Conflict Between Mole National Park And Larabanga Community Politics Essay

encounter Between inguen interior(a) Park And Larabanga fraternity Politics look forHistorically, saving strategies have been dominated by exclusive trouble go ones, reserving places for personality, and to break dance humans and other species. According to Adams and McShane (1996) the method for establishing approximate ranges has always convolute the expensive operation of removing those race existent on the sweetly protect toss off. In al or so all cases, the result is a approximate range adjoin by people who were excluded from the figurening of the ara, do not understand its purpose, make little or no benefit sharing and hence do not support its existence. As a result, topical anaesthetic anesthetic anesthetic communities develop a lasting distrust of commons authorities, in part be take in of the glaring inadequacy of attention those authorities, supported by preservationists, have traditionally paid to the tie in between putting green ecology, the survival of wildlife and the livelihood of the dis laid people. In the desireer full term the effect of the de-linkage of leafy vegetable wildlife from village livelihoods, encouraged by the preservationist views of nature on which the content commonalty as an institution is founded, is to make local people hostile to wildlife conservation (Knight, 2000).In gold coast, the counterspy National Park and matchless of its reverberateing communities, Larabanga, have for a long time being tortuous in a series of passage of armss that have negatively affected the halcyon co-existence of man and nature. This paper looks the causes of the treat and the set, stakess and ranges of the keystone stakeholders involved in the dispute. An synopsis of the meshing using the friendly troth theory and various techniques in fight circumspection is excessively employed. The authors in like manner certify a new view of the fighting and present substitute dispute closing m ethods that argon applicable in resolving the fight. Inclusive g everyplacenance as a key participatory process is also discussed in the paper.Key row Environmental infringe, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Inclusive Governance, Protected Area, StakeholdersIntroductionNational viriditys and other wildlife militia argon a major informant wildlife conservation passage of armss in most parts of the world. In Ghana, wildlife conservation conflicts ar prevailing in the north of the boorish between the place authorities of the inguen National Park (NP) and the park-adjacent communities especially Larabanga (Marseille, 2004). bulwark NP is a typical example of coercive conservation or exclusive caution, during its origination a policy of externally enforced exclusion was pursued and no serious attempts were made to involve the local communities in the oversight of the park (Marseille, 2004). The control of Mole NP is vested in central governing by means of the Ghanaian Wil dlife subdivision WD. Through by the years the WD and the communities have been savory in a poor family relationship which created a breeding sleeping accommodation for diametric conflict military positions (Marfo, 2003). Marfo (2003) however states that recently on that point has been a liberation from the traditional preservation advent in protected field of operations focal point to the more flexible concept of conservation through sustainable use. condescension a range of protected force field PA outreach strategies tar arrive ated at improving the relationship with the local communities and reducing the conflicts tensity still exists. The lack of communication and the tension between local people and park faculty is a super C theme from different parks (Newmark et al 1993 in Bergin 2001).The WD holds the view that local communities have d mavin little to change their negative perceptions around the activities of the Park. in particular the communities surroundi ng the Mole NP are notorious in violating park boundaries and regulations. Among the local communities twain suspicion and mistrust for wildlife staff and bitterness over the process by which the Park was created is prevailing. Hulme and Infield (2001) found that the company attitudes towards protected landing fields is influenced by the nature of company use of park imaginations, the physical law of proximity to the park, influencing twain problems caused by wild animals and negative interactions with game positives, and the history of both positive and negative interactions with park staff.Problem statementThough the Mole NP authorities have made efforts to reduce local conflicts there appears to have been little concerted effort to apply the principles of conflict management to protected area-people relationships (Hough, 1988). It is almost universally evident that the question of personnel and how it plays itself in specific conflict setting is an important dimension to the conflict management problem. The crucial role of power in essential imagery conflict management has driven the debate in search for its dynamics and how to rush with it in policy and practice.Conflict is a complex phenomenon, with the possibility of involving several(prenominal) actors. However, at a superficial level there are yieldd two actors involved in wildlife conservation conflict, videlicet the local interior(a) park administration and the local communities (Hough, 1988).Within natural resource management one major reoccurring issue relates to the question of how to control and manage natural resources on an official level while simultaneously taking into accountancy the require of the local population (Caspary, 1999).The emerging challenge is to encourage a scientific and policy rethinking of wildlife conservation conflict management intervention processes, channelize wildlife conservation conflict towards constructive rather than destructive results favors b oth the communities living on the fringes of the Mole NP as well as the park management.1.3 Aim of the studyThe aim of the study is formulated as followsTo explore conflict management strategies in wildlife conservation conflict using Mole National Park and the Larabanga Community in Ghana as a case with a view to making appropriate recommendations for wildlife conservation conflict managementObjectivesIn order to achieve this aim, the following specific objectives are formulatedTo identify the background and basics of the conflictTo explore the gravels, rice beers and determine of the key actors and the strategical action exercised during the conflictTo examine the linkages of the conflict to the foundations and theories of conflict and conflict managementBy identify conflict management approaches that are currently being used to address the conflictTo propose alternative conflict management and participatory approaches that could be usedResearch questionsWhat is the fundament of the conflict? why?Which actors are involved in the conflict? Why?What conflict management approaches are being used or could be usedWhich concept(s) of inclusive governance, which theories of democracy, isIs the governance process participatory and which theory of democracy is it built on?The analysis of this case study will counseling clearly on conflict management techniques and interventionist strategies. A third companionship intervention strategy will focus on understanding the strategies different actors use to empower themselves during conflict and providing alternative ways of resolving the conflict towards a constructive end.Mole National ParkThe Ghanaian Wildlife office is responsible for 15 integrated protected areas covering a summarize area of 13,489 sq. km under which Mole National Park, see stage of Mole NP in figure 1. Mole NP is one of the six national parks in Ghana and one of the troika established in the interior savannah.Fig. 1 Map of Ghana exhibit Mo le NP and LarabangaThe IUCN defines a National Park as a protected area managed mainly for eco system of rules protection and re asylum. Mole NP is a category II park by IUCN sort of protected areas (IUCN, 2010). A National Park is a national asset and as much(prenominal) remains under the jurisdiction of a central authority personified by the WD (Symonds and Hurst, 1998).The Mole NP Protected Area in Ghana and it is considered to be the most prestigious in terms of its attraction to visitors facilities for visitors (IUCN, 2010). The protected areas system in Ghana is designed to conserve key representative areas of Ghanas alter wildlife habitat (Symonds and Hurst, 1998).ontextMole National Park (4840 km2) is found in the western fractional of the labor unionern Region in the Guinea grass cut back zone (see figure 1). Mole is named after the river Mole which runs through the conserved area. In the 1930s about 2330 km of Mole was initially designated a Game clearance area for p urposes of tsetse control. The policy of game clearance was abandoned and in 1958 an area of 1,916 sq. km. was officially constituted as the Mole Game Reserve and placed under the Forestry Department (FC, 2010)In 1971, the reservation was almost doubled in size (4912 km) and gazetted a National park under legislative prick 710 of the wildlife reserves regulations. In 1992, with the removal of another(prenominal) village in the North west the park (Gbantariga), Mole NP was subsequently extended to the present 4840 km (Marseille, 2004).The park is very popular with tourists visiting northern Ghana, 93 mammals, 33 reptiles, 9 amphibians and 304 bird species have been recorded at Mole. The overabundant faunal species are elephant (Loxodonta africana cyclotis), buffalo (Syncerus caffer), waterbuck (Kobus defassa), roan antelope (Hippotragus equnus), kob antelope (Kobus kob), bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus), warthog (Phacochoerus aethipicus), green rogue (Cercopithecus aethiops), pata s monkey (Erythrocebus patas) and olive baboon (Papio anubis) (FC, 2010).Larabanga corporationApproximately 4 kilometres from the enamor gate of Mole NP lies the village of Larabanga, or Home of the Arabs as its name signifies. The Larabanga community is a 100% Muslim which has being in existence since the 15th century and originally a hunting people (Marseille, 2004). Larabanga is poor rural community whose main source of livelihood is nation closely followed in splendour by hunting and fishing. Basic companionable amenities and infrastructure are critically lacking in the community (UNDP, 2007).Larabanga has a population size of about 3800 people, most community members are aimd in lifting subsistence dresss such as yam, maize, guinea clavus and cassava (UNDP, 2007). The farm lands surround the village in all directions and are communally owned with most farmers practicing shifting cultivation.The ancient mosque of Larabanga is of Sudanese architectural style and is rec ognized officially as a World hereditary pattern Site. A few retailers in the village also generate about profit by selling provisions to visiting tourists. In Larabanga 99% of the community is illiterate, the same situation counts for all other fringed communities (Marseille, 2004).Causes of the ConflictKnight (2002) describes human-wildlife conflict as relations of rivalry or antipathy between human beings and wild animals which typically arise from territorial proximity and involve reliance on the same resources or a menace to human well-being or safety. It is proposed there are two dimensions of human-wildlife conflicts semipolitical and accessible. semipoliticalAn increasingly important factor in the political ratiocination of wildlife conservation conflict is the role of the established political actor, the state. Many wildlife conservation conflicts are informed by people-state conflict. When wild animals become the object of official protection measures whether in the name of game management or wildlife conservation, local victims of wildlife damage may well attribute blame to and seek political redress from, state authorities (Knight, 2000). In this case study wildlife conservation conflict is defined as followsa situation where an actor experiences the action of other actors in the use and management of wildlife resources as an impairment to their interest in those wildlife resourcesThe state through the Wildlife Department (WD) has adopted a preservationist approach in managing the Mole NP (Jachmann, 2008). This has resulted in the alienation of local communities and has excluded opportunities for participatory rural instruction activities and the sustainable use of the reserves resources, thus generating abhorrence resulting in conflicts between local communities and wildlife/ lumberry officers (Marseille, 2008).One of the key obstacles to establishing key processes for the effectual management of national park-people conflict place by H ough (1988) is the large expiration in power between government-backed parks and local people in rural areas. Central government has the weight of the legal and enforcement mechanisms of the nation state. The key infraction during the creation of the park was the compulsory acquisition of land without receivable compensation being paid to the evicted communities. The state has also being impeach of using its power to expand the park several times without the assent of the local communities (Bosu, 2010).The local communities however are relatively powerless, the villagers try to get something back by poaching park animals or by aggregation inside the park and thereby restore some degree of poise in the village-park relationship. According to Hough (1988) this difference in power is the root cause of the conflict in that the desires of central government were initially forced on the relatively powerless resident populations.SocialThe conflict is manifested through troika majo r social conflict bases issues of illegal hunting, crop damage and land addition into Mole NP (Marseille, 2004).Source Marseille, 2004 outlawed huntingIllegal hunting can be defined as the unauthorised result of any wildlife species for either subsistence or commercial purposes (FC, 1994).Regulation 2 of the wildlife reserves regulations of 1971 (L.I. 710) prohibit any person at any time to hunt, captivate or destroy any animal or collect or destroy any plant deep discomfit the reserve (FC, 2010). Group hunting, a group of two or more individuals hunting together, is with or without a license prohibited. Nearly all hunters surrounding the park however do not carry valid licenses and hunt mainly inside the park (Marseille, 2010).Once hunters and patrolling scouts clash with each other conflict is initiated, this practically means that make arrest is similar to causing conflict process damageCrop damage occurs when animals cross the boundaries and move into the farm fields to fe ed on the cultivated crops like maize, millet, cassava, yam, guinea corn and ground nuts. The most difficult animals are elephants, baboons, green monkeys and red monkeys. The WD is seriously concerned about crop damage and problem animals but does not have financial resources functional to grant compensation for lost crops (Wildlife Division, 2001).The current legislation does not provide sufficient incentive for farmers to care and protect wildlife on their goodties. The result is that wildlife for most farmers is considered a pest that in many cases is directly competing with their agri cultural activities (Wildlife Division, 2001). The farmers encounter the WD should take responsibility of their animals to reduce the amount of damage. The WD has the opinion that the farmers are exaggerating the material amount and frequency of damage, farmers are using crop damage scarcely to create resentment (Wildlife Division, 2001).Resource accessThe wildlife reserves regulations of 19 71 (L.I. 710) states that no person at any time can enter a reserve except with the consent of the Senior Wildlife Officer. It is thus illegal to enter Mole NP without official permission. The denial of land access is the third determine social conflict base, meaning that the villagers are not allowed to enter the reserves, also for purposes other than hunting such as fetching water, collecting gust wood and NTFPs as well as visiting pious groves (Marseille, 2004).The sacred stream case for example is a conflict relating to the issue of land access. Villagers are not permitted access to the stream creating dis treaty which is primarily values and interest- base. The villagers value the stream based on its traditional and spiritual importance whereas the WD values the stream for its biological and ecological features. The villagers also have a different interest in the stream, they would like to use the stream for both swimming and fishing purposes as well as the fetching of water . The interest of the WD in the stream is linked to conservation purposes (Marseille, 2004). Also, more indirectly the conflict is history-based, culture-based due to the way the park was created and the influence of government institutions.The situational circumstances that surround the initial conflict setting determine the substantial conflict base. The identified conflict bases are the surfacing fundamentals of the wildlife conservation conflict in general, however, these conflict bases have by no means static characteristics. As the conflict evolves the initial conflict base might develop into another conflict base. Conflict bases are also interrelated with each other.Ghanas Wildlife lawsGhanas wildlife policy states that although the governance cannot be credible for damage caused by wildlife, it will take reasonable measures to protect people, crops and topographic point against wild animal damage. The 11th and 12th item of the Policy states that the conservation of wildl ife within Parks and Reserves will over-ride all other interests in them (FC, 2010). No use of Parks and Reserves that will conflict materially with wildlife conservation will be allowed. It presents specific principles on rights of local access to basic natural resources, local democracy, participatory management and protection of plant and wildlife resources (Kotey et al, 1999). The policy entrenches a biocentric approach to wildlife conservation which is reflected in exclusive management and thus denies human access to resources because degradation of biodiversity has been verified (Caspary, 1999)Stakeholder analysisThe stakeholders, in general referring to all the people who affect and/or are affected in the conflict situation, are hereby classified into these three broad groups namely government, local community and third ships company. By analyzing using the conflict onion, the positions, interests, guides and fears/hopes of these stakeholder groups were identified and pre sented in the table 1 below.Table 1 Stakeholder classification using the conflict onionElements of conflictStakeholderGovernmentLocal CommunityThird societyPositionIn favour of the national parkAgainst the national parkIn favour of the national park pursuitBiodiversity conservationExertion of authorityAccess to resourceProtection of hereditary patternResource conservationSocial justice directIncome (tourism)International groupSubsistenceEmploymentCultural valuesSustainable resource managementPolitical successFear/hopeBiodiversity lossLoss of land and cultural heritagefundingThe government being in favour of the creation and maintenance of the national park could be considered as the proponent in contrast with the local community as opponents in this conflict situation. The third society could be regarded as social based group which is also in favour of the national park in terms of position in the conflict. There are varying interests from the stakeholder groups with only resou rce conservation overlapping between the government and the third party as debate to resource access by community. However, while the governments interest is to show that it holds the final authority over all forest and natural resources, the local community is also interested in preserving the heritage their ancestors had handed over to them from generation to generation and the third party is also interested in social justice for the local community.Power structure of stakeholdersThe government represents all agencies in favour of the national park comprising the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources (MLNR), Forestry Commission (FC), Wildlife Division (WD). These are state agencies are mandated by law to manage the forest and wildlife resources for the common good of all Ghanaians. With the decentralized system of governance, the Ministry of Local Government (MLG) and the District Assembly (DA) form an allied group that supports the government in its ratiocination. Though the MLG and the DA have the mandate to see to the sustainable development of the district, with respect to forest and wildlife resources the MLNR and the FC wield more power in this conflict situation. Hence, the DA is seen to be indifferent in this situation.The local community comprises farmers, hunters, offspring group, women group and community-based organizations. These are mostly individuals and informal community associations which are substantially alienated from any formal decision making processes. The third party in this conflict case is the Netherlands Development Cooperation (SNV) and other local and foreign non-governmental organizations such as Plan Ghana. These are considered to be social based group which operate as watch dog to ensure social justice. They serve as intermediary between the government and the local community. The power relation is depicted in the figure 1 below.Figure 3 Relationship between key stakeholders in the conflictConflict openingThe power re lation between the stakeholders is asymmetrical and could be analysed with the social conflict theory. This theory argues that in any conflict situation where power is unequally distributed, the stakeholder group with more power exploits those with less power (Bartos and Wehr, 2002). This is the case where the government by executive instrument forcefully evicted the inhabitants during the creation of the national park without adequate compensation and resettlement plan.Type of conflictThe conflict is basically over the forest and wildlife resource. The land and the wildlife resources served as the source of livelihood to the local community. The denial of access and use right to the park signifies the removal of the local communitys source of livelihood and threat to their lives. The use of arms to guard the borders of the park and ward off entry by local community members has resulted in the conflict taking on a relational dimension. Hatred and incompatible relation between loca l community and staff of the park is a key factor in the conflict.Moreover, the conflict encompasses different form and nature of incompatibility. These interconnected elements culminate in the complexity of the conflict. The different bases of incompatibility (Wehr, 1979 in Walker and Daniels, 1997)), see table 2, are all to a varying degree included within the different conflict bases.Table 2 examples of incompatibility in the conflictNature of incompatibilityExampleFact-basedThe actual amount of crop damage reported by farmersValue-basedThe elephant a farm pest or a valuable speciesInterest-basedThe presence of fertile cultivable land within the parkPerson-basedSuspicion and mistrust among villagers about the wildlife staffHistory-basedThe way the park was created exclusive managementCulture-basedTraditional linkages with sacred places within the parkIt could be seen that this case of a resource conflict is many-sided and all these elements presented in table 2 above moldiness be addressed and an acceptable organisation achieved through a participatory decision making process.The conflict stagecoachsUsing the conflict escalation model, the conflict has been a long standing one with multiple phases. The resource area was archetypical created as a wildlife reserve in 1958 and later re-designated at a national park in 1971 (FC, 2010). The breaker point between 1958 and 1971 could be considered as the pre-conflict phase because during this period the local community started to sense the threats to its very existence. Though during this period the local community members could have access into the reserve and some communities were in reality sited in the reserve, they were not allowed to engage in any commercial performance from the resources they have customary rights over (Marseille, 2010).However in 1971 when the reserve was re-designated as a national park, all the local communities within the area were forcefully evicted by the use of state security apparatus and that led to the first eruption of conflict (Marseille, 2004 ). Prior notices had been given to the local communities to evacuate from the area where they lived to outside the borders of the national park without any resettlement plan by the government for the local communities. Hence, the community readied itself to engage in open confrontation and the government knowing this also deployed the military to maintain order. The violence keep because the local communities were not ready to give up the historical heritage but with the heavy presence of military forces the violence finally calmed subjugate (Marseille, 2004).After the eruption of the first conflict, no efforts were made to address the concerns of the local communities but between 1971 and 1992 the conflict became latent largely due to the military political regime. However, from 1992 when Ghana became a multi-party democratic state the local communities started to telephone themselves for an action to a ttract attention to their plight. In 2004, an invasion of local community farmlands by wild animals, particularly elephants, triggered a massive community hold out with attack on the national park through killing of animals and bushfires (Marseille, 2004). This represents the atomic number 42 eruption of conflict and being a democratic society, a serene solution was sought to resolve the conflict this time. This brought in the third party group in 2005 to address the conflict situation. Hence, the conflict is in its twinkling post-conflict phase till date. The figure 2 below gives a example of the stages of the conflict.Fig.4 Phases of the conflict between Larabanga and Mole NPPrevious conflict resolution approachesThe first formal process of conflict resolution started in 2005 with the orgasm in of the Netherlands Development Organization (SNV) as a third party to bring the oppose sides together to find a peaceful concordance between them. Two alternative dispute resolution (ADR) approaches were employed namely facilitation and mediation. The facilitation process sought to deal with the strong emotions and to prepare the two sides to engage in a formal process of dialogue towards finding a common solution to the conflict. This was followed by a mediation process where the opposing sides presented their cases to the neutral mediator. In the end, the mediation process saw to the shifting of the position of the local community from opposing the existence of the national park to a new position of acceptance for the common good of the whole country (Marseille, 2004). Consequently, a agreement was triple-crownly negotiated with the local community demanding adequate compensation, proper resettlement plan and participation in the management of the national park. (Mason and Danso, 1995)Challenges of the conflict resolution processIt is indisputable that the facilitation and mediation processes employed by SNV were successful in dealing with the strong emotio ns and bringing these opposing sides to sit down to dialogue. Also, a peaceful agreement was reached with some level of satisfaction by both sides at the end of the negotiation (Marseille, 2004). However, the implementation of the essences and the action plan of the mediation process were faced with some challenges that were overlooked during the negotiation process.Stakeholder facsimile from the stakeholder analysis above it could be realized that not all stakeholders were delineated at the negotiation process. Typically, only the flowers of the community and the park managers were brought at the table. Hence the issue of legitimization became a limiting factor to the implementation of the outcome of the process. The park managers do not have the constitutional mandate to contribute compensation and to meet the other demands of the local community. It is not clear the strategic behaviour of the MLNR, which have the ultimate authority to implement the outcomes, to stay out of t he negotiation process. The legitimacy of the outcome was questioned since the creation of the national park was by executive instrument and the conflict transcends the domain of the local community and the park management team to the bigger domain of national politics.Non-binding agreement the non-binding agreement was not appropriate for the conflict resolution process since the outcome require more of a legislative or executive instrument to implement. Again, because the agreement is non-binding, with every change of government the new administration tends not to have-to doe with with any programme of the previous government if it is not legally binding. It must be emphasized that when a new government comes to power, certain positions in the state organizations, mostly the Ministers, Chief Executives and directors, are replaced by new ones for political reasons.A new view of the problemA theoretical approach to the conflictConflict may involve various kinds of issues substanti ve, procedural and relationship. indispensable issues refers to interests that relate to tangible (observable, definable, measurable) products such as availability of firewood, protection of crop-raiding animals or stopping illegal hunting activities (Walker and Daniels, 1997). Procedural issues include a groups need to be included in decision-making, to have their opinions heard and to be reckon as a social entity (Borrini-Feyerabend et al, 2000). Conflict management involves making draw near on these three fundamental dimensions of a conflict situation. Any conflict situation includes substantive, procedural and relationship dimensions (the type of conflict) and a conflict situation is initially addressed through any of the three dimensions.Natural resource policy conflicts are complex they arise within some stage setting which typically is defined by a complex array of factors, such as numerous parties, multiple issues, deeply held values, cultural differences, scientific and technical foul uncertainty and legal and jurisdictional constraints (Walker and Daniels, 1997).It has been contended that natural resource conflicts are needful and unavoidable but also desirable to the extent that it can lead to negotiated, innovative agreements among stakeholders (Daniels and Walker, 1997).While conflicts over resource use are never favourable, when they do occur they can be used to demonstrate the need for a conflict management approach. According to Walker and Daniels (1997) well-managed natural resource conflicts can lead to better decisions, improve social cohesion, stimulate instauration and increase morale. Complex conflict situations may never be resolved, so that an agreement is reached that puts an end to those incompatibilities that caused the conflict. Whatever the conflict situation and how it is characterized, co