This article was downloaded by: [Universite Laval]On: 21 June 2013, At: 07:17Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Acta Botanica GallicaPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tabg20

Parkia biglobosa (Jacq.) R. Br. exBenth. harvesting as a tool forconservation and source of incomefor local people in Pendjari BiosphereReserveFifanou Gbèlidji Vodouhê a , Anselme Adégbidi b , OusmaneCoulibaly c & Brice Sinsin da Laboratory of applied ecology, University of Abomey-Calavi,02 BP 8033, Cotonou, Bénin E-mail:b Laboratoire d'étude sur la pauvreté et la performance del'agriculture, Faculté des sciences agronomiques, Universitéd'Abomey-Calavi, 01 BP 526, Cotonou, Béninc International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, 08 BP 0932, TriPostal, Cotonou, Bénind Laboratory of Applied Ecology, University of Abomey-Calavi,01 BP 526, Cotonou, BéninPublished online: 26 Apr 2013.

To cite this article: Fifanou Gbèlidji Vodouhê , Anselme Adégbidi , Ousmane Coulibaly & BriceSinsin (2011): Parkia biglobosa (Jacq.) R. Br. ex Benth. harvesting as a tool for conservation andsource of income for local people in Pendjari Biosphere Reserve, Acta Botanica Gallica, 158:4,595-608

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/12538078.2011.10516297

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The

accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independentlyverified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions,claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever causedarising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of thismaterial.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

07:

17 2

1 Ju

ne 2

013

Acta Bot. Gallica, 158 (4), 595-608, 2011.

Parkia biglobosa (Jacq.) R. Br. ex Benth. harvesting as a tool for conser-vation and source of income for local people in Pendjari BiosphereReserve

by Fifanou Gbèlidji Vodouhê(1), Anselme Adégbidi(2), Ousmane Coulibaly(3) and Brice

Sinsin(4)

(1) Laboratory of applied ecology, University of Abomey-Calavi, 02 BP 8033, Cotonou, Bénin;

vodouhefifanou@yahoo.fr

(2) Laboratoire d’étude sur la pauvreté et la performance de l’agriculture, Faculté des sciences

agronomiques, Université d’Abomey-Calavi, 01 BP 526, Cotonou, Bénin

(3) International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, 08 BP 0932, Tri Postal, Cotonou, Bénin

(4) Laboratory of Applied Ecology, University of Abomey-Calavi, 01 BP 526, Cotonou, Bénin

Abstract.- We analyze the contribution of Parkia biglobosa fruit harvesting assource of income for local communities around the Pendjari Biosphere Reservein Benin and the role that this exploitation plays in improving the conservationstatus of this species. We interviewed 124 farmers in five villages and conduc-ted field surveys on 80 plots of 50 m * 50 m. Results show that P. biglobosacontributes to 53% to family net income during its fructification period. Poorer,intermediate as well as wealthier households rely equally on the species. Itappears that land unavailability is an important factor which determines house-hold link with species. Very little evidence could be found indicating that harves-ting is damaging the resource. Therefore, for reproducible resources such as P.biglobosa, it would be possible to reconcile conservation and poverty reductionobjectives.

Key words : Parkia biglobosa - income generation - conservation - Benin.

Résumé.- Cette étude analyse la contribution de Parkia biglobosa au revenudes ménages de la Réserve de biosphère de la Pendjari (Bénin) et l’effet de l’ex-ploitation sur le statut de conservation de l’espèce. Nous avons interviewé 124producteurs et installé 80 placeaux de 2500 m2 pour collecter les données. Lesrésultats montrent que l’espèce contribue à 53% au revenu des ménages durantsa période de fructification. Aucune différence significative n’a été révélée quantà sa contribution au revenu net des ménages des différentes catégories deniveau de prospérité. La disponibilité de terres se révèle comme étant l’un desfacteurs déterminant la forte relation du ménage avec l’exploitation de l’espèce.Les résultats n’ont révélé aucun impact négatif de l’exploitation de l’espèce surla structure de sa population. Pour des ressources durables, il est donc possiblede concilier les objectifs de conservation et de réduction de la pauvreté.

Mots clés : Parkia biglobosa - confection de revenus - conservation - Bénin.

received April 12, 2010, accepted February 18, 2011

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

07:

17 2

1 Ju

ne 2

013

I. INTRODUCTION

There is an increasing attention to the role of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) as analternative to alleviate poverty while sustaining biological diversity. This interest is due toseveral reasons (Nasi & Cunningham, 2001; Arnold & Ruiz-Perez, 2001; Rietbergen et al.,2002; Fisher & Christopher, 2007; Wunder, 2001; Ambrose-Oji, 2003). NTFPs contributeto the livelihoods and welfare of populations living in and adjacent to forests. The exploi-tation of NTFPs is thought to be less ecologically destructive than timber harvesting andother forest uses (Ros-Tonen, 2000; Campbell & Luckert, 2002). Therefore, it could pro-vide a sound basis for sustainable forest management. The increase in commercial harvestof NTFPs adds to the perceived value of forest, thereby increasing the incentives for localpeople to retain the forest resource. Therefore, guiding and enhancing the use of NTFPsare seen as a possible approach to contribute to increasing livelihood security and povertyreduction, thereby providing incentives for forest conservation and sustainable use.

However, the relationship between poverty alleviation and biodiversity conservationhas been the subject to intense debate amongst academics and development practitionersfor several decades, yet consensus on how to reconcile these two disparate goals is far frombeing reached (Kepe et al., 2004; Roe 2008). The development assistance community hascollectively identified poverty alleviation as one of the Millennial Development Goals(Sanderson & Redford, 2003) but Roe and Elliott (2004) rightly suggested that theMillennial Development Goal and their implementation are unlikely to be effective forboth conservation and poverty reduction. But more recent approaches in research anddevelopment, however, see poverty and biodiversity management as intrinsically connec-ted (Kamanga et al., 2009).

Concerning the people living close to natural resources, in Africa, relatively few studieshave explored the relationships between NTFPs use and selected socio-economic attributesof the sample households (Cavendish, 2000; Ntshona, 2001; Twine et al., 2001; Campbell& Luckert, 2002; Cavendish, 2002; Ambrose-Oji, 2003; Shackleton & Shackleton, 2006).The application of a pro-poor focused ‘livelihoods approach’ to examining and understan-ding individual or household economies and the ways in which poor groups of people areable to improve their standards of living has emphasized the fact that natural resources areonly one set of capital assets available to and used by the poor as part of their livelihoodstrategies (Scoones, 1998; Farrington et al., 1999). More strictly, the contributions ofNTFPs to the total livelihood income range from over 50% (Narendran et al., 2001) to lessthan 20% (Campbell & Luckert, 2002; Ambrose-Oji, 2003). Therefore, the absolute valuesobtained differ between studies in relation to a range of contextual factors, such as proxi-mity to markets, currency power, diversity of resources available, abundance of keyresources, biodiversity, opportunity costs and the like (Shackleton & Shackleton, 2006).Many studies show that poor people rely more directly on forest resources than wealthyhouseholds and communities, even if the latter often may have a higher total income fromsuch resources (Cavendish, 2000; Vedeld et al., 2007; Kamanga et al., 2009). Such findingsalso fit into general policy debates over poverty and the environment (Wunder, 2001;Sunderlin et al., 2005): to what extent poor people and poverty are main cause of environ-mental degradation and to what extent forest resource can access help alleviate poverty?

In this paper, we examine, through a case-study from the Pendjari Biosphere Reserve inBenin, the potential role of Parkia biglobosa for sustaining the livelihoods of local peopleand the effect of species harvesting on its conservation status. The study is focused on thegroups of reserve adjacent people that are most likely to diversify their livelihood strate-

596

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

07:

17 2

1 Ju

ne 2

013

gies based on reserve resources. P. biglobosa (Fabaceae Mimosoideae), also known as néréin French and locust bean tree in English, is a multipurpose tree indigenous to sub-SaharanAfrica (Teklehaimanot, 2004) and is the most important food tree used in the PendjariBiosphere Reserve (Vodouhê et al., 2009). The objectives of the study reported here werei) to explore whether or not the exploitation of P. biglobosa by people living around thePendjari Biosphere Reserve was correlated with household social categories and ii) to ana-lyze the effect of species use on its conservation status in the area.

II. METHOD

A. Study area

This research was conducted in the Pendjari Biosphere Reserve in the northwest of theRepublic of Benin (10°30’ to 11°30 N, 0°50’ to 2°00’ E; Fig. 1). We selected five study vil-lages from the three main socio-cultural groups in the study area:Tanongou and Sangou villages forGourmantche ethnic group,Nanebou village for Waama ethnicgroup, Dassari and Tiele villagesfor Berba ethnic group. These vil-lages have similar level of accessto the natural resources in the parkand market, but different level ofaccess to land. Indeed, in contraryto Dassari and Tiele villages,Nanebou, Sangou and Tanongouvillages restricted between the pro-tected area and the mountain chain,suffer from a lack of land access(Fig. 1).

With the exception of theAtakora chain (400-513 m abovesea level) in the South of the reser-ve, the altitude in the PendjariBiosphere Reserve ranges from150 to 200 m above sea level. Theclimate is tropical with a sevenmonth dry period. Mean annualrainfall in the area is 1,000 mm.The main types of land-uses in theregion are savannah-land, cultiva-ted land and fallow land. Mostpeople in the study areas practissubsistence agriculture as theirmain source of income and food.Cultivated crops include yams,maize, sorghum, cowpea, ground-

597

Fig. 1.- Map of the Pendjari Biosphere Reserve in thenorthern part of Benin (West Africa). It illustrates thelocation of surrounding villages within which house-hold survey was done and different zones as sug-gested by Biosphere Reserve concept.

Fig. 1.- Carte de la Réserve de biosphère de laPendjari au nord du Bénin (Afrique de l’Ouest).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

07:

17 2

1 Ju

ne 2

013

598

nuts and rice (CENAGREF, 2005). Products from farming are often traded in local mar-kets weekly where local people exchange their products.

The communities surrounding the Pendjari Biosphere Reserve are estimated at 30,000inhabitants (CENAGREF, 2005). Local people live their traditional lifestyle and haveextensive knowledge of the wildlife resources of their area (Djossa et al., 2008). NTFPsplay an important role in their livelihood (Sinsin et al., 2002; Djossa et al., 2008; Vodouhêet al., 2010) although the degree of reliance on them has been unknown.

Nearly 43% of people in Benin live under the poverty threshold and 55% of poor peoplewould not meet their minimum food requirements in the country (Adégbidi et al., 1999;INSAE, 2002). The majority of poor people (59.1%) lives in rural area such as our studyareas where we have the largest number of poor people or people vulnerable to poverty inthe country (Adégbidi et al., 1999; Martin, 2000; FIDA, 2006).

B. Data collection

We conducted household survey in five villages bordering the Pendjari BiosphereReserve. Since socioeconomic position of household could not be assessed by a single cri-terion, we asked participants through a participatory rural appraisal exercise to categorizeall households into three different stakeholder groups based on criteria that they considerto help assess an individual’s socioeconomic position in the village (Adams et al., 1997;Adhikari et al., 2004). The concept of wealth ranking is based on utilizing local knowled-ge about people’s levels of wealth. People who live and work in the same village and whoknow each other are often a better judge of levels of wealth of a member of the village thanan outsider. In addition, local people may have their own concepts of wealth, which are notsolely based on cash income but other factors such as the amount of land owned, the num-ber of livestock owned, income from off-farm agriculture etc. In a wealth ranking exerci-se, key informants from the local communities rank their fellow villagers into differentsocial categories. The informants decide on their own definitions of wealth and social cate-gories. In this study local people used household socioeconomic attributes such as thenumber of livestock owned, number of yoke owned, level of accessibility to tractor for far-ming, loans given or received and income from agricultural activities. Informants dividedour sample households into three income categories: poor, intermediate and wealthy. In all,we visited 124 households (Table I) belonging to the three different income groups usingthe household questionnaire survey. The household head retains rights of household acti-vities, controls household income and expenditure and makes decisions on behalf of therest of the family members. In most cases household heads were male; however about 24%of households were headed by women who were either widows or aged persons.

Table I.- Characteristics ofresearch sample showingnumber of households pergender, social status andethnic groups.

Tableau I.- Caractéristiquesde l’échantillonnage pré-sentant le nombre deménages par type de chefde ménage, niveau deprospérité et groupes eth-niques.

Ethnic groups Gender Household social status Total

Wealthy Intermediate Poor

Berba (n = 42) Male 6 16 10 32

Female 2 4 4 10

Wama (n = 40) Male 10 8 16 34

Female 0 4 2 6

Gourmanché (n = 42) Male 14 8 6 28

Female 0 4 10 14

Total 32 44 48 124

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

07:

17 2

1 Ju

ne 2

013

599

Two months before the data collection, we tested our questionnaire in Batia, one of thevillages surrounding the park. The interviewers (one per village) were trained on how toadminister the questions. The choice of enumerators living in the studies village makesdata collection and increase participants trust in information that they give. We collectedthe data weekly from head of household and, previously, interviewers record informationon the household size, the sex of household head, his age, educational level and activities.We collected data about the quantity of seeds, pulp, bark, and fruits’ clove collected,consumed or commercialized each week and the time taken on each activity. We alsoconducted a market survey on three local markets (Tanongou, Dasari and Porga) to provi-de price data to supplement gaps in the household survey.

To assess the effect of exploitation on species, we established 80 plots of 50 m x 50 mevery 200 m along five transects of two kilometres. These plots were established equallyin two different habitat types: farms and fallows. We selected these habitats because parti-cipants during previous studies identified these habitat types as the most important sourceof P. biglobosa products. In the study area, fallows are abandoned farms for more thanthree years old (Sinsin, 1994). Within each 50 m x 50 m plot, we recorded every stem ofP. biglobosa, measured their diameter at breast height (DBH) for individuals with DBH >10 cm and recorded if they had fruits or flowers.

C. Data analysis

To analyze the contribution of P. biglobosa products (seeds, pulp, bark and clove offruit) to the household economy, we determined at the first step the household net incomeNI which includes cash revenue and the monetary value of goods produced and consumedby the household. NI is computed for a month as NI = (RSLG + VNG) - (MC + LC)where RSLG = revenue from sales of labour and goods (i.e. crops, P. biglobosa seed orpulp), VNG = value of non-purchased goods consumed (i.e. crops, P. biglobosa seed orpulp), MC = material use cash cost, LC = labour opportunity costs. Then, we determinedthe contribution of P. biglobosa (Cp) to household NI as Cp = RPB / NI * 100 where RPB= revenue get from P. biglobosa.

The mean household net income and P. biglobosa contribution values between the dif-ferent social categories identified were compared using an analysis of variance after appro-priate transformation as necessary to achieve data normality. For example, because Cp isa percentage data, we transformed the proportion (between 0 and 1) using Arcsin and seeif it normalizes the residuals. We reported untransformed means and standard of deviationvalues for each variable. We used a χ2 to test if there was any difference in the number ofhouseholds headed by women and the vegetation type exploited by participants betweenthe three social categories.

We used species density, diameter distribution and mean diameter as indicators of hispopulation structure in the two vegetation types (farm and fallow). Tree density (instems/ha) was computed as the average number of trees per plot. To establish the popula-tion structure, individuals DBH were grouped into classes of 10 cm interval. For each typeof habitat, we fitted the population structure data to a Weibull distribution (Bailey & Dell,1973; Maltamo et al., 2000; Feeley et al., 2007). The probability density function of theWeibull distribution for a random variable x (tree DBH) is f(x) = c/b[(x-a)/b]c-1e-[(x-a)/b]c

where x = tree DBH, a is the location parameter (10 cm in our study), b is the scale para-meter linked to the central value of diameters and c the shape parameter. The parametersof the Weibull function were estimated for each habitat using the maximum likelihoodmethod and stems diameters. Log-linear analysis was performed in SAS for each habitat

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

07:

17 2

1 Ju

ne 2

013

600

and between habitat to test the adequacy of the observed structure to the Weibull distribu-tion and to compare the structure of species’ population between the two habitats.

III. RESULTS

A. Household social categories

Wealthier households tend to be large families (13 ± 5.99 members/households forwealthy groups compared to 12 ± 5.96 members for middle income households and 7 ±3.34 members/households in the group of poor; F = 17.9; p = 0.0001). The householdmembers are engaged in many activities. The bigger the household, the more likely itsmember participates in more than one income generating activity including agriculture,livestock and commerce. Wealthy households have more sources of income followed byintermediate and poorer households (F = 3.8; p = 0.002). It also appeared that householdsheaded by female tend to be in poorer group than those headed by men (χ2 = 8.03; p =0.018).

B. Parkia biglobosa and households well being

Nearly 98% of participants harvest at least two products from P. biglobosa. The twomost harvested products used are the seeds and pulp. The seeds are processed and used assauce enhancer. The pulp of fruit is used locally in food and to make juice. Each house-hold uses a monthly average of 14.4 kg of seeds and 10.6 kg of pulp of P. biglobosa. Thereis no significant difference in the mean quantities of seed and pulp used between the threesocial categories (F = 0.08; p = 0.810). However, households from the Gourmantche eth-nic group harvest more seeds and pulp than other ethnic groups (Table II).

Parkia biglobosa contributes 53% to family net income throughout the period of pro-duction. There is no significant difference in species contribution to the households netincome regardless of family social categories (Table III; F = 1.37; p = 0.185). In average,poor households make a net cash income of 9,091 CFA and intermediate households make9,128 CFA. The richest households make the highest net cash income 9,380 CFA ($US 1~ 500 F CFA). Most of this income is used in household food spending (Fig. 2).

There is also a significant effect of land availability on the household income obtainedfrom P. biglobosa products harvest (Fig. 3; F = 26.48; p < 0.0001). While households witheasy access to agricultural land earn in average 3,818 F CFA ($US 7.64) per month, thosewith limited access to land make in average 9,617 F CFA ($US 19.23) per month fromP. biglobosa product harvest; independently to their social categories.

C. Main habitats for Parkia biglobosa products harvesting

Farms and fallows are the most visited habitats (by 98% of participants) for P. biglobo-sa products harvest. Independently of their social status, participants harvest more P. biglo-

Table II.- Mean quantity of seeds and pulp har-vested per households in each ethnic group.It shows that households from Gourmantcheethnic group harvested more products thanother ethnic groups.

Tableau II.- Quantités moyennes de grains etde pulpe exploitées au sein de chaque grou-pe ethnique.

Ethnic groups Mean quantity of Mean quantity of

seeds used (kg) pulp used (kg)

Berba 50.8 ± 54.13 25.1 ± 25.3

Gourmantche 54.0 ± 44.16 46.9 ± 34.8

Waama 14.4 ± 14.15 8.6 ± 9.32

F = 6.33 F = 13.2

p = 0.003 p = 0.0001

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

07:

17 2

1 Ju

ne 2

013

601

bosa products from farmlands than fallows (Fig. 4; χ2 = 5.7; p < 0.050), although P. biglo-bosa is less abundant in farms (7 stems/ha) than in fallows (10 stems/ha) and with smallertrees in farms (mean diameter d = 28.6 cm) than in fallows (d = 39.5 cm; t = -2.1; p =0.036). The number of the mature tree (tree in production) of P. biglobosa in farmlands isnot significantly different from those in fallows (Fig. 5 a,b; F = 0.6; p = 0.451).

D. Structure of Parkia biglobosa population

In the two habitats, the log-linear analysis indicates a good fit of the observed distribu-tion to the Weibull theoretical distribution (χ2 = 0.34, p = 0.562 and χ2 = 0.29, p = 0.588in farmlands and fallows respectively). The left dissymmetric distribution observed (1 < c< 3.6) mean a predominance of individuals with small diameter in each population (c =

Table III.- Contribution of income gotfrom P. biglobosa to household netincome in each social categories($US 1 ~ 500 F CFA). This contribu-tion didn’t vary between householdsfrom different prosperity group.

Tableau III.- Contribution des revenusobtenus de P. biglobosa au revenunet des ménages de chaque catégo-rie de niveau de prospérité.

Social Income got from Contribution to

categories P. biglobosa (F CFA) households’ net income (%)

Poor 5,028 ± 5,977 54

Intermediate 5,030 ± 6,244 54

Wealthy 4,936 ± 4,575 51

F = 1.37

p = 0.1849

Fig. 2.- Contribution of income got from P.biglobosa to household well-being. Thelarge proportion of income got from thespecies is used in household food spen-ding.

Fig. 2.- Contribution du revenu obtenu deP. biglobosa au bien-être des ménages.

Fig. 3.- Relationship between land availa-bility and household link with the spe-cies. Household limited in access to landrely more on the species independentlyof their social categories (F = 26.48; p <0.0001).

Fig. 3.- Relation entre la disponibilité deterre et le lien du ménage avec l’espèce.D

ownl

oade

d by

[U

nive

rsite

Lav

al]

at 0

7:17

21

June

201

3

602

Fig. 4.- Main habitat types for P. biglobosa pro-ducts harvested. Participants harvest more P.biglobosa in farmlands than fallows, indepen-dently of their social status (χ2 = 5.7; p <0.050).

Fig. 4.- Principaux habitats visités pour l’exploita-tion de P. biglobosa.

Fig. 5 a, b.- Relative proportion of fruiting tree in each habitat type. No statistical differenceswere found between the number of tree in production in farmlands comparatively to fal-lows (F = 0.6; p = 0.451).

Fig. 5 a, b.- Proportion relative d’arbres en fructification dans chaque type d’habitat.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

07:

17 2

1 Ju

ne 2

013

603

1.408 and 1.683 in farmlands and fallows respectively: c is the shape parameter of theWeibull distribution). Young individuals from 10 to 30 cm and from 10 to 40 cm DBH res-pectively in farmlands and fallows are the most represented (Fig. 6 a,b). Especially infarmlands, P. biglobosa individuals with more than 30 cm dbh are less represented andbeyond 70 cm DBH they are very scarce. However, there is no significant difference in thestructure of population between fallow and farmlands (χ2 = 0.20; p = 0.65).

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Household social status and use of Parkia biglobosa products

Most households in the Pendjari Biosphere Reserve were involved in more than oneincome generating activity. This diversification in sources of income may be an importantlivelihood strategy to have money over time or to prevent households from falling deeperinto poverty (Mahapatra et al., 2005; Howell et al., 2008). In rural areas in many develo-ping countries, with decreasing agricultural income, farmers are involved in many otherlucrative activities such as NTFP collection. In the Pendjari Biosphere Reserve, wealthyhouseholds with their large size were able to diversify their sources of income more thanpoor households did. This supports findings from Shackleton & Shackleton (2006) andKamanga et al. (2009) that households with more members had higher total income.Therefore, the diversification of the source of income could be an important strategy to

Fig. 6 a, b.- Diameter structure of P. biglobosa in farmlands and fallow adjusted to the 3-parameter-Weibull distribution. The observed diameter in the two habitat types shows aleft dissymmetric; characteristic of monospecific populations with predominance of indivi-duals with small diameter.

Fig. 6 a, b.- Structure de diamètre de P. biglobosa dans les champs et jachères ajustée à ladistribution de Weibull.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

07:

17 2

1 Ju

ne 2

013

604

fight against rural poverty.As in many other developing countries (Ellis, 2000; Osemeobo, 2005; Kamanga et al.,

2009), our result revealed that households headed by female tended to be poor. Thesewomen were either widows or too old with limited access to land. Most of their incomesource come from gifts and harvesting NTFPs such as P. biglobosa products.

All the three social categories in our study region relied similarly on P. biglobosa pro-ducts for their livelihoods. This is contrary to results from previous works which suggestthat poorer households in rural communities make greater use of, and are more reliant uponNTFPs than are wealthier households (Ambrose-Oji, 2003; Adhikari et al., 2004; Snel,2004; Mahapatra et al., 2005; Osemeobo, 2005; Shackleton & Shackleton, 2006; Fisher &Christopher, 2007; Howell et al., 2008; Kamanga et al., 2009). This difference in resultsmay be explained in part by the fact that our study focused on a single species that is themost used NTFP by people in our study areas (Vodouhê et al., 2009), while the previousfindings considered all NTFP species used by targeted community. For example,Shackleton and Shackleton (2006) in their study in the Kat River valley in South Africashow that a greater proportion of poor households were involved in the sale of one or moreNTFPs and they sold a greater number per household, compared to wealthy and interme-diate households. In the Pendjari Biosphere Reserve, P. biglobosa is an important econo-mic good and all people used it either for their daily consumption or commercialize itregardless of their status. The seeds and pulp, the most important products harvested fromP. biglobosa, are available at the end of dry season when everyone faces critical food shor-tage. This result confirms findings from Burke (2001) and Dalle & Potvin (2004) thatimportant resources are similarly used by every level of the community. In the other hand,one would expect the wealthy families that also have more members to be able to harvestmore and get more income from P. biglobosa. But their involvement in many income gene-rating activities reduce their link with NTFPs.

The equal access to the species in the Pendjari Biosphere Reserve may be also one rea-son for the non-significant difference in the link of different social categories of P. biglo-bosa products. Contrary to results that there is an unequal access to forest from whichNTFPs were harvested between different components of a community (Adhikari et al.,2004; Osemeobo, 2005), populations in the Pendjari Biosphere Reserve have equal oppor-tunities to P. biglobosa products. Apart from farmlands in which only land owners canallow collectors to harvest, P. biglobosa trees in fallows are under less restrictions. Thisallows poor households as well as other types of households to harvest the products as nee-ded. This type of land tenure or land access based on an equal access to a resource couldbe an important strategy in reducing income inequality between households in rural areasin developing countries.

Our study clearly show that land availability have important effect on household linkwith P. biglobosa. In areas where people have limited access to land, they harvest moreproducts to compensate their agricultural revenue. This explains why households fromGourmantche ethnic group harvested more seeds and pulp of P. biglobosa than other eth-nic groups. Indeed, people from Gourmantche ethnic group are restricted between the pro-tected area and the mountain chain and suffer from a lack of land access for agriculture(Fig. 1). The conversion of land in the protected area for agriculture is not allowed, whileland in the Atakora chain is stony and unfit for agriculture. This finding is consistent withreports from Murniati et al. (2001), Adhikari et al. (2004) and Kamanga et al. (2009) thatland unavailability is one of the most important factors that determine the degree of linka-ge between people and forest resources. Thus, the sustainable harvest of P. biglobosa pro-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

07:

17 2

1 Ju

ne 2

013

605

ducts may be an important source of income for people and will help them to compensatethe decreasing revenue got from agriculture.

B. Structure of Parkia biglobosa population

To understand the effects of human disturbances on forest ecosystems, it is necessary topredict how these disturbances will affect individual species (Bunker et al., 2005). Theassessment of human impacts on plant population dynamics is complicated by the need forlong-term monitoring data on population trends (Shackleton et al., 2005). For key speciessuch as P. biglobosa whose fruits (seeds and pulp) are important source of income andfood, it is interesting to use proxy method such as population structure to infer on the dyna-mics of their population. Our study of the population structure of P. biglobosa shows thepredominance of individuals of small diameter in the two habitats we studied. This sug-gests good recruitment in lower diameter classes within species populations in the twomost harvested habitat types. According to the previous findings, the high density of smallstems may be also the result of the high capacity of savanna trees to regrow after choppingvia coppice stems (Shackleton & Shackleton, 2000; Luoga et al., 2000; Shackleton et al.,2005). However, despite the high density of P. biglobosa in fallows contrary to farmlands,the harvest of these species products is more intense in farmlands. Indeed, P. biglobosatrees in fallows are under common property regime and it is difficultfor harvesters to maxi-mize their fruits harvest from these trees. Therefore, they prefer to rely on farmlands treeswhere they can exercise their property right. Tree on farmlands benefit more protectionfrom land owners who only can allow collectors to harvest it. These findings reinforce thesuggestion that users can often self-manage their commons without outside regulation(Ostrom, 1999; Burke, 2001).

However, comparing the population of P. biglobosa in the two habitat types, there is lesssub-adults and adults individuals in farmlands due to farmers’ management practice thatconsists of cutting of the oldest trees on farmlands. According to their experience which issupported by previous studies (Kessler, 1992; Tomlinson et al., 1995), the maintenance ofadults P. biglobosa trees in the farmland precludes the normal development of annual cropsin their immediate environment. Farmers interviewed believe that crops grown in the areawhere that species was removed yield very well. This supports the findings from(Tomlinson et al., 1995; Teklehaimanot, 2004) that P. biglobosa is important in improvingsoil fertility by increasing litter fall from the tree. Where trees have recently been cut orhave died, crop yields are often higher than in the open field, apparently as a result of thecombination of relatively high soil fertility and an absence of shading (Kessler, 1992;Tomlinson et al., 1995). Therefore, the high density of large stems in fallows contradicto-ry to farmlands supposes the reconstitution of the species population in this habitat type.Knowing the high pressure on the land in the area and the importance of farmlands as sour-ce of species products, it will be important to assist farmers to increase the species densi-ty in their farms.

With regard to our results, very little evidence is found indicating that harvesting isdamaging the resource. Indeed, despite the decrease of trees density from fallows to farm-lands, there is no statistical difference concerning tree production. The quasi-totality oftrees in farmlands and those in fallows are in production during the field data collection.This means that species fruit harvesting has not affect tree production. But the harvestingof seeds or fruits needs to be undertaken with caution, since heavy harvesting could havelong-term detrimental effects on recruitment of new individuals (Shackelton et al., 2005).Boot and Gullison (1995) and Peters (1999) have voiced concern over harvesting of fruits

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

07:

17 2

1 Ju

ne 2

013

606

from species in South America, arguing that even species that produce fruit in abundancehave shown marked reduction in recruitment and changes in size structure profile as aresult of fruit harvesting. However, detailed studies and modelling of other species haveconcluded the opposite, i.e. a large proportion of fruit can be harvested (e.g. Guédjè et al.,2003; Emanuel et al., 2005).

V. CONCLUSION

In short, the linkage between people and natural resources in relation to household socialstatus amongst rural communities should be subjected to critical assessment. We haveshown through the present study that when a resource gets importance all fringe of popu-lation are interested to use it. Therefore, when conservation ideas will concern species withhigh used importance, it will be useful to engage all fringes of the communities.Concerning the conservation status of the species, very little evidence could be found indi-cating that harvesting was damaging the resource. Therefore, for renewable resources suchas P. biglobosa it would be possible to reconcile conservation and poverty reduction objec-tives. But as showed by Shackelton et al. (2005), the harvesting of seeds or fruits needs tobe undertaken with caution, since heavy harvesting could have long-term detrimentaleffects on recruitment of new individuals

Acknowledgements - This research was supported by the International Foundation of Sciences, Stockholm,Sweden through a grant to Fifanou G. Vodouhê (N. D/4158-1). We also thank the Maison des sciences de l’hommeAnge-Guépin and Man and Biosphere – UNESCO for their financial and technical assistance. We thank Orou Gaouewhose useful comments and fruitful suggestions improved the manuscript considerably. Thanks are also due toUzoma Okechukwu, Romain Glèlè-Kakaï, Achille Assogbadjo and Wilfried Bonou for their helpful advice.

Adams A.M., T.G. Evans, R. Mohammed & J.

Farnsworth, 1997.- Socioeconomic stratification by

wealth ranking: is it valid? World Dev., 25, 1165-1172.

Adégbidi A., M. Ahohounkpanzon, E. Adjovi, V.

Houdekon, D. Djoi & S. Fagnisse, 1999.- Profil de

pauvreté et d'inégalité au Bénin. Cahier de recherche,

1, Université Laval, CREFA, 77 p.

Adhikari B., S. Di Falco & J.C. Lovett, 2004.- Household

characteristics and forest dependency: evidence from

common property forest management in Nepal. Ecol.

Econ., 48, 245-257.

Ambrose-Oji B., 2003.- The contribution of NTFPs to the

livelihoods of the ‘forest poor’: evidence from the tro-

pical forest zone of south-west Cameroon. Intern.

Forestry Rev., 5, 106-117.

Arnold M.J.E. & M. Ruiz Perez, 2001.- Can non-timber

forest products match tropical forest conservation and

development objectives? Ecol. Econ., 39, 437-447.

Bailey R.L. & T.R. Dell, 1973.- Quantifying diameter dis-

tribution with the Weibull-function. Forest Sci., 19, 97-

104.

Boot R.G. & R.E. Gullison, 1995.- Approaches to develo-

ping sustainable extraction systems for tropical forest

products. Ecol. Appl., 5, 896-903.

Bunker D.E., F. Declerck, J.C. Bradford, R.K. Colwell, I.

Perfecto, O.L. Phillips, M. Sankaran & S. Naeem,

2005.- Species loss and aboveground carbon storage

in a tropical forest. Science, 310, 1029-1031.

Burke B.E., 2001.- Hardin revisited: a critical look at per-

ception and the logic of the commons. Hum. Ecol., 29,

449-476.

Campbell B.M. & M.K. Luckert, 2002.- Towards unders-

tanding the role of forests in rural livelihoods. In:

Uncovering the hidden harvest: valuation methods for

woodland and forest resources. B.M. Campbell & M.K.

Luckert (eds.), CIFOR, Bogor, 1-16.

Cavendish W., 2000.- Empirical regularities in the pover-

ty-environment relationship of rural households: evi-

dence from Zimbabwe. World Dev., 28, 1979-2000.

Cavendish W., 2002.- Quantitative methods for estimating

the economic value of resource use to rural households.

In: Uncovering the Hidden Harvest: Valuation Methods

for Woodland and Forest Resources. B.M. Campbell &

M.K. Luckert (eds.), CIFOR, Bogor, 17- 63.

CENAGREF, 2005.- Parc national de la Pendjari, Bénin:

Plan d’aménagement participatif et de gestion 2004-

2013. CENAGREF/GTZ, 83 p.

Dalle S.P. & C. Potvin, 2004.- Conservation of useful

REFERENCES

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

07:

17 2

1 Ju

ne 2

013

607

plants: an evaluation of local priorities from two indi-

genous communities in Eastern Panama. Econ. Bot.,

58, 38-57.

Djossa B.A., J. Fahr, E.K.V. Kalko & B.A. Sinsin, 2008.-

Fruit selection and effects of seed handling by flying

foxes on germination rates of Shea trees, a key

resource in northern Benin, West Africa. Ecotropica,

14, 37-48.

Ellis F., 2000.- Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in

Developing Countries. Oxford University Press.

Emanuel P.L., C.M. Shackleton & J.S. Baxter, 2005.-

Modelling the sustainable harvest of Sclerocarya bir-

rea subsp. caffra fruits in the South African lowveld.

For. Ecol. Manag., 214, 91-103.

Farrington J., D. Carney, C. Ashley & C. Turton, 1999.-

Sustainable Livelihoods in Practice: Early

Applications of Concepts in Rural Areas. Overseas

Development Institute.

Feeley K.J., S.J. Davies, M.N.S Noor, A.R. Kassim & S.

Tan, 2007.- Do current stem size distributions predict

future population changes? An empirical test of intras-

pecific patterns in tropical trees at two spatial scales.

J. Trop. Ecol., 23, 191-198.

FIDA, 2006.- Œuvrer pour que les ruraux pauvres se

libèrent de la pauvreté au Bénin. 8 p.

Fisher B. & T. Christopher, 2007.- Poverty and biodiver-

sity: measuring the overlap of human poverty and the

biodiversity hotspots. Ecol. Econ., 62, 93-101.

Guédjè N.M., J. Lejoly, B.A. Nkongmeneck & W.B.J.

Jonkers, 2003.- Population dynamics of Garcinia luci-

da (Clusiaceae) in Cameroonian Atlantic forests. For.

Ecol. Manag., 177, 231-244.

Howell C.J., K.A. Schwabe & A.H.A. Samah, 2008.- Non-

timber forest product dependence among the Jah Hut

subgroup of Peninsular Malaysia’s Orang Asli. Environ

Dev Sustain, DOI 10.1007/s10668-008-9176-x.

INSAE, 2002.- Troisième recensement général de la

population et de l’habitation au Bénin. 48 p.

Kamanga P., P. Vedeld & E. Sjaastad, 2009.- Forest

incomes and rural livelihoods in Chiradzulu District,

Malawi. Ecol. Econ., 68, 613-624.

Kepe T., M. Saruchera & W. Whande, 2004.- Poverty

alleviation and biodiversity conservation: a South

African perspective. Oryx, 38, 143-145.

Kessler J.J., 1992.- The influence of karité (Vitellaria

paradoxa) and néré (Parkia biglobosa) trees on sorg-

hum production in Burkina Faso. Agroforest. Syst.,

17, 97-118.

Luoga E.J., E.T.F. Witkowski & K. Balkwill, 2000.-

Economics of charcoal production in miombo wood-

lands of Eastern Tanzania: some hidden costs asso-

ciated with commercialisation of the resources. Ecol.

Econ., 35, 243-257.

Mahapatra A.K., A.J. Albers & E.J.Z. Robinson, 2005.-

The impact of NTFP sales on rural households’ cash

income in India’s dry deciduous forests. Environ.

Manag., 35, 258-265.

Maltamo M., A. Kangas, J. Uuttera, T. Torniainen & J.

Saramäki, 2000.- Comparison of percentile based

prediction methods and the Weibull distribution in des-

cribing the diameter distribution of heterogeneous

Scots pine stands. For. Ecol. Manag., 133, 263-274.

Martin G., 2000.- Définition, mesure et appréhension glo-

bale de la pauvreté : cas du Bénin. Statistique,

Développement et Droits de l‘Homme. Montreux, 12 p.

Murniati, D., P. Garrity & A. Ng. Gintings, 2001.- The

contribution of agroforestry systems to reducing far-

mers’ dependence on the resources of adjacent natio-

nal parks: a case study from Sumatra, Indonesia.

Agroforest. Syst., 52, 171-184.

Narendran K., I.K. Murthy, H.S. Suresh, H.S. Dattaraja,

N.H. Ravindranath & R. Sukumar, 2001.- Non-timber

forest product extraction, utilization and valuation: a

case study from the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve, sou-

thern India. Econ. Bot., 55, 528-538.

Nasi R. & T. Cunningham, 2001.- Sustainable manage-

ment of non-timber forest resources: a review with

recommendations for SBSTTA. Secretariat to the

Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Canada.

Ntshona Z.M., 2001.- The contribution of communal ran-

gelands to rural people’s livelihoods in the Maluti dis-

trict. PhD., Cape Town, 200 p.

Osemeobo G.J., 2005.- Living on the forests: women

and household security in Nigeria. Small-scale Forest

Econ. Manag. Policy, 4, 343-358.

Ostrom E., 1999.- Coping with tragedies of the com-

mons. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci., 2, 493-535.

Peters C.M., 1999.- Ecological research for sustainable

non-wood forest product exploitation: an overview. In:

Non-Wood Forest Products of Central Africa: Current

Research Issues and Prospects for Conservation and

Development. T.C. Sunderland, L.E. Clark & P.

Vantomme (eds.), FAO, Rome, 19-363.

Rietbergen S., J. Bishop & S. Mainka, 2002.- Ecosystem

conservation, a neglected tool for poverty reduction.

WSSD Opinion Series. International Institute for

Environment and Development, London, UK.

Roe D., 2008.- The origins and evolution of the conser-

vation poverty debate: a review of key literature,

events and policy processes. Oryx, 42, 491-503.

Roe D. & J. Elliott, 2004.- Poverty reduction and biodi-

versity conservation: rebuilding the bridges. Oryx, 38,

137-139.

Ros-Tonen M.A.F., 2000.- The role of non-timber forest

products in sustainable tropical forest management.

Holz als Roh-und Werkstoff, 58, 196-201.

Sanderson S. & K. Redford, 2003.- Contested relation-

ships between biodiversity conservation and poverty

alleviation. Oryx, 37, 389-390.

Scoones I., 1998.- Sustainable rural livelihoods: a fra-

mework for analysis. IDS Working Paper 72. Institute

of Development Studies, Brighton, UK, 22 p.

Shackleton C.M., G. Guthrie & R. Main, 2005.-

Estimating the potential role of commercial over-har-

vesting in resource viability: a case study of five use-

ful tree species in South Africa. Land Degrad. Dev.,

16, 273-286.

Shackleton C.M. & S.E. Shackleton, 2000.- Direct use

values of savanna resources harvested from commu-

nal savannas in the Bushbuckridge lowveld, South

Africa. J. Trop. For. Prod., 6, 21-40.

Shackleton, C.M. & S.E. Shackleton, 2006.- Household

wealth status and natural resource use in the Kat

River valley, South Africa. Ecol. Econ., 57, 306-317.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

07:

17 2

1 Ju

ne 2

013

608

Sinsin B., 1994.- Individualisation et hiérarchisation des

phytocénoses soudaniennes du nord-Bénin. Belg. J.

Bot., 127, 87-103.

Sinsin B., A.C. Tehou, I. Daouda & A. Saidou, 2002.-

Abundance and species richness of larger mammals

in Pendjari National Park in Benin. Mammalia, 66,

369-380.

Snel M., 2004.- Poverty–Conservation Mapping

Applications. IUCN World Conservation Congress.

Sunderlin W.D., A. Angelsen, B. Belcher, P. Burgers, R.

Nasi, L. Santoso & S. Wunder, 2005.- Livelihoods,

forests, and conservation in developing countries: an

overview. World Dev., 33, 1383-1402.

Teklehaimanot Z., 2004.- Exploiting the potential of indi-

genous agroforestry trees: Parkia biglobosa and

Vitellaria paradoxa in sub-Saharan Africa. Agroforest.

Syst., 61, 207-220.

Tomlinson H., Z. Teklehaimanot, A. Traore & E.O.

Olapade, 1995.- Soil amelioration and root symbiosis

of Parkia biglobosa (Jacq.) Benth. in West Africa.

Agroforest. Syst., 30, 145-159.

Twine W.C., D. Moshe, T.R. Netshiluvhi & V. Shipugu,

2001.- Consumption and direct-use values of savan-

na bio-resources used by rural households in

Mametja, a semi-arid area of Limpopo Province,

South Africa. S. Afr. J. Sci., 99, 467-473.

Vedeld P., A. Angelsen, J. Bojø, E. Sjaastad & G.K.

Kobugabe, 2007.- Forest environmental incomes and

the rural poor. Forest Policy Econ., 9, 869-879.

Vodouhê G.F., O. Coulibaly, A. Adégbidi & B. Sinsin,

2010.- Community perception of biodiversity conser-

vation within protected areas in Benin. Forest Policy

Econ., 12 (7), 505-512.

Vodouhê G.F., O. Coulibaly, C. Greene & B. Sinsin,

2009.- Estimating local values of non-timber forest

products to Pendjari Biosphere Reserve dwellers in

Benin. Econ. Bot., 63, 397-412.

Wunder S., 2001.- Poverty alleviation and tropical

forests-what scope for synergies? World Dev., 29,

1817-1833.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

07:

17 2

1 Ju

ne 2

013