of CA

(No (No .

lines. lines. expansionofZero service utilityand Elimination 20km/hou of above speed bridges. expansionofwildlife Zero road. of a the road Tarring KCAwithin boundary. elimination ofTotal fish harvesting boundary. area elimination of protectedTotal crops in disruption. Total elimination of all non exceeded on adailybasis. Zero littering. Carrying capacity of facilities not KCAwithin boundary. Total elimination of plant collection KCAwithin boundary. elimination ofTotal wood harve KCA boundary. Total elimination of all hunting within Explanation of 100%Reduction of Explanation

nd creation of

- e ssential sting sting

CEU eTD Collection

S Fig. ource 3 . s: Threats to Kakum Conservation Area’s biodiversity in 2004 in Area’s biodiversity Kakumto Threats Conservation KCA boundary ( boundary KCA Wiafe

and Amfo - ), 2012 Out

hydrography 46

( Lehner 2008 Lehner )

CEU eTD Collection

Fig. Fig. S ource: ource: 4 .

Threats to Kakum Conservation Area’s biodiversity Area’s KakumConservation to Threats KCA boundary(Wiafe

and Amfo - Out 2012) Out

2012 in

CEU eTD Collection involved activatesinvolved in illegal KCAfrom community. not The the surrounding inside a are c in KCA duetheir involvement in illegal activities as described in the above however people support from adjacent communities the are the primary threat biodiversity to pose asits bigg asexceedingly critical the community strongest local force the be protecting the can PA or thesupported establishmentof KCA,vehemently others of it. Local opposed support PAa is their right to extract resourc grantedWD permission and from PA the from werethe without prohibited entering people the PA used asit their source of natural resources. Upon its establishment as awildlife reserve establishment it was a managed forest reserve an As discussed inthe literature review KCAwas established in1989 and prior to its from protected members laws ofcommunity whoabide bythe of the donot conservation. This will help to reveal how the community is endowed with the responsibility of protecting the PA fromillegal activities, will be outlined. KCAwill discussed.be approachof Theroleand the enforcementlaw body the staff, Prior to discussing each threat separately, the role and relations adjacentKCA, to descendingfrom in and order are: communities category (Salafsky al. et The three most critical threats to biodiversity in KCAfall under the ‘biological resource use’ 4.2. Community ategories. During an interviewWD staff revealed that itis very infrequent that people caught • • • Gathering terrestrialplants; andLogging wood harvesting; Huntingand collecting terrestrial animals. est threat (Infield 2001; Pimbert and Pretty 1997). KCA has attracted local - based threats

2008). These2008). threats are directlyattributed to t es from Althoughes KCA somewas revoked. community members

d members of thecommunities adjacent to engaged KCAengaged the with KCA is how and hip of communities adjacent to

he of actions members - mentioned mentioned CEU eTD Collection Bushmeat vendors refused to cooperate with WD staff and identify the inhunters 2005(WD order toeducate them hunting on laws, protected species, licences and the bushmeat trade. in hunters reaching having were 2005 WD in difficulty reports highlighted the staff quarterly CEPA struggle has licencespepper raiding and fencing to crop (WDhunting deter training ). 2010d withdealt the following issues: closed hunting season, laws governing bushmeat trade, and are also distribu arestudents also members of wildlife clubs that are supported byKCA. Educational posters onwildlife ofcrop importance elephant raiding. wildlife, and the educated laws Many community leaders, primarily tra community education conservationand workshops conflictmeetings and resolution with (CEPA) andAwareness Public Education e impactsWD, KCAth and they can have ofimportance on the PA outreach initiatives. WD ofThe message conservationWD community members reaches through community illegal activities. However, each monthpeople are arrested with recognizable. and defined is well it to cleaned ensure continuously ofThe boundary KCA is permita equivalent”(WD valid entry and or appropriate an 2009 PA a enter without to pertaining KCA. to t restrictions lineand states Thelaw boundary confident that community members from theadjacent villages are well aware of thePA usually thisprocess are involved in towhenexception enter this is PA people the seekingivory, however commu members nity ted ted andto communitiesschools (WD workshops Community have 2012).

d to reach hunters and people reachhuntersd to people and involved in bushmeat Twothe trade. of the

KCA is committed to educate peripheral communities about the ditional chiefs and elders. During school visits students are ,

helping to locate theelephants. WD staffmembers are campaign involves educational visits to educationalvisits schools, involves campaign 49

in the boundaries of boundaries the in in KCAfor engaging hat: “No is allowed person . The Conservation . TheConservation , p 34). , p34). CEU eTD Collection boards were established for KNP and AARR due to geographical position geographical they to were however are for AARR established KNPboards due and Pr major the toestablishmentoftogether bringing held support a workshops were stakeholders major PA. regarding2005two the In concerns and issues raise to forplatform communities direct participation of community members in KCAmanagement It is decisions. also a Community Board meetings the Annual involving Management isthat there ensures Advisory scheme. and concern for thePA, support that critical is for KCA’s ultimate success asaconservation and report illegal activities help supportvolunteers projects such as the pepper fencing initiative, disseminate information Volunteers wasprogramme, which initiated in 2003.The broad network of community Wildlife Community the of quarter 2006 third the members. In thatinformationstaff to relay and KCA staff a has network of community informants that gather intelligence of illegal activities KCA. near provides an excellent example ofeffective an method that could employed be a (WD issues weapons 2011 and laws laws, hunting themwildlife onbasic educated Community Collaborative Management an surrounding Gebele Resource Reserve established own their hunting associatio communities fringe from 27 2011hunters elsewhere Ghana.In in established being widespread hunting association exists for communities adjacent toKCA such associations are them regulations (WD on the Although governingbushmeat2010b). noestablished trade However,2005b, 2005c). 2010bushmeat in partook workshop, a traders in educated which (PAMAB) Management Area (PAMAB) Board otected Advisory

and Crop Protection Volunteers was Volunteers CropProtection and

(WD 200 6c) . This involvement demonstrates community support community support involvement. This demonstrates 50 d Conservation Education

formed assist to the CommunityWildlife (WD 2005b). Separate Separate (WDadvisory 2005b). workshop whichworkshop to reachto hunters n after taking a taking after n ). This This ). CEU eTD Collection KCA. Theymust be The law WDAll members staff interviewed demonstrated genuine a of dutysense protect to PA. the prote PAs in Ghana are considered ‘environmental security zones’ and thus are ensured effective WD ensure the to communities adjacent KCA.members the toPA hopes the support PAMAB2005b). with closely works is and funded bythe as function anto intended unit KNP apex unit both single (WD a oversees AARwhich and as PA trespassers is as follows (WD 2009 operationalized (WD et, Jachman al. 2004b enforcement monitoring system, developed by Dr.Hugo Jachman wasadopt WD atAbrafo the in Odum enforcement officerstationed office head 2009a arises need (WD of refusecall when the to duty the permitted not members Staffare 24/7. anti the activities, the WD refers tolaw enforcement staff astheanti wild a enforcement staff is enforcement staff. From inception, the WD its paramilitary been has and WD law ction. The integrity ofpatrols safeguarded through bythe KCAregular is WD law ). Anti). nimals poachers and (WD 2009 a 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. - - ty call call on considered duty training are and poaching military teamhad KCA at have enforcement frequently put their lives in danger while protecting the biodiversity in protectingin biodiversity while in lives the danger put their enforcement frequently Lethal force shot Warning Impact weapons V Command presence - erbal control erbal poaching duties are carried out 356 year a days are and coordinated by lawthe

careful not to be caught in traps set out by poachers, by trapsout find themselves in can poachers, set caught be to careful not required to carry firearms and ammunition to protect themselves from themselves protect to carryammunition and to firearms required

a ). Although duties). their expand antibeyond , p38).

2011). TheRules of with Engagement for dealing 51

GHCT - poaching team. members ofAll . By involving community . By involving ase. In July 2004 a law law 2004a July In ase. - poaching ed anded - CEU eTD Collection the communities. Poachers also ableare touse the presence of law morereportedalso easily bycomm enforcement as they help to deter people from illegally entering the PA. Illegal activities are presence ofWD law enforcement staff incommunities surrounding the PA strategic is for the to whereabouts to their advantage. Poachers are able to gather intelligence on WD staff and use their The majority of anti equipment, is concernofa proper rainjackets, KCAmanagement staff. including ofpossibility are fully detection thus and never protected from elements. of the Thelack during their tents and use standards They donot integrity. per5 nights month.teams made usually upoffive Patrol to three are staffmaintainsafety to poaching staffmembers participate in several short two and patrols,long can which up last to areathethroughout entire cross byconducting illegal activities. The patrol staff ensures law enforcement and monitoring is conducted is important KCA staffhas at Thepatrol 26). ifand prosecuted.” (WD arrested, investigated must be wanting, regulations found2009a policyOfficial states “[a]nyone who suspected is tohave contravened the wildlife laws and engaging andin poaching other illegalactivities gather to and data for monitoringpurposes. conductedThe patrols ensureare to abided PAby, is law to community deter members from enforcement members law and mammals community the thatinhabit PA.between and Conflicts insects, mindful toreptiles oflethal have continuously and be the from fire poachers under

staff have also been documented. been staffalso have as itgives authority to KCA patrol staff, whose job it is to protect KCAfrom ir advantage. For example if itis known that the law enforcement team - poaching team members live in

the power toarrest people suspected to illegal activities. This unity members toKCA staff because of presence their in 52 -

country patrols regular ona basis.Most

camps the at perimeter of thePA. The overnight patrols, to reducethe to patrols, overnight - enforcement inthevillages

anti , p , - CEU eTD Collection boundaries of with wildlife reserves the accompaniment of appropriate an permitted protectedthe fully is outside are not species that Hunting bylaw. punishable boundaries reserve within the of isprohibitedHunting wildlife strictly an a is and offense compromised.not populations the hunting species are established that if ensure regulations, followed correctly, assumed be will research, it of scope this the beyond is regulations specific WD hunting the of evaluation an purposebecause ofand the discussion PA. within the For impact biodiversity WD also are bythe hunting activitiesregulated that not therefore of PA, boundaries the impacts biodiversity in KCA. The animals that inhabit KCA are not restricted to the ofwidespread boundaries the ofillegal hunt part KCA is WD staff confirmedbushmeat primary is that the target for mostpoachers. within Hunting the irreversible. This is particularly significant when the targeted animals are threatened species. of an animalshunting presents acute problem isef lethal the it and because Hunting and collecting terrestrial animals is the primary threat to biodiversity in KCA. The 4.3.1. Hunting and collecting terrestrial animals 4.3. Threats tobio directly impact the biodiversity in KCA. KCA,members some from communities adjacent to KCA are involved in activities that officials and two elephants were killed inAARR. law exceedingly difficultis to keep all information activitiesand secret. For example, during a in of situation the and slip into the PA while they recuperate. Although enforcement staff is recently returned from a long structed structed to divulgeinformation not onanti - enforcement training session away from KCA, poachers seized the

diversity in Kakum Conservation Area - patrol are atand exhausted camp, poachers may advantage take

- poaching activities, in a small village it context small poaching a activities, in 53

Although there is community for is there Although support ing culture in the Central Region that

opportunity of absent ofopportunity

permit (Act 43 fects are

CEU eTD Collection 1 globally inblackcommodity traded the and market.trade illegal Thebushmeat the oftrade Odonkor fur,commodities as such and(Ministry bone of ivory Environment Science2002, and occur to still continues hunting the ofpresence enforcement,education law through initiatives,illegal community and patrols impact onthedirect biodiversity effortsof KCA. Despite t occurrence permit incidentsa outsidefrequent a hunting without ofis KCA interviewed confirmed people abided. lawsMany that the are hunting ensuring permits and havecan devastating consequences. TheWD the bodyis responsiblefo issuingr hunting of anconservation. populations is aspect important Unregulated species hunting compromise Wild Animals Preservation Act the bushmeatthe is sold to chopbars areAnimals hunt elimination of the be allhunting entire Central the illegal in Region. wildlife that migrate in outand of the PA. Therefore, a total elimination of the threat should dwelling risktoforest a the poses great thealso boundaries poaching outside However, illegal ‘hunting and collecting terrestrial animals’ is the total elimination of poaching in KCA. patrolled on monthly a Duringbasis. the TRA was it determined 100% that a reduction of documen showed n. Available community educatio tation harsher toattributed increaseenhancement an and and sentencing offor perpetrators patrols, hasKCA occurred according boundaries to participants expert in the TRA This workshop. is 2004, positiveSince 70% reduction a

A chopbar is a restaurant that butchers, cooks and serves bushmeat to customers. customers. to bushmeat serves and cooks butchers, that arestaurant is A chopbar et al. et

2007; 2007; Jachman Ivory, 2008). underbanned CITES, is highly a lucrative ed as a source of protein, which is either of awhich either as protein, ed consumed source is the household orwithin

within the boundaries ofoutside boundaries KCA. within and the

1 or directly or to buyers. Animals are also hunted for other 1961) of threats emanati . Hunting in. Hunting regulatedthat a manner notdoes 54

an increase in the hours and distance ng from hunting activities within o suppress hunting activities

, also having a CEU eTD Collection 5 illustrates the poaching a is within ofpoaching primary focus.poaching their Evidence K discussedfrom previously threats, the to due the urgency and intensityof activities, poaching from activities. Although law poaching the A significant portion of the KCA’s limited resources is devoted to primarily protecting the PA from thejudicial system crucial.is Harsher sentences reduce the number of casualpoachers. whobeen with have previouslyharshest people convicted ofcr similar a handed Lawsentences downharsher byjudges. WD attributedecreasepoachingthe activities in to the by corroborated staff, partially which appearsit that thesentences given topoachers increasingly are harsher. This was also determine if thepenalties have decreased or increased in harshness. However, when reported punishment, indicatingthe not ‘pending(bail)’ states only and report the described not is sentence final quarterlyThroughout thethe given number reports arrested is poachers of however often the Odonkoret al. Science 2002; and animal products are major threats to wildlife in KCA andGhana (Ministry of Environmen or lack of, the person has received for their crimes. This makes difficult it to ctivities recorded from April 2004 to March from recorded March 2012. ctivities 2004to April 2007; Jachman 2008). - en 55

forcement team also works to protect KCA - enforcement alsostated that judges are CA is recorded monthly. Fig.CA recorded is ime. Thesupport t

CEU eTD Collection food orextra incomeher or family. for his animals are because killed they simply crossthepath of an indiscriminate hunter seeking target these thatthey likely access, is to it morechallenging for Although poachers pollution. inlocated the centre ofPA, the furthest from other all human noise including disturbances illustrates how theareas of greatest intensity are shrinking. The areas of greatest intensity are hunting remai Although Species, such asforest elephants ( determineto track and (threatenedare abundant) being species which or targeted killed.and hadpoachers actually obtained an animal if and, which so, Thisspecies. useful information is ha both increase in an month, however, each vary onpatrol the and hours bypatrols covered unavailable. Thearea Abrafo Odumase. The gaps indataoccur because reports ormonthly statistics were fro obtained were The numbers Fig. Source: Wildlife Division Wildlife Source: 5 .

Monthly evidence of poaching incidents recorded in KCA .

KakumConservation Area s since occurred 2004. mostOnly the recent reports indicate if the ns a widespread a ns problem the PA,geospatialmodel the throughout m available the quarterly patrol reports at the WDoffice in Loxodonta cyclotis

’s 56

to 2012 2004 Reports Quarterly

) ) atare times specifically targeted. Other

CEU eTD Collection successfulbeen according expanded. WD be to potential to the staff has and has sourceofcommunities Theproject a provides income(WDcontinuous protein and 1996). oftype behaviour families a source of protein and income unless a specific strategy is implemented totarget this gives as poachingon willto continue it occur cropland to oncropland, continue dwell month, lice 25EUR) hunting per withindwell KCA. continue As farming families to earn 50 60 to GHS (approximately20 that may for extremelyspecies hunting ofis dangerous also thistype unregulated Region within verya small spatial and temporal space. With abundant farmers through the Central activity is extremely difficult monitorestimateto or and the as hunting consumption occurs the opportunity if itpresents itself. Animals may also be killed as a form of pest control. This frequently farmers bringlay or traps gunalong a with themduring their areWD hunters farmers. opportunistic issued.Many how staffnumber of described permits Law enforcement staff estimate thenumber that of people hunt that exceeds greatly the huntingBeyond the KCA,illegal activities within prevalent poaching is the Region. in Central the PAwithin unprofitable. decreased in KCA partially due to the lack of species present making illegal entry and hunting the time ofthe research therefore it impossi is There was no available data regarding population sizes or trends of particular species during decrease in areas with the highest intensity and thepopulation sizes of particular species. wonder also ifis the there relationshipa reduction between of hunting areas due to the abundance of species and distance from law enforcement camps.might One . The grasscutter (

nses continue to be inconvenient nses continueand inconvenient be to to animals obtain Thryonomys swinderianus 57

ble to accurately determine accurately to if poachingble has ) breeding project in established breeding )

daily daily tasks and seize within the PA, the -

CEU eTD Collection The of has firewoo area notcollection. d collection diminished has. the but intensity firewood of thisdecrease TRA,corroborated the participate in not did interviewed, but by were Staff by reduced 90%. posed collection been that firewood has threat the of2004 the dwellingforest and species whic decomposition, deadwood alters thehabitat of and KCA impacts natural processes, such asthebehaviour The collection of firewood from forests can cause widespread damage. The collection of impacts biodiversity.alone is the primacy ofcollection concern wood.presence dead Thepersistent of KC humans in to one kilometer into the PA. Felling trees for firewood within KCA is rare therefore the collection of closeproximitypeople in living to KCA. participants TheTRAworkshop determined thatthe isEnergy a necessary commodity wood and is the mainof source cooking fuel for many fuel within t pose not threatbiodiversity. a does to Community its members seeking firewood for cooking in biodiversity KCA.loggingto Commercial no within the longer exists PAand boundary resources is strictly prohibi extraction ( and managedfor timber Reserve Forest 1989,wasKakum establishmentin to its KCA prior harvesting 4.2.2. Loggingand wood in hunting is a positive sign itcontinues to be the most critical threat to biodiversit KCA. in y outsidehunting boundariesthe make theseanimals highly vulnerable. Although the reduction haven providea and to for wildlife, Kak poachingum within illegalAlthough supposed is - Appiah he boundaries of KCA are the primary ofthe thisthreat. boundaries to he KCAcontributor are

firewood is widespread occurredund and aro the entire perimeter of KCA Opoku 2011) ted. However,wood remains harvesting ofprimary one threats the . Since its establishment all extraction of biotic and abiotic

h transforms deadwoodinto nutrients. Since

and and

up of of A

CEU eTD Collection Suominen materials,medicine building food,and (WD care Ramcilovic fibers, 1996; products, dental Terrestrial plants found within the humid tropical forest have a plethora of uses including 4.2.3. Gathering terrestrial plants developed to secure renewable fuel sources and prevent the further destruction of habitat. further be to communityinitiativesneed and schools.This other wide forscheme local fundraising a is as sourceand used fromavaila to communities renewable a bility firewoodto maintained, harvested and sold as firewood schools. tolocal This initiative increases the have other once sources exploited. been TheWD saplings tree be to donates planted, fuel necessary is to ensure community resortcollecting members donot to PA fuelwithin the road and in forested areas where the collection permitted.is Securing renewable sources of Communitymembers often are seen collecting firewood from forested areas adjacent to the area. species t in of distribution desired denser farms a of and admitted from concentration the numberofOdumase, high a access thepoints to PA becauseof roads and proximity to paths maythat it terrestrial plants occurs primarily in AARR on the eastern border. TRA participants believed KCA and is considered to be the third most critical threat to biodiversity. The extraction of including terrestrial plants. However of boundaries , extraction withinto the continues occur of extraction resources the KCA, prohibit including Wildlife reserves, available. widely Forest reserves and wildlife reserves nearly are the only places left where these materials are (World Conse the Central Region ofGhana. This has decreased the availability oftraditional materials Ghanaians. andLogging the expansion of have cropland widespread lead to deforestation in

et al. et be due to its strategic position furthest away from the WD office in Abrafo rvation Monitoring Centrervation 1992).

2012). Non2012). - t imber forest products have great socio

- economic value for rural

hat hat - CEU eTD Collection be to thehad taken he picture with products me name allowed and his man his gave to WD the KCA. with The in did that reveal he was closely that worked of part anorganization forest. The man never revealed the exact location where these products were extracted. He words he showed me andthe cane products, chewing sticks, thathe had collected from the met man alocal carryingabag of sourced locally fo West, South the KCAI to bordering While road ona illegally. walking forestedfrom areas non - oflawsextract to members,aware the continue fully how community In other cases there is a blatant disregard for the law. The followin the theseproductsfoundthe habitatwhich community.provides only in near are permit the resources required can be collected from thesereserves. In other cases KCA communities surrounding thePA also have access to an adjacent forest r a permit and knew thespeciesand location of thespecific plantsrequired. Insome cases plants these thenor time get permit to a find to or someone from community that the had both have collect not permit him.a to did bitten had after poisonous ofa snake She span years, the of his collecting plants appropriate story mother the for anti the tropical humid forests b that anticommunity stated man For local a from totimeexample due the constraints. simply obtained is not 2008), cases products are required immediately and issued 7days permit,is a which (FC within in close proximity to their farm and they are able to see the products from their farm. In other sometimes people feel that they should be able to take products from thereserve because it is membersobtainnot do permit a to extract theseresources. WDstaff from the FC Extraction of theseresources permittedis outside wildlife reserves once apermit is obtained

(FC 2008) . - WD thatt staff acknowledged ut ut they extracted must be immediately to be He effective. told the venom for snakebites can be created from products found from withinvenom created be snakebites can for products 60

rest products. Afteraexchange products. of friendly rest he majorityhe of community local - venom occasions, over onthree g observation illustratesobservation g interviewedstated that eserve and with a timber resources

CEU eTD Collection - non perennial and 4.3.4. Annual for natural forests. help to reduce the pressure on the existing forest resources although they are not a substitute desiredproducts by communithe expansion and development community of these initiatives could improve access theto members. desired The products bycommunity otherforest include developedto be could that provide trees to local schools. Alth community involvedin campaigns currently WD Ghana.The risingis in rapidly population desired resources outside of the PA to fulfill their needs. This pressure will also grow with the commun until be pressure to continue under have secured will ities KCA accessto resources address the issue of community access. not theit does throughin future patrols thismayenforcement law Although achieved be the threat was determined to its andincreased presence strategy improved its in PAof the since2004.Areduction 100% workhas team, the to oflawwhich wasattributed fromThe success the enforcement KCA. modified 66%re a The positive TRA revealed been had products fromthat the collected KCA. non- WDmanagement staf discussion with ofone the later a Through myof understandingresearch. focus collected, the been established as a forest reserve and later a national PA would it have almost certainly among of sea plantations a cropland. and If the land currently KCAencompassing not had by KCAcropland surrounded is timber products oftimberand products because washighly the encountered where man it likely been had

fmembers itwas revealed that this man did not hold a permit to collect

be a total elimination of gathering terrestrial plants fromKCA.

ty. Further establishment of strategic forest plantations could and as exists of island an biodiversity natural and habitat timber crops ough thesetrees arefor intended fuelwood modelthe 61 duction of the extraction ofduction of the extraction non-

timber products CEU eTD Collection decreased since the PA’s establishment in1989 of KCA that existed prior to its establishment as a protected area. The area of cultivation has turne been have conducted prconducted thatare unfavourable bythe repercussions community maybut cause to cropland swallowedbe upbyKCA wouldincrease the habitat of the area theto people alt Simply relocating these people to land of similar value may not be considered a fair relocation historic and their home havingtheir containing roots culturalsignificance farm beyond land. overlooked be itthe cannot connecti Therefore, homescloseland in the theofPA proximityto boundaries are the their farmed.within more making domore valuable, Although costly. live compensationincreasingly people not Service arable 2012) Statistical land population(Ghana inthe expands Ghana willbecome iftask; done properly it would require proper compensation for people thatfarm the land. As boundaries of from cropland in KCA. Eliminating is existing the a park complicated political the eliminationwithin of total wouldbe thecroplandg threat existin A reduction all 100% KCA. within biodiversity onthe to theand present periphery boundaries ofthreats within The cropland KCA both boundarytake advantage to the to betweenexist the PAand boundary thatsurrounds cropland it. Crops are rightplanted upnext notdoes A buffer eastern border. zone onthe AARR, is and in concentrated park, the km into livingsettlers within boundaries.the park Atthe point deepest the cultivated extends1.5land 2004. Thecultivated part a land is of farms larger extend intoThere the park. that are no expandingneither nor contracting. patrols haveRegular not any recorded encroachment since operly. d into cropland. There exists an area of cultivated boundaries ofthe Therean cropland. land exists cultivated within area d into hough would it be beneficial the to biodiversity in KCA. the Allowing

of the microclimate created from the humid tropical forest. 62 on these people may feel to that land land ofas on peoplethat part may to feel these

however it however

has remained thesame 2004, since

for the - constrained PA

PA if not CEU eTD Collection giving visitorsgiving the opportunity experience a to r KCA an is ecotourism destination that generates income for theGhanaian Government while 4.3.5. Tourism and recreation areas more valuable. KCA increasingly the decreasedfo productsexpanding availabilityofrest outside KCA increases those within So croplands within of resources. existing boundaries KCA their although and the not are Therefore the expansion of cropland has placed increased pressure on existing forested areas available in close proximity the to exceptvillage in forest and nolongerwidely fuelwood, are including forproducts, various are used byvillagers that has occurred toincrease cropland native plant species are cleared indiscriminately. Species Animals are not the only species that are impacted by cropland. As widespread deforestation wilderness corridors between these habitats inGhana constricts species growth. were However, these animals still live within a constrained habitat and even if species numbers raiding species such as elephants and reducing human wildlife conflict ( Techniques such aspepp of chance killed,being legally or illegally, by farmers othercommunity and members. cannot afford to be raided by these animals. animals Once leave thePA, they have a higher manyfor dwelling forest species. Farm food sourceof excellent providean harvest, nearing Crops, are when especially they cropland. forested areas exist, once species migrate outside the PA boundaries they most oftenenter small and the habitat is constrained. Because no buffer zo frequentlyare considered pests to crops and are not desired by farmers. KCA relatively is Cropland naturalis a not habitat for forest dwelling species; those thatfind it suitable habitat to increase they have no room for range expansion. The lack of natural forest habitat and forest of natural Thelack expansion. for haverange they noroom increase to er fencing deterrent fencing effective, an crop provenbe er lowcost to have to

ers, who already earna whoalready ers, 63

emnant of humid remainingtropic and forest ne exists and exists twone only adjacent wildlife reserves such asKCA. meagre profit from their crops, Addo- Boadu 2010). CEU eTD Collection

grown si biodiversity has experienced an increas bird numberof or walk lower people nature go ona watching. Ghanianare nationalholidays: Independence 6 Day onMarch however a few times ayear the number of visitors spikes. Two of thebusiest days of the year carrying does exceedcapacity the not of thetourists day KCA numberof On average an the unobtainable in were March were selected due toapaucity of datafor other quarters. Gaps becauseexist records The statisticsonnumber to of KCAfrom obtained Januaryto visitors quarterlyreports. was (Appiah KCA goals valueabout oflearn the and nature Tourism, of importance of conservation. part although The canopy walk advertised is asa KCA to onlycanopy Most visitors the walk. (20,369)March alone. majority visiting visit in wasvisited March walk the by37,458people, to canopy with From 2012,the January

Source: Wildlife Division Wildlife Source: Fig. 6 .

Visitors to KCA Canopy Walk for the first Quarter of each yeareach Quarter first of to Canopy for the KCA Walk Visitors nce 2004 as depicted in fig. 6 in nce depicted 2004 as - Opoku 2011) .

Kakum Conservation Area WD office inAbrafo Odumase. , impacts biodiversity in KCA. Tourism as a threat to one . - of e from 2004 to 2012. The number of visitors has of visitors Thenumber 2012. 2004to from e - a - kind experience inWest Africa. A significantly 64 ’s

First First Quarterly Reports Reports Quarterly

and Republic Day on July 1 Day onJuly Republic and of theof year 2005 to 2012. to 2012. 2005

st . CEU eTD Collection cleaned up promptlyWD What by staff. thelitterreflects themessageis and experience control the activity of each visitor effectively. The litter, although momentarily unsightly, is when the ratio of visitors to visitor’s area. Guides help to monitor and minimize the impacts of the visitors, however, from containers andparticularly plastic drinking are found food the throughout wrappers, beyond areas after days, busy impact. Particularly impact always an should environmentallybenignhas be Visitors’ however; human presence (WDmanagement objectives” 2009a capacity and carrying the with accordance regulated and in promoted “[E]cotourism be should potential the behas to ha of carrying capacity KCA, the beyond and country. their However, tourism,afflicting above learnthey the valueabout of conservationand are introduced to issuesenvironmental visiting The numberofstudents Ghanaian The majority of visitors,regardless of month, the are Ghanaia Fig. Fig. Source: Wildlife Division Wildlife Source:

7 .

Monthly visitors to KCA’s Canopy to KCA’s Monthly visitors .

KakumConservation Area’s rmful and erode itsandrmful value. erode aesthetic and ecological,cultural

guides is too high guides are simply unable to monitor and and monitor to are simply guides unable high too guides is

Walk by demographic ).

the PA considered is tobe positive, asit vital is 65 Quarterly Reports Reports Quarterly

the paths and trails are trampled and litter,

2012 March to 2006 April n students depicted as fig. 7. in

CEU eTD Collection since2004 has been visitors.closed to watchers Bird also visit north- the western corner of thePA. Two The majority KCA andthe therefore quality of the experience is valued. schools, staff, and students allother visitors that educationconservation and are priorities of the Although noblenature, in holidays. the objectiveaboutwhen ofstudents KCA teaching lost is is attributed to the fact that schools want to treat students to a national treasure on national capacity. WD staff believes th the fallcarrying to thewithin dayssuppress of influx reservations could visitors onthose requiring and Onlypermittingof limited a groups student through schools. number organized majority onof days. rates visitors However,the the those those days student are groups policy exists tolimit traffic on thebusiestdays. WDmanagement staff considering is raising Manual(WD Operations outlined2009a the in recommendations dailybasis exceededona not 100% a and elimination ofThis littering. follows ‘carrying capacity as for tourismrecreation reduction threat and 100% defined KCA experts infrastructure and staff. havepeople The habitat of speciesin KCA already is severely constrained and increasing infrastructure to direction, as it wouldintroduce human presence thein park it doeswhere not currently exist. the pressure caused by high numbers of visitors on particular TRA of possibility expanding tourism the was discussed way a infrastructure as to alleviate theDuring bytourism. areaimpacted the overall reduced has house oftree The closure the

number ofsimply visitors is unmanageable. It would send also strongmessage a to

during during the busiest days numberwhen the of visitors is beyond the capacity of the of visits to the PA are contained within a relatively small area in the s at the influx of student groups on Ghanaian National Holidays National onGhanaian groups the ofinflux at student

tree - house which was used for overnight visits and birding and which visits inhouse forbirding overnight wasused 66

days. Thisdays. is step a in the wrong ) however nocurrent however KCA ) east cornereast

of the PA. of PA. the - outh CEU eTD Collection strategies have thepotential toreverse this. animals simply avoid the visitors’ because area of thevisitors but effective management The posters. promotional onthe displayed animals of any the see to fortunate KCA are pamphlets ofCurrently however KCAcharismaticmammals birds and display levels persist animals may tothis return area and provide areal spectacle for visitors. between possibly visitors.If guidesvisitorsand andreducednoise and between other visitors tension guide groupwill a vocalcreate guides, students among the another leads of gleefully enforce this rule. A guide who prevents their group members from raising their voices while immediately voice hisher whofrom or anyone raises forshould anyescorted be area reason the strictly Thusensurethatsilence to is abided byandhumanmanagement needs presence. that animals simply d by and thus animals have been driven from this area. The WD staffmembers are well aware WD to explain each guides visitor the importance of remainingquiet this is simply abided not their shouts of enjoyment or fear can be heard as pass groups over the habitat. Although the andmany tourists to excites walk findsuitable. thishabitat be Thecanopy would normally species unableis tofulfil its role as human presence is too disruptive for many that species supposedhelp to show is which walk Thecanopy area. from that Because of noise and the presence of people on the canopy walk, animals have since migrated disturbance. of noise boundaries to contributes the PA the also within ofThe presence tourists florawithin K wildlife away and move and visitors from revenuefor communities disturbing would increase of KCA. This boundaries couldthe developedoutside to be ofvisitors interest activities touristswillaccommodate only . This needs. This come to management, from guides otherwise no have incentive to CA. CA.

o not livenear o not canopythe other or walk of parts the visitorsareadue to increase the impact of tourism. Additional infrastructure or

case the diversity the diversity of case canopy few few visitors to CEU eTD Collection without impactsproviding biodiversity adversely positive a trade Therefore there little is reason from aconservation standpoint toincrease tourism asit t Revenue fromtimber products PA. the activities, and preventpoaching to community timbernon- members and from collecting offs thesepatrols that provide. The patrols are minimal may is disturbed. impact habitat and This the considered be trade when comparing biodiversity. Patrols directly impact biodiversity when plants are cut, animals are trampled ultim presence humanmonitor however, biodiversity, and diligently to protect. Regular patrols covering the entire area of KCA necessary are to protect presence and activities as a threat that negatively impacted the biodiversity they work WDmanagement. workshopPA the to seriously Prior staff never had cons Acknowledging the work of WD staff asathreat demonstrates great awareness on behalf of mostWork other activities and wasperhapsthe surprising revealed byKCAthreat experts. acti and other 4.3.6. Work asway fair fundingrecognized a for acquire environmental 2004).to protection (Spergel is principle pay’ projects. The‘user conservation in used be to is required generated used is to fina of taxation tourists’ through reinvest intofees to maintainingCaicos, and Belizemoney and the Turks PA. the In generated someNational Parks in the United States are allowed to retain revenue collected from visitor PA. Parks inon the TheGalapagos Islands Ecuador, Bots National in input into conservation atstrategies KCA trade a as fu nding for monitoring or habitat rehabilitation. A portion of the proceeds should be directly directly be should ofproceeds rehabilitation. the habitat Amonitoring or portion for nding hat is generatedhat from is KCAinto godirectlyback at PA. not does the tourism vities

nce PA conservation trust funds.ofrevenue All the trust PAnce conservation 68 currently necessary to protect wildlife against

off for negativethe impact visitors have ately has on consequences ately wana, PAs in Nepal and and wana, PAsNepal in - off such as increased idered their own their idered - CEU eTD Collection impact on biodiversity while allowing research to occur by utilizing transects that currently developmentundergrowth. Prohibiting the of newfor transects research wouldreduce the rather than cuttingthroug in forest a manner disruption thatminimizes the of wildlifevegetation. and For example enforcement staff relayed and researchers.to Law currently enforcement moves the through of incl be disruption can This biodiversity. A reduction 100% WD 2004(WD July 2004b). in mon (WD The 2005a). improved patrol strategies be can attributed to the enforce law for April,days May and was June 522 and the cumulative coveredwasdistance 469.77 km pa km patrol657.96 and days 622effective November increased.2011, In has patrolled distance increaseto ofand minimaleffectiveshows the be days workers both patrol effective but adoption ofprac better from 2012staff to numberofimpact and wouldnaturallyincrease patrols the 2004 the but thebehindhowever rationale not. thischange is wasdeterminedIt anin patrol increase that The percentage of change, - harmful dwelling potentially forest living periphery to species of onthe the PA boundary. obvious.is ensureitAlthough is accidental to prevent this to it cleared done trespassing is when attempting rapidlyto exit the PA game. with of Theboundary KCA continuously is PA, where wildlife is least accessible. Poachers knownare to use these transects, particularly Transects clear lines of vegetation and provide poachers with easy access totheinterior of the Research activities, especially transects that are cut and maintained, also impacts biodive rsity. trolled were recorded (WD 2011c). In June 2005 the cumulative number of effective patrol numberof cumulative patrol effective 2005the wereJune (WD In recorded trolled 2011c). itoring system, developed by system,itoring developed of thethreat was elected tobe the elimination of non all tices would in turn decrease it. An examination ofquarterly the reports h dense vegetation law enforcement through the weaves dense 3%, inimpact3%, the of athreat work appears as insignificant Hugo Jackman that was adopted and operationalized by the operationalizedbythe and wasadopted Hugo that Jackman uded within the current training curriculum of law 69

- essential ment ment CEU eTD Collection of type trafficany either permanently” temporarily or a (WD 2009 politically realistic. Although close ofto to discretion type road manager any the has park “the re or the ofpark boundaries the within sections ofthe roads migrate across the roads in increased danger. KCA experts unanimously agreedthat closing pollution. It also noise increasesand likelihood puts the and species to ofdesiring collisions a marked increase in traffic. The increase in traffic has lead to an increase indust pollution Three roads, within all the AARR sectionof KCA existedin 2004 but have sinceexperienced boarding railway a northern a section of KCA func was posedThreats byr 4.3.7. Roads and railroads reductionthe 100% in near future. eliminate all non are already committed to protecting biodiversity within the PA. Ifeffective strategies to management of are staff supervision the and case direct inunder this impacting biodiversity The strategiesotherthreats. reducing people related than to implement challenging to theReducing impact on byimproving biodiversity work research and techniques is less themethodology within ofboundaries KCA. The WD exist. Instead 100%a the wouldincorporate Instead reductionfollowing: ofthreat the • • • • Elimination speedsElimination above of20 km/hour. vehicle expansionofroadZero network. the Cre of the road, Tarring ation of and bridges, fencing ation wildlife - essential disruptionessential iversity biod to are implemented this threat could seea management can easily team enforce asthey this approve research oads and railroads

experienced experienced 30% a increase from 2012. 2004to 2004In

tioning, since operations have ceased. , p60). - routing the roads was not routing roads wasnot the

CEU eTD Collection exceedingly destructive fishing method beenfour had rivers cyanide observed along in of the with fishing along techniques of Incidents evidence and traditional most critical. 2004tied‘fishing harvestingand aquaticJune resources’ with two other threats as the fifth from rankings urgencyintensity and prohibited. The area, KCA in strictly resources is aquatic threats and actions threats from unifiedcategory of lexiconbiodiversity classifications conservation Standard for the and‘Fishing resources’ harvesting aquatic is a categorysub resource of‘biological use’ the 4.3.8. Fishing and harvest aquatic resources policy by. this is abided PAs”2009a (WD to all in adhered be maintenance must in schedule processes. existingprompt Togoodand keep roads ecological ensure that dothey not interfere with the natural functioning of the ecosystem other and roadsdesigned,must be “All WDPAsmain constructedand in by the 2009states: in impact species migration and destroy critical habitat. The Field Operations Manual published expansion education. communities, Zero community and between pavingincluding ofmain the roads most developmentthe ofinitiative in region aslarger a KCA beneficial would be part for WD concern rural in Ghana.H life crops fromtheir have and raids the bydust wildlife generated roads dirt partof dailyas their by the local community members who wildlifemay favourably viewed park. mechanismsbe withinThese protect not the to habitat eliminate wildlife fromexcavated and fencing Although KCA. wildlif woulddust prevent the and Paving roads reduce potholes with fromsand filled being of network would road the fragmentation, eliminate further any habitat can which

staff and communitywildlife members.protect Thusdevelopment to the staff and in - vehicle collisions while allowing animals tofreely and safely access their

(Salafsky (Salafsky uman

- wildlifeconflict, particularly crop et al.

2008). The extraction of resources including fish including of all and Theextraction 2008). resources , p 41). It is essential thatt essential is It , p41). do not receive fencing from government to the protect

e bridgese may expensive be it would he management team ensure , raidingmajor has been a tained to to tained CEU eTD Collection reduction ofreduction fishi boundaries has acomparative disadvantage and perpetrators can face steepfines. The prosecution and ofthe enables arrest caught disobeying people within PApark fishing laws, KCA. law Because enforcement case there nothe is advantage comparative for people to fish illegally within the boundaries of for and KCA same those boundaries once rivers they flow ofPAs out the If is boundary. this donot population exists discrepancy in similar that a inpossible portions of rivers within surrounding thus,areas although illegal, hunting in KCA some species that are of interest to hunters is comparatively higher in KCA than in the limited to the comparatively narrow areas of habitat and thus easier to pa of phenomenon.boundaries hunting, withinis regional the to Fishing KCA, opposed as a to cannotattributed be boundaries park the of within reduction fishing a acknowledge that activities are still observed Fishing Thereforethe itoutside is PAimportant boundaries. decrease of fishing incidents. this TRA, the participate in corroborated not Staff did interviewed,decrease. but were that wasit suggested that increased public awareness staffPark did attribute not single a cause to elimination ofthe in the activities PA, fishing but staff over the assessment period. aquatic harvesting Thus,experts posit recorded. a determined fishing workshop assessment of Junewerethe in illegal 2011 until 2012,noincidents KCA. A decline in fishing ng within the boundaries of KCA adequate through law enforcement an is

resources

has occurredhas within the boundaries of the KCA.beginningof Since the onlyis threatwitnessed thathas 100% a reduction byWD

has strongpresence a within PA the and the judicial system 72 ive fishing. in Fishing a reduction 100%

and patrolsand may responsiblefor be its may give

hunters an advantage. It is trol. The number of

nd to to CEU eTD Collection s could considered. could be s not thu and possible political to economicagreed that due and factors elimination of the utility lines wasnot as definitionwas suggested the for 100% reduction KCA’s with congruent objectives is l not development could is effectivelyexpansion. This be achieved infrastructure that if all 100% a would threat It reduction reasonable was agreedthat solution. mean further no th removalWorkshopat agreed fragmenting participants of it. current all lines was not a messagemay developersusing to whowrong of park, advocate portions further the additional infrastructure constructedwithin be into theIt PAalso future. sends boundaries the of KCA s boundaries within the of utilitylines The construction more biodiversitybe to may critical. map impact prove the impacted by the service lines is relatively small, as indicated on the ‘utility and service lines’ be to to morehave paid land andwould owners materials be greaterwould be if the as PAthis wasbypassed, woulddesign mean that compensationwould park wasapproved construction withinThe utility lines the of because the construction cost without alteredcompensation. habitatbe withinany thegovernment to PA allowed boundaries least critical of all threats in KCA 2012, in its emergence is symbolically important. The habitat in an area thatis constrained. severely already Althoughutility the ranked lines as located northin road are furthest ofutility lines AARRthe .Theconstruction the along alters have lines since been constructed government The with permission. service didAlthough lines not e 4.3.9. Utility and service lines areas. protected of boundaries the biodiversity within economiccan and disincentives protect example how of political

xist within KCA in 2004, electrical and telecommunications egally forbidden.egally Total elimination of the utility lines

during the TRA participants but workshop

ets anegativeets precedence for required. Although the arearequired. the Although

newly constructed lines CEU eTD Collection or enhance initiatives that reduce the impacts on biodiversity KCA. in would be It beneficial necessary establishto is and allofaddressed be to funding would enable above Adequate the of KCA include: thechallengescited in Other challenges quarterly reports. funds operational efficientlyoperating.and Theinadequate of one were most the commonly forces them equipment. tosimply prevents gowithout them Cumulatively it from effectively staff continuously to reduceprogrammes amount monetary KCA full management unwillingrequested. forces or allocate the This to either unable The FCfrequently management is KCA team. upbythe drawn budget upon the bas from is KCA offunding majority obtained FC. funding is the KCAfunding to the but primarily fromKCA obtained FC. is the The forFunding 4.4.1. Funding obst operational barriersand KCA. conserving in to biodiversity additionalfactors These into provide insight challenges pose additionaldynamics that are there previously discussed threats Beyond the 4.4. Additional Challenges • • • Inadequate training ofInadequate employees, commun ofLack reliable Lack of adequate equipment, o o o o o Research skills. skills, Communication Computer skills, Odumase office) Office/technical equipment (printers, software, internet at WDAbrafo staff Field vehicles,clothing, GPS equipment (protective units),

acles that prevent KCAmanagement from achieving its objectives.

ications networks,ications

prevents them from establishing new initiatives or 74

GHCT

referring to the general operation also provides a small amount small a provides also

ed ed CEU eTD Collection for conservation. KCA’s revenue within theFoundation capacityGHCTare of KCA and KCAdonate to conservationinitiatives.Thefundraising by initiatives employed the Yachana WDon the philanthropists GHCTallowingfor interested or webpages get to involvedor ownits websiteand its onlineofficial presence through is the W have not opportunities. and KCA does donation conservation initiatives to explore links has are memberships and renewed automatically. Each on page the Yachana Foundation’s website EcoTribe andinitiative be can memberships purchased website through their bycr ‘Traveller’s Philanthropy’ (Yachana The Involved2011). Get Adoptan of Acre Rainforest Adoptof through their rainforest Acre an Programof Rainforest marketed through implement conservationprojects. various Yachana has also purchased 43000more than It provides2011). the FoundationYachana with a steady flow ofmaintain to income and behind ecological mobilized culturalpreservation”and (Yachana EcoTribe Membership burgeoningcommunity a be “organize environmentalists that can to of used funding is EcoTribe campaignsells through in rainforest the AmazonEcuadorian preserves funding to Foundation attracts The Yachana conservation. allocatemillions biodiversity agencies to ofannually support dollars management team population’s as biodiversitybut and rise is lostit couldn’t be more critical. The KCA moredifficultconservationincreasingly for funding crisis makes financial acquiring current policy ornational change amendm a goeswouldrequire national directly intogovernment the currently However,this revenue. for KCA tosecure resources fromadditional sources such asrevenue from tourism, which various campaigns and initiatives that could be replicated at KCA. at theirvarious could replicated example be For campaigns initiatives that and

should additionalfunding explore mechanisms foundations various and as online memberships at a low cost of US$30.00month per the and

ent, which the which PA simplylobby equippedent, to is not for. The 75

and could be increasing could adopted, and D. There D. no There is obvious link

edit cardedit acres CEU eTD Collection absent at the WD local office. WD i bythe adopted Jackman and stakeholderreference.or The law mon enforcement system,itoring developed by thus and unavailablefor awaystaff Odumase kilometres Abrafo of from washundreds copy of theWDwas in the possession of hard a copy ofAdaptive the Management The Strategy. as thebase date for theTRA.Only aformer manager whomhas sincetaken aposition outside byexperts selected 2004 in was and adopted Strategy, was Adaptivewhich Management the example, WD management staff members were unable materialSupport wasalso widely unavailable WDat the office Abrafo in For Odumase. unavailable. ‘ineffectively been managed’had thus and sufficient- long increasing based on trends. The paucity ofmakes impossible datait to assess how populations may be decreasing or sparse data was available on species recorded through hard copies of the quarterly reports. office inAbrafo Odumase. Data on speciespopulation trends, were unavailable and only the at WD could producedbe by reports staff ofquarterly the copies Onlyhard incomplete. fro areThe KCApoorly kept by records WDoverview an ofDuring the staff.quarterly reports than other also raises questions of if resources, records and materials are inaccessible to staff, researchers and others There is a general lack of organization at theWD office inAbrafo Odumase, i.e. many 4.4.2. Organization m 2004 until endmthe until of were 2011many reports 2004full were missingavailable reports or ad hoc

monitoringbyexternal parties.

analysis ofanalysis data collected during monitoring is actuallyoccurring

It was expressed that the data contained in quarterlythe reports

n July 2004 to enhance the anti poaching initiative was also poaching initiative wasalso the anti enhance 2004to n July 76

to producehard a electronic or of copy term electronic datawas takeholders. It takeholders. Hugo ,

CEU eTD Collection for staff do ability to researchers good work. and of stafffulfiltheir to the potential. data resources and are availableenhancesthe Ensuring orsimply unavailable too inconvenient to access when necessary, which impedes the ability purpose ofthe thesemethods.understand deeper A makes lack of resources organization these materials is also important so employees can remain consistent in methods their and materialthis many of may or ofideasand overskewed time.concepts lost the be A revision of thepart operationalof the strategy being PA,actuallyable to without and access reference management adaptive abidedmaterials thesuchin the Although concepts are as byas strategy data meansthe thattrendsnot are effective being and tracked monitoring cannot occur. monthly enforcement islaw beingPA. bythe to data collected Although access staff, inability of The lack supportmaterial data, andresources, organizationgreat a the is disadvantage to organizedthedata an but in fashion whothe exist has t was unwilling person management staff, such as thequarterly reports, were not. It is also possible that this data does ing network system electronic copies should that be available all at times upper toall of centralized a lack the to due had they available.However, material information and the Many of the KCA staff members were exceedingly accommodating and presented me with all relevant information.find or useful lack of any effective organization in the library or of the files m Executive Director. It is possible that the documents were delivered to the office however a toPA’s the provided be copiesofwork to andpublished any ofresearch three copy the one inPA,ires to prior the requ research conducting obtained permit,mustbe research which Academic resourceson KCA were unavailable the WD at Abrafo Odumase office. The 77

ade itexceedingly difficult to o share it. share o

CEU eTD Collection context. broader ain research biodiversitythreats to in KCA. Thefollowing will chapter discuss the relevance of this is reducingtoinitiatives enhancement required continue or creation of the compliance and challenges to conserving biodiversity KCA.effort in ofWD, Further onbehalf the community funding inadequaciesand lack a andof data document organization additional posed t KCAfor in the oflocation threats study componentthe the illustrating decreasing in over wasuseful period. Thegeospatial education. The geospatial threat representations demonstrated areas of intense poaching byKCA employed methods improved patrol presence, increasedenforcement law the largelyto 2012; attributed June 2004to June themostare critical threats tobiodiversity. These threats have all shown adecrease from collection and terrestrial plant collection, by membe firewood in form use poaching, the of resource 2012.Biological June 2004 to from June KCAbiodiversity within were exposed. TheTRA Index revealed positive a reduction of 44% principle threats to biodiversity in KCA were identified and th methodologyThe research wassufficient addressing ofin the research. objective Nine this 4.5. Conclusion more while PA aboutlearn conservation the and a providing service. necessary maintain theand necessary materials documentation. would It give thestudents opportunity to and ofcollect, couldorganize staff.to thesebe ofresponsibility support the students Part specific positions but rather ‘float’ through the different departments to acquire skills and donot graduates have internship.Therecent partakingan onein and graduates student recent serve the government one for year after graduation. At thetime KCA ofresearch two had Students that receive adegree froma wo time periods. Interviews and observation revealed Interviewsobservation and wo time periods. government 78

staff, harsher punishments, and community and punishments, staff, harsher - funded university in Ghana are required to required in fundedGhana are university rs fromrs communities adjacent toKCA, e challenges of conserving

CEU eTD Collection The results revealed nine principle The results revealed significantly reduced unitiescomm , period A 5.1. Relevance reference. For a more extensive overview ofI TRA the summary the of threats descendingin order,and includes the IUCN threat code for further similar application describe fig.3 and 4 of thechanges thre improvementsbut made. be could Thegeospatialcomponent effectively illustrated the spatial 2012, which demonstrates management that strategies and operations are somewhat effective The TRA index revealed a44% reduct s revealed through revealeds through the TRA the and workshop interviews conducted over the research

t he top threats to biodiversity in KCA are all threats directly attributed to adjacent inconsistencies, . This chapterwill discuss causesof theunderlying threats . All of the threats directly attributed to community activities have been a Table IUCN threatIUCN code source: Salafsky No. 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

ats overats the temporal period. These maps can and researchand opportunities

7 ; .

Primary threats to biodiversity in KCA from 2004 fishing and harvesting aquatic harvesting and aquatic fishing resources wastotally eliminated, wood Utility and service lines railroads Roads and resources aquatic harvesting and Fishing nontimber perennial and Annual crops Work ot and Tourism and recreation areas Gathering terrestrialplants andLogging wood harvesting Huntingand collecting terrestrial animals present contributions to research, make future recommendation CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER her activities

threats to KCA in biodiversity ion of threats to biodiversity from 2004to June June Threat

et al - . 79

DISCUSSION

2008 .

ndex please see table 5

2012 to

be found in chapter foundbe chapter fig. in 4 as threat IUCN IUCN code .

Table 7 ,

a 4.2 4.1 5.4 2.1 6.3 1.3 5.2 5.3 5.1

and relevance its ,

in chapterin 4.

portrays a s for for s CEU eTD Collection enforcement byKCAmana policy impacts through posed direct mitigated the be and bytourism can WD staff workof bythe posed Thethreat objectives (WD their complywith 2009a). not does KCA that must enforcepowers the endowed themto to developmentprevent from within occurring formed to protect the biodiversity in KCA. Tomitigate these threats KCAmanagement staff be policyto governmental strategies stronger and require threats worsening and Emerging the increase, emergence and theinab not communityare - managementThe KCA unsuccessful team has been at mitigating at threats tobiod essential that WD efforts continue support. to community foster deep, widespread community- communities can be the greatest threat toaPA or themost prevalent fo community supportof P a concludethat which (1997) Pretty and to thedecrease. This relevant is because supports it theresearch of Infield (2001) and Pimbert initiatives were revealed intheprevious chapter and believed are tohave partially attributed on the most critical threats to biodiversity in KCA. humanresources financial managementdemonstratesappropriately that focusedtheir and has The focus of been KCAmanagement has community- KCA but further effort is required to eliminate these threats M 66%. biodiversity, to wasthreat reduced pl and terrestrial by 70% gathering harvesting andwas reducedby90%, hunting collection of animals, the terrestrial anagement has been effective at mitigating community based actions continue to pose the greatest threat to biodiversity KCA, to in is threat it the actionspose greatest to based continue based. Although these threats are currently not the most critical threats gement. by roadsutility Thethreats and posed stemlines from ility for TRAmitigate staff to them 80

Community education and awareness and education Community .

based threats - based threats biodiversity to in A is critical, is A aslocal ants was reduced by rce protecting it. As mitigation; this is significant.is iversity that

primary ,

CEU eTD Collection and theand obstacles of mitigatemanagement to threats is important understandto why government driven and by globaleconomic forces may be due tothefact developme that globalization development and were more for problematic management staff address This to . confidant the roadsall and utility lines rather was it defined as zeroexpansion of each of thesethreats and reduction 100% thus management staff and of and utility lines roads wasnot considered politically ormically econo possible by KAC was proposed byAnthony(2008) threatselimination withinof these the boundaries ofPA. the KCAmanagement 100% defined reduction directly attributed to communitymembers. are differentbecause they development,nature and in are they influencedbe byglobalization (Kolavalli and Althou Vigneri 2011,AEO2012). goodsother global to markets also occursofbecause developmentglobalization and Ghanaiansincreased (AEO rural to 2012); services of are lines development part constructedas example, utility can is attributedoccurring be developmentglobalizationthreats and in to that Ghana. For economic and political factors beyond theactivities of communities adjacent to KCA. These The emergence of utility lines and theincreased threat posed by roads, ofcommunity. the that external supportofPA requires the beyond of mitigation threats the and these forces external upled co improvements infrastructure road with of decreased speed. KCA staff that community - based threats were possible to

to be the total total to the elimination However,t be of threat. a nt is desired by the communities, supported by the bythe desired bythe supported is nt communities,

of the threat was not defined as the elimination of elimination the as defined wasnot of threat the

81 of each community-

. gh Understanding the root causes of threats traffic on roads to transportcocoa, on to andtraffic roads the communitythe - The definition of reduction 100%

mitigate projects to bring modernity and bring modernity to and projects basedthreatas thetota

based threats may also but threats driven by a re driven by re driven he removal removal he was l CEU eTD Collection not adapt adapt tonot growunder the participants agreed that it did not pose a primary threat to biodiversity in KCA because itis thr mentioned a as Australia,environment across Africa and Oceania ( conducted Thesiam by weed report IUCN 2010). RAPPAM the (UICN/PACO species Invasive were the only other threat to biodiversity, besides poaching, revealed in the 5.2. Inconsistencies increasingly critical that biodiversity is properly protected. degr environmental total prevent to critical policyis effective of this, because conservationand over occurring biodiversity rapidly and is decline; in prioritization developmentmayas given be economic settings. This research is specifically necessary in regions where development is enabling policyspecificgeographical,point; tailoredto - be further to environmental socio and biodiversity to drivenbyglobalization threats useful developmenta and be starting would PAs. An of overview effective threat mitigation stra ofimplications depth the more in understanding developmentof and globalization onspecific implicationsenvironmental, however Globalization an researchopportunities5.1.1. Further exist improvement previouslyunsuccessfulmay been management have for opportunities where and ), an invasive species known to be harmful to agriculture and the and agriculture harmful known to be ), species to invasive Chromolaena odorata an ;

these forces can also have severe local and global, so d development are frequently as d development are frequently sold . adation biodiversity and isgoingloss. cease Development not to it so is

eat to biodiversity eat KCAin biodiversity to dur

(Najam canopy shaded et al.

2007). covering 82

Further research to is required research to required provideato is Further KCA. byMcFadyen supported is This (McFadyen 1996), was Skarratt and tegies specifically focused on direct

ing the TRA workshop. However, However, TRAworkshop. the ing a

positive step for all of humanity cio - economic and

CEU eTD Collection required only afew experts, was timely, low cost, enabled baseline data to be created waslogisticallysimple MatarTheTRA2008; Anthony2010). and as facilitate workshop to Ma and The TRAmethod is scientifically replicable and has been utilized across theglobe (Salafsky 5.3.1. Threat Reduction Assessment 5.3. Applicability approach methodological lead tomore targeted management approaches. temporal period specifically enables deeper analysis of mi have utilitylines introduced been as approved a completely been eliminated from Other threats such KCA. ofas construction government the effectively mitigated mitigate threats tobiodiversity in KCA over thetemporal period assessed. Managers modifiedThe method TRA was an appropriatetool toassessmanagement the effectiveness to limited academics with funding. met makesthis also It tropics 2004). (Terborgh the in located logistically workshopthe itselfand not elaboratedid require technology. unique These attributes make it most critica periphery of the PA however; the nine threats revealed during the TRA are considered the threatspecies maya to onthe odorata pose . TheChromolaena Chromolaena odorata Skarrattand ( tigated by management. The advantage of measuring management. The advantage by tigated rgoluis 1999; MargoluisAnthony andJacobson 1999; Mugishaand 2004; rgoluis 2001; Salafsky practical l to KCA. to mayl inconsistency This occurred have due 1996), which state ‘open or partial shade’ as the optimal environment for optimalfor the ‘openpartialshade’ as environment state or which 1996),

so for PAs with limited resources, which frequently is the case for PAs me such threats asfishing and harvesting aquatic resources, which has .

n emergent threat tothe PA, unsuccessfully

individual threats occur to the change of change the hodology attractive for attractive hodology the theto variations the in

threats over the , which can can , which

during it CEU eTD Collection location oflocation threatshow and are over spatially they changing the temporalThis period. may be the generated regarding it becauseofdialogue for the participants was useful component geospatial purposes,the approachfor research methodological tovalue of addition the In this ofattributesone the aover specific time period wasavailable it could be incorporated into the analysis. However, data of Ifthreats geospatial digital geospatial data. of available paucity bythe hindered not thus workshop da during the creation of data the baseline employed, enabled workshop the sentthe once mapsbackrecords. and them their to Themethodology were for of the portion feedback geospatialcomponentduring feedback the participants positive gave component addition beneficial wasa geospatial the to research methodology. Theexpert temporal The designated period. biodiversitythe to ofover spatial threats changes the methoduced introd in this research as asupplement to the TRAmethod, effectively illustrated methodmeasuring of effectiveness ofPAmanagement staff. The geospatialcomponent, a The TRA method applied been PAs has to and the across globe is proven a appropriate Component 5.3.2. Geospatial recorded during the 6). de specificexplanation producedsite a finally, and, Anthony 2010); gorizedcate each threat according to thestandard lexicon (Salafsky et al. participants were: asked to identify threats to biodiversity using their own words; then threats to be compared across sites without loosing detail caused by standardization was a potential (Anthonyutilizedduring solution and 2008) TRA. proposed the To enable necessary descriptive data todefine each particular threat. The allowance of subcategories However, the compartmentalization of threats restricts protected area experts from including ofThe use the IUCN lexi standard The methodology allows for comparative analysis and use the of detaile workshop. of thistechnique that is con of threats allows for comparative analysis across sites. it can itdigital can completedbe without data. 84

tailing each threat (table

2008, Matar and and Matar 2008, ta collectionta was d data to be be to d data

CEU eTD Collection andofspecific each reat urgency intensity th over temporal period be further developed to ensure thegradientmore scale accurately repres could component methodologies refined. reviewedand be Thegeospatial is forto important It methodological5.3.2.1. Further resourcesnotoriously and mayunderfunded more effectively be allocated elsewhere. particularlyis relevant when considering its usefulness inthe tropics where PAs are because the technology may unavailable simply be or out of the financial reach of PAs. This of data digitization occurs that and isinsist to important not flexible It be occur. to analysis through software is beneficial to illustrate the data clearly but is not absolutely necessary for des for the have theaccess totechnology, such asArcGIS, theexercise of drawing the threats onmap a but not did managementstrategy of adaptive their TRAmethod the aspect to as conjunction in component management geospatial usingIf in the the interested were m PA tea a of of over threats the entire PA not is effectively communicated orshared. particularly useful for larger PAs where managers may oversee specific areas and the location ignated temporal periods is initselfvaluable a exercise. The digitization of thedata development opportunities development 85

s .

ents the changes of changes of the ents

CEU eTD Collection of tourist Theimpacts of a reduction. workbyWD a employees experienced community- initiatives. community and outreach educational programmes Alt staff has been community management has been effective at The most critical threats to biodiversity in KCA are community where exposed andinterviews management strategies and operations somewhat are effective. investigation Further through A decrease 40% in biodiversitythreats to from KCA 2012in 2004to demonstr revealed the spatial distribution and change of each threat over the temporal period assessed. r period. andurgency area pri biodiversitythreats to in KCA from 2012.The 2004to modified TRA nine identified The objective of this research was to 6.1. Fulfillment of research objective the objective of this research was fulfilled This chapter will provide abrief conclusion of the overall research findings and discuss how epresentation of threat mitigation over the componentepresentation the ofmitigationtemporal Thegeospatial over threat period. ncipal threats to biodiversity in KCA, arelative provided ranking on based intensity, This

were alsorevealed asthreats tobiodiversity; based threats has been eliminated of all the community-

TRA Index, which provided an overall an overall provided which the TRAIndex, disclose to was computed mitigation had been successful and where future imp analysis ofWD documents revealed the underlying causes of each threat and , and revealed the percentage of change of each threat over the temporal - based threat mitigation through patrols CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER reducing thesereducing

assess the effectiveness of management to mitigate th rough employmentmethodology the of the . - 86 CONCLUSION

threats.

the mitigation of these threats relies on The focusmana gement ofKCA

, nd the presence and actions which ensure compliance, rovements can be made. hough one only of the - based threats KCA based threats have ates thatates

CEU eTD Collection biodiversity and have and biodiversity effective identifying mostcritical. been serious in They have the currently conclusion,In KCAmanagement been have able to reduce the threats to biodiversity thatare KCA of boundaries thesemitigate solutions althoughthe have the right have emerged asathreat and theimpact of roadsincreasing. is effectively to yet KCA has bydevelopmentn havedriven globalizatio and not been successfu the capacity of KCA management to ensure policy compliance of staff and tourists.T and policycomplianceof staff ensure management to capacityKCA of , asstated in the Field Operations M focused their limited resources toaddress these threats. 87

anual to restrict development restrictto (WD 2009a) lly mitigated; utility lines .

within the

threats to hreats CEU eTD Collection BirdLifeInternational (2012) J.L. TheInfluence ofBegon, Harper, Townsend,“Chapter 21: M., and C.R. Predation 1996. W., M., WestAdomako, 2001.Bakarr, Oduro, E. Africa: regional overview of thebushmeat Redlands, California.URL: 10.Esri, ArcGIS Ver 30 http://www.esri.com/ [consulted April - Appiah Anthony, B. 2008.UseofT Modified EconomicOutlook.African 2012.GhanaAfDB,UNDP, dev, ACP. UNECA, OECD Addo- Wild Preservation 43.Animals Act 1961.Ghana. Act. and Partnership.2010 BiodiversityIndicators Target: indicators the 2010.Biodiversity B., D.Bleher, andUster, T. Bergsdrof, 2006.Assessment ofthreat status and management Borrow, N., Demey, and R. 2004.Birds ofWestern Africa. W. 2009.StausBoafo, Oduro, ofBongo (Tragelaphus Y.the and eurycerus eurycerus) Boadu, A. 2010.Human Attandaso Resource Reserve. Communities Diand 2001. in Proceedings Meeting ReportforTask Action BushmeatCollaborative prepared Plan crisis. Force Crisis 2012] Resources 24: 500- study ecotourism: case andNatural a park Ghana.Society ofin Kakum national 1497 22(6): Biology Conservation c /Ghana%20F URL: http://www.africaneconomicoutlook.org/fileadmin/uploads/aeo/PDF Ghana.Area, Masters thesis, Cen No. 53.Series Secretari Partnership. 2010Biodiversity the Indicators Experiencesfrom learnt andlessons effectiveness Biology inKakaKenya.mega Forest, Conservation sitefactsheet.php?id=6324 Union (IUCN) Species Survival Commiss Survival Union (IUCN) Species at SouthernPopulation Ghana. Kakumin Area Conservation Opoku, S. 2011. Using protected areas as areas Opoku, for biodiver S.protected 2011.Using tools onservation m

Ecology: Individuals, Populations, and Ecology:Individuals,Populations, onCommunitysturbance Structure.” at of onBiologicalCanada.at Diversity, Convention Montréal, Technical the ull%20PDF%20Country%20Note.pdf [consulted 16 June 2012] 16June [consulted ull%20PDF%20Country%20Note.pdf . Oxford: Blackwell Science. easures within and adjacent Krugerto National South Park, Africa. 510. Important Bird AreasImportant Bird factsheet: - Park Kakum National -

wildlife conflict wildlife Kakummanagement around Conservation ) [ consult URL: ( URL: hreat Reductionhreat Assessments toestimate success of

REFERENCES tral European University. University. European tral - 1505. ed 2012] 8May http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/ http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/ 88

GUNSLETTER ion:

London: Ltd. AC & Publishers

sity conservation and conservation and sity The World Conservation Conservation World The 27(2):10 15: 1159 15: - - 13. 1177.

Assin CEU eTD Collection R. F., N.2006. Stolton, S.,Dudley, Courrau, M., Leverington, and Hockings, Evaluating N., Hijmans,Weiczorek, and Garcia, A.,J., Maunahan,2007. Rala, and A.,J. R., Kapoor, View, Earth6.2Mountain California.URL:Google Ver. Ghana:Ghana StatisticalServices. housing and Summary 2012.2010Population census Forestry Commission (FC). 2008. Service charter and service standards. URL: N.Dudley, [ed.] ______. n.d.List of Parties Biologi on Convention S J., Chape, S., Harrison, (2003). S., Fish,Spalding,(compilers) and M. 2003United L., Fox,Chape, S.,P. Blyth, Wollenberg, J. C.C., and E. Schelhas, 2001.BiologicalBuck, L., Geisler, Diversity: International Union for the Conservation of Conservation Nature NaturalInternational Unionfor and the Resources (IUCN)–World 2001. M. A values: forgotten strategyInfield, Cultural forcommunity building support for 2 effectiveness: 1.0).2012]http://www.gadm.org/ [consulted 30 April (Version of Vertebrate Zoology and the International Rice Research Institute, URL: B of administrative (version University California. areas Global 0.8) http://www.google.com/earth/index.html Census2010_Summary_report_of_final_results.pdf report of final results. URL: http://www.statsghana.gov.gh/docfiles/2010phc/ 2012]. 10 June [consulted http://www.fcghana.com/page.php?page=199§ion=22&typ=1 2012].5 May www. URL: WCMC. Philosophical Transaction UK: Royal 443–455.Cambridge, B UNEP of 360: Society effectiveness of protected areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity targets. UNEP UK: Cambridge, Nations List of Protected Areas. Gland, SwitzerlandUK: Cambridge, and IUCN; and 2001. Press, Through Interests agementBalancing AdaptiveCollaborative Man Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. iveness [consulted 9May 2012]. http://www.iucn Theme. Management effectiveness as a priority. Commission (WCPA).WCPA onProtectedandManagement Science Areas 2009. protected areas inAfrica. Conservat nd edition. and edition. Switzerland UK:Gland, Cambridge, IUCN.

Guidelines for applying areas for managementcategories . 2008.Guidelines applying protected

.int/doc/world/gh/gh cbd

aframework for assessing management effectiveness of protected areas. cal Diversity CBDcal Diversity National (CBD). –Ghana. 2007?. Forth Report .org/about/union/commissions/wcpa/wcpa_what/wcpa_science/#effect palding, M., and Lysenko, I. 2005. Measuring the and extent M.,2005.Measuring I. Lysenko, and palding, URL: URL: - WCMC.

http://www.cbd.int/ information/ parties.shtml [consulted

ion Biology. ion Biology. - nr 89 - 04

[consulted 7June [consulted - en.doc URL: URL: 15(3): 800 15(3): [consulted 2012]. [consulted 5 May [consulted 15 June 2012] 15June [consulted 2012] -

802. .

. London: CRC. London: erkeley: Museum

. - CEU eTD Collection ______. 2011.The The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry Aeronautics theof (METI)and National Industry and Japan The Ministryof Trade Economy, biodiversity Science. ofand strategy Environment 2002.National Ministry for Ghana. B. ofMcFayden, 1996.R. distribution Skarratt, and (siam Porential Chromolaenaodorata D.of and ThreatReduction Anthony,B.Matar, in 2010.Application Modified Assessments D. 2009. monitoringprotectedMatar, Newinto insights area Lebanon. management in Margoluis, R., Salafsky,our and Is project N. 2001. succeeding? A guid Worboys, ALockwood, [eds.].Protected M., G.L. Kothari. Areas: and 2006.Managing A A. 2008. K.,hydrography B., Jarvis, New Verdin, Lehner, from borne global derived space Lee, Kyei 2011. S.ShapingSuccess of Ghana: Kolavalli, the Economy. Vigneri. Cocoain an M. and In African 1997.TheKingdonfield to Kingdon, J. guide Mammals J., Jachman, Blanc, C., C.,- Nateg, Balangtaa, H., Debrah Jachman, 2008.Illegalwildlif H.

Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science IntegratingScience K. 1993.CompassAnd andGyroscope: Politics ForThe - Agyore, A.- 1994.Socio < Resource Reserve (KCA). Ghana: Wildlife Department. URL: htt URL: (GDEM). Di2011. ASTER Administration (NASA). Global Space and 89- weed) inAustralia, Africa and Oceania. Agriculture Ecosystems andEnvironment Biology Conservation Lebanon. thesis, European Central Masters Univeristy. assessment forconservation Guide Global http://hydrosheds.cr.usgs.gov/ data. Eos,Transactions elevation Environment Angwafo, M. and 201- Yes, Africa Can: Success Continent from Stories aDynamic Ltd. Journal of Wildlife Research performanceKipo, A. 2011.Protected Afri area South Ghana. tourism and in Conservation http://www.iucnredlist.org 96

. Washington, D.C.: Press. Island 141: 1906–1918. 141: IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. ThreatenedSpecies. 2011.2 IUCNof Version . RedList . London: Earthscan. London: . p://www.gdem.aster.ersdac.or.jp 2012] [consulted 7May economic of KakumAttandanso and perspective Park National 217. Washington,World Bank. DC:217. e use and protected area management inGhana. Biological > . Washington Program. D.C.: BiodiversitySupport 41(1): 95- [c [consulted 7May 2012] [consulted onsulted 10Mayonsulted 2011] 24(5): 1174- 24(5): , AGU, 93- 89(10):

90 109.

1181.

Wiafe, E., Damma,F., Atta 94. URL: 94. URL: . .

. London: A & C Publishers . London: A C & Publishers

, edited byP., edited Chuhan- gital Elevation Model Elevationgital Model e to threat reduction e reduction threat to . can can

- Kusi, E.,Kusi,

59: 59: Pole Pole CEU eTD Collection D. curve. 2003.Theenvironmental EncyclopaediaStern, Kuznets Internet of Ecological B. for WorldWildlife Spergel, Fund2004. Raising (WWF). revenues protected areas. Weterings, indicators: E.R.typology Smeets, and 1999.Environmental and overview. Ramcilovic J.Pimbert, Pretty, and M. 1997.Diversity sustainability and in conservation. community based andChallenges M. and Palo, E. Yirdaw, 1996.Deforestation in Sustainable Forestry Ghana. know C.,to E.,R.,Bowden, Burke, and Napoleon, Groess, L.Ormsby, 2008.Getting T., Attuquayefio,Odonkor, S., Gbogbo,D. Bim F., and 2007. M. D., propositions. Halle, Environment globalization:Five Runnalls, and Najam,A., A. ofMugisha, assessment Jacobson, and S.conventional 2004.Threat reduction and Scheiner, S.Willig, 2008.Atheory ofScheiner, and M. general ecology. Theoretical Ecology D., N.,Salafsky, Salzer, Stattersfield - A.J., Hilton N.,Salafsky, K.H. Margoluis, R., atool Redford for and 2001.Adaptivemanagement: R. 1999. N.,Salafsky, Margoluis, assessment: and Threat reduction cost and practical a Economics. 1 2012] [consulted July URL:http://www.conservation.org/global/gcf/Documents/raising_revenue Environmental ReportEuropean Agency.Technical No. 25. http://www.efi.int/files/attachmen reserves in Ghana. Small compliance with forestry legislation? The case of farmers inthefringes of forest (IIED). Conservation India.InternationalDevelopment and in for Environment Institute Paper prepared for theUNESCO 343- forestry challenges Sustainable forIn developing countries ArcGIS desktop threat to Biodiversity Conservation. forWinnipeg, Sustainable International Institute Development. Canada. - 233 31(3): Conservation Environmental community- [consulted 12 2012].[consulted June Conservation Biology 2(1). Biology Conservation for biodiversity conservation: classificationslexicon of unified and threats actions. Wilkie, L.L., B.,O’Connor,S.,and Cox,D.Collen, N.,2008.A Master, standard conservation practitioners. Washington, Program. D.C.: BiodiversitySupport 13: Biology effective approach to evaluating conservation and development projects. Conservation - 357. Dordrecht, Netherlands:Kluwer357. Dordrecht, Academic Publishers. Suomin

830- based conservation approaches to managing to conservationapproaches protected areas based in Uganda. URL: http://www.ecoeco.org/pdf/stern.pdf URL: en, S., Matero, J., S.,en, Matero, values 2012.Do Shannon,M. forest influence 3d ed. Redlands California: Redlands Ersi 3ded. Press 841 . -

scale Forestry. European Forest Institute. URL:

- IIPA regional - onCommunity workshop regional IIPA ts/euflegt/ramcilovic Ghana Journal of Science of Ghana Journal 91

241. Taylor, C., Neugarten, R., Butchart R., C., Neugarten, Taylor, i, L. 2007. The Wildlife Ghana: in trade A The L. 2007. i, . -

[consult suominen_et_al_2012.pdf , ed. and Palo M. G. Mery, 47: 101- 47: ed 12Julyed 2012].

106 s_pa.pdf based

1:21 , S.H.M.,

–28 CEU eTD Collection Quarterly______. 2008b.Kakum ReportPark: forJune National April to 2008. Quarterly Kakum______. 2008a. Report 2008.Park: for National January to March ______. 2009c Quarterly ______. 2009b.Kakum Report 2009.Park: for National January to March WDGhana: Accra, Manual. Operations Field ______. 2009a. Quarterly______. 2010d.Kakum ReportPark: for National October to2010. December Quarterly September Kakum______. 2010c. Report to Park: forly National Ju 2010. Quarterly______. 2010b.Kakum ReportPark: forJune National April to 2010. Quarterly Kakum______. 2010a. Report 2010.Park: for National January to March ______. 2011c Quarterly______. 2011b.Kakum Report 2011.Park: for National January to March Quarterly Report Gebele______. 2011a. for Resource July Reserve: to September 2011 Wildlife Division of the Forestry Commission (WD). 2012.Kakum National Park: Quarterly Cape, former PhDat University Wiafe, Coast candidate Edward. senior wildlife protection Wiafe, E.,Amfo and - NationsHuman Developmentprofile: United 2011.Ghanacountry (UNDP) Program Summit______. 2002.Johannesburg 2002– URL: –Ghana. Nations (UN).2012.UNUnited Data 20 UICN/PACO. 2004. J. Terborgh, T. S., K. N.,Whitten, Dudley, and M., MacKinnon, Stolton, 2005. Reporting Hockings, Report for January to March2012. for Januaryto Report 2012. 23May Ghana. Formal Accra, Interview. officer at Kakum Conservation Area, current professor at the Presbyterian University, Environment activities in the Kakum conservation area, Ghana. of and Natural Ecology Journal the http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/GHA.html (HDI). Index URL:Development 2012]. http://data.un.org/CountryProfile.aspx?crName=Ghana#Trade areas. UICN/PACOprotected Ouagadougou, Faso: Burkina protected areaat WorldWideprogress sites. BankWorld and Fund for Nature.

10. Parks and reserves of Ghana: Management effectiveness assessment of . Kakum National Quarterly. Kakum ReportPark: for June National April to 2009. Quarterly. Kakum ReportPark: forJune National April to 2011. Requiem Press. nature.Island London: for 4(4): 114- 4(4): Out, R. 2012.ForestOut, duikerCephalophus (abundance and.) spp hunting 118

92 Ghana country profile. Ghana countryprofile.

[consulted 9May [consulted 2012].

[consulted 12 July [consulted 12July

CEU eTD Collection Monitoring Centre.World Conservation 1992.Global Living Biodiversity: Status Earth’s of Park Assin and National ______. 1996.Kakum Attandanso Resource Reserve: The QuarterlySeptember______. 2004b.Kakum Reportto Park: for National July 2004. Quarterly Kakum______. 2004a. ReportPark: for National October to2004. December Quarterly______. 2005d.Kakum : ReportPark for National October to2005. December QuarterlySeptember Kakum______. 2005c. Reportto Park: for National July 2005. Quarterly______. 2005b.Kakum ReportPark: forJune National April to 2005. Kakum______. 2005a. Nat QuarterlySeptember Kakum______. 2006c. Reportto Park: for National July 2006. Quarterly______. 2006b.Kakum ReportPark: forJune National April to 2006. K ______. 2006a. Quarterly Kakum______. 2007c. ReportPark: for National October to2007. December QuarterlySeptember______. 2007b.Kakum Reportto Park: for National July 2007. Quarterly Kakum______. 2007a. Report 2007.Park: for National January to March Zonum Solutions 2010. URL:Zonum Kml2Shp Solutions Online. Involved.2011. Get Yachana Foundation. URL: Yachana http://www.yachana.org.ec/get EcoTribe Membership.2011.Yachana Yachana Foundation. U Resources. ChapmanLondon: Hall. & management plan. Accra, Ghana: WD. [consulted 7 2012] [consulted May 2012]involved.php [consulted 10July 10Julyhttp://www.yachana.org.ec/eco_tribe_membership.php [consulted 2012] akum National Quarterly Reportakum 2006.Park: for National January to March ional Quarterly Report 2005.ional Park: for January to March .

. 93

http://www .zonums.com/online/ RL: RL: kml2shp.php .

- CEU eTD Collection 4 3 2 Key assumptions of the TRA method Content Adaptive and Management Monitoring Cycle adaptive management strategy. ofgeospatially. useful a Themodifiedmodellingbe part TRAmethodand tool can as an (TRA) tool as aproxy measurement of conservation success. are biodiversity theto Threats monitoredReduction through modified Threat Assessment

Salafsky Salafsky Margoluisand 1999 Adapted from 2005, Tucker 13 Salafsky Margoluisand 1999 6. 5. 4. Changes in all threats threats . Expertscan estimated all or the Changesin measured have ability be to threats All to biodiversityagiven . At at point identified in be can given site any time, All destruction of biodiversity is human biodiversity destructionof is All - of all threats at any given time. systematically, either qualitatively or q biodiversity. in and rank termsand direct impact, urgency intensity, all the to they of threats area of Kakum Area ab experts Conservation (KCA) the have are magnitude frequency human or to activity due considered threats. as 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. phenomena are not considered as threats. threats. as considered not are phenomena

A detailed site map. A geospatial threat data collection sheets, descriptions and sheet The IUCNofthreats including 2category classification direct 1and level definition 100%and A reduction threat sheet, A TRA calculation index sheet, key and assumptions, explanations ofmodified TRA the process and method sheetthatcontained An steps information detailed ological I APPENDIX

level 1 definitions, 1 definitions, level –TRAWORKSHOP

94 uantitatively, assess the percentage of change . Losses of biodiversity due. natural ofto induced Losses biodiversity

However, threats that have increased in INFORMATION SHEET INFORMATION

2 Threats wi ility to identify, distinguish ll be modelled

CEU eTD Collection 5 TRA Index modified the produce to Steps

Salafsky andMargoluis 1999, and 2001,Margoluis Salafsky Anthony 2008 and Matar2009. 3. 2. 4. 10. 9. 8. 7. 6. 5. Calculate the final threat reduction index score. of current Rankthreat order each in urgency.area, intensity and Determine thedegree to which each threat has been mitigated based upon the Define condition the target Define spatially the study period and temporally. List historical and p of 4) (step definition reduction of end 100% by the assessm the For thedefined start date of theassessment period, rank each threat inorder of: Define of reduction threat each 100% threat. categories. See hand- Collectively discuss threats and define each threat within the IUCN lexicon of threats a. a. c. b. a. a.

biodiversity of KCA. The target condition has three main attributes: ultimatelyis responsible for. For this assessment it assumed is tobe the condition theof state The target is thet onwhich site biodiversity Threats Urgency: Intensity: the impact of thethreat on a small scale within the overall area, Area: worksheet. otherwisenoted and byprotectedonthe determined areaexperts unless threat100% will reduction be defined as the absolute abolish iii. iii. ii. ii. i. i.

percentage of habitat(s) in the site that the threat will affect,

Species present, the origin and origin the inf specifically ofas part the assessment worksheet but help to distinguish provoke direct threats. Indirect threats are not to be included Threats Indirect External Dir Internal Direct Threats bytheon : living stakeholders caused site, Ecosystem functions. area, and condition Habitat are defined asdirect anthropogenic activities that adversely affect TRA index= ∑ TRA index= the immediacy of the threat.

i resent direct threats in KCA. Threats can as: subdivided be KCA. in Threats out

ect Threatsect byoutsiders,: caused raw scores/total rankings*100

: Social,: and political, economic influences that luential ofactors direct threats.

to biodiversity to onsite.

he managementhe authority

ent period. period. ent

ment of athreat

CEU eTD Collection

bewill to: and of indirectthreatstool the be origin discussion Thepurpose ofgroup will initiated. the A gr Implications and follow up collectfor data to threatmodelSteps geospatial the of geospatialthreatassumptions modelingThe fundamental is: Key assumptions of geospatial threat modeling ofknowledge threats. Modeling threats to biodiversity using a sp Geospatial ThreatModeling 3. 2. 1. 2. 1. 2. 1. oup discussion regarding theoup discussion geospatialthreat valueand ofTRA the assessment modeling Discuss strategies that need tobe revised todecrease threats to biodiversity. Discuss specific actions havethat been successful miti at Draw theapp threat identified each For the during intensity andforTRA the the two urgency rank threats All to biodiversityagiven at ranked be can . Expertshave site to the ability The locationat all threats of biodiversity agiven to becan site identif What are the prevalent indirect threats?

must map. threat, location, indicated for be oneach each assessment period on a separate map. The specific urgency and intensity rankings of 2004 time 2012). (June June periods and systematically rank the intensity and of at eachurgency threat time. given any threats to biodiversity, of in time,point experts KCA ofdirect ability to location allthe the identify have the b. a.

map. will noteinnext be on itstep onthe it locations indicated worksheet, the range2 threat between 6. and is In thecase where athreat requires a different assigned value inspecific The scale is from 1 to3 (1=l roximate location of and forroximate location eachthe start threat defined end of the date

atiotemporal method will help to illustrate present ow, 2=medium,scoreof Thetotal each 3=high). 96

gating threats to biodiversity. ied . givenAt any

Assessment Assessment Period: PA Nam Facilitator: Workshop No. 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

b a

TRA Calculation Index

TRA Formula Index see table below see http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical see e:

Threat

Brittny Anderson Brittny

CEU eTD Collection

Total Score

Raw Raw - documents/classification APPENDIX II - II APPENDIX

TOTAL threat IUCN IUCN code ÷

TRA INDEX TRAINDEX

- schemes/threats Ranking Total Area Criteria Rankings (relative)

CACULATION SHEET CACULATION

- classification Intensity =

- scheme

Urgency - ver3

Convert to % to Convert

x100

Ranking Total Total

% Threat Reduced =

TRA Index TRA Index Raw Score (%)

No. 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

TS AND DEFINITION OF DEFINITION AND TS THREA OF –DESCRIPTION III APPENDIX Threat

CEU eTD Collection

Ranking Total Total

% Threat % Threat Reduced

98 Description ofthreat

100% REDUCTION REDUCTION 100%

Explanation of 100 of Explanation % Reduction CEU eTD Collection

2011) Source: Source:

KCA boundary and and boundary KCA APPENDIX IV APPENDIX settlements –TRA WORKSHOP

( Wiafe 99

and Amfo

- ) 2012 GIS elevationOut (METI and NASA SITE MAP SITE

CEU eTD Collection 2009 Matar from adapted Source: Thank you for yourparticipation. Please take5 minutes tofill infeedback this sheet. Date: TRA Workshop Site:

Master ofMaster Environmental Science and Policy s Brittny Anderson Thank you, feedbackyour ishighly appreciated! [email protected] Central European University

1. 2.

Did findyou the TRAtool and mapping component beneficial? Do thinkDo you it ishelpful and/or appropriate to the use TRAmethod and mapping (Please Yes circle) / No (Please Yes circle) / No component regularly as part ofmanagementyour performance monitoring system? a. b. a.

please indicate is Why TRAand mapping component are not helpful?

Please indicate any positive aspects indicate any Please Please indicate any negative aspects of negative TRA: aspects indicate any Please If If YES, please indicate is How TRA and mapping component are helpful? If NO,

ABSTRACT V ABSTRACT

–TRA tudent 100

FEEDBACK FORM FEEDBACK

of TRA: