Africa 77 (1), 2007

FOREST MANAGEMENT, FARMERS PRACTICES AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN THE MONOGAGA PROTECTED COASTAL FOREST IN SOUTHWEST COTE DIVOIRE
C. Y. Adou Yao and Bernard Roussel
Southwestern Cote dIvoire is the home to plant life that naturalists, ecologists, botanists and zoologists alike study with special attention: dense humid forests. In the eyes of specialists such as Guillaumet (1967) and Schnell (1976: 127), the last remaining Ivorian stands such as the renowned Ta forest, and the many remnants of forest that dot the region, are precious vestiges of the primary forest ecosystems of the Guinea-Congo region of Africa. In this setting the Monogaga forest stands out, as the loveliest example of coastal humid forest in C dIvoire in the words of Ak ote e Assi (1997).1 With this description he justifies the measures taken to protect the forest in 1973. The Monogaga forest is now listed in the registry of 172 protected forests that constitute the states permanent forest domain, an essential component of the national natural heritage. Successive plans and schemes for preserving, restoring and extracting value from Ivorian forests have been devised, from colonial times to the present.2 The aim has been to halt the profound changes affecting

CONSTANT YVES ADOU YAO is Assistant Professor of Botany at the Universit de Cocodye Abidjan. He has participated in numerous research programmes on the tropical rain forests of Cote dIvoire (Ta, Mont Peko). In 2005 he completed his doctoral dissertation (Peasant Practices and Biodiversity Dynamics in the Classified Forest of Monogaga) at the Museum National dHistoire Naturelle of Paris within the Patrimoines, territoires et identit s e programme co-sponsored by the Institut de Recherche pour le D veloppement. e BERNARD ROUSSEL is Professor of Ethnobiology at the Museum National dHistoire Naturelle of Paris. He is a member of the research group Patrimoines, territoires et identit s of e the Institut de Recherche pour le D veloppement. His research is devoted to the local e management of natural heritage in tropical Africa (Niger, Ethiopia, Cote dIvoire). Since 1996 he has participated in the negotiations on the Convention on Biological Diversity (Article 8j). 1 A low-altitude forest (less than 130 metres above sea level), the Monogaga forest covers an area of 40,000 hectares, spanning two districts (Sassandra and San Pedro dpartements). e To date this forest has been very little studied from a phyto-ecological and environmental point of view. In addition to the pioneering work of European botanists such as Aubr ville e (1959) and Mangenot (1956), available sources of information are the more general studies by Guillaumet (1967), the more recent botanical inventories drawn up by Ak Assi (1997), e some cartographic data compiled by Chatelain and Piguet (1999), and a few notes in a recent study on environmental tourism in the Monogaga forest (B n et al. 1995). e e 2 Without much success it would seem, in the light of a recent and alarmist assessment issued by FAO in 2000, estimating the annual rate of deforestation in Ivory Coast at 3.1 percent. This extremely high figure is extrapolated from old data, and the study remains somewhat vague about the tools and criteria used to assess forest shrinkage (see the site www.fao.org/forestry/fo/country/index.jsp). For authors such as Verdeaux (2003), at the

64

FARMERS PRACTICES AND BIODIVERSITY

these ecosystems and their resources, changes that have been observed everywhere, sometimes leading to the complete disappearance of forests. The first steps were taken to protect fauna and timber resources that were threatened by mining in forested areas (Ibo 2000). The most recent decisions are now starting to address the fate of the human population that lives in the forests and depends on them for its livelihood. As early as 1978, the Ta protected zone was declared a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve, a status that enables and even encourages villagers to maintain certain activities around the central sanctuary zone. In 1973, when the Monogaga forest was first declared a protected area, the presence of certain indigenous populations inside the forest was allowed. These are the Wanne and Bakwe, peoples that belong to the Kru group, and who have lived in the region since the fourteenth century (Schwartz 1973). Rice planters as well as lagoon and river fisherfolk, they are also intrepid sailors who once embarked on European ships (the famous Kroumen). Since the 1970s, and following contact with immigrant settlers, they have begun to plant coffee and cocoa, and more recently oil palm and rubber trees. Since then the human presence inside the reserve has grown incessantly and clearing has continued, to the extent that the most recent management proposals, in 2000, could only recognize the cleared areas by declassifying them and granting them the official status of agricultural enclaves (Sodefor 1994). The most recent studies and suggestions that accompany the proposals focus on a new concern: conservation of forest biodiversity (Traor and Zoh 2003: 38). In the same way as in the Ta forest, since e the implementation of the German-Ivoirian Land Use Project in 1993, studies and assessments have multiplied throughout the region (see, for example. Radl 2000; Adou Yao 2000). The inventories conducted by Ak Assi (1997) in Monogaga establish an assessment of the flora in e plant cover, signalling rare and remarkable species in particular. More recently, the ECOSYN programme has inventoried vines and explored their diversity (B lign 2000). e e The emergence of this biodiversity standard in conservation goals requires a new vision for the management of protected forests, and casts the interaction between farmers practices and conservation in new terms. We have chosen to investigate this aspect here. Using the established tools of phyto-ecological analysis we have tried to evaluate the impact of farmers activities and those of Sodefor, the management company for the protected forest, on the biodiversity of woody species in the Monogaga forest. After identifying these practices and the areas where they are used, we inventoried species, counted plants and mapped vegetation at the sites for each type of management. These results, which are

beginning of the twentieth century forest covered 12 million hectares in the Ivorian forest zone; in 1990 they covered only 3 million hectares. After reconsidering different estimates, Fairhead and Leach (1998: 23) offer the following figures: in 1900 forest covered between 7 and 8 million hectares; in 1990 only 2.7 million hectares were left.

FARMERS PRACTICES AND BIODIVERSITY

65

presented in the second part of this text, constitute a first approach to understanding forest biodiversity in Monogaga today. They are analysed and compared, in order to characterize the impacts of different management practices, whether pursued by farmers or by Sodefor.
THE NATURE-PROTECTORS FOREST AND THE FARMERS FOREST: DIVERSITY OF SPACES AND PRACTICES

The Sodefor forest, a heritage to be protected and regenerated Faced with the diminution of forest cover, in 1978 the Ivoirian government divided forest spaces into two management sectors (Sodefor 1994; Ibo 2000). These are the Rural Domain, where agricultural activities and forestry operations are undertaken by actors from civil society, and the state-run Permanent Domain, made up of national parks, natural reserves and protected forests. All in all, over four million hectares (roughly 12 percent of the land area of Cote dIvoire) are thus theoretically not available for exploitation by the private sector. Management of this Permanent Domain is entrusted to the Department for the Protection of Nature (national parks and nature reserves) and to the Soci t de D veloppement des For ts (Sodefor).3 The latter ee e e is charged primarily with ensuring conservation of the habitats and ecosystems that have thus been integrated into the national heritage, by organizing rest/planting rotations, conversion of coffee and cocoa plantations, and reforestation. In the Monogaga forest, Sodefor has delimited zones for each of the major activities that the company is supposed to conduct (Figure 1). These zones are called series in official parlance (Sodefor 1994). There are two series: the protection series where all exploitation is banned, and the agricultural series where farmers are allowed to grow crops (Sodefor 1995). From the outset of its mission in 1992, Sodefor continued the destruction of infiltrated plantations and camps in the protection series, continuing the policy of the Forest and Water Resources Department that previously oversaw the Monogaga forest. But in an interview Lieutenant Dago, the Monogaga section head, conceded that these operations were ineffectual, because there were not enough guards for all the forests and all the illegal farmers (interview in San Pedro, December 2000). The farmers came back after the guards had left, restoring their plantations or creating new ones in the vicinity. In an attempt to resolve this problem, Sodefor proposed a land reapportionment plan in the 1990s, which quickly became a land-use plan in 1994. The conception and implementation of the plan were

3 Sodefor is a state company, and all its employees are civil servants. It has at different times been attached to the Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources and to the Ministry of Forest and Water Resources. Since 1996 Sodefor has been required to obtain some of its funding from its own activities, which explains, for example, why the company exploits timber from the forests it manages for its own profit.

66

FARMERS PRACTICES AND BIODIVERSITY

built on consultation with representatives of the villagers appointed to the Commission Paysans-For t (CPF) or Farmers-Forest Committee, e for the purpose of setting up co-management of the forest (see Sodefor 1994). The objective is to group the farmers in four zones that together make up the agricultural series. The choice of locations depends on very complex criteria that take into account environmental characteristics (proximity to the coastal road, nature and fertility of soils, water resources) as well as earlier occupancy and certain rules of access to land ownership that existed before the forest was protected (see Sodefor 1995: 2832). Thus it is planned that non-indigenous and foreign farmers, with whom Sodefor will sign individual exploitation contracts, will be grouped in Zone 4 near the new town of Moussadougou, named after one of the first Malink settlers.4 In contrast, indigenous farmers e retain control over the sharing out and attribution of the lands allocated to settlers, although Sodefor is entitled to give its opinion. Part of Zone 4 is allocated to the Bakwe ethnic group. Zones 1 (Z1), 2 (Z2) and 3 (Z3) are reserved for the groups of the other indigenous community, the Wanne. This new land-use plan takes ethnic lineages into consideration: the Bokoyo Wanne are grouped in Z3, and the more numerous Wuyo Wanne in Z1 and Z2. The siting of the groups follows a principle of proximity: farmers in villages and camps located in NorthSouth strips that cross the agricultural series are asked to cluster their activities in the series area. Many farmers have planted new fields in the zones designated by Sodefor, but most of them have kept their old homes, their old fields and plantations, and of course their places of ritual practice and worship. The Sodefor land-use plan also calls for subdivision of the protection series into different spaces called groups. The full protection group, also called a biological reserve (see Figure 1), is located on the seashore: it is a band two kilometres wide that includes the original village settlements, which have not yet been totally abandoned. The reconstitution group, also known as the reforestation group, is made up of spaces that are considered to be degraded often formerly planted crop fields or plantations. These plots are scattered throughout the reserve, and are planted with trees entrusted under contract to farmers who are expected to tend them, and who by way of compensation could continue to exploit their old plantations until 2005, without renewing them.5 At that date the land-use plan was supposed to come to an end. The last group, called the reserved natural forest (Traor and Zoh e

4 In Sodefor terminology, the indigenous peoples (autochthones) are the Wanne and the Bakwe. The non-indigenous peoples (allochthones) are settlers who arrived at different times in the past from other regions in Cote dIvoire (for example, the Bawle, the Anyi and the Guro). The term foreigners is reserved for migrants from other countries. 5 The trees planted belong to a small number of species, either exotic woods (teak, Tectona grandis L. and gmeline, Gmelina arborea Roxb.) or rapidly growing local species that are chosen for the commercial value of their wood (frak , Terminalia superba Engl. & Diels, and framir , e e Terminalia ivorensis A. Chev.). In their own words the farmers who tend these trees say that their work is a gift (cadeau) to Sodefor.

FARMERS PRACTICES AND BIODIVERSITY

67

FIGURE 1 Map of Sodefor series (zones) in the Monogaga protected forest.

2003: 38), is made up of all the other sections of the protected Monogaga area that are neither used for agriculture nor replanted by Sodefor, and that are outside of the agricultural series and the full protection group. These plots are the equivalent of the production series found in other protected forests in Cote dIvoire, a series that does not exist in the land-use plan for the Monogaga protected forest. Here the tree cover is currently so poor in valuable woody species that professionals judge that forestry operations are not worthwhile, an opinion that does not facilitate Sodefors efforts to become self-financing. In summary, Sodefors programme of conservation and management in the Monogaga forest has given rise to a vast and complex reorganization of the territory, separating spaces devoted to agriculture and forestry production from spaces reserved for conservation. This reorganization has produced certain changes in social organization: villages are reshaped and Farmer Forest Commissions are created. These two traits are found in almost all externally driven processes for the constitution of natural heritage, including the process that followed the decision to protect the Monogaga forest.6 These processes run counter to villagers perceptions and practices, triggering discontent and conflict. The Monogaga forest is no exception.
6 In these processes, the models, incentives and actors are for the most part found outside of the local circle. On this topic, see Cormier-Salem et al. (2002: 19) and, in the same collection, the article by Bassett on the territorial reorganization that has accompanied the installation of conservation sites in the vicinity of the Como reserve in northern Cote dIvoire. e

68

FARMERS PRACTICES AND BIODIVERSITY

The forest, heritage of the local population? I wish I knew why the villagers do not want to transmit the forest to their children, the Section Head of the Monogaga forest confided to us in a moment of discouragement.7 He was expressing his worry and bewilderment at the difficulty encountered when trying to obtain acceptance of and compliance with protection objectives. Clearing of trees continues, and the number of new settlers who are given land to work by indigenous inhabitants is far from diminishing; indeed it doubled between 1992 and 2002 (Traor and Zoh 2003: 15). e Indeed, it would seem that the densest and darkest forest cover is not what Wanne farmers like best. When farmers are asked what type of lands (tutu) constitute a desirable family inheritance,8 they give their preference to flooded lowlands that are suitable for growing rice, as well as cassava, corn (maize) and vegetables. Plots of this kind are always among the most valued, because they enable a family to grow the subsistence crops that are indispensable to its daily diet: rice and vegetables are produced by the joint efforts of men and women. Outside of these humid swamp areas, the quality of a plot of land in farmers eyes depends first of all on the nature of its vegetation. This determines the amount of work to be done to prepare it for planting. Recent grassy fallow lands (called piti) are much sought after, because they ensure immediate income with relatively little work. They are not suitable for plantations, however, and are particularly unsuitable for coffee and cocoa plantations that at the outset require the shade of thick tree cover and soil fertility that exists only when the land has lain fallow for a long period, at least 15 years. At present the crops that provide the best income are these cash crops. An inheritance that includes coffee and cocoa plantations in full production is therefore highly valued. Plots that offer thick shade cover are also appreciated, because new plantations can be created. But farmers prefer old fallow lands, ttklwoa, to kporo or black forest plots, spaces that have never been cultivated, or that no one remembers as having ever been cultivated.9 To hear the farmers tell it, during their development over the long period of rest from crop planting more than 15 years the soil of old fallow fields recovers a degree of fertility
7 Interview in San Pedro, December 2001. This query is echoed by that of Colonel Djrika, an influential member of the Wanne community: Our parents were born here, in this forest. We do not understand why Sodefor wants to make us go to lands that do not belong to us. What will we leave to our children afterwards? (interview in July 2002). In this discourse it is clearly the land, and not the forest, that constitutes patrimony. 8 The term tutu designates the territory as a whole, whether it is cultivated or not. Cultivated spaces are called ge, whether they are didi d ge (literally, field of vegetables that one eats) c where subsistence crops are grown, or cerad ge (literally, field of vegetables that one sells) that are also called plantations, where coffee, cocoa, rubber trees and more recently oil palms are found. Family inheritance is a translation of the wane term, t adja, literally the inheritance of the father. It is also sometimes called t deri, the riches of the father. 9 Which is not to say that the black forest plots are not exploited: within the framework of the lineage group people are free to hunt, pick, and gather firewood and wood for domestic carpentry purposes.

FARMERS PRACTICES AND BIODIVERSITY

69

equivalent to that of the black forest floor. When they are planted again these fields require less intensive preparation than the kporo plots; the woody strata are less dense and there are fewer big trees that are difficult to fell. Lastly, old fallow fields are much appreciated because, like fields and plantations, they are appropriated and inherited individually. Replanting them does not trigger the cumbersome process of attribution of land that has never been cultivated, which is held in common by the lineage group.10 It is also relatively easy, on these individual plots, to set up a guesthost arrangement with a settler, and contract out the agricultural work without having to submit to the exigencies of land chiefs. Conversely, black forest lands are never part of an individual inheritance: they are deemed to be a land reserve for future clearing, the common property of the lineage group (duwa). In order to request permission to plant them, a farmer must belong to the ethnic group and obtain authorization from the appropriate land chiefs, the tutu k ni. Depending on the location of a plot, in the lineage territory (duwa a tutu) or in the territory of lineage sub-groups (duwa kpi) that make up a village (diye a tutu), farmers must appeal to the High Chief of lineage lands or to his local delegates, the land chiefs for village sections. In either case, it is not always easy to convince the chiefs, and the rituals that they alone can ordain and accomplish for attribution and clearing of land can be very long and costly. Within these various nested territories, there are spaces that cannot be turned over to individuals. Some lands have the status of common property: to have access to the resources they offer it suffices to be a member of the lineage group or to live in the village. As an example, raffia palm groves, gl , are exploited by the community as a whole, for the materials (palm leaves and rachises) that are necessary for building villagers homes and the precious palm wine (banji) that is consumed as part of the cadence of daily life. While all villagers, even the settlers who have arrived most recently, can harvest palm leaves, only indigenous villagers have the right to draw the palm wine. Other lands are strictly reserved for sub-groups, but are not open to everybody: they are dedicated to the worship of tutelary divinities (djro), and generally date from the time of the groups arrival at the village location. Each lineage sub-group has its djro pl , literally, the gods share, and each plot is entrusted to a priest who carries out rituals and sacrificial ceremonies, harvests medicinal plants, gathers wild fruit and dead wood, and prepares the space for ceremonies.11 Certain woody
10 That is to say, in compliance with the traditional system of property acquisition, which is still at least formally in effect. In fact, in daily life, special arrangements and exemptions are frequent. Conflicts over property are numerous, all the more so because a vast reform of the Ivorian land rights system, based on establishment of individual property title and deeds, was adopted by the Cote dIvoire National Assembly in 1998. The initial implementation has generated a great many problems (Chauveau 2000). 11 These places of worship are generally set up upon the groups arrival by the oldest member of the lineage community, the d g ni, according to the instructions of the tabiyo, the

c c

70

FARMERS PRACTICES AND BIODIVERSITY

species that are needed for the ceremonies may be planted, such as the monkeys dinner-bell tree, Hura crepitans L. Hunting and clearing are forbidden, but in some villages gathering or picking are permitted. These sacred sites usually cover a small area (less than one hectare). Some are remnants of black forest (Mapri, Kpot and Monogaga, for e instance), others are old fallow fields (Madi ). At other sites the plants e found are coastal shrubs (dji gbu bru, in Kounouko), stands of Pandanus or Phoenix palms (in Kounouko), or sections of mangrove (kase ou za, in Doulay ko). Thus, even if the Wanne do not pay as much attention e to forest cover as the Sodefor managers would like, the lands managed by Wanne farmers still have woody cover. Black forest lands are the only lands held in reserve, with the rare exception of those that are sacred sites, part of the heritage of village lineage sub-groups. For Monogaga farmers, black forest was sometimes a promise of fields. Now it is above all a promise of plantation, but from this standpoint it is worth considerably less than old fallow fields. The status of old fallow fields is not consistently the same. In a sacred site they belong to the lineage groups heritage. Elsewhere, they are a highly valued land reserve, because they can be easily converted to profitable plantations, and remain individual property as long as the collective tradition remembers to whom the land belongs that is to say, who cultivated it most recently. Without a doubt the old fallow fields are forest for the Wanne, and are even their favourite forests, but they do not see them as a heritage to be handed down intact to future generations, but as a future plantation. Reciprocally, it is quite possible that for the Wanne plantations themselves are nothing other than a particular type of forest, a representation already identified in other cultural settings by Verdeaux (2003). However that may be, we will now turn to consider the phyto-ecological nature of old fallow fields and black forest in the Monogaga region, in order to compare the diversity of their flora. Complex assessment of a compelling objective: biodiversity conservation For biologists, biodiversity conservation in a given space means taking a certain number of requirements into account, pertaining to the very nature of the notion of biodiversity, including statistical and qualitative criteria. It is not merely a matter of maintaining a cohort of species in a given area (Primack 2000: 1011). The aim is also to preserve the diversity of communities and ecosystems, that is, to conserve existing plant groups and the habitats in which they emerge. As far as Monogaga

hunter-warrior who leads the migration. As an illustration, in the Kounouko territory a place of worship was set up by the tabiyo Bida in a coastal thicket of Pandanus (tropical Pandan tree) and Phoenix, when the village was founded around 270 years (11 generations) ago upon the arrival of the two related lineages he was leading, the Nowo djo and the G ro djo. The place is devoted to a cult to the divinity Djie ron, a python. A third branch of the lineage, the Sru djo, followed the first two groups in the final phase of the migration. After signs and divining trances (t nn) they chose their own site in a field of boulders on the seashore, dedicated to a divinity called Tpi, the white sailor. c c

FARMERS PRACTICES AND BIODIVERSITY

71

is concerned, currently available data are not sufficiently complete to allow identification of the various plant groups that make up the forest cover. Globally speaking, the Monogaga protected area is an evergreen dense humid forest (Guillaumet 1967; Avenard et al. 1971) within which Ak Assi (1984 and 1997) has distinguished a number of plant e groups.12 These pioneering studies are most valuable; however, they remain fairly schematic. For instance, they do not include modified forest cover such as ttklwoa in their typology.13 For this reason the results presented here pertain only to the species diversity within each of the study sites, all of which are located in interfluvial settings. To draw up the list up eight inventory sites (Table 1), we began by crossing farmers categories with Sodefors categories.
TABLE 1 Sites S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 Location and selection criteria for botanical study sites Location Popoko crossroads Popoko crossroads Canton village Monogaga village Canton village Doulay ko village e East Canton village Madi e Farmers designation c c kporo de djro pl kporo kporo kporo ttklwoa ttklwoa de djro pl ttklwoa ttklwoa Sodefor designation Agricultural series Agricultural series Protection series (natural forest group) Protection series (full protection group) Agricultural series Protection series (full protection group) Protection series (regeneration group) Protection series (full protection group)

To measure biodiversity at these sites, it is not enough simply to draw up a list of the species present. The assessment must also take into account the respective positions occupied by the individuals that represent the species.14 The Shannon and Weaver index (1949), one of the most widely used tools for measuring biodiversity and the one
12 Four in all: the Eremospatha macrocarpa and Diospyros mannii group, in low-lying areas; the Diospyros spp. and Mapania spp. group in the interfluvial zones; the hydromorphic soils group; and the coastal formations group. 13 In the terminology of botanists and phyto-ecologists like Ak Assi, old fallow fields e are secondary forest and black forest plots are primary forest that is old enough to have attained or regained a state of climax (Da Lage and M taili 2000: 236). It seems to us that e e it is very hard to characterize this state of climax, given the absence of historical distance and the fact that every space and ecosystem is affected by human encroachment, even if it is just hunting and gathering as practised throughout Monogaga. The only thing that is certain is that the black forest plots are older than the old fallow field sites. 14 Five inventories covering 100 square metres were carried out at randomly selected places, within each of the selected sites. Thus 500 square metres of woody vegetation were inventoried

72

FARMERS PRACTICES AND BIODIVERSITY

which we use for this work, combines taxonomic diversity and the relative importance of the various species.15 Equilibrium between the species, which gives a high Shannon index, is considered by many specialists to be an indication of high-quality biodiversity, capable of sustaining itself over time because no one species dominates over the others, and as a result the species ecosystems are more stable. A high index for an extensive plant cover and an average number of species reflects a situation in which all species are likely to possess enough individuals to constitute viable populations (Primack 2000: 122). A numerical assessment is not sufficient for naturalists and conservationists. They often attempt to complete this assessment by adding qualitative notations on the nature of the components that make up the range of biodiversity, looking for certain species, genera or even families in particular, to which they attribute a special value or significance. These are usually threatened or endemic taxa that is, those either rarely or only found in the regions, ecosystems and biotopes being studied. Myers et al. (2000) clearly express the prevailing opinion, seconded by the influential NGO Conservation International, when they suggest that given the high cost of conservation, these efforts should be concentrated on the hotspots where endemicity and the threat of extinction are the strongest. In this classification, all West African forests, and consequently the Monogaga forest, are included in the Guinean forest hotspot. Many researchers have proposed lists of taxa with special status. The criteria used most often are rarity and consideration of the dangers, primarily related to human activities, that threaten their survival (Primack 2000: 11819).16 Yet in consulting these lists it is hard to avoid thinking that other more subjective criteria have also come into
at each of the eight sites, for a total of 4,000 square metres. All woody species and palms were noted in each inventory. Botanical identification was done for the most part on site and by us. Samples of unknown species were taken and studied, and are now stored at the Botanical Laboratory at CocodyAbidjan University and at the Swiss Centre for Scientific Research in Cote dIvoire. The reference flora are Hutchinson and Dalziel (195472) and Aubr ville e (1959). Taxonomic nomenclature was updated using Lebrun and Storks botanical directory (19917). 15 H = Pi Ln Pi, where Pi = Ci/C. Ci is the abundancedominance coefficient of the species, C is the sum of the abundancedominance coefficients for all the species in a given inventory. To be thoroughly exhaustive, abundancedominance coefficients were attributed to all woody species and palms found during the inventories, whether they were represented by small individuals (diameter 10 cm, the limit under which individuals are often neglected in forest inventories), or by larger individuals. The abundancedominance values are divided into six classes from + (rare individuals covering less than 10 percent of the surface area) to 5 (numerous or few individuals, distributed over at least three quarters of the area surveyed) (cf. Guillaumet 1967: 31). To make calculations easier the value of coefficients is usually modified on a scale from 1 to 6 without changing either the definition or the limits of the six classes. 16 For example, in recent publications on the vegetation of Ghana, Hawthorne (1995) proposes a classification of species and a nomenclature that combine criteria of rarity and of endemicity. The star species, as Hawthorne calls them, include the very rare gold stars, the rare black stars, and also green stars, somewhat more common. This method is beginning

FARMERS PRACTICES AND BIODIVERSITY

73

play, more or less openly. Plants of exceptional scientific interest, from a systematic or phylogenetic standpoint (archaic families or groups such as tree ferns or Cycadatae, or species with aesthetic qualities, such as those in the Orchidaceae family) are always well represented in these lists. This is probably why none of these classifications is unanimously accepted. They enjoy different fates, depending on whether they are adopted by major players in conservation, or not. The lists adopted by CITES (The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, signed and ratified by C dIvoire in 1994) in ote its famous Annexes, or those drawn up by Conservation International, clearly attract much attention. We have chosen our lists from those most widely used in our study region. The IUCN (World Conservation Union) Red List (2002) often serves as the reference list in studies pertaining to Cote dIvoire; in particular it lists rare woody species on the scale of the entire country. This list is not identical to the second list we have chosen. The second list, which more clearly takes local usages into account and anticipates their impacts, was drawn up by Ak Assi, a highly knowledgeable and recognized specialist on Ivoirian e flora (1988). His list includes plants that IUCN does not consider to be threatened but which Assi thinks are at risk of becoming rare, given the extent of their use. In all local studies like ours, specialists are particularly attentive to taxa that provide information on the chorological links between the plants being studied and neighbouring formations, and a contrario on their uniqueness in regional ensembles. One of the major questions raised by biogeographers working in southwestern Cote dIvoire is whether the forests belong to the large ensembles recognized on the scale of all Upper Guinea, within the Guinea-Congo domain. Certain species, called Sassandrian by Mangenot in 1956, are particularly sought after, because they constitute an original feature of the forest that emerges between the Cavally and Sassandra rivers and to which the protected Monogaga forest belongs (Guillaumet 1967: 145; Ak Assi e 1984, 1997). It is understandable that conservation policies should try to protect these remarkable plants listed in Guillaumets inventory of 175 species (1967). Likewise, a manager may well take an interest in endemic species. In the eyes of naturalists the presence of endemic species can constitute, in and of itself, justification for local implementation of conservation at a site, since such species are found only in certain limited zones. Both Ak Assi and Guillaumet propose lists of endemic species. Guillaumets e list covers all of west Africa. Ak Assis list completes the former and e specifies the endemic species that are present only in C dIvoire. ote In our study we merged these two lists to give an idea of how the Monogaga forest contributes to species conservation in general for this part of Africa.

to be used to justify protection of certain ecosystems, or the conservation value of certain reserves; see work done on the Ta forest (Adou Yao 2002).

74

FARMERS PRACTICES AND BIODIVERSITY

Before presenting and commenting on our results, we would like to emphasize that the originality of our approach consists in applying the classic descriptive and analytical tools of phyto-ecological and biogeographical studies to plant categories recognized by users, whether they be Wanne farmers or Sodefor managers. These tools are inventories of flora, biodiversity indices, endemicity rates, and the prevalence of Sassandrian and rare and threatened species (IUCN and Ak Assi). e The goal is to characterize and compare the impacts of the different land-use and resource management practices we have identified.
BIODIVERSITY AND SPECIES WITH SPECIAL STATUS IN THE MONOGAGA FOREST COVER

Because of the small number of study sites and inventories we must be prudent in interpreting the observations recorded and their results, and above all in drawing general conclusions from them. The present study is primarily useful as a test. It enables us to check the relevance of the botanical criteria used and to identify trends that will have to be confirmed or disproved in the future, with a larger number of study sites and inventories.
TABLE 2 Diversity and number of species with special status at the study sites Sites Black forest S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 RS 48 34 50 34 51 38 59 30 H 3,68 3,42 3,68 3,36 3,81 3,54 3,76 3,11 AA 1 3 1 1 3 3 2 2 IUCN 3 1 3 3 0 2 3 1 Endemic species 5 11 15 10 11 4 9 6 SASS. 2 1 1 3 4 0 2 2 Total 8 12 15 11 14 8 11 8

Old fallow fields

Key: RS: specific richness (number of species present in all inventories for each site); H : Shannon and Weaver diversity index; AA: rare and threatened species from the Ak Assi list; IUCN: rare and threatened species from the IUCN list; Endemic e species: species found only in West Africa; Sass.: species typical of the Sassandrian forest aspect; Total: total of all special-status species (AA + IUCN + endemic species + Sass.).

Looking at specific richness site by site, it can first be noted that old fallow fields are generally richer than black forest (Table 2), whether they belong to farmers or to Sodefor (Table 3). This is hardly surprising, and has already been highlighted by other authors for various tropical forest settings.17 Forests that grow back after cultivation has been abandoned
17 See, for instance, work done by Alexandre et al. (1978), Kahn (1982) or Davies and Richards (1991). Other work proves the opposite. Parthasarathy (1999) demonstrates that for three Indian village forests, the specific richness and diversity of flora are higher at the sites least modified by human activity.

FARMERS PRACTICES AND BIODIVERSITY

75

TABLE 3 Diversity and number of species with special status at Sodefor and Wanne sites Sites Types RS Average H AA IUCN 74 3,55 0,18 78 3,52 0,23 87 3,68 0,19 80 3,44 0,46 4 1 5 2 4 5 2 3 Endemic species SASS. Total 15 22 14 13 3 3 4 3 19 23 19 16

S1S2 Wanne kporo S3S4 Sodefor kporo S5S6 Wanne ttklwoa S7S8 Sodefor ttklwoa

Key: RS: specific richness (number of species present in all inventories for each site); H : Shannon and Weaver diversity index; AA: rare and threatened species from the Ak Assi list; IUCN: rare and threatened species from the IUCN list; Endemic e species: species found only in West Africa; Sass.: species typical of the Sassandrian forest aspect; Total: total of all special-status species (AA + IUCN + endemic species + Sass.).

contain many pioneer species, heliophilous (for instance Macaranga barteri Mull. Arg. or Ficus exasperata Vahl,) or anthropophilic (for instance Elaeis guineensis Jacq., oil palm, and Cocos nucifera L., coconut tree) that ultimately disappear when the forest cover ages, and are replaced by other species that are characteristic of black forest.18 The small discrepancy registered at Monogaga could mean that its black forest plots are already so profoundly modified that the composition of their flora differs little from that of old fallow fields. Future studies, inventorying more spaces, will provide more detailed information. One of the old fallow fields we inventoried seems to be an exception to the rule (site 8): it is poorer in number of species than any other vegetation site studied, including black forest plots. This site is located in the Sodefor full protection group, but is very close to villages, and is therefore probably subject to strong human pressure that depletes the woody cover. Another of these old fallow fields (S6) is a sacred site also located within the Sodefor full protection group. Cultivation was abandoned and the site consecrated a long time ago, according to the villagers, who say the change was contemporaneous with the establishment of the village, six generations ago. The depleted cover leads one to question the effectiveness of restrictions on access, whether they are inspired by religious considerations or enacted by official conservation authorities. In any event, this change is certainly in large part due to the particular nature of the substrate, which has become brackish with the recent emergence of a lagoon, leading to a depletion of woody cover. We also note that the S7 site (Table 2), where Sodefor has started regenerative planting on an old fallow field, is the richest of all our sites.
18 Those most frequently encountered are: Chlamydocola chlamydantha (K.Schum.), Dacryodes klaineana (Pierre) Lam., Diospyros gabunensis Gurke, Diospyros sanza-minika A. Chev., Drypetes ivorensis Hutch. and Dalz., Strombosia pustulata Oliv.

76

FARMERS PRACTICES AND BIODIVERSITY

Looking more closely at the black forest plots in our sample, we see the same specific richness whether they are managed by Sodefor or held as farmers land reserves. Their respective floras show no distinct differences, and they have similar physiognomies. They are all forests with five tree and shrub strata; of these, the lower and middle strata are relatively thin. This structure distinguishes them quite clearly from the woody cover of old fallow fields, where there are as many strata, but the highest are thinner and the lower strata are crowded with vines and thick bushes. The calculated diversity indices change our outlook somewhat: here it is difficult to make a clear distinction between old fallow fields and black forest plots. On average the diversity in the former is hardly different from that of the latter in our sample (Table 3). The lowest index (S8), and the two highest (S5 and S7) are found at fallow sites. The first of these, managed by Sodefor, is also located close to a village: it has the lowest specific richness of all the sites in our sample. Conversely, we also remark that the richest site, from the standpoint of flora, is S7 (an old fallow field replanted by Sodefor, Table 2), but it is not the most highly diversified. In other words, these observations suggest that while reforestation increases specific richness, as noted above, it does not favour an equitable distribution of species. Our analysis did not turn up evidence of any particular conditions linked to sacralization. Whether black forest plots or old fallow fields, the biodiversity of plots within the djro pl areas is not quantitatively different from that of plots outside. Likewise, the biodiversity index shows no particular impact due to Sodefor management, within the range of our sample. Comparing our different sites from the standpoint of special-status species, we observe first of all that, taken all together, they include almost the same number of rare species, whether according to the IUCN list (11 species) or the Ak Assi list (10 species: see Appendices e 1 and 2). While the old fallow fields contain as many rare species according to the Ak Assi classification as according to the IUCN list (see Table 4), e more importantly they include rare species, listed in both, that are not found in other forests (see Appendices 1 and 2). Among these is iroko (Milicia excelsa) that furnishes a wood valued by carpenters. In other words, it appears that the second-growth areas in Monogaga are of some utility in the conservation of rare species, although this needs to be confirmed by a more wide-ranging study. Table 3 shows that the old fallow fields and the black forest plots belonging to farmers have more rare Ak Assi species than the e equivalent Sodefor plots. Looking at this list, the old fallow field sites are the richest. The situation is the opposite for rare species listed by IUCN. This paradox, if confirmed, demonstrates that the criteria used for rarity are a determining factor in evaluating a site in terms of conservation of rare species. The number of Ak Assi species observed e in Monogaga can perhaps be explained by the very nature of the criteria used to draw up this list. The species designated as rare are plants c

FARMERS PRACTICES AND BIODIVERSITY

77

thought to be threatened because they are widely used. It is therefore to be expected that they would be found more often in old fallows, spaces that have been heavily modified and exploited, and that are more frequently visited by farmers than black forest plants.
TABLE 4 Number of rare species encountered for each recognized category of space Old fallow Managed Managed by Sacred Non-sacred Forests fields by farmers Sodefor sites sites IUCN list Ak Assi list e 7 7 5 5 6 8 7 3 5 5 7 7

When comparing farmer management and Sodefor management overall, different results emerge for different criteria. Table 4 displays these results in a different way: data are summarized category by category, and not site by site. The list of rare species is longer for the black forest plots than for the old fallow fields. These remarkable species appear to be linked to the age of the forest cover. In this analysis, the contribution of black forest plots to conservation is greater, whatever the criteria. In IUCN terms, rare species are better protected under Sodefor management. The opposite is true for the Ak Assi list. These diverging conclusions meet up again e with regard to the difference between sacred and non-sacred sites. In our research the sacred sites (djro pl ) contain fewer rare and threatened species than other sites. The variations are so slight, however, that a broader study is absolutely necessary to validate the significance of our results. Let us now look at endemic and Sassandrian species. For the first group, the number of species is greater in all the black forest plots managed by Sodefor (Table 5), and generally more endemic plants are found at each of the corresponding sites (Tables 2 and 3). Endemic species are not absent from the old fallow fields, however, whether they are managed by Sodefor or by farmers. The low score of the djro pl inventories is noteworthy; it suggests once again that the sacred nature of a site does not prevent modification of its plant cover, or loss of uncommon species. As for Sassandrian species, Table 5 shows that the total number is always low and varies little, site by site (Table 2) and for each land use category (Tables 3 and 5). There is little difference to be seen between areas managed by Sodefor and those controlled by farmers, whether old fallow fields or black forest plots. Just one site has no Sassandrian species: it is the sacred site, once heavily modified by human activities, and now affected by the influx of brackish water that is probably the cause of greater prevalence of ordinary coastal species. The total number of Sassandrian species is low 9 out of the 175 listed by Guillaumet (1967). This figure leads us to think that the Monogaga c c

78

FARMERS PRACTICES AND BIODIVERSITY

TABLE 5 Number of endemic and Sassandrian species encountered for each recognized category of space Old fallow Managed by Managed by Sacred Non-sacred Forests fields farmers sodefor sites sites Endemic species Sassandrian species 33 5 22 6 24 7 31 7 9 2 37 8

forest is not strongly characterized by a Sassandrian identity. But prudence is required, and more detailed results are necessary before coming to a definitive conclusion.
CONCLUSION

In closing, a few conclusions can be drawn from this study that should be taken only as a first approach to the characterization of the woody cover of the Monogaga protected forest. The first conclusion pertains to the comparison of the different types of status that farmers and Sodefor assign to the various kinds of Monogaga forest cover. The other two are related to the results of statistical phyto-ecological analyses of these forest covers. For Sodefor, there is no doubt that the forest is a natural heritage, which should be the focus of all conservation and land-use measures. The official managers of the Monogaga forest clearly prefer conservation spaces that have been rid of all human influence: their ultimate goal is to restore black forest. As a consequence the old fallow fields are replanted in the regeneration group. In the minds of the farmers, however, the choice of species selected for reforestation raises some doubts as to Sodefors medium-term objectives: might these plantations be the first steps towards a forestry operation managed solely for Sodefors profit? The Wanne farmers attribute a certain importance to forest cover in the areas that they manage. But there are few remnants of very old forest. The sacred forest sites that are truly treated as heritage sites, at the scale of the lineage group, represent hardly more than 20 hectares, or less than 0.5 percent of the total surface area of the Monogaga protected zone. The other wooded places are lands held in reserve that can be cleared at any time. Woody cover is not a heritage in itself. What is transmitted from generation to generation, in the lineage system, are the rights of access to these lands and the rights to clear them. The value of forested land has risen steadily since the 1960s, because they are prime locations to be cleared for planting cash crops that are very lucrative at present. Black forest plots are therefore much desired by cocoa and coffee planters. Wanne farmers, who find the plots hard to work, draw a steadily rising income from them, by ceding them by

FARMERS PRACTICES AND BIODIVERSITY

79

contract to settlers. The Wanne prefer to work the old fallow fields that by our estimate still make up 30 to 40 percent of the protected zone. For the time being there is little risk that these old fallow fields will disappear, because a fallow period is practically the only way to restore fertility after 30 to 40 years of cocoa planting. It would appear, however, that in response to the pressure of the property market, fields are left fallow for shorter and shorter periods in the agricultural enclaves. Where fields were left fallow for 20 to 30 years in the 1960s, today the period is less than 10 years, not long enough for proper regeneration of woody species. These old fallow fields are of considerable interest from the standpoint of the conservation of site-specific biodiversity. Our study shows that for most of the naturalist criteria we have used, the old fallow fields are largely on par with the black forest plots. They even contain some species that are absent from the latter. This conclusion clearly supports arguments in favour of reconciliation ecology. This movement, which originated in ornithological naturalist circles, is dedicated to demonstrating that a great many elements of terrestrial biodiversity can survive, and even flourish, in the midst of the most intensive human activity, with a minimum of adjustment and precautionary measures (Rosenzweig 2003). In Monogaga the existence of species diversity that interests biologists is not at all incompatible with the most lucrative local agricultural activities. The articulation of farm use and nature conservation is made possible by maintaining a fairly large surface area of old fallow fields. Further study, in greater depth and over time, will help determine the optimal area and fallowing periods.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to express our thanks to all those who have helped us in writing this article: Professor Ak Assi for his assistance in identifying plants; NGuessan Edouard e for his advice and commentary on the botanical inventories; and the Swiss Centre for Scientific Research in Cote dIvoire, for the use of their laboratories. We also thank Philippe Gaubert and Marjorie Weltz for their comments on the article.

APPENDIX 1

TABLE A1 Species

Special-status species inventoried at our black-forest sites in Monogaga a 1 b c 1 1 1 1 1 d S1 S2 1 1 1 1 S3 S4

Acridocarpus alternifolius (G. Don) Hook.f. Afzelia bella Harms Afzelia bella var. gracilor Harms Androsiphonia adenostegia Stapf

80
TABLE A1 Species

FARMERS PRACTICES AND BIODIVERSITY

continued a b 1 c 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 d 1 1 1 S1 1 1 S2 S3 1 1 S4 1 1 1

Anthonotha sassandraensis Aubr v. and Pellegr. e Baphia bancoensis Aubr v. e Chrysophyllum taense Aubr v. and Pellegr. e Coffea liberica Bull ex Hiern Crotonogyne chevalieri (Beile) Keay Cuviera macroura K. Schum. Dialium aubrevillei Pellegr. Diospyros canaliculata De Wild. Diospyros heudelotii Hiern Diospyros vignei F. White Drypetes chevalieri Beille Drypetes ivorensis Hutch. and Dalz. Enantia polycarpa (DC.) Engl. and Diels Entandrophragma cylindricum (Sprague) Sprague Eremospatha macrocarpa (Mann and Wendl.) Wendl. Eribroma oblonga Mast. Gilbertiodendron bilineatum (Hutch. and Dalz.) L onard e Gilbertiodendron splendidum (A. Chev. ex Hutch. and Dalz.) L onard e Hallea ledermanii (K. Krause) Verdc. Keetia manense Aubr v. and e Pellegr. Leptoderris miegei Ak Assi e and Mangenot Millettia lane-poolei Dunn Myrianthus libericus Rendle Oricia suaveolens (Engl.) Verdoon Piptostigma fugax A. Chev. Ex Hutch. and Dalz. Placodiscus pseudostipularis Radlk.

FARMERS PRACTICES AND BIODIVERSITY

81

TABLE A1 Species

continued a b c 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 d 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 S1 1 1 S2 S3 S4

Plagiosiphon emarginatus (Hutch. and Dalz.) J. L onard e Rinorea aylmeri Chipp. Scottelia klaineana var. mimfiensis Gilg Soyauxia floribunda Hutch. Sphenocentrum jollyanum Pierre Tiliacora dinklagei Engl. Uvariodendron occidentale Le Thomas

Key: a: Rare and threatened species listed by Ak Assi (1984, 1988, 1997); b: Rare e species and species in danger of extinction according to IUCN (2002); c: West African and Ivoirian endemic species listed by Guillaumet (1967) and Ak Assi (1984, 1997); e d: Sassandrian species listed by Guillaumet and Ak Assi. e
APPENDIX 2

TABLE A2 Monogaga Species

Special-status species inventoried at our old fallow field sites in

a 1

S5 1

S6 1

S7 1

S8 1

Acridocarpus alternifolius (G. Don) Hook.f. Anisophyllea meniaudii Aubr v. and Pellegr. e Baphia bancoensis Aubr v. e Berlinia occidentalis Keay Campylospermum schoenleinianum Klotzsch Chrysophyllum taense Aubr v. and Pellegr. e Cnestis corniculata Lam. Coffea liberica Bull ex Hiern Conocarpus erectus L. Copaifera salikounda Heckel Crotonogyne chevalieri Dialium aubrevillei Pellegr. Diospyros canaliculata De Wild. Drypetes chevalieri Beille Entandrophragma angolense (Welw.) C. DC.

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

82
TABLE A2 Species

FARMERS PRACTICES AND BIODIVERSITY

continued a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 b c d S5 1 1 1 1 S6 S7 S8

Landolphia calabarica (Stapf) Bruce Leptoderris miegei Ak Assi e and Mangenot Microdesmis keayana L onard e Milicia excelsa (Welw.) Berg Necepsia afzelii Prain Oldfieldia africana Benth. and Hook.f. Placodiscus boya Aubr v. e and Pellegrin Placodiscus pseudostipularis Radlk. Rinorea aylmeri Chipp. Rinorea oblongifolia (C. H. Wright) Marquand ex Chipp Tetracera alnifolia Willd. Tiliacora dinklagei Engl. Turraea heterophylla J. Sm.

Key: a Rare and threatened species listed by Ak Assi (1984, 1988, 1997); b Rare e species and species in danger of extinction according to IUCN (2002); c West African and Ivoirian endemic species listed by Guillaumet (1967) and Ak Assi (1984, 1997); e d Sassandrian species listed by Guillaumet and Ak Assi. e

REFERENCES

Adou Yao, C. Y. 2000. Inventaire et etude de la diversit floristique du Sud du e Parc National de Ta (Cote dIvoire). M moire de DEA, UFR Biosciences, e Universit de Cocody-Abidjan. e Ak Assi, L., 1984. Flore de la C e ote dIvoire: etude descriptive et biog ographique avec quelques notes ethnobotaniques. Th` se dEtat, e e Universit de Abidjan (C dIvoire). e ote 1988. Esp` ces rares et en voie dextinction de la flore de la Cote dIvoire, e Monographs in Systematic Botany from the Missouri Botanical Garden 25 : 4613. 1997. Inventaire floristique de quelques forts classes de la rgion c ti`re e e e o e sud-ouest de la C te dIvoire: Port Gauthier, Dassioko, Monogaga. Abidjan: o Sodefor-Minagra-Union Europ enne. e Alexandre, D.-Y., J.-L. Guillaumet, F. Kahn and D. C. Namur. 1978. Observations sur les premiers stades de la reconstitution de la for t dense e humide (Sud-Ouest de la Cote dIvoire). Conclusion: Caract ristiques des e premiers stades de la reconstitution, Cahiers de lOrstom, Srie Biologie 13 e (3): 26770. Aubr ville, A. 1959. Flore foresti`re de la C te dIvoire. Nogent-sur-Marne: e e o CTFT Seine, 3 vols, second (revised) edition.

FARMERS PRACTICES AND BIODIVERSITY

83

Avenard, J.M., M. Eldin, G. Girard, J. Sircoulon, P. Touchebeuf, J.L. Guillaumet, E. Adjanohoun and A. Perraud. 1971. Le milieu naturel de la Cote dIvoire, Mmoires Orstom 50. e B lign , V., 2000. Pr sentation du projet ECOSYN in O. Girardin et al. e e e (eds), Etat des recherches en cours dans le Parc National de Ta (PNT), Sempervira 9: 1525. B n , K. Y., B. Diarrassouba, B. and N. K. M. Koffi. 1995. Projet e e dam nagement de la for t class e de Monogaga en vue dune exploitation e e e touristique. M moire de fin d tudes de diplome dIng nieur des Techniques e e e Agricoles, IAB, Yamoussoukro. Chatelain, C. and F. Piguet. 1999. Evolution du couvert v g tal des for ts e e e e coti` res de Cote dIvoire entre 198990, 1996 et 1999. CD-Rom, Projet e coti` re Sodefor-FED. Chauveau, J.-P. 2000. Questions fonci` res et construction nationale en Cote e dIvoire, Politique Africaine 78: 94125. Cormier-Salem, M.-C., D. Juh -Beaulaton, J. Boutrais and B. Roussel e (eds). 2002. Patrimonialiser la nature tropicale. Dynamiques locales, enjeux internationaux. Paris: IRD. Da Lage A. and G. M taili . 2000. Dictionnaire de biogographie vgtale. Paris: e e e e e Editions du CNRS. Davies, G. and P. Richards. 1991. Rain Forest in Mende Life: resources and subsistence strategy in communities around Gola North forest reserve. Report to Escor, ODA, London. Fairhead, J. and M. Leach. 1998. Reframing Deforestation: global analyses and local realities Studies in West Africa. London: Routledge. Guillaumet, J. L. 1967. Recherches sur la vgtation et la flore de la rgion du Base e e Cavally (C te dIvoire). ORSTOM Memorandum No. 20, Paris: ORSTOM. o Hawthorne, W. D. and M. Abu-Juam, 1995. Forest Protection in Ghana. Gland: IUCN. Hutchinson, J. and J. M. Dalziel. 1954-1972. Flora of West Tropical Africa. London: Crown Agents for the Colonies, 3 vols, second edition. ` Ibo, G. J. 2000. La gestion des for ts en Cote dIvoire de 1900 a 2000, in e ` Actes de lAtelier dchanges a Yaound au Cameroun, 46 juillet 2000. e e Kahn, F. 1982. La Reconstitution de la fort tropicale humide, Sud-Ouest de la C te e o dIvoire. Paris: ORSTOM. ` Lebrun, J.-P. and A. L. Stork. 19917. Enumration des plantes a fleurs e ` dAfrique Tropicale: gnralits et Annonaceae a Pandaceae. Vol. I, II, III, e e e IV. Geneva: CJB. Mangenot, G. 1956. Etude sur la for t des plaines et plateaux de Cote dIvoire, e Etudes eburnennes 4: 561. e Myers, N., R. A. Mittermeier, C. G. Mittermeier, G. A. B. da Fonseca and J. Kent. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities, Nature 403: 8538. Parthasarathy, N. 1999. Tree diversity and distribution in undisturbed and human-impacted sites of tropical wet evergreen forest in southern Western Ghats, India, Biodiversity and Conservation 8: 136581. Primack, R. B. 2000. A Primer of Conservation Biology. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, second edition. Radl, G. 2000. Le biomonitoring dans le Parc National de Ta, Sempervira 9: 12231. Rosenzweig, M. L. 2003. Reconciliation ecology and the future of species diversity, Oryx, 37 (2): 194205. ` Schnell, R. 1976. Introduction a la phytogographie des pays tropicaux. Tome 3: e La Flore et la vgtation de lAfrique tropicale. Paris: Ed. Gauthiers-Villars. e e

84

FARMERS PRACTICES AND BIODIVERSITY

Schwartz, A. 1993. Sous-Peuplement et dveloppement dans le Sud-Ouest de la e C te dIvoire: cinq si`cles dhistoire economique et sociale. Paris: ORSTOM. o e Shannon, C. E. and W. Weaver. 1949. The Mathematical Theory of Communications. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Sodefor 1994. Plan de Remembrement de la fort classe de Monogaga. Abidjan: e e Sodefor. 1995. Plan damnagement de la fort classe de Monogaga 39828 ha e e e (19952004. Abidjan: Sodefor. ` Traor , M. and J. P. Zoh. 2003. Contribution a lamnagement de la fort classe e e e e de Monogaga: cas des enclaves agricoles. M moire de Diplome dIng nieur des e e Techniques Agricoles. Yamoussoukro: ESA. ` Verdeaux, F. 2003. De la for t en commun a la for t domestique: deux cas e e contrast e de r appropriation foresti` re en Cote dIvoire et Tanzanie, Bois e e e et Forts des Tropiques 278 (4): 5163. e

ABSTRACT

The emergence of biodiversity standards in the nature conservation literature requires that we consider the interactions between conservation and local practices from a new angle. The coastal forest of Monogaga, a protected area inhabited by a local population, is an ideal terrain for comparing the impact of local agricultural practices and the activities of Sodefor, the government agency charged with the management of this conservation area. The discourses and uses of forest resources of these two actors allow us to compare the biodiversity of forest cover categories recognized by peasant farmers and Sodefor, using the standard statistical methods for measuring biodiversity (the Shannon and Weaver index, species richness, number of special status species). For Sodefor, it is the most dense forest ecosystems (the black forests ) and the lands that they occupy that constitute the areas natural heritage. The agency believes that these forests must be protected from all human uses, especially farming, if the forest is to be transmitted to future generations. In contrast, Wanne farmers view the old forests (kporo) as long-term fallows (ttklwoa) or reserves of fertile land that will be cleared when there is a need for more farmland in the future. For them, patrimony is constituted by the intergenerational transmission of a bundle of resource access and farming rights within lineages. With regard to biodiversity, a comparison of the two types of resource management practices (Sodefor and farmer) gives nuanced results. The farmers areas are more diverse than those of Sodefor when considering the Ak Assi e threatened species list. For the Sassandrian species list, both management types maintained the same quantity of species. For endemics and the IUCN red list species, the spatial units controlled by Sodefor show more diversity.
RESUME

L mergence de standards de biodiversit dans la conservation de la nature e e ` oblige a consid rer les interactions entre conservation de la nature et pratiques e locales sous un angle nouveau. La for t littorale de Monogaga, class e avec ses e e habitants est un terrain id al pour comparer les impacts des pratiques agricoles e et ceux des activit s de la Sodefor, gestionnaire officiel de lespace class . e e Apr` s avoir recueilli les discours sur la for t et observ les usages que ces e e e deux acteurs font des ressources forestiers, une comparaison de la biodiversit e des diverses cat gories de couverts forestiers reconnues par les paysans et par e

FARMERS PRACTICES AND BIODIVERSITY

85

la Sodefor, est propos en utilisant des outils statistiques classiques des etudes e de biodiversit : indice de Shannon et Weaver, richesse sp cifique, nombre e e ` desp` ces a statut sp cial. e e Pour la Sodefor, ce sont les ecosyst` mes forestiers les plus denses (les for ts e e noires) et les terres quils occupent qui constituent le patrimoine naturel : pour etre transmis aux g n rations futures, il doit etre prot g de toutes les e e e e activit s humaines et surtout de la mise en culture. Pour les fermiers wanne, en e revanche, les vieilles for ts (kporo) comme les jach` res anciennes (ttklwoa) e e sont avant tout des r serves de terres fertiles qui seront d frich es si le besoin e e e sen fait sentir. Ce qui est transmis de g n ration en g n ration, au sein des e e e e lignages, cest un ensemble de r` gles dacc` s a certaines ressources et de droits e e ` de mise en culture. Sur le plan de la biodiversit , la comparaison des deux types de gestion e (Sodefor et paysanne) donnent des r sultats nuanc s : Les espaces g r s par e e ee les fermiers sont plus diversifi s que ceux de la Sodefor quand on consid` re e e la liste des esp` ces remarquables de Ake Assi. Pour ce qui est des esp` ces e e sassandriennes, les deux types de gestion ne sont pas diff rents. En revanche, e les esp` ces de la liste rouge de lIUCN sont plus diversifi es dans les sites g r s e e ee par la Sodefor.