Parks and reserves of Ghana: Management Effectiveness ... - IUCN

More documents

Recommendations

Info

16 Akoula Macellinus Nana Senior Wildlife Ranger (CRMU) Kyabobo National Park 17 Ahmed Anur-Baompong Box 65, Nkwanta Assistant Wildlife Officer (LEU) Kyabobo National Park Box 65, Nkwanta 18 Luri Kanton Park Manager Kyabobo National Park Box 65, Nkwanta 19 Cletus K. Nateg Operations Manager (Protected Areas) Wildlife Division Forestry Commission, Accra 20 Richmond Boadu Timiase Wildlife Ranger (LEU) Bui National Park Box 32, Wenchi 21 Samuel Darko Akonor Park Manager Bui National Park Box 32, Wenchi 22 Amasa Ashie Head (CRMU) Mole National Park P.O. Box 8 , Damongo 23 Cletus Balangtaa Park Manager Ankasa Conservation Area Box 102, Elubo 24 Dubiure Umaru Farouk Park Manager Mole National Park P.O. Box 8, Damongo cnateg@yahoo.co.uk sirras2001@yahoo.com cbalangtaa@yahoo.com molewd@yahoo.com The assessment team was represented by: • Mr Adetayo Okunlola, NCF, Nigeria • Mrs Cecelia Kollie, Liberia • Mr Moses Koffi Sam, Ghana IUCN-PAPACO analysed the information collected and drafted the report. The report was then reviewed by the managers of the Wildlife Division as well as by external experts, who are acknowledged here. The managers also provided the pictures to illustrate this work. The methodology employed is the one developed by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF): the Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management (RAPPAM). It is based on the assessment framework developed by the World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA). It offers to decision makers a tool to enable them rapidly assess the overall management effectiveness of protected areas in a country or a region, then decide on ad hoc policy options in order to improve management practices. The RAPPAM methodology can: • Identify the strengths and weaknesses of PAs management • Analyse the scope, severity, prevalence and distribution of a variety of threats and pressures • Identify areas of high ecological and social importance and vulnerability • Indicate the urgency and conservation priority for specific PAs in a network • Help to develop and prioritize appropriate policy interventions and follow-up steps to improve protected area management effectiveness There are 5 steps in the RAPPAM process: Step 1: determine the scope of the assessment (parks to assess) Step 2: assess existing information for each protected area 25
Step 3: administer the RAPPAM questionnaire Step 4: analyse the findings Step 5: identify next steps and recommendations. It is important to recall that the RAPPAM methodology is based on the principle of a participatory auto-assessment, led by all the stakeholders in the management of assessed PAs. It is therefore based on several prior hypotheses, 3 of which are particularly important: – the climate during the workshop must be positive: given that the quality of the data depend on the goodwill and the participation of the managers and all the partners of protected areas, confidence and transparency is essential to obtain reliable information that will give significant and usable results. – The methodology can apply to the six IUCN categories of PAs, but it is mostly applicable to categories I to IV. – The methodology assumes that the PAs managers have all the required knowledge of the PA to provide enough and reliable data. The present report is on the elements presented and discussed by these actors during the workshop, and does not necessarily provide a view that is strictly in conformity with the reality. This bias is however being reduced because the participants are from diverse sort (government, managers, NGO, scientists…) and also thanks to the facilitation and proof reading undertaken by the evaluators. The data presented in the first part of this document (description of parks and reserves) was taken from the bibliography (not always exhaustive) provided by the protected areas managers, generally without exact reference to the author. Detailed information related to this assessment method is available at: www.panda.org/parkassessment 26
Page 1 and 2: IUCN Parks and reserves of Ghana Ma
Page 3 and 4: The designation of geographical ent
Page 5 and 6: Acronyms and abbreviations CBD CBWM
Page 7 and 8: Appropriate resource allocation mec
Page 9 and 10: Le mécanisme approprié d'attribut
Page 11 and 12: ANKASA CONSERVATION AREA (50 900 HA
Page 13 and 14: River to the Ghana - Côte d'Ivoire
Page 15 and 16: olivaceus). There is a great number
Page 17 and 18: surveys. These were carried out in
Page 19 and 20: The exotic neem tree (Azadirachta i
Page 21 and 22: A national park Generally a large a
Page 23: METHODOLOGY OF THE ASSESSMENT The m
Page 29 and 30: Poaching (pressure) Poaching intens
Page 31 and 32: Land conversion refers to the alloc
Page 33 and 34: CONTEXT There were four possible re
Page 35 and 36: The structural diversity of all the
Page 37 and 38: (iv) habitat-related features: Bamb
Page 39 and 40: There appears to be bribery and cor
Page 41 and 42: Legal security All evaluated PAs ha
Page 43 and 44: Staff performance and progress on t
Page 45 and 46: Decision making There is clear inte
Page 47 and 48: Results are considered good in staf
Page 49 and 50: PROTECTED AREAS POLICY PA Policy 5
Page 51 and 52: STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF PROTECT
Page 53 and 54: As part of the series of « Managem

Parks and reserves of Ghana: Management Effectiveness ... - IUCN

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?