Interviews

Jonathan Okafor

Jonathan Okafor has had a long and distinguished career in forestry in Nigeria. He made a special contribution to research on trees producing non-timber forest products, especially indigenous fruits. In recent years, his expertise has been recognised by development agencies and he has undertaken consultancy work in many countries of Africa, especially west Africa, and in the rest of the world. As he indicates in this interview, his vision was inspired by the Biafran War, but now the domestication of indigenous trees for agroforestry is coming to be recognized as an important means of enhancing the livelihoods of subsistence farmers worldwide.

Contact: Dr. Jonathan C. Okafor, FAME Agriculture, PO Box 3856, Enugu, Nigeria;
Tel. +234.42.255060 or 555342;
Fax +234.42.453202.

RRBL: Jonathan, you can be credited with starting work to domesticate indigenous fruit trees in the forest zone of West Africa. What was it that started you in this work and how did you go about deciding which species to work on?
JO: My initiative on development of indigenous fruit trees started during the Nigeria – Biafra civil war in 1968. Since at the time no one could guess the duration of the hostilities, I felt that reducing the fruiting period of the local fruit trees would be useful in boosting food supply especially as the “enemy” was not familiar with most of the forest trees. My selection procedure was based on the importance of food and the range of economic products as perceived by farmers and other local inhabitants.

RRBL: Who in the local community were the custodians of local knowledge about the indigenous species? What level of knowledge did they have and what crucial knowledge were they lacking?
JO: The farmers, especially the elderly ones, had a great deal of knowledge on identification, variation and use of the local species, including critical information on the field establishment of the species. They lacked information on techniques of domesticating superior strains even though they could identify some such as bud grafting techniques.

RRBL: Has much of the indigenous knowledge about local species been lost in the last generation or two?
JO: Considerable amount of indigenous knowledge (IK) has been lost especially in the area of medicinal uses of plants, due to the secrecy and reluctance of the older generation in passing the information to the younger generation, who themselves are not very keen on learning. IK has also been lost as certain food crops are adopted due to changing tastes and urbanization.

RRBL: In the effort to domesticate indigenous trees, it is important to capture the traits displayed by genetically superior trees. How much are local people aware of tree-to-tree variation? Are they knowledgeable about the extent of variation, particularly the extremes displayed by rare individuals or rare combinations of traits?
JO: The local people are quite aware of tree-to-tree variation to a surprising level of detail. They know about the fruiting pattern, quality and yield and even disease resistance. They consider these traits in selection and introduction into new areas. I have alluded to this in a paper I gave on ‘Use of Farmer Knowledge in NTFP Research’ at the International Expert Workshop on Non-wood Forest Products in Central Africa, held at the Limbe Botanical Garden, Cameroon.

RRBL: What my questions are building up to is how much genetic gain do you think we can make by the multiplication of farmer-selected trees, versus the slower and more expensive method of numerous field trials screening large numbers of trees?
JO: We certainly can make tremendous gains by involving farmers in the selection exercise, exploring within the compound farm systems and challenging farmers to present – during agricultural shows, for example – their outstanding fruits, and to monitor and evaluate such trees.

RRBL: What strategies should we adopt to make rapid progress in our domestication effort?
JO: Our strategy should include involving farmers in the selection of superior strains as suggested above, conducting ethnobotanical surveys in relevant agro-ecological zones that cover centers of diversity for species of interest, and mounting training programs on simple plant propagation techniques. In addition, we should realize that conservation awareness and education is also necessary to protect species from over-exploitation or neglect. We should encourage NGOs to establish links with conservation and farmers’ groups in various regions, and to implement participatory projects on conservation with financial support from donor agencies.

RRBL: What constraints do you see to the success of this approach? How can the markets be expanded to provide the incentive for farmers to plant trees? How much real interest is there within the population in these products - is it growing or declining?
JO: The constraints could include lack of land (and land tenure problems), planting materials, cash, labour, techniques of processing, preservation and storage. In addition, there are problems such as seedling mortality, diseases and pests including grazing animals, lack of appropriate working tools and so on. The development of overseas markets, and improved commercial and industrial prospects, will promote greater production and profitability (see Ejiofor and Okafor 1997, Okafor and Lamb 1994 and other references). Farmers will be willing to plant more trees, if trees of their choice and of commercial value are made available, together with other incentives such grant in cash or kind. Farmers’ interest depends on the scarcity and the perceived needs for trees and tree products. On the whole, the interest in tree planting is on the increase.

RRBL: Where do you think the main markets will be in the next century? Is the next generation going to be interested in the indigenous species?
JO: If product development receives adequate attention, the market will shift to overseas markets in the next century. The next generation will be interested in indigenous species, if the current neglect in research, development and utilization is positively addressed.

RRBL: Have you any other points you would like to raise about the domestication effort and its linkages with ethnobotany?
JO. There are many other issues worth considering, including the intellectual property rights for indigenous knowledge and samples collected from communities. We need to work on an appropriate incentive structure to promote conservation and enhanced utilization of indigenous species. I should also note the importance of networking on the usefulness of species in different countries to enhance sharing of information, the role of NGOs in conservation development and utilization of biodiversity, and the need for a coordinated action plan and policy framework on biodiversity prospecting and domestication.

Left and above: Jonathan Okafor during a break from the International Expert Workshop on Non-Wood Forest Products in Central Africa, held at the Limbe Botanic Garden in Cameroon from 10-15 May 1998. The meeting was organized by the United States Forest Service, with support from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the Central African Regional Program for the Environment (CARPE) and the Limbe Botanic Garden. The full proceedings are available on the CARPE website http://carpe.gecp.virginia.edu/products_nonwood.htm. Photos © Anthony B. Cunningham.

Selected References
Ejiofor, M.A.N., O.R. Obiajulu, and J.C. Okafor. 1988. Diversifying utilities of African breadfruit (Treculia africana Decne. subsp. africana) as food and feed. International Tree Crops Journal 5:125-134.
Okafor, J.C. 1975. Varietal delimitation in Irvingia gabonensis (Irvingiaceae) Bulletin du Jardin National Belgique 45:211-221.
Okafor, J.C. 1978. Development of forest treecrops for food supplies in Nigeria. Forest Ecology and Management 1:235-247.
Okafor, J.C. 1980. Edible indigenous woody plants in the rural economy of the Nigerian forest zone. Forest Ecology and Management 3:45-55.
Okafor, J.C. 1980. Trees for food and fodder in the savanna areas of Nigeria. International Tree Crops Journal 1:131-141.
Okafor, J.C. 1981. Delimitation of a new variety of Treculia africana Decne. subsp. africana (Moraceae). Bulletin du Jardin National Belgique 51:
191-199.
Okafor, J.C. 1983. Varietal delimitation of Dacryodes edulis (G. Don.) H.J. Lam. (Burseraceae). International Tree Crops Journal 2:255-265.
Okafor, J.C. 1991. Improving edible species of forest products. Unasylva 165:17-23.
Okafor, J.C. and A. Lamb. 1994. Fruit trees: diversity and conservation strategies. Pages 34-41 in R.R.B. Leakey and A.C. Newton, editors, Tropical Trees: The Potential for Domestication and the Rebuilding of Forest Resources. London, HMSO.
Ejiofor, M.A.N. and J.C. Okafor. 1997. Prospects for commercial exploitation of Nigerian indigenous trees, vegetables, fruits and seeds through food and industrial products formulation. International Tree Crops Journal, 9:119-129.
Okafor, J.C. (in press). The use of farmer knowledge in non-wood forest product research. In The Non-Wood Forest Products of Central Africa: Current Research Issues and Prospects for Conservation and Development. The Proceedings of an International Expert meeting on Non-Wood Forest Products in Central Africa. 10-15 May 1998, Limbe, Cameroon.

Additional References on related topics
Leakey, R.R.B. and A-M.N. Izac. 1996. Linkages between domestication and commercialization of non-timber forest products: implications for agroforestry, Pages 1-7 in R.R.B. Leakey, A.B. Temu, M. Melnyk and P. Vantomme, editors, Domestication and Commercialization of Non-timber Forest Products in Agroforestry Systems. Non-wood Forest Products 9. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization.
Leakey, R.R.B. and T.P. Tomich. 1998. Domestication of tropical trees: from biology to economics and policy. Pages 319-338 in L.E. Buck, J.P. Lassoie and E.C.M. Fernandes, editors, Agroforestry in Sustainable Ecosystems. New York CRC Press.
Leakey, R.R.B. and A.J. Simons. 1998. The domestication and commercialization of indigenous trees in agroforestry for the alleviation of poverty. Agroforestry Systems 38:165-176.
Leakey, R.R.B. 1998. Potential for novel food products from agroforestry trees. Food Chemistry 64:1-14.

 

Tony Cunningham

Tony Cunningham has played an important role in developing a link between ethnobotany and agroforestry in Africa. This started in the early 1980s with studies of the basketry industry in Botswana and the medicinal plants trade. More recently, he has worked on Prunus africana, an African montane forest tree being overexploited for its bark, which is exported to Europe for use in the medical treatment of prostate problems. As he says in this interview, there is scope for much greater involvement of ethnobotanists in agroforestry initiatives.

Tony Cunningham speaking with students at a field site in Arabuko-Sokoke forest (near Malindi, Kenya) during a People and Plants training course on trees used by Kenyan woodcarvers.

Contact: Dr. A.B (Tony) Cunningham, WWF/UNESCO/Kew People and Plants Initiative, 84 Watkins St, White Gum Valley, Fremantle 6162, Australia; People and Plants Online website: http://www.kew.org.uk/peopleplants./RRBL

RRBL: You have written a lot about the ethnobotany and management of useful plants, especially in Africa. How do you see ethnobotany in relation to agroforestry?
ABC: In many ways, I see ethnobotany and agroforestry as flip-sides of the same coin. Both draw on local knowledge and are concerned with enhancing peoples’ livelihoods through innovative use of plants. One way in which these two fields differ, however, is that the resource management side of ethnobotany – in which I have a particular interest – is the sometimes depressing “downside” of selective overexploitation of wild populations of favored, often commercially exploited plant species. This is mirrored by the positive agroforestry flip-side – the potential for enhancement and intensive production in agroforestry systems of many of those same overexploited species. Two southern African examples of plants that have been locally overexploited from wild populations are Hyphaene palms for basketry fiber and the medicinal tree Warburgia salutaris. On the positive side, both species have been recently introduced into small-scale farming systems, first on an experimental scale, then amongst local farmers. In both cases, these developments have occurred in the very places where overharvesting took place. The consequent scarcity of these species increased the incentive of innovative local farmers to grow them for local use and to earn profit from the informal sector trade. But this time – in contrast to earlier harvesting – there is strict local tenure applying to trees on farms. These examples show how agroforestry can contribute to achieving a balance between people and resources.

RRBL: What are the constraints that have hindered the uptake by professionals working in agroforestry of indigenous knowledge?
ABC: As you know better than most, it’s a little difficult to answer in the sense that agroforestry itself has been a “moving target” as it has developed, changed and matured. However, at risk of being too blunt, I would suggest that a major reason is that for too long agroforestry was dominated by scientists dealing with crops, forestry, soils or databases and that it suffered from too little insight from social scientists, anthropologists and economists. As a result, we ended up knowing a lot about the biology of agroforestry (crops, water and soils), but too little about the driving forces of what people preferred, whether in existing farming systems or in terms of potential new crop plants. Agroforestry is not alone in having this problem – it applies in the conservation field as well. But gradually, interdisciplinary team research – incorporating local farmers and innovative methods – are improving the recognition and use of local knowledge within agroforestry. There are a growing number of excellent cross-disciplinary research studies linking indigenous knowledge and agroforestry from different parts of the world. Examples are studies of home gardens in Ethiopia by Zemede Asfaw and Javier Caballero’s research on Maya home gardens as well as his work with Alejandro Casas in quantifying Mixtec domestication of Leucaena esculenta. At a broader spatial scale are PS Ramakrishnan’s studies of the economic and ecological efficiency of jhum agroecosystems in India, Michael Dove’s work in Southeast Asia on small-holder rubber production and Genevieve Michon and Hubert de Foresta’s studies on damar agroforestry systems.

RRBL: What do you think agroforesters should do to increase the use of ethnobotanical information in the development of agroforestry practices? Conversely, how could ethnobotanists help to make their knowledge more available to agroforesters?
ABC: Links between agroforestry and ethnobotany need to be strengthened, particularly when it comes to research methods that draw on local knowledge of local tenure systems, horticultural practices and the cultural, nutritional and economic benefits derived from existing or potential agroforestry species. The knowledge of local farmers should not be the sole focus of investigation using methods in common use in ethnobotany, but also the knowledge of traders, landless share-croppers or even children spending time scaring predators away from crops. There are two ways this can be done. Firstly, through the wider use of ethnobotany methods manuals (such as the Ethnobotany Methods Manual by Gary Martin and, more recently, Plants and Protected Areas by John Tuxill and Gary Nabhan, both in the People and Plants series), even if this requires training courses for agroforesters. Secondly, for organizations such as ICRAF and other CGIAR member organizations to employ more ethnoecologists and ethnobotanists who can play a stronger role in interdisciplinary research within agroforestry.

RRBL: Obviously from the agroforesters viewpoint there is a need to prioritize species for domestication, but as an ethnobotanist do you see benefits in setting species priorities?
ABC: It is important to go through priority setting processes. To me, the first steps in this would be to ask the questions : priorities for whom? and on what scale? If this isn’t done, then we end up using inappropriate methods in the wrong places or for the wrong groups of people. Far better that we use several methods (such as ethnobotanical surveys of local markets, PRA surveys, free-listing methods and household interview surveys) for priority setting and cross-checking the results for the same area. I don’t think this is done enough, in the mistaken belief that it is not cost-effective. I also think that priority setting must be an iterative, on-going process, from a broad landscape scale (which includes soils, socio-economic groups, crops or potential crops from wild species) to the fine scale (such as folk taxonomy of land-races).

RRBL: One of the difficulties facing agroforesters is how to enhance the commercial interest in locally-important species so that incentives to plant are sufficiently strong. Are there opportunities for ethnobotanists to work with agroforesters to enhance entrepreneurism in local communities?
ABC: Yes there are. One example is through quantitative ethnobotanical surveys of local markets, identifying species, documenting prices and drawing on the insights of sellers about key species. I have no doubt local people are great entrepreneurs but, like many small-scale producers, they are aware of the need to minimize risk rather than maximize gain. This is an important issue in developing (or enhancing) agroforestry systems, as monocultures represent high returns but a single product with high risks from pests or pathogens compared to more complex agroforestry systems with many species, many products and lower risks. For many crops, small-scale producers also suffer from competition from large-scale farmers (unless the crops they grow are illegal, like Cannabis or coca!). Plant species that are not yet grown by large-scale producers – which enter the market through informal sector trade networks nationally or regionally – are readily identified through these local market surveys. And that is where there is an opportunity to enable small-scale producers to reap the benefits of a new crop at an early stage. Potential new links into international markets also have to be recognized. In some cases, such as the international trade in Prunus africana bark, Tabernanthe iboga roots or Gnetum leaves from Cameroon, “conservation through cultivation” can occur to benefit both people and the overharvested plants by taking pressure off remaining wild stocks. Small-scale farmers often recognize these opportunities at an early stage. The international trade in Dacroydes edulis (“bush plum”) and Irvingia gabonensis and I. wombolu (“bush mangoes”), whose fruit is exported to markets in France and Belgium frequented by expatriate West Africans, are a good example. Bush plums and cola nuts are indigenous tree species which have long been in West African agroforestry systems for which the new commercial trade to Europe provides an added incentive for continued cultivation. Bush mangoes, which have been studied by Jonathan Okafor and David Ladipo, will surely follow as new domesticates. Secure land-tenure is a key requirement for any longer term or higher value agroforestry system and it is crucial that the complex bundles of rights to land or plant resources are as thoroughly studied as the plants themselves.

RRBL: What is your vision of the future for many of the traditionally important plants that were gathered from natural ecosystems? Will they be lost as natural vegetation is converted to agricultural land, will they be lost by over-zealous exploitation, or can we somehow get the balance between use and overexploitation right?
ABC: For many slow growing, slow reproducing, habitat specific species which are commercially exploited from the wild for destructively harvested products like bark, roots or timber, the future is bleak. Unless the products from these species have a very high value, wild populations go into decline and do not make the transition to the cultivated plantation or agroforestry phase described by Brazilian economist Alfredo Homma for forest products such as guarana (Paullinia cupana), whose fruits are commercially traded as a caffeine-rich drink. Slow growing, habitat specific species such as stinkwood (Ocotea bullata) or the cycad Stangeria eriopus, for example, which are respectively exploited for their medicinal bark and tubers, may be a conservation priority, but are usually not an economic proposition for small-scale agroforestry systems with the long time-frame to marketable maturity. For faster growing, high priced species, “conservation through cultivation” is a positive option, taking the pressure off over-exploited wild stocks. But for species that can be produced on a large scale, even this is a double-edged sword when cultivation is in monocultural stands and diverse natural vegetation is converted for intensive production of a few species. Cultivation of rooi-bos (Aspalanthus linearis) herbal tea or even Protea farming in South Africa are examples of a great reduction in botanical diversity for the cultivation of a relatively few species. I agree that it is a question of achieving a balance - and I have no doubt that the move in agroforestry away from alley-cropping to multi-layered, multiple-species systems offers an opportunity for this balance to be reached. The complex, multi-species damar agroforests in Sumatra are a good example. It is my hope that the agroforestry expertise, teamed up with conservation and resource management needs, can play a crucial role in restoration ecology in the future.

Tony Cunninghamand Dominic Byarugaba holding cloth made from the bark of Fiscus natalensis. A common indigenous tree used in tropical African agroforestry systems, it was once widely used for clothing and is still used today for burial wrappings. Photo by Susanne Schmitt.

Selected References
Asfaw, Z. and Z. Woldu. 1997. Crop associations of home gardens in Welayta and Gurage in southern Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Science 20:73-90.
Bruce, J. and L. Fortmann. 1989. Agroforestry: tenure and incentives. Land Tenure Centre Report 135. Madison, Land Tenure Centre.
Caballero, J. 1992. Maya homegardens: past, present and future. Etnoecológica 1:35-54.
Casas, A. and J. Caballero. 1996. Traditional management and morphological variation in Leucaena esculenta (Fabaceae: Mimosoideae) in the Mixtec region of Guerrero, Mexico. Economic Botany 50:167-181.
Croll, E. and D. Parkin, editors. 1992. Bush Base: Forest Farm – Culture, Environment and Development. London, Routledge.
Cunningham, A.B. and G. Davis. 1997. Human use of plants. Chapter 20, Pages 474-506 in R.M. Cowling, D.M. Richardson and S.M. Pierce, editors, Vegetation of Southern Africa. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Dove, M.R. 1993. Smallholder rubber and swidden agriculture in Borneo: a sustainable adaptation to the ecology and economy of the tropical forest. Economic Botany 47:136-147.
Homma, A.K.O. 1992. The dynamics of extraction in Amazonia: a historical perspective. Advances in Economic Botany 9:23-31.
Leakey, R.R.B. and A.C. Newton, editors. 1994. Tropical Trees: the Potential for Domestication and the Rebuilding of Forest Resources. London, HMSO.
Michon, G. and H. de Foresta. 1990. Complex agroforestry systems and conservation of biological diversity 1. Agroforestry in Indonesia, a link between two worlds. The Malayan Nature Journal 45: 457-473.
Posey, D.A. 1985. Indigenous management of tropical forest ecosystems: the case of the Kayapo Indians of the Brazilian Amazon. Agroforestry Systems 3: 139-158.