INTRODUCTION TO

FORESTRY
JASPER EZENWAKA, PhD
Department of Crop and Soil Science,
Faculty of Agriculture,
Niger Delta University,
Wilberforce Island, Bayelsa State, Nigeria

+234(0)8037845905, +234(0)8093707770;
[email protected]
Academic profile:

· National Diploma in Forestry (Federal College of

Forestry, Ibadan, 1989)
· B.Sc in Forestry, First Class Honours (Rivers State
University, 1997)
· MSc in Natural (Forest) Resources Management
(Cranfield University, England, 2002)
· PhD in Natural (Forest) Resources Management
(Cranfield University, England, 2018)
· Has taught forestry in the University since 2003

1
Welcome:
Introduction to Forestry is a course taken by
undergraduate students of agriculture. It is given slightly
different nomenclatures, depending on the institution. It
is mostly taught in the second year of the five year degree
programme. It is the only course taken in forestry by all
agricultural students. It becomes therefore, the only
opportunity for graduates of agriculture to appreciate
forestry; this is the main thrust for this book: providing a
concise content and knowledge of forestry, useful to non-
forestry specialists as well as beginners in the study of
forestry. It is never an attempt to bore the users with so
much details or make them become foresters having
taken only one introductory course in forestry.

Forestry is as broad as agriculture itself, having several

areas of specializations. While forestry is embedded in
the department of Crop Science in some institutions, it
stands as a full department under the Faculty of
Agriculture in some other institutions. It stands as a
Faculty of its own in some places. It stands as a complete
College or Institution in some other places.

This book will explore and provide an overview or a

general appreciation of forestry. Apart from the general
explanations of the broad content of forestry, the book has

2
sections for self-study assignments aimed at making the
user to explore and discover additional information from
independent sources.

3
Teaser:

What would be your answer:

i. What is forestry?

ii. What is forest?

iii. Are there any benefits to human from the forest?

iv. If yes, can you list any five?

4
 1. Definition of key concepts or terms in forestry

Forest:
A forest is an ecological system (unit). There are other
ecological systems; but a forest is distinguished in that it is
an ecological system predominantly of trees and other
vegetations, and usually with a closed canopy. The
presence of lianas, using the tall trees as ladder to access
the sun is a part of the description of a forest. Wherever
(and whenever) there is an opening in the canopy of the
forest, saplings already growing under the cover of the
emergent trees will then have a space to also emerge.

Pristine, virgin / primary forest:

This describes a type of forest in its purest form, or most
natural state, devoid of any human activity; it implies that
no extraction has taken place there. This type of forest is
very scarce these days. It can be found in very remote or
interior places and where lack of access may have
prevented human from gaining entry. It is also common in
traditionally designated or protected places such as 'evil
forests' (this kind of forest exist in many African cultures,
where a certain part of the community forest is designated
as belonging to the gods and no human activity is allowed
there, but sacrifices and worships to the gods).

5
In a forest that is still in its pristine state, the sunrays will
scarcely reach the floor of the forest because of the closed
canopies. In the same vein, rain droplets cannot drop
directly unto the forest soil surface but can only trickle
down from the leaves and through the bodies of the trees
and other vegetations in that forest; this is why surface
runoff is alien in a forested place. A pristine forest is dense
and can be dark except for some places where a tree may
have lodged over, thereby allowing a penetration of the
sunrays. As a result of almost complete lack of sunrays
penetration to the floor of the forest, undergrowth is
almost non-existent in a pristine forest except for such
species that have become adapted to such environments.

Secondary forest:
This is a forest regrowth. It describes a place where the
original trees or vegetation have been extracted, but has
been allowed to regrow. Such forests lack the
characteristics of a pristine forest. Most forests around the
communities are mere bushes or secondary forests. There
would be the presence of some trees and wildlife, but not
in its original state.

Derived savanna:
This describes a vegetation zone, whose vegetative
climax is actually that of a tropical rain forest, but due to
human activities, it has been degraded to a savanna-like
6
vegetation. Because it is a man-made savanna, it is
differentiated from the other savanna types by describing
it as derived savanna or man-made savanna.

Riparian forest:
It is a type of forest found in unusual environments, where
a forest is not supposed to have been found, for example,
in a desert; an Oasis. The forest develops in that strange
spot because it found a favourable environmental
condition that supported its development.

Palm forest:
It describes a forest where all other tree species have been
extracted, and only the oil palms (Elaeis guineensis) are
left standing. This phenomenon is common around
regions where the oil palm tree grows wildly and in large
numbers and the people do not fell it because of the benefit
of the palm fruits which it bears.

Plantation:
A plantation is a manmade forest. It is a forest grown by
human. In most cases, it will be of single species and of
uniform age. The espacement is uniformly planned. Also,
it is rarely of native species. All these characteristics are
opposite of what obtains in a naturally occurring forest.
Among the very common plantation species in Nigeria
include Tectonia grandis (Teak), Gmelina arborea
7
(Gmelina), Eucalyptus species (Eucalyptus), Pinus
species (Pine), Terminalia species, Anacardium
occidentale (cashew), Theobroma cacao (Cocoa), and
Hevea brasiliensis (rubber), to mention a few. In most of
these cases, they are purposely grown to meet a need.

A Park:
A park contains some good number of trees, but sparsely
arranged (not dense). It is such that a four-wheel vehicle
can navigate within it (this will not be possible in a forest).
Most times, this is created for recreational purposes.

A Reserve:
A forest reserve is a forested area that has been delineated
and is protected by law as a conservation or protection
area. Human activities within it are highly controlled if
not out-rightly outlawed (depending if the purpose is for
conservation or protection). This is usually done so as to
protect certain valuable species (plant or animal) within
the designated area.

A Game reserve:
This refers to a protected area which purpose is for the
protection of the wild animals (game) that are within it.

8
Tree canopy / crown:
The entire upper structure of the tree, consisting of the
branches and the leaves is referred to as the tree canopy or
crown. This is where arboreal creatures are harboured.
Arboreal creatures will include species that make their
living in the tree canopies, for example, the monkeys,
squirrels, birds, and the rest.

Tree bole:
The tree bole refers to the portion of the standing tree, the
trunk, which is from the ground surface and up to the first
branch. The first branch upwards is part of the tree crown.

Tree bark:
The peel-able part of the tree trunk, which surrounds or
envelopes the main wood is called the bark. The
appearance or structure of the bark is different from
species to species. It can be scaly in some trees, or smooth,
or rough, or thorny, and so on.

Tree saps / exudates:

The liquid that gushes out from the tree when the bark is
cut open, peeled or wounded is referred to as tree sap or
exudate. Many trees will produce various such fluids. The
exudate from the Acacia is the gum Arabic, and that from
the rubber tree is rubber.

9
Lodging:
When a standing tree falls over as a result of wind or other
effects, it is called lodging.

Felling:
The technical term when a tree is being cut down is
'felling'. We want to 'fell' that tree. The tree has been
'felled'.

Emergent trees and other layers:

In a pristine forest, the trees will usually form natural
layers according to their heights. The tallest ones, whose
canopies tower above others, are called the emergent
trees. The next layer below this, is the canopy or middle
layer, while the understorey forms the third layer, and
lastly is the forest floor.

NTFP / NWFP:
This is an acronym for 'Non Timber forest Products / Non
Wood Forest Products'. Every other thing, extracted or
harvested from the forest other than timber or wood, are
referred to as NTFP or NWFP.

Lianas:
These are woody, perennial climbers in the forest. They
grow, having their roots in the ground, but twining around
the tree trunk, finding their way to the top where they can
10
have access to the sunlight. They help in no small
measure, to make the forest dense.

Sapling:
These are naturally germinated and growing young trees
often found in the forest, growing wherever the
environmental condition becomes favourable. The seed
may have fallen from the mother-tree to the ground, or
picked up and dispersed to that particular location by any
of the dispersal agents. These saplings can be collected
and become useful in closing up where gap exist in the
forest.

Enrichment planting:
The act of introducing seedlings or saplings to fill up gaps
in a standing forest or to deliberately increase the stock of
useful species in a forest is referred to as enrichment
planting.

Coppice:
When a tree is cut down, the stump is capable of re-
growing if there are nodes available on parts of that stump.
The young offshoot, growing out from that stump, is
referred to as coppice.

Coppice with standard:

If there are more than one coppice growing out from the
11
same stump, and there is need to eliminate some, to allow
only one to continue to grow, so as to have a more proper
replacement-tree on that spot, that coppice which is
chosen to grow (while others have been eliminated) is
referred to as the coppice with standard.

Bifurcate / bifurcation:
When a seed germinates and begin to grow, it most times
comes out as only one trunk. But there are cases when it
splits, and two or more trunks are seen growing out from
the same base, this phenomenon is called bifurcation (the
tree bifurcates or bifurcated). If this happens below 1.3m
height from the ground, the trunks are counted as
individual trees, but if this happens above the 1.3m height,
though they are more than one, in inventory, they are taken
as a single tree. This is so because in measuring the
diameter of a tree, it is taken at 1.3m above the ground
level. This is why it is considered as a single tree if the
phenomenon happened above this height because they
share same diameter at breast height (dbh).

Reforestation:
When trees are being replanted in an area where trees have
been previously extracted, it is called reforestation. There
was a forest, the forest was extracted, and now a new
forest is being replanted. It is a replanting. It is a
replacement.
12
Afforestation:
When a forest is being established where there was no
forest before, it is afforestation.

Renewable and non-renewable resources:

Generally speaking, the forest is a renewable resource
because it is capable of self-regeneration; if harvested, it is
capable of restoring itself to the original state. There is a
debate if the forest trees are actually renewable. The
argument is that it will take several years for that forest to
fully restore itself to its original state. This argument is
beyond the objective of this book.

Vivipary:
This is when a seed germinates and begins to develop
before detaching from the mother plant. This germinated
seed is called a propagule. So it makes contact with the
soil as a young plant and not as a seed. This phenomenon
is seen with the mangroves.

Buttress root:
Roots are supposed to grow downwards into the earth,
buried, but buttress roots will grow and spread above the
ground surface. They can be massive and capable of
causing damages if in urban places and close to
infrastructure.

13
A tree and a shrub:
A tree is differentiated from a shrub in that it has a distinct
bole. But a shrub will have branches right from its base,
close to the ground surface such that there will not be any
distinct bole. Its height notwithstanding, or how woody it
is, if it does not have a distinct bole, it is a shrub and not a
tree.

Cauliflory:
Usually, trees will bear their fruits on their branches, but a
situation where the tree bears its fruit on the main trunk, it
is referred to as cauliflory. That tree is cauliflorous.
Examples include Treculia africana and Theobroma
cacao.

Measurements:
Certain measurements are important in forestry.
· Bole height: this refers to the height of the bole; that
is that height from the ground surface to the first
branch.
· Crown height: this refers to that measurement from
the first branch up to the tip of the tree.
· Total height: this refers to the measurement from
the base of the tree, the ground surface, up to the tip
of the tree. In other words, the addition of the bole
height and the crown height should give the total
height.
14
· Merchantable height: this refers to that
measurement or height of that tree that is sellable as
timber. Many times, the merchantable height may
go up beyond the first branch of that tree, if that part
is still useful as timber. Therefore, the
merchantable height may not be the same or
equivalent to the bole height. Sometimes, the
merchantable height may almost be equal or even
be equal with the total height.
· Girth: this refers to the circumference of the trunk
of the tree. It is measured by running a tape around
the trunk of the tree. It is not the same as diameter.
Diameter measures a straight line from one end to
the other or a straight line across the middle of the
trunk. There is a special kit for measuring of tree
diameter, the Vernier calliper.
· DBH: this is diameter at breast height. This is the
point on the tree trunk where diameter
measurement is taken. The breast height is given as
1.3m from the ground surface. This may be
adjusted a little bit if the trunk at this point is not
easily measurable due to nature of the tree trunk.

15
Suggested practical or field session:
· To demonstrate the various measurements, and
possible sighting of any of the mentioned
phenomena in this chapter.
Teaser:
Why is surface run-off scarce in a forest or vegetated
place?

Do you have a pristine forest around your community? If

yes, why has that forest been preserved? Describe the
cultural practice that has resulted to this.

Can you differentiate a naturally occurring forest from a

plantation?

Explain any three types of forests you now know

Draw and label a tree

Move around your environment, and take snapshots of

two trees with different bark structures, showing the
differences

Can you find a tree with buttress root around? Take a

snapshot of it.

16
 2. Forestry

Forestry is simply the study of the forest; it is the

management of the forest resources for the continuous
production of its goods and services for the benefit of
human. From this definition, the forest provides some
benefits for human wellbeing, and as such, human studies
and manages the forest so that it continues to yield the
benefits. Two questions come to mind:

i. What goods, and what services does the forest

provide for human?
ii. Is the forest not supposed to be self-renewing or
regenerating? Why should human concern himself
with the management of the forest resources which
should naturally renew or regenerate itself?

What goods, and what services does the forest provide

for human?
Importance of forest and forest resources, and ecosystem
services:
The forest is useful to human in many ways. The early man
gained his survival from the forest which provided all his
needs. Today, humans may have become modernised but
definitely still depend a great deal on the forest and its
resources / services.
17
Forest goods refers to tangible or quantifiable benefits
while services refers to those benefits that are not
quantifiable or easily measurable.

Some benefits are listed below:

i. Provision of food
ii. Provision of employment
iii. Income generation
iv. Foreign exchange earning
v. Atmospheric air purification
vi. Climatic control
vii. Hydrologic control
viii. Soil nutrient control
ix. Raw materials provision
x. Soil / land stabilisation
xi. Shelter or habitat for wildlife
xii. Source of herbal medicine
xiii. Recreation
xiv. Spiritual renewal
xv. Erosion control / prevention
xvi. Wind breaker
xvii. Ground water recharge and watershed
management / conservation
xviii. Provision of biofuel
xix. Provision of materials for construction
xx. Source of many non-wood forest products
(leaves, ropes, wines, gums, nuts, insects, etc)

18
The benefits that humans derive from the forest ecological
system are various, and can be further discussed under
some general headings such as provisioning, regulating,
supporting, and cultural benefits.

Is the forest not supposed to be self-renewing or

regenerating? Why should human concern himself
with the management of the forest resources which
should naturally renew or regenerate itself?

Although the forest is self-renewing, the rate at which this

happen is less than the rate at which the forest resources are
being extracted. If the trend of extraction continues
without proper management or human intervention, there
will be shortage of supply of the needed forest benefits over
time. This is already happening; forest resources are
becoming increasingly scarce, and some have become out-
rightly extinct.

Sub-divisions in forestry (areas of specialization):

To actualize the aim of forestry, there are various areas of
specializations. These includes:
i. Silvics: study of parameters which affects forest tree
growth
ii. Silviculture: the application of the knowledge of
silvics to raising and tending of the forest

19
iii. Ecology: the study of the forest ecological system;
the relationship or interaction between the biotic and
abiotic components of the forest
iv. Forest engineering: construction of forest roads and
buildings / infrastructure, fabrication and
maintenance of equipment
v. Pathology: diseases of forest trees
vi. Entomology: forest insects
vii. Dendrology: study of where various tree species are
found
viii. Forest management: sustainable management of the
forest and its resources
ix. Mensuration and biometrics: forest measurements
x. Forest regulation: forest laws and policies
xi. Wood utilisation or engineering: study of various
woods and uses
xii. Social forestry or extension: the sub-division that
interfaces with the human component of the
environment
xiii. Physiology: this concerns itself with the growth and
reproduction of forest trees
xiv. Anatomy: this concerns itself with internal structure /
functioning of component parts of the tree
xv. Taxonomy: naming of forest trees
xvi. Wildlife management: management of the wildlife in
the forest

20
xvii. Forest genetics: tree species genetic improvement
xviii. Forest economics: application of economic
principles in management of the forest
xix. Forest hydrology: watershed and soil water
management
xx. Morphology: the study of the physical or outward
parts of the forest tree and their descriptions or
classifications

It is important to state here that someone must have first

studied general forestry, ensuring possession of a general
or broad knowledge of forestry before going further to
specialize in any of the specific or narrow areas. But
because of shortage in number of foresters, associated
areas of studies sometimes claim to be specialists in these
narrow areas, however, they lack the basic or general
knowledge of the practice of forestry.

21
Teaser:

22
 3. Deforestation

This refers to the indiscriminate and unsustainable

extraction of forest trees; it is the conversion of forestlands
into less biodiverse state. It leads to a reduction in the
quality of the forest. Unplanned and indiscriminate
extraction of forest trees leads to the destruction of the
forest ecosystem; the ecological equilibrium becomes
distorted. When the trees are lost, many other species,
especially wildlife species are also lost to migration if not
hunting. Deforestation has been exacerbated by the
presence of tree felling equipment such as motorised saws
which has made tree felling much easier. It is relatively now
much faster to cut down a tree than when local implements
were being used.

The loggers sees logging (lumbering) as a source of

employment / income. And rightly so, it provides them with
their income. The logged timbers are useful for many
purposes of the human.

Deforestation is caused and promoted by many factors, but

all the factors are linked back to 'human', so the major
reason for deforestation is human activities.

23
The various factors or reasons for deforestation will
include:
i. Agriculture or farming
ii. Population growth
iii. Urbanisation or urban expansion
iv. Road, rail, and airport constructions
v. Industry establishments
vi. Industry needs for raw materials like timber
vii. Export needs
viii. Local needs for building and construction materials
ix. Art works and carvings (canoes, wooden vessels,
mortars, pestles)
x. Automobile constructions (wooden trucks or
lorries)
xi. Education or establishment of schools like
universities
xii. Security or establishment of military posts
xiii. Hunting
xiv. Creation of new settlements
xv. The need to increase income (poverty)
xvi. Ignorance
xvii. Fire (wild fire) outbreaks
xviii. Local or wooden bridge construction
xix. Establishment of large worship centres
xx. Creation of cemeteries
xxi. Building of prisons

24
xxii. Collection of fuelwood
xxiii. Mining
xxiv. Grazing
xxv. Crude oil exploration

Effects; current environmental issues as a result of

deforestation:
As a result of continued unsustainable logging activities,
the forests of the world have become depleted. Many
species have become endangered. Many others have
become threatened. Many have become extinct.

Among the most glaring effects of deforestation include:

I. Global warming / climate change
ii. Increased greenhouse gases
iii. Ozone layer depletion
iv. Landslides
v. Erosion
vi. Desertification
vii. Migration of native wildlife species
viii. Loss of habitat for important wildlife
ix. Loss of biodiversity
x. Flooding
xi. Disruption to sources of income or livelihoods
xii. Health issues
xiii. Distortion to hydrologic cycle

25
xiv. Extinction of important species of medicinal
significance
xv. Less availability of access to forest benefits
xvi. Increased poverty
xvii. Human migration
xviii. Loss of valuable indigenous species
xix. Increased incidences of windstorms
xx. Sea level rise

26
Teaser:
Can you explain or give examples of benefits
derivable from timber?

Find the meaning of the following words, and

give some local examples from your place:
· Endangered species

· Threatened species

· Extinct species

Which of the effects of deforestation can you

relate with?

27
4. Forest regeneration and Agroforestry principles

Forest regeneration efforts:

There are, and there have been several efforts aimed at
re-growing the lost forests and or maintaining the
remaining one. Some of these efforts or programmes
are promoted by the United Nations while some others
are Country programmes. Many of these international
programmes come as Protocols or Conventions of
which countries are made to sign up to. Some of these
programmes also have corporate bodies signing up to
help promote the ideals of forest conservation.

The focus of such programmes are geared towards

actual raising of trees, or causing awareness /
education aimed at encouraging best practices. Some
huge funding is also available for conservation
programmes.

Agroforestry:
Agroforestry is a term used to describe a scenario
where agricultural crops are grown with forest trees
simultaneously on the same piece of land. It is a way of
raising forest trees, cheaply. Cheaply, because the
farmer plants and tends the forest trees simultaneously
as the normal farm crops are being cultivated; the

28
forester does not need to pay for additional labour for
planting of his forest trees. The farmer benefits
because he has permit to farm on that land for as long
until the tree canopies will no longer allow a good
production of his farm crops. Where arable land is
scarce, agroforestry thrives.

The forest trees are usually selected to meet particular

purposes; timber production, fuelwood, pulp, poles,
leaves, windbreaker, and so on.

There are many economic trees growing in the wild as

at date, and individuals are yet to find reasons to
cultivate them. Most often, the reason for not growing
tree crops is the long gestation period. But
Agroforestry could help resolve this because the
farmer will have access to the temporary agricultural
crops pending when the tree crops become mature.
Examples of trees that could be considered for
domestication will include Irvingia species, Treculia
africana, Chrysophylum albidum, Canarium swefichii
and, Dacroides edulis.

The farm crop is always temporary. Any farm crop that

propagates through underground means are not
allowed in agroforestry because it becomes a nuisance
and difficult to eradicate or control in the future.
29
Teaser:
Mention some examples of programmes
aimed at forest conservation

30
 5. The Nigerian vegetation

Nigeria is situated within the tropics, with hot and humid

weather. The tropics is blessed with good amount of
sunlight everyday of the year.

The Nigerian vegetation can be divided into two broad

zones: the forest, and the savanna zone. The forest zone is
found down south, below the River Niger and River Benue
(these rivers seem to be the natural separator of these two
distinct vegetation zones). Above these great Rivers, is the
savanna zone.

The forest zone is further divided into Swamp forest, and

the Rainforest, depending on how much water is retained
by the soil of the particular place. The swamp forest retains
much water and is waterlogged for a certain period of the
year, and this is annual. But the soil of the rainforest is well
drained; no waterlogging at any period of the year.

The swamp forest is further divided into Mangrove and

Fresh water swamp forests depending on how fresh or
saline the water in the environment is. The common
denominator is the annual flooding of these forests, while
the separating factor is the salinity or freshness of the
31
water. The swamp forest within the saline (brackish) water
environment is referred to as Mangrove swamp forest
while the forest within the fresh water environment is
referred to as Freshwater swamp forest.

The savanna vegetation zone is also further divided into

Guinea, Sudan, and Sahel savanna, depending on the
density of trees found in them. Just after the Rainforest
zone (moving Northwards), is the Guinea savanna; it has
higher density of trees than the Sudan and Sahel savanna;
this is followed by the Sudan savanna with less trees, and
finally the Sahel savanna with the least tree density.

The savanna cannot be referred to as 'forest' because of

how sparse or loose the trees are. They lack a closed
canopy, which is a major description of a forest. The
savanna is not dense; it is such that a vehicle can drive
through very easily. The trees are also somewhat dwarfed
in nature; not as gigantic as would be found in the forest
zone.

The environmental condition is also different between the

forest and the savanna. The south, where the forest is
found, is characterised by high rainfall, high atmospheric
temperature, and high atmospheric humidity. The north,
where the savanna is found, is characterized by high

32
temperature, low atmospheric humidity, and low rainfall.

The vegetation type found in each of the regions described

above have become adapted to the peculiar climatic and
edaphic conditions in such places.

33
Teaser:
Draw the map of Nigeria showing location of the
various vegetation types.

Give at least one example of a tree species from

each of the six described vegetation zones.

34
 6. Wildlife and forest resources
conservation and policy issues

This section will discuss policy issues aimed at

conservation of the Nigerian forest resources.

Some selected published papers of the author have been

posted here to aid shed light on some of the issues of
policy as regards forest resources management. These
papers include:

i. Abere, S.A. and Ezenwaka J., (2011):

Evaluation of forest resources conservation
laws in Nigeria. Mediterranean Journal of
Social Sciences, 2(5), pp.49-54.
ii. Ezenwaka J. (2021): Policy and Institutional
analysis for sustainable management of Niger
Delta forests: Proceedings of the International
conference on scientific and cultural
innovations for sustainable development, vol
25 No 3, October 13 - 14, Conference hall,
University of Lagos, Nigeria, pp82 - 89.
iii. Ezenwaka J. (2021): Participatory forest
management: a discussion on its applicability
in Nigeria; International journal of
innovations in Agricultural Science and

35
 Technology, Vol 10 No3. ISSN: 2031-401X.
P P 9 5 - 1 0 3 ;
www.bushwealthacademicjournal.com/
iv. Ezenwaka, J., (2023): Ecosystem disservices
of urban forestry in Yenagoa, Niger Delta,
Nigeria. Int J of Research in Agricultural
science, Vol 15 (2), pp43-52.

36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
Teaser:

Describe a forest conservation policy (practice) in

your community, and how effective it is (or they are).

Find out the names of some forest (and game)

reserves or parks in Nigeria

56
POLICY AND INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS FOR
SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF NIGER DELTA
FORESTS

Abstract
This paper aims at analyzing policies and institutional
strategies targeted at conserving the Niger Delta forest
resources. Data were collected from literatures and field
interviews involving 50 rural dwellers, 40 urban dwellers,
the Bayelsa State department of forestry, and two Civil
Society Organizations working with some host communities
to an oil company. The field work was done in Bayelsa State,
Nigeria. The outcome showed that there were good policies
from the various institutions but there was lack of
collaboration as each actor was seen to be acting solitarily.
This has effected the potential effectiveness of the various
actions. Collaboration among the various stakeholders in the
management of the Niger Delta forest resources is therefore
recommended.

Introduction
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2005) stated
that “nearly two thirds of the services provided by nature to
humankind are found to be in decline worldwide” and
according to DEFRA (2007), “the benefits reaped from our
engineering of the planet have been achieved by running

57
down natural capital assets”. The aim of this paper is to
examine the policy and institutional arrangements around
the Niger Delta forests; to assess how their use can
contribute to the conservation of the forest resources.

Method
A review of literature and policy was used to identify the key
challenges to having effective forest policies, and providing
possible solutions to the management of Niger Delta forest
resources. Field data were collected through interviews that
involved: (i) 50 rural and 40 urban participants; (ii) the
Bayelsa State Department of Forestry, and (iii) two Civil
Society Organizations involved in the implementation of the
Global Memorandum of Understanding (GMOU) of the
Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria
(SPDC), all in Bayelsa State, Nigeria. Direct quotes from the
participants are italicized in the write up.

Results and Discussion

Forest conservation initiatives
It was found that there were efforts by the communities, the
oil production companies, and the government to conserve
the forest resources but there was no synergy among them. It
appeared that each stakeholder was acting alone. The
government had initiatives aimed at conserving the forests;
the same was for the Shell Petroleum Development

58
Company (SPDC). The communities also had initiatives
aimed at conserving the forests.

The communities (100%) were not aware of efforts made by

government to conserve the forest resources. This result
corroborates the work of Adekunle et al (2011), which was
carried out in South-West Nigeria where he reported that
only 1% of respondents knew of any government efforts
aimed at conserving the forest resources, whilst the majority
said they had never participated in any government
programme aimed at conserving the forest. The
communities were not completely implementing the Shell
Petroleum Development Company's (SPDC) strategy aimed
at community development, especially the aspect that
relates to environmental resources conservation. The active
involvement of the communities in the processes of
planning and execution of these external initiatives would
have yielded better results according to Arowolo et al
(2014).

However, the communities' initiatives were well known in

the communities and were highly effective. The community
participants considered that it would be an infringement on
their rights if government were to make any laws to
conserve some of their forest resources (see Box 1), and it
was incorrectly considered that such laws aimed at

59
conserving their forest resources would deprive them of
their daily livelihoods. But the native laws were well
observed and no participant could recollect any case of
default. The native laws appear to have been well respected
because they are linked to deities and also have become a
part of the daily lives of the local communities. See
comments by participants in Box 1 in support of this. This
fact is also supported by Anwana et al., 2010; Nwosu and
Anwana, 2013. People also held the belief that those
community laws were meant for their ultimate benefit.

The community people said that the government laws were

not operational in their communities: we enter any part of
our forest; we collect any resource that we like (Participant
1). They also asked by the way, why would government make
laws for our own forest? So, will we not eat (Participant 7)?
Concerning the conservation of their forests, they said But if
we convert all of our forests and creeks into forbidden
places, where do we get our daily food (Participant 32)?
This is a misunderstanding of conservation principles,
which actually aims to provide wise use or planned
utilization of the resources. According to Mmom and
Arokoyu, (2010), the idea of conventional forest resources
conservation is “alien” to local inhabitants and are often
opposed by the people (Eneji et al, 2009).

60
Regarding their native laws, they said these laws are very
effective, any contravention attracts serious sanctions so the
people obey and live by the rules (Participant 1); these laws
are well observed; consequences are grievous. If you kill a
crocodile, the law stipulates that you bury it as you would a
human being (the ceremony that goes with it) (Participant
2); people dread to contravene these laws. Even as a non-
native, ignorance is not an excuse (participant 3); we grow
up to know it (it is handed down); our native laws are part of
our custom and tradition; it is part of us (Participant 5).

Box 1: Respondent views on formal and traditional

forest conservation initiatives

61
62
63
64
Tenure rights, land ownership and access to forest
resources
Tenure rights and land ownership have implications for
access to forest resources and by extension, livelihoods of
the people (Ebeku, 2002). There are two land ownership
regimes in operation at the same time in Nigeria: (1) the
military government promulgated a land use decree in
1978, which transferred the right of land ownership to the
government (Act, 1990; Ebeku, 2002). Although many
advocacy groups and ethnic nationalities have called for
the abolition of this law because of its retrogressive nature
(Francis, 1984), the law is still in operation and is invoked
whenever the government needs any portion or parcel of
land for her purpose, otherwise, (2) the age-long traditional
(communal) land-ownership and access rights are used by
communities. In the communal land ownership method,
the participants stated that the land is held in trust on behalf
of the community by the community head and on behalf of
the family by the family head. Lands are sub-divided
among the male family members. Women do not own lands
but have rights to farm on family lands and are able to
collect Non Timber Forest Products, NTFPs (Participant
1).

Furthermore, participants noted that the owner of a land

owns the timber on that land but there are no restrictions to

65
hunting and collection of NTFPs except from the forbidden
places in the community forests (participant 1). When
government acquires the land, compensation is sometimes
paid for crops and houses. An entire community can be
relocated if the government wants the land.

The types of lands or forests that are constituted into a

forest reserve by the government include (Participant 51):
· lands at the disposal of the government (by the land
use decree of 1978, the implication is that all land is
actually at the disposal of the government. This can
have implications for the livelihoods of the rural
dwellers that depend on these forest resources for
survival);
· lands of which the forest growth are threatened, and;
· forests, which contain certain species of plants and
animals that needs to be protected

The participant 52 stated that the biodiversity value of

Edumanom and Taylor Creek Forest reserves are
universally recognised because of the Niger Delta Red
Colobus (Procolobos epieni) monkey which is classified by
IUCN as critically endangered and is currently the 25th
most endangered primate. These forests also stock some
valuable economic timber tree species such as Miletia
excelsa (Iroko), Khaya spp (Mahogany), Nauclea

66
diderrichii (Opepe), Afzelia spp (Apa), Terminalia
ivorensis (Black afara), Mitragyna ciliata (Abura) and
Lovoa trichiloides (walnut).

Other objectives of managing the two forest reserves

according to participant 52 are:
· to ensure effective conservation of endangered and
endemic fauna and flora species (e.g. Elephants,
Hippopotamus, Crocodiles, Chimpanzees and M.
excelsia, K. ivorensis, M. ciliate);
· cane (rattan) production, fish production, fruits and
vegetable production;
· to offer employment opportunities to the host
communities;
· t o p ro v i d e o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r c o m m u n i t y
development, recreation and tourism, and;
· to ensure full multiple use of forest on a sound
environmental basis.

A careful look at these objectives of creating the forest

reserves confirms the assertion of Amend & Amend (1995)
that said that the focus is more on preserving the ecosystem
and not much on the benefit to the people.

According to the participant 51, the procedure for

constituting a forest reserve consists of:

67
 · the appointment of an officer who oversees the
entire process;
· a visit to the host communities (three visits);
· a publication of governments intention to conserve
that forest, and;
· a determination of rights and privileges of the host
communities, before the final decision is taken
The procedure and the policy seem to be well planned out.
It also has a provision for involving the potential host
communities. The implementation is however not always
followed through (this is supported by Chukwuone &
Okorji, 2008); reasons given included lack of materials to
work, bureaucratic bottlenecks and inadequate funding
(participant 51). If the laid down procedure were followed
through, the communities would have been aware that they
are hosts to a government forest reserve. When a forest is
taken from the community and is constituted into a reserve,
harvesting of forest produce is prohibited except with the
authority in writing of the forest officer. These stringent
rules have deprived rural dwellers of their livelihoods.
Dixon & Sherman (1991) describe how such access
restriction to forest dwellers have shut the door on their
livelihoods. Furthermore, these conditions, without
alternatives, create conflict situations according to Lewis
(1996). The people depend on this forest for almost all of
their daily needs. This is part of the reasons why poaching

68
and illegal collection of forest produce is still rampant
(especially as there are no alternatives for the people).
Stringent enforcement of these types of rules in an
environment where the people do not have any other
alternative can lead to crisis and serious conflicts. In the
works of Ameha et al (2016) and Bekele & Ango (2015) in
Ethiopia, they found that the provision of alternatives to the
people in a participatory forest management (PFM)
arrangement eliminated conflicts resulting from natural
resource use, and similar results was reported by
Senganimalunje et al, (2015) in Malawi.

The provision that is made for the host community is that of

Right of free permit to farm, fish, hunt, collection of minor
forest produce, fuel wood, and harvesting of timber for
community project. It is good to note that this approval is
again at the discretion of the forest officer (participant 51).

There have been conflicts and lessons learnt (participant

52). The conflicts have been in the form of communal
conflicts, land boundary disputes, and conflicts as a result
of restrictions on exploitation of undersized timber trees
and endangered wildlife species. Other challenges include
inadequate funding, poaching, illegal exploitation of the
forests, farming activities, non-payment of monetary
compensation to land owners, which has always

69
jeopardized the constitution of forest reserves. Chukwuone
& Okorji (2008) gave neglect and lack of further
investments in those conservation areas as reasons for their
ineffectiveness. A review of the laws that govern the forest
reserves as well as the introduction of incentives (e.g. as in
Ethiopia and Malawi) would likely improve the
cooperation of the rural dwellers.

The Shell Petroleum Development Company and forest

conservation
The materials in this section are collated from the
interviews with two civil society organisations that act as
mentors to some GMOU benefitting communities.

The Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC)

recently (2005) developed the Global Memorandum of
Understanding (GMoU) through which all issues of
community interests are now handled. The GMoU brings
together communities, clans or kingdoms and classifies
them into clusters; these clusters are hosts to SPDC's
interests and activities. SPDC negotiates with the clusters
and agrees to provide a minimum amount of money for the
cluster to carry out development projects and activities in
the cluster. The amount agreed with the cluster and the
process of managing the fund is thereafter captured in a
document referred to as the GMoU.

70
One thing that is peculiar about the GMoU is that SPDC
now has a single common way and process of relating with
its communities in any state or matter. The GMoU became
operational in 2006 with Rivers and Bayelsa States leading
the operation.

The model is an approach to social investment designed to

allow clusters of communities to take ownership of their
own development. The GMoU is a comprehensive
agreement that governs the relationship between the
communities within a cluster and the SPDC over a 5-year
period. When effectively implemented, this process will
assist every GMoU cluster and its constituent
communities, to develop the capacity to own and manage
their own development programs.

The delivery of the GMoU is guided by fundamental

principles of sustainable development and good
governance. There are Community Trusts (CTs) and
Cluster Development Boards (CDBs) set up to manage the
entire process. Whereas SPDC provides bulk funds to
them to manage, the clusters come up with their priorities
for the 5-year period. They (communities) are free to
implement what they consider most important to the
community. Some NGOs are engaged by SPDC to act as

71
mentors to these clusters.

The implementation of the GMoU promotes inclusiveness

at all levels of society. The communities are happier with
this approach as they are in greater control of their
development processes (Participant 53).

Although environmental management and sustainability is

one of the core principles of the GMoU (the 6th principle
relates to environmental sustainability and conservation)
the communities are yet to implement any projects in this
regard. The reason for this is that most of these
communities lack critical infrastructures (participant 55)
so they tend to focus more on this aspect of their needs.
They want to be seen to have upgraded in terms of
infrastructures. Some of them (the respondents) also
believe that they are going past the age when they have to
rely on farming for survival.

The GMoU approach is potentially beneficial to forest

conservation, but the communities have not seen the need
to prioritize forest management. The major challenge to the
initiative is the desire of the community members to use the
money from the initiative to develop trophy infrastructures
such as halls and palaces (Participant 55). Little
emphasis is paid to environmental management and forest

72
recovery to expand the community economic base.

Among the several benefits that have emerged from the

GMoU is that communities were given the opportunity to
implement programmes and projects that addresses their
crucial needs (participants 53, 54 and 55). Every member
of the community is given the opportunity to participate in
the decision making for the community projects. Income
activities in the communities has improved and most of the
infrastructural activities in the communities are carried out
by contractors from the clusters. On the part of the SPDC,
interruption to their activities has reduced significantly,
hostility against the personnel has also reduced, and the
company is now viewed more as a partner than an
oppressor or thief (participant 55). There is more peace
between the communities and Shell; communities are now
fully in charge of their own development.

The GMoU presents a very good prospect for the

unprecedented development of Niger Delta communities
as it encourages partnerships / collaborations.

Conclusion and Recommendation

The forest resources are in a constant decline, and although
there are efforts aimed at conserving the forest resources,
there is no synergy of action amongst the various actors.

73
The policies are well thought out, but the implementations
have not been effective, largely due to a not effective
strategy of implementation.

A participatory approach (Jasper Ezenwaka, 2021, 2018;

Jasper & Anil, 2015) which seeks collaborations from all
stakeholders will yield better results.

74
References:

Act, Land Use Act (1990), "Laws of the Federation of

Nigeria".

Adekunle V.A.J., Okunola J.O. and Oke D.O. (2011),

Management of forest ecosystem for food security and
rural livelihood in South West Nigeria. 2011 START (global
change System for Analysis, Research & Training) Grants
for Global Change Research in Africa.

Ameha, A., Meilby, H., and Feyisa, G.L. (2016), Impacts of

participatory forest management on species composition
and forest structure in Ethiopia. Interna onal Journal of
Biodiversity Science, Ecosystems Services and Management, PP. 1-
15 (article in Press).

Amend, S. & Amend, T. (1995), National parks without

people?: the South American experience: IUCN-the World
Conservation Union.

Anwana, E., Cheke, R., Martin, A., Obireke, L., Asei, M.,
Otufu, P. and Otobotekere, D. (2010), "The crocodile is our
brother: sacred lakes of the Niger Delta, implications for
conservation management" in Verschuuren, B., ed., Sacred
natural sites: Conserving nature and culture.,pp129-138,
Routledge.

75
Arowolo A.O., Agbonlahor M.U, Okuneye P.A, & Soaga
J.A (2014), Adopting a participatory approach to
community forests management in rural Nigeria. Global
NEST Journal, Vol. 16, No 5, pp 975-987

Bekele, T. & Ango, T.G. (2015), Do Interventions from

Participatory Action Research Improve Livelihood and
Reduce Conflicts Over Forest Resources? A Case Study
from South Central Ethiopia. Small-scale Forestry, Vol. 14 / 4,
PP 441-458.

Chukwuone N.A. and Okorji C.E. (2008), Rob B. Dellink

and Arjan Ruijs (eds.), Economics of Poverty, Environment
and Natural- Resource Use, 117-137.

DEFRA, U. (2007), An introductory guide to valuing

ecosystem services, Department for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs (Defra), UK, UK.

Dixon, J. A. & Sherman, P. B. (1991): Economics of

Protected Areas. Ambio 20 (2): 68-74.

Ebeku, K. S. (2002), "Oil and the Niger Delta people: the

injustice of the land use act", Verfassung und Recht in
Übersee, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 201-231.

76
Eneji, V.C.O., Gubo, Q., Okpiliya, F.I., Aniah, E.J., Eni,
D.D. & Afangide, D. (2009): Problems of public
participation in biodiversity conservation: The Nigerian
scenario. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, Vol. 27 / 4, PP
301-307

Francis P. (1984): 'For the use and common benefit of all

Nigerians': Consequences of the 1978 land nationalization.
Africa, Journal of the International African Institute, vol
54/3, pp5-28.

Jasper Ezenwaka (2021): Participatory forest management:

a discussion on its applicability in Nigeria; International
journal of innovations in Agricultural Science and
Technology, Vol 10 No3. ISSN: 2031-401X. PP95-103;
www.bushwealthacademicjournal.com/

Jasper Ezenwaka (2018): Stakeholder Analysis and

Participation: Key to Sustainable Renewable Natural
Resources Management; NIWARD 2018 CONFERENCE
P R O C E E D I N G S p 7 4 – 9 2 ;
h ps://niwardconference.blogspot.com/

Jasper Ezenwaka and Anil Graves (2015): Towards the

sustainable management of the Niger Delta forests, Nigeria;
International Journal of Innovations in Environmental

77
Science and Technology (Volume 5 number 1, 2015, pp 64-
74)

Lewis, C. (1996): Managing conflicts in protected areas.

Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

MA, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005),

Ecosystems and Human well-being: Synthesis. Island Press,
Washington, DC.

Mmom, P. C. and Arokoyu, S. B. (2010), "Mangrove forest

depletion, biodiversity loss and traditional resources
management practices in the Niger Delta, Nigeria",
Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and
Technology, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 28-34.

Nwosu, F. M. and Anwana, D. (2013), "The use of traditional

belief systems in the management of the coastal lakes and
their fisheries in Bayelsa State", Standard Scientific
Research and Essays, vol. 1, no. 14, pp. 403-408.

Senganimalunje T.C., Chirwa, P.W., Babalola, F.D., and

Graham, M.A. (2015): Does participatory forest
management program lead to efficient forest resource use
and improved rural livelihoods? Experiences from Mua-
Livulezi Forest Reserve, Malawi. Agroforestry Systems, 20p.

78
Teaser:
Write briefly about land tenure rights and forest
resource ownership and control in your place. How
has this affected forest resource conservation?

79
PARTICIPATORY FOREST MANAGEMENT: A
DISCUSSION ON ITS APPLICABILITY IN NIGERIA

Abstract:
This paper discusses the concept of Participatory Forest
Management and how it can be useful in the sustainable
management of the Nigerian forests. It explored various
useful literature materials, pointing out the applicability of
the concept in the Nigerian situation. It also drew examples
from some countries where the concept have been used. The
application of this concept in Nigeria, where there is conflict
over natural resource exploitation, could lead to the
achievement of communal peace and sustainable forest
resources management.

Key words: participatory; forest management; community

forest; conservation

The problem:
For many years, developing countries have been faced with
the challenge of sustainably managing their forest resources
(Coulibaly-Lingani et al, 2014). Adopted strategies in the
past have excluded local communities simply because the
needs of the local people have been viewed as opposed to
biodiversity conservation objectives (Adams & Hulme,
2001; Vodouhe et al, 2010). The top-down approach has not

80
been effective in curbing deforestation and loss of
biodiversity (Guthiga, 2008; Ameha et al, 2014b). The
failure of the top-down forest management approaches
according to Rikiatu et al (2016) makes forestry officials to
see communities as destroyers while communities regard
the forestry officials as enemies whose orders must be
flouted so as to meet their (communities) own needs.

The concept of Participatory Forest Management:

Since the 1980s, there has been increasing effort at
incorporating the needs of the local people into forest
conservation planning (Ribot, 2001; Hutton & Leader-
Williams, 2003) especially as the top-down approach has
failed to produce results. This approach which is referred to
as community based natural resources management
(CBNRM) of which Participatory Forest Management
(PFM) is part of, permits forest communities, especially
hosts to designated protected areas, to participate in its
management and this approach also links the conservation
objectives to the needs of the locals (Adams & Hulme,
2001; Hutton & Leader-Williams, 2003). CBNRM (PFM)
is seen as strategy promoting forest resources governance
(Matta & Alavalapati, 2006).

Participatory Forest Management (PFM) / Community

Forest Management (CFM) / Community Based Forest

81
Management (CBFM), according to Agrawal et al (2008)
“refers broadly to forest use and governance arrangements
under which the rights, responsibilities, and authority for
forest management rests, at least in part, with local
communities”. This concept proposes that sustainable
forest management will be achieved when “local
communities manage local forests and get access to direct
benefits from participating in forest management”
(Agrawal and Ostrom, 2001; Ostrom, 1990). Public
participation is an effective tool in overcoming conflicts
among diverse needs represented by varying stakeholders
in forest resource use; Yamaki (2016) defines public
participation in forest management as “the involvement of
non-state actors such as people and organized groups in a
process where they can exchange information and express
opinions about the policy-making process”. PFM
encourages and promotes community and other
stakeholders' participation in the management of forest
resources. Local collective action is a cardinal principle of
PFM; the local dwellers play very active roles (managerial)
while the external stakeholders' role is rather supportive
than managerial (Ostrum, 1990; Arnold, 1991). Research
has found that stakeholder participation has made forest
management to be more effective than alternative
management regimes (Klooster and Masera, 2000; Gautam
et al., 2002; Benneker and McCall, 2009; Blomley et al.,

82
2008; Takahashi and Todo, 2012; Thoms, 2008; Crook and
Manor, 1994; Ribot, 2003).

PFM has been practiced with the objectives of enhancing

forest resources conservation, poverty reduction and
achievement of rural community development (Agrawal
and Gibson, 1999; Agrawal et al., 2008; Andersson et al.,
2004; Ribot et al., 2006; Somanathan et al., 2009).
According to Campbell (2009), PFM was introduced in the
late 1970s as a result of the degradation and deforestations
in government owned forests. Government forest
protection policies have failed in achieving its objectives of
improving wellbeing of community people (Kumar, 2002;
Lund & Treue, 2008; Persha et al, 2011).

Factors which affects success of PFM:

Sensitivity to local needs such as the people's traditions and
socio-economic realities affects the ultimate outcome of
PFM strategies (Rikiatu et al, 2016).

Successes in PFM have been achieved where attention have

been paid to employment and increased participation
(Blomley et al, 2008; Conroy, 2001; Matiku et al, 2012;
Treue et al, 2014). Participative forest management
improves the quality of decision-making because it
facilitates exchange of information and ideas amongst the

83
participating stakeholder groups and promotes social
learning and mutual problem analysis and solutions. Public
participation is thus considered a decision making tool that
has the ability to reduce conflicts among stakeholders and
achievement of more sustainable decisions (Aasetre, 2006;
Kangas et al, 2010; Maier et al., 2014; Reed et al., 2009).
The normative goal of participation is said to promote
democracy and social learning because it improves the
chances of all categories of stakeholders to get involved
(Armitage et al., 2009; Reed et al., 2009); it enhances trust
and encourages public support for decisions (policies).
Participation has the possibility of “transforming
relationships, creating new relationships, changing
adversarial relationships and enabling participants to
identify new ways of working together” (Stringer et al.,
2006); it also leads to collaboration (Davies and White,
2012).

Some case studies:

Participatory forest management has been applied in China
(Liu and Innes, 2015) where it is now a dynamic and
evolving process aimed towards a sustainable forest
management; it has also been supported by fiscal policy.
PFM is yielding results in Tanzania and the funding from the
REDD+ programme in that country is being used to expand
it (Newton et al, 2015). Some other countries where PFM is

84
being used include Ghana (Rikiatu et al, 2016), Kenya
(Matiku et al, 2013; Musyoki et al, 2016), Republic of
Benin (Kisito et al, 2017), Mozambique (Irmeli, 2006),
Ethiopia (Solomon et al, 2016; Ameha et al, 2016;
Alemayehu et al, 2015), Malawi (Senganimalunje et al,
2015) and Laos (Irmeli & Jens, 2009).

In Ethiopia, Ameha et al (2016) found that participatory

forest management was more successful in making forest
management sustainable than the government's approach to
management; collaboration reduced conflicts over forest
resource use and supported local livelihoods. In Central
Ethiopia, the provision of alternative livelihood activities
reduced illegal forest resources exploitation and it was
concluded that participatory forest management approaches
yielded better results in bringing about change in a society
where there are conflicts as a result of natural resource use
and that conflicts were resolved by sharing benefits and
responsibilities (Bekele & Ango, 2015). Similar positive
results were reported also in Malawi (Senganimalunje et al,
2015).

African countries are beginning to embrace the concept of

participation, allowing all stakeholders, especially the
communities to participate in forest resource management.
In Kenya, the Kenyan Forest Act of 2005 (Musyoki et al,

85
2016), allows community forest associations to participate
in the management of forests in order to improve forest
cover and rural livelihoods. In Ghana, a government policy
(formulated in 1994, called “the forest and wildlife policy”)
provides the basis for community participation in forest
management (Rikiatu et al, 2016) and as a result of this,
policy makers and coastal management practitioners in
Ghana embraced the concept of participatory management
of coastal resources (Aheto et al, 2016), resulting in local
people participating in the conservation of the mangrove
forests.

Limitations:
It is worth noting that true stakeholder involvement can still
be limited. For instance, community participation in the
management of forest reserves in the Northern Region of
Ghana was found to be passive despite the government
policy; community participation was said to be 'tokenistic'
in that their involvement was merely limited to “boundary
cleaning and provision of labour to the plantations”; there
existed no formal collaboration between the communities
and the forest services division (Rikiatu et al, 2016). This
shows that weak implementation and bureaucracy is often a
hindrance to the good intentions of good policies. In China,
Liu and Innes (2015) identified the challenges of
participatory forest resources management to include

86
institutional barriers, little research, poor practices, and
failure to replicate lessons learned from successful cases.

There is a low level of community participation in

biodiversity management in Nigeria where rural dwellers
are usually not formally educated and often oppose
conservation initiatives, especially when the idea is
government driven. In a study carried out in a donor
initiated forest biodiversity conservation project in a
National Park in Cross Rivers State Nigeria, it was
concluded that the people were not properly involved in the
project and were not benefiting from the project (Eneji et al,
2009). Stakeholder participation requires the involvement
of the end users themselves, playing key roles in the forest
management process (Aheto et al, 2016; Rikiatu et al,
2016). The aim of stakeholder participation is to develop
cooperation and improve the outcome and sustainability of
forest management (Balest et al, 2016). Sudrajat et al
(2012), Grimble and Wellard (1997), Grimble and Quan
(1993), Grimble et al (1994), Jasper and Abere (2010), and
LENF (1998) have all argued that decision-making
concerning people and the environment is more effective
when relevant stakeholders participate.

Stakeholder analysis is necessary in the quest to build

cooperation amongst stakeholders because for instance, the

87
objectives of government wanting to manage the forest
might be different from that of the communities as well as
from that of other stakeholders, but the ultimate aim of
sustainably managing the forest should be common to all.
This should be the beginning of negotiations and forming
cooperation amongst the stakeholders (Newton et al, 2015).
It should be noted that designing a program that will
adequately satisfy the objective of various stakeholder
groups could be challenging also (Angelsen, 2009).

Conditions which promotes PFM:

There are conditions that improve the acceptance of
participatory forest management by the forest dwellers. In
their study, Aheto et al (2016) found that livelihoods and
economic benefits were the primary motivators for
stakeholder participation in mangrove restoration and
management in Ghana. This was similar to the conclusion
of Musyoki et al (2016) when they evaluated the factors,
which influence the participation of the Community Forest
Associations in forest management in Kenya and found that
access to the benefits derived from the forest was the main
driver. In Nigeria, Amoru (2000) argued that policy and
development has tended to ignore the needs of those
stakeholders who depend on forests for their livelihoods
and as a result, the outcomes have been ineffective and
unsustainable. Creation of incentives to reduce

88
deforestation could include initiatives that generate socio-
economic benefits for the forest-product dependent rural
dwellers (Newton et al, 2015). The success of PFM depends
much on the capacity of communities to create strong
institutions as well as their extent of rights of access and
control over forest products (Charnley and Poe, 2007). Poor
institutional set up and conflicting economic interests of
vital stakeholders are hindrances to a successful PFM
(Irmeli & Jens, 2009). Building of local capacities to be able
to assert their rights and demand commitment from the
national government is key to a successful PFM (Irmeli,
2006; Irmeli & Jens, 2009). Successful participatory forest
management also requires an analysis of stakeholders'
perceptions and preferences (Paletto et al, 2016).
Furthermore, community structures will need to be built,
especially in the areas of coordination and monitoring
(Newton et al, 2015). Participation, accountability and
responsiveness are other key institutional conditions
recommended by Khartun et al (2015) for the success of any
PFM program.

Community forest management efforts are effective in

managing the forest resources; a way forward is to build on
the experiences of the existing community forest
management methods. In the works of Newton et al (2015)
in Nepal and Tanzania, it was recommended that the design

89
and implementation of the REDD+ should build on the
experiences of community forest management. The
strength of the community forest management initiatives
include the existing environmental, social, human and
institutional capitals which has been built considering the
years of existence of such initiatives.

When PFM is to be introduced into a new environment,

there is the risk that the introduction of a foreign element
into the already existing community forest management
system could disrupt the already established ecological and
institutional equilibrium in the area in which they have been
developed over the years; the changes could either be
positive or negative (Benneker and McCall, 2009; Putz and
Redford, 2009). Blaikie (2006) also cautioned that PFM
often fails to achieve the theoretically predicted outcomes.
Bearing these risks in mind, it will be suggested that
implementation should be done first as a pilot, which can
then be replicated when all necessary lessons may have
been learnt. Despite the risks of the unknown, there are
lessons that other initiatives can learn or adopt from the
community initiatives seeing that these systems have been
developed over the years and have recorded great successes
in preserving the forest resources (Arnold, 2001).

Again because PFM places restrictions on how forest

90
resources are utilized or extracted as a result of new rules
and regulations (Larson and Pulhin, 2012), it sometimes
lead to a reduction in forest based income for some
households (Schreckenberg and Luttrell, 2009). To mitigate
this negative effect, other alternative income generating
activities and enterprises can be introduced (Gobeze et al.,
2009). Khartun et al (2015) listed some other challenges
facing the implementation of PFM to include conflicts
arising from governance restructuring, elite capture and
illegitimate benefit sharing, participation (i.e. ensuring full
participation of all relevant stakeholders) and cultural
norms. Thin & van Gardingen (2004) and Blomley &
Ramadhani (2006) suggest that PFM initiatives need to be
mainstreamed into local institution so that it becomes more
effective.

Applicability to Nigeria; conclusion:

The basis for the introduction of PFM in Ethiopia (Ameha et
al, 2014b; Kubsa et al, 2003; Temesgen et al, 2007) are also
true for Nigeria i.e. (i) centralized management of forests
have been unsuccessful (ii) the active participation of the
communities, who hold major stake in the forest, is an
effective strategy to achieve sustainable forest
management, and (iii) the forest is a natural capital asset that
is capable of taking the communities out of poverty.

91
Decentralizing forest management will achieve result in
Nigeria. Decentralization is when a central government
formally cedes some of its powers to lower level institutions
in a political or administrative hierarchy (Ribot, 2004). This
can happen in one of two ways: (i) “deconcentration”,
whereby the central government gives some of its powers to
lower level institutions within an administrative hierarchy,
(ii) “devolution”, where powers are ceded by the central
government to a democratic local government (Agrawal
and Ribot, 1999; Crook and Manor, 1998). This will work
since Nigeria operates a three-tier government i.e. the
federal, state and local governments. PFM will promote
good governance as well as sustainable forest management
and livelihoods (Senganimalunje et al, 2016; Warner, 2000;
Menzies, 2002).

It should be borne in mind that PFM initiatives sometimes

struggle to continue after the withdrawal of external funders
but this can be resolved if the government intervenes with
funds (Irmeli, 2006). To make the PFM initiatives
sustainable, attention should be paid to building
partnerships from the bottom up and instilling ownership in
the local people; emphasis should be placed on how to
ensure a successful takeover of the facilitation role by local
governments or institutions after the withdrawal of any
external funder involved. The role of forestry extension

92
staff in building the capacities of the local people cannot and
should not be ignored, especially when the management of
critical forest resources is involved (Irmeli, 2006).

93
References:

Aasetre, J., (2006): Perception of communication in

Norwegian forest management. For. Policy Econ. 8 (1),
81–92.
Adams W.M & Hulme D. (2001): If community
conservation is the answer in Africa, what is the
question? Oryx, 35: 193−200.
Agrawal A, Ribot J (1999): Accountability in
decentralization: a framework with South Asian and
West African cases. J Dev Areas 33:473–502
Agrawal, A., Gibson, C. C., (1999): Enchantment and
disenchantment: the role of community in natural
resource conservation. World Dev. 27, 629–649.
Agrawal, A., Ostrom, E. (2001): Collective action,
property rights, and decentralization in resource use in
India and Nepal. Polit. Soc. 29, 485–514.
Agrawal, A.; Chatre, A.; Hardin, R. (2008): Changing
governance of the world's forests. Science 320,
1460–1462.
Alemayehu N. Ayana, Nathalie Vandenabeele & Bas
Arts (2015): Performance of participatory forest
management in Ethiopia: institutional arrangement
versus local practices. Critical Policy Studies, DOI:
10.1080/19460171.2015.1024703
Ameha Aklilu, Larsen H.O.; Lemenih Mulugeta

94
(2014b): Participatory Forest Management in Ethiopia:
Learning from Pilot Projects. Environmental
Management (2014) 53:838–854
Ameha Aklilu, Oystein Juul Nielsen, Helle Overgard
Larsen (2014a): Impacts of access and benefit sharing
on livelihoods and forest: Case of participatory forest
management in Ethiopia. Ecological Economics 97
(2014) 162–171
Amente, G., (2005): Rehabilitation and Sustainable
Use of Degraded Community Forests in the Bale
Mountains of Ethiopia. Ph.D. thesis Albert-Ludwigs-
University, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
Andersson, K.P., Gibson, C.C., Lehoucq, F., (2004):
The politics of decentralized natural resource
governance. PS-Polit. Sci. Polit. 37, 421–426.
Angelsen, A. (2009): Realising REDD+: National
Strategy and Policy Options. CIFOR, Bogor.
Armitage, D.R., Plummer, R., Berkes, F., Arthur,
R.I., Charles, A.T., Davidson-Hunt, I.J., Diduck,
A.P., Doubleday, N.C., Johnson, D.S., Marschke, M.,
McConney, P., Pinkerton, E.W., Wollenberg, E.K.,
(2009): Adaptive co-management for social-ecological
complexity. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2, 95–102.
Arnold JEM (1991): Community forestry: ten years in
review, community forestry note, No.7. Food and
Agricultural Organizations of the United Nations

95
(FAO), Rome
Arnold, J.E.M. (2001): Forests and People: 25 Years of
Community Forestry. FAO, Rome.
Bekele, T., Senbeta, F., Ameha, A., (2004): Impact of
participatory forest management practice in
Adaba–Dodola forest priority area of Oromia, Ethiopia.
Ethiop. J. Nat. Resour. 6, 89–109.
Benneker, C. and McCall, M. (2009): REDD
strategies: a case study from Mexico. In: Bodegom, V.;
Jan, A.; Savenije, H.; Wit, M. (Eds.), Forests and
Climate Change: Adaptation and Mitigation. Tropenbos
International, Wageningen.
Blaikie P (2006): Is small beautiful? Community-based
natural resources management in Malawi and Botswana.
World Dev 34(11): 1947–1957
Blomley T, Pfliegner K, Isango J, Zahabu E, Ahrends
A, Burgess N, (2008): “Seeing the wood for the trees: an
assessment of the impact of participatory forest
management on forest condition in Tanzania” Oryx 42
380–391
Blomley T; Ramadhani H (2006): Going to scale with
participatory forest management: early lessons from
Tanzania. Int For Rev 8(1): 93–100.
Blomley, T., Pfliegner, K., Isango, J., Zahabu, E.,
Ahrends, A., Burgess, N., (2008): Seeing the wood for
the trees: an assessment of the impact of participatory

96
forest management on forest condition in Tanzania.
Oryx 42, 380–391.
Campbell J Y, (2009): “Guest editorial” International
Forestry Review 11 155–156
Charnley, S., Poe, M.R., (2007): Community forestry
in theory and practice: where are we now? Annual
Review of Anthropology. Annual Reviews, Palo Alto
301–336.
Conroy C, (2001): “Learning from self-initiated
community forest management groups in Orissa”, final
technical report for project R6787, Natural Resources
I n s t i t u t e , C h a t h a m , K e n t ,
http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/PDF/Outputs/NatResSys/R6787
FTR1.pdf
Coulibaly-Lingani Pascaline; Mulualem Tigabu &
Patrice Savadogo Per-Christer Odén (2014):
Participatory forest management in Burkina Faso:
Members' perception of performance. Journal of
Forestry Research (2014) 25(3): 637−646
Crook R, Manor J (1994): Enhancing participation and
institutional performance: democratic decentralization
in South Asia and West Africa. Overseas Development
Administration, London
Crook R, Manor J (1998): Democracy and
decentralisation in South Asia and West Africa.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

97
Davies, A.L., White, R.M., (2012): Collaboration in
natural resource governance: reconciling stakeholder
expectations in deer management in Scotland. J.
Environ. Manag. 112, 160–169.
Gautam, A.P.;Webb, E.L.; Eiumnoh, A. (2002): GIS
assessment of land use/land cover changes associated
with community forestry implementation in the Middle
Hills of Nepal. Mt. Res. Dev. 22, 63–69.
Gobeze, T., Bekele, M., Lemenih, M., Kassa, H.,
(2009): Participatory forest management and its impacts
on livelihoods and forest status: the case of Bonga forest
in Ethiopia. Int. For. Rev. 11, 346–358.
G u t h i g a P. M . ( 2 0 0 8 ) : U n d e r s t a n d i n g l o c a l
communities' perceptions of existing forest
management regimes of a Kenyan rainforest.
International Journal of Social Forestry, 1: 145-166.
Hutton J.M. & Leader-Williams N. (2003):
Sustainable use and incentive-driven conservation:
realigning human and conservation interests. Oryx, 37:
215−226.
Irmeli Mustalahti (2006): How to handle the stick:
Positive processes and crucial barriers of participatory
forest management. Forests, trees and livelihoods, 16:2,
151-165, doi: 10.1080/14728028.2006.9752553
Irmeli Mustalahti & Jens Friis Lund (2009): Where
and How Can Participatory Forest Management

98
Succeed? Learning From Tanzania, Mozambique, and
Laos. Society & Natural Resources, 23:1, 31- 44, DOI:
10.1080/08941920802213433
Kangas, A., Saarinen, N., Saarikoski, H., Leskinen,
L.A., Hujala, T., Tikkanen, J., (2010): Stakeholder
perspectives about proper participation for regional
forest programmes in Finland. For. Policy Econ. 12 (3),
213–222.
Khartun Kaysara; Nicole Gross-Camp; Esteve
Corbera; Adrian Martin; Steve Ball; Glory Massao
(2015): When Participatory Forest Management makes
money: insights from Tanzania on governance, benefit
sharing, and implications for REDD+. Environment and
Planning A 2015, volume 47, pages 2097 – 2112
Kisito Gandji, Valère K Salako, Achille E
Assogbadjo, Vincent OA Orekan, Romain L Glèlè
Kakaï & Brice A Sinsin (2017): Evaluation of the
sustainability of participatory management of forest
plantations: the case study of Wari-Maro Forest Reserve,
Republic of Benin, Southern Forests: a Journal of Forest
Science, DOI: 10.2989/20702620.2016.1255409
Klooster, D. and Masera, O. (2000): Community forest
management in Mexico: carbon mitigation and
biodiversity conservation through rural development.
Glob. Environ. Chang. 10, 259–272.
Kubsa A, Mariame A, Amente G, Lipp HJ, Tadesse T

99
(2003): Wajib: an alternative forest conservation
approach for Ethiopia's forest. XII World Forestry
C o n g re s s , Q u e b e c . h t t p : / / w w w. f a o . o r g / d o c
rep/ARTICLE/WFC/XII/0145-C2.HTM. Accessed 09
April 2017
Kumar S, (2002): “Does 'participation' in common pool
resource management help the poor? A social
cost–benefit analysis of joint forest management in
Jharkhand, India” World Development 30 763–782
Larson, A.M., Pulhin, J.M., (2012): Enhancing forest
tenure reforms through more responsive regulations.
Conserv. Soc. 10, 103–113.
Lund J F, Treue T, (2008): “Are we getting there?
Evidence of decentralized forest management from the
Tanzanian Miombo woodlands” World Development 36
2780–2800
Maier, C., Lindner, T., Winkel, G., (2014):
Stakeholders' perception of participation in forest
policy: a case study from Baden-Württemberg. Land
Use Policy 39, 166–176.
Matiku P, Ogol C, Mireri C, (2012): “The impact of
participatory forest management (PFM) on forest
integrity and biodiversity in Arabuko-Sokoke forest,
Kenya” African Journal of Ecology 50 184–192
Matiku Paul; Caleb Mireri & Callistus Ogol (2013):
The Impact of Participatory Forest Management on

100
Local Community Livelihoods in the Arabuko-Sokoke
Forest, Kenya. Conservation and Society 11(2): 112-
129, 2013

Matta J.R. & Alavalapati J.R.R. (2006): Perceptions

of collective action and its success in community based
natural resource management: An empirical analysis.
Forest Policy and Economics, 9: 274−284.
Menzies NK (2002): ''Global Gleanings''. Lessons from
six studies of community based forest management
around the world. A report prepared for the Ford
Foundation's Environment and Development Affinity
Group (EDAG)
Newton Peter; Brian Schaap; Michelle Fournier;
Meghan Cornwall; Derrick W. Rosenbach; Joel
DeBoer; Jessica Whittemore; Ryan Stock; Mark
Yoders; Gernot Brodnig; Arun Agrawal ( 2 0 1 5 ) :
Community forest management and REDD +. Forest
Policy and Economics 56 (2015) 27–37
Ostrom, E., (1990): Governing the Commons: The
Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action.
Cambridge University Press.
Persha L, Agrawal A, Chhatre A, (2011): “Social and
ecological synergy: local rulemaking, forest livelihoods,

101
and biodiversity conservation” Science 331 1606–1608
Putz, F. and Redford, K. (2009): Dangers of carbon-
based conservation. Glob. Environ. Chang. 19,
400–401.
Ribot J.C. (1999): Decentralization, participation and
accountability in Sahelian forestry: legal instruments of
political-administrative control. Africa, 69: 23−65.
Ribot JC (2003): Democratic decentralisation of
natural resources: Institutional choice and discretionary
power transfers in sub- Saharan Africa. Public Adm Dev
23:53–65
Ribot JC (2004): Waiting for democracy-the politics of
choice in natural resource decentralization. WRI Report,
Washington DC: World Resources Institute
Ribot, J.C., Agrawal, A., Larson, A.M., (2006):
Recentralizing while decentralizing: how national
governments reappropriate forest resources. World Dev.
34, 1864–1886.
Schreckenberg, K., Luttrell, C., (2009): Participatory
forest management: a route to poverty reduction? Int.
For. Rev. 11, 221–238.
Senganimalunje T.C.; Chirwa P.W.; Babalola F.D.;
Graham M.A. (2016): Does participatory forest
management program lead to efficient forest resource
use and improved rural livelihoods? Experiences from
Mua-Livulezi Forest Reserve, Malawi. Agroforest Syst

102
(2016) 90:691–710
Solomon Tadesse, Muluneh Woldetsadik & Feyera
Senbeta (2016): Impacts of participatory forest
management on forest conditions: Evidences from
Gebradima Forest, southwest Ethiopia. Journal of
S u s t a i n a b l e F o re s t r y , 3 5 : 8 , 6 0 4 - 6 2 2 , D O I :
10.1080/10549811.2016.1236279
Somanathan, E., Prabhakar, R., Mehta, B.S., (2009):
Decentralization for cost-effective conservation. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. 106, 4143–4147.
Stringer, L.C., Dougill, A.J., Fraser, E., Hubacek, K.,
Prell, C., Reed, M.S., (2006): Unpacking participation
in the adaptive management of social-ecological
systems: a critical review. Ecol. Soc. 11 (2), 39.
Takahashi, R., Todo, Y., (2012): Impact of
Community-based forest management on forest
protection: evidence from an aid-funded project in
Ethiopia. Environ. Manag. 50, 396–404.
Temesgen T, Irwin B, Jordan G, J. M (2007): Forests,
use them or lose them, an argument for promoting forest-
based livelihoods rather than alternative non-forest-
based livelihoods within PFM programmes. In:
Kelbessa E, De Stoop C (eds) International conference:
participatory forest management (PFM), biodiversity
and livelihoods in Africa, Government of Ethiopia in
collaboration with other stakeholders, Addis Ababa,

103
E t h i o p i a , p 7 – 1 7 . h t t p : / / w w w. p f m p -
farmsos.org/Docs/pfm%220conference_
proceeding.pdf. Accessed 09 April 2017
Thin N; van Gardingen P (2004): Participatory
Forestry: sharable lessons for better management of
commons. For Trees Livelihoods 14:229–242
Thoms, C.A., (2008): Community control of resources
and the challenge of improving local livelihoods: a
critical examination of community forestry in Nepal.
Geoforum 39, 1452–1465.
Treue T et al, (2014): “Does participatory forest
management promote sustainable forest utilisation in
Tanzania” International Forestry Review 16 23–38
Vodouhê F.G.; Coulibaly O.; Adégbidi A. & Sinsin B.
(2010): Community perception of biodiversity
conservation within protected areas in Benin. Forest
Policy and Economics, 12: 505−512.
Warner K (2000): Forestry and sustainable livelihoods:
What part can forests and forestry play in reducing
poverty? Unasylva, 202, 51:3–12
Yamaki Kazushige (2016): Role of social networks in
urban forest management collaboration: A case study in
northern Japan. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 18
(2016) 212–220

104
Teaser:

What factors have helped in the success of

community policies of managing a forest resource
in your locality?

105
E C O S Y S T E M D I S S E RV I C E S O F U R B A N
FORESTRY IN YENAGOA,
NIGER DELTA, NIGERIA

This last paper discourses disbenefits from the forest

ecosystem. The forest ecosystem can also have some
disbenefits.

ABSTRACT

People want to green their environments and practice urban

forestry because of the associated ecosystem services, but
with it comes some unwanted, unplanned, and unexpected
negative impacts on their wellbeing. These unwanted
negative impacts are now termed ecosystem disservices
(EDS). This study aimed to find out the awareness of EDS
among urban dwellers in Yenagoa, Nigeria. It also had the
objectives of collating what the participants classify as an
EDS, and to know if the EDS will sway people from
practicing urban forestry. The semi-structured interviews
involved 30 participants who were selected through a
combination of convenience and purposive sampling
methods. The result showed that although people
experience the unanticipated negative impacts from the
urban forest ecosystem, they were not aware of what to

106
name them; they simply lived with it. Many EDS were
mentioned, including costs of maintenance, leaf litters,
damages to infrastructure and assets, health issues
(harboring of disease vectors such as mosquitoes),
harboring of criminals, harboring of venomous reptiles and
dangerous wildlife, damages to lawns and landscapes,
attraction of strange or unwanted persons, and death.
Despite these EDS, they all will still want to keep their
environment green. Environmental education in the aspect
of safe practices, choice of species, and maintenance are
recommended for practitioners of urban forestry.

Keywords: ecosystem disservices, conservation, urban

greening, ecosystem services, urban forestry.

INTRODUCTION:

Ecosystem disservices (EDS) refers generally to any and

all negative impacts or effects the ecosystem has on human
wellbeing. These disservices may not have been envisaged
by humans. This is more so because most often, people
think more of the beneficial services of the environment
especially as classified as ecosystem services (MEA,
2005). Ezenwaka (2023) in his work on urban forestry and
urban greening in Yenagoa found many reasons why

107
people would plant vegetations around their homesteads.
And because people have paid less emphasis on the
disservices, studies on EDS is at present very scanty
(Shackleton et al, 2016) while studies on benefits which
people derive from the environment have enjoyed so much
attention in the past 20years (Constanza et al, 2017).

Interest is beginning to build in the aspect of ecosystem

disservices. Ecosystems can affect humans negatively also
(Guo et al, 2022).

EDS have been variously defined. Lyytimaki and Sipila

(2009) explained that EDS refers to “ecosystem functions
adverse to human wellbeing”. It refers to the negative
effects of nature on humans; it is a socio-ecological
interaction which has the power to influence people's
perception of nature (Shuyao et al, 2023). Because it has
the potential of influencing people's perception of nature, if
EDS is not reduced to a manageable minimum, it can sway
people from adopting environmental friendly actions such
as urban greening (Blanco et al, 2019). Shuyao et al (2023)
found in China that EDS causes a considerable financial
loss.

According to Shackleton et al (2016), EDS must have two

features to qualify as EDS: the adverse effect must not be

108
caused by human but from features or processes of the
ecosystem, and that it impacts negatively on any
dimensions of human wellbeing.

Seeing the importance of EDS, many organisations are

now incorporating concepts of EDS valuation systems or
conceptual frameworks and policies (Guo et al, 2022).

Efforts have been made to classify or value EDS. Shuyao et

al (2023) listed the followings as qualifying as EDS: direct
financial costs, loss of goods, loss of revenues, unpleasant
feelings, diseases, injuries, spending on infrastructure
repair or infrastructure damage and unsafe feeling. It can be
as a result of biological invasions (Shackleton et al, 2016)
and by other unwanted aspects of the plant ecosystem
(Escobedo et al, 2011). Vaz et al (2017) posited that any
negative ecosystem impact on health, material, security
and safety, cultural and aesthetic, leisure and recreation,
should qualify as EDS. Gomez and Barton (2013) included
blockage of view, allergies, accidents, fear and stress,
damages to infrastructure, and habitat competition with
human in the list of EDS.

Guo et al (2022) made efforts and created an index system

in the research of EDS in different ecosystems including
agriculture (farmlands), urban, urban forests, urban birds,

109
plant invasions, and environment. Their publication also
mapped major types of ecosystems where researches have
been focused and papers published, these included (ranked
from the highest number downwards) urban ecosystem,
forestry, agriculture, rural, wetland, and desert ecosystems.

What is the awareness of EDS by dwellers of the urban city

of Yenagoa, Niger Delta, Nigeria? Or, what will they
classify as EDS?

Guo et al (2022) compiled researches done on EDS.

Among the top ten (10) countries in the field of EDS
research in terms of published papers, only South Africa,
with a total number of 42 publications, occupying the 6th
position on the list, was the only African country. This
publication is intended to add to the literatures as it paints a
picture of what EDS constitutes in parts of Nigeria.

METHOD:

This exploratory research (Robson, 2002; Neuman, 2003;

Marshal and Rossman, 2006) was conducted in the urban
city of Yenagoa; Yenagoa is the Capital of Bayelsa State, in
the heart of the Niger Delta in Nigeria. The city has several

110
other towns within it including Ekeki, Okaka, Amarata,
Kpansia and Zarama, where the participants were
interviewed and all of the photography taken.

A social survey (Yin, 1994) involving thirty (30)

participants was conducted. The participants were chosen
through a combination of convenience and purposive
sampling methods (Overton & Diermen, 2014).
Convenience and purposive sampling methods were
chosen because the study wanted individuals with
vegetations around their premises to be the focus of the
semi-structured discussions. The index system created by
Guo et al (2022) was followed.

The session's discussions were centered around (i)

awareness of ecosystem disservices, (ii) what in their
personal experience, constitute an EDS (iii) if the EDS will
make them not to green their environment.

Notes were taken during the discussion sessions. Data

collection also involved transect walks, observations, and
photography. The transcribed notes were later analyzed
through a thematic content analysis.

111
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

The results are presented and discussed under three themes

(i) awareness of ecosystem disservices (ii) what constitutes
an EDS or examples of EDS, and (iii) if the EDS will sway
people from greening their environment.

Awareness of ecosystem disservices:

The term, ecosystem disservice was not known to any of

the participants. But with further probing, using phrases
such as 'negative impacts of vegetations and trees around
the homestead', 'unpleasant experiences as a result of
vegetations and trees around the homestead', 'what they do
not like about the vegetation and trees around their
homestead', they all (100%) were able to relate with the
theme and began to give various examples. This outcome
shows that people are not so much aware that those
negative impacts are actually disservices from the
environment. They live with it. They have accepted it as an
integral part of greening their environment.

Examples of EDS in Yenagoa, Bayelsa State, Nigeria

Under this theme, the interest of the analysis was not in

knowing how many participants said 'what', but in collating

112
what negative impacts the participants mentioned as an
EDS. The various disservices that were mentioned include
the followings:

1. Associated cost of maintenance:

Shuyao et al (2023) mentioned costs as part of EDS.
The participants enjoy the benefits (ecosystem
services) provided by the surrounding vegetation
but frowned at the cost of maintenance of the
vegetation. A participant said 'the vegetation will
grow out of shape if not maintained regularly';
another said 'it becomes bushy and looses its beauty';
another said 'it costs me a budget to engage a
gardener that does it for me'.

This implies that disservices provides employment

for others. So EDS could be a source of income to
service providers in areas of
(a) tree-crown pruning (Figure 1),
(b) having to professionally bring down a tree that's
no longer needed (Figure 3),
(c) Clearing of leaf litters (Figure 5)
(d) Lawn and garden maintenance
(e) Roof and building repairs (Figures 7 & 8)

113
2. Leaf litters:
Of special note was a participant whose entire
compound was littered with leaves (Figures 4, 5 &
6). This, according to this participant, gives the
family a huge burden in always trying to clear the
leaf debris.

3. Damages to infrastructure and assets:

This example were in instances where:

(a) the buttress roots of the trees had caused

damages to the foundation of the building, also
causing cracks in the walls of the building
(Figures 2 & 3).
(b) another cited example was the lodging
(falling over) of old (aged) trees, becoming a
hazard to both infrastructure, assets such as
parked vehicles, and human.
(c) snapping of tree branches causes damage to
infrastructure as well; this happens during wild
winds.

114
4. Health issues:
The participants mentioned that the vegetation
harbors and encourages the multiplication of disease
vectors such as mosquitoes.

5. Harboring of criminals:
The participants listed this safety and security
concern as an EDS; this conforms to the list given by
Vaz et al (2017). A participant explained that
'criminal elements could take refuge or hide within
the shade of the vegetation at night to unleash an
attack'. Another participant mentioned that 'it blocks
the view, preventing someone from correctly
assessing what's ahead'. Gomez and Barton (2013)
listed blockage of view as an EDS.

6. Harboring of harmful wildlife:

All the participants gave instances of sighting
venomous reptiles (snakes) at least once, in their
gardens. A participant said 'this is one of the greatest
dangers of keeping vegetation around the
homestead'. This, according to another participant
'costs me money in carrying out fumigation against
these reptiles especially'.

115
7. Damages to landscapes:
A participant showed an area within the premises
that used to be covered with beautiful lawn but the
lawn is now eradicated because of the constant leaf
litters on them. See figures 4 and 6.

8. Attraction of unwanted or strange persons:

A participant mentioned the attraction of strange
persons coming around for photography around the
premises; the aesthetics seem to attract persons and
passersby who then wants to pose for a photograph.
This participant stated the fears that some of these
persons may nurse criminal intentions afterwards.

9. Death:
A participant recounted a fatal incidence due to
lodging of trees and snapping of tree branches due to
wind. Yenagoa is in the humid tropics, with stormy
rainfall pattern. The presence of trees could pose
such fatal risks during such storms. This may not
only be around homesteads, but along the
motorways as well, especially motorways which has
trees lined up on its sides.

116
Will the EDS sway you from greening your environment?

It was a mixed feeling for the participants, but they all

(100%) confirmed that because of the numerous benefits
derivable from greening their environment (Ezenwaka,
2023), they will continue to green their environment. To
these participants, the listed ecosystem disservices can be
managed because there are solutions around each of them.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

This research work has found that people may not be aware
of what exactly to call or name the discomforts they
experience as a result of greening their environment or
practicing urban forestry, but they sure feel some
discomfort. These sources of discomfort, can become a
source of employment or income earning for other service
providers who are able to help alleviate these ecosystem
disservices.

Despite the ecosystem disservices, people will still want to

practice urban forestry because they appreciate the benefits

117
accruable from practicing urban forestry or greening their
environment. This conforms to the conclusion of Shuyao et
al (2023) in their work which evaluated and compared
costs of the ecosystem disservices as against the benefits
from ecosystems in Beijing, China.

It is noteworthy to recommend environmental education to

practitioners of urban forestry especially in the aspect of
safe practices, choice of species, and maintenance.

118
119
120
121
122
REFERENCES:

Blanco, J., Dendoncker, N., Barnaud, C. and Sirami, C.,

2019. Ecosystem disservices matter: Towards their
systematic integration within ecosystem service research
and policy. Ecosystem Services, 36, p.100913.

Costanza, R., De Groot, R., Braat, L., Kubiszewski, I.,

Fioramonti, L., Sutton, P., Farber, S. and Grasso, M., 2017.
Twenty years of ecosystem services: how far have we come
and how far do we still need to go?. Ecosystem services, 28,
pp.1-16.

Escobedo, F.J., Kroeger, T. and Wagner, J.E., 2011. Urban

forests and pollution mitigation: Analyzing ecosystem
services and disservices. Environmental pollution, 159(8-
9), pp.2078-2087.

Ezenwaka, J., 2023. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening in

Yenagoa, Bayelsa State, Nigeria: A Contribution to Climate
Change Mitigation. J of Agri Earth & Environ mental
Sciences 2 (3), 01, 5.

Gómez-Baggethun, E. and Barton, D.N., 2013. Classifying

and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning.
Ecological economics, 86, pp.235-245.

123
Guo, R.Z., Song, Y.B. and Dong, M., 2022. Progress and
prospects of ecosystem disservices: an updated literature
review. Sustainability, 14(16), p.10396.

Lyytimäki, J. and Sipilä, M., 2009. Hopping on one leg–The

challenge of ecosystem disservices for urban green
management. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 8(4),
pp.309-315.

Marshall, C. & Rossman, G.B. (2006): Designing

Qualitative Research. Fourth ed. Thousand Oaks, SAGE
Publications.

Millennium ecosystem assessment, M.E.A., 2005.

Ecosystems and human well-being (Vol. 5, p. 563).
Washington, DC: Island press.

Neuman, W.L. (2003): Social Research Methods. 5th ed.

USA: Allyn and Bacon.

Overton John & Diermen Peter Van (2014): “Quantitative

Research” In: Development Field Work: A Practical Guide
(2ndEdition); Regina Scheyvens (eds). Sage.

124
Robson, C. (2002): Real World Research: A Resource for
Social Scientists and
Practitioner-Researchers. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.

Shuyao Wu, Jiao Huang, and Shuangcheng Li, 2023.

Classifying ecosystem disservices and comparing their
effects with ecosystem services in Beijing, China
h ps://arxiv.org/pdf/2001.01605.pdf#:~:text=Final%20ecosystem%
20disservices%20can%20be,revenue%2C%20unpleasant%20feeling
s%2C%20etc. assessed 27 October 2023.

Shackleton, C.M., Ruwanza, S., Sinasson Sanni, G.K.,

Bennett, S., De Lacy, P., Modipa, R., Mtati, N., Sachikonye,
M. and Thondhlana, G., 2016. Unpacking Pandora's box:
understanding and categorising ecosystem disservices for
environmental management and human wellbeing.
Ecosystems, 19, pp.587-600.

Vaz, A.S., Kueffer, C., Kull, C.A., Richardson, D.M.,

Vicente, J.R., Kühn, I., Schröter, M., Hauck, J., Bonn, A. and
Honrado, J.P., 2017. Integrating ecosystem services and
disservices: insights from plant invasions. Ecosystem
services, 23, pp.94-107.

Yin, K. R. (1994): Case Study Research. 2nd ed. Thousand

Oaks: Sage Publications.

125