Use of Non Wood Forest Products by local people bordering the ...

The Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies vol. 6, no. 1, 2007Use of Non Wood Forest Products by localpeople bordering the “Parc National KaboréTambi”, Burkina FasoBassirou Belem 1 ; Blandine Marie Ivette Nacoulma 2 ; Roland Gbangou 1 ; Sié Kambou 1 ; Hanne Helene Hansen 5 ;Quentin Gausset 3 ; Søren Lund 4 ; Anders Raebild 5 ; Djingdia Lompo 1 ; Moussa Ouedraogo 1 , Ida Theilade 5 & IssakaJoseph Boussim 21Centre National de Semences Forestières, Ouagadougou2Laboratoire de Biologie et Ecologie Végétales, Unité de Formation et de Recherche en Science de la Vie et de laTerre, Université de Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.3Institute of Anthropology, University of Copenhagen, Denmark4Department of Environmental, Social and Spatial Change, University of Roskilde, Denmark5Faculty of Life Science, University of Copenhagen, DenmarkAbstract: In the French-speaking countries of Africa, strategies of conservation, inherited from thecolonial time, exclude the bordering people in the management of the national parks plant resources.Today, policies and legislation try to reconcile forest conservation and development by associatinglocal people. As a consequence, approaches of participatory planning of forest management schemeshave become necessary. A major challenge has been the issue of how to (use?) scientific knowledgeand local knowledge in the most appropriate way. This article provides an account of a contributionto addressing this issue in the case of the “Parc National Kaboré Tambi” in Burkina Faso, byproposing a combination of ethno-botanical surveys and botanical inventories. The article analysesthe importance of the park plant species, identify the constraints faced by local people to harvest thepark plant products, analyse the park vegetation structure and assess the degree of regeneration of themain useful species. The surveys reveal that bordering people consider the park as their granary, theirpharmacy, their pasture, their place of religious worship, and the source of the strength of their territory.They harvest in the park Non Wood Forest Products (NWFPs), although the Forest Code bansfree access. About one hundred plants species are used, but the pattern of extraction of the productsor some plant parts could destroy the resource base. Technically, conservation by domestication of thesource species and improved harvest of Non Wood Forest Products could be combined for sustainablemanagement of the park. Finally, the process toward an integration of ecology, silviculture,law, economy and decentralisation in order to achieve the park sustainable forest management isof great importance. The success of this process will depend on all actors including policy makers,technicians, local people, researchers and funding agencies.Key words: Ethnobotany, Non Wood Forest Products, Forest Policy and Legislation, “Parc National KaboréTambi”, Burkina Faso, PETREA.The Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies, ISSN 1602-2297http://www.journal-tes.dk/

Belem et al.: Use of Non Wood Forest Products by local people bordering .......Résumé: Dans les pays francophones d’Afrique, les stratégies de conservation, héritées de l’époquecoloniale, excluent les populations riveraines dans l’aménagement et la gestion des ressources forestièresdes parcs nationaux. De nos jours, les lois et législations forestières essaient de concilier la conservationdes ressources et le développement en associant les populations. Par conséquent, des approchesde planification participative en matière d’aménagement forestier sont devenus nécessaires. Un défimajeur dans ces approches est de trouver des stratégies pour intégrer les connaissances locales auxconnaissances scientifiques de manière appropriée. Cet article représente une contribution à ce défidans le cas du “Parc National Kaboré Tambi”en proposant une démarche basée sur des enquêtesethnobotaniques et des inventaires de la végétation. L’article analyse l’importance du parc pour lespopulations riveraines et identifie les contraintes auxquelles font face les populations pour accéderaux produits forestiers non ligneux dudit parc. Il analyse la structure de la végétation du parc etestime le degré de régénération de certaines espèces. Les résultats montrent que les populations riverainesconsidèrent le parc comme leur grenier, leur pharmacie, leur lieu de culte, leur pâturage et lasource de la force de leur terroir. Bien que le Code Forestier leur interdit l’accès libre, les populationscontinuent de fréquenter le parc. Environ une centaine de plantes ont été recensées comme pourvoyantdes produits utilisés par les hommes et pour les soins de santé animale. Cependant, le moded’extraction des produits pourrait compromettre la pérennité de certaines espèces. Techniquement,la conservation des espèces à travers leur domestication et l’amélioration des méthodes d’extractiondes produits pourraient être combinées pour une utilisation et une gestion durable des ressources duparc. En fin de compte, le processus vers une intégration de l’écologie, la sylviculture, la législationforestière, l’économie et la décentralisation dans la gestion durable du parc est d’une grande importance.Le succès de ce processus dépendra de tous les acteurs y compris les décideurs, les techniciens,les populations riveraines, les chercheurs et les agences de financement.Mots clés: Ethnobotanique, Produits Forestiers Non Ligneux, Législation forestière, “Parc National KaboréTambi”, Burkina Faso, PETREA.IntroductionIn Africa, local communities depend on forests andplants for their daily needs including goods andservices. These needs are principally food, medicine,wood, fodder for animals, shade, soil fertilization orreclamation, ornamentation and practices of ritualsand customs. Therefore, to limit the possibilitiesof exploitation of these products, either througha restriction of access or through a reduction oftheir availability will have a negative impact on thewellbeing of the communities (IIED, 2003; Dahlberg,2005). For most of the poor people, naturalresources and trees are tangible assets (Chambers etal., 1991, Chambers, 1995). Even if forest resourcesare available, the competition in relation to theirexploitation often creates conflicts (Gregersen etal., 1995). This is not a new phenomenon, but withthe undergoing globalisation, democratization anddecentralization of natural resource management inAfrica, it has become a critical issue for policy makers,technicians and researchers (Dahlberg, 2005).Classified forests and national parks in the Sahelrepresent particular situations in which local peopleand forest administration are in perpetual conflictfor the access and the control of the resources(IIED, 2003). No one denies the fact that forestreserves must be protected for the benefit of presentand future generations, but the ways in which thisprotection should be assured are open to debate(Dahlberg, 2005). Until some 10-15 years ago,forests classification in French speaking WesternAfrica was governed by the decree of July 04, 1935(République de Côte d’Ivoire, 1949). According tothis decree, forest classification has the aim to purgeall or a part of lands and forest from human use.Since local communities are seen as a threat to theenvironment, the location of villages close to theclassified forests should not be allowed if it couldbe avoided, (Foury, 1948). After Independence (in1960), forest codes of the new states took over theprinciples of the 1935 Decree, establishing forests asthe property of the state (Bertrand, 1991).Until recently, the importance of Non Wood ForestProducts (NWFPs) for local people seems to be ignoredso that the access to national parks for NWFPs

The Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies (TES)harvesting is subject to strict restrictions. Practiceis far from theory, and forest administration hasgreat difficulties to prevent the use of the protectedzones resources, especially when the bordering villagersare highly dependent on these resources thatcan only be found in the protected areas. It is thecase of “Parc National Kaboré Tambi” at Nobéré inBurkina Faso.Nowadays, the necessity to conciliate natural resourceconservation with social issues is more andmore recognized (Lanly, 1992; Ribot, 1999; Kjaer &Nathan, 2000). In this respect, nearly all programson natural forests and reserves management ofBurkina Faso include NWFPs promotion and valuationfor the benefit of local people when possible.NWFPs valuation is a component of the currentRural Development Strategy by 2005 (Burkina Faso,2003), the Forest Resources Management Framework(Ministère de l’Environnement et du Cadrede Vie, 2004) and the current Strategic PovertyReduction Framework (Ministère de l’Economie etdu Développement, 2002). Understanding humanpreference on plant products and assessment ofthe pattern of extraction can contribute to a betterunderstanding of the scope and nature of problemsfaced by local people relying on plants for they dailylife (Bognounou, 1996; Lykke, 1998; Cunningham,2001; Madsen, 2004; Lykke et al., 2004; Kristensenet al., 2004).In the case of tropical forests, the way in which localpeople needs must be integrated in the managementprocess has been much debated over the years (Sheil,2006). Concerning the “Parc National KaboréTambi”, earlier studies were limited to the descriptionof the park focussing either on wild animalsor on plants (Toni, 1991; Naturama, 1998 2003).Studies which integrate natural and social sciencesaiming to understand the human - plants interactionin the context of the park are lacking. Sustainablemanagement of the park encompasses good regulationgoverning the use of the plant resources, betteridentification of the NWFPs collected in the park,good harvesting of the products and better plantspecies regeneration strategies and techniques.In this paper we present results from a study aimedat examining the use of NWFPs by borderingpeople of the “Parc National Kaboré Tambi”. Theanalysis moves away from simple plant inventories,and instead examines the complexity of the relationbetween local people and the park in terms ofNWFPs used in traditional and modern legislationcontexts.Specifically, our goals were to:• analyse the importance of the park for local peoplethrough the determination of NWFPs collectedand source species including the methods of extractionof the products;• identify the constraints faced by local people toharvest the NWFPs in the park;• analyse the park vegetation structure and assessthe regeneration of the main useful species.We will then discuss how to ensure sustainable harvestof NWFPs in the park and propose method ofpropagation for each selected plant species.This study took place within the framework of amultidisciplinary study carried out in the PeopleTree and Agriculture Africa (PETREA) programmein Burkina Faso from 2001 to 2005. This researchprogramme focuses on how trees and other woodyspecies can be brought into wider use by rural peoplein Africa. Identification of people's needs and priorities,the development of locally adapted techniquesand strategies for domestication, management anduse of useful plant species in co-operation with localpeople were planned in the programme (Nathan,2002). Nobéré village territory has been selectedto conduct the PETREA research programme. It ishoped that the experiences described in the articleand recommendations presented will be useful forresearchers, rural development agents includingforesters who support the equitable access to plantresources in protected areas.The article is organised in the following way. First,a description of the study site is given, followed byan introduction of the methodologies used for theethnobotanical surveys and the botanical inventoriesrespectively. Following results including NWFPsharvested in the park, source species and methods ofharvesting are presented. The findings are analysedwith respect to vegetation structure, species regenerationand NWFPs harvest constraints. In the followingsection, the validity and reliability of the data are discussed,some possible interpretations of the findingssuggested, and some reflections are made as to whatlessons can be learned for conservation and develop-

Belem et al.: Use of Non Wood Forest Products by local people bordering .......ment strategies from the study. The article ends withsome concluding remarks about the unsustainable resourceuse presently practised by the local populationnear the national park and the need for institutionalinnovation, technical training of the local population,and further research on a number of issues.Description of the study zoneThe study was conducted at Nobéré, located in theprovince of Zoundweogo (figure 1) which is part ofthe Centre South region of Burkina Faso, at 113 kmfrom the capital Ouagadougou, between latitudes11°25' and 11°45' North and longitudes 1°20' and1°84' West.The study area lies in the North sudanian climaticBurkina Fasozone with an annual precipitation varying between700 and 900 mm (Fontès & Guinko, 1995). Therainy season lasts 4 - 5 months and the dry season7 - 8 months. Tropical ferruginous soils are foundin this zone. Average annual temperature is about30°c with maxima between March and April. Themajority of soils are degrading due to several factorsincluding inappropriate land use, erosion and bushFigure 1: Study site location. The park is presented in greencolour.fires. The natural vegetation is wooded savannahsand woodlands. Agricultural landscapes are dominatedby parklands woody species, such as Vitellariaparadoxa, Parkia biglobosa, Tamarindus indica,Sclerocarya birrea, Lannea microcarpa, Adansoniadigitata and Faidherbia albida.The predominant ethnic groups are Mossi who livewith Bissa, Gourounsi and Fulani. Religions includeindigenous beliefs, Muslim and Christian. Traditionallocal knowledge and beliefs contribute to theregulation of natural resources uses. The populationdensity is 61.8 inhabitants per km². About 93 % ofthe population is engaged in (mainly subsistence)agriculture which is highly vulnerable to variations inrainfall. Sorghum and millet are the dominant crops.Other activities include animal husbandry and trade.Literacy level in the in the area is generally low. Theproportion of people living below the poverty line(8,2672 CFA francs or 126 euros in 1998) is 66%for the entire Centre south region to which belongsthe study area (Ministère de l’Economie et du Développement,2005). People rely on wood for cockingand trees for food, medicine, construction, animalfodder, making pressure on natural vegetation.With its 155,500 ha surface, the park borders manyvillages including Nobéré and provides forest productsand bush meat for the villagers. The NazinonRiver crosses the park from North - West to theSouth - East direction contributing to maintainriparian forest communities.Before the classification of the park, its managementwas based on customary law. Started in 1936,this classification ended in 1976. From this timeon, local people lost their access rights (Naturama,2003). The strategy of pure conservation or integralconservation as defined by Kjær & Nathan (2000)was applied. Such an approach creates conflicts withlocal communities (Sambou et al., 2003), who wishto use the park resources according to their willand needs. Despite the restrictions, villagers collectforest products in the park because some of theseproducts are not available or have become scarce inthe village vicinity (in parklands and fallow) (PET-REA-Burkina Faso, 2002). For these reasons, localpeople and herders who consider the resources of thepark as their property are perpetually in conflict withthe communal forest service, which is committed toprotecting the park and its biodiversity.Picture 1. Parkia biglobosa (Locus bean) in a field ofsorghum at Nobére. Picture: Sié Kambou.MethodologyOur study is concerned with inventorying the natureof Non-Wood Forest Products (NWFPs) availableto local populations, identification of species used,

The Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies (TES)and how they are managed. NWFPs consist of goodsof biological origin other than wood, derived fromforests or wooded land and trees outside forests(FAO, 2001). The term NWFPs differs from thecommonly used non-timber forest product (NTFP)in excluding all wood while NTFP includes woodfor uses other than for timber, although there arestill many grey areas. In this article, toothpicks forexample are considered as NWFP.Ethnobotanical methodsEthnobotanical methods are useful for workingwith local communities to learn about their knowledgeand uses of the plant world, for example todetermine which social groups within a village usewhich species of plants in what quantities and forwhat purposes. Ethnobotanical studies can helpidentify conservation issues, such as in cases whererates of harvest of plants exceed rates of regrowth.The fact that ethnobotany is a collaborative venturebetween people in local communities and scientistsmeans that a start can be made to explore solutionsto conservation and development issues, even asinformation on plant use is being collected (Martin2004). In this study ethnobotanical surveys wereused to help local communities define their needsfor plant resources more clearly, thus assisting themto state their cases for continued access to certainareas of land or for provision of alternatives to wildgathering. Ethnobotanical studies can also play usefulroles in rescuing disappearing knowledge andreturning it to local communities.Ethnobotany is by its very nature an interdisciplinarysubject, demanding a holistic approach whichintegrates techniques from biology, anthropology,ecology, economy, sociology and many other fields.Techniques borrowed from these fields can be combinedto carry out a systematic survey of the traditionalbotanical knowledge in a single communityor region. Although originally developed to guideand evaluate development initiatives, many of theresearch tools used in the approach of ParticipatoryRural Appraisal (PRA) are readily applicable toethnobotanical studies as well. Thus, even thoughethnobotany began largely with direct observationsabout the ways in which people used plants andconsisted mainly of the compilation of lists morerecently, these subjects have adopted a much morescientific and quantitative methodology.In this study, we use a blend of qualitative andquantitative methods to investigate how local peoplemanage their environment. Thus, ethnobotanicaldata is combined with an ecological approach. Datawere collected using informal talks, structured interviews,free listing of plants, observation as wellas forest and tree walks in Nobéré commune andbotanical and ecological inventories in the park.Data was collected from June 2004 to January 2005.Informal talks are important to establish a rapportwith the community. The structured questionnairesserved to provide quantitative data on categories ofplant use as well as on species used. Hence, it is possibleto compare the relative usefulness of the plants,and rank the priorities of people in relation to utilizationof natural resources within the National Park.Free listing exercises often add more species thanmentioned in structured interviews. In the same wayforest walks serve to remind informants of speciesand uses that were not recalled during the interviewin the village. Observations of harvest and productsfound in household can verify information given ininterviews and may be used to distinguish betweenpotentially useful species and species actually used.The tree walk provides a number of repeated andindependent events. Uses of a specific set of treescan be compared for particular user groups basedon ethnicity, age, or gender. This method will tellwhich species are most valuable for specific usesand whether different social groups attach differentimportance to certain species.Eight categories of plants uses (CPU) based onBosch et al. (2002) and Belem (2000) are consideredin the survey; these are human food, medicine,construction, commerce, art and craft, fodder foranimals, customary rituals and traditional veterinaryuses. Determination of the plant uses within the first7 categories was realised by survey (observations andinterviews) in the villages of Bisboumbou, Koakin,Nobéré and Passintinga while the ethnomedicinesurvey was carried out in the villages of Donsin,Tewaka and Passintenga.Ethnobotanical information was collected withinthe first 7 of CPU using of a formal questionnaire.Questions include the following aspects: What speciesare subject to collection? What parts of plantother than wood do you use? Where can you findthem? (In fields, in fallows or in the park?). In eachvillage, a sample of 30 households has been chosen

Belem et al.: Use of Non Wood Forest Products by local people bordering .......making a total of 120 for the 4 villages. The sampleis composed of 89% of Mossi, 8% of Fulhani, 3% ofGourounsis and 2% of Bissa. (There are more than60 ethnical groups in Burkina Faso). The numberof informants was respectively men and women81 and 39. Ethnomedicine survey was conductedusing a “tree walk” so that each of the 30 informants,15 Mossi and 15 Fulhani male herders wereasked about the traditional veterinary uses of eachof the 40 trees. Informal forest walks and excursionswere also organised. Opportunities for observationincluded witnessing harvesting of NWFPs in thepark and markets visits. Some information is alsogathered from casual conversation. The park history,local people’s rights and use of the park plantspecies are examples of some of the topics discussedwith the forest service, development agents in theregion and village leaders. Recommendations madeby the bordering people and presented during thefinal PETREA workshop in December 2005 inDenmark were also taken into account in this paper.The workshop was organized by the RoskildeUniversity, the Institute of Anthropology, Universityof Copenhagen and the Royal Veterinary andAgricultural University (nowadays Faculty of LifeSciences, part of the University of Copenhagen) incollaboration with research institutes in BurkinaFaso and Tanzania.Names of NWFPs and sources Species were recordedin moré (the main language of the zone inhabitants).Additional names in fulhani (language of the cattleherders in the area) were used in the case of theethnomedicine survey.The national host institution of the study was theBurkina Faso National Tree Seed Centre. The Centreis known to the local population as being a part of theforestry authorities, backing the local forest servicethat normally has the role of enforcing the forestrylegislation and fining local people who are caughtharvesting forestry products from the national parkwithout permit. Therefore, establishing relations ofconfidence between researchers and local informantson the subject of their (illegal) uses of NWFPswas quite a challenge at the outset. We introducedand explained our goals to the community. Effortswere made to informally interact with, and relate to,the communities during the research period, and asignificant degree of trust was established.Botanical inventoriesThe main NWFPs used by Nobéré villagers areharvested in the northern part of the park, thereforethe vegetation study focussed in this part. Theobjectives of the botanical inventories are to recordthe different plant species of the park and assesstheir abundance. These studies are based on thedescription of the plant communities encounteredin the park through plant life forms and dominantspecies. The identification of plant communities isguided by the physiognomy and structure of thevegetation and then by the prevalence or dominanceof certain species. The approach in the vegetationdescription follows African vegetation nomenclatureof Yangambi in 1956 adopted by Aubreville (1957).Determination of type of vegetation and life formsof the species follow Aubreville (1963) adapted inBurkina Faso vegetation by Guinko (1984). This firststep led to recognition of three vegetation entitiesor vegetation communities; these communities are:riparian forest (galerie forestière in french), woodysavannah (Savane boisée) and savannah dominatedby srhubs (savane arbustive). A stratified randomsampling design was used. In each of the three identifiedplant communities, 1 to 3 circular plots of 1000meters square (17.84 m radius) were randomly established.For all the three plant communities, twentythree plots were established. In each plot, all trees,shrubs and lianas were listed using scientifical namesfollowing Bosch et al. (2002) and Arbonnier (2000).Reference was made to the works of Nacoulma-Ouédraogo (1996) and Peverelli (2002) to identifyrespectively plant names in Moré and Fulani. Whena plant was unknown, its part or organ was collectedfor botanical identification using specialized floras,Hutchinson & Dalziel (1958), Berhaut (1967) andArbonnier (2000).Quantitative parameters include the relative density(abundance), the relative dominance, the relativefrequency and the species regeneration. Within theplots, all trees, shrubs and lianas with a diameterover 5 cm were measured (diameter and height)and preliminary identifications made. Height wasrecorded separately for each of six classes sizes (SC).Defined size classes are presented in appendix 1. Speciesregeneration was assessed based on the numberof seedlings or young trees/shrubs recorded in eachplot.

The Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies (TES)Data were analysed with the MINITAB Softwareversion 13.31. MINITAB is a computer programdesigned to perform a variety of data analysis andpresentation functions, including statistical analysesand graphical presentation of data. More informationon the software can be found at http://www.minitab.comResultsThe results of the study are presented under fiveheadings: (1) perceived importance of the park tolocal people and NWFPs collected, (2) source species,3) species products extraction, (4) vegetationstructure and species regeneration and (5) NWFPsharvest constraints in the park and local people’shopes (aspirations?).(1) Perceived importance of the park to localpeople and NWFPs collectedNearly all our 120 informants consider the park astheir granary, their pharmacy, their place of worship,and their pasture. Reasons, which explain whypeople want to have access to the park resources, arediverse. The search of food products is ranked first(37% of interviewees). The search of straw for theconstruction is the second reason (22% of informants).Medicinal plants collection is the third reason(11% of informants). The same percentage said theyenter the park because nothing else is found in thevillage landscape. Collection of products for saleis the reason expressed by 9% of the informants;the search of fodder expressed by 6% and 1% ofthe informants said they enter the park because itis forbidden. These last informants think that theyhave the rights to get access in the park to collectplant products because this entity belongs to theirancestors and therefore to them. According to theseinformants administration, by creating a wildlife reserveand protecting it from villagers access give moreimportance to elephants, monkeys, lions, birds.(2) Source speciesWhen considering all CPU, about 134 plant speciesbelonging to 44 families and 103 genera are collectedin the park. Scientific names of the species includingauthors and uses are presented in appendix 2. In thehuman food, medicine, construction, commerce, artand craft, fodder for animals and customary ritualscategories of plant uses, 100 species belonging to40 families and 85 genera are recorded. The 10 topranked species with the number of time the speciesis mentioned include: Parkia biglobosa (114),Vitellaria paradoxa (109), Vitex doniana (108),Tamarindus indica (106), Bombax costatum (97),Paullinia pinnata (97), Sarcocephalus latifolius(97), Sclerocarya birrea (97), Saba senegalensis (95)and Adansonia digitata (94). The herbaceous speciesproviding straw (mainly Andropogoneae) areranked in second position (93). In the traditionalveterinary category of plant uses, investigation revealedthat (93 %) of farmers use part of plant foranimal health care. 39 woody species belonging to35 genera and 22 families are recorded; these speciesrepresenting 44% of the woody plant species ofthe Park. The most used species include Adansoniadigitata, Anogeissus leiocarpus, Balanites aegyptiaca,Parkia biglobosa, Pterocarpus erinaceus, Sclerocaryabirrea, Sterculia setigera and Vitex doniana. About122 different uses for traditional veterinary purposeshave been recorded.Picture 2. Vitellaria paradoxa (shea tree). Picture: BassirouBelem.Picture 3. Ftuits of Vitellaria paradoxa (shea tree). Picture:Bassirou Belem.

Belem et al.: Use of Non Wood Forest Products by local people bordering .......Picture 4. Flowers of Parkia biglobosa. Picture: BassirouBelem.Picture 7. Farmer with straw of Andropogon sp collectedin the park and transported by bucycle. Picture: BassirouBelem.Picture 5. Edible fruits, pulp and seeds of Parkia biglobosa.Picture: Sié Kambou.Picture 8. Farmer making rope with straw of Andropogonsp. Picture: Bassirou Belem.Picture 6. Parkia biglobosa fermented seeds used as spicefor sauces. Picture: Bassirou Belem.Edible fruit species are represented mainly by 34species including Vitellaria paradoxa, Adansoniadigitata, Tamarindus indica, Lannea microcarpa,Detarium microcarpum, Parkia biglobosa, Strychnosspinosa, Ximenia americana, Capparis sepiaria,Ziziphus mauritiana. Wild vegetables include Afzelia

The Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies (TES)Africana, Vitex doniana, Adansonia digitata, Ceibapentandra, Leptadenia hastata, Strychnos spinosa,Senna tora, Tamarindus indica, Balanites aegyptiaca,Maerua angolensis, Annona senegalensis, Pavettacrassipes Edible flowers plants are representedby Bombax costatum, Balanites aegyptiaca andTamarindus indica while tubers are represented byDioscorea sp. Leaves of Vitex doniana, Leptedaniahastata and Senna tora are considered as faminefoodstuffs, only consumed if nothing else is available(table1).Table 1. List of edible fruits, leaves or flowers species.Edible fruit or seeds species Vegetable including edible flowers Edible tuber plant speciesAcacia macrostachya Adansonia digitata Dioscorea spAdansonia digitataAnnona senegalensisBalanites aegyptiacaBoscia senegalensisCapparis sepiariaCeiba pentandraDetarium microcarpumDiospyros mespiliformisFicus surFicus sycomorus subsp. GnaphalocarpaGardenia erubescensGrewia flavescensGrewia venustaAfzelia AfricanaAnnona senegalensisBalanites aegyptiacaBombax costatumBoscia senegalensisLeptedania hastataMaerua angolensisMoringa oleiferaPaveta crassipesPiliostigma reticulatumPiliostigma thonningiiStrychnos spinosaTamarindus indicaLannea acidaLannea microcarpaLantana rhodesiensisParinari curatellifoliaParkia biglobosaSaba senegalensisSarcocephalus latifoliusSclerocarya birreaStrychnos spinosaTamarindus indicaTapinanthus globiferusVitellaria paradoxaVitex donianaXimenia AmericanaZiziphus mauritiana

Belem et al.: Use of Non Wood Forest Products by local people bordering .......The number of species that are used for humanhealth care is 66. Medicinal plants are used to treatfrequent diseases like malaria, cough, headache,diarrhoea, gastric pain, tooth pains, eye diseases,gastric parasites, haemorrhoids, rheumatism, sterility,stomach ache, backache, asthma, jaundice, ulcersand children’s diseases. House construction usematerial (poles, posts…) from 14 species. Productswhich are sold are provided by 12 species. Straw ofViteveria nigritana and branches Flueggea virosa areused for baskets and beds making while wadding offruits of Ceiba pentandra is used to make mattressand pillows and the leaves of Indigofera tinctoria areused in the manufacture of a bluish dye. The mainfodder species are Andropogon gayanus, Pterocarpuserinaceus, Lonchocarpus laxiflorus, Balanitesaegyptiaca, Khaya senegalensis, and Andropogonpseudapricus. Plants which are used for traditionalrituals (birth or death ceremonies) include 8 species.For example in case of death, smoke produced byburned Cymbopogon schoenantus straw that eliminatesbad odours. Species like Khaya senegalensis,Eleusine indica are used against undesirable fates.Crotalaria retusa could force chance when a manwants to marry a girl or when he goes for hunting.For traditional veterinary uses, branches of Acaciaerythrocalyx are used against animal tooth pains,to cure wounds and snake bites. Bark of Anogeissusleiocarpus combats diarrhoea, intestine parasites andwounds. Bark and leaves of Balanites aegyptiaca areused against placenta retention, wounds and insectsattacks. Leaves and fruits of Bauhinia rufescens are usedto increase milk production and abortion while bark ofKhaya senegalensis is used against constipation. Bark,leaves and fruit of Parkia biglobosa are used againstsnake bites, placenta retention and intestine parasites.Bark and leaves of Pterocarpus erinaceus and Sterculiasetigera are used in case of snake bites. Bark of Sclerocaryabirrea is used when animal horn is broken.Some species are multipurpose so that they are recordedin many categories of plan uses.Access to the resources of the park may often causedestruction of plant species, mainly the most valuableand therefore, harvest pressure could be a majorconservation concern. Rational solutions cannot befound without identification of pattern of extractionand constraints faced by farmers in collecting theseproducts in the park.3) Species products extractionSustainable use means the use of biological resourcesin a way and at a rate that do not lead to long-termdecline of biodiversity, thereby maintaining its potentialto meet the needs and aspirations of presentand future generations. When addressing NWFP,extraction, harvest and exploitation are used assynonyms (Kristensen et al., 2004). In many researches,sustainable extraction is defined as a level ofextraction that maintains the plant diversity, allowsspecies regeneration and without disturbing speciescomposition. The harvested plant parts or organsand the way the products are extracted can havenegative consequences on the resource base itself(vegetation structure and plants survival).Several patterns of plant collection in the park canbe found. Pruning is practiced to collect Bombaxcostatum flowers (for the preparation of sauce), Pseudocedrelakotchyi (branches as toothpicks), Khayasenegalensis, Pterocarpus erinaceus, Lonchocarpuslaxiflorus and Balanites aegyptiaca (for animal fodder).Fruits that reach their physiological maturityand that fall on the soil are sometimes collected.But there are also cases, where immature fruits fromspecies such as Parkia biglobosa, Vitellaria paradoxa,Vitex doniana, Diospyros mespiliformis, Detariummicrocarpum, Saba senegalensis, Vitex doniana,Tamarindus indica, are picked up. The exploitationof fruits, seeds or flowers could deprive species withseeds for regeneration. Bark is extracted to get fibersfor cordage and material for medicinal peels orto enable the exudation of gum that is sometimesused as incense. The main species concerned bythis practice are Bombax costatum, Khaya senegalensis,Sclerocarya birrea, Piliostigma thonnongiiand Parkia biglobosa. Practiced without particularprecautions this pattern of exploitation encouragesinfections or death of tree if they are girdled. Theextraction of roots concerns species of the Dioscoreaceaethat are exploited for their tubers. Rootsextraction for medicinal purpose targets species likeAnnona senegalensis, Cochlospermum planchonii,Cochlospermum tinctorium, Sarcocephalus latifolius,Boswelia dalziellii, Acacia gourmaensis, Acaciaseyal, Sclerocarrya birrea, Securidaca longepedunculata,Trichilia emetica, Grewia cissoides, Maytenussenegalensis, Ozoroa insignis, Lannea velutina,Ximenia Americana, Ziziphus mauritiana and ofthe herbaceous as Sansevieria liberica, Indigoferanigritana, Eleusine indica and Elionurus pobeguini.10

The Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies (TES)The scarcity of plant species like Ximenia Americana,Sarcocephalus latifolius, Annona senegalensis,Boswelia dalziellii, Securidaca longepedunculata...infields and in fallows may be caused by the overexploitationof their roots or by removal during cultivation.Cochlospermum sp (known as dribala in Dioula andsonsè in Moré) provides roots that are widely usedin Burkina Faso against malaria and jaundice. Rootsof Securidaca longepedunculata are anti-venomousand used against bites of snakes or scorpions.Picture 9. Cochlospermum planchonii. Picture: BassirouBelem.Picture 12. Securidaca longepedunculata. Picture: BassirouBelem.Picture 10. Cochlospermum tinctorium. Picture: BassirouBelem.Picture 11. Ximenia Americana. Picture: Bassirou Belem.Figure 2: Presents the proportion of used parts of plants inthe traditional veterinary category. For some species includingAnogeissus leiocarpus, Parkia biglobosa, Sclerocarya birreaand Sterculia setigera barks are exploited mainly formedicinal purposes. For Adansonia digitata, Balanitesaegyptiaca and Pterocarpus erinaceus leaves and bark areharvested. Vitex doniana is exploited solely for bark and root.However, in most cases bark harvesting is frequent.11

Belem et al.: Use of Non Wood Forest Products by local people bordering .......(4). Vegetation structure and speciesregenerationOur study has recorded 97 species that are distributedwithin 73 genera and 33 families. Thedistribution of the park’s whole woody species byclass of diameter and by height is presented in thefigures 3 and 4. As it can be seen, young trees andshrubs dominate aged ones; the recruitment - newindividuals joining the population, i.e. through birthor germination is good.Individual species inventories show that the degreeof regeneration varies from one species to another.Among the important species, Adansonia digitata,Saba senegalensis, Vitex doniana, Paullinia pinnataand Sarcocephalus latifolius are not recorded inthe plots. Balanites aegyptiaca, Bombax costatum,Parkia biglobosa, Pterocarpus erinaceus, Sclerocaryabirrea, Tamarindus indica and Sterculia setigerapresent a less than one individual seedling (d

The Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies (TES)DiscussionThe exercises we conducted have helped clarifyreasons for people to access in the park. Productsused by local people, source species, and patternsof harvest have been identified contributing tounderstand the inextricable link between peopleand the park. Results from structured interviewshave revealed which categories of plant use are ofimportance to most people. Likewise, the number oftime a species is cited by the informants can informon its importance (utility) to local people. Furtherstudies are needed to quantify the extraction ofNWFPs from individual species and the income itgenerates to local people. Combined with the vegetationsurveys, such quantitative data can be used todetermine whether harvest exceeds sustainable levels.The information would not only indicate plants ofconservation concern but also identify NTWPs withgreatest potential for increased incomes throughimproved harvesting methods or propagation andcultivation.Even though quantitative methods are recommendedfor future studies, we must keep in mindthat quantitative techniques cannot replace the needfor careful qualitative description and observationsof how people use the plant species and the products(Martin, 1995; Cotton, 1996; Theilade, 2005). Resultsfrom ethnobotanical investigations on the useof plant species depends on the skill and knowledgeof the informant, the period of the investigation(either corresponding or not at the time of theavailability of the products). The probability thatthe informant will reveal the source species, that issubject to harvesting in a protected zone influencethe results as well as the experience of the researcherand the way he conducts him/herself (respect forlocal people) during the investigation.The number of times a species is cited by the informantsmay indicate its conservation status However,importance for conservation is relative – if a speciesis heavily used and rare, the need for conservationmeasures is high; if the species density is high andregenerates easily, the need for conservation may below. The latter kind of species has not been foundin our study. Potentially important species may notbe cited if they are rare in the park so that residentswon't find them easily. Another reason could be thefact that the species has no uses or little uses. Erosionof the traditional knowledge on the use of plantspecies could be an additional reason. Knowledgeabout certain plant uses could only be known by afew individuals of a population, generally the elderones.There is a wide range of species from which productsare collected in the park; this illustrates the importanceof the park biodiversity. The presence of speciesusually encountered in fields and fallows in the parkcan be explained by the fact that some zones of thepark were villages and fields until the 1970s; humansenabled the regeneration of species like Vitellariaparadoxa, Adansonia digitata and Tamarindus indica.When comparing the useful species (accordingto our informants) and those actually recorded inthe plots, we conclude that 72% of source speciesof NWFPs are available in the park. Without thepark, bordering people needs on NWFPs are notfully satisfied. This finding suggests that the parkmanagement in collaboration with the local peopleis a priority task for the government.Inventories in the park show that some useful speciesrecorded in the plots are scarce with low density.But plant species decline cannot only be attributedto NWFPs extraction only. The scarcity of somesavannah plant species may merely reflect that thesespecies for a long period have occurred at a low density,because of lack of suitable habitat, because ofcompetition amongst plants, or because of fire andrambling animals (Kristensen et al., 2004). Inventoriesshow also that young species are more abundantin our plots suggesting that regeneration takes place;this good regeneration occurs with Anogeissus leio-Picture 13. Good regeneration of Anogeissus leiocarpusinthe park Picture: Bassirou Belem.13

Belem et al.: Use of Non Wood Forest Products by local people bordering .......carpus and Vitellaria paradoxa. One can argue thatthe current conservation measures undertaken byNaturama allow the regeneration of the plant species.But good regeneration may not be common forall the park vegetation units because we only workedin plots where plant collection takes place.For some important species like Adansonia digitata,Saba senegalensis, Vitex doniana, Paullinia pinnataand Sarcocephalus latifolius, regeneration isscarce. For these species, limiting plant harvestingcombined with in-situ conservation through eitherstimulation of the natural regeneration of the plantspecies or by direct sowing of seeds collected frommother trees found in the park may deserve moreattention. Ex-situ conservation by creation of nurseriesto produce seedlings of the rare plant species(especially those that are frequently mentioned byfarmers) with subsequent plantation in fields and inorchards should deserve a particular attention.Picture 14.Bombax costatumin the park Picture:In the village vicinities, Bombax costatum individualsare quite old, suggesting a lack of regeneration.The species' low regeneration has been found to becaused by over harvesting its flowers, depriving thespecies with seeds to allow regeneration (Guinko,1984; Kristensen et al., 2004). Vegetative regenerationby coppicing which occurs naturally must beinduced artificially for in-situ conservation of thespecies.Picture 15. Flowers of Bombax costatum. Picture: BassirouBelem.Lessons learnedDespite these restrictions, the study shows howstrongly bordering households depend on the parkfor their daily needs for NWFPs. As the study revealsit, there are some conflicts between the administrationand the bordering people; the conflicts takingroot from the fact that the full integration of thesepeople in the park management is not yet a reality.The expansion of human populations around thepark will inevitably result in greater demands frompeople for agricultural land and for the resourcesthat the Park seeks to conserve. Thus, it seems thatconflict between the Park and the people whoselivelihoods depend on park's resources will intensify.Conflicts create resistances (Gausset et al., 2003) andlead to local problems. Indeed, according to Chenet al. (2005), conflicts between biodiversity conservationand community development are caused byfactors including traditional perception of environment,illiteracy, poverty and weak social mechanismsof the local people. Poor households who struggle tomeet their basic needs may not respond to conservationprograms even if they are aware of the long-termbenefits associated with conservation (Shrestha etal., 2006). But as argued Leonard & Longbottom(2000), in land use system, conflicts can be a catalystfor change and bring practices up to date. It isan integral part of social dynamics because it caninstitutionalize certain social behaviour patterns bydemonstrating clearly the emergence of contradic-14

The Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies (TES)tory interests which then prompts changes in rulesand practice.To solve the problems related to the park management,Burkina Faso benefited financial supportfrom the Global Environment Facility (GEF) andthe World Bank. The Participatory Management ofNatural Ecosystems Project (PAGEN) in BurkinaFaso integrated the park in its program. The Naturamafoundation has been granted the concession ofthe park since September 1999. Through a contractof service and a protocol of collaboration signedwith the PAGEN, the project named PAGEN/ParcNational Kaboré Tambi took place. Naturamastarted a process of organization of the borderingpeople at village and provincial level. As a result ofthis organization process, a federation of the borderingprovincial associations of the park will be setup and be the future concessionaries of the park inreplacement of Naturama. The challenge remains todetermine the tasks of foresters in this new convention.A lot of questions also still remain mainly, thoseconcerning the place and role of the customary rightsin the process of the park management.For conservation and valuation purposes, we thinkthat the most frequently cited species may deservemore attention in conservation strategies, becausethey are probably used by a large number of people.But we should keep in mind that the conservationmay not focus only on the species which are themost frequently cited. For biodiversity conservationpurposes, rare species should also deserve attention.The diversity of plants which are used and the utilityof each species suggest that NWFPs valuation musttake into account this diversity and carefully selectthe target product/species. In species selection wemust keep in mind that product preferences mayvary according to the economic context and thepossibility of farmers to get local substitutes for eachproduct. The park management may be coupledwith ecosystems outside the park restoration (fallow,field, open access forests). Park management mustalso seek to develop fully functional co-managementrelationships with the local communities who arenowadays the users of the park resources and arecentral for managing the external ecosystems andtheir components mainly land and trees.The importance of valuation of NWFPs troughdomestication and marketing of the products cancontribute to direct NWFPs valuation process. Inthis respect some activities have been undertaken bythe PETREA project through growing the medicinalspecies in a nursery and plantation by traditionalhealers. This activity was well appreciated by the villagerswho think that they will be able to plant theirdesired trees in the village’s landscape and safeguardthe park plants species.The NGOs Tree Aid and Naturama together aredeveloping village Tree Enterprise in the study zone.This new programme is important for poverty alleviationand need support through the disseminationof the results of our study.Follow-upOur work underlines that local communities havecomplex relationships with the park that need tobe respected, understood, and taken into accountin all relevant decision-making and policy makingand implementation.What needs further attention is the transfer of theresults of our study to:- farmers in order to stimulate their participationin the park management;- Decision-makers in a manner that will increasetheir attention and application.The results of the study can be disseminated to localstakeholders in various ways including postersdescribing the main plant species and their uses. Inthis process, Naturama and other NGOs may becontacted for help because they work closely withthe villagers. The results of the study should bepresented when possible in workshops dealing withsustainable land use.Unsustainable NWFPs harvesting in the park isa great concern and solutions are needed. In thisrespect, a popular article will be prepared and disseminatedin newspapers of Burkina Faso. Studiesare in progress in the CNSF nursery and in forestsand fields to propose simple techniques of regeneration(by seed or by vegetative propagation) of someimportant species like Bombax costatum, Bosciasenegalensis, Securidaca longepedunculata and manyother species. The preliminary results are promisingand will be published and transmitted to the parkmanagers for application.15

Belem et al.: Use of Non Wood Forest Products by local people bordering .......For the case of forest policy and legislation, thisarticle shed light in the complexity to apply forestlaws in local context. The results of our study suggestthat the old paradigm in forest classification(national park creation) need to be revisited.ConclusionThe bordering people depend on the park resourcesfor their daily needs but the sustainability of theplant parts extraction is questionable. Instead ofspecies conservation, local people's pressure/activitiescould contribute to destroy some plant species.This situation does not only constitute a threat forthe biodiversity, but also a threat for the survivalof the communities that depend on the resources.Nowadays, the park management doesn’t satisfy allthe stakeholders in particular the villagers who relyheavily on forest products from the park for theirdaily needs.Conciliating environment and development forachieving sustainability necessitates that administratorsof the park try to re-establish dialogue andconfidence with the local people by integrating theirpoints of view in the definition of the managementplan. Information and advice of the bordering populationson the protection of the park is fundamental.It would be necessary to train organized farmers totake on the management of the park in collaborationwith the forest service and Naturama.Further research in the park could be centred amongothers on: (a) the determination of the seasonalavailability of the NWFPs; (b) the identification ofthe preferences of social user groups (men, women,traditional healers, tradesmen…); (c) the determinationof sustainable extraction techniques of the plantproducts; (d) the development of simple techniquesof in-situ and ex-situ conservation (sowing, stemor root cutting…) of targeted species. Appendix 2containing the list of the plant species presents possiblemethods of dissemination of each species; theseresults could be the starting points of conservationstrategies development; (e) Botanical inventories todetermine the dynamic and the productivity of differentvegetation types in the park are to be carriedout periodically; these inventories might take intoaccount all plant life forms and not only ligneousplant species. Yield determination is a useful tool forconservation and valuation of NWFPs.Improved regulation of the park plant products use,improved harvest methods of NWFPs and domesticationof the useful plant species may be combinedfor sustainable management of the park in poorpeople context. Therefore the challenge is how tointegrate ecology, sylviculture, law, economy anddecentralisation in the park management process.The success of this process will depend on all actorsincluding policy makers, technicians, local people,researchers and funding agencies.AcknowledgmentsAuthors thank the General Director of The NationalTree Seed Centre of Burkina Faso, the PETREAprogram, the Regional Director of Environment ofZoundweogo, the Environment Service of Nobéré,the NGO Naturama through Pierre Kafando, coordinatorof PAGEN/Parc National Kaboré TambiProject for support and collaboration. Acknowledgementsgo to the many people of Nobéré andneighbouring villages for support during field work.Mr. Belem Daouda is acknowledged for his translationassistance.ReferencesAssemblée des Députés du Peuple (ADP). (1997): Code Forestierdu Burkina Faso, 55p. Disponible sur http://www.environnement.gov.bf/textes/code-forestier.html.Arbonnier, M. (2000): Arbres, arbustes et lianes des zonessèches d’Afrique de l’Ouest, 2ème édition, CIRAD, MNHN,UICN.Aubreville, A. (1957): Accord à Yangambi sur la nomenclaturedes types africains de végétation. Revue Bois et Forêts destropiques, N°51. 23-27.Aubreville, A. (1963): Classification des formes biologiques desplantes vasculaires en milieu tropical. Adansonia (III) 2:221-225.Belem, B. (2000): Une évaluation ethnobotanique quantitativede l’importance des plantes locales utilisées par les populationsde la zone sahelo-soudanienne du Burkina Faso. Etude decas dans la province du Sanmatenga. Thèse M.Sc. Royal& Agric. Univ. (KVL) Denmark.Berhaut, J. (1967): Flore du Sénégal. 2è éd. Ed. Clair Afrique,Dakar.16

The Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies (TES)Bertrand, A. (1991): Les problèmes fonciers des forêts tropicalesafricaines: les fonciers de l’arbre et les fonciers forestiers Boiset Forêts des Tropiques (227): 11-16.Bognounou, O. (1996): La diversité biologique végétale auBurkina Faso. Aspects ethnobotaniques. Contribution a l´étudesur la monographie nationale sur la diversité biologique.Conseil National pour la Gestion de l'Environnement.Min. Env. et Eau.Bosch, C.H.; Siemonsma J.S.; Lemmens R. H. M. J. & Oyen,L. P. A. (2002): Plants Resources of tropical Africa/RessourcesVégétales de l’Afrique Tropicale. Basic list of species andcommodity grouping/Liste de base des espèces et leursgroupes d’usage. PROTA Programme Wageningen, theNetherlands.Burgess, N.; Per, W. K.; Mutke, J.; Brown, J.; Westaway, S.;Turpie, S.; Meshack, C.; Taplin, J.; Mcclean, C. & Lovett, J.C. (2005): Major gaps in the distribution of protected areas forthreatened and narrow range Afro tropical plants. Biodiversityand Conservation (14):1877-1894.Burkina Faso. (2003): Document de stratégie de développementrural à l’horizon 2015.Chambers, R.; Saxena, N. C. & Shah, T. (1991): To the Handsof the Poor. Water and Trees, Intermediate Technology,London.Chambers, R. (1995): Poverty and livelihoods: whose realitycounts? Environment and Urbanization 7 (1):173-204.Chen, Z.; Yang, J.; & Xie Z. (2005): Economic developmentof local communities and biodiversity conservation: a casestudy from Shennongjia National Nature Reserve, China.Biodiversity and Conservation (14): 2095-2108.Cotton, C. M. (1996): Ethnobotany. Principles and Applications.John Wiley and Sons.Cunningham, A. B. (2001): Applied ethnobotany. People, wildplants use and conservation. WWF, UNESCO, KEW RoyalBotanical Garden.Dahlberg, A. (2005): Local resources use, nature conservation andtourism in Mkuze wetlands, South Africa: A complex waveof dependence and conflict. Danish Journal of Geography(105)1: 43 -55.FAO. (2001): Produits forestiers non ligneux. Evaluation desressources en produits forestiers non ligneux. Expérienceet principe de biométrie, Rôme/Italie.Fontès, J. & Guinko, S. (1995): Carte de végétation et del’occupation des sols du Burkina Faso. Notice explicative.Min. Coop. Franç. Projet Campus (88313101). Univ. PaulSabatier (Toulouse) France.Foury, P. (1948): Principes de sylviculture topicale. Bois et Forêtsdes Tropiques 5: 19-25.Gausset, Q.; Ræbild, A.; Belem, B. & Dartell, J. (2003): Landtenure, forest policies and forestry practices in Burkina Faso.Some preliminary findings. In Soren, L. et al. (eds): Sahelo-Sudan Environmental Research Initiative. Proceedings ofthe 15th Danish Sahel Workshop in Tune, 6-7 January2003. Serein-Occasional Paper (15):133-153.Gregersen, H. M.; Arnold, J. E. M; Lundgren, A. L.; Contreras-Hermosilla,A. (1995): Valuing forests. Context, issuesand guidelines. FAO Forestry Paper 127. Rome.Guinko, S. (1984): Végétation de la Haute Volta. Thèse de Doctoratd'Etat es Sc. Nat Univ. Bordeaux III. France.Hutchinson, J. & Dalziel, J. M. (1958): Flora of West TropicalAfrica. Vol. I. Part 2. Second Edit. Crown agents for overseagovernments and administrations, Milbank, London.IIED. (2003): Les conventions locales au Sahel: un outil de cogouvernanceen ressources naturelles. IIED 1.Kjæer, E. D. & Nathan, I. (2000): Three approaches for integratingConservation and Development. Danida Forest SeedCentre. Denmark.Kristensen, M.; Guinko, S.; Boussim, J.; Hien, M. & Baslev,H. (2004): Sustainaibilty of multipurpose extraction of Bombaxcostatum and Detarium microcarpum in Burkina Faso.In: Kristensen, M. 2004. People and trees of a Sudaniansavanna. Ph.D thesis. University of Aarhus, Denmark. pp169 – 2003.Lanly, J. P. (1992): Les questions de foresterie à la conférencedes Nations Unies sur l'environnement et le développement.Unasylva 1971.Leonard, R. & Longbottom, J. (2000): Land Tenure Lexicon.A glossary of terms from English and French speakingWest Africa. International Institute for Environment andDevelopment. London.Lykke, A. M. (1998): Connaissances et préférences locales concernantles plantes ligneuses du Sahel au Burkina Faso. SERIENOccasional Paper 7: 71 – 83.Lykke , A. M.; Kristensen, M. K. and S. Ganaba, S. (2004):Valuation of local use and dynamics of 56 woody species inthe Sahel. Biodiversity and Conservation 13(10): 1961- 1990.17

Belem et al.: Use of Non Wood Forest Products by local people bordering .......Madsen, J. (2004): The role of applied ethnobotany in developmentprojects. In: Boussim, I. J.; Lykke, A. M.; Nombré, I.;Nielsen, I. & Guinko, S. (edts). 2004. Hommes, Plantes etenvironnement au Sahel Occidental. Actes de l’atelier de FadaN’Gourma, Burkina Faso. 6 – 9 décembre 2004. SEREINOccasional Paper 19: 329-333.Martin, G. (1995): Ethnobotany, a methods manual. Chapman& Hall, London.Ministère de l’Economie et du Développement. (2002): Cadrestratégique de lutte contre la pauvreté au Burkina Faso.Ministère de l’Economie et du Développement. (2005): Profildes régions du Burkina Faso.Ministère de l’Environnement et du Cadre de Vie. (2004):Programme Cadre de gestion durable des ressources forestièreset fauniques au Burkina Faso : 2004-2014. Composante 3:Foresterie rurale. Version provisoire.Nacoulma-Ouédraogo, O. (1996): Plantes médicinales et pratiquesmédicinales au Burkina Faso. Cas du plateau central.Thèse de Doctorat d’Etat ès Sc. Nat. Univ. Ouagadougou,Tome I,Nathan, I. (2002): People, Trees and Agriculture in Africa (PET-REA) research program: the case of Burkina Faso. SEREINOccasional Paper (13):19-31.Naturama. (1998): Plan de gestion du Parc National KaboréTambi.Naturama. (2003): Guide de découverte du Parc National dePô, Ouagadougou.Peverelli, C. (2002): Pharmacopée vétérinaire traditionnelle deséleveurs peuls de la région de Dori. (Burkina Faso). Univ.Lausanne, Inst. d’Ecol.PETREA-Burkina Faso. (2002): Identification des priorités etbesoins des populations de Nobéré et de Péni. Données derecherche du 17 au 30 avril 2002.République de Côte d’Ivoire. (1949): Arrêté N°1762 S.F.CH du3O Décembre 1948 fixant certaines conditions d'applicationdu Décret du 4 Juillet 1935 sur le régime forestier et réglementantl'exploitation et la circulation des produits forestiersur le territoire de la Haute Volta. Journal Officiel de la Côted'Ivoire, Février 1949, pp 86-92.Ribot, J. C. (1999): Décentralisation et Délégation de Pouvoiren Foresterie. In Unasylva 1999. Représentation et pouvoirresponsables dans la gestion participative et décentraliséede l'environnement.Sambou, B.; Lykke, A. M. & Goudiaby, A. (2003): La problématiquede l'implication des collectivités locales dans la gestiondes réserves forestières au Senegal. In Wardell D. A.; Reenberg,A.; Olsen, H. & Harpøth, R. (eds). 2001. SEREIN-OccationalPaper (16):125-136.Sheil, D. (2006): Scoring the Importance of Tropical Forest Landscapeswith Local People: patterns and Insights. EnvironmentalManagement Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 126–136.Shrestha, R. K. & Alavalapati, J. R.R. (2006): Linking conservationand development: an analysis Of local people’s attitudetowards koshi tappu Wildlife reserve, Nepal. Environment,Development and Sustainability (8): 69–84.Theilade, I.; Hansen, H. & Krog, M. (2005): Ethnobotanicalknowledge: is it useful in planning of participatory forestry?Paper presented at the Petrea seminar. Copenhaguen November2005.Toni, D.T. (1991): Schéma Directeur pour un plan d’aménagementdu Parc National de Pô dit Parc National Kaboré Tambi.UICN.Appendix 1. Plants size class definition.SC1: [0-1.30[; SC2: [1.30-5[; SC3: [5-10[; SC4:[10-15[; SC5: [15-20 and SC6: [20-25[. Diameterwere assessed using ten size classes in cm: sc1: [0-5[;sc2: [5-10[; sc3: [10-15[; sc4: [15-20[; sc5: [20-25[;sc6: [25-30[; sc7: [30-35[; sc8: [35-40[; sc9: [40-45[and sc10: [95-100].18

The Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies (TES)Appendix 2 Species exploited in the “Parc National Kaboré Tambi“ their uses andpossible method of artificial propagationScientific name Local name (more) Family UsesMechanism of dissemination1. Acacia dudgeonii Craib ex Hall. Gon-payandga Mimosaceae Hmed Seed, Shoot2. Acacia erythrocalyx Brenan Mimosaceae Tvet Seed, Shoot3. Acacia gourmaensis A. Chev. Gon-sabliga Mimosaceae Hmed; TVet Seed, Shoot4. Acacia hockii DeWild. Mimosaceae Hmed5. Acacia macrostachya Reichenb. ex DC. Zamanega Mimosaceae Hf; TVet Seed, Shoot6. Acacia polyacantha Willd. subsp. campylacantha(Hochst. ex A. Rich.) BrenanKan-pèlga Mimosaceae Hmed; Tvet Seed, Shoot7. Acacia seyal Del. Mimosaceae Tvet; Const; Art Seed, Shoot8. Acacia sieberiana DC Koumbrissaka Mimosaceae Tvet; art Seed, Shoot9. Adansonia digitata L. Tohèga Bombacaceae Hf; Hmed; Com; TVet Seed10. Afzelia africana Smith. Ex Pers. Kankalga Caesalpiniaceae Hf Seed, Shoot11. Agelanthus dodoneifolius Loranthaceae Tvet Seed12. Albizia chevalieri Harms Mimosaceae Tvet; const; Art Seed, Shoot13. Allophyllus africanus P. Beauv. Sapindaceae Hf; Art Seed,14. Andropogon pseudapricus Stapf Gnindparga Poaceae Fod; Const Seed, Shoot15. Andropogon sp Pitri Poaceae Fod; Const; Com Seed, Shoot16. Andropogon sp. Kangré Poaceae Hmed; Const Seed, Shoot17. Andropogon tectorum Schumach. & Thonn. Buka Poaceae Const Seed, Shoot18. Annona senegalensis Pers. Barkudga Annonaceae Hf; Hmed; Rit, TVet Seed, Shoot19. Anogeissus leiocarpus (DC.) Guill. & Perr. Siiga Combretaceae Hmed; Tvet Seed, Shoot20. Azadirachta indica A. Juss. Nim Meliaceae Tvet; const Seed, Shoot21. Balanites aegyptiaca (L.) Del. Kyeguelga BalanitaceaeHf; Fod; Hmed; Rit; Art;TVetSeed, Shoot, sucker22. Bauhinia rufescens Lam. Caesalpiniaceae Tvet; Fod; Const Seed, Shoot23. Bombax costatum Pellegr. & Vuillet Voaka Bombacaceae Hf ; Fod; Hmed; Com Seed, Shoot, sucker24. Boscia senegalensis (Pers.) Lam. ex Poir Lambotga Capparidaceae Tvet; Hf Seed, Shoot, stem cutting25. Boswellia dalzelii Hutch. Gonbregneongo Burseraceae Hmed Seed, Shoot26. Burkea Africana Hook. F. Caesalpiniaceae Tvet Seed, Shoot27. Calotropis procera (Ait.) Ait. f. Putrepuga Asclepiadaceae Hmed; Tvet Seed, Shoot28. Capparis sepiaria L. Lamboy Capparaceae Hf Seed, Shoot29. Cassia sieberiana DC. Kumbrissaka Caesalpiniaceae Hmed; const Seed, Shoot30. Ceiba pentandra (L.) Gaertn. Gunga Bombacaceae Hf; Art Seed, Shoot31. Chamaecrista mimosoïdes (L.) H. S. Irwin &BarnebyTingiundoiga Caesalpiniaceae Hmed Seed, Shoot32. Cissus populnea Guill. et Perr. Paloanga Vitaceae Art; TVet Seed33. Cochlospermum planchonii Hook. F. Sonsè Cochlospermaceaea Hmed; TVet Seed, Shoot34. Cochlospermum tinctorium A. Rich. Sonsè Cochlospermaceaea Hmed; Art; TVet Seed, Shoot35. Cola laurifolia Mast. Sterculiaceae Const Seed, Shoot36. Combretum collinum Fresen. Combretaceae Hmed Seed, Shoot37. Combretum fragrans F. Hoffm. Kiuginga Combretaceae Hmed Seed, Shoot38. Combretum glutinosum Perr. ex DC. Combretaceae TVet Seed, Shoot39. Combretum molle R. Br. ex G. Don Parwiga Combretaceae Hmed Seed, Shoot40. Crossopteryx febrifuga (Afzel. ex G. Don)Benth.Kumbruwanga Rubiaceae Hmed; Rit; TVet Seed, Shoot41. Crotalaria retusa L. Wendlébendaga Fabaceae Hmed Seed42. Cymbopogon giganteus Chiov Wam Poaceae Const Seed, Shoot43. Cymbopogon schoenanthus (L.) Spreng Sompiiga Poaceae Const; Rit Seed, Shoot44. Daniellia oliveri (Rolfe) Hutch. & Dalz. Aonga Caesalpiniaceae Hmed; TVet Seed, Shoot45. Detarium microcarpum Guill. & Perr. Kagadéga Caesalpiniaceae Hf; Com; TVet Seed, Shoot46. Dichrostachys cinerea (L.) Wight & Arn. Susutga Mimosaceae Hmed Seed, Shoot47. Dioscorea sp Tantagnoui Dioscordiaceae Hf Root shootting19

Belem et al.: Use of Non Wood Forest Products by local people bordering .......48. Diospyros mespiliformis Hochst. ex A. Rich. Gaaka Ebenaceae Hf; Hmed; Com; TVet Seed, Shoot49. Dipcadi logifolium (Lindl.) Baker Toctaba Liliaceae Hmed Seed50. Eleusine indica (L.)Gaertn. Targanga Poaceae Hmed; Rit Seed, Shoot51. Elionurus sp Mosaala Poaceae Hmed Seed, Shoot52. Entada africana Guill. & Perr. Séonega Mimosaceae Hmed Seed, Shoot53. Erythrinia senegalensis DC. Kulintiga Fabaceae Hmed Seed, Shoot54. Euphorbia poissonii Pax Tacsendo Euphorbiaceae Hmed Shooting55. Faidherbia albida (Del.) Chev. Zaanga Mimosaceae Hmed; Fod Stem cutting, sucker56. Feretia apodanthera Del. Kitinga Rubiaceae Hmed; TVet Seed, Shoot57. Ficus sur Forssk. Womsèèga Moraceae Hf; Hmed Seed, Shoot58. Ficus sycomorus subsp. gnaphalocarpa (Miq.) C.C. BergKankanga Moraceae Hf Seed, Shoot59. Flacourtia indica Willd. Kuduntabga Flacourtiaceae Hmed Seed, Shoot60. Flueggea virosa (Roxb. ex Willd.) Voigt Sugdin-daaga Euphorbiaceae Hmed; Art Seed, Shoot61. Gardenia aqualla Stapf et Hutch. Rubiaceae TVet Seed, Shoot62. Gardenia erubescens Stapf et Hutch. Rubiaceae Hf; TVet Seed, Shoot63. Gardenia ternifolia Schumach. et Thonn. Lambr-zuundga Rubiaceae TVet Seed, Shoot64. Gmelina arborea Roxb. Melina Verbenaceae Hmed Seed, Shoot65. Grewia cissoïdes Huth. & Dalz. Somcondo Tiliaceae Hmed Seed, Shoot66. Grewia flavescens Juss. Tiliaceae Hf; TVet Seed, Shoot67. Grewia venusta Fresen. Yoal-rataaga Tiliaceae Hf ; Const Seed, Shoot68. Guiera senegalensis J. F. Gmel. Wilinwiiga Combretaceae Hmed; TVet Seed, Shoot69. Heteropogon contortus (L.) Roem. & Chult Kuwéré Poaceae Const Seed, Shoot70. Hyptis spicigera Lam. Tintigliga Lamiaceae Hmed Seed71. Indigofera nigritana Hook Buguan-yénèga Fabaceae Hmed Seed72. Indigofera tinctoria L. Garga Fabaceae Art Seed73. Jasminum obtusifolium Bak. Oleaceae TVet Stem cutting74. Khaya senegalensis (Desr.) A. Juss. Kuka Meliaceae Fod; Hmed; Rit; TVet Seed, Shoot75. Lannea acida A. Rich. Sabtulga Anacardiaceae Hf; Hmed Seed, Shoot76. Lannea microcarpa Engl. & K. Krause Sabga Anacardiaceae Hf Seed, Shoot77. Lannea velutina A. Rich. Wam-sibi Anacardiaceae Hmed Seed, Shoot78. Lantana rhodesiensis L. Liulisibi Verbenaceae Hf Seed79. Launaea sp. Cotiga Asteraceae Hmed Seed, Shoot80. Lepidagathis anobrya Nees Gnug-nakida Acanthaceae Hmed Seed, Shoot81. Leptedania hastata (Pers) Decne. Lelongo Asclepiadaceae Hf; TVet Seed82. Lippia chevalerii Moldenke Wisaw Verbenaceae Const Seed, Shoot83. Lonchocarpus laxiflorus Guill. & Perr. Yiiga Fabaceae Fod Seed, Shoot84. Maerua angolensis DC. Zilgo Capparaceae Hf Seed, Shoot85. Maytenus senegalensis (Lam.) (Lam.) Exell Tokvugri Celastraceae Hmed; TVet Seed, Shoot86. Mitragyna inermis (Willd.) Kuntze Yil-yendé Rubiaceae Rit; TVet Seed, Shoot87. Moghania faginea (G. et Perr.) O. Kze Fabaceae Hmed; TVet Stem cutting ?88. Moringa oleifera Lam. Arzantiiga Moringaceae Hf; TVet Seed89. Nelsonia canesens (Lam.) Nagkiim-pusga Asteraceae Hmed Seed90. Opilia celtidifolia (G. & Perr.) Endl. ex Walp. Wagsalga Opiliaceae Hmed Uk91. Ozoroa insignis Del. Nin-nooré Anacardiaceae Hmed Seed, Shoot92. Parinari curatellifolia Planch. ex Benth. Piinobga Chrisobalanaceae Hf; Hmed Seed, Shoot93. Parkia biglobosa (Jacq.) R. Br. ex G. Don Roanga MimosaceaeHf; Hmed; Rit; Com,TVetSeed, Shoot94. Paullinia pinnata L. Nus-a-nu Sapindaceae Hmed; Com Seed, Shoot95. Pavetta crassipes K. Schum. Mokbiisri Rubiaceae Hf; Hmed Seed, Shoot96. Pennisetum pedicellatum Trin Kimbogo Poaceae Const Seed, Shoot97. Piliostigma reticulatum (DC.) Hochst. Banguin-gu Caesalpiniaceae Hf; Const; TVet Seed, Shoot98. Piliostigma thonningii (Schumach.) Milne-Redh.Banguin-gnaanga Caesalpiniaceae Const; Hf Seed, Shoot99. Prosopis africana (Guill. et Perr.) Taub. Mimosaceae TVet Seed, Shoot100. Pseudocedrela kotschyi (Schweinf.) Harms Siguédré Meliaceae Hf; Hmed; Com; TVet Seed, Shoot101. Pteleopsis suberosa Engl. Diels Guirga Combretaceae Const Seed, Shoot102. Pterocarpus erinaceus Poir. Noiga Fabaceae Fod; TVet Seed, Shoot20

The Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies (TES)103. Rytigynia senegalensis Blume Rubiaceae TVet Uk104. Saba senegalensis (A. DC) Pichon Wedga Apocynaceae Hf; Const; Com Seed, Shoot105. Sansevieria liberica Gerome & Labroy Kaantoabga Agavaceae Hmed Shoot106. Sapium grahamii (Hochst.) Par Tièlme Euphorbiaceae Hmed Shoot107. Sarcocephalus latifolius (Smith) Bruce Gwiinga Rubiaceae Hf; Hmed; TVet Seed, Shoot; Stem cutting108. Sclerocarya birrea (A. Rich.) Hochst. Noabga Anacardiaceae Hf ; Hmed; Com; TVet Seed, Shoot; Suchering109. Securidaca longepedunculata Fres. Pèlga Polygalaceae Hmed; TVet Seed, Shoot110. Senna siamea (Lam.) Irwin et Barneby Cassia Caesalpiniaceae Tvet; Const Seed, Shoot111. Senna singueana (Del.) Lock Gelponsé Caesalpiniaceae Hmed Seed, Shoot112. Spermacoce stachydea DC. Yod-raaga Rubiaceae Hmed Seed, Shoot113. Sporobolus pyramidalis P. Beauv. Gansaaga Poaceae Const; Com Seed, Shoot114. Sterculia setigera Del. Putermuka Sterculiaceae Hmed; TVet Seed, Shoot115. Stereospermum kunthianum Cham. Ninhilenga, Yoabga Bignonaceae Hmed Seed, Shoot116. Strychnos spinosa Lam. Katrin-poaga Loganiaceae Hf Seed, Shoot117. Stylosanthes erecta P. Beauv. Sakuisabliga Fabaceae Fod Seed118. Taccazea apiculata Oliv. Asclepiadaceae TVet Uk119. Tamarindus indica L. Pusga Caesalpiniaceae Hf; Hmed; Com Seed, Shoot120. Tapinanthus globiferus Welbre Loranthaceae TVet Seed121. Terminalia avicennioides Guill. et Perr. Combretaceae TVet Seed, Shoot122. Terminalia laxiflora Eng. Combretaceae TVet Seed, Shoot123. Terminalia macroptera Guill. & Perr. Koond-poko Combretaceae Hmed Seed, Shoot124. Trichilia emetica Vahl Kinkirs-taanga Meliaceae Hmed Seed, Shoot125. Uapaca togoensis Pax Euphorbiaceae TVet Uk126. Vetiveria nigritana Stapf. Ruduma Poaceae Art Seed127. Vitellaria paradoxa Gaertn. f. Taanga Sapotaceae Hf; Hmed; Com; TVet Seed, Shoot128. Vitex chrysocarpa PLanch. ex Benth Verbenaceae TVet Seed, Shoot129. Vitex doniana Sweet Andga Verbenaceae Hf; Com; TVet Seed, Shoot130. Vitex simplicifolia Oliv. Conpoandga Verbenaceae Hmed Seed, Shoot131. Xeroderris stuhlmannii (Taub.) Mendonça etE.P. SousaFabaceae TVet Uk132. Ximenia americana L. Leenga Olacaceae Hf; Hmed, TVet Seed, Shoot133. Ziziphus mauritiana Lam. Mugunuga Rhamnaceae Hf Seed, Shoot134. Ziziphus mucronata willd. Rhamnaceae TVetSeed, Shoot, layering, graftingLegend. Hf: Human food; Fod: fodder; HMed: Human medicine; Const: Construction; Rit: Rituals; Art: Art and craft;Com: Commerce; TVet: traditional veterinary; Uk: unknown.21

Use of Non Wood Forest Products by local people bordering the ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?