[PDF] Fuelwood territorialities: Chantier dAménagement Forestier and the

View - Download Fuelwood territorialities: Chantier dAménagement Forestier and the

Previous PDF

Next PDF

Geogr.Helv.,73,165-175,2018

https://doi.org/10.5194/gh-73-165-2018

©Author(s) 2018.Thiswork isdistrib utedunder

theCreative CommonsAttribution3.0License . Fuelwoodterritorialities:Chantierd'Aména gement

Forestierandtherepr oductionof"political forests"

inBurkinaF aso

MurielCôte

1 andDenisGautier 2,3 1 DepartmentofGeograph y, UniversityofZurich,Zurich,Switzerland 2

CIRAD,BoboDioulasso, BurkinaFaso

3 ForêtsetSociétés,Univ Montpellier, CIRAD,Montpellier, France Received:17February2017-Re vised:19February 2018-Accepted: 21March2018 -Published:3 May2018 Abstract.Thispaper investig atestheenduranceofanationalforestmanagementprogrammeinBurkinaF aso

calledChantierd'Aménag ementForestier(CAF),whichfocuses ontheparticipatory sustainableproductionof

fuelwoodandiswidelysupported byinternationaldonors despiteevidence ofitsshortcomings. Weanalysethe

surprisingpersistenceof theCAFmodel asacase oftheterritorialisation ofstatepo werthrough thereproduc-

tionof"political forests"-dra wingonthe workof PelusoandV andergeest(2001,2011).Analysing somethe

shortcomingsandincoherencies ofthemodel, webringto lighttherole ofnon-state actorsinthe reproductionof

theCAFas a"politicalforest". Wesho wthatinformal regulatoryarrangements hav eemergedbetweenstateand non-stateactors,namely merchants andcustomaryauthorities, overtheproductionof fuelwood. Wecall these arrangements"fuelw oodterritorialities"becausetheyhave contributedto keepingthe CAF'sresourcemodel

unquestioned.W ithfuelwoodterritorialities,we drawattentiontotheroleofnon-stateactors inthereproduction

of"politicalforests", thatis,the processofstate territorialisationthroughforest governance. Thisanalysis helps

clarifyhow certainareas,suchastheCAFs, keepbeing officiallyrepresented as"forest" even thoughthey are

dominatedbya patchwork offields,f allows,andsavannahs anddonot have theecologicalcharacteristicsofone.

1Introduction

Theword "forest"ispolysemic;ithasa diversity ofmean- ingsthatreflect notonlya diversity ofecologicaldefinitions butalsopowerrelations over territory.InBurkinaFaso, for example,manyforestresource userswhosefirstlanguage isMooréuse theword weoogo,whichbest translatesinto Englishas"b ush".Thisw orddesignatesanareaaw ayfrom dwellingsthat mayormay notbepopulated withtrees,b ut itiscommonly usedasa translationforthe word"forest" in French,theof ficialstatelanguage inBurkinaFaso.Interest- ingly,thefirstauthoronce noticedthat anareachanged name whenitbecame partofa statepolic ytoformalise theareaas astateforest: neighbouringresidentsstopped usingthe word weoogotoreferto theareaunder newof ficialmanagement andstartedusing thetermforêtwa,av ernacularpronuncia- tionof theFrenchw ordforêt.Thisw asoddbecause thenew wordforêtwadidnotdesignate anew landscapecategory - thedrylandsb usharea previouslyreferredtoasweoogowas essentiallyunchanged.Rather ,thechange oftermreflected ajurisdictionalchange, asthe placepreviously referredtoas weoogowasnolongerunderunof ficialcustomarycontrol, butunderofficialstate control.This anecdoteillustratesthat whatwerefer toas"forest" isnotonly amatterof ecology butalsotheproductof socio-politicalprocessesand relations ofterritorialcontrol. Thediv ersityof forestdefinitionsis not aproblemin andofitself, butit canbecomeproblematic for themanagementof forestresources:if thedefinitionsof what aforestis, whereitstarts andends, cannotbeagreed upon, howmayitbepossible todeterminewhereforestmanage- mentprogramsought totake place?SeeCôte etal.(2018), theintroductionto thisspecialissue. Inthispaper weare particularlyinterestedin theconditions underwhichsome placesareof ficiallydesignatedas "forest"andcontinuetobe

PublishedbyCopernicus PublicationsfortheGeog raphisch-EthnographischeGesellschaft Zürich&AssociationSuissede Géographie.

166M.Côte andD. Gautier:Fuelw oodterritor ialities

chosenby policymakers anddonorsforforestmanagement eveniftheydonotha vethe featuresof"forests".

Wetacklethisissuethrough thecase oftheChantier

glishas"forest managementw orksites"),aparticipatory forestrymodelfor thesustainableproduction offuelw ood inBurkinaF aso.Thismodel hasemergedin1986with the aimto"rationalise" fuelw oodproductionthrough theim- plementationofparticipatory forestrywithinspecific areas.

Manyoftheseareaswere previouslyg azettedunderthe

Frenchcolonialre gime( forêtsclassées),andneighbouring residentswereforbidden toclearnatural resourcesforagri- culturethere.Under theCAFmodel, partsofg azettedar- eas,alsocalled CAFareas, wereopenedup toneighbour- ingresidentsfor theproductionof fuelwood. Themodelre- liesonthe creationof woodcuttercooperati vesmade upof neighbouringresidentsand calledforestmanagement groups (FMGs,groupementsdegestionfor estièreinFrench)that areinchar geofs ustainablefuelwoodproductionand com- mercialisation.TheFMGs thatoperate inCAFareas are meantto meetthefuel wooddemand ofmaincities, espe- ciallythecapital city,b utthemodel hasmanyshortcomings. Namely,themajorityof fuelwood thatisconsumed inBurk- inaFaso isactuallyproducedoutsideCAFareas, andwithin CAFareasforest regenerationhas beenhard tomaintain. Despitethese shortcomings,them odel hasexpanded con- siderably-there arenow adaysatleast 26CAFs(MEDD,

2013a),andthe modelhas alsoattractedsignificant interna-

tionaldonor funding,themost recentbeingfrom theFor - estInv estmentProgram(FIP),aglobalforestmanagement schemethataims topreparecountries fortheinternational Reductionofcarbon EmissionsfromDeforestation andland theconditionsunder whichthee xpansionofthe CAFmodel hastaken placedespiteitsshortcomings. Ouranalyticalpoint ofdepartureis thatCAFareas share characteristicswith"political forests",aconcept proposed byPelusoand Vandergeest (2001,2011)that characterises "landsthatstates declareasforests" andthat"are acritical partofcolonial-era state-makingboth intermsof theterrito- rialisationandle galframing offorestsandtheinstitutionali- sationofforest managementasa technologyof statepower" marcatedassuch fortheirecological characteristicsbut also instrumentaltothe territorialisationofstate power .Itsug- geststhatpol iticaleconomicinterests, aswellasecological scientificcriteria,underlie thedemarcation andmaintenance ofcertainsites as"forests". Inthispaper weextend thisno- tiontothe caseofthe CAFmodelin BurkinaFaso, andwe analysethe politicaleconomicrelations aroundtheproduc- tionoffuel woodthrough whichCAF,asa"politicalforest", isreproduced. Wecallthesepoliticaleconomic relations"fuel woodter - ritorialities".They characterisetheconvergence ofstateand non-stateactors'interests inthe productionoffuel woodre- sourcesasthe CAFterritorialmodel landsonthe ground. Weshowthatwithin CAFareas,themodelhasbetter served theinterests ofwholesalefuel woodmerchants ratherthan thoseofFMG cooperatives, butthis hasnotbeenbrought intoquestionby thego vernment,partly becauseitw ould jeopardiseitschance tosecureint ernationalfundsfor for- estmanagementin BurkinaF aso.OutsideCAF areasfuel- woodproductionislargely consideredasinformal butit is actuallyregulated byasystemoffuel woodpermits delivered bythecentral forestadministration.This officialre gulatory arrangementhasbeen difficultto applyinpractice, however, becausestate presenceistoo sparsetoapply itonthe ground, andinformalre gulativ earrangementshaveemergedbetween localforestagents andcustomaryauthorities. Wecall these relationsbetweenstate andnon-stateactors "fuelwood ter- ritorialities",andwe arguethat theycontrib utetothestate territorialisingef fectofkeepingCAFsas official"forests" despitethemodel' sshortcomings.

Withthisanalysiswehope toadv anceanunderstanding

oftheconditions underwhich"political forests"are repro- duced.Ratherthan beingcoerci vely imposedfromabo ve,we showthatstateforestpolic yisreproduced throughthecon- vergenceofspecificstateandnon-state politicaleconomic interestsin theproductionof forestresources,in thiscase fuelwoodresources.Thedistinctionbetweenfuel woodmer - chantandcustomary territorialitiesis importantbecauseit showsthatdifferent kindsofnon-state actorscanbecomeen- rolledinthe processofstate territorialisationthroughforest policy,anditshowsthatdif ferentkinds ofstate-non-statere- lationsoccurwithin andoutside"political forests"(seealso GautierandHautdidi er,2012; Hautdidieretal.,2004).The fuelwoodterritorialitieswedescribehereare notmeantto be exhaustive-forexampleothernon-stateactorsmay alsobe involvedinthereproductionof"politicalforests"through the convergenceofinterestswithstateactors.Theyare ratheril- lustrativeoftheroleanddifferent kindsofstate andnon-state politicaleconomic relationsaroundforest resourceproduc- tion,which sustainforestpolic ydespiteits shortcomings.

Ouranalysisis basedonthe firstauthor's researchon

themismatchesbetween fuelw oodpolicy andpracticein BurkinaFaso, includingethnographicfieldresearchinthe

Yatengaprovincebetween2011and2012 andregularvis-

itssince,and onthe secondauthor's long-termresearchen- gagementonfuelwood policiesinthe Sahel,particularlyin BurkinaFaso. Thiscombinedresearchexperience provides abas istoputtogetherarealistic pictureofthe CAFpolicy onpaperand ontheground. We startwitha characterisation of"fuelw oodterritorialities"andthewaytheyhelp usunder - standthereproduction of"politicalforests". Wethen present abriefhistory oftheCAF model,itspopularity ,andits res- onancewith the"politicalforest" anditsshortcomings. This isfollowed byourdescriptionoftwo kindsoffuel woodter - ritorialities,inv olvingrelationsbetweenstateagencieswith merchantandcustomary authorities,respecti velyinside and Geogr.Helv.,73,165-175,2018www .geogr-helv.net/73/165/2018/ M.Côteand D.Gautier :Fuelwood territorialities167 outsideCAFs,and thew aytheserelations makethe CAF modeldifficult toabandonasasiteof forestmanagementin

BurkinaFaso.

2Of"political forests"and "fuelwood

territorialities" Forestmanagementpolicymakers oftenassumethat thereis suchathing as"forest"out there,w aitingtobe managed. However,workinpoliticalecologyhasdemonstratedthat na- tureisal ways"situated" (Haraway,1991),inthesensethat "nature"is always seenfromsomewhere,anddifferentac- torshav edifferentwaysofdefining"forest"(Goldman et al.,2011).Ho wev er,thisposesadilemmaforthesustainable managementofforest resources,forif forestcan bedefined inmultiplew ays,how canappropriateforestmanagement sitesbefound? Thework ofNightingale (2003)illustrates thisdi lemmainNepal,wheresheanalysedt hediscrepancies betweenlocalforest users'andaerial photographicrepresen- tationsofho waforest areaimprovedandde graded.Rather thanreifying oneaccounto veranother andtryingto getatthe "truth",sheanalysed whydefinitions differed andshowed thatdiscrepancy couldbeexplainedasa reflectionofthe competingrelationsof controlov erthearea betweenlocal usersandcentral government. Herw orkshowsthatmeanings of"deforestation"and "forest"areentangled withcompeting claimsforland control,andthe yneedto becontinuallye x- aminedcritically iftheirassociated policiesareto have any effectonforestdynamics. PelusoandV andergeest' s(2001,2011)conceptofthe"po- liticalforest"is usefulherebecause ittakes thepoliticaldi- mensionsof definingforestinto consideration.Inour view, thiswork articulatestwokey politicaldimensionsof forests. Firstly,itemphasisesthat "forests"are "notnaturalor uni- versalcategoriesofkno wingbutconstructions"(Pelusoand Vandergeest,2001:801),andtheseconstructionsplay apart inprocessesof stateterritorialisation.The ymake thisargu- mentthroughse veralcases inSouth-EastAsia,wherethey showedthatareasofficially referredtoas "forests",suchas scientificlogicsof conservationb utalsothrough political logicsofcontrol over spaceandpopulations. Keytothis stateterritorialisation processist heway government policies havedrawnonscientificforestry thatadvocatesthecreation ofspacesdedicated toforestry andseparatedfrom agricul- ture,therebycriminalising thecustomaryland usepractices ofnearbyresidents. Thisdimensionechoes thecaseof the CAFmodelwe willdescribebelo winBurkina, whichrelies ontheseparation offorestryand agricultureb utalsodra ws onparticipatorygo vernanceprinciples tolegitimisethissep- aration. Secondly,"forest"ispoliticalbecause government logic underlyingforestpolic yisoften challengedinpractice,and notionsof"forest" andforestmanagement are"contested (PelusoandV andergeest,2001:800). PelusoandVandergeest illustratesuch contestationfromwithin thestateas anex- ample,withtw oquotesfrom colonialofficerswithconflict- ingopinionsabout whattodo withthe residentssurround- ingvaluable forestareas(PelusoandVander geest,2001:761-

2).Inother contexts,forest policycan alsobemoreopenly

challenged,or transformedont heground whenthepresence ofgov ernmentisscarce,andpolicyapplicationisscanty .In Ghana,fore xample,Wardell andLund(2006)demonstrate thatforestgo vernanceis wellqualifiedasaproductof"the rentsof non-enforcement"ratherthan asaproduct ofgov- ernmentlaw enforcement,becauseforestreservesha vecre- atedan"ille gality" thatisasourceofmonetaryandpoliti- calrent-seekingfor bothlocalcustomary chiefsandforest agents.InSene gal,Blundo (2011)analysesotherkindsof informalarrangementsbetween stateforest agentsandin- ternationalNGOs ascasesof the"informalpri vatisation"of ground-levelforestryservice.Sowhentheapplication offor- estpolicy fallsshort,anumber ofnon-stateactors,suchas customaryauthoritiesand internationalNGOs inthesecases, becomeinv olved.Ratherthanunderminingstateterritorial- isation,theirin volvement canbeconstitutiveofmaintain- ingforestpolicies and"political forests"whentheir interests convergewiththoseofstates. Inthis vein,Bassett andGautier(2014)arguethat terri- torialisationis"polycentric" toemphasise a"contrastto the state-centricfocusof theterritorialisation literature"and"to illustratethat theproductionof territoriesspringsfrom mul- tiplesourcesand locations"(Bassettand Gautier,2014:3). Wedrawonthis "polycentric"understandingtostateterrito- rialisationandto conceptualisethereproduction of"political forests"notonly asaresult ofcoerciv estatefores tpolicy imposedfrom above butalsothroughtherelationsbetween stateandnon-sate actorsaroundthe productionofforest re- sources.Agood examplecan befound intheworkofGau- tieretal. (2011)inMali, wheregov ernmentpolicy aiming toinstitutionalise village-level fuelwood"harvestingspaces" underthecontrol ofprofessionalw oodcuttersassociations actuallyopenedup opportunitiesforcustomary authorities toassertterritorial claimsandpolitical leverage withcentral government.Inthiscase,thecontestation didnotbring down fuelwoodpolicy;onthecontrary, thetacitgovernmentrecog- nitionof customarycontrolo verthese "harvestingspaces" waspartandparcelof thereproductionof fuelwood policy. Drawingontheseinsights,we conceptualisefuelw oodterri- torialitiesas convergingpoliticaleconomic interestsbetween stateandnon-state actors aroundtheproduction offuelwood resources,whichcontrib utetothe stateterritorialisingeffect spiteforestpolic yshortcomings. Belowweillustrate"fuelw oodterritorialities" inthecase playinthe reproductionofCAF areasas"poli ticalforests".

Westartwithabrief historyanddescription ofthe CAF

168M.Côte andD. Gautier:Fuelw oodterritor ialities

modeland itspopularitywith internationaldonors,which partlyexplain whyithasbeenreproduced. However,this paradigmis notappliedto theletter, aswesho winSects. 4 and5.Rather ,the CAFmodelisappropriatedonthe ground inways thatprofitparticularinterestgroupsaround thepro- ductionoffuel wood,the merchantsinsideCAFs,andlocal customaryauthoritiesoutside CAFs.Thesedif ferent"fuel- woodterritorialities"areimportantbecause theyhelp usac- countforthe waysin whichthe CAFmodel,asa"political forest",isreproduced over time.

3CAFas the"politicalf orest"ofBurkina Faso

TheCAFis anationalforestry modelthat emergedin the mid-1980sinBurkina Faso,with theaimto "rationalise"fu- elwoodproduction.Itemergedat theintersectionof arising concernaboutfuel woodshortages intheSahelinthe1970s (Ribot,1999,2001) and thegrowing popularityofpartic- ipatoryapproachesto forestresources managementworld- wideinthe 1980s(Bertrandet al.,2006).The modelshares featureswiththe "politicalforest" describedbyPeluso and Vandergeest(2001,2011):itisimplementedwithin places gazettedundertheFrenchcolonial regime,and itisbased on scientificforestry principlesthatspatially segreg ateagricul- turefromforest production,therebyalso criminalisingagri- culturalpracticesthat maytake placewithinCAF areas.The modelhasbeen verypopular withdonors interestedinsup- portingforestmanagement. Key tothispopularity hasbeen theparticipatoryapproach underlyingtheCAF model,but biomasswithinCAF areashasbeen hardtomaintain. Inthis sectionwedescribe therise oftheCAF modelasa "politi- calforest",i tsshortcomings,and itspuzzlingpopularitywith donors.

BeforetheCAF modelemerged, concernsforprotecting

state-monitoredplanting programmesinthe 1970s.Large- scaleplantations understatecontrol proved toberather in- efficient,andtheirfailure ledtothe adoptioninthe 1980s ofasmall-scale village-lev eltreeplanting projectcalledbois devillag es(villagewoodlands), butthesewerenotdedicated tobea sourceoffuel wood.V illage-basedplantationswere oflimitedsize, generallyplanted witheucalyptus,and sold asconstructionw ood.Aselse whereinthesubregion,the na- tionaleffort oftreeplantationhasbeen abandonedsincethe

1980stothe profitofparticipatory naturalforestmanage-

ment,witha doubleobjectiv eofconserv ationandfuel wood production(Gazull andGautier, 2014).TheCAF modelorig- inatedinthis context,under thebriefb utintense3-yearrev- olutionaryre gimeledbythehighlycharismatic lateCaptain ThomasSankara,and withinwhathe called"thethree strug- gles"against deforestation(includingthefightag ainstabu- sivewoodcutting,bushfires,and thewanderingofliv estock). ThefirstCAF worksitew aslaunchedin 1986andfundedby theFA Ounderaprojectcalled"Managementande xploita- tionofforests tosupplythe cityofOuag adougouwithfire- wood"(ProjetPNUD/FA O/BKF/85/011).Despitethe politi- calruptureafter thefall oftheSankara regimein 1987,the projectw asmaintainedandindeedgrew .In2013 therewere

26earmarked CAFareas,andthereare currentlyov er400

FMGs(thew oodcuttercooperati vesthatmanageCAFareas) registeredthroughoutthecountry(MEDD, 2013a). TheCAFmodel reflectsadominant forestryontologythat seestheo verexploitation offuelwoodasacruxofdeforesta- tiondynamicsin theSahel.It aimstoproduce fuelwood to supplytheurban centres(mainly Ouagadougou),whose de- mandsarepercei vedas thelargestandaretherebyalsothe maindriv eroffuelwood-induceddeforestation.Themodel is inheritedfromformer colonialforestryin twomain ways. Firstly,CAFareasaremainly locatedin theCentre-West regionandinareas thatwereinitially reservedbyFrench colonialadministratorsas "gazetted forests".Thesewere all reservedbetweenthe1930sand 1950sthrougha control regimethatexcludedresidents' agroforestrypractices;their reservationaimedtoprovide thecolonialadministration with timberwood, namelyfortheconstructionofa railroadbe- tweenAbidjanand Niamey ,andthe yarestillgazettedto thisday(Côte, 2015).Asthe MinistryofEn vironmentex- plained,"theidea behindit wasfor thestateto openup thegazetted forestsandtransformthemintoforests witha regimeofcontrolledexploitation because,atthat time,stud- iesstartedsho wingthatit waspossibletoe xploitaforest whileconservingit thoughasystem ofrotation"(Ministry enEnvironment staff,Ouagadougou,11 April2012).Sothe CAFmodelis appliedin thesegazetted areasbecause ofthe patoryforestryapproaches in 1980s,but alsobecausefor- estresourceswithi ntheseareas arerelativelyab undant,as theyaresituatedalong importantriv ers,andthe yarethere- foreconsideredfit forfuel woodproduction.

Secondly,theCAFmodelis basedon contemporarypar-

ticipatoryforestryparadigm, butit alsocontinuesto drawon colonialforestrynorms. Thesenorms includethedesignation ofareassubdi videdin forestmanagementworksitesunder specificfuelw oodmanagementplansandtermsofreference (Gautieretal., 2015).Inorder tocreatea CAF,a forestman- agementplan( pland'aménag ementforestier)mustbe elab- orated,andit mustidentifywhen andwherefuel woodcan be cut-typically aCAFarea isdi videdinto15 plotsthatare exploitedeachyearonrotation basisof1 plotperyear over

15years.

1

Theparticipatoryaspect ofthe CAFmodelcomes

1 Thereisno existingnational map ofthedifferentCAFsof BurkinaFaso, althoughthegovernmentis currentlydelineatingthe CAFareas.One reasonwh ysucha long-standingprogramas the CAFhasproduced noov erallcartographicrepresentation ofits achievementsisthattheboundariesof CAFareasare actuallymore describedhere,w ouldsuggest.F orexample,withinone oftheorig- inalCAFareas, residentsarecurrently negotiatingthat partofthequotesdbs_dbs33.pdfusesText_39

[PDF] Promotion 2009/2010 www.mega-master.eu

[PDF] Qui sommes nous? - GRS est une société d assistance et de conseil à la mobilité professionnelle.

[PDF] Les avis de la Chambre des Métiers. Réception des véhicules à moteur et de leurs remorques ainsi que des tracteurs agricoles et forestiers à roues

[PDF] 5t.-,l T!. '.' .lt{l. L'Université du 20 août 1955 _ Skikda {ALGERIE)

[PDF] Une offre complète à votre service. innovation - coopération mutualisation - services

[PDF] Club Gestion des Connaissances. Site web. Manuel utilisateur

[PDF] AMBASSADE DE FRANCE EN ALLEMAGNE SERVICE ÉCONOMIQUE RÉGIONAL

[PDF] Liste des masters ou spécialités des IEP (ouverts ou non ouverts à la mutualisation IEP AIX

[PDF] ACCORD RELATIF AUX DISPOSITIONS D'ACCOMPAGNEMENT DE LA MOBILITE GEOGRAPHIQUE A GROUPAMA D'OC

[PDF] Libellé formation 2DEGT2 LITTÉRATURE & SOCIETE 2DEGT2 METHODES & PRATIQUES SCIENTIFIQUES 2DEGT2 SANTE & SOCIAL 2DEGT2 SCIENCES DE L'INGENIEUR

[PDF] MASTER BIOLOGIE-SANTE PARCOURS MANAGEMENT DE PROJET ET INNOVATION EN BIOTECHNOLOGIE

[PDF] Cadres réservés à l'administration DOSSIER A RETOURNER

[PDF] La productivité et les salaires au Québec Perspectives de long terme

[PDF] LE PERMIS DE CONDUIRE «G»

[PDF] Transformer les situations d impasse en possibilités de passage