Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SUMMARY
The study evaluated the contributions of Nigerian Protected Areas (PAs) to biodiversity conservation, carbon storage, and the link between their long-term management and rural livelihoods to inform necessary management strategies, which could help in designing appropriate REDD mechanism.
RESULTS (cont.)
Nigeria falls within the West African biodiversity hotspot (Figure 1), with some species endemic to its boundary (Figure 2). Biodiversity is conserved within 972 protected areas into IUCN categories (figure 3). 1.11 Gt (15%) of the total 7.5 Gt Carbon in biomass and soils are found in the PAs, and ca. 20% of total carbon are in high density zones (Figure 4; Ravilious et al 2010).
Figure 4. Carbon distribution in Nigerian PAs
DISCUSSION
Local support, or resentment, for PAs is generally influenced by the perceived costs and benefits of PAs to communities (Ite 1996). Peoples resentment for existing management practices, and PAs managers laxity lessen the effectiveness of PAs in reducing deforestation. Trade-off to allow sustainable use and management of resources is the key. Collaborative planning and management with communities could offer a better solution.
METHODS
Information were extracted from: Review of published literature Extract from local media press release Local experts opinion personal experience.
RESULTS
Number of Known species 5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 4715 119
CONCLUSIONS
Treating local livelihood issues with care, rather than heavy restrictions on local peoples activities, and improve governance are plausible to enhance the effectiveness of PAs in avoiding deforestation; making them suitable for REDD funding.
100 % respondents 80 60 40
NGOs Community only Park & Community 65.6 34.4 Yes No Park only 0 20 40 60 80
Adetoro et al (2011)
20
0
REFERENCES
1.Campbell et al (2008) Tropical Conservancy Biodiversity 9 (3 & 4): 117-121. 2.Coad et al (2008) Working Paper. UNEP-WCMC, UK. pp45
CONTACT
Adewole OLAGOKE Bangor University, United Kingdom Email: afpc0d@bangor.ac.uk Phone: 07554306640
Livelihood benefits of PAs include infrastructural development, employment opportunity, alternative income sources like ecotourism, etc (Ite and Adams 2000; Ezebilo 2010), but not evenly distributed, and acceptable to all (Figure 5 & 6). The costs on communities range from resource use restrictions, loss of tenure right to displacement. In reaction, people have continued with resource utilization within the PAs illegally.
40.86% 13.54%
45.60%