Local Spatialized Knowledge and the Effectiveness of Forest Governance
This paper aimed to make clear how spatializing local knowledge using participatory spatial knowledge tools and PGIS can be used to provide a locally embedded assessment of threats to forest conservation in Ghana. Several other studies document how PGIS enabled communities to map their spatial knowledge for conservation and planning (Fagerholm et al.
2012,
2019; Klain and Chan
2012; Plieninger et al.
2013; McCall
2021). Like our study, these examples highlight how the PGIS approach enabled new undocumented information to be shared among various actors. First, the maps generated by the knowledge holders demonstrated that the participatory spatial knowledge production tools provided a suitable platform for combining local knowledge with geospatial technologies (scientific knowledge). The PGIS approach contributed to the overall knowledge of forests as the knowledge holders not only sketch-mapped the threats to forest conservation, such as the distribution of invasive species and illegal activities, but also provided information on the people perceived to be causing such threats. Further, a comparative assessment of the two forest reserves revealed that minor threats under different conservation status and management regimes vary. For example, illegal cocoa farming and wildfires were identified only in the partially protected forest reserve, suggesting easier access and less enforcement. However, illegal timber operations occurred in both settings, often in collaboration with corrupt FSD officials. Information of such threats and the perpetuators is not available in the records of forest inventories conducted by the FSD within the forest reserves.
Second, mapping the anticipated trends regarding the condition of the forest reserves in 10 years’ time (2024) provided insight into the underlying drivers of deforestation and forest degradation, and can be considered a form of qualitative scenario mapping (c.f. Asubonteng et al.
2021, this issue). The maps of the future suggest that the GSBA concept of preserving tracts of forest for posterity as close to their natural conditions as possible is likely to collapse if the identified threats to forest conservation—illegal chainsaw milling, illegal farming and the spread of invasive species like
Chromolaena odorata (‘acheampong’)—persist. This proved to be useful as the actors were made aware of the long-term implications of the threats to forest conservation. Actors were made to visualize and perceive the forest condition in the longer term and the need to address the threats to the condition of the forest. The PGIS approach made local spatial knowledge explicit in maps and narratives, highlighting the usefulness of a spatial approach in forest conservation. This suggests that forest governance can become more effective by incorporating local people and their context-embedded spatial knowledge.
Third, the validation workshops held after the mapping exercise enabled spatially explicit discussions among the knowledge holders and the entire communities. These meetings promoted knowledge sharing about the forest resource base among community members and knowledge holders. Through the exchange of knowledge all learned new things by helping each other understand the maps and in some instances correct the information that was represented on them. For example, the location of the threats within the forest reserves was not known by community members who had little or no interaction with the forest reserves. The benefits of the PGIS approach made explicit through visualization and communication helped improve the forest knowledge base of communities as a whole, which illustrates the desirability of organizing such validation meetings.
The question we want to address in the rest of this discussion is whether and under what conditions using participatory geospatial tools and spatializing community knowledge on forest threats can also contribute to more inclusive forest governance.
Several studies have analyzed how specific environmental problems can be solved by using participatory mapping and geospatial technologies (Pfeffer et al.
2013; Forrester et al.
2015; Robinson et al.
2016; Young and Gilmore
2017; Fagerholm et al.
2019). But how can these participatory processes ensure inclusive decision-making in landscape management and governance more broadly? In general terms, ensuring inclusiveness of participation in knowledge production and environmental governance implies that due consideration is given to the terms of inclusion and exclusion and their implications for representation, citizenship, and democracy (Bäckstrand
2003; Elwood
2006; Turnhout et al.
2010; Anokye
2013).
First, some preconditions are to be met to ensure that the views of an entire community and not only those of a privileged few are represented in knowledge co-production and decision-making. This implies that due consideration is given to the selection of local spatial knowledge holders. This study revealed some possible limitations in this respect. In the Ghanaian context, as elsewhere in the global South, it is important to respect traditional authorities and local customs when entering a community (c.f. Ros-Tonen and Derkyi
2018). Any engagement with local communities, including the selection of local knowledge holders, is to be done through these authorities (chief and elders). There are two risks involved here. The first is that the researcher has no influence on the selection process other than the ability to communicate the selection criteria, which may compromise the representativeness of the participants and confine the selection to those with a higher status in the community—a risk that may also apply to this study. An associated risk is elite capture. Other studies have observed this; both in p-mapping and PGIS (Bauer
2009; Verplanke et al.
2016; Sandström et al.
2020) and in participatory and community-based forestry (Schreckenberg and Luttrell
2009; Vyamana
2009; Chomba et al.
2015). As a result, spatializing local knowledge may (unintendedly) result in elite capture of knowledge, information and ‘professionalization’ processes that give the selected knowledge holders a privileged position in formal forest management (Lund
2015). Several studies have, however, shown that initial elite capture can be overcome through resistance by those who are excluded (e.g., Lund and Saito-Jensen
2013) and/or deliberate (government) measures that ensure equitable representation in local decision-making bodies (e.g., Saito-Jensen et al.
2010). In-depth consultation of community members as part of prior stakeholder analysis may make the selection process more inclusive (McCall and Dunn
2012; Brown and Fagerholm
2015), while validation workshops with the entire community as described above may contribute to knowledge sharing and collectivization of local spatial knowledge.
Second, this study showed the importance of meeting preconditions related to trust, language and location that earlier studies have also indicated (e.g., McCall and Dunn
2012; Pfeffer et al.
2013). Consultations and knowledge co-production processes should be held in a language understood by all (see also Norström et al.
2020; Asubonteng et al.
2021, this issue). Also facilitation by an impartial outsider (researcher or otherwise) may contribute to inclusive engagement of all community members (Balint and Mashinya
2006; Sayer et al.
2016; Reed et al.
2019). It is important to organize consultations and meetings in locations accessible to all community members, including marginalized ones (McCall and Dunn
2012; Pfeffer et al.
2013; Sessin-Dilascio et al.
2015; Ros-Tonen et al.
2018; Reed et al.
2019).
Third, the selection of community actors already involved in local forest management as spatial knowledge holders seems to be an evident choice, as they are most conversant with forest management issues. Moreover, such actors can serve as bridging actors who pass on information and facilitate joint learning and collective action and decision-making among all community members (Green et al.
2015; De Kraker
2017). Evidence from this study showed, however, that such local institutions—in Ghana the community forest committees (CFCs) and CBAGs—may be non-functioning. In that case, other legitimate local bodies should be identified and consulted (see also Turner et al.
2016); in Ghana, for instance, the District Assemblies.
15
Fourth, an important dimension of inclusion concerns the ownership of local spatialized knowledge. If local communities and their representatives—the Chiefs and elders—can effectively claim ownership of the jointly produced maps, they can use them as boundary objects or ‘negotiation facilitators’ (Alin et al.
2013) in various decision-making processes with other actors in forest and landscape governance (McCall and Minang
2005; Somuah
2018). They can use the maps to negotiate the ways in which potential forest benefits are shared, claim resources, or limit the threats to forest conservation by pointing to areas of illegal activities. If local communities cannot effectively retain the maps as their property, outsiders can use (or misuse) community knowledge to their own advantage, without sharing the benefits with local communities, and bypassing processes of FPIC about resource exploitation. This is an important prerequisite for inclusive knowledge production and forest governance, and implies due consideration of the ethics of participatory mapping and PGIS (McCall
2003; Chambers
2006; Rambaldi et al.
2006; McCall and Dunn
2012; Fagerholm
2014; Tuulentie et al.
2020).
Limitations should however be acknowledged. Effective consultations with local people are time-consuming and budget-intensive, so trade-offs exist as most projects have limited time and financial resources (Pham et al.
2015). Further research could shed light on how such limitations could be overcome and particularly what role knowledge-brokering and boundary organizations could play in this respect (Turnhout et al.
2013; Hering
2016; McGonigle et al.
2020). There is also a need to consider research on how remote sensing analysis and participatory approaches can be combined to enhance the effectivity of both; with participatory approaches ensuring a firm contextual grounding of the findings and inclusive landscape governance, and remote sensing allowing for the validation of local spatial knowledge.