Participatory forest management in Burkina Faso: Members’ perception of performance

Abstract

This study examines variations in the performance of participatory forest management programs among four forest management groups (FMGs) in southern Burkina Faso, and assesses the factors that influence their members’ perceptions of performance through a household survey of 216 members. Variations in performance scores among the FMGs were analyzed through multivariate analysis of variance while multinomial regression analysis was used to identify factors that influence their perception of the performance. The results reveal significant differences in performance scores among FMGs. Members of some FMGs perceived that the participatory forest management program enabled them to get benefits from the sale of fuelwood while performance scores in the forest conservation and decision-making processes is generally poor. The score for economic performance of FMGs in turn was related to better access to roads and markets. Group size tended to enhance economic performance via its strong influence on annual fuelwood harvest, while the resource base appeared to be inconsequential. Members of the forest management groups perceived that large group size and group heterogeneity, particularly in terms of ethnicity, as well as knowledge and awareness of problems related to the forest environment have no influence on the performance of their respective groups. For rural communities to have a favorable disposition toward sustainable forest management, differences in member understanding of collective actions and their impact before and during the implementation of participatory forest management programs should be considered.

Keywords

Common-pool resources / Collective action / Sustainable forest management / West Africa

References

[1] Adams WM, Hulme D. If community conservation is the answer in Africa, what is the question?. Oryx, 2001, 35: 193-200.

[2] Agrawal A, Gibson CC. Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of community in natural resource conservation. World Development, 1999, 27: 629-649.

[3] Alesina A, La Ferrara E. Participation in heterogeneous communities. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2000, 115: 847-904.

[4] Balland JM, Platteau JP. Division of the commons: a partial assessment of the new institutional economics of land rights. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1998, 80: 644-650.

[5] Bardhan P. Analytics of the institution of informal cooperation in rural development. World Development, 1993, 21: 633-639.

[6] Bellefontaine R, Gaston A, Petrucci Y. Management of natural forests of dry tropical zones. 2000, Rome: FAO

[7] Chhetri RB, Pandey TR. User group forestry in the far western region of Nepal: Case studies from Baitadi and Achham. 1992, Katmandu: ICIMOD

[8] Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 1988, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Publishers

[9] Coulibaly-Lingani P, Savadogo P, Tigabu M, Odén PC. Factors influencing peoples’ participation in forest management program in Burkina Faso. Forest Policy and Economics, 2010, 13: 292-302.

[10] Coulibaly-Lingani P, Tigabu M, Savadogo P, Oden P-C, Ouadba J-M. Determinants of access to forest products in southern Burkina Faso. Forest Policy and Economics, 2009, 11: 516-524.

[11] Esteban J, Ray D. Collective action and the group size paradox. American Political Science Review, 2001, 95: 663-672.

[12] Guthiga PM. Understanding local communities’ perceptions of existing forest management regimes of a Kenyan rainforest. International Journal of Social Forestry, 2008, 1: 145-166.

[13] Hutton JM, Leader-Williams N. Sustainable use and incentive-driven conservation: realigning human and conservation interests. Oryx, 2003, 37: 215-226.

[14] Kaboré C. Référentiel technique d’aménagement des forêts au Burkina Faso, 2004

[15] Kobbail AA. 2012. Local People Attitudes towards Community Forestry Practices: A Case Study of Kosti Province-Central Sudan. International Journal of Forestry Research, Volume 2012, Article ID 652693, 7 pp.

[16] Lubell M. Environmental activism as collective action. Environment and Behavior, 2002, 34: 431-454.

[17] Matose F. Co-management options for reserved forests in Zimbabwe and beyond: Policy implications of forest management strategies. Forest Policy and Economics, 2006, 8: 363-374.

[18] Matta JR, Alavalapati JRR. Perceptions of collective action and its success in community based natural resource management: An empirical analysis. Forest Policy and Economics, 2006, 9: 274-284.

[19] McCarthy N, Dutilly-Diane C, Drabo B. Cooperation, collective action and natural resource management in Burkina Faso. Agricultural Systems, 2004, 82: 233-255.

[20] Meinzen-Dick R, DiGregorio M, McCarthy N. Methods for studying collective action in rural development. Agricultural Systems, 2004, 82: 197-214.

[21] Meinzen-Dick R, Raju KV, Gulati A. What affects organization and collective action for managing resources? Evidence from canal irrigation systems in India. World Development, 2002, 30: 649-666.

[22] Olson M. The rise and decline of Nations: Economic Growth, Stagflation and social rigidities. 1982, New Haven: Yale University Press

[23] Ostrom E. Constituting social capital and collective action. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 1994, 6: 527-562.

[24] Ostrom E. Collective action and the evolution of social norms. Journal of Economics Perspectives, 2000, 14: 137-158.

[25] Ostrom E. Boix C, Stokes S. Collective action theory. Oxford handbook of comparative politics. 2005, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 186 210

[26] Ouédraogo M, Nianogo AJ. 2003. Exploitation du bois énergie en milieu rural Burkinabé: un moyen de lutte contre la pauvreté. IUCN Bulletin d’Information pour l’Afrique de l’Ouest. [Exploitation of wood energy in rural Burkina Faso. Means of fight against poverty. In: K. Ouedraogo, Somda J., I. Tapsoba, Nianogo AJ (eds). Traditional energy in Burkina Faso: studies on wood energy. Information Bulletin for West Africa: IUCN, Ministry of Environment and Quality of Life, Ministry of Mines, Quarries and Energy, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.]

[27] Pagdee A, Kim Y-S, Daugherty PJ. What makes community forest management successful: A meta-study from community forests throughout the world. Society and Natural Resources, 2006, 19: 33-52.

[28] Ribot JC. Decentralization, participation and accountability in Sahelian forestry: legal instruments of political-administrative control. Africa, 1999, 69: 23-65.

[29] Ribot JC. Science, use rights and exclusion: a history of forestry in francophone West Africa. 2001, Dakar-Fann, Senegal: International Institute for Environment and Development

[30] Scott J, Marshall G. A dictionary of sociology. 1998, Oxford: Oxford University Press

[31] Sekher M. Organized participatory resource management: insights from community forestry practices in India. Forest Policy and Economics, 2001, 3: 137-154.

[32] Shepard G. Managing Africa’s tropical dry forests, a review of indigenous methods, 1992

[33] Shusler TM, Decker DJ, Pfeffer MJ. Social Learning for Collaborative Natural Resource Management. Society and Natural Resources, 2003, 15: 309-326.

[34] Sunderlin WD. Poverty alleviation through community forestry in Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam: An assessment of the potential. Forest Policy and Economics, 2006, 8: 386-396.

[35] Verburg PH, Overmars KP, Witte N. Accessibility and land-use patterns at the forest fringe in the northeastern part of the Philippines. The Geographical Journal, 2004, 170: 238-255.

[36] Vodouhê FG, Coulibaly O, Adégbidi A, Sinsin B. Community perception of biodiversity conservation within protected areas in Benin. Forest Policy and Economics, 2010, 12: 505-512.

[37] Wainwright C, Wehrmeyer W. Success in integrating conservation and development? A study from Zambia. World Development, 1998, 26: 933-944.

[38] White F. The vegetation of Africa: a descriptive memoir to accompany the Unesco/AETFAT/UNSO vegetation map of Africa. 1983, Paris: UNESCO