Location:

The Weto socio-ecological production landscape was identified as the target areas for the Community Development and Knowledge Management for the Satoyama Initiative Project (COMDEKS) in Ghana. The Weto landscape forms the southern part of the Togo-Atakora Mountains measures about 14,863.02 ha spanning over eleven traditional and three political administrative areas, namely South Dayi District Assembly, and Hohoe and Ho Municipalities in the Volta Region.


COMDEKS INTERVENTION AREAS SCOPING

1. The identification of the target landscape and geographical area (the Landscape) for the COMDEKS project was jointly done by the Traditional Authorities in the eleven traditional areas, the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) operating on the Weto Range, the local people living on the landscape, and the three District Assemblies. The landscape had already been identified by IUCN as a global biodiversity hotspot. The GEF/SGP had already funded four NGOs to undertake conservation projects in the Weto Landscape using the CREMA approach. The Base maps were finally developed by CERSGIS (Centre for Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Systems) of the University of Ghana, Legon, Accra. The CERSGIS staff also helped in delineating the boundaries of the clusters and the write up phase in the production of the classified images using 2010 Landsat Data

2. The identification and selection of the landscape was based on the fact that this globally significant landscape had experienced high level of degradation over the years and was perceived by both outsiders and the indigenes that the future of the landscape was bleak and that if nothing was done the valuable resources on the range would be lost in less than a decade. Several national media houses had carried stories of the degradation on the range. The criteria for the selection of the landscape included; high biodiversity loss due to unsustainable farming practices, illegal logging and incessant annual bushfires; increasing landslides and serious soil erosions along the slopes; huge public outcry on the state of degradation; the potentials for restoration based on the commitment of the community representatives and the up scaled the GEF/SGP intervention.
.
3. The selection of Weto landscape was validated with the community Leaders and landowning traditional authourities through series of community meetings spearheaded by the WETO NGO Platform; baseline data collection and a forum organized for community members, public sector agencies and NGOs working on the Weto Range.

4. A reference map for the entire Weto Range and the area selected for the pilot implementation was drawn during the baseline assessment. Community members assisted in inserting communities that belong to their traditional areas, and yet were not featured on the map.

A. Participation of stakeholders during the process:

1. The landscape-wide baseline assessment was conducted in a five stepwise approach as follows:

Community entry to 36 communities was conducted by the staffs of Development Institute and GEF SGP and to explain the objectives of the project and to enable communities? support and participation. In every community the team conducted Village Squad Discussions (VSD) in which all community members are given the opportunity to express their knowledge about the landscape. This process covered about 1,670 local people.

The next step was Focus Group Discussions (FSD) held in the six paramount communities in which key opinion leaders of the community were selected and engaged in further discussion on the landscape. Focus group discussion panels were made up of communities? opinion leaders, chiefs, youth representatives, women?s representatives and land owners representatives numbering between 12-15 persons. However, in some cases attendance between far exceeded the requested umber mostly due to the number of landowning entities in the community. This process covered 105 stakeholders elicited more detailed information on the landscape features and elements for the baseline.

Data Processing

Information gathered from each of the six communities forming a cluster was synthesized on community basis. This offered understanding of the ecosystem heterogeneity and landscape management efforts in each community. Community level information was matched against thematically to arrive at views expressed on each of the indicators as the views prevailing on the Weto range. The general views arrived at were compiled matched with indicators, and presented in a validation meeting held for the communities members, public sector agencies working on the range and the Local government. The presentation was purely descriptive and qualitative analysis and presentation. Maps were used to reinforce some issues that emerged.

Validation

A validation of the information gathered from the communities took place at a one day validation workshop held at Kpeve. This was for stakeholders including the community representatives from 36 communities, NGOs, data collectors, GEF-SGP officials and data collectors. The meeting provided an interface for agreement on issues gathered in terms of filling the gaps, in omissions and commissions. It also provided participatory inputs into the Country Programme Strategy.

The Workshop process

A carefully selected stakeholder?s representative from each cluster attended a workshop to score and discuss the range based on the Satoyama landscapes scores cards provided. The Scores gives an indication on the focus areas for strategy formulation on the range. GEF-SGP officials and DI team of consultants and data collectors facilitated this workshop jointly.

Presentation of the issues from the communities was done by the DI team of consultants flanked by the Data collectors. The presentations were followed by interactions. The interactions took the form of contributions and criticisms to the information presented. This offered opportunity for further explanation of the resilience indicators and the SATOYAMA concept as and its intended implementation on the Weto range. The group work and administration of the Score Card and the drawing of a RADAR diagram for the Weto range followed the interaction sessions.

A group work to draw the current and future state of the range was conducted with stakeholders. This was also used to map community assets and conduct the situation analysis on the range. This was implemented as part of the strategy formulation to enhance the resilience of the Weto range. Group exercise to obtain a common vision for Weto range stakeholders was conducted based in clusters. Stakeholders were also to provide develop mission statements and Activities that will lead to the successfully realization of the new vision for the range.

The interpretation of the Score-card was undertaken by GEF-SGP programme officials. The explanation was followed by suggestions of priority activities from stakeholder?s representatives for managing the Weto Range towards resilience. The facilitator outlined the way forward for the country programme strategy.

Assumptions

Communication did not prove to be a problem. This is because most of language for discussion was EWE spoken by all participants in such meetings. It was assumed that that the village inhabitants had local knowledge and were willing to impart that to us. It was also assumed that stakeholders were candid and frank with their opinions on the issues on the range. It also assumed that the efforts used ensured greatest levels of participation and involvement form all stakeholders.


3. About 120 persons participated in the post community data collection in a one day baseline data validation workshop. Two representatives each from the 36 communities were represented. In addition some selected chiefs (3), District Assemblies (6 ), Traditional Authorities (2) and Government Agencies (7) represented. Three representatives from 10 civil society groups operating within the range and the GEF/SGP National Coordinator and a National Steering Committee member were also in attendance and assisted to facilitate the workshop process. Participants cut across various occupational fronts such as civil servants, teachers, private business, farmers and fisher folks along the range.
4. The workshop facilitators used the map of the Weto Landscape drawn by CERGIS to provoke discussions and explanations. In some cases the community representative draw their own maps to justify boundaries.
5. Only one validation workshop was organized.
6. The workshop lasted for 8 hours. It started at 9.00 am and closed at 5 pm with one hour lunch break.


B. SEPL indicators:

1. Yes, the questions and the description of the indicators were clear but not easily understood by local people. Perhaps the double scoring process of scoring and describing whether increasing or decreasing should be looked at for modification.
2. It was necessary to translate the questions into Ewe language as some could not speak or understand or read English.
3. The discussions and explanations that took place based on the reference map and practical experiences sharing made it possible to appreciate the indicators.
4. Yes, indicators pointed out to the community members what they ought to be doing that are not being done. To promote resilience. Having identified what they are not doing it became easier for them to indicate what needed to be done.
5. Yes. The exercise was effective in capturing the perceptions of a variety of stakeholders. Examples were sited from various occupations to explain for understanding before scoring.
6. My suggestion is that the questions and the description of the indicators next time would be sent to participants for study before arriving at the workshop.

C. Interpreting the results of the scoring exercise:

1. The workshop was divided into 19 stakeholder groups with 7 members each to participate in the scoring exercise. Each group did the scoring independently on a excel sheet. The score of each group was collated into a single score sheet as shown in section R

2. The guidelines were followed except that for large number of participants, scoring was done in groups, using as much as possible the occupational groupings.
3. Yes, there was consensus on Ecosystem Protection/ Maintenance of Biodiversity, Agricultural biodiversity and knowledge learning and innovations but there was a clear difference on social equity and infrastructure.
4. Yes
5. Yes

D. Results of the Baseline Assessment:

Actions Prioritized by Weto range stakeholders

Following the administration of the score cards and the subsequent generation of the RADAR diagram became clear that stakeholders have very divergent views on the issues of social equity and infrastructure. This is demonstrated in the high scores recorded in the RADAR diagram below. The interpretation of the Score-card was undertaken by jointly by GEF-SGP programme officials and the Development Institute staff involved in data collection. The explanation was followed by suggestions of priority activities from stakeholder?s representatives for managing the Weto Range towards resilience. The facilitator outlined the way forward for the country programme strategy.
E. Challenges
1. The consultation Process was free of social hindrances?. However the rainy weather that day sometimes disrupt planned activities. Traditional demand for courteous Community entering extend financial demands but was not expected.
2. Rainy weather was throughout the entire baseline process.
3. The baseline workshop was organized on a day that most communities regard as non-working day and a not market day by the area
4. No resistance.
5. Baseline assessment could have been planned as first phase of the implementation process.
6. I recommend that baseline studies should be scheduled to be first activity of the implementation process when project has limited duration and certain activities are weather controlled.


F. Gender
1. Both men and women played the same roles. We did not pass any activity for gender segregation
2. Indeed women out numbered men in almost all the Village Squad Discussions but at the Focus Group Discussion levels 36 Queenmothers (one from each settlement) attended putting men in the majority.
3. Yes, there was equal gender participation during the validation workshop. Besides the queen mothers, the civil society representations had one female each as well as the public sector service delivering organization. In addition each community was represented by the Youth Leader (36).
4. There was the need for special and specific arrangement for women participation to represent women who were into trading. The workshop insisted on queen mothers who were alos involved in trading or those who were trades before becoming queen mothers

G. Indigenous Peoples
1. There was no special participation for Indigenous people. All participants are indigenous.
2. No, the message was clear.

H. Replication
1. No hindrances expected if scoring exercise is to be repeated. If only the financial cost involved is not a problem.
2. There were no major mistakes except for baseline study not considered as part of the implementation arrangements since there are limited data on landscape and socio-ecological studies needed a longer period.

I. Lessons learned
1. The baseline assessment, first of all, re-awakens consciousness in the communities about their lack of stewardship towards their environmental endowments. They have also realized the truth in describing their fore fathers time as ?good old days? in positive environmental attitude. Communities have realized what they could have done in the past and yet did not and considered them trivialities.

The questions involved in the baseline assessment were thought provoking enough and whipped enthusiasm in the communities such that people asked for projects while data collectors did not talk about projects. Though the issues were about the physical landscape the inclusion of cultural issues and their relation to landscape management was an excellent exercise for the communities to go into spiral reasoning.

2. Lessons learned included the neglect of the communities by governmental agencies such that their existence is meaningless to the communities. The communities lack knowledge about policies that affect them, which otherwise could have been used to improve their activities. The language of monitoring and evaluation is non-existent in the communities.
3. What worked well was how the questionnaire on the indicators solicited of right answers from respondents. The adoption of ?free talk? during the forums and the workshop played good role.
4. The likely success of this project is that people?s attitude would be transformed towards environmental stewardship and livelihoods would improve as ecological / geographical as well as production assets are managed well.
5. Community willingness and the dedication and enthusiasm among participants who are ambitious of transforming the Weto range to a landscape where nature and cultural footprints are in harmony.

7. About 70 persons participated in the post community data collection in a one day baseline data validation workshop. All 36 communities were represented in addition to some selected chiefs, District Assemblies, Traditional Authorities and Government Agencies represented. GEF/SGP National Coordinator and a National Steering Committee member were in attendance and assisted to facilitate the workshop process. Participants cut across various occupational fronts such as civil servants, teachers, private business, farmers and fisher folks along the range.
8. The workshop facilitators used the map of the Weto Landscape to provoke discussions and explanations.
9. Only one validation workshop was organized.
10. The workshop lasted for 8 hours.

J. SEPL indicators:
1. Yes, the questions and the description of the indicators were clear but not easily understood by local people. Perhaps the double scoring process of scoring and describing whether increasing or decreasing should be looked at for modification.
2. It was necessary to translate the questions into Ewe language as some could not speak or understand or read English.
3. The discussions and explanations that took place based on the reference map and practical experiences sharing made it possible to appreciate the indicators.
4. Yes, indicators pointed out to the community members what they ought to be doing that are not being done.To promote resilience. Having identified what they are not doing it became easier for them to indicate what needed to be done.
5. Yes. The exercise was effective in capturing the perceptions of a variety of stakeholders. Examples were sited from various occupations to explain for understanding before scoring.
6. My suggestion is that the questions and the description of the indicators next time would be sent to participants for study before arriving at the workshop.