Participatory Evaluation of the Importance of Native Plant Resources Used by Local People in Sahelo-Sudanian Zone of Burkina Faso: Case Study in the Sanmatenga Province.
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Participatory Evaluation of the Importance of Native Plant Resources Used by Local People in Sahelo-Sudanian Zone of Burkina Faso: Case Study in the Sanmatenga Province Bassirou BELEM 1; Carsten Smith OLSEN 3; Sita GUINKO 2; Ida THEILADE 3; Ronald BELLEFONTAINE 4; Anne Mette LYKKE5; Joseph I. BOUSSIM 2; Adama DIALLO1 October 2008 Accra, Ghana
CONTENT INTRODUCTIONOBJECTIVESMETHODSRESULTS DISCUSSIONREFERENCES
SERVICE Introduction 2 Rural people in the Sahelian countries depend on access to trees for a multitude of purposes. Trees provide important products and sevice such as Ecological Food Soil fertilzation Cultural value Art & craft Fodder Medicine GOODS Cash (income) Construction Firewood
Introduction 3 Problem 1 • But during the last decade, deforestation and desertification are taking place and the consequences include : Forest cover loss Biodiversitty lossAnd loss of option of uses • There is therefore a pressing need to enhance the management of forest and agroforestry system to sustain farmer livelihoods (Boffa,200) • This process need that the most important trees selected
Introduction 4 Problem 2 • In the central plateau of Burkina Faso, the population density is high, • Village lands are under pression (human and animal) • Agroforestry tree species need selection and conservation • No study were conducted in the village of Dem and Wedsé
Introduction 5 Problem 3 Until the recent years target trees selection for nursery, reforestation, agroforestry has been recommended by forest technicians and NGO agents USING TOP DOWN APPROACH
Introduction 6 Opportunity Happely, nowadays farmers knowledge is being recongnized as valid to incorporated in forest sustainable management process (Musnad 1996)
Introduction 7 • Considering the large number of agroforestry species, the development of a rational method for setting priorities among species is an important step to match better rural people needs of trees (Jaenicke et al. 1995, Musnad 1996, Franzel et al. 1996).
Introduction 8 WHAT WE WANT TO GET OR KNOW? The objectives of the study are: • to identify and analyze the different uses of the selected species by Category of Plant Uses; • to determinate which trees, shrubs, and lianas are priority species for the local people of the two villages. • Finally, discussion of the advantages and draw backs of methodology will be done.
The study area Mossi (cultivators) and Peulh (herders) are the main ethnic groups in each village.
METHOD 1 Ethnoscience, Transdisciplinaire approach (Rist & Dahdouh-Guebas, 2006) Ethnobotany ((Prance et al., 1987 Phillips & Gentry (1993; Martin, 1995; Cotton, 1996; Lykke et al., 2004). Quantitative ethnobotany and the use-value methods are applied to study the importance of plants, for local people and to compare the local importance of different species (Prance et al. 1987, Phillips and Gentry 1993). The ethnobotanical use-value of a species estimates its overall usefulness by quantification using a score.
METHOD 2 Species selection. Scientific Inventory Participatory selection (in collaboration with farmers (men and women) Informants: 36 to 78 years (Men and women) Including gardeners, traditional midwife and traditional healer. • Data collection • Data were collected using: • semi structure interview • informal talks, • free listing of plants, • Observation as well as forest and tree walks
METHOD 3 • CATEGORIES OF PLANT USES • We used six categories of plant uses • Construction, Food, Medicine, Technical, Commerce and Energy. • PLANT IMPORTANCE ASSESSMENT • The groups of scores used are used to assess each plant • 0: Not used; • 0.5: usable but not good, plants occasionally used; • 1: usable, includes plants currently used for a specific purpose; • 1.5: usable and the best
METHODE 4 Phillips and Gentry (1993a, b) formula is used to calculate the use-value of each species. Is used for the calculation of the use-value of the species. Where UVs is the overall use-value of species s. UVis is the use-value of species s as determined by informant i. Is is the total number of informant interviewed for species s. The overall use-value of each species is the sum of use-values of the six categories of plant use. In this way, it is possible to rank the species within each Category of Plant Uses in ascending or descending way. 0= UVs: species not used; 0UVs 3: species less important, not priority species; 3 UVs 6: species important, priority species; 6UVs 9: species very important, DATA ANALYSIS Descriptive statistic (excell and Minitab) Man Whitney test for non parametric data (Mintab)
RESULTS 1 Plant uses
Results 2 Species and number of use
Combretum micranthum 45 differents uses Bark against children malaria Leaves against diarrhoea Leaves for babies fortification Leaves used as tea Roots to stimulate children walking Stem (big ones) to make tools handles Stem to Stems used in basketry Wood for fuel (firewood) Wood to make charcoal And so on
Vitellaria paradoxa 25 uses Edible (by men) fruits Kernel is for butter preparation Bark to heal wounds Wood to make pack down tools Wood for posts and poles for hangar construction Poles for house construction Wood for charcoal making Wood for fuel (firewood) Wood for pestles making Wood to make seats
Parkia biglobosaLocus bean (22 diffrents uses) Edible Fruit (pulp) Seeds to make spice Bark against teeth pains Bark to heal anus wounds Bark to heal wounds Ash of wood to make black dye Fruits sold Wood for tool handles making Wood to make drums
Results Extraction pattern • Roots • Bark • Stem • Leaves
MANN-WHITNEY TEST WHEN ALL CATEGORIES ARE CONSIDERED No difference of preference between the 2 villages (p = 0,426). WITHIN EACH CATEGORY No difference beteween village in: food category (p = 0,367) Commerce (p = 0,9). Difference in the medecine category(p = 0,0001), Technical (p = 0,001), Construction (p = 0,014) Energy (p = 0,02).
Correlation between use value and number of uses in each villae DEM WEDSE
DISCUSSION 1 The pattern of extraction The medicine category contains the largest number of uses (178) and represents 68% of the uses mentioned suggesting that the selected trees are used against a wide range of human and animal diseases. Medicinal plants promotion and domestication need to be addressed FARMERS KNOWLEDGE AND USE DESCRIPTION REVEAL IT
DISCUSSION 2 SPECIES CONSERVATION Species extraction is unsustainable FARMERS PRACTICES REVEAL IT Recommendation Improve forest code making usefull species protection be a reality (Limiting bark extraction) Most of the species are not planted (vitellaria paradoxa, Boscia senegalenis, species extraction is unsustainable FARMERS PRACTICES REVEAL IT Recommendation Focuss on farmer targeted trees and shrub in valuation policy legislation and policy – legislation process
DISCUSSION 3 Limits of the use value method Doesn’t distinguish, present, past and potential use CPU can be The use-value methodology is not an economic valuation methodology but when income generation becomes
DISCUSSION 4 Limits of the use value method • Many factors contribute to the determination of the use-value these are: • informants knowledge (experimentation) and preference learning, • abundance/ richness of the species in the region, • scarcity or abundance of the products extracted from the species, • possibility to use substitute of the products, • existence of local, regional or international markets for the products extracted from the species; • cultural values and believe attached on the species; • forest legislation which regulate the use of the species. • Finally, use-value results depend on time space, meaning that results from use-value methodology must be appreciated with caution and taking into account time factor.
DISCUSSION 5 CHALLENGES How fast can we shift from top down tree selection to bottom up (e.g. how to integrate the main findings to improve local forest and agricultural policies?) How to effectively conserve the most important selected tree species in the short, medium and long term?
Lannea microcarpa Anacardiaceae END THANK YOU