TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – — – – – – – – – – – – – – i
Certification – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – ii
Dedication – – – – – – – – – – – – – — – – – – – – – – – – – -iii
Acknowledgement – — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – iv
Abstract – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -v
Table of Content – — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -iv
List of Tables
Chapter One: Introduction
1.0 Introduction – – – – – – – – 1
1.1 Background Information – – — – – – 1
1.2 Problem Statement – – – – – – 4
1.3 Objectives of the Study – – – – – – 6
1.4 Research Hypotheses – – – – – – – 6
1.5 Significance of the Study – – – – – 7
Chapter Two: Review of Related Literature
2.1 Forest Conservation and Management – – – – 9
2.2 Current Status of Forestry Policy and Practice in Nigeria — – 10
2.2.1 Rational for Forest Conservation and Management – – 12
2.2.2 Concept of Participatory Forest Management – 13
2.2.3 Common Terms used in Community Forest Management 15
2.3 Community Based Participation and Management – 17
2.3.1 Approaches to Community /Participatory Forest Management – 17
2.3.2 Property Right Regimes over Natural Resources – – 19
2.3.3 Community Based Forest Management and Conservation in Nigeria 20
2.4 Stake Holders Participation in Forest Management in Nigeria – 23
2.4.1 Community Forest Management Committees (FMCs) in Nigeria 24
2.4.2 Why Community Forest Management Committees – – 25
2.5 Theoretical Framework – – – – – – 28
2.6 Analytical Framework — – – – – 30
Chapter Three: Research Methodology
3.0 Research Methodology –
3.1 The Study Area – – – – – – – 33
3.2      Sampling Procedure   –   –          –          –          –          –          –     34
3.3 Method of Data Collection – – – – – 34
3.4 Method of Data Analysis – – – – – 34
3.5 Model Specification – – – – – – – 34
3.5.1 Likert Scale Technique …… – – – – – 34
3.5.2 Probit Model – – – – – – – – – – – 35
3.5.3 Student t-test – – – – – – – 36
3.5.4 Student t-test – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 36
Chapter Four: Results and Discussion
4.1 Forest Management Committee Structure, Composition and Management – – -38
4.1.2 Nature of Activities of FMCs – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 40
4.1.3 Forest Administration – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 41
4.1.4 Nature of Forest Management in the Study Area and Access to the Forest – – – – 43
4.2 Intensity of Forest Management Practices in Communities with FMCs and Communities without FMCs ——- 44
4.3 Comparison of Household Income from Forestry between Communities with FMC and those without FMC 46
4.4 Factors Influencing the Perception of the Local People as Regard the use of FMCs for Forest Management 49
4.4. Empirical Result – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 50
4.5 Constraints Encountered by FMCs- – – – — – – – – – – – – – – – – 52
Chapter five: Summary, Conclusion and Recommendation
5.0 Summary, Conclusion and Recommendation – – – – – – – – – – – – 55
5.1 Summary – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 55
5.2 Conclusion – – – – – – — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 56
5.3 Recommendation – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 57
References
Appendices
List of Tables
4.1 Characteristics of FMCs as given by the Leaders- – – – – – – – 39
4.2 Activities of FMCs as given by the Leaders- – – – – – – – – 40
4.3 Responses of the Leaders on the Effectiveness of Forest Management Activities 42
4.4 Opinion of Respondents as Regard the Type of Forest Management, Access to the Forest and Membership of FMC in the Communities
4.5 Likert scale result on the intensity of forest management activities 45
4.6 Student t-test Result on the Management Activities Practices in Communities with FMCs and those without FMCs — – -46
4.7 Responses relating to income derived from forestry/forest products 48
4.8 T-test Result on Comparing Household Income from Forestry in FMC and Non FMC Communities – – – – – – 49
4.9: Description of Explanatory Variables used in the Perception Model 50
4.10 Result of Binary Probit Regression Analysis – – – – – – – – – -52
4.11 Ranking of Constraints Encountered by FMCs. — – – – – – – – – 53
List of Appendices
Appendix 1. Interview questions administered to the leaders.
Appendix 2. questionnaire administered to the study respondents
Appendix 3. Likert Scale Result on the Intensity of Forest Management Activities In Communities Without FMCs
Appendix 3. Likert Scale Result on the Intensity of Forest Management Activities in Communities Without FMCs
Appendix 4 Likert Scale Result on the Constraints of FMCs
Appendix 5 E View Probit Result on the Perception of the Local People on the Use of FMC For Forest Management
Appendix 6  SPSS output on student t-test for the intensity of forest management activities in communities with and without FMCs appendix 7 SPSS oput result on student t- test for the income derived from forestry/forest products in communities with and without FMCs.
ABSTRACT
Out of all the forests and forest reserves in Nigeria that remained relatively undisturbed, significant portions of them have been lost in the last two decades. As these natural forest ecosystems disappear, so do many of the goods, which they provide. In a bid to incorporate local people into the management of community forest, Cross River State became the pioneer state in introducing forest management committees (FMCs) to co-manage the forest resources of the state alongside the states forestry department, hence the spring board for this research. It is aimed at examining the performance of FMCs in the management of forests in Cross River State. Information were obtained from 15 leaders of randomly selected FMCs through interview questions, and 90 other respondents using a set of structured questionnaire. The data were analysed using descriptive statistics, binary probit model, student t-test, and likert scaling techniques. The intensity of forest management practices was higher in communities with FMCs than in those without FMCs. This showed significance different (t=4.234,p < 0.05) in the two communities. Average household income from forestry/forest products in communities with FMCs, and those without FMCs also indicated significant difference (t=1.972,P < 0.05). The income was significantly higher in communities without FMCs than in those with FMCs. Among the factors influencing the perception of the local people as regard the use of FMC for forest management, five were statistically significant, age P(0.0309), education P(0.0172), income P(0.0378), presence of erosion in the communities P(0.0445) and forest use P(0.0149) showed positive influence on the perception. The Likert scale rating of the constraints encountered by FMCs indicated lack of commitment of members, change in government policies, financial constraints, inter and intra-community conflicts, inadequate support from community leadership and negative attitude of community to forest conservation as the most challenging constraints to the FMCs. Finally, it was recommended that government should initiate policy to encourage communities to organize themselves into groups for involvement in forest management. The initiatives should be tailored towards policies and programs that cut across a review of the land use act, provision of finance, formation of cooperatives and substitution of wood usage among the rural households. This will be effective in the conservation and management of forest through FMCs.     Â
Chapter one
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background Information
Forest and tree resources are of extreme importance to mankind. They provide the resources for a multiple of products, which feature in peoples day to day lives (Falconer, 1990). The contributions of forests to sustainable livelihood cannot be over emphasized. Forest which include all resources that can produce forest products, namely, woodland, scrubland, bush fallow and farm bush and trees on farms, as well as ecosystem dominated by trees, provide household with income, ensures food security, reduce their vulnerability to shocks and adversities and increase their well being (Arnold, 1998).
Out of all the forests and forest reserves in Nigeria that remained relatively undisturbed until the 1980s, significant portions of them have been lost in the last two decades. As these natural forest ecosystem disappear, so do many of the goods and services, like timber, fuel wood, water shed, charcoal, pharmaceutics, erosion control and prevention, soil stabilization, food, fruits/nut etc, which they provide.
 Estimates of forest cover range from 9.7 million hectares to 13.5 million hectares in Nigeria (FAO 2005a). This extensive vegetation has over the years reduced as a result of the various human activities. According to FAO (2005a), forest area declined during the 1990s at an estimated annual rate of 2.6% or 398,000 hectares per year caused by agricultural expansion, encroachment, over harvesting, bush burning, illegal harvesting and de-reservation. As a consequence, the benefit which forest bestowed on the people is becoming more difficult and expensive to acquire. Nigeria’s total forest area in 1990 stood at 14,387,000 hectares. But in 1995, it stood at 13,780,000 hectares with a total change, (1990-1995), of -607,000 hectares at an annual change of -121,000 hectares (i.e-0.9%) (Eboh and Ujah, 2000).
Government of Nigeria (1997) noted at the fifth session of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development that the bulk of this forest cover is the Savannah woodland type. This is about 70% of the open natural forest, with the remaining 30% closed forest. The closed forest includes mangrove and coastal forest (22%), fresh water swamp (38%) and low land wet forest (40%). It also went further to state that the southern rain forest, the source of the country’s timber resource, covering only two percent of the total land area in Nigeria is divided into lowland rain forest in the south and mixed deciduous forest to the North. These forest types, although heavily degraded, are the main remaining sources of hardwood timber- meliaceae and leguminosae species such as khaya ivorensis (Lagos mahogany), Entadrophragma spp, lovoa trichilioides (cedar) and Gosweilerodendron balsamiferum (agba) are characteristics of the rain forest area, whereas sterculiaceae, ulmaceae and moraceae species such as Nesogordonia papaveritera (otutu), triplochiton scleroxylon (obeche), celtis spp and clorophora excels (iroko) characterize the semi deciduous forest. These forest areas are being depleted at an annual rate of 3.5 percent. And if this continues the country’s forest reserve might disappear in future (Status of tropical forest management, 2005).
Ensuring that these forest wood trees are maintained requires both intra – and inter generational sustainability. In other words, a sustainable and productive forest reserve resource base can ensure enduring food and environmental security (FAO, 1997).
Forest conservation is defined as actions taken in management of a forest that result in maintenance of the possibilities for future forest related benefits (Wollenberg, Nawir, Uluk and Pramono, 2001). For Forest Wood Trees, conservation means the sustainable management of the species for the products it yields in order to ensure availability in the future. Conservation of forest wood tress and indeed biological resources can be in-situ or ex-situ. In situ conservation of biological resources involves conservation of ecosystem / species in their natural surroundings while ex-situ conservation involves the conservation of components of biological diversity outside of their natural habitat (domestication) (Laird, 2002). As stated in article 8 of the convention on biological diversity, in-situ conservation of forest resources can be achieved, among others, through the establishment of a system of protected areas. Ex-situ conservation can be achieved through the establishment of gene bank, cultivation of species in lots or in agro forestry systems, recovery and rehabilitation of threatened species and for their introduction into their natural habitats under appropriate conditions, among others.
 Conservation initiative will be more successful if the local / indigenous people participate. This is based on the advantages that can be gained by drawing on indigenous knowledge of the forests and forests products, and by building on the sustainable systems, of use that local people often seem to have created (Redford and Mansour, 1996).
           In principle, local people own the forest, but the management and control of forest reserves, which cover around three-quarter of forest area, is rested in the state governments (Status of tropical forest management, 2005). Participatory resource management is often seen as an appropriate solution to reducing resource degradation and it is generally assumed that granting property rights over local commons would ensure the equitable and sustainable use of environment resources. Through local participation, nearby communities would be engaged as stake holders in managing the resources, thus ensuring commitment to long term management goals (Chukwone, 2008)
            In Nigeria, management of forest resources, especially national parks and forest reserves are in the hand of the government and local participation is limited. The first forestry act enacted in 1937, established the forest reserve system under the state governments. A more comprehensive forest law was latter established in 1956- the law of preservation and control of Eastern Nigeria. There are also state forestry codes like the Cross River state forestry code of 1999. However, there is a draft for National forestry act still undergoing approval. Poor management often results, in a lack of control of resource and conflicts among resource users (Olaleye and Ameh, 1999). Some states have enacted specific regulations to monitor and control the reserves, but the continuing high rate of deforestation suggests that overall control has not been effective. Even in free forest communities, government forest commission approve the cutting of timber resources and collect permits even after the exploiter has obtained necessary permission from the community who are owners.
            Community forest as used in this study refers to free forest areas, which are not government reserves, owned and controlled by the communities although government may collect permits from external timber exploiters in these forests, a percentage of which is remitted to the communities. The forests may or may not be under any form of management.
In a bid to incorporate local people into the management of community forest, Cross River State became the pioneer state in introducing forest management committees to co-manage the forest resources of the state alongside the states forestry department in Nigeria. Some intervention agencies such as the Department for International Development (DFID) and Living Earth foundation created the initiative for the indigenous people to form forest management committees to co-manage their forest resources alongside the state forestry department,(Spencer, 2001). These intervention agencies also helped some communities in Cross River state to implement forest management plans. They aid in the training of some community members in cultivation techniques of rubber and Gmelina. Nurseries and micro credit programme to help local people in establishing forests based enterprises; workshops for registered forest management committees, and training on sustainable rattan investing craftsmanship were established under Cross River community forestry project. The first project in Cross River state was the Ekuri community initiative, which began in 1992 and assisted communities to bring 33,000 ha of rain forest under some degree of local management (Wily, 2002). Also, some communities like Ekong Anaku community have organized themselves in the collection and marketing of their forest resources (Enour, 1999). Presently, in Cross River State, there are about 43 registered FMCs (Forestry Association of Nigeria, 2003). In general, in Nigeria 60 communities, involving 10,000 hectares of forest, both reserved and unreserved areas are getting involved in community forest initiative (Wily, 2002). Promoting local participation through forest management committees will facilitate forest wood trees conservation. Furthermore, sustainable management of forest wood trees will help guarantee the needs of the present generation, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
