Agroforestry Systems 60: 131–136, 2004. © 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
131
Live fences in Ségou, Mali : an evaluation by their early users Virginie Levasseur1,*, Mamadou Djimdé2 and Alain Olivier1 1Département de phytologie, Université Laval, Québec, Canada, G1K 7P4; 2ICRAF, BP 320, Bamako, Mali; *Author for correspondence (e-mail :
[email protected],
[email protected])
Received 17 April 2002; accepted in revised form 29 May 2003
Key words: Adoption, Cassava, Household, Market-gardening, Tenure
Abstract Market-oriented production of gardening crops and cassava 共Manihot utilissima兲 in the dry season is an increasingly frequent practice in Ségou, Mali. Traditionally, these crops are protected from roaming livestock with the help of dead fences. In order to provide a sustainable alternative to dead fences, the International Centre for Research in Agroforestry 共ICRAF兲 began promoting the use of live fences, living trees planted closely together around a field plot. This study was conducted with the first farmers to use these live fences. These farmers expressed satisfaction with the protection offered by the trees and their ability to provide a variety of medicinal, economic, and food products. The form of land tenure, the social status of farmers within their families, and the availability of labour seem to be important factors in the decision to test the live fence. This raises questions about the accessibility of this technique and its possible contribution to the social and economic differentiation of its users.
Introduction Despite a significant population increase and an urban population whose proportion rose from 19 to 31% between 1980 and 2001 共World Bank 2002兲, cities in the Sahel have not experienced food shortages or famine. It seems that the rural districts were able to provide city dwellers with sufficient quantities of food products at reasonable prices 共Chaléard 1996兲. Over the last twenty years, there has been a rapid expansion in crops grown for both family consumption and sale, such as cereals, tubers, and vegetables 共Chaléard 1996兲. This increase in market food production has required an increase in the size of the fields under cultivation, especially during the dry season. For example, Ayuk 共1997兲 observed that 60 to 80% of families in Burkina Faso practiced dry season agriculture, the value of which represented up to 65% of the family’s total income. However, farming in the dry season involves protecting the crops, since an old practice in Sahel con-
sists in letting the animals roam freely so they can feed on the remainders of crops left in the fields. In return, the soil benefits from the added organic material of the animal excrement 共Landais et al. 1991兲. Although a few farmers in the Ségou region use live fences, usually made of Euphorbia spp., to protect their plots, most of them traditionally build dead fences, that is, fences composed of the branches of thorny trees, mainly Ziziphus mauritiana and Combretum micranthum. The collection and assembly of materials have to be repeated every year, because termites quickly attack the dead fences, opening up holes which allow animals to pass through 共Ayuk 1997兲. This temporary aspect of the dead fences has its own advantages, since it allows for plot rotation. The women will also use dead fences as a source of firewood at the end of the dry season. However, an increase in the number of plots to be protected has led to the depletion of species preferred by the farmers, requiring them to travel long distances in search
132 of a supply of woody material 共Bonkoungou et al. 1998兲. In order to provide an alternative to dead fences, the International Centre for Research in Agroforestry 共ICRAF兲 has worked on selecting woody species that could be used in live fences, and since 1996 it has been diffusing them to farmers in the Ségou region 共Bonkoungou et al. 1998兲. The five multi-purpose woody species that were chosen are Z. mauritiana, Acacia nilotica, Acacia senegal, Lawsonia inermis, and Bauhinia rufescens. ICRAF suggests that trees for live fences be planted in two rows, spaced 0.5 m apart. After two or three years of growth, the trees can be pruned to a height of 1.5 m and the branches used to fill in holes at the base of the live fence 共Djimdé 1998兲. The present study reports on the first results obtained by our research program on the process of adoption of live fences by farmers in the Ségou region. The principal objective of the study was to assess farmers’ evaluation of their live fence, in order to gain some comprehension on the factors influencing live fence adoption. The specific objectives were to understand the forms of land and tree tenure required for its establishment, to find out what its products are used for, and to determine the preferences of the farmers regarding the species making up the live fence.
Materials and methods The study area The region of Ségou is the fourth administrative region of Mali. It is divided into seven ‘Cercles’ which are further subdivided into ‘Arrondissements’. The Cercle of Ségou is located between 12° 55' and 14°30' N, and 05° 10' and 06° 55' W – an area of 10 844 km2. From 1994 to 1998, mean annual rainfall was 586.2 mm, falling over 44 days in July, August, and September 共Ministère du Développement Rural et de l’Eau 1999兲. The dry season that follows usually lasts eight or nine months. Millet 共Pennisetum typhoides兲 and sorghum 共Sorghum bicolor兲 are the most common crops, followed by rice 共Oryza sativa兲, cowpea 共Vigna unguiculata兲, corn 共Zea mays兲, fonio 共Digitaria exilis兲, groundnut 共Voandzou subterranea兲, peanut 共Arachis hypogea兲, and several other minor crops. Market-gardening and cassava 共Manihot utilissima兲
crops are concentrated within a circle of about 30 km around the city of Ségou. Methodology We used a qualitative methodology to carry out the study, which consisted of semi-structured interviews, a questionnaire, and direct observations. This type of approach, frequently used in studies concerning forms of land tenure and the adoption of new techniques 共Peltier 1991; Rocheleau et al. 1988兲, was employed to attempt to understand and explain some of the complex characteristics linked to the use of live fences. The first part of the study, carried out in May and June 1999, consisted of both semi-structured and informal interviews, which allowed us to perform an initial characterization of the area and to define the precise objectives of the study. Twenty-three semistructured interviews were conducted with 8 rural development agents and 15 farmers. Information was collected about constraints to agricultural production during the dry season, the advantages and disadvantages of the different techniques used to protect crops, as well as the forest code and management of forest resources. The second part of the study was carried out in July and August 1999, among the first 20 farmers who accepted to test the live fence promoted by ICRAF in the Cercle of Ségou. These were 4 women and 16 men from five villages located less than 30 km from the city of Ségou, including Banankoroni and Djigo 共Arrondissement of Central Ségou兲, N’Tobougou and Tombala 共Arrondissement of Farako兲, and Tesséribougou 共Arrondissement of Markala兲. These farmers had all planted the trees of the live fence in 1996. At the time of the study, these trees had been growing for about three years. We began with eight semi-structured interviews concerning the different uses of the trees in the live fence, land and tree tenure, and the criteria used by the farmers to evaluate the trees making up the live fence. A questionnaire was then developed and completed with each of the 20 farmers. Information was gathered concerning the social status of the farmers within their families, the form of tenure of their lands, their knowledge of the woody species proposed by ICRAF, the products obtained from these species, their preferences concerning the different trees, and the type of crops grown within the protected area.
133 Interpretation of the qualitative data was carried out by means of content analysis 共Gauthier 1992兲. We used descriptive statistical analysis to interpret the quantitative data.
Results Some personal characteristics of the live fence’s early users The 20 people interviewed were all farmers from the Bambara and Peul ethnic groups. Their average age was 53, with the youngest 44 and the oldest 63 years old. Twenty-five percent of the farmers had received no school education, 25% had gone to primary school, 35% had taken Bambara literacy courses, and 15% had gone to Koranic school. Sixty percent of the farmers were heads of family, that is, it was their responsibility to make decisions concerning the social organization, the organization of work, and the planning of agricultural production for the family. Since the heads of family must assume numerous tasks, they sometimes delegate management of the agricultural work to a younger brother. In our sample, 15% of the farmers were in charge of the agricultural work, and 25% 共including the four women兲 had no special status within the family. Modes of land tenure and rights to the trees Although the government is usually the legal owner of the land in the villages of the Ségou region, its tenure is ruled by custom and tradition. The customary rights to the land belong to the first ones who cleared and cultivated it, and these rights are transferred from one generation to the next. Rights to the trees – i.e. rights concerning their planting and usage – are closely linked to land rights. As is the case in many regions of the Sahel, the tree is a property marker. Thus, only individuals holding the rights to the land they cultivate can make a decision to plant a tree on it or give such permission to a third party. A younger brother must therefore receive the support of the head of the family before planting a tree on a family plot. A woman must obtain permission from her husband, who will then ask the permission of the head of the family. Men often hesitate to grant such a favor to a wife, especially since the cowives might want to demand the same thing. Furthermore, the person who plants a tree is in effect the
owner of it, even if he holds no rights to the land where the tree is planted. Therefore, a situation may arise in which a person who planted trees on someone else’s land will claim a property right to this land. To avoid this type of conflictual situation, it is extremely rare for an individual who holds the rights to land to give permission to a third party to plant a tree on it. In our sample, 100% of the early users held rights to the land where they planted the live fence. The fact that 75% of them where head of the family or in charge of agricultural work allowed them to take the decision to plant the live fence. One woman 共5% of farmers兲 planted a live fence on her own plot that she inherited from her father. The other women 共15% of farmers兲 and one man 共5% of farmers兲 asked for and obtained the right to plant their live fences on family plots. The use of protected plots At the time of this study, 25% of the farmers 共including the four women兲 were producing market-gardening crops, 5% had established mango orchards, and 70% were preparing to grow cassava within their protected plot. Ninety percent of the farmers interviewed stated that they had planted one or more crops within the protected plot between 1996 and 1998; the other 10% stated they did not do so due to health reasons. Growth of the live fence trees and use of their products The live fences were planted in August using young trees 15 to 30 cm tall provided by ICRAF. Dead fences had to be built around the young live fences to protect them from animals for the first few years. According to the farmers interviewed, growing the trees in a nursery, planting them, and building the dead fence all require a lot of work, at a time when they are already busy with many other agricultural activities. In a little less than three years after planting, 75% of live fence owners had collected at least one product from the trees. Henna was the most commonly utilized product. Fifty percent of the live fence owners had, at least on one occasion, collected the branches of L. inermis. These branches are brought to the house where the women strip the leaves to dry them in the sun, then grind them into powder. Thirty
134 Table 1. Evaluation of the species of trees in the live fence by the 20 early users in the Ségou region, Mali, in 1999 Evaluation criteria
Acacia nilotica
Ziziphus mauritiana
Protection Growth Maintenance Economic value Medicinal value
4.10# 共0.19兲 4.37 共0.24兲 2.37 共0.22兲 3.53 共0.25兲 3.33 共0.30兲
4.50 2.50 2.60 3.85 2.37
##
共0.17兲 共0.33兲 共0.18兲 共0.26兲 共0.45兲
Lawsonia inermis 2.25 2.65 4.60 4.35 1.90
共0.30兲 共0.24兲 共0.21兲 共0.28兲 共0.35兲
The preferences of farmers are expressed on a scale of 1 共mediocre兲 to 5 共excellent兲;
#
percent of the farmers who harvested henna sold a certain quantity of it on the market. In addition, 40% of the farmers had cut branches from trees in the live fence to fill in holes at its base. Branches of A. nilotica, A. senegal, Z. mauritiana and B. rufescens were used for this purpose. Branches of L. inermis are too valuable to be used to fill in holes. An equal number of users, i.e. 40%, had utilized at least one medicinal product from the live fence. The bark of A. senegal was most commonly employed for this purpose. Some farmers had also harvested the leaves and roots of Z. mauritiana, as well as the leaves of B. rufescens and A. nilotica. All of these were mainly used to treat stomach and mouth pain. Z. mauritiana is the only species with edible fruit. Forty percent of the farmers had eaten the fruit of this tree along with their children and families. Furthermore, 20% of the farmers had started to harvest seeds from certain trees in their live fence. They used these seeds to replenish the fence or distributed them to members of the village who had asked for them. Finally, 15% of the farmers had harvested the fruit from A. nilotica, to extract tannin used in the treatment of leather. Since the owners are the only people who have the right to use products from the live fence or to give permission to a third party, they are usually the ones who do the harvesting, even if the products are intended for someone else. All the people interviewed considered that those who harvested products from the live fence without their permission were thieves. Twenty-five percent of the farmers told us they had experienced theft, mainly in the form of bark or fruit taken from the trees. None of this prevents owners of a live fence from sharing products with the people around them. Household members are the first recipients, whether it be henna, medicinal products, or the fruits of Z. mauritiana. Actually, they were the beneficiaries of 71% of the products collected from trees in the live
Acacia senegal 3.94 3.22 2.33 0.61 4.53
共0.25兲 共0.28兲 共0.24兲 共0.29兲 共0.17兲
Bauhinia rufescens 2.32 3.16 3.63 0.26 1.67
共0.26兲 共0.33兲 共0.27兲 共0.18兲 共0.39兲
##
The value in parentheses is the standard deviation
fence. Members of the extended family 共21%兲, villagers 共6%兲, and even strangers 共2%兲 may also benefit, for example, from its medicinal products or seeds. Preferences of users concerning tree species in the live fence We first wanted to know what criteria the farmers use to determine the value of the trees in the live fence. Five main criteria were identified: the protection provided, the rate of growth, the ease of maintenance, the economic value of their products, and their medicinal value. Farmers were then asked to classify the different species on a scale of 1 共mediocre兲 to 5 共excellent兲 for each of these criteria 共Table 1兲. In terms of protection provided, the users preferred Z. mauritiana, a species that is also highly valued for the construction of dead fences. A. nilotica came in second and ahead of A. senegal because of its longer and sturdier thorns that do a better job of keeping out livestock. The two species without thorns came in last. In terms of tree growth, the farmers clearly preferred A. nilotica, which was already providing good protection for crops in its third year of growth. Following this species were A. senegal and B. rufescens. L. inermis and Z. mauritiana have slower growth rates. When grown close beside other species, as is the case in many live fences, the growth of Z. mauritiana is particularly slowed down. In terms of ease of maintenance, L. inermis and B. rufescens took first place. Since they have no thorns they are easier to work with. Ease of maintenance is a criterion mentioned more often by women than by men, who are more used to dealing with thorns in the bush than women. According to the farmers, L. inermis is the tree with the greatest economic value. This is because the amount of henna exceeding household needs or the
135 needs of the extended family can usually be sold. The farmers also mentioned the possibility of selling the fruits of Z. mauritiana and A. nilotica. Even though it produces gum arabic and has many medicinal uses, A. senegal was accorded only a low economic value by the farmers. However, according to them, the medicinal value of the trees is almost as important as their economic value. A. senegal is often mentioned as being the most important tree from this perspective.
Discussion The results of this study enable us to understand some important characteristics that seem to be related to the use of live fences in the Ségou region, in Mali. For example, 75% of the early users of the live fence occupied the position of head of family or were in charge of agricultural operations. This may be because the heads of family and the persons in charge of agricultural work were approached more frequently by ICRAF and had better access to information than other farmers. However, it could also be that the individual’s decision-making power in terms of land use and organization of work within the family is an important factor in the decision to test this particular technology. In fact, the establishment of a live fence necessitates the holding of the land rights, as well as sufficient labour to carry out all the work required. These conditions may be difficult to meet for poorer farmers, and especially for women. Few women possess their own personal plot 共Bonnard and Scherr 1994兲. In addition, men are unwilling to let women plant trees on their plots, mainly because it could result in conflicts when the inheritance is to be divided up among the children and different wives, as the case may be. Planting trees is an act full of meaning in West Africa, because they serve as property markers. If the trees are arranged in a live fence they partition the space, and the ownership of the plot becomes very clear 共Peltier 1991兲. Some authors have stated that population growth and the process of decentralization in Mali could lead farmers to seek to clearly define the limits of their plots 共Bertrand 1999; Konate 1998兲. The live fence could therefore become an instrument for this purpose. The trees in the live fences are also appreciated for the numerous products they provide. For generations,
farmers have exploited the products of many species of trees found in the bush. Some of these species, victims of their own popularity, have become rare, and the farmers expressed satisfaction at having them in their own plots. In fact, the trees in the live fence are appreciated for much more than their protective function. The importance attributed to L. inermis illustrates this phenomenon quite well. Although its ability to effectively protect a plot under cultivation seems limited to them, the farmers consider that its cultural role and economic importance justify its presence. The medicinal role of certain trees is also important, as it is the case for A. senegal. Women in particular, who feel very concerned about the health of their family members, frequently mention the various remedies that come from these trees. Their increasing scarcity in the bush affects them directly, since they stand to lose valuable providers of medicinal products and fresh fruit 共Monimart 1989兲. The men seem to particularly appreciate Z. mauritiana, in spite of its slow development. A previous study by Traoré 共1998兲 also pointed out that this species was the most appreciated by farmers. It is highly prized in the building of dead fences. Some farmers even told us they were thinking of building a dead fence around another plot with the materials provided by the live fence. The live fence appears to be a technique from which a number of people can receive benefit. The owners are not the only ones to reap rewards from having trees in their plots; members of the household, the family, the village, and even strangers, benefit from the products of the live fence. The technique thus seems to have a direct influence not only on the owners’ quality of life, but also on that of the people in their entourage.
Conclusion This study, carried out among the 20 early users of the live fence in the Ségou region, is revealing, since it indicates that holding the rights to a plot of land and the availability of labor could be inescapable factors in the adoption of this technique. It is thus possible that only the wealthiest farmers would have access to the live fence. A more in-depth study among the new users would allow confirmation of this hypothesis. It would also allow an assessment of the feasibility and profitability of the live fence. Furthermore, future studies could better determine the
136 conditions favoring the use of a live fence versus a dead fence. In fact, the live fence, which is a fixed structure, may not always be the ideal solution for protecting all farming operations carried out in the dry season. The dead fence can be more easily taken down and rebuilt elsewhere, offering a greater flexibility that may be more suitable for plot rotation. Moreover, although the live fence possesses numerous advantages, even according to its early users, it may also be appropriate to ask whether this agroforestry technique is best suited to the types of conditions the poorest farmers experience, and whether it may be a factor in social and economic differentiation.
Acknowledgements We wish to thank the ICRAF staff at Samanko and Ségou for their support, as well as all of the farmers who collaborated in this study. We also wish to thank Steven Franzel for his useful comments. This study was made possible through a financial contribution from the International Development Research Centre 共IDRC兲.
References Ayuk E.T. 1997. Adoption of agroforestry technology: the case of live hedges in the Central Plateau of Burkina Faso. Agricultural Systems 54共2兲: 189–206. Bertrand M. 1999. Décentralisation et culture politique locale au Mali: de la réforme territoriale au cas de Bamako. Autrepart 10: 23–40.
Bonkoungou E., Djimdé M., Ayuk E.T., Zoungrana I. and Tchoudjeu Z. 1998. Taking stock of agroforestry in the Sahel – harvesting results for the future: end of the phase report 1989 ⫺ 1996. ICRAF, Nairobi, Kenya. Bonnard P. and Scherr S. 1994. Within gender differences in tree management : is gender division a reliable concept? Agrofor Syst 25: 71–93. Chaléard J.-L. 1996. Temps des villes, temps des vivres: l’essor du vivrier marchand en Côte d’Ivoire. Karthala, Paris, France. Djimdé M. 1998. Technical advisory notes on live fencing in semiarid West Africa. ICRAF, Samanko, Mali. Gauthier B. 1992. Recherche sociale : de la problématique à la collecte de données. Presses de l’Université du Québec, SainteFoy, Canada. Konate D. 1998. Problématique de la gestion foncière au Mali: héritage et dynamiques actuelles. In : Coquery-Vidrovitch C., Goerg O. and Tenoux H. 共eds兲, Des historiens africains en Afrique: logiques du passé et dynamiques actuelles. L’Harmattan, Paris, France, pp. 67–91. Landais E., Lhoste P. and Guérin H. 1991. Systèmes d’élevage et transferts de fertilité. In: Savanes d’Afrique, terres fertiles? Ministère de la Coopération et du Développement, Paris, France, pp. 219–270. Ministère du Développement Rural et de l’Eau 1999. Rapport annuel d’activités, campagne agricole 1998/1999. Ministère de l’Agriculture, Bamako, Mali. Monimart M. 1989. Femmes du Sahel: la désertification au quotidien. Karthala/OCDE and Club du Sahel, Paris, France. Peltier R. 1991. L’arbre dans les terroirs villageois. In : Savanes d’Afrique, terres fertiles? Ministère de la Coopération et du Développement, Paris, France, pp. 507–530. Rocheleau D., Weber F. and Field-Juma A. 1988. Agroforestry in dryland Africa. ICRAF, Nairobi, Kenya. Traoré C.O. 1998. Étude socio-économique des essais haies vives à Ségou. ICRAF, Samanko, Mali. World Bank 2002. Mali data profile. Retrieved November 8, 2002 共http ://devdata.worldbank.org/external/CPProfile.asp?Selected Country⫽MLI&CCODE⫽MLI&CNAME⫽MALI&PTYPE⫽CP兲
