This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Africa 77 (1), 2007
FOREST MANAGEMENT, FARMERS’ PRACTICES AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN THE MONOGAGA PROTECTED COASTAL FOREST IN ˆ SOUTHWEST COTE D’IVOIRE
C. Y. Adou Yao and Bernard Roussel
ˆ Southwestern Cote d’Ivoire is the home to plant life that naturalists, ecologists, botanists and zoologists alike study with special attention: dense humid forests. In the eyes of specialists such as Guillaumet (1967) and Schnell (1976: 127), the last remaining Ivorian stands such as the renowned Ta¨ forest, and the many remnants of forest that dot the ı region, are precious vestiges of the ‘primary’ forest ecosystems of the Guinea-Congo region of Africa. In this setting the Monogaga forest stands out, as ‘the loveliest example of coastal humid forest in Cˆ d’Ivoire’ in the words of Ak´ ote e Assi (1997).1 With this description he justifies the measures taken to protect the forest in 1973. The Monogaga forest is now listed in the registry of 172 protected forests that constitute the state’s ‘permanent forest domain’, an essential component of the national natural heritage. Successive plans and schemes for preserving, restoring and extracting value from Ivorian forests have been devised, from colonial times to the present.2 The aim has been to halt the profound changes affecting
CONSTANT YVES ADOU YAO is Assistant Professor of Botany at the Universit´ de Cocodye Abidjan. He has participated in numerous research programmes on the tropical rain forests ˆ of Cote d’Ivoire (Ta¨, Mont Peko). In 2005 he completed his doctoral dissertation (‘Peasant ı Practices and Biodiversity Dynamics in the Classified Forest of Monogaga’) at the Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle of Paris within the ‘Patrimoines, territoires et identit´ s’ e programme co-sponsored by the Institut de Recherche pour le D´ veloppement. e BERNARD ROUSSEL is Professor of Ethnobiology at the Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle of Paris. He is a member of the research group ‘Patrimoines, territoires et identit´ s’ of e the Institut de Recherche pour le D´ veloppement. His research is devoted to the local e ˆ management of natural heritage in tropical Africa (Niger, Ethiopia, Cote d’Ivoire). Since 1996 he has participated in the negotiations on the Convention on Biological Diversity (Article 8j). 1 A low-altitude forest (less than 130 metres above sea level), the Monogaga forest covers an area of 40,000 hectares, spanning two districts (Sassandra and San Pedro d´partements). e To date this forest has been very little studied from a phyto-ecological and environmental point of view. In addition to the pioneering work of European botanists such as Aubr´ ville e (1959) and Mangenot (1956), available sources of information are the more general studies by Guillaumet (1967), the more recent botanical inventories drawn up by Ak´ Assi (1997), e some cartographic data compiled by Chatelain and Piguet (1999), and a few notes in a recent study on environmental tourism in the Monogaga forest (B´ n´ et al. 1995). e e 2 Without much success it would seem, in the light of a recent and alarmist assessment issued by FAO in 2000, estimating the annual rate of deforestation in Ivory Coast at −3.1 percent. This extremely high figure is extrapolated from old data, and the study remains somewhat vague about the tools and criteria used to assess forest shrinkage (see the site www.fao.org/forestry/fo/country/index.jsp). For authors such as Verdeaux (2003), at the
64 FARMERS’ PRACTICES AND BIODIVERSITY these ecosystems and their resources. the ECOSYN programme has inventoried vines and explored their diversity (B´ lign´ 2000). for example. The first steps were taken to protect fauna and timber resources that were threatened by mining in forested areas (Ibo 2000). which are beginning of the twentieth century forest covered 12 million hectares in the Ivorian forest zone. the management company for the protected forest. in 1990 only 2. Radl 2000. After identifying these practices and the areas where they are used. As early as 1978.7 million hectares were left. In the same way as in the Ta¨ forest. The inventories conducted by Ak´ Assi (1997) in Monogaga establish an assessment of the flora in e plant cover. on the biodiversity of woody species in the Monogaga forest. and following contact with immigrant settlers. After reconsidering different estimates. Since then the human presence inside the reserve has grown incessantly and clearing has continued. they have begun to plant coffee and cocoa. the presence of certain ‘indigenous’ populations inside the forest was allowed. In 1973. peoples that belong to the Kru group. The most recent decisions are now starting to address the fate of the human population that lives in the forests and depends on them for its livelihood. These are the Wanne and Bakwe. counted plants and mapped vegetation at the sites for each type of management. in 2000. a status that enables and even encourages villagers to maintain certain activities around the central sanctuary zone. e e The emergence of this biodiversity standard in conservation goals requires a new vision for the management of protected forests. to the extent that the most recent management proposals. Adou Yao 2000). Since the 1970s. since e ı the implementation of the German-Ivoirian Land Use Project in 1993. These results. Fairhead and Leach (1998: 23) offer the following figures: in 1900 forest covered between 7 and 8 million hectares. in 1990 they covered only 3 million hectares. More recently. changes that have been observed everywhere. sometimes leading to the complete disappearance of forests. the Ta¨ protected zone was declared a UNESCO Biosphere ı Reserve. we inventoried species. when the Monogaga forest was first declared a protected area. they are also intrepid sailors who once embarked on European ships (the famous Kroumen). The most recent studies and suggestions that accompany the proposals focus on a new concern: conservation of forest biodiversity (Traor´ and Zoh 2003: 38). studies and assessments have multiplied throughout the region (see. . and who have lived in the region since the fourteenth century (Schwartz 1973). could only recognize the cleared areas by declassifying them and granting them the official status of ‘agricultural enclaves’ (Sodefor 1994). signalling rare and remarkable species in particular. and more recently oil palm and rubber trees. and casts the interaction between farmers’ practices and conservation in new terms. Rice planters as well as lagoon and river fisherfolk. Using the established tools of phyto-ecological analysis we have tried to evaluate the impact of farmers’ activities and those of Sodefor. We have chosen to investigate this aspect here.
.3 The latter ee e e is charged primarily with ensuring conservation of the habitats and ecosystems that have thus been integrated into the national heritage. But in an interview Lieutenant Dago. why the company exploits timber from the forests it manages for its own profit. and the agricultural series where farmers are allowed to grow crops (Sodefor 1995). for example. and the state-run Permanent Domain. where agricultural activities and forestry operations are undertaken by actors from civil society. natural reserves and protected forests. because ‘there were not enough guards for all the forests and all the illegal farmers’ (interview in San Pedro. made up of national parks. a heritage to be protected and regenerated Faced with the diminution of forest cover.FARMERS’ PRACTICES AND BIODIVERSITY 65 presented in the second part of this text. Sodefor proposed a land reapportionment plan in the 1990s. over four million ˆ hectares (roughly 12 percent of the land area of Cote d’Ivoire) are thus theoretically not available for exploitation by the private sector. by organizing rest/planting rotations. In an attempt to resolve this problem. Ibo 2000). The farmers came back after the guards had left. From the outset of its mission in 1992. which quickly became a land-use plan in 1994. It has at different times been attached to the Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources and to the Ministry of Forest and Water Resources. There are two series: the protection series where all exploitation is banned. Since 1996 Sodefor has been required to obtain some of its funding from its own activities. They are analysed and compared. Management of this Permanent Domain is entrusted to the Department for the Protection of Nature (national parks and nature reserves) and to the Soci´ t´ de D´ veloppement des Forˆ ts (Sodefor). December 2000). Sodefor has delimited zones for each of the major activities that the company is supposed to conduct (Figure 1). whether pursued by farmers or by Sodefor. The conception and implementation of the plan were 3 Sodefor is a state company. conceded that these operations were ineffectual. All in all. These zones are called ‘series’ in official parlance (Sodefor 1994). restoring their plantations or creating new ones in the vicinity. continuing the policy of the Forest and Water Resources Department that previously oversaw the Monogaga forest. THE NATURE-PROTECTORS’ FOREST AND THE FARMERS’ FOREST: DIVERSITY OF SPACES AND PRACTICES The Sodefor forest. and reforestation. and all its employees are civil servants. the Monogaga section head. constitute a first approach to understanding forest biodiversity in Monogaga today. In the Monogaga forest. These are the Rural Domain. Sodefor continued the destruction of ‘infiltrated’ plantations and camps in the protection series. which explains. in order to characterize the impacts of different management practices. conversion of coffee and cocoa plantations. in 1978 the Ivoirian government divided forest spaces into two management sectors (Sodefor 1994.
66 FARMERS’ PRACTICES AND BIODIVERSITY built on consultation with representatives of the villagers appointed to the Commission Paysans-Forˆ t (CPF) or Farmers-Forest Committee. The ‘reconstitution group’. the ‘indigenous’ peoples (autochthones) are the Wanne and the Bakwe. but most of them have kept their old homes. Many farmers have planted new fields in the zones designated by Sodefor. also known as the ‘reforestation group’. which have not yet been totally abandoned. and of course their places of ritual practice and worship. . Part of Zone 4 is allocated to the Bakwe ethnic group. water resources) as well as earlier occupancy and certain rules of access to land ownership that existed before the forest was protected (see Sodefor 1995: 28–32). and gmeline. The non-indigenous peoples (allochthones) are settlers who arrived at different times ˆ in the past from other regions in Cote d’Ivoire (for example. is located on the seashore: it is a band two kilometres wide that includes the original village settlements. 2 (Z2) and 3 (Z3) are reserved for the groups of the other ‘indigenous’ community. ‘indigenous’ farmers e retain control over the sharing out and attribution of the lands allocated to settlers. with whom Sodefor will sign individual exploitation contracts.4 In contrast. also called a ‘biological reserve’ (see Figure 1). and the more numerous Wuyo Wanne in Z1 and Z2. without renewing them. their old fields and plantations. will be grouped in Zone 4 near the new town of Moussadougou. Chev. 5 The trees planted belong to a small number of species. Terminalia superba Engl. The ‘full protection group’. The Sodefor land-use plan also calls for subdivision of the protection series into different spaces called ‘groups’. the Anyi and the Guro). The objective is to group the farmers in four zones that together make up the agricultural series. the Wanne.) or rapidly growing local species that are chosen for the commercial value of their wood (frak´ .). Thus it is planned that ‘non-indigenous’ and ‘foreign’ farmers. This new land-use plan takes ethnic lineages into consideration: the Bokoyo Wanne are grouped in Z3. & Diels.5 At that date the land-use plan was supposed to come to an end. nature and fertility of soils. The term ‘foreigners’ is reserved for migrants from other countries. although Sodefor is entitled to give its opinion. and are planted with trees entrusted under contract to farmers who are expected to tend them. e e Terminalia ivorensis A. These plots are scattered throughout the reserve. called the ‘reserved natural forest’ (Traor´ and Zoh e 4 In Sodefor terminology. In their own words the farmers who tend these trees say that their work is a ‘gift’ (cadeau) to Sodefor. is made up of spaces that are considered to be degraded – often formerly planted crop fields or plantations. Gmelina arborea Roxb. the Bawle. The siting of the groups follows a principle of proximity: farmers in villages and camps located in North–South strips that cross the agricultural series are asked to cluster their activities in the series area. The choice of locations depends on very complex criteria that take into account environmental characteristics (proximity to the coastal road. either exotic woods (teak. The last group. Zones 1 (Z1). named after one of the first Malink´ settlers. Tectona grandis L. and framir´ . and who by way of compensation could continue to exploit their old plantations until 2005. e for the purpose of setting up ‘co-management’ of the forest (see Sodefor 1994).
the article by Bassett on the territorial reorganization that has accompanied the installation of ˆ conservation sites in the vicinity of the Como´ reserve in northern Cote d’Ivoire. including the process that followed the decision to protect the Monogaga forest. is made up of all the other sections of the protected Monogaga area that are neither used for agriculture nor replanted by Sodefor. in the same collection. Here the tree cover is currently so poor in valuable woody species that professionals judge that forestry operations are not worthwhile. an opinion that does not facilitate Sodefor’s efforts to become self-financing. separating spaces devoted to agriculture and forestry production from spaces reserved for conservation. and that are outside of the agricultural series and the full protection group. (2002: 19) and. see Cormier-Salem et al. The Monogaga forest is no exception. Sodefor’s programme of conservation and management in the Monogaga forest has given rise to a vast and complex reorganization of the territory. e . incentives and actors are for the most part found outside of the local circle. In summary.6 These processes run counter to villagers’ perceptions and practices. 2003: 38). a series that does not exist in the land-use plan for the Monogaga protected forest. These two traits are found in almost all externally driven processes for the constitution of natural heritage. triggering discontent and conflict. 6 In these processes. These plots are the equivalent of the ‘production’ series found in other ˆ protected forests in Cote d’Ivoire. This reorganization has produced certain changes in social organization: villages are reshaped and Farmer Forest Commissions are created. the models.FARMERS’ PRACTICES AND BIODIVERSITY 67 FIGURE 1 Map of Sodefor ‘series’ (zones) in the Monogaga protected forest. On this topic.
corn (maize) and vegetables. or that no one remembers as having ever been cultivated. ‘Family inheritance’ is a translation of the wane term. At present the crops that provide the best income are these cash crops. at least 15 years. pick. What will we leave to our children afterwards?’ (interview in July 2002). Cultivated spaces are called ge.7 He was expressing his worry and bewilderment at the difficulty encountered when trying to obtain acceptance of and compliance with protection objectives. An inheritance that includes coffee and cocoa plantations in full production is therefore highly valued. whether it is cultivated or not. We do not understand why Sodefor wants to make us go to lands that do not belong to us. cocoa. and gather firewood and wood for domestic carpentry purposes. When farmers are asked what type of lands (tutu) constitute a desirable family inheritance. as well as cassava.’ the Section Head of the Monogaga forest confided to us in a moment of discouragement. the riches of the father.9 To hear the farmers tell it. literally the inheritance of the father. spaces that have never been cultivated. December 2001. to kporo or ‘black’ forest plots. Recent grassy fallow lands (called piti) are much sought after. c c . whether they are didi dε ge (literally. 9 Which is not to say that the black forest plots are not exploited: within the framework of the lineage group people are free to hunt. and not the forest. it would seem that the densest and darkest forest cover is not what Wanne farmers like best. Plots that offer thick shade cover are also appreciated. because they enable a family to grow the subsistence crops that are indispensable to its daily diet: rice and vegetables are produced by the joint efforts of men and women. and are particularly unsuitable for coffee and cocoa plantations that at the outset require the shade of thick tree cover and soil fertility that exists only when the land has lain fallow for a long period. But farmers prefer old fallow lands. 8 The term tutu designates the territory as a whole. and the number of new settlers who are given land to work by indigenous inhabitants is far from diminishing. in this forest. field of vegetables that one sells) that are also called ‘plantations’. field of vegetables that one eats) ˇ c where subsistence crops are grown. because new plantations can be created. rubber trees and more recently oil palms are found.8 they give their preference to flooded lowlands that are suitable for growing rice. Outside of these humid swamp areas. εt adja. indeed it doubled between 1992 and 2002 (Traor´ and Zoh 2003: 15). the quality of a plot of land in farmers’ eyes depends first of all on the nature of its vegetation. however. This query is echoed by that of Colonel Djrika. This determines the amount of work to be done to prepare it for planting. Clearing of trees continues. because they ensure immediate income with relatively little work. It is also sometimes called εt deri. They are not suitable for plantations. tεtεklwoa. where coffee. heritage of the local population? ‘I wish I knew why the villagers do not want to transmit the forest to their children. or ceˇradε ge (literally. In this discourse it is clearly the land. during their development over the long period of rest from crop planting – more than 15 years – the soil of old fallow fields recovers a degree of fertility 7 Interview in San Pedro. Plots of this kind are always among the most valued. e Indeed.68 FARMERS’ PRACTICES AND BIODIVERSITY The forest. an influential member of the Wanne community: ‘Our parents were born here. that constitutes patrimony.
based on establishment of individual property title and deeds. Some lands have the status of common property: to have access to the resources they offer it suffices to be a member of the lineage group or to live in the village. Replanting them does not trigger the cumbersome process of attribution of land that has never been cultivated. Other lands are strictly reserved for sub-groups. the tutu k ni. literally. raffia palm groves. 11 These places of worship are generally set up upon the group’s arrival by the oldest member of the lineage community. can harvest palm leaves. and contract out the agricultural work without having to submit to the exigencies of land chiefs. the common property of the lineage group (duwa). the d g ni. ‘the god’s share’. Within these various nested territories.FARMERS’ PRACTICES AND BIODIVERSITY 69 equivalent to that of the black forest floor. on these individual plots. The initial implementation has generated a great many problems (Chauveau 2000). even the settlers who have arrived most recently. When they are planted again these fields require less intensive preparation than the kporo plots. the woody strata are less dense and there are fewer big trees that are difficult to fell. there are spaces that cannot be turned over to individuals. in compliance with the ‘traditional’ system of property acquisition. Conversely.10 It is also relatively easy. ˆ was adopted by the Cote d’Ivoire National Assembly in 1998. which is still at least formally in effect.11 Certain woody 10 That is to say. for the materials (palm leaves and rachises) that are necessary for building villagers’ homes and the precious palm wine (banji) that is consumed as part of the cadence of daily life. and generally date from the time of the group’s arrival at the village location. which is held in common by the lineage group. it is not always easy to convince the chiefs. Depending on the location of a plot. and prepares the space for ceremonies. Lastly. While all villagers. special arrangements and exemptions are frequent. are exploited by the community as a whole. all the more so because a vast reform of the Ivorian land rights system. the land chiefs for village sections. As an example. and the rituals that they alone can ordain and accomplish for attribution and clearing of land can be very long and costly. gl . farmers must appeal to the High Chief of lineage lands or to his local delegates. gathers wild fruit and dead wood. in daily life. a farmer must belong to the ethnic group and obtain authorization from the appropriate land chiefs. In fact. the c c c c c . In either case. they are appropriated and inherited individually. Conflicts over property are numerous. in the lineage territory (duwa a tutu) or in the territory of lineage sub-groups (duwa kpi) that make up a village (diye a tutu). like fields and plantations. only ‘indigenous’ villagers have the right to draw the palm wine. and each plot is entrusted to a priest who carries out rituals and sacrificial ceremonies. In order to request permission to plant them. Each lineage sub-group has its djro pl . old fallow fields are much appreciated because. black forest lands are never part of an individual inheritance: they are deemed to be a land reserve for future clearing. but are not open to everybody: they are dedicated to the worship of tutelary divinities (djro). to set up a guest–host arrangement with a settler. according to the instructions of the tabiyo. harvests medicinal plants.
After signs and divining ı ı trances (εt n˜n˜) they chose their own site in a field of boulders on the seashore. in the Kounouko territory a place of worship was set up by the tabiyo Bi’da in a coastal thicket of Pandanus (tropical Pandan tree) and Phoenix. Now it is above all a ‘promise of plantation’. stands of Pandanus or Phoenix palms (in Kounouko). A third branch of the lineage. followed the first two groups in the final phase of the migration. As an illustration. dedicated to a divinity called Tεpiε. black forest was sometimes a ‘promise of fields’. a representation already identified in other cultural settings by Verdeaux (2003). part of the heritage of village lineage sub-groups. Elsewhere. it is quite possible that for the Wanne plantations themselves are nothing other than a particular type of forest. Some are remnants of black forest (Mapri. but in some villages gathering or picking are permitted.70 FARMERS’ PRACTICES AND BIODIVERSITY species that are needed for the ceremonies may be planted. biodiversity conservation in a given space means taking a certain number of requirements into account. As far as Monogaga hunter-warrior who leads the migration. they are a highly valued land reserve. to conserve existing plant groups and the habitats in which they emerge. a python. Without a doubt the old fallow fields are forest for the Wanne. Complex assessment of a compelling objective: biodiversity conservation For biologists. These sacred sites usually cover a small area (less than one hectare). Hura crepitans L. Reciprocally. Black forest lands are the only lands held in reserve. and are even their favourite forests. In a sacred site they belong to the lineage group’s heritage. The status of old fallow fields is not consistently the same. At other sites the plants e found are coastal shrubs (dji gbu bru. in Kounouko). The aim is also to preserve the diversity of communities and ecosystems. but as a future plantation. However that may be. The place is devoted to a cult to the divinity Djie ron. or sections of mangrove (kase ou za. the lands managed by Wanne farmers still have woody cover. the Sru djo. because they can be easily converted to profitable plantations. Kpot´ and Monogaga. pertaining to the very nature of the notion of biodiversity. such as the ‘monkey’s dinner-bell’ tree. who cultivated it most recently. It is not merely a matter of maintaining a cohort of species in a given area (Primack 2000: 10–11). ‘the white sailor’. that is. even if the Wanne do not pay as much attention e to forest cover as the Sodefor managers would like. but they do not see them as a heritage to be handed down intact to future generations. with the rare exception of those that are sacred sites. in Doulay´ ko). when the village was founded around 270 years (11 generations) ago upon the arrival of the two related lineages he was leading. c c . others are old fallow fields (Madi´ ). Hunting and clearing are forbidden. in order to compare the diversity of their flora. Thus. including statistical and qualitative criteria. For Monogaga farmers. we will now turn to consider the phyto-ecological nature of old fallow fields and black forest in the Monogaga region. and remain individual property as long as the collective tradition remembers to whom the land belongs – that is to say. for e instance). the Nowo djo and the G ro djo. but from this standpoint it is worth considerably less than old fallow fields.
the hydromorphic soils group. To draw up the list up eight inventory sites (Table 1). 1971) within which Ak´ Assi (1984 and 1997) has distinguished a number of plant e groups. the Diospyros spp.14 The Shannon and Weaver index (1949). all of which are located in interfluvial settings. 14 Five inventories covering 100 square metres were carried out at randomly selected places.13 For this reason the results presented here pertain only to the species diversity within each of the study sites. group in the interfluvial zones. they do not include modified forest cover such as tεtεklwoa in their typology. the Monogaga protected area is an evergreen dense humid forest (Guillaumet 1967. The only thing that is certain is that the black forest plots are ‘older’ than the old fallow field sites. one of the most widely used tools for measuring biodiversity and the one 12 Four in all: the Eremospatha macrocarpa and Diospyros mannii group. we began by crossing farmers’ categories with Sodefor’s categories. Thus 500 square metres of woody vegetation were inventoried . in low-lying areas.FARMERS’ PRACTICES AND BIODIVERSITY 71 is concerned. TABLE 1 Sites S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 Location and selection criteria for botanical study sites Location Popoko crossroads Popoko crossroads Canton village Monogaga village Canton village Doulay´ ko village e East Canton village Madi´ e Farmers’ designation c c kporo de djro pl kporo kporo kporo tεtεklwoa tεtεklwoa de djro pl tεtεklwoa tεtεklwoa Sodefor designation Agricultural series Agricultural series Protection series (natural forest group) Protection series (full protection group) Agricultural series Protection series (full protection group) Protection series (regeneration group) Protection series (full protection group) To measure biodiversity at these sites. The assessment must also take into account the respective positions occupied by the individuals that represent the species. 13 In the terminology of botanists and phyto-ecologists like Ak´ Assi. Avenard et al. it is not enough simply to draw up a list of the species present. Globally speaking. however. It seems to us that e e it is very hard to characterize this ‘state of climax’.12 These pioneering studies are most valuable. and Mapania spp. given the absence of historical distance and the fact that every space and ecosystem is affected by human encroachment. and the coastal formations group. old fallow fields e are ‘secondary’ forest and black forest plots are ‘primary’ forest that is old enough to have ‘attained or regained a state of climax’ (Da Lage and M´ taili´ 2000: 236). they remain fairly schematic. currently available data are not sufficiently complete to allow identification of the various plant groups that make up the forest cover. within each of the selected sites. even if it is just hunting and gathering as practised throughout Monogaga. For instance.
the rare ‘black stars’. The criteria used most often are rarity and consideration of the dangers. Ci is the abundance–dominance coefficient of the species. for a total of 4. and consequently the Monogaga forest. which gives a high Shannon index. and are now stored at the Botanical Laboratory at Cocody–Abidjan University and at the Swiss Centre for Scientific Research ˆ in Cote d’Ivoire. A high index for an extensive plant cover and an average number of species reflects a situation in which all species are likely to possess enough individuals to constitute ‘viable’ populations (Primack 2000: 122). In this classification. This method is beginning . or by larger individuals. Samples of unknown species were taken and studied. when they suggest that given the high cost of conservation. The reference flora are Hutchinson and Dalziel (1954–72) and Aubr´ ville e (1959). is considered by many specialists to be an indication of high-quality biodiversity.000 square metres. are included in the ‘Guinean forest hotspot’. 16 For example. to which they attribute a special value or significance. looking for certain species. as Hawthorne calls them. The ‘star species’. Myers et al. where Pi = Ci/C. include the very rare ‘gold stars’. whether they were represented by small individuals (diameter ≤ 10 cm. those either rarely or only found in the regions. 15 H = − Pi × Ln Pi. seconded by the influential NGO Conservation International. capable of sustaining itself over time because no one species dominates over the others. distributed over at least three quarters of the area surveyed) (cf. They often attempt to complete this assessment by adding qualitative notations on the nature of the components that make up the range of biodiversity. Guillaumet 1967: 31). Hawthorne (1995) proposes a classification of species and a nomenclature that combine criteria of rarity and of endemicity.15 Equilibrium between the species. To be thoroughly exhaustive. genera or even families in particular.16 Yet in consulting these lists it is hard to avoid thinking that other more subjective criteria have also come into at each of the eight sites. that threaten their survival (Primack 2000: 118–19). in recent publications on the vegetation of Ghana. ecosystems and biotopes being studied. and as a result the species’ ecosystems are more stable. These are usually threatened or endemic taxa – that is. Botanical identification was done for the most part on site and by us. abundance–dominance coefficients were attributed to all woody species and palms found during the inventories. A numerical assessment is not sufficient for naturalists and conservationists. (2000) clearly express the prevailing opinion. Taxonomic nomenclature was updated using Lebrun and Stork’s botanical directory (1991–7). all West African forests. primarily related to human activities. and also ‘green stars’.72 FARMERS’ PRACTICES AND BIODIVERSITY which we use for this work. To make calculations easier the value of coefficients is usually modified on a scale from 1 to 6 without changing either the definition or the limits of the six classes. C is the sum of the abundance–dominance coefficients for all the species in a given inventory. somewhat more common. these efforts should be concentrated on the ‘hotspots’ where endemicity and the threat of extinction are the strongest. All woody species and palms were noted in each inventory. combines taxonomic diversity and the relative importance of the various species. the limit under which individuals are often neglected in forest inventories). Many researchers have proposed lists of taxa with special status. The abundance–dominance values are divided into six classes from + (rare individuals covering less than 10 percent of the surface area) to 5 (numerous or few individuals.
This list is not identical to the second list we have chosen. was drawn up by Ak´ Assi. His list includes plants that IUCN does not consider to be threatened but which Assi thinks are at risk of becoming rare. to be used to justify protection of certain ecosystems.FARMERS’ PRACTICES AND BIODIVERSITY 73 play. or not. The lists adopted by CITES (The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. Ak´ Assi’s list completes the former and e specifies the endemic species that are present only in Cˆ d’Ivoire. or the conservation value of certain reserves. a manager may well take an interest in endemic species. because they constitute an original feature of the forest that emerges between the Cavally and Sassandra rivers and to which the protected Monogaga forest belongs (Guillaumet 1967: 145. which more clearly takes local usages into account and anticipates their impacts. Likewise. They enjoy different fates. depending on whether they are adopted by major players in conservation. ote In our study we merged these two lists to give an idea of how the Monogaga forest contributes to species conservation in general for this part of Africa. from a systematic or phylogenetic standpoint (archaic families or groups such as tree ferns or Cycadatae. It is understandable that conservation policies should try to protect these remarkable plants listed in Guillaumet’s inventory of 175 species (1967). Certain species. justification for local implementation of conservation at a site. are particularly sought after. in particular it lists rare woody species on the scale of the entire country. or those drawn up by Conservation International. One of the major questions ˆ raised by biogeographers working in southwestern Cote d’Ivoire is whether the forests belong to the large ensembles recognized on the scale of all Upper Guinea. specialists are particularly attentive to taxa that provide information on the chorological links between the plants being studied and neighbouring formations. Guillaumet’s e list covers all of west Africa. see work done on the Ta¨ forest (Adou Yao 2002). clearly attract much attention. We have chosen our lists from those most widely used in our study region. In all local studies like ours. since such species are found only in certain limited zones. a highly knowledgeable and recognized specialist on Ivoirian e flora (1988). The second list. The IUCN (World Conservation Union) Red List (2002) often serves as the reference list in studies ˆ pertaining to Cote d’Ivoire. In the eyes of naturalists the presence of endemic species can constitute. such as those in the Orchidaceae family) are always well represented in these lists. more or less openly. Plants of exceptional scientific interest. given the extent of their use. 1997). called ‘Sassandrian’ by Mangenot in 1956. Ak´ Assi e 1984. within the Guinea-Congo domain. in and of itself. Both Ak´ Assi and Guillaumet propose lists of endemic species. signed and ratified by Cˆ d’Ivoire in 1994) in ote its famous Annexes. or species with aesthetic qualities. ı . This is probably why none of these classifications is unanimously accepted. and a contrario on their uniqueness in regional ensembles.
and the prevalence of Sassandrian and rare and threatened species (IUCN and Ak´ Assi). endemicity rates. e The goal is to characterize and compare the impacts of the different land-use and resource management practices we have identified. the specific richness and diversity of flora are higher at the sites least modified by human activity. (1978).). Other work proves the opposite. . and has already been highlighted by other authors for various tropical forest settings.76 3.68 3.74 FARMERS’ PRACTICES AND BIODIVERSITY Before presenting and commenting on our results.81 3.42 3. Total: total of all special-status species (AA + IUCN + endemic species + Sass. Kahn (1982) or Davies and Richards (1991). This is hardly surprising. Parthasarathy (1999) demonstrates that for three Indian village forests. It enables us to check the relevance of the botanical criteria used and to identify trends that will have to be confirmed or disproved in the future. AA: rare and threatened species from the Ak´ Assi list. H : Shannon and Weaver diversity index. with a larger number of study sites and inventories.11 AA 1 3 1 1 3 3 2 2 IUCN 3 1 3 3 0 2 3 1 Endemic species 5 11 15 10 11 4 9 6 SASS. biodiversity indices. TABLE 2 Diversity and number of species with special status at the study sites Sites Black forest S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 RS 48 34 50 34 51 38 59 30 H 3. whether they be Wanne farmers or Sodefor managers. it can first be noted that old fallow fields are generally richer than black forest (Table 2).68 3. IUCN: rare and threatened species from the IUCN list. we would like to emphasize that the originality of our approach consists in applying the classic descriptive and analytical tools of phyto-ecological and biogeographical studies to plant categories recognized by users.17 Forests that grow back after cultivation has been abandoned 17 See.: species typical of the Sassandrian forest aspect. work done by Alexandre et al. Sass. BIODIVERSITY AND SPECIES WITH SPECIAL STATUS IN THE MONOGAGA FOREST COVER Because of the small number of study sites and inventories we must be prudent in interpreting the observations recorded and their results. and above all in drawing general conclusions from them. for instance.54 3.36 3. The present study is primarily useful as a test. Endemic e species: species found only in West Africa. These tools are inventories of flora. whether they belong to farmers or to Sodefor (Table 3). 2 1 1 3 4 0 2 2 Total 8 12 15 11 14 8 11 8 Old fallow fields Key: RS: specific richness (number of species present in all inventories for each site). Looking at specific richness site by site.
. oil palm.55 ± 0. ¨ Dacryodes klaineana (Pierre) Lam. heliophilous (for instance Macaranga ¨ barteri Mull.. Cultivation was abandoned and the site consecrated a long time ago.46 4 1 5 2 4 5 2 3 Endemic species SASS. We also note that the S7 site (Table 2). contain many pioneer species.52 ± 0.68 ± 0. Total: total of all special-status species (AA + IUCN + endemic species + Sass. In any event.: species typical of the Sassandrian forest aspect. Endemic e species: species found only in West Africa. Diospyros gabunensis Gurke. AA: rare and threatened species from the Ak´ Assi list. and is therefore probably subject to strong human pressure that depletes the woody cover.).44 ± 0. inventorying more spaces. 18 Those most frequently encountered are: Chlamydocola chlamydantha (K. One of the old fallow fields we inventoried seems to be an exception to the rule (site 8): it is poorer in number of species than any other vegetation site studied.Schum. Sass. and Cocos nucifera L. The depleted cover leads one to question the effectiveness of restrictions on access. including black forest plots.23 87 3. H : Shannon and Weaver diversity index. IUCN: rare and threatened species from the IUCN list. whether they are inspired by religious considerations or enacted by official conservation authorities. which has become brackish with the recent emergence of a lagoon.18 78 3. or Ficus exasperata Vahl. this change is certainly in large part due to the particular nature of the substrate.). Arg. will provide more detailed information. Another of these old fallow fields (S6) is a sacred site also located within the Sodefor full protection group. Future studies. and Dalz. Chev. Total 15 22 14 13 3 3 4 3 19 23 19 16 S1–S2 Wanne kporo S3–S4 Sodefor kporo S5–S6 Wanne tεtεklwoa S7–S8 Sodefor tεtεklwoa Key: RS: specific richness (number of species present in all inventories for each site). Strombosia pustulata Oliv. according to the villagers.18 The small discrepancy registered at Monogaga could mean that its black forest plots are already so profoundly modified that the composition of their flora differs little from that of old fallow fields... but is very close to villages. coconut tree) that ultimately disappear when the forest cover ages.FARMERS’ PRACTICES AND BIODIVERSITY 75 TABLE 3 Diversity and number of species with special status at Sodefor and Wanne sites Sites Types RS Average H’ AA IUCN 74 3. .19 80 3.. where Sodefor has started regenerative planting on an old fallow field. Diospyros sanza-minika A. leading to a depletion of woody cover. Drypetes ivorensis Hutch. This site is located in the Sodefor full protection group.) or anthropophilic (for instance Elaeis guineensis Jacq. six generations ago. and are replaced by other species that are characteristic of black forest. is the richest of all our sites. who say the change was contemporaneous with the establishment of the village.
the old fallow field sites are the richest. Likewise. They are all forests with five tree and shrub strata. Their respective floras show no distinct differences. Looking at this list. e more importantly they include rare species. On average the diversity in the former is hardly different from that of the latter in our sample (Table 3). we see the same specific richness whether they are managed by Sodefor or held as farmers’ land reserves. whether according to the IUCN list (11 species) or the Ak´ Assi list (10 species: see Appendices e 1 and 2). managed by Sodefor. The species designated as rare are plants c . the lower and middle strata are relatively thin. The number of ‘Ak´ Assi’ species observed e in Monogaga can perhaps be explained by the very nature of the criteria used to draw up this list. from the standpoint of flora. Comparing our different sites from the standpoint of special-status species. and they have similar physiognomies. we observe first of all that. within the range of our sample. In other words. where there are as many strata. they include almost the same number of rare species. This paradox. if confirmed. While the old fallow fields contain as many rare species according to the Ak´ Assi classification as according to the IUCN list (see Table 4).76 FARMERS’ PRACTICES AND BIODIVERSITY Looking more closely at the black forest plots in our sample. is also located close to a village: it has the lowest specific richness of all the sites in our sample. it appears that the second-growth areas in Monogaga are of some utility in the conservation of rare species. but it is not the most highly diversified. the biodiversity index shows no particular impact due to Sodefor management. Conversely. is S7 (an old fallow field replanted by Sodefor. The first of these. In other words. Table 2). that are not found in other forests (see Appendices 1 and 2). it does not favour an equitable distribution of species. Table 3 shows that the old fallow fields and the black forest plots belonging to farmers have more rare ‘Ak´ Assi’ species than the e equivalent Sodefor plots. although this needs to be confirmed by a more wide-ranging study. This structure distinguishes them quite clearly from the woody cover of old fallow fields. we also remark that the richest site. but the highest are thinner and the lower strata are crowded with vines and thick bushes. Among these is iroko (Milicia excelsa) that furnishes a wood valued by carpenters. The lowest index (S8). The situation is the opposite for rare species listed by IUCN. Whether black forest plots or old fallow fields. of these. The calculated diversity indices change our outlook somewhat: here it is difficult to make a clear distinction between old fallow fields and black forest plots. the biodiversity of plots within the djro pl areas is not quantitatively different from that of plots outside. Our analysis did not turn up evidence of any particular conditions linked to ‘sacralization’. taken all together. demonstrates that the criteria used for rarity are a determining factor in evaluating a site in terms of conservation of rare species. as noted above. these observations suggest that while reforestation increases specific richness. and the two highest (S5 and S7) are found at fallow sites. listed in both.
Let us now look at endemic and Sassandrian species. These diverging conclusions meet up again e with regard to the difference between sacred and non-sacred sites. The total number of Sassandrian species is low – 9 out of the 175 listed by Guillaumet (1967). Just one site has no Sassandrian species: it is the sacred site. These remarkable species appear to be linked to the age of the forest cover. Endemic species are not absent from the old fallow fields. Table 4 displays these results in a different way: data are summarized category by category. The variations are so slight. There is little difference to be seen between areas managed by Sodefor and those controlled by farmers.FARMERS’ PRACTICES AND BIODIVERSITY 77 thought to be threatened because they are widely used. it suggests once again that the sacred nature of a site does not prevent modification of its plant cover. and not site by site. The list of rare species is longer for the black forest plots than for the old fallow fields. It is therefore to be expected that they would be found more often in old fallows. In IUCN terms. and generally more endemic plants are found at each of the corresponding sites (Tables 2 and 3). whether they are managed by Sodefor or by farmers. once heavily modified by human activities. rare species are better protected under Sodefor management. or loss of uncommon species. different results emerge for different criteria. The low score of the djro pl inventories is noteworthy. the contribution of black forest plots to conservation is greater. whether old fallow fields or black forest plots. and now affected by the influx of brackish water that is probably the cause of greater prevalence of ordinary coastal species. For the first group. spaces that have been heavily modified and exploited. that a broader study is absolutely necessary to validate the significance of our results. the number of species is greater in all the black forest plots managed by Sodefor (Table 5). however. Table 5 shows that the total number is always low and varies little. In this analysis. site by site (Table 2) and for each land use category (Tables 3 and 5). however. This figure leads us to think that the Monogaga c c . whatever the criteria. and that are more frequently visited by farmers than black forest plants. As for Sassandrian species. In our research the sacred sites (djro pl ) contain fewer rare and threatened species than other sites. The opposite is true for the Ak´ Assi list. TABLE 4 Number of rare species encountered for each recognized category of space Old fallow Managed Managed by Sacred Non-sacred Forests fields by farmers Sodefor sites sites IUCN list Ak´ Assi list e 7 7 5 5 6 8 7 3 5 5 7 7 When comparing farmer management and Sodefor management overall.
What is transmitted from generation to generation. CONCLUSION In closing. Woody cover is not a heritage in itself. who find the plots hard to work. Wanne farmers. The other two are related to the results of statistical phyto-ecological analyses of these forest covers. In the minds of the farmers. The other wooded places are lands held in reserve that can be cleared at any time.5 percent of the total surface area of the Monogaga protected zone. Black forest plots are therefore much desired by cocoa and coffee planters. The first conclusion pertains to the comparison of the different types of status that farmers and Sodefor assign to the various kinds of Monogaga forest cover. draw a steadily rising income from them. however. by ceding them by . which should be the focus of all conservation and land-use measures. and more detailed results are necessary before coming to a definitive conclusion. because they are prime locations to be cleared for planting cash crops that are very lucrative at present. in the lineage system.78 FARMERS’ PRACTICES AND BIODIVERSITY TABLE 5 Number of endemic and Sassandrian species encountered for each recognized category of space Old fallow Managed by Managed by Sacred Non-sacred Forests fields farmers sodefor sites sites Endemic species Sassandrian species 33 5 22 6 24 7 31 7 9 2 37 8 forest is not strongly characterized by a ‘Sassandrian’ identity. a few conclusions can be drawn from this study that should be taken only as a first approach to the characterization of the woody cover of the Monogaga protected forest. The official managers of the Monogaga forest clearly prefer conservation spaces that have been rid of all human influence: their ultimate goal is to restore black forest. The value of forested land has risen steadily since the 1960s. are the rights of access to these lands and the rights to clear them. But there are few remnants of very old forest. As a consequence the old fallow fields are replanted in the regeneration group. there is no doubt that the forest is a natural heritage. the choice of species selected for reforestation raises some doubts as to Sodefor’s medium-term objectives: might these plantations be the first steps towards a forestry operation managed solely for Sodefor’s profit? The Wanne farmers attribute a certain importance to forest cover in the areas that they manage. represent hardly more than 20 hectares. For Sodefor. But prudence is required. or less than 0. The sacred forest sites that are truly treated as heritage sites. at the scale of the lineage group.
It would appear. We also thank Philippe Gaubert and Marjorie Weltz for their comments on the article. For the time being there is little risk that these old fallow fields will disappear. and even flourish. gracilor Harms Androsiphonia adenostegia Stapf . These old fallow fields are of considerable interest from the standpoint of the conservation of site-specific biodiversity. in greater depth and over time. In Monogaga the existence of species diversity that interests biologists is not at all incompatible with the most lucrative local agricultural activities. not long enough for proper regeneration of woody species. Don) Hook. the old fallow fields are largely on par with the black forest plots. for the use of their laboratories. with a minimum of adjustment and precautionary measures (Rosenzweig 2003). will help determine the optimal area and fallowing periods. because a fallow period is practically the only way to restore fertility after 30 to 40 years of cocoa planting.f. APPENDIX 1 TABLE A1 Species Special-status species inventoried at our black-forest sites in Monogaga a 1 b c 1 1 1 1 1 d S1 S2 1 1 1 1 S3 S4 Acridocarpus alternifolius (G. This conclusion clearly supports arguments in favour of ‘reconciliation ecology’. that in response to the pressure of the property market. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to express our thanks to all those who have helped us in writing this article: Professor Ak´ Assi for his assistance in identifying plants. and the Swiss Centre for ˆ Scientific Research in Cote d’Ivoire. The articulation of farm use and nature conservation is made possible by maintaining a fairly large surface area of old fallow fields. in the midst of the most intensive human activity. is dedicated to demonstrating that a great many elements of terrestrial biodiversity can survive. They even contain some species that are absent from the latter. Our study shows that for most of the naturalist criteria we have used. Further study. today the period is less than 10 years. Afzelia bella Harms Afzelia bella var. This movement. fields are left fallow for shorter and shorter periods in the agricultural enclaves. The Wanne prefer to work the old fallow fields that by our estimate still make up 30 to 40 percent of the protected zone. Where fields were left fallow for 20 to 30 years in the 1960s.FARMERS’ PRACTICES AND BIODIVERSITY 79 contract to settlers. however. N’Guessan Edouard e for his advice and commentary on the botanical inventories. which originated in ornithological naturalist circles.
Krause) Verdc.) L´ onard e Gilbertiodendron splendidum (A. Diospyros heudelotii Hiern Diospyros vignei F. Enantia polycarpa (DC. and Dalz. Chev. and Dalz. and Pellegr. e Coffea liberica Bull ex Hiern Crotonogyne chevalieri (Beile) Keay Cuviera macroura K.) Wendl.) L´ onard e Hallea ledermanii (K. ex Hutch. Placodiscus pseudostipularis Radlk. e Baphia bancoensis Aubr´ v.) Verdoon Piptostigma fugax A. . White Drypetes chevalieri Beille Drypetes ivorensis Hutch.) Engl. Eribroma oblonga Mast. and e Pellegr.80 TABLE A1 Species FARMERS’ PRACTICES AND BIODIVERSITY continued a b 1 c 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 d 1 1 1 S1 1 1 S2 S3 1 1 S4 1 1 1 Anthonotha sassandraensis Aubr´ v. Dialium aubrevillei Pellegr. Schum. and Pellegr. Leptoderris miegei Ak´ Assi e and Mangenot Millettia lane-poolei Dunn Myrianthus libericus Rendle Oricia suaveolens (Engl. Chev. e Chrysophyllum ta¨ense ı Aubr´ v. and Diels Entandrophragma cylindricum (Sprague) Sprague Eremospatha macrocarpa (Mann and Wendl. and Dalz. and Dalz. Keetia manense Aubr´ v. Gilbertiodendron bilineatum (Hutch. Diospyros canaliculata De Wild. Ex Hutch.
e Baphia bancoensis Aubr´ v. 1997). Don) Hook. Anisophyllea meniaudii Aubr´ v. Sphenocentrum jollyanum Pierre Tiliacora dinklagei Engl. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . and Pellegr. Coffea liberica Bull ex Hiern Conocarpus erectus L. L´ onard e Rinorea aylmeri Chipp. Uvariodendron occidentale Le Thomas Key: a: Rare and threatened species listed by Ak´ Assi (1984. c: West African and Ivoirian endemic species listed by Guillaumet (1967) and Ak´ Assi (1984.) J. b: Rare e species and species in danger of extinction according to IUCN (2002). and Pellegr. Copaifera salikounda Heckel Crotonogyne chevalieri Dialium aubrevillei Pellegr. Scottelia klaineana var. DC. Drypetes chevalieri Beille Entandrophragma angolense (Welw.f. e Cnestis corniculata Lam.FARMERS’ PRACTICES AND BIODIVERSITY 81 TABLE A1 Species continued a b c 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 d 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 S1 1 1 S2 S3 S4 Plagiosiphon emarginatus (Hutch.) C. e d: Sassandrian species listed by Guillaumet and Ak´ Assi. e APPENDIX 2 TABLE A2 Monogaga Species Special-status species inventoried at our old fallow field sites in a 1 b c d S5 1 S6 1 S7 1 S8 1 Acridocarpus alternifolius (G. e Berlinia occidentalis Keay Campylospermum schoenleinianum Klotzsch Chrysophyllum ta¨ense ı Aubr´ v. Diospyros canaliculata De Wild. mimfiensis Gilg Soyauxia floribunda Hutch. 1997). 1988. and Dalz.
b Rare e species and species in danger of extinction according to IUCN (2002). C.) Berg Necepsia afzelii Prain Oldfieldia africana Benth. Flore foresti`re de la Cˆ te d’Ivoire.. UFR Biosciences. e Alexandre. e REFERENCES ´ Adou Yao. 1978. 1988. Th` se d’Etat. ‘Flore de la Cˆ e ote d’Ivoire: etude descriptive et ´ biog´ ographique avec quelques notes ethnobotaniques’. Cahiers de l’Orstom. e and Pellegrin Placodiscus pseudostipularis Radlk. L. 1997. 3 vols. Rinorea oblongifolia (C. ‘Inventaire et etude de la diversit´ floristique du Sud du e ˆ Parc National de Ta¨ (Cote d’Ivoire)’. 1997). D. Y. H. Monogaga. 2000. e ote ˆ 1988. e d Sassandrian species listed by Guillaumet and Ak´ Assi. Nogent-sur-Marne: e e o CTFT Seine. F. c West African and Ivoirian endemic species listed by Guillaumet (1967) and Ak´ Assi (1984. J. Kahn and D. 1984. e e Universit´ de Abidjan (Cˆ d’Ivoire). ‘Observations sur les premiers stades de la reconstitution de la forˆ t dense e ˆ humide (Sud-Ouest de la Cote d’Ivoire). 1997). Sm. Namur. ı e Universit´ de Cocody-Abidjan. Guillaumet. Dassioko. Inventaire floristique de quelques forˆts class´es de la r´gion cˆ ti`re e e e o e sud-ouest de la Cˆ te d’Ivoire: Port Gauthier.-L. Turraea heterophylla J. ‘Esp` ces rares et en voie d’extinction de la flore de la Cote d’Ivoire’. Aubr´ ville. Rinorea aylmeri Chipp. Tiliacora dinklagei Engl. C. Wright) Marquand ex Chipp Tetracera alnifolia Willd.. and Hook. 1959. . Abidjan: o Sodefor-Minagra-Union Europ´ enne. Conclusion: Caract´ ristiques des e premiers stades de la reconstitution’.-Y. S´rie Biologie 13 e (3): 267–70. e ´ Ak´ Assi. M´ moire de DEA. Placodiscus boya Aubr´ v. A. Key: a Rare and threatened species listed by Ak´ Assi (1984. e Monographs in Systematic Botany from the Missouri Botanical Garden 25 : 461–3.f. second (revised) edition.82 TABLE A2 Species FARMERS’ PRACTICES AND BIODIVERSITY continued a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 b c d S5 1 1 1 1 S6 S7 S8 Landolphia calabarica (Stapf) Bruce Leptoderris miegei Ak´ Assi e and Mangenot Microdesmis keayana L´ onard e Milicia excelsa (Welw.
J. Girardin et al. L. K. A. 2000. M. Abu-Juam. ‘Projet e e d’am´ nagement de la forˆ t class´ e de Monogaga en vue d’une exploitation e e e ˆ touristique’. Parthasarathy. P. Stork. R. 2002. 1956. Introduction a la phytog´ographie des pays tropicaux. Vol. ˆ ` Ibo. J. 2000. B. Richards. Koffi.M. Sempervira 9: ı 122–31. ‘Etat des recherches en cours dans le Parc National de Ta¨ (PNT)’. M. D. Paris: IRD. and A. ` Lebrun. Fairhead. second edition. Girard. G.L. Radl. L. Mittermeier. Hutchinson. ‘Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities’. Perraud. 1991. La Reconstitution de la forˆt tropicale humide. A Primer of Conservation Biology. and N. J. E. Politique Africaine 78: 94–125. 1954-19–72. Reframing Deforestation: global analyses and local realities – Studies in West Africa. Davies. 1995.-P. R. 1976. Enum´ration des plantes a fleurs e ` d’Afrique Tropicale: g´n´ralit´s et Annonaceae a Pandaceae. and F. 1998. Flora of West Tropical Africa. II. in e ` Actes de l’Atelier d’´changes a Yaound´ au Cameroun. 1996 et 1999’. and M. Cormier-Salem. Leach. G. ˆ Chauveau. L. Y. ‘Etude sur la forˆ t des plaines et plateaux de Cote d’Ivoire’. Touchebeuf. R. V. Dalziel. Guillaumet. ‘Le milieu naturel de la ˆ Cote d’Ivoire’. 1971. e Myers. Diarrassouba. J. Gauthiers-Villars. 3 vols. ‘Tree diversity and distribution in undisturbed and human-impacted sites of tropical wet evergreen forest in southern Western Ghats. Biodiversity and Conservation 8: 1365–81. C. Projet ˆ e coti` re Sodefor-FED. Dictionnaire de biog´ographie v´g´tale. and G. Dynamiques locales. ‘Rain Forest in Mende Life: resources and subsistence strategy in communities around Gola North forest reserve’. G. Roussel e (eds). da Fonseca and J. India’. Gland: IUCN. Primack. ‘Reconciliation ecology and the future of species diversity’. 1999. ORSTOM Memorandum No. 4–6 juillet 2000. Paris: e e e e e Editions du CNRS. G. Chatelain. B. London: Routledge.. Sircoulon. Forest Protection in Ghana. C. and M. Tome 3: e La Flore et la v´g´tation de l’Afrique tropicale. e e e (eds). London: Crown Agents for the Colonies. IAB. Oryx. and P. MA: Sinauer Associates.-P. M´moires Orstom 50. W. M´ moire de fin d’´ tudes de diplome d’Ing´ nieur des Techniques e e e Agricoles. A. J. ‘Le biomonitoring dans le Parc National de Ta¨’. M. G. J. Nature 403: 853–8. Report to Escor. Guillaumet. Juh´ -Beaulaton. ‘Evolution du couvert v´ g´ tal des forˆ ts e e e ˆ e ˆ coti` res de Cote d’Ivoire entre 1989–90. ODA. J. 1999. B. 1982. e e e IV. M. Paris: Ed.. Yamoussoukro. London. Patrimonialiser la nature tropicale. Boutrais and B. Recherches sur la v´g´tation et la flore de la r´gion du Base e e Cavally (Cˆ te d’Ivoire). 20. Da Lage A. Eldin.FARMERS’ PRACTICES AND BIODIVERSITY 83 Avenard. Piguet. J. Adjanohoun and A. Mittermeier. 1995. 2000. e B´ lign´ . 2000.. N. D. M. 2000. N. 1991–7. 2003. and J. K. I. J.-C. ı Sempervira 9: 152–5.. 37 (2): 194–205. ‘La gestion des forˆ ts en Cote d’Ivoire de 1900 a 2000’. G.. 2000. B´ n´ . B. enjeux internationaux. e e . G. F. 2000. Sud-Ouest de la Cˆ te e o d’Ivoire. J. Paris: ORSTOM. e e Kahn. o Hawthorne. III. Kent. CD-Rom. Geneva: CJB. ˆ Mangenot. Rosenzweig. Sunderland. M´ taili´ . 1967. ‘Pr´ sentation du projet ECOSYN’ in O. ‘Questions fonci` res et construction nationale en Cote e d’Ivoire’. Paris: ORSTOM. ` Schnell. e ´ Etudes eburn´ennes 4: 5–61. second edition.
species richness. Yamoussoukro: ESA. The discourses and uses of forest resources of these two actors allow us to compare the biodiversity of forest cover categories recognized by peasant farmers and Sodefor. e ABSTRACT The emergence of biodiversity standards in the nature conservation literature requires that we consider the interactions between conservation and local practices from a new angle. une comparaison de la biodiversit´ e des diverses cat´ gories de couverts forestiers reconnues par les paysans et par e . gestionnaire officiel de l’espace class´ . a comparison of the two types of resource management practices (Sodefor and farmer) gives nuanced results. the government agency charged with the management of this conservation area. 1993. is an ideal terrain for comparing the impact of local agricultural practices and the activities of Sodefor. if the forest is to be transmitted to future generations. 2003. Sous-Peuplement et d´veloppement dans le Sud-Ouest de la e Cˆ te d’Ivoire: cinq si`cles d’histoire economique et sociale. Zoh. For Sodefor.84 FARMERS’ PRACTICES AND BIODIVERSITY Schwartz. a protected area inhabited by a local population. Abidjan: e e Sodefor. Contribution a l’am´nagement de la forˆt class´e e e e e ˆ de Monogaga: cas des enclaves agricoles. especially farming. M. The Mathematical Theory of Communications. number of special status species). The agency believes that these forests must be protected from all human uses. and J. F. 1995. 2003. ` Traor´ . Plan de Remembrement de la forˆt class´e de Monogaga. class´ e avec ses e e habitants est un terrain id´ al pour comparer les impacts des pratiques agricoles e et ceux des activit´ s de la Sodefor. For them. 1949. and W. With regard to biodiversity. For endemics and the IUCN red list species. The coastal forest of Monogaga. Weaver. using the standard statistical methods for measuring biodiversity (the Shannon and Weaver index. La forˆ t littorale de Monogaga. it is the most dense forest ecosystems (the ‘black forests’ ) and the lands that they occupy that constitute the area’s natural heritage. Wanne farmers view the old forests (kporo) as long-term fallows (tεtεklwoa) or reserves of fertile land that will be cleared when there is a need for more farmland in the future. Plan d’am´nagement de la forˆt class´e de Monogaga 39828 ha e e e (1995–2004. the spatial units controlled by Sodefor show more diversity. A. o e Shannon. Sodefor 1994. C. P. M´ moire de Diplome d’Ing´ nieur des e e Techniques Agricoles. both management types maintained the same quantity of species. patrimony is constituted by the intergenerational transmission of a bundle of resource access and farming rights within lineages. ` Verdeaux. Paris: ORSTOM. ´ ´ RESUME L’´ mergence de standards de biodiversit´ dans la conservation de la nature e e ` oblige a consid´ rer les interactions entre conservation de la nature et pratiques e locales sous un angle nouveau. E. For the Sassandrian species list. ‘De la forˆ t en commun a la forˆ t domestique: deux cas e e ˆ contrast´ e de r´ appropriation foresti` re en Cote d’Ivoire et Tanzanie’. The farmers’ areas are more diverse than those of Sodefor when considering the Ak´ Assi e threatened species list. Bois e e e et Forˆts des Tropiques 278 (4): 51–63. IL: University of Illinois Press. In contrast. e e Apr` s avoir recueilli les discours sur la forˆ t et observ´ les usages que ces e e e deux acteurs font des ressources forestiers. Abidjan: Sodefor. Urbana.
en e revanche. au sein des e e e e lignages. Pour les fermiers wanne. nombre e e ` d’esp` ces a statut sp´ cial. ce sont les ecosyst` mes forestiers les plus denses (les ‘forˆ ts e e noires’) et les terres qu’ils occupent qui constituent le patrimoine naturel : ˆ ˆ pour etre transmis aux g´ n´ rations futures. c’est un ensemble de r` gles d’acc` s a certaines ressources et de droits e e ` de mise en culture. richesse sp´ cifique. Pour ce qui est des esp` ces e e sassandriennes. les vieilles forˆ ts (kporo) comme les jach` res anciennes (tεtεklwoa) e e sont avant tout des r´ serves de terres fertiles qui seront d´ frich´ es si le besoin e e e s’en fait sentir. la comparaison des deux types de gestion e (Sodefor et paysanne) donnent des r´ sultats nuanc´ s : Les espaces g´ r´ s par e e ee les fermiers sont plus diversifi´ s que ceux de la Sodefor quand on consid` re e e la liste des esp` ces remarquables de Ake Assi. e les esp` ces de la liste rouge de l’IUCN sont plus diversifi´ es dans les sites g´ r´ s e e ee par la Sodefor. Sur le plan de la biodiversit´ . il doit etre prot´ g´ de toutes les e e e e activit´ s humaines et surtout de la mise en culture. En revanche. . est propos´ en utilisant des outils statistiques classiques des etudes e de biodiversit´ : indice de Shannon et Weaver. les deux types de gestion ne sont pas diff´ rents.FARMERS’ PRACTICES AND BIODIVERSITY 85 ´ la Sodefor. e e ´ Pour la Sodefor. Ce qui est transmis de g´ n´ ration en g´ n´ ration.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.