Poverty and environmental degradation: Implication on natural resources management in the West African Sahel

1. VITRI, Viikki Tropical Resources Institute, Dept. of Forest Sciences, University of Helsinki, www.helsinki.fi/vitri
Corresponding author:
Daniel Etongo, email: daniel.etongobau@helsinki.fi
Daniel Etongo¹, Markku Kanninen¹ and Nadia Djenontin²
¹Viikki Tropical Resources Institute, Department of Forest Sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland
²Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) – West Africa Regional Office (WARO), Burkina Faso
Poverty and environmental degradation: Implication on natural resources
management in the West African Sahel
Fig. 1. Study area
Introduction
We don’t really know if the poverty-environment
vicious circle hypothesis stands up to empirical
examination and this is a problem. This is
because the natural resource base is often
neglected of which it constitute an important
source of income especially for the poor groups
of the society in rural developing countries
Aim
This study tests the poverty-environment
relationship based on the following questions:
(1) when households are categorized based on
poverty and wealth, which households are
responsible for environmental degradation? (2)
Does poverty constrain the adoption of land
management practices considered to improve
the land?
Material and methods
Description of study area
This study was conducted in four adjacent
community forest villages: Cassou, Vrassan,
Dao, and Kou, all in the Ziro province, southern
Burkina Faso (Figure 1). These villages were
chosen under the framework of the Building
Biocarbon and Rural Development (BIODEV)
project in West Africa.
Sampling and Data Collection
 The field data collection first consisted of
constructing a participatory poverty
assessment (PPA) based on local indicators
developed during a focus group discussion
(FGD).
 Two hundred household interviews were
conducted based on the 12 local indicators
(Table 1) of wealth status identified during
the FGD.
 The mean value of all 12 indicators
determined if a household is non-poor, fairly
poor or poorest.
Indicator Score Description
Access to land 0 Owns more than 10 ha of land
50 Owns between 4 and 10 ha of land
100 Owns less than 4 ha of land
Food security 0 Household without a period of food shortage in the last 3 years
50 Experienced a food shortage in the last 3 years that lasted <3 months
100 Experienced a food shortage in the last 3 years that lasted >3 months
Healthcare 0 Capable of paying for the services of a doctor in the district hospital and beyond
50 Capable of paying for doctors’ services limited to the district hospital
100 Household is unable to pay for a doctors’ service and relies on herbal medicine
Nonagricultural sources
of income 0 Receives income from the sale of livestock, household shops, owns a truck for
transportation
50 Uses cart to transport crops for income, sells food and non-timber forest products
100 Household does not have any other source of nonagricultural income
Sale of crops 0 Sells more than half of cereals produced while satisfying household needs
50 Selling up to half of cereal produced will lead to a food shortage
100 Does not sell cereals and is not self-sufficient, depends heavily on NTFPs
Agricultural equipment 0 Cultivates the land with tractor and draught ox, owns compost production facilities
50 Cultivates with donkeys and is capable of buying compost to use on farm
100 Cultivates the land with hand hoes and cutlasses
Tree resources 0 Owns tree plantations (fruit trees, poles for construction, etc.)
50 A few trees on farm and around the compound for subsistence and commercial use
100 Does not own trees on farm and compound but depends on the forest for NTFPs
Livestock ownership 0 Owns three or more herd of cattle
50 Owns less than three herds of cattle (a herd of cattle is 10 cows)
100 Does not own any cattle
Ownership of other
animals 0 Owns three drove (10 donkeys) of donkeys, goats, and sheep
50 Owns less than three drove of donkeys, goats, and sheep
100 Does not own any donkeys, goats, or sheep
Household gadgets 0 Owns TV/solar panel, radio/radio-cassette player and Yamaha generator
50 Owns radio/radio-cassette player, uses motor battery to generate electricity
100 Does not own electrical appliances but uses kerosene lamp
Transportation 0 Owns ≥ 1 car and ≥ 1 motorcycle
50 Owns a motorcycle and a cart
100 Owns a bicycle and other members of the household often go on foot
Institutional credit 0 Has the required collateral security for credit and is capable of paying back
50 Limited collateral for credit and might be unable to pay if externalities arises
100 Lacks collateral for credit and also lacks the potential for repayment
Results
Poverty Level and Households’ Characteristics
A total of 51.5 percent of the respondents were fairly poor,
32.5 percent were the poorest and 16 percent were non-poor
(Fig. 2).
Table 1. Household poverty indicators and scoring system in southern Burkina Faso
Indicators of Environmental Degradation: Differences
among Wealth Categories
Using a one-way ANOVA for mean comparison among the
wealth categories, results indicate that all of the four indicators
of environmental degradation, excluding farm age, showed a
statistical difference at the 5 percent significance level among
all wealth categories (Table 2).
Table 2. Comparing Environmental Degradation Indicator Means
Among Wealth Categories.
Variables
Homogeneity of Variances One way ANOVA b
Levene Stat Sig. Welch Stat a Sig.
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
F Sig.
Farm size
(ha)
10.00 0.000 14.40 0.000 397.70 2 198.90 8.10 0.000
Farm age 1.50 0.226 - - 468.70 2 234.40 1.60 0.202
Mean annual
deforestation
(ha)
1.90 0.149 - - 0.80 2 0.40 4.50 0.012
Quantity of
cotton
produced
(kg)
8.40 0.000 5.30 0.007 236,031.90 2 118,015.00 3.70 0.027
Monthly
fuel-wood
consumption
(m3)
17.30 0.000 25.00 0.000 22.30 2 11.20 20.60 0.000
Overgrazing
expressed by
the number
of cattle
40.80 0.000 83.10 0.000 40,628.70 2 20,314.30 104.90 0.000
Table 3. Activities Perceived as Environmentally Degrading and their
Relation to Wealth Categories
Indicators of environmental
degradation
Wealth categories of
households (%)
Total
(%)
Chi-Square Tests
Non-poor Fairly poor Poorest Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Deforestation
2003-2013
No 1.00 19.50 16.50 37.00
18.30 2 0.000
Yes 15.00 32.00 16.00 63.00
Cotton as
driver of
deforestation
No 13.00 30.50 25.50 69.00
9.57 2 0.008
Yes 3.00 21.00 7.00 31.00
Cutting and
selling
fuelwood
No 14.50 27.00 19.50 61.00
15.01 2 0.001
Yes 1.50 24.50 13.00 39.00
Overgrazing No 0.00 19.00 27.00 46.00
66.67 2 0.000
Yes 16.00 32.50 5.50 54.00
Fig. 3. Farmer’s self-reported overgrazing
Fig. 4. Farmer’s self-reported soil fertility loss
Fig. 5. Adoption of sustainable land management practices
across wealth categories
 The non-poor farmers contributed more
towards environmentally degrading
activities.
 Land management practices considered to
be sustainable in this region, are invaluable
for soil fertility management.
 Assisted natural regeneration of
indigenous tree species in the parkland is
important for soil improvement.
 However, the available resources of
household is important in land use decision
making and can favor or deter natural
resource management.
Conclusion
 Some of these land management practices
e.g. planting pits, use of compost and
stone bunds are both labor and capital
intensive which reaffirm the low rate of
adoption among the poorest farmers.
 Therefore, the results of our study
indicated that the non-poor and fairly poor
farmers contributed toward environmentally
degrading activities while poverty constrain
the adoption of sustainable land
management practices.