RECONCILING BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION, CARBON STORAGE AND LOCAL LIVELIHOODS IN PROTECTED AREAS:

prospects for REDD+ in Nigeria

Adewole OLAGOKE
School of the Environment, Natural Resources and Geography, Bangor University, UK
BACKGROUND Forests are valued for multiple purposes at local, national and global levels; offering benefits such as carbon sequestration, and making significant contributions to national and local livelihoods, particularly in developing countries. The potential of protected areas (PAs) in meeting the criteria for implementation of the schemes for reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation plus forest enhancement (REDD+) in developing countries have been identified (Coad et al 2008). Protected areas provide case study for REDD, from which lessons can be learnt from experience on their success or otherwise in reducing deforestation and support for local livelihoods, as influenced by various management strategies (Campbell et al, 2008) . OBJECTIVE
To examine how the relationship among biodiversity conservation, carbon storage and local livelihoods influence the effectiveness on Nigerian PAs.

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.

Ite (1997); Ite & Adams (2000)

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)

Threatened species 27 9 889 274 2 154 0 109 2 684

20
0

Figure 6. % determination of development projects

Figure 5. Conservation benefits distribution

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

Figure 1. Biodiversity in Nigeria

Figure 2. Endemic sclater's monkey

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.

3.Ezebilo (2010) Int. J. Environ. Res., 4(3):501- 506

4.Ite (1996) Environmental Conservation 23 (4): 351 - 357 5.Ite and Adams (2000) J. Int. Dev. 12, 325- 342 6.Ravilious et al (2010) Preliminary Report .UNEP-WCMC, UK. pp12

40.86% 13.54%

45.60%

Catergories I & II Categories III, IV &V Category VI & others

Figure 3: Classification of the 972 designated protected areas