Forest co‐management policy
and transformational adaptation in Burkina Faso
Denis Gautier , Houria Djoudi, Bruno Locatelli, Mathurin Zida
Association of American Geographers (AAG) Annual Meeting Chicago, April 21 to April 25, 2015
Theoretical foundations
Adaptation to climate change largely envisioned as
increments of individual adjustments
However, for some systems, vulnerabilities and risks may
require transformational adaptations
Transformational adaptation relates to a social process in
which political-economic dynamics and social relations
determine individuals "adaptive capability." (Watts 1983).
Can experiences of forest co-management facilitate
In the 80s, a community based
management of classified forests, where communities get licensee for fuel wood harvesting through the Chantier
d’Aménagement Forestier (CAF)
Creation of GGF’s (Groupement de
Gestion Forestière). Officially a
volontary membership is postulated
No migrant belonging to the GGF’s
Year 1 Year 6 Year 11
Year 2 Year 7 Year 12
Year 3 Year 8 Year 13
Year 4 Yea 9 Year 14
Year 5 Year 10 Year15
Major change in forest gouvernance in
the 80s: community managed forestry
The context
Three types/waves of inter
provincial migration:
• Transhumance
/sedentarisation
• Drought induced migration
(1973 until now)
• Agricultural migration
(1980 until now)
Objectives, sites and approches
• To understand the impact of this forest co‐
governance system on communities adaptation to
CC and CV
• To assess if there is a transformational process
ongoing through this experience of forest co‐
management
Objectives, sites and approches
and methods
• Two regions (the Ziro and the Bale in Burkina Faso).
• The Ziro is the region where forest co‐management was introduced • Bale the management of forest is business as usual
Objectives, sites and approches
• We used three levels to assess the changes due to
the forest co‐management implementation:
• The ecosystem level • The institutional level • The household level• 60 group discussions (60) and 716 vulnerability
surveys in 5 villages: 3 in the Balés; 2 in Ziro with a
CAF
Tranformation at the ecosystem level: Carbon stock
Ziro Balé
Land Use C stock (Mg/ha)
Land Use C stock (Mg/ha) CMF02 73.95 AgriSF 56.84 CMF12 95.71 NVID-SF 58.9 CMF23 84.46 NVLD 93.74 NVLD 75.49 NVHD 50.67 NVID 66.2 Fall2 53.43 NVHD 66.14 Fall4 45.17 Fall1 57.27 Fall6 45.09 Fall2 59.36 VPark10 44.91 Fall3 55.94 VPark100 56.65 Fall7 68.05 VPark50 58.25 VPark10 48.31 Eucal30 66.88 VPark100 67.67 VPark50 59.7 Anac10 53.78 Anac3 43.05 Anac7 45.57 Mang3 57.33 A bov egr ound ca rbon st oc k (M g/ H a) 0 10 20 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 R o ot c ar bon s to ck ( M g/ H a) 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 Ziro Bale CMF0 2 CMF1 2 CMF2 3 NVIDNVLDNVHD Fal l1 Fall2Fall3Fall7 VPark 10 VPark 100 VPark 50 Anac 10 Anac 3 Anac 7 Mang 3 S oi l c ar bon st o ck ( M g /H a) 0 20 40 60 80
Land Use Types / Categories
AgriS F NVID -SF NVLDNVHD Fal l2 Fall4Fall6 VPar k10 VPark 100 VPar k50 Euca l30 0 20 40 60 80 AG‐C + BG‐C + Soil C
Transformation at the institutional level:
Participation in collective associations
64% 36% Villages where CF was not introduced Villages where CF was introduced Participation in collective associations No participation in collective associations 58% 42%
Transformation at the household level:
Droughts impacts on HH (occurred last 10
years)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Strong impact Medium impact Low impact Organised in GGF Not organised in GGFImpacts of extreme events on HH
(occurred last 10 years)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Strong impact Medium Impact Low impact
allochtones Migrants
• Migrant and non migrant experience different impacts • The initiative excluded the most vulnerable people
