Presented by Eric R. C. BAYALA (COLANDS PhD candidate (University of Amsterdam) ) at CIFOR-ICRAF Science Week 2023, 8 May 2023

1. Inclusiveness of community landscape governance
in northern Ghana: Analysis of drivers and
assessment indicators
Authors
Eric R. C. Bayala, Mirjam Ros-Tonen, Houria Djoudi, James Reed, Terry Sunderland
Presented by
Eric R. C. BAYALA
CIFOR-
ICRAF
Science Week
8-12/05/2023
RESEARCH TITLE

2. By Name
cifor.org/colands
STUDY SITE:
The Western Wildlife Corridor (WWC)

3. cifor.org/colands
INTRODUCTION
 In Ghana, natural resource management model
=CREMA
 CREMA system aligns with several principles for
integrated landscape approaches (Foli et al. 2018) :
Potential to be inclusive
 But contestations and conflicts: inclusiveness of
decision-making processes??
Objective: analyse the inclusiveness of decision-
making processes at the CREMA level, and develop
inclusivity indicators that can be applied in this context
or other environmental governance contexts
Source: Wildlife Division/Ghana, 2019

4. cifor.org/colands
RESULTS/DISCUSSIONS
CREMA Organisation and composition
CRMC= Representatives of chief, landlord, District Assembly, Unit
Committee, youth, women, hunters, herders (Fulani pastoralists),
public workers, herbalists, and chain saw operators
Multi-level decision-
making model
CREMA
Executive
Committee
(CEC)
Community Resource
Management Committees
(CRMCs)

5. By Name
cifor.org/colands
Perceptions of local stakeholder groups
“Participatory exclusion” (Agarwal, 2001)
(Women groups 5/6 FGDs)
“The CREMA leaders don’t consider our needs, and there is nothing in favour of women”
(Youth groups 4/6 FGDs)
“We have representatives in the governance bodies, but we are not satisfied with how
things function: nobody consults us”
(Elder groups (5/6), farmer groups (5/6), forest operator groups (5/6))
“CREMA leaders have never done general meetings to consult us; we are not involved”;
“The CREMA leaders should consult people before they take decisions”
(Community left out)
“We are not aware of the existence of a CREMA system”
RESULTS/DISCUSSIONS

6. Participation of all social groups
RESULTS/DISCUSSIONS
Legitimacy of local leaders
Community ownership
Local communities’ satisfaction
with decision-making processes
Trust between actors
Accountability to local
communities
Transparent governance
Equity
Capabilities of governance actors
What is missing that prevents them from feeling included

7. Conflictual relationships and socio-environmental exclusion
“We don’t want Fulani people (Pastoralists) to be part of the CREMA system because they
destroy a lot of our farms and forests, and they will take advantage of being part and allow
grazing even where it is not allowed”
(Community leader interview)
RESULTS/DISCUSSIONS

8. RESULTS/DISCUSSIONS
1. Participation
2. Legitimacy
3. Ownership
4. Accountability
5. Transparency
6. Equity
7. Trust
8. Capacity
9. Satisfaction
10. Local knowledge
INDICATORS OF INCLUSIVENESS

9. ILA
Facilitate
multi-
stakeholder
processes
Balance
competing
demands
Dialogue,
consultation,
negotiation,
compromise,
and decision-
making
Bring
together
landscape
stakeholders
Potential of ILAs for Inclusion

10.  WWC CREMAs face challenges that
hinder inclusiveness of the
governance system.
 It is challenging to meet all the
inclusivity indicators in practice.
 Integrated landscape approaches can
enhance inclusiveness.
CONCLUSION

11. cifor.org/colands
Merci pour votre
aimable attention !!
THANK YOU!!!
THANK YOU!!!