- Email: [email protected]
Agricultural land use in Nigerian forestry reserves
Agricultural land use in Nigerian forestry reserves Towards a solution to problems or conflict in biotic conservation?
Gbadebo J. Osemeobo
A trend analysis of multiple land use in Nigerian forestry reserves was used to examine whether agricultural land use in forestry reserves offers a solution to production problems or represents a crisis in biological conservation. The evidence supports the former view. The clear-felling system of primary production in forestry and agriculture provides little support for the preservation of biological and environmental diversity in the natural ecosystems. A major land use strategy should aim to provide traditional buffer zones in reserves that come under intensive use, while land use practices outside the reserves should be integrated and modern technologies applied to reduce pressures on forestry reserves.
Over the years, agricultural land use (ALU) within forestry reserves has played a significant role in addressing issues of food requirements in Nigeria. However, the supply of agricultural products has lagged behind demand. The performance of the sector has been in decline since the 1960s although the land devoted to agriculture increased in area from 8.1 million ha in 1960 to 21.9 million ha in 1970 and to 44.5 million ha in 1992.’ On the other hand, forestry reserves failed to meet increasing demands for forest products in the face of increasing dereservation. In this way ALU tends to destabilize the management of forestry reserves. The questions addressed in this article are: Why was agriculture allowed in forestry reserves? What are the environmental and biological implications of ALU? Does ALU in forestry reserves present a solution to production problems or a crisis in biotic conservation?
Background Dr Gbadebo J. Osemeobo can be contacted through PO Box 2495, Garki-Abuja, Nigeria.
‘Federal Government of Nigeria, Agricultural Policy for Nigeria: Strategies for Implementation, FMA Working Paper, Lagos, 1987, p 264. “G.J. Osemeobo, An Assessment of Forest Land Use in Bendel State of Nigeria, PhD thesis, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, 1985, p 252.
44
Forest reservation was the first major attempt by government to intervene in land allocation at the local level. However, the reservation exercise was strenuously and even violently resisted. In fact, government had no option but to create the reserves because the mahogany species, which had gained greater economic importance in the international market, was being indiscriminately destroyed by itinerant cultivators.’ To win the support of indigenous landowners for forest reservation, a dual land use system was adopted. Those indigenous communities who gave up their lands for reservation purposes were granted rights within the reserves. However, the user rights gave open access to all the resources. The government failed to limit user rights with respect to: (a) a specific time frame; (b) specific parts of the reserves; (c) seasonal usage; (d) human population level; and (e) level of resource use. The enforcement and
0264-8377/93/010044-05
0 1993 Butterworth-Heinemann
Ltd
Agricultural land use in Nigerian forestry reserves
monitoring of user rights were left open. In time there was a breakdown of communication between the indigenous communities and the government. Those groups of individuals given user rights for resource utilization during the 1920s to the 1940s are no longer recognized by the government. Yet their population has increased and they are still utilizing these rights even under changing land use practices in the reserves.3 Because of intensive timber exploitation and increasing demand, it became apparent between the 1930s and the 1960s that the natural forest alone could not meet future demands for timber. In the 1970s the Forestry Department was almost losing its hold on the reserves and the short-term policy to consolidate the reserves and produce timber for industries was to adopt the faungya system. The establishment of forest plantations based on the taungya system involved a quasi-multiple land use in which indigenous peasant farmers were allowed to plant trees together with food crops over a given land area for 2-3 years. The fuungya system operated under three conditions: the existence of land hunger, large populations and pressure on forest dereservation.4
The basis for agricultural land use in forestry services
3G.J. Osemeobo. ‘Land use policies and biotic conservation: problems and prospects for forestry development in Nigeria’, Land Use Policy, Vol 7, No 4, 1990, pp 314-322. 4Forestry Division, ‘An Address by the Bendel State Commissioner of Agriculture and Natural Resources on 2nd July, 1980’, Forestry Day Lecture, Benin, 1980. 5Federal Government of Nigeria, op cif, Ref 1, p 264.
LAND USE POLICY
January
1993
At first foresters did not view the taungya system as the introduction of agriculture into the forest reserves. Rather, it was a means of achieving sustained timber supplies and was planned to be limited in scope. However, in time the provision of land for taungya farmers became a political issue. They formed a pressure group and by lobbying and manoeuvring gained the support of political decision makers. It became mandatory for Forestry Departments to make specified areas of forest land available for farmers on an annual basis, in opposition to the existing forestry policy.4 The failure of Forestry Departments to win the support of decision makers and the public led to the view that Forestry Departments were holding on to the lands without utilizing them for viable projects. Both the federal and state governments were under pressure to save foreign exchange by providing cheap agricultural products to aid industrial development and to meet domestic requirements within forest reserves.’ Budgetary failures to meet the costs of increasing demands for forest products made the government seek outside assistance, and the World Bank and African Development Bank responded with loans. The various feasibility studies on which the execution of the projects was based strongly recommended integrated agroforestry practices for viable forest plantation projects, including the production of pulpwood, poles and timber. The strategies of such a management policy had a number of objectives: (a) to encourage rural participation and cooperation in the establishment of the plantations so as to eliminate hostile attitudes towards the projects; (b) to create settlements at the project sites for logistic support. To achieve maximum output and maintain a stable labour force the workers and managers had to live at no more than trekking distance from the project sites. This also created incentives for workers: free accommodation and free electricity, adequate water supply and free medical facilities; and (c) to seek the support of the labour force in ad hoc duties such as forest-fire control and helping in checking forest crimes. Large areas of forest land were devoted to housing units in Oluwa and Omo forest reserves while forest plantations
45
Agricultural
land use in Nigerian forestry
reserves Table 1. Impact of agricultural Activities of agricultural land use
land use in forestry
reserves.
Impact of land use
Scale of impact
Clear-felling of natural vegetation
Depletion of natural vegetation Habitat loss for wild animals and plants Loss oi genetic resources and perhaps endemic species not yet identified or known Reduced diversity of plants and animals as well as the ecosystems Reduced land area for non-wood products (nuts, fruits, snails, honey, etc) Disruption of water sources in terms of quality and quantity
Extensive: over 75% of the total land depleted
Creation of semiurban settlements in reserves
Reduced land area for biological conservation: housing and roads Increased illegal activities: poaching and farming Increased noise pollution leading to migration of wild animals
Limited to five forestry reserves In the country
Food/cash crop production
Rural participation encouraged in the management of reserves Increased productivity in the food and export crop sector Reduced pressure for dereservation for farming Maximum production of reserve land (multiple land use) for food and trees
Extensive: most forestry reserves in the rainforest and savanna ecosystems used for food/ cash crop production
Livestock production
Endangered indigenous species of plants: woody, herbacious and others Possibility of transferring animal diseases to wild animals So11 erosion encouraged due to overuse of the environment Supplements to animal protein supply
Extensive: nomads have no rights over land
were integrated to promote efficiency in resource utilization. are the implications of the various ALUs in forest reserves?
What then
Land use effects
‘Forestry Division, op tit, Ref 4. 7B. Harvey and J.O. Hallett, Environment and Society: An Introductory Analysis, The Malmitlan Press, London, p 163.
46
The impact made by ALU in forestry reserves on wild biotic resources was examined in relation to the objectives of creating the reserves. These were: (a) to provide suitable areas for continuous exploitation of industrial timber; (b) to provide a base for the study of Nigerian vegetation and maintain ecosystem diversity; (c) to conserve the natural vegetation and preserve it from destructive effects of shifting cultivation for future generations; and (d) to protect the land from erosion and provide a sanctuary for the conservation of wi1d1ife.h The important question is how far ALU in forestry reserves has helped or hindered the attainment of these objectives. In assessing the impact of ALU in forestry reserves a non-zero utilization hypothesis was first applied. Its positive effects would be improvement in biological and ecosystem diversity and effective protection of soils and water sources. The negative effects would be socioeconomic: more imported wood and wood products, increased pressure for dereservation due to land hunger, and instability of rural communities that would arise from urban drift. As pointed out by Harvey and Hallett in 1977, if land use planning is to be accepted at all levels it must be based on data relating to sociocultural, ecopolitical and ecological factors affecting the use of 1and.7 In other words, the impact of land use must be measured in human terms and not necessarily based on cash _ IlOWS.
Table
1 presents
major
impacts
of ALU
in forestry
reserves.
The
LAND USE POLICY
January
1993
Agricultural land use in Nigerian forestry reserves
clear-felling system indicates negative impact; but this also applies to the forestry land use for afforestation projects. Therefore this phenomenon should not be seen as a farming factor alone. It is the price paid for solving socioeconomic and political problems for the public good. However, the creation of settlements, albeit with negative ecological effects, is a supportive system for the execution of afforestation programmes. It is a factor instrumental in the industrial production of timber, and perhaps food, from the reserves. The production of both food and cash crops had a positive effect but livestock production was negative. This is because protein supply from livestock farms in the forest reserves was insignificant, and so the problems of livestock outweighed the benefits.
Discussion and conclusion
‘G.0. Alviar, Report on Forest Industries in Nigeria, UNDP-NIR-FAGNigeria Development of Forest Management Capability, Lagos, 1983, p 17; FAO, Tropical Forest Resources Assessment Project: Forest Resources of Tropical Africa, Country Briefs, Part II, Rome, 1981, pp 359-379. ‘H.J. Barnett and C. Morse, Scarcity and Growth: The Economics of Natural Resource Availability, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, 1963, p 288. “J.A. McNeely, R.M. Kenton, V.R. Walter, A.M. Russell and B.W. Timothy, Conserving the World’s Biological Diversity, IUCN, Gland, 1990, p 193. “S. Kolade Adevoiu. ‘The future of trooical agro-forestry sysiems’, Commonwealth Forestry Review, Vol 58, No 22, 1980, pp 156-161.
LAND USE POLICY
January
1993
Should agriculture be allowed in forestry reserves at all given that only 9.8% of the total land area of Nigeria was created as forestry reserves? Moreover about 1.3% of this reserve land has already been ceded to agriculture, urban development and infrastructure. Thus the true land area in reserves is only 8.5% or about 7.8 million ha. Yet, even under the best management techniques, all the land in these reserves cannot meet the demands for timber, non-wood resources and fibre production. In the early 1980s the annual demand for industrial timber in Nigeria was about 11.09 million m3 while about 80 million m3 was consumed annually for charcoal and fuelwood.’ Yet only 2% of the total land in reserves produces timber and over 90% of the country’s timber supplies comes from the reserves. Today the situation is worse than it was a decade ago. So does ALU in forestry reserves offer a solution to Nigeria’s problems or does it represent a crisis in biological conservation? The major issue is, if agriculture already occupies 80.2% of the country’s land area and has failed to solve the problems of food requirements, then perhaps the land retained as forestry reserves cannot reasonably be expected to do so. Furthermore, if the pockets of natural forests existing in reserves are destroyed for agricultural production, it might endanger the indigenous wild plants and wild animals, including endemic species. Opinions are divided on these questions. Barnett and Morse suggest that in the face of declining agricultural production the reservation of forests for later use may not be justifiable, and that these may contribute little to the welfare of future generations.” However, this view contradicts recent opinions in biological conservation.iO According to Adeyoju, in an era of food shortages forestry reserves should be ceded to agriculture in the short term but transferred back to forestry when agricultural techniques become more intensive. ‘I However, foresters are reluctant to release land to agriculture because they are afraid that it cannot revert back to forestry use. There is a g’ .uine fear that the country would be worse off if reserve land is ceded to agriculture and a belief that land requirements for forestry and agriculture are largely a matter of conjecture. It is argued that, while forestry attempts to protect the indigenous biotic species, agriculture is totally destructive because of its concentration on monocultures and exotic crops. Outside the reserves poor agricultural land use systems have destroyed the potential of some land for food crop production through a lack of soil conservation measures for primary production,
47
Agricultural
land use in Nigerian forestry reserves
land tenure constraints and a high population of land users. Otherwise the lands outside the reserve boundaries would be sufficient to meet demand for agricultural production at home and for export. The shortfall in agricultural production is due to the absence of an integrated high-energy inputs in the form of approach to land use, namely machinery, chemicals and pesticides, use of improved seeds and crop varieties, and proper irrigation and drainage systems.‘* The implementation of ALU in forestry reserves seems to have achieved a balance between the demands of society and those of biological conservation. But the laws that maintain the natural forests in reservation are fragile. Without the support of traditional landowners and of governments such reserves would disappear. For these reasons land use in the reserves must be based on a compromise and on the rule of law. The following land use options are proposed:
0
0
0 ‘*Economic Commission for Africa, Bevention of Encroachment on Arable Lands in Africa, Expert Consultations on Prevention of Encroachment on Arable Lands in Africa, UNESCO, Addis Ababa, G-20 September 1985.
48
Reserves to be set aside for intensive agriculture, and for afforestation, hunting, grazing and logging, should be identified; and land use in them should be planned to reduce conflicts among users. Confining them in this way will contribute to the environment. To this end, buffer zones for traditional use can be created, as in the Oban group of reserves. Land use that is planned and controlled in this way will minimize the depletion of biotic resources. Communities should be encouraged to own private plantations of indigenous and exotic species to meet domestic requirements for timber and timber products. This will reduce pressures on the reserves and help enrich the degraded soils for food crop production. Again, smallholder farmers should be encouraged to plant trees on their lands within the limits of the land tenure systems. The reserves themselves should be zoned, with a specific management system for each of the activities: afforestation, wild animal management, logging and natural regeneration. Members of the public should be shown that these reserves are in use to dispel the impression that they are idle and hence potential areas for agricultural use. Managers of lands in forestry reserves should be dynamic in their approach. They should organize themselves into various conservation bodies: Friends of the Forests, Friends of Nature, the Green Society and so on. They should have sufficient influence with decision makers and politicians to curb or prevent any undue interference with the reserves by government or rural communities.
LAND USE POLICY
January
1993
Gbadebo J. Osemeobo
A trend analysis of multiple land use in Nigerian forestry reserves was used to examine whether agricultural land use in forestry reserves offers a solution to production problems or represents a crisis in biological conservation. The evidence supports the former view. The clear-felling system of primary production in forestry and agriculture provides little support for the preservation of biological and environmental diversity in the natural ecosystems. A major land use strategy should aim to provide traditional buffer zones in reserves that come under intensive use, while land use practices outside the reserves should be integrated and modern technologies applied to reduce pressures on forestry reserves.
Over the years, agricultural land use (ALU) within forestry reserves has played a significant role in addressing issues of food requirements in Nigeria. However, the supply of agricultural products has lagged behind demand. The performance of the sector has been in decline since the 1960s although the land devoted to agriculture increased in area from 8.1 million ha in 1960 to 21.9 million ha in 1970 and to 44.5 million ha in 1992.’ On the other hand, forestry reserves failed to meet increasing demands for forest products in the face of increasing dereservation. In this way ALU tends to destabilize the management of forestry reserves. The questions addressed in this article are: Why was agriculture allowed in forestry reserves? What are the environmental and biological implications of ALU? Does ALU in forestry reserves present a solution to production problems or a crisis in biotic conservation?
Background Dr Gbadebo J. Osemeobo can be contacted through PO Box 2495, Garki-Abuja, Nigeria.
‘Federal Government of Nigeria, Agricultural Policy for Nigeria: Strategies for Implementation, FMA Working Paper, Lagos, 1987, p 264. “G.J. Osemeobo, An Assessment of Forest Land Use in Bendel State of Nigeria, PhD thesis, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, 1985, p 252.
44
Forest reservation was the first major attempt by government to intervene in land allocation at the local level. However, the reservation exercise was strenuously and even violently resisted. In fact, government had no option but to create the reserves because the mahogany species, which had gained greater economic importance in the international market, was being indiscriminately destroyed by itinerant cultivators.’ To win the support of indigenous landowners for forest reservation, a dual land use system was adopted. Those indigenous communities who gave up their lands for reservation purposes were granted rights within the reserves. However, the user rights gave open access to all the resources. The government failed to limit user rights with respect to: (a) a specific time frame; (b) specific parts of the reserves; (c) seasonal usage; (d) human population level; and (e) level of resource use. The enforcement and
0264-8377/93/010044-05
0 1993 Butterworth-Heinemann
Ltd
Agricultural land use in Nigerian forestry reserves
monitoring of user rights were left open. In time there was a breakdown of communication between the indigenous communities and the government. Those groups of individuals given user rights for resource utilization during the 1920s to the 1940s are no longer recognized by the government. Yet their population has increased and they are still utilizing these rights even under changing land use practices in the reserves.3 Because of intensive timber exploitation and increasing demand, it became apparent between the 1930s and the 1960s that the natural forest alone could not meet future demands for timber. In the 1970s the Forestry Department was almost losing its hold on the reserves and the short-term policy to consolidate the reserves and produce timber for industries was to adopt the faungya system. The establishment of forest plantations based on the taungya system involved a quasi-multiple land use in which indigenous peasant farmers were allowed to plant trees together with food crops over a given land area for 2-3 years. The fuungya system operated under three conditions: the existence of land hunger, large populations and pressure on forest dereservation.4
The basis for agricultural land use in forestry services
3G.J. Osemeobo. ‘Land use policies and biotic conservation: problems and prospects for forestry development in Nigeria’, Land Use Policy, Vol 7, No 4, 1990, pp 314-322. 4Forestry Division, ‘An Address by the Bendel State Commissioner of Agriculture and Natural Resources on 2nd July, 1980’, Forestry Day Lecture, Benin, 1980. 5Federal Government of Nigeria, op cif, Ref 1, p 264.
LAND USE POLICY
January
1993
At first foresters did not view the taungya system as the introduction of agriculture into the forest reserves. Rather, it was a means of achieving sustained timber supplies and was planned to be limited in scope. However, in time the provision of land for taungya farmers became a political issue. They formed a pressure group and by lobbying and manoeuvring gained the support of political decision makers. It became mandatory for Forestry Departments to make specified areas of forest land available for farmers on an annual basis, in opposition to the existing forestry policy.4 The failure of Forestry Departments to win the support of decision makers and the public led to the view that Forestry Departments were holding on to the lands without utilizing them for viable projects. Both the federal and state governments were under pressure to save foreign exchange by providing cheap agricultural products to aid industrial development and to meet domestic requirements within forest reserves.’ Budgetary failures to meet the costs of increasing demands for forest products made the government seek outside assistance, and the World Bank and African Development Bank responded with loans. The various feasibility studies on which the execution of the projects was based strongly recommended integrated agroforestry practices for viable forest plantation projects, including the production of pulpwood, poles and timber. The strategies of such a management policy had a number of objectives: (a) to encourage rural participation and cooperation in the establishment of the plantations so as to eliminate hostile attitudes towards the projects; (b) to create settlements at the project sites for logistic support. To achieve maximum output and maintain a stable labour force the workers and managers had to live at no more than trekking distance from the project sites. This also created incentives for workers: free accommodation and free electricity, adequate water supply and free medical facilities; and (c) to seek the support of the labour force in ad hoc duties such as forest-fire control and helping in checking forest crimes. Large areas of forest land were devoted to housing units in Oluwa and Omo forest reserves while forest plantations
45
Agricultural
land use in Nigerian forestry
reserves Table 1. Impact of agricultural Activities of agricultural land use
land use in forestry
reserves.
Impact of land use
Scale of impact
Clear-felling of natural vegetation
Depletion of natural vegetation Habitat loss for wild animals and plants Loss oi genetic resources and perhaps endemic species not yet identified or known Reduced diversity of plants and animals as well as the ecosystems Reduced land area for non-wood products (nuts, fruits, snails, honey, etc) Disruption of water sources in terms of quality and quantity
Extensive: over 75% of the total land depleted
Creation of semiurban settlements in reserves
Reduced land area for biological conservation: housing and roads Increased illegal activities: poaching and farming Increased noise pollution leading to migration of wild animals
Limited to five forestry reserves In the country
Food/cash crop production
Rural participation encouraged in the management of reserves Increased productivity in the food and export crop sector Reduced pressure for dereservation for farming Maximum production of reserve land (multiple land use) for food and trees
Extensive: most forestry reserves in the rainforest and savanna ecosystems used for food/ cash crop production
Livestock production
Endangered indigenous species of plants: woody, herbacious and others Possibility of transferring animal diseases to wild animals So11 erosion encouraged due to overuse of the environment Supplements to animal protein supply
Extensive: nomads have no rights over land
were integrated to promote efficiency in resource utilization. are the implications of the various ALUs in forest reserves?
What then
Land use effects
‘Forestry Division, op tit, Ref 4. 7B. Harvey and J.O. Hallett, Environment and Society: An Introductory Analysis, The Malmitlan Press, London, p 163.
46
The impact made by ALU in forestry reserves on wild biotic resources was examined in relation to the objectives of creating the reserves. These were: (a) to provide suitable areas for continuous exploitation of industrial timber; (b) to provide a base for the study of Nigerian vegetation and maintain ecosystem diversity; (c) to conserve the natural vegetation and preserve it from destructive effects of shifting cultivation for future generations; and (d) to protect the land from erosion and provide a sanctuary for the conservation of wi1d1ife.h The important question is how far ALU in forestry reserves has helped or hindered the attainment of these objectives. In assessing the impact of ALU in forestry reserves a non-zero utilization hypothesis was first applied. Its positive effects would be improvement in biological and ecosystem diversity and effective protection of soils and water sources. The negative effects would be socioeconomic: more imported wood and wood products, increased pressure for dereservation due to land hunger, and instability of rural communities that would arise from urban drift. As pointed out by Harvey and Hallett in 1977, if land use planning is to be accepted at all levels it must be based on data relating to sociocultural, ecopolitical and ecological factors affecting the use of 1and.7 In other words, the impact of land use must be measured in human terms and not necessarily based on cash _ IlOWS.
Table
1 presents
major
impacts
of ALU
in forestry
reserves.
The
LAND USE POLICY
January
1993
Agricultural land use in Nigerian forestry reserves
clear-felling system indicates negative impact; but this also applies to the forestry land use for afforestation projects. Therefore this phenomenon should not be seen as a farming factor alone. It is the price paid for solving socioeconomic and political problems for the public good. However, the creation of settlements, albeit with negative ecological effects, is a supportive system for the execution of afforestation programmes. It is a factor instrumental in the industrial production of timber, and perhaps food, from the reserves. The production of both food and cash crops had a positive effect but livestock production was negative. This is because protein supply from livestock farms in the forest reserves was insignificant, and so the problems of livestock outweighed the benefits.
Discussion and conclusion
‘G.0. Alviar, Report on Forest Industries in Nigeria, UNDP-NIR-FAGNigeria Development of Forest Management Capability, Lagos, 1983, p 17; FAO, Tropical Forest Resources Assessment Project: Forest Resources of Tropical Africa, Country Briefs, Part II, Rome, 1981, pp 359-379. ‘H.J. Barnett and C. Morse, Scarcity and Growth: The Economics of Natural Resource Availability, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, 1963, p 288. “J.A. McNeely, R.M. Kenton, V.R. Walter, A.M. Russell and B.W. Timothy, Conserving the World’s Biological Diversity, IUCN, Gland, 1990, p 193. “S. Kolade Adevoiu. ‘The future of trooical agro-forestry sysiems’, Commonwealth Forestry Review, Vol 58, No 22, 1980, pp 156-161.
LAND USE POLICY
January
1993
Should agriculture be allowed in forestry reserves at all given that only 9.8% of the total land area of Nigeria was created as forestry reserves? Moreover about 1.3% of this reserve land has already been ceded to agriculture, urban development and infrastructure. Thus the true land area in reserves is only 8.5% or about 7.8 million ha. Yet, even under the best management techniques, all the land in these reserves cannot meet the demands for timber, non-wood resources and fibre production. In the early 1980s the annual demand for industrial timber in Nigeria was about 11.09 million m3 while about 80 million m3 was consumed annually for charcoal and fuelwood.’ Yet only 2% of the total land in reserves produces timber and over 90% of the country’s timber supplies comes from the reserves. Today the situation is worse than it was a decade ago. So does ALU in forestry reserves offer a solution to Nigeria’s problems or does it represent a crisis in biological conservation? The major issue is, if agriculture already occupies 80.2% of the country’s land area and has failed to solve the problems of food requirements, then perhaps the land retained as forestry reserves cannot reasonably be expected to do so. Furthermore, if the pockets of natural forests existing in reserves are destroyed for agricultural production, it might endanger the indigenous wild plants and wild animals, including endemic species. Opinions are divided on these questions. Barnett and Morse suggest that in the face of declining agricultural production the reservation of forests for later use may not be justifiable, and that these may contribute little to the welfare of future generations.” However, this view contradicts recent opinions in biological conservation.iO According to Adeyoju, in an era of food shortages forestry reserves should be ceded to agriculture in the short term but transferred back to forestry when agricultural techniques become more intensive. ‘I However, foresters are reluctant to release land to agriculture because they are afraid that it cannot revert back to forestry use. There is a g’ .uine fear that the country would be worse off if reserve land is ceded to agriculture and a belief that land requirements for forestry and agriculture are largely a matter of conjecture. It is argued that, while forestry attempts to protect the indigenous biotic species, agriculture is totally destructive because of its concentration on monocultures and exotic crops. Outside the reserves poor agricultural land use systems have destroyed the potential of some land for food crop production through a lack of soil conservation measures for primary production,
47
Agricultural
land use in Nigerian forestry reserves
land tenure constraints and a high population of land users. Otherwise the lands outside the reserve boundaries would be sufficient to meet demand for agricultural production at home and for export. The shortfall in agricultural production is due to the absence of an integrated high-energy inputs in the form of approach to land use, namely machinery, chemicals and pesticides, use of improved seeds and crop varieties, and proper irrigation and drainage systems.‘* The implementation of ALU in forestry reserves seems to have achieved a balance between the demands of society and those of biological conservation. But the laws that maintain the natural forests in reservation are fragile. Without the support of traditional landowners and of governments such reserves would disappear. For these reasons land use in the reserves must be based on a compromise and on the rule of law. The following land use options are proposed:
0
0
0 ‘*Economic Commission for Africa, Bevention of Encroachment on Arable Lands in Africa, Expert Consultations on Prevention of Encroachment on Arable Lands in Africa, UNESCO, Addis Ababa, G-20 September 1985.
48
Reserves to be set aside for intensive agriculture, and for afforestation, hunting, grazing and logging, should be identified; and land use in them should be planned to reduce conflicts among users. Confining them in this way will contribute to the environment. To this end, buffer zones for traditional use can be created, as in the Oban group of reserves. Land use that is planned and controlled in this way will minimize the depletion of biotic resources. Communities should be encouraged to own private plantations of indigenous and exotic species to meet domestic requirements for timber and timber products. This will reduce pressures on the reserves and help enrich the degraded soils for food crop production. Again, smallholder farmers should be encouraged to plant trees on their lands within the limits of the land tenure systems. The reserves themselves should be zoned, with a specific management system for each of the activities: afforestation, wild animal management, logging and natural regeneration. Members of the public should be shown that these reserves are in use to dispel the impression that they are idle and hence potential areas for agricultural use. Managers of lands in forestry reserves should be dynamic in their approach. They should organize themselves into various conservation bodies: Friends of the Forests, Friends of Nature, the Green Society and so on. They should have sufficient influence with decision makers and politicians to curb or prevent any undue interference with the reserves by government or rural communities.
LAND USE POLICY
January
1993