0198-C1
B. Kassa, O. P. Agbani, G. Nobimé and B. Sinsin[1]
The Lama-protected forest, located between 6°55’- 7°00’N and 02°04’- 02°12’ E, is one of the remaining dense forests that covered the so-called Dahomey Gap. It covers some 16,250 ha gazetted by law in 1946 as forest reserve. The absence of a management plan during the period 1946-1986 permitted local farmers who specialize in agriculture on clayey soil, to encroach into the forest. This has resulted in a fragmentation and degradation of the original dense continuous forest. By 1987, there remained about 2,500 ha of dense forest scattered in a small stands throughout the protected forest.
The zoning plan following the eviction of illegal farmers permitted the recovery of 4,777 ha of forest called the Central Unit, “ Noyau Central,” which is now fully protected for biodiversity conservation and scientific research. The remaining part of the forest was divided up for different uses: 7,000 ha for timber production, 2,500 ha for fuelwood production and to resettle the population who was evicted from the forest. Local residents are partners of the forest administration, through NGOs, in the management of the biological diversity of the Noyau Central unit and reforested areas.
Intense research activities are going on in the core unit, one of the most species-rich forests in southern Benin. This site harbours the last populations of certain endangered mammalian fauna (Potamochoerus porcus, Tragelaphus spekei, Neotragus pygmaeus, Colobus vellerosus) or endemic sub species (Cercopithecus erythrogaster erythrogaster) in Benin. A zoning plan that includes resettlement of evicted people, biodiversity conservation and economical tree plantations is a well drawn up management plan for sustainable conservation.
In many plans of biological diversity conservation, protected areas constitute the main focus sites where one is supposed to facilitate the in situ conservation of biological diversity. Unfortunately, it must be noticed that protected areas frequently fail in assuming this essential function mainly in tropical dense forest areas. Low input from governments, the lack of essential means and the increasing pressure of local populations on these protected areas are, among others, the main driving forces of the continuous degradation of protected areas (Mackinnon 1990). It is recommended that a management plan based on zoning which takes account of ecological necessity, along with government and local population needs, always constitute a better management tool for sustainable conservation of biodiversity (Brownrigg 1985; Clad 1982; Mackinnon 1990; Bousquet 1992); in fact it is rarely enacted in the field.
In Benin, the Lama protected forest is a typical case of a dense semi-deciduous forest in which its biodiversity only just avoided disaster due to a particular management plan. In fact, on the date of its protection policy, this dense natural forest covered 11,000 ha. From 1975 to 1986, this natural forest has been heavily pressured by colonist farmers needing fertile soil. In 1987, the area of the natural forest was evaluated at 2,500 ha and was composed of a mosaic of dense forests; but although this forest was heavily degraded, it still contained diversified biological resources. Some plant species that one could see there in higher abundance than anywhere else in Benin are: Afzelia africana, Bombax buonopozense, Ceiba pentandra, Mimusops andongensis etc.. In addition, this vestige of dense semi-deciduous forest constitutes the latest natural refuge of the red-bellied guenon (Cercopithecus erythrogaster erythrogaster), the only one endemic subspecies in Benin. This guenon’s presence there could raise, even at the international level, interest in conservation of the Lama ecosystem. Some species, like the Mona monkey (Cercopithecus mona), Royal antelope (Neotragus pygmaeus), Red river hog (Potamochoerus porcus), Geoffroy’s Pied Colobus (Colobus vellerosus), Black duiker (Cephalophus niger), Tree hyrax (Dendrohyrax arboreus) present in low size populations demand detailed attention toward this relic ecosystem.
The urgence of the conservation of this protected area was revealed to Benin in 1985. At that time, the state forest plantation authority ONAB (Office National de Bois), had been entrusted with the management of the Lama protected forest.
The major concerns for the management program of this forest were:
- How to take control of the limits of this protected forest?
- How to restore the vegetation cover of this forest?
- How to reconcile the constraints of protection with the interests of the local populations, formerly dependent on the forest?
- How to manage in a sustainable way the relic biological diversity of this forest?
This study is a form of restitution of all management activities which contribute to the sustainable conservation of this unique ecosystem in Benin.
Study area
The Lama protected area is located at the south of Benin (6°55’ N and 2°04’ E, figure 1). It was classified in 1946 and it covers a surface of 16,250 ha, including today approximately 4,777 ha of natural forest called “Noyau Central”. The remainder of the surface is occupied by teak plantations and agroforesty centers. It is surrounded by twenty villages with a population estimated at 41,500 inhabitants (ONAB 1998). The populations living inside and around this forest are those of the ethnic groups Holly, Fon and Aïzo. The traditional dwellings are huts made of imputrescible wood which are connected by lianas.
The Lama protected forest is in a depression of an average altitude of 60 m. Soil is clayey, more than 2 meters in depth. The hydrographic network is made up of ponds and seasonal backwaters. The climate is a dry guinean type. The mean annual rainfall is 1,112 mm. The annual average temperature varies between 25°C and 29°C. Air humidity remains high even in the dry season. The so-called “Noyau Central” contains nearly 173 plant species belonging to 67 families (Emrich et al. 1999). These facies of dense forest are separated by fallow land at various stages of evolution, testifying to a recent occupation of the forest by farmers. At certain places, assisted regeneration that one could observe accounts for the present management of this forest.
In spite of poaching activities, the “Noyau Central” shelters a rich fauna, including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fishes, molluscs, insects, etc.
Data collection
This study consisted of a bibliographical analysis of all the reports referring to the management of the Lama protected forest. It concerns, in particular, of the annual technical activity reports of the ONAB office from 1988 to 2000. A survey was carried out from 1999 to 2001 to fill the vacuums of information. For that, some interviews were carried with all the actors implied in the current management of this forest. They consist of the ONAB agents, the village administration agents, and local NGOs. An analysis of the bibliography also refers to biodiversity inventories in the Lama protected forest. It concerns in particular Coubéou (1995), Assogbadjo (1999), Emrich et al. (1999), Kassa (2001), Nobimé (2002) and Agbani (2002).
Inside population eviction
After putting the management of the Lama protected forest in the charge of the ONAB authority, populations living inside were first informed in 1985 to stop all agricultural practices and to cease any utilization in this forest. Those information sessions lasted until 1988. Then, in January 1988, the destruction of all the huts inside the remnant forest was carried out systematically. At this time, fields and huts were destroyed. Since then, one couldn’t notice any agricultural practice in the so-called “Noyau Central”. By the year 1988, the ONAB authority had taken again the control of this forest.
Zoning activities
The most notable aspect of the Lama protected forest management is its zoning plan.
After peoples eviction from the “Noyau Central”, the second action concerned the design of its zoning plan. To this end, the ONAB authorities had determined the purpose and the vocation of each defined unit (Figure 2). At this time, the natural forest covered 2,500 ha, parceled out in small dense patches, separated from each other by fallow parcels. The largest block of safeguarded natural forest covers 1,900 ha. It is around this block that was designated 4,777 ha called “Noyau Central” whose issue is the integral protection of the natural vegetation with its fauna. The remainder of the 16,250 ha are parceled out in a reforestation zone for teak production (Tectona grandis), firewood, and an agroforestery center for resettled farmers.
Reforestation zone management
The zone concerned with teak reforestation for timber production is that cleared by former farmers. These are approximately 7,000 ha which were annexed for this type of plantation. This zone was subdivided into 3 management sectors (Akpè, Massi and Koto). Teak sylviculture was developed on this land through the plantation of young plant seedlings on balks. This technique requires high local manpower for seedbed preparation, tillage, transport and seedling plantation. Each year, approximately 200 young people are absorbed by this operation (during the program of reforestation). The formerly agricultural populations are transformed into forest workers. Contracts for reforestation and plantation weeding are signed with local contractors trained by ONAB. The agents of ONAB only assure the technical support. The recruitment of workers and their training of the task are the responsibility of the local contractors.
The areas assigned to firewood plantations are those located more in southern zones on ferralitic soil on plateaus (2,400 ha). These plantations are carried out by the Firewood Project (Projet Bois de Feu) with the bordering populations.
Remnant forest patches
Marking of the limits of the “Noyau Central” constituted the starting point of its management. A laterized track girdles the remainder of natural forest thus specifying to the local populations the completely protected area. Monitoring strips directed east-west make it possible to make regular patrols in the forest (Figure 3). Some discontinuous transverse strips make it possible to pass from a regular strip to another during patrols. Another monitoring device, three 25 m high lookout towers were established to assure protection of the forest against the criminal fires. A contract of monitoring is signed with a team of guards trained by ONAB to ensure the protection of the forest.
The old fallows areas in the “Noyau Central” are recovering by out planting trees cleared places through assisted regeneration techniques.
The only currently allowed activities are eco-tourism, scientific research and education activities.
Two other tracks are planned in the forest to test eco-tourism exploitation of the Lama protected forest. A welcome center provides a refreshment bar and adventure playground for young school children has been established in this forest.
Currently, research activities are well established in this “Noyau Central”. In Benin, the Laboratoire d’Ecologie Appliquée is the scientific partner of ONAB concerning research in the Lama. The global objective of the Laboratory in collaboration with foreign universities is to set up a data-bank on biological diversity of the Lama and to assure a permanent actualization of this data-bank. Many studies were also devoted to the diversity of ophidians, entomofauna, biogeochemical process, floristic diversity, diversity of avifauna etc.. Other studies provided data for the management of the forest, including wildlife census techniques (Kassa 2001). Such data give information about the exploitation of mammalian fauna for eco-tourism purposes (Worou 2002).
Socio-economic facilities
Evicted farmers were installed in the management fields now called agroforestry centers. In these centers, alternative activities or improved services were offered to them such as bee keeping, mechanized farming, crops transformation, cover crop for land conservation etc.
Local populations are grouped together in association for the management of the teak plantations. Nine village associations, together called COGEPAF (Village Committee of Participative Management of the Forest) were created around the forest of the Lama. The COGEPAF were joined together in a collective, having at its head a staff of coordination made up by the representatives of the villagers and of ONAB (2 agents). The ONAB offers to the COGEPAF permission to harvest from the plantations for their account, and also the financing of socio-economic micro-projects. For example, in 1996, the income resulting from the sale of the tree trunks in the Lama were of 12,064,875 FCFA (± 20,000 US dollars). In 1997, the income was of 20,183,200 FCFA (± 30,000 US dollars).
In compensation, the COGEPAF is engaged to contribute to the protection of the forest against encroachment, illegal teak cutting, and poaching.
The conservation of this forest has lead at the first stage to the eviction of the inside population in order to avoid the continuation of anarchistic fragmentation of the forest block. This preliminary action is justified insofar as the conservation of a protected area supposes initially the control of its limits (Mackinnon 1990). But, after this hard treatment imposed to resident, the evicted populations were reinstalled in agroforestry parcels delimited in the forest. In most cases, where the populations were evicted, the government was never concerned with their reinstallation, as in the case of the populations established around the Biosphere Reserve of Pendjari and the W National Park in Benin (Green & Szaniawsky 1981). This manner of reinstalling the population also requires particular provisions to control their expansion and their land using. From now, each reinstalled family is conscious of the inextensibility of its cultivable field, and exploits it with much more precaution. The installation of new families is not possible any more because of lack of lands. In a process of natural reserve management, inside population eviction is also depends on the culture of the people and their mode of resources exploitation in the reserve (McNeely & Pitt 1985). For certain people hunters-gatherers like the Aboriginals of Australia, the Pygmies of the forests of Congo basin (which are people up to now living in nearly intact pristine environments), a strict delimitation of their zone of action was never justified (Dasmann 1984; Whitmore 1992). For agricultural activities particularly, the clearing of a large surface of natural vegetation for the establishment of selected species was never compatible with the provision of nature conservation (Sournia 1998, Clarke 1976).
In spite of the great ecological functions depending on the conservation of natural reserves, the conservation of a protected area is only sustainable if the local populations discover there a particular interest for their community or for each element of their community. Today, the Lama protected forest management plan satisfies this reality. From the social point of view, the local populations are strongly implicated in this forest management. They were made responsible for the management success through contracts for certain key activities in particular reforestation activities. The giving and accepting such responsibility involves the expression of the intrinsic pride of the community and each one of its local managers in order to succeed.
The installation of socio-educational infrastructures proved to the local populations that their well-being is directly related to the existence of the forest. Generally, we can note that the involvement of the local populations in forest management is maintained by the material interest that each member of the community draws from this forest management. Apart from the receipts of the COGEPAF which are intended for the community, the use of the members of the local community, like labour for reforestation and the protection of the ‘’Noyau Central’’ gives them individually a monthly average income of US $42 (ONAB 2000) for at least 8 months per year. The contract employees have variable wages between $61 and $123 US according to their level of responsibility (ONAB 1996). When it is known that the regulation of work in Benin envisages an Interprofessional Minimum wage Guaranteed (SMIG) of $40 US per month, one realizes that this implication of the local populations also constitutes a form of job creation for rural communities.
Compared to the other forest ecosystems of Benin, and many other forest regions, the Lama forest management constitutes a successful case whose experiments deserve to be shared. The originality of this management lies in the fact that the zoning plan has well integrated the ecological concerns (conservation of biological diversity in the Noyau Central), the sustainable funding (tree plantation), and the participation of the local populations (co-management partnership). In the current case, the tree plantation is used as sustainable income for the management and operating costs, assuming management remains transparent and honest. The question remains to ask at which level such an experiment is able to be extrapolated to other protected areas, or is exportable in other forest contexts? One can, however, with regard to the need for sustainable management of protected areas, it becomes pressing for their management to find whole or part of the operational budget in-situ. The long tradition to base the management of the protected areas on foreign assistances with erosion of biological diversity in the interphase of the projects is not a guarantee for their perenniality. It is useful to base the policy of management of the protected forest on sound analysis of the management plans, and in each socio-economic context. Foreign assistance is a supplement to reinforce the initiatives even the local experiments, or to promote new projects; it should not be used as inexhaustible funding source for protected areas.
Agbani P. 2002: Etude des groupements forestiers par bandes longitudinales à grande échelles: cas du Noyau Central de la forêt classée de la Lama au Bénin. Memo. DEA/FLASH/UAC, Abomey Calavi, Bénin. 104pg.
Assogbadjo A. 1999. Inventaire des ressources alimentaires non conventionnelles de la forêt classée de la Lama. Mémo. In. Ag., FSA/UNB, Ab. Calavi, Bénin, 164pg.
Bousquet, B., 1992. Guide des Parcs Nationaux d'Afrique. Afrique du Nord et Afrique de l'Ouest. Delachaux et Nieslté, Paris, 368p.
Brownringg, L. A., 1985. Native cultures and protected areas: Management options. In: McNeely, J. A. and Pitt, D. (eds), Culture and Conservation: The human dimension in environmental planning. Croom Helm, London.Pp. 33-44
Clad, J. C., 1982. Conservation and indigenous peoples: A study of convergent interests. Invited paper, managing protected areas workshop, World national parks congress, Bali, Indonesia.
Clarke, W. C., 1976. Maintenance of agriculture and human habitats within the tropical forest ecosystem. Human Ecology 4(3): 217-259
Coubéou P. T. 1995. Diversité faunique dans les différents biotopes de la forêt classée de la Lama. Mémo. Ir. Ag., FSA/UNB., Ab. Calavi, Bénin, 85P.
Emrich A., M. Mühlenberg, B. Steinhauer-Burkart & H. J. Sturm, 1999. Evaluation écologique intégrée de la forêt naturelle de la Lam en République du Bénin. Rapport synthèse. PN 95.66.647, ONAB/KfW.GTZ, Cotonou, Bénin, 74pg.
Green, A., & A. Szaniawsky, 1981. Développement des parcs nationaux: projet d’extension du Parc National de Pendjari et de ses zones cynégétiques. PNUD/FAO, Rome, 11p.
Kassa B. 2001. Technique de dénombrement et facteurs déterminant la modélisation de la dynamique de la faune sauvage dans la forêt dense semi-décidue de la Lama. Mémo. DESS/FSA/UNB, Abomey-Calavi, Bénin. 94pg.
Mackinnon, J. K., G. Child, J. Thorsell, 1990: Aménagement et gestion des aires protégées tropicales. UICCN, Gland, Suisse, 289p.
McNeely, J. A. & Pitt, D., (eds) 1985. Culture and Conservation: The human dimension in environmental planning. Croom Helm, London. 308p.
Nobimé G. 2002: Collecte des données de base pour la protection du singe à ventre rouge (Cercopithecus erythrogaster erythrogaster) dans la Forêt Classée de la Lama au Bénin. Mémo. DEA/FLASH/UAC, Abomey-Calavi, Bénin, 62pg.
ONAB, 2000: Rapport annuel d’activités. ONAB/DFRN Cotonou, Bénin, 107p.
ONAB. 1998. Plan d’aménagement de la forêt classée de la Lama. ONAB/DFRN Cotonou, Bénin, 87p.
ONAB, 1996: Contrat de sous-traitance pour la protection des plantations et du noyau central de la Lama. MDR/DFRN/ONAB, Cotonou, Bénin, 7p.
Sournia G., 1998. Les aires protégées d’Afrique francophone. ACCT, éd. J.P. de Monza, Paris, France, 272p.
Whitmore T. C., 1992. An introduction to tropical rain forest. Oxford University Press. New York, USA, 226p.
Worou, O. N., 2002. Evaluation des atouts et contraintes de l’écotourisme dans la forêt classée de la Lama. Mémo. Ir. des Travaux. CPU/UAC, Abomey-Calavi, Bénin, 82pg.
Figure 1: Study area localisation
Figure 2: Zoning plan of Lama protected forest
Figure 3: Survey strips through dense forest
| [1] Laboratoire d’Ecologie
Appliquée, Faculté des Sciences Agronomiques, Université
d’Abomey-Calavi, 01BP 526 Cotonou, République du Bénin.
Email: [email protected] |
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}