ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF DEFORESTATION IN ENUGU STATE, NIGERIA

BY

NZEH, CELESTINE EMEKA PETER

B.AGRIC.TECH (FUTO); M.Sc [AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS] UNIVERSITY OF

NIGERIA, NSUKKA

(PG/Ph.D/04/35882)

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA

NSUKKA

JULY, 2012.

i
 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF DEFORESTATION IN ENUGU STATE, NIGERIA

THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS,

UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA, IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY DEGREE IN
AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

BY

NZEH, CELESTINE EMEKA PETER

B.AGRIC.TECH (FUTO); M.Sc [AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS] UNIVERSITY OF
NIGERIA, NSUKKA
(PG/Ph.D/04/35882)

JULY, 2012

ii
 CERTIFICATION
Nzeh, Celestine Emeka Peter a postgraduate student in the department of Agricultural
Economics and with the registration number (PG/Ph.D/04/35882) has satisfactorily completed
the requirements for research work for the award of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D) in
Agricultural Economics. The work embodied in this thesis is original and has not been submitted
in part or full for any other diploma or degree of this or any other university.

…………………………… …………………………
PROF. E. C. EBOH Date
Supervisor

…………………………… …………………………
PROF: NOBLE J. NWEZE Date
Supervisor

…………………………… …………………………
PROF: E.C. OKORJI Date
Head of Department

………………………… …………………………
External Examiner Date

iii
 DEDICATION
The researcher dedicates this work to Almighty God for making it a reality. Also, to the
memories of my late father Chief Innocent Nzeh, my late sisters Josephine and Chinyere for their
numerous contributions in my academic life when they were alive. Furthermore, to my loving
mother Mrs. Elizabeth Nzeh, my darling wife Engr. (Mrs.) Chika-Emeka and my children:
Emeka Jrn, Chizaramekpere, Chidinma and Chidalu for their exceptional gracious love and care.

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A long period of concentrated thinking, writing and re-writing usually characterized a work of
this nature. Such a period of intense intellectual activity could scarcely be possible without the
enjoyment of good health. The researcher wants to publicly testify that Almighty God graciously
granted me His Blessing in this respect. To Him therefore be the Glory, Honour and Power,
forever and ever. Amen.
The researcher is greatly indebted to his supervisors; Prof. E.C. Eboh and Prof. Noble J. Nweze
for their personal sacrifices and sustained interest in this work. Their criticisms and suggestions
sharpened the orientation of this work and added value to the outcome. Furthermore, the
researcher highly appreciates their efforts and most importantly the cordial manner they related
with me throughout the period of the study. In addition, the researcher is very grateful to the
Head, Department of Agricultural Economics Prof. E.C. Okorji, for his fatherly assistance during
my academic work.
The researcher wish to use this medium to express his my profound gratitude to all my academic
and spiritual mentors, some of them are; Prof. J.S. Orebiyi, Prof. E.M. Igbokwe, Prof. C.J.
Arene, Prof. C.U. Okoye, Prof. M.U. Iloeje, Prof. J.E. Njoku, Prof. M.C. Madukwe, Prof. A.E.
Agwu, Prof. E.C. Nwagbo, Prof. S.A.N.D. Chidebelu, Dr. (Mrs.) A.I. Achike, Dr. (Mrs.) E.A.
Onwubuya, Dr. J.I. Lemchi, Bar. P.O. Onu, Dr. B.C. Okpukpara, Dr. N.E. Chukwuone, Dr. C.E.
Emetoram, Dr. K.C. Urama, Dr. N.E. Ozor, Dr. A.A. Enete, Dr. F.U. Agbo, Dr. B.C. Odoemena,
Mr. P.B.I. Njepoume, Rev. Sr. O.E.K. Ossai, Rev. Fr. E.C. Ojiekwe, Rev. Fr. A.I. Unegbu and
Rev. Fr. C. Orga. The researcher cannot say ‘thank you enough’ for being God’s instrument of
shaping my academic and spiritual outlook.
The researcher noted specially his interactions with the following colleagues: Peter Nwandu,
Ndubisi Offie, Nnanna Agwu, Sylivanus Omeye, Ebele Amaechinna, Chinwe Ezihe, Anthony
Nwajesus, Chinasa Oguike, Dennis Emeribe, Dickson Agha, Ify Okpara and numerous others.
Meanwhile, the researcher gives special thanks to his darling wife, Engr. (Mrs.) Chika-Emeka,
my beloved children - Emeka Jrn, Chizaramekpere, Chidinma and Chidalu for their
extraordinary support, love and care. The researcher owe a lot to his beloved mother, Mrs.
Elizabeth Nzeh, also my brother and sisters, Ikechukwu, Eunice and her family and Ukamaka
and her family for their moral, financial and spiritual assistance during my academic pursuit. I

v
appreciate the contributions of Mr. & Mrs. Charles Kenechukwu, Mr. & Mrs. Geoffrey
Chukwu, Dr. & Mrs. Godwin Okpukpara, Mr. & Mrs. Philip Nwafor, Mr. Christopher Ordi,
Mrs. R.I. Nzeh, Miss Oluchi Ozechi, Miss Blessing Onyishi and many other families not
mentioned here.
The researcher is most grateful to the entire staff and Management of African Institute for
Applied Economics (AIAE); Prof. (Mrs.) Nkechi Mbanefo, Dr. Chukwuma Agu, Dr.
Uzochukwu Amakom, Dr. Moses Oduh, Mr. Nathaniel Urama, Mr. Oliver Ujah, Miss Queeneth
Anyawu, Mr. Chiwuike Uba, Mr. Amaechi Chukwu, Mrs. Olivia Aka, Mr. Itobore Diejomaoh,
Miss Gloria Eboh, Mr. Favour Inyere, Mr. Onyeukwu Onyeukwu, Mr. Umunna Oha, Mr. Sola
Oluwadare, Miss Amaka Eze, Miss Chinyere Onyia, Mrs. Beatrice Ndibe and Mr. Kinsley
Udonsek for their individual and collective assistance during my study.
Finally, it is hereby clearly stated that the researcher retain ultimate responsibility for the short
comings and lapses in this work. None of such short comings are attributable to any of the
persons herein acknowledged.
Nzeh, Celestine Emeka Peter

vi
 ABSTRACT
The study provided an economic analysis of the losses from deforestation in Enugu State of
Nigeria. Specifically, the study evaluated the effects of socioeconomic factors affecting
deforestation in Enugu State. It also identified the factors that influence the decision to deforest.
The study further examined the nature and extent of deforestation in the state.
Primary and secondary data generated were analyzed with descriptive statistics, multiple
regression and logit analytical techniques. Also total economic valuation (TEV) model of
valuing deforestation was used to achieve aggregate economic loss from different deforestation
operations in different sectors of forest use.

The major finding of the study shows that bush fire was the highest cause of deforstation in
Enugu State. From the study, 69% of the respondents stated that they had no knowledge of any
forest extension services. Furthermore, the total economic value (TEV) loss of forests in the last
three years were N75,855,558.00 for 2008; N89,674,707.00 for 2007 and N85,683,956.00 for
2006. Mulitivariable linaer results of farmland clearance of forest for cropping activities show
that only size of land, land tenure system and types of cropping were significant at 5% in
explaining the observed variabilities in the dependent variable (Y). The study further found out
that deforestation experience, household size, total landholdings, educational attainment and
gender of respondents were significant at 10% in explaining the observed variabilities for socio-
economic characteristics influencing the decision to clear forest for agricultural activities using
farmers level logit regression results.

Based on the findings, the study recommends that forest extension services to the rural
households that engage in forestry activities should be strengthened through frequent training.
This will help them have adequate and recent information about government policies on
environment and communicate the same to the rural stakeholders. Also, there is need for constant
use of both electronic and print media in strengthening anti-deforestation awareness and in
communicating recent forestry policies of the government to all the stakeholders in the state.
Government should encourage the use of energy saving stove. This will help reduce the quantity
of fuel-wood use and hence reduce the level of deforestation in the study area.

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title page… … … … … … … … … … ii

Certification… … … … … … … … … iii

Dedication… … … … … … … … … … iv

Acknowledgement… … … … … … … … … v

Abstract… … … … … … … … … … vii

Table of contents... … … … … … … … … viii

List of tables… … … … … … … … … xiii

List of figures… … … … … … … … … xiv

Chapter One … … … … … … … … … 1

1.0 Introduction … … … … … … … … … 1

1.1 Background information … … … … … … … 1

1.2 Problem statement … … … … … … … … 4

1.3 Objectives of the study … … … … … … … 6

1.4 Justification of the study … … … … … … … 7

1.5 Limitations of the study… … … … … … … 9

Chapter Two… … … … … … … … … 10

2.0 Literature review… … … … … … … 10

2.1 Definition of forest… … … … … … … 10

2.2 Concept of forest depletion… … … … … … … 12

2.3 Global trend of deforestation: causes and processes… … … … 13

viii
2.4 Deforestation activities in Africa… … … … … … 16

2.5 Deforestation in Nigeria… … … … … … … 18

2.6 Possible causes of deforestation in Enugu State… … … … 20

2.7 Major factors of deforestation… … … … … … … 23

2.7.1 Deforestation from developmental projects… … … … … 24

2.7.2 Deforestation arising from afforestation… … … … … 24

2.7.3 Deforestation without afforestation… … … … … … 24

2.7.4 Deforestation due to ecological factors… … … … … 25

2.7.5 Deforestation arising from firewood cutting and animal husbandry… … 25

2.8 Impacts of deforestation on the environment… … … … … 26

2.8.1 Deforestation and soil erosion… … … … … … 26

2.8.2 Deforestation and wind erosion… … … … … … 26

2.8.3 Impact of deforestation on water resources… … … … … 27

2.8.4 Deforestation and atmospheric conditions… … … … … 28

2.9 Agricultural expansion and deforestation… … … … … 28

2.10 Contributions of deforestation to livelihood systems… … … … 31

2.11 Evaluation of forest policy in Nigeria… … … … … … 32

2.12 Forestry policy and institutional reforms in Nigeria… … … … 35

2.13 Theoretical frame work… … … … … … … 36

2.14 Analytical framework… … … … … … … … 39

2.14.1 Concept of total economic valuation (TEV) model… … … … 39

ix
2.14.2 Logit regression model… … … … … … … 41

2.14.3 Multiple regression analysis… … … … … … 42

2.15 Conceptual framework of the study… … … … … … 43

2.15.1 Working definition of forest… … … … … … 44

2.15.2 Working definition of deforestation…… … … … … 44

Chapter Three … … … … … … … … … 45

3.0 Research Methodology … … … … … … … 45

3.1 The Study Area … … … … … … … … 45

3.2 Sampling Procedure … … … … … … … … 46

3.3 Data collection … … … … … … … … … 47

3.4 Analytical techniques … … … … … … … … 47

3. 4a Specification of TEV model … … … … … … … 48

3. 4b Specification of Logit models… … … … … … 49

3. 4b1Logit model… … … … … … … … … 49

3. 4b2 Definition of variables… … … … … … … 51

3.4b3 Multiple linear model of farm level… … … … … … 52

Chapter Four … … … … … … … … … 53

4.0 Results and Discussions … … … … … … … 53

4.1 Nature and extent of deforestation… … … … … … 53

4.1.1 Clearance of forest for agricultural activities… … … … 53

4.1.2 Use patterns of deforested land… … … … … … 53

x
4.1.3 Number of hectare(s) of land cleared for agricultural activities… … 55

4.1.4 Nature of deforestation… … … … … … … 55

4.2 Factors that influence decision to deforest... ... ... ... ... 56

4.2.1 Determinants of rural household heads farmland clearing for cropping

activities… … … … … … … … … … 56

4.2.2 Analysis of Regression Results… … … … … … 57

4.2.3 Plot-level analysis of factors affecting decision to clear forest for agricultural/other
activities… … … … … … … … … … 58

4.3 Activities and processes associated with deforestation... ... ... ... 60

4.3.1 Conducts that cause deforestation... ... ... ... ... ... 60

4.3.2 Perception of deforestation... ... ... ... ... ... ... 61

4.3.3 Number of years engaged in deforestation... ... ... ... ... 62

4.3.4 Methods of deforestation by households… … … … … 63

4.3.5 Marketing of forest products… … … … … … … 64

4.3.6 Location for marketing of forest products… … … … … 65

4.3.7 Access to formal and informal credits… … … … … 65

4.3.8 Sources of credit... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 66

4.3.9 Distance of forest from home… … … … … … 67

4. 3.10 Type(s) of land ownership by household... ... ... ... ... 68

4.3.11 First clearing of farmland by household... ... ... ... ... 68

4.4 Economic Losses from deforestation… … … … … … 69

xi
4.4.1 Total amount of money loss from forest exploitation for three years ago… 69

4.4.2 Total economic value loss of forest in last three years... ... ... 72

4.5Socio-economic and institutional characteristics of deforestation in rural

households… … … … … … … … … … 73

4.5.1 Age of respondents… … … … … … … … 73

4.5.2 Sex of respondents… … … … … … … … 74

4.5.3 Martial status of respondents… … … … … … 75

4.5.4 Number of children of respondents… … … … … … 75

4.5.5 Educational status of respondents… … … … … … 76

4.5.6 Awareness of forest extension services… … … … … 77

4.5.7 Number of visit by forest extension agents... ... ... ... ... 78

4.5.8 Services received from forest extension agents... ... ... ... 79

4.5.9 Other source(s) of income... ... ... ... ... ... ... 79

Chapter Five… … … … … … … … … 81

5.0 Summary, Conclusion and Recommendations… … … … … 81

5.1 Summary... … … … … … … … … 81

5.2 Conclusion… … … … … … … … … 83

5.3 Recommendations… … … … … … … … 84

5.4 Major contributions to knowledge… … … … … … 86

5.5 Suggestions for further research… … … … … … 88

References
xii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Deforestation rate of some countries total cum primary forest cover 2000-2005…16

Table 4.1: Linear regression results of the determinants of the farmland clearing for cropping
activities… … … … … … … … … … … 56

Table 4.2: Model estimates of socio-economic characteristics affecting forest clearing

for agricultural/other activities… … … … … … … ... 58

Table 4.3: Distribution of respondents according to perception of deforestation… 62

Table 4.4: Distribution of respondents according to amount of finanical loss from

different sectors of forest use from different operations in the last three years… ... 71

xiii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Causes of forest decline… … … … … … … … 23

Figure 2. Forestry GDP as percentage of total GDP in Nigeria… … … … 32

Figure 3: A framework of different types of variables affecting deforestation… … 42

Figure 4.1: Distribution of respondents according to forest clearing for agricultural activities
within the past six (6) years… … … … … … … … 53

Figure 4.2: Distribution of respondents according to types of crops grown in different

years… … … … … … … … … … … 54

Figure 4.3: Distribution of respondents according to hectares of land cleared for agricultural
activities… … … … … … … … … … … 55

Figure 4.4: Distribution of respondents according to nature of deforestation… … 56

Figure 4.5: Distribution of respondents according to causes of deforestation... ... 61

Figure 4.6: Distribution of respondents according to period engaged in deforestation... 63

Figure 4.7: Distribution of respondents according to ways households engage in

deforestation…… … … … … … … … … … 64

Figure 4.8: Distribution of respondents according to marketing of forest products… 64

Figure 4.9: Distribution of respondents according to location for marketing of

forest products… … … … … … … … … … 65

Figure 4. 10: Credit accessibility by respondents... … … … … … 66

Figure 4.11: Distribution of respondents according to source(s) of credit(s)... ... 67

Figure 4.12: Distribution of respondents according to distance of forest from home… 67

Figure 4.13: Distribution of respondents according to types of land owned by houeshold 68

Figure 4.14: Distribution of respondents according to number of years since farmland was first
cleared for cropping... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 69

xiv
Figure 4.15: Distribution according to total different amount of money lost from forest
exploitation for the past three years… … … … … … … 70

Figure 4.16: Distribution according to percentage of economic value loss of forest in three
years... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 73

Figure 4.17: Distribution of respondents according to age… … … … … 74

Figure 4.18: Distribution of respondents according to sex… … … … … 74

Figure 4.19: Distribution of respondents according to marital status… … … 75

Figure 4.20: Distribution of respondents according to number of children… … 76

Figure 4.21: Literacy level of respondents… … … .. … … … 77

Figure 4.22: Distribution of respondents according to awareness of extension services… 78

Figure 4.23: Distribution of respondents according to forest extension agents’

number of visit... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 78

Figure 4.24: Distribution of respondents according to types of services received from forest
extension agents... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 79

Figure 4.25: Distribution of respondents according to other sources of income... ... 80

xv
 CHAPTER ONE

1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The social and economic impact of deforestation cannot be overemphasized. The transformation
of forested lands by human actions represents one of the great forces in global environmental
change and one of the great drivers of biodiversity loss. The impact of people has been and
continues to be profound. Forests are cleared, degraded and fragmented by timber harvest,
conversion to agriculture, road-construction, human-caused fire, and in myriad other ways. The
effort to use and subdue the forest has been a constant theme in the transformation of the earth,
in many societies, in many lands, and at most times within the international, national, states and
local government/communities circles.

For many developing countries like Nigeria and a state like Enugu State in particular, forests
represent an important resource base for economic development. If managed wisely, the forest
has the capacity to provide a perpetual stream of income and subsistence products, while
supporting other economic activities (such as fisheries and other agricultural activities) through
its ecological services and functions. Meanwhile, Enugu State has land area of about 8,000
square kilometers and population of 3,257,298 according to National Population Commission
(NPC 2006). The state has population density of about 406 persons per square kilometres. About
59% of the population lives in the rural areas where agriculture is the predominant economic
activity. Agriculture accounts for about 70% of employment in the rural areas while the
government employment is only 5% of working-age population as reported by Eboh, et al.
(2006).

Forestland may be utilized in many different ways. It can be used for commercial timber
extraction; it may be converted for commercial agriculture purposes such as oil palm or rubber
plantations. Furthermore, forest may be used for traditional subsistence activities (for example,
traditional agricultural practices such as agroforestry and shifting cultivation, and/or for the
extraction of non-timber forest products or it may be afforded various levels of protection
through the establishment of a protected area, a national park or wildlife sanctuary among others
1
according to International Institute for Environmental Development (IIED), 1994. In the views of
Nzeh (2004), three activities are done in the forests that yield income to the rural households in
Enugu State. These activities are gathering, processing and marketing of forest products.

How best to manage forest resources by rural households so that they can make more income and
even create more economic position has become a growing concern for policy makers, interest
groups and the public due to the following reasons: the increasing scarcity of virgin forest land;
greater awareness and understanding of the social and economic implications of destructive
forest practices especially at the rural level; and, a growing realization that the significant
opportunities for economic development based on forestry activities should not be wasted.

Greater attempts are now being made to rationalize the decision making process with respect to
the use of forest resources. If the returns from forest resources are to be maximized over the long
term, then the forest needs to be managed sustainably (i.e. the production of goods and services
need to be balanced with the conservation of the resource base of the forest). In order to make
sustainable forest management decisions, more reliable information on the environmental, social,
and economic value of forests in their own right and relative to other land uses is urgently
needed.

According to van Kooten and Bulte (2000), deforestation refers to the removal of trees from a
forested site and the conversion of land to another use, most often agriculture. There is growing
concern over shrinking areas of forests in the recent time (Barraclough and Ghimire, 2000). The
livelihoods of over two hundred million forest dwellers and poor settlers depend directly on
food, fibre, fodder, fuel and other resources taken from the forest or produced on recently cleared
forest soils. Also, according to Nzeh and Eboh (2007) poor people have thus been able to exploit
the forest for food, fuel and other marketable products which create both income and
employment for the rural dwellers. Furthermore, deforestation has become an issue of global
environmental concern, in particular because of the value of forests in biodiversity conservation
and in limiting the greenhouse effect (Angelsen et al., 1999). This has led economists to increase
their efforts to model the process of deforestation and conversion of forests to other land uses.

2
But, in the view of Enabor (1986), deforestation is the removal or destruction of forest vegetation
without any deliberate attempt at its regeneration. The term thus, includes not only felling of
timber trees, but also removal of shrubs, lianes and other plants from the forest. Deforestation is
as old as man himself and as Enabor (1986), rightly reported, the early stages of civilization
made it essential to destroy and remove some of the abundant forests in order to pave the way for
activities such as arable farming and human settlements which advanced human development.
Deforestation can therefore be regarded as primarily a result of man’s efforts to meet his
legitimate needs for social and economic development through expanding agriculture,
industrialization and infrastructural development.

Forests in the tropics are being destroyed at an alarmingly high rate in recent years especially in
Nigeria and particularly in Enugu State as reported by Eboh et al (2006). According to FAO
(1981), statistics estimated that between 8million and 20million hectares of tropical forests are
removed annually and that the area of plantation in 1980 was about 12million hectares which
represent only 10% of the total forest areas deforested annually. Going by this high rate of
deforestation and the low level of aforestation, the World Resource Institute (WRI), (1985)
projected that about 225million hectares of tropical forests would have been deforested by the
year 2000. Meanwhile, FAO 2011 reported that between 1990 and 2005 the loss of forests was
highest in the tropics. FAO 2011 further stated that the net losses in this region averaged 6.9
million hectares/year between 1990 and 2005 and that the highest rate of conversion of forest
land was in South America, followed by Africa

In Nigeria, the rate of deforestation appears to have accelerated in recent years. Deforestation
estimates for the country has been put at approximately 285,000 hectares annually (Oseni, 1998
and Aruofor, 1999). It is believed that at this rate of deforestation about 50% of the nation’s
forest land area would be destroyed by the year 2000. Going by this trend, deforestation has thus
been described as the major problem facing the forest ecosystem in this country. The extent of
deforestation in any particular location or region should be viewed with economic, ecological
and human consequences in mind. This is because forest degradation may in many ways be
irreversible. In the short term, because of the extensive nature of forest, the impact of activities
altering their condition is not immediately apparent and as a result they are largely ignored by

3
those who cause them. The forest is often perceived as a stock resource, a free good, with the
land as something freely available for conversion to other uses without recognition of the
consequences for the production services and environmental roles of the forest, hence many
forest ecosystem have been degraded into less diverse and stable ones according to Aruofor,
(1999) .

According to Adeofun (1991), the degradation of the forest ecosystem has obvious ecological
effects on the immediate environment, but it may also affect distant areas. For instance,
agricultural plains or valleys that depend upon forest highlands for their water may suffer
flooding or drought as a result of the destruction of the forests. Genetic damages and losses of
plants, animals and insects can also be serious and possibly permanent.

Deforestation can result in erosion which in turn may lead to desertification. The economic and
human consequences of deforestation include loss of potential wood and paper products among
others which may then need to be imported. Furthermore, the loss of forest may run counter to
what is for many developing countries the most urgent of all needs-fuelwood for cooking and
heating.

As environmental degradation and its consequences come clearly into focus we are faced with
the prospect that the renewable forest resources may be exhausted and that man stands the risk of
destroying his environment if all the impacts of deforestation are allowed to go on unchecked. It
is therefore, important to carry out a periodic economic analysis, monitoring and assessment of
our environment in Enugu State which is the major reservoirs of our natural resources and most
especially the forestry resources.

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT

Throughout sub-Saharan Africa, including Nigeria, forests and tree products are rapidly being
degraded, logged and cleared for agriculture and other developmental projects. Estimates for
total tropical Africa put the total loss in the forest cover between 1990 to 1995 to be about 18
million hectares and 7% annual loss (FAO, 1997). Eboh et al (2006) stated that up to 50% of
forest/woodland may have been lost in the last 4 to 5 decades, judging from both FAO and land
use and vegetation (LUV) data over the last 3 decades. Meanwhile, FAO (2005) reported that
4
Nigeria, with total land area of 92,377,000 hectares, has annual change in total forest cover of -
3.12% between 2000 and 2005 whereas her primary forest cover annual change within the same
period 2000 and 2005 stood at -11.14%. Also, Eboh (1995) observed that about 5% of the forests
in Nigeria are lost yearly through the industrial, commercial and other urban-related activities.
Another source put the average annual deforestation at 40,000 hectares between 1981 and 1985,
while the annual reforestation in the same period was 26,000 hectares (World Resources
Institute, 1992).

Deforestation in Enugu State is really an ongoing phenomenon. In the recent years, so much
have been said about the impacts of deforestation in Enugu State, as reported by Eboh et al.
(2005). This is becoming more pronounced with increasing population of the state which
according to NPC (2006) stood at 3,257,298. The effects of such depletion have led to a decline
in forest cover, forest degradation, impoverishment of the soil and general deterioration in
environmental conditions. For example, deforestation has often led to frequent occurrence of
erosion, flooding and siltation of water bodies in some part of the study area.

One critical aspect of the knowledge gap is the shortage of reliable economic values of
deforestation in Nigeria especially in Enugu State. Because of this shortage, policymakers often
do not have credible evidence bases to promote sound forest management. While literature is
replete with information about the consequences of deforestation, past studies did not produce
quantitative estimates about the economic losses from deforestation.

Generally, the socioeconomic consequences of forest exploitation and consumption are

overlooked. In Sub-Saharan Africa which includes Nigeria, many households cooking in the
home depend on fuelwood, which is responsible for more than 75% of all energy consumed in
the country annually as reported by Ardayfio-Schandorf (1993). Most small-scale industries and
food-processing enterprises that women undertake depend in large part on fuelwood. This
dependence on fuelwood has contributed to the growing exploitation of the country's forest.

The economic implications of deforestation in the study area include scarcity of fuelwood for
cooking and heating especially among the rural populace. This accelerating nature of
deforestation is also threatening the sustained resources base of the forest raw materials. Another

5
economic implication is the decline in forest-dependent industries which according to Nzeh and
Eboh (2007) involves forest product gathering, processing and marketing.

Furtherance to the above observed implications, Woodall (1992) reported that in many cases
political decision-makers in developing countries like Nigeria intentionally permit deforestation
to continue because it acts as a social and economic safety value. By giving people free access to
forested lands, the pressure is taken off politicians to resolve the more politically sensitive
problems that face developing countries, such as land reform, rural development, power-sharing,
and so on.

Available data shows that forest area in Enugu State declined from 177,695.7 hectares in the year
1991 to 156,887.7 hectares in the year 1997 and finally to 135,396.4 hectares in the year 2003 as
reported by Eboh et al 2005. While, it is widely acknowledged that this forest decline has far-
reaching social and economic consequence, there is little analytical insight into the nature,
pathways and causation of these consequences. This gap in empirical evidence of the
consequence of forest decline is hampering policy responses by government and forest
stakeholders. This study therefore seeks to ameliorate this knowledge gap by inquiring into the
nature, causes and patterns of deforestation in Enugu State.

To find out the economic implications of these consequences of deforestation, there is need to
carry out this study. This will enable forestry policy makers, other stakeholders and even farmers
in the study area to be better informed about the implication of deforestation and seek innovative
means and ways to combat deforestation.

1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The broad objective of this study is to conduct an economic analysis of losses (if any) from
deforestation in Enugu State.

The specific objectives are to:

(i) examine the nature and extent of deforestation;
(ii) identify and analyze the factors that influence the decision to deforest;
(iii) determine and analyze the resource-use patterns and processes associated with
cleared forest land;
6
 (iv) identify, estimate and analyze financial and economic losses (if any) from
deforestation;
(v) evaluate the effect of socioeconomic factors on deforestation; and
(vi) derive lessons for sustainable management and use of forests.

1.4 JUSTIFICATION OF THE STUDY

The forest area of Enugu State which stands out clearly as a major source of the state’s forest
resources is currently facing problems in terms of accelerating degradation and depletion of its
forest cover, according to Eboh et al. (2006). In the views of Eboh et al (2005) the forest
resources of Enugu State are under pressures from urbanization, infrastructure development,
residential construction, population growth and expansion of agricultural crop cultivation.
Evidence of these pressures is the growing degradation of both community and state forest.
According to Eboh et al (2006), about 25% of forest cover in the study area was lost from 1991-
2003 with the remaining forest now standing at about 16-17% of total land area. Forest loss is
threatening rural household incomes and consumption of non-wood forest products (NWFPs).
Deforestation threatens the energy supplies to 83% of households in Enugu State who depend on
fuelwood (FOS-NLSS, 2005). Being fully aware of forest importance for present and future
generations in both urban and rural communities of the state under study, there is therefore the
need to carry out adequate assessment of this dwindling natural resource in other to save the
forest and minimize the resulting environmental degradation that occur due to forest
deforestation.
Meanwhile, whereas forests are owned by the state, it has been suggested according to FAO
(1983) that one way to increase public expenditure is to increase forest charges and revenue
collection. But a number of studies in the views of (FAO 1983; Rapetto and Gillis, 1988; Grut, et
al 1991) have shown that forest revenue collected in many countries is low especially in
developing countries. Low forest revenue not only has a negative impact on total government
revenue and expenditure, but also sends incorrect price signals to the market about the value of
forests and its products. Such messages are damaging to sustainable forest management in that
low prices can result in over-harvesting and undervaluing of the resource, both of which
contribute to deforestation activities of the forest.

7
The economic and environmental problems facing the developing world are staggering in their
magnitude and their complexity. They are fueled by the vicious cycle of population growth and
persistent poverty. Most countries face serious problems in urban environment: overcrowding,
unemployment, growing crime, lack of portable water, inadequate sewage disposal, increasing
air pollution and the inappropriate disposal of toxic wastes. In rural areas, the deterioration of
natural resources not only destroys the environment, but also undermines the very foundation on
which economic growth and long term prosperity depend. The catastrophic impact is seen in
accelerating soil erosion which results in permanent loss in agricultural productivity, in
advancing desertification accompanied by drought and famine, in declining coastal and inland
fisheries with the associated threats to food security, in the misuse of agrochemicals that poison
both people and the environment, in the alarming sedimentation of fragile coral reefs; and in the
destruction of biodiversity-rich wetlands. But suffice it to say that none of these natural resource
problems is more threatening, none more in need of immediate action, than the deforestation of
the forests.

Furthermore, an important element in the present and future programme for assessing the
economic valuation of deforestation of forest resources is the availability of some modern
models to determine the resources stock, rate of use as well as the impact of the use on the
environment. At present, there is no up-to-date information on economic analysis of
deforestation estimates for the state forest area in Enugu state. Currently, Enugu State has no
operational forest policy but only that of early 1980’s. This lack of policy has created serious
problem like poor government management of protected forestland and even community forest
management of unprotected forestland. Further resultant effects of lack of this policy include no
proper planning of forestry activities in the state. This gap is causing sustainable management
problem of forest in the state. In other to solve this policy gap, research is needed to produce
empirical knowledge that will guide policy makers. This study is also justified since information
on economic analysis of deforestation estimate are not available in the study area, but this can be
derived from this study. Truly, researches have been carried out on the forestry situation in the
state, as reported by Ujah and Eboh (2003) but none of them focused on economic analysis of the
forest losses especially as it relates to non-reserve forest. Meanwhile, the study will be useful for

8
the management of the state forest resources and for the provision of necessary guidelines for its
conservation.

Apart from the fact that results of this study will permit detection of nature, forms of forest
deforestation and identification of those factors responsible, they can also act as guidance for
taking decision on future land-use and afforestation projects in the study area.

1.5 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

Numerous restrictions were faced during this study. Some of them are listed below:-

Accessibility to some of the rural places was not easy due to poor terrain and distance.
Some of the places were very remote.

Difficulty in convincing the respondents that this research work is purely for academic
work and not for political class or government agents.

There was problem of data collection from the respondents because most of the
respondents depend on memory recall to give the data for this study.

Difficulty in obtaining quality data from both government agencies and rural household
respondents.

Despite the above named challenges, this study was fully carried out because of the
experiences of the researcher and the data collected was enough to complete the study.

9
 CHAPTER TWO

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

In this chapter two, literatures were reviewed based on the following topics which include;
definition of forest, concept of forest depletion, global trend of deforestation - causes and
processes. Furthermore, this chapter two equally revised literature on deforestation activities in
Africa, deforestation in Nigeria, possible causes of deforestation in Enugu State, major factors of
deforestation and even impacts of deforestation on the environment. In addition, literatures were
revised on agricultural expansion and deforestation, evolution of forest policy in Nigeria, forestry
policy and institutional reforms in Nigeria, theoretical framework and analytical framework.
Finally, in this chapter two literatures were also revised on the concept of total economic
valuation (TEV) model and conceptual framework of deforestation.

2.1 DEFINITION OF FOREST

Different schools of thought have different concepts concerning forest. According to Dunster and
Dunster (1996) forest in the narrow technical sense is defined as a vegetation community
dominated by trees and other woody shrubs, growing close enough together that the tree tops
touch or overlaps, creating various degrees of shade on the forest floor.
As further reported by Dunster and Dunster (1996), the etymological derivation of the term
forest is thought to be quite literally, a place designated by the king for the rest of wild animals
(from the latin fera and statio, meaning a safe abode or sanctuary for animals). It is believed that
this was later compounded to foresta. Later on, the meaning of forests changed as the emphasis
shifted away from retention of wildlife for hurting to more utilitarian wood and non-wood value.
However, to the national forest inventories, forest is defined as “an area, incorporating all living
and non-living components, that is dominated by trees having usually a single stem and a mature
or potentially mature stand height exceeding two (2) metres and with existing or potential crown
cover of over storey strata about equal to or greater than 20%”. The fact that forest has been
defined in many ways is a reflection of the diversity of forest and forest activities in the world
and of the diversity of human approaches to forest.

10
Meanwhile, a more concise definition was given by FAO (2001), which stated that forest is land
with tree crown cover (or equivalent stocking level/standing density) of more than 10% of the
area. This may consist of either closed formations where trees of various storeys and
undergrowth cover a high proportion of the ground or open forest formations with a continuous
vegetation cover in which tree crown cover exceeds 10%. Young natural stands and all
plantations established for forestry purposes which have yet to reach a crown density of 10% are
included under forest, as well as areas normally forming part of the forest, which are temporarily
unstocked as a result of human intervention or natural causes but which are expected to revert to
forest. Included are forest nurseries and seed orchards that constitute an integral part of the
forest; forest roads, cleared tracts, firebreaks and other small open areas; forest in national parks,
nature reserves and other protected areas such as those of specific scientific, historical, cultural
or spiritual interest; windbreaks and shelter belts of trees with an area of more than 0.5 hectares
and width of more than 20 meters; plantations primarily used for forestry purposes, including
rubber wood plantations and cork oak stands.

On the West African perspective, forest is a type of vegetation consisting predominantly of

woody plants (trees, shrubs, herbs and climbs) and for which grasses are virtually absent
(Hopkins, 1981). The term forest as indicated by FAO (1997) is subdivided according to its
origin, into two categories. These include natural forests which are a subset of forests composed
of tree species known to be indigenous to the area. Another category is plantation forests which
are established artificially by afforestation on lands which previously did not carry forest within
living memory or those established artificially by reforestation of land which carried forest
before, and involving the replacement of the indigenous species by a new and essentially
different species or genetic variety. Furthermore forest could be primary or secondary forest.
While primary forest (or closed forest) is that forest that has not been tampered with by any
agents of forest removal, secondary forest (or open forest or degraded forest) is that forest that
has been altered by either man or natural phenomenon such that the quality is no longer of
original component.

11
2.2 CONCEPT OF FOREST DEPLETION
Before colonial times, forests in Nigeria and Enugu State in particular were managed by the
people who lived in and around them. But the advent of colonization brought in its wake global
interest that led to the reservation or nationalization of many forests and the change in forest
management technology from local to foreign. It also led to the loss of many indigenous resource
management practices that ensured the maintenance of diversity in forests, even if these were not
the direct aim. All over forested Nigeria, conflicts between the inherited policies of the colonial
government and the indigenous use systems have been a major cause of mismanagement of
forest land. To a large extent, lack of clarity of rights over products of the forest seems
fundamental to the speed with which the country’s forests have been depleted. Thus, the
sustainable, conservative and cyclical uses that tended to characterize the communities that lived
in balance with their forest resources are no longer practiced, because the market-driven
economy feeds most benefits of the forest into the global system but pay few of the
environmental and other costs (Neely, 1996). Clearly, many of these costs are borne by the local
people, who must live with the consequences of resources management decisions forced on them
from outside, and who perceptibly lose both their resources and their knowledge of traditional
resources management.

Meanwhile, according to the World Resources Institute (WRI), in Arnoldo (2000) the world has
lost about half of its forest cover. Despite a number of initiatives to stop forest decline, the world
continues to lose some 15 million hectares of forests every year. Deforestation over the period
1980-1990 reached 8.2% of total forest area in Asia, 6.1% in Latin America and 4.8% in Africa.
Most modern deforestation takes place in developing countries, particularly in tropical areas. The
process generates large amounts of carbon dioxide equivalent to 20% of global emissions from
fossil fuels, making deforestation the second most important contributor to global warming and
results in annual degradation of some 12 million hectares of fertile land and loss of thousands of
species (estimates range between 8,000 and 28,000 per year). Deforestation and forest
degradation directly threaten as many as 400 million people including 50 million forest
indigenous people who depend on forests for subsistence.

12
Forest decline, resulting from the enormous human ability to alter large forest ecosystems is the
source of intense conflicts between rural populations, governments, commercial interests and,
increasingly, sections of the public at large. Forest decline is often an undesirable phenomenon.
Nevertheless, it is not always harmful. As with most human interventions, forest decline yields
positive and negative impacts. A judgment on whether deforestation and forest degradation are
undesirable depends on an assessment of their positive and negative impacts on the economy,
environment and other dimensions of life, and on the importance that various groups in society
attach to those impacts. Thus, for some, deforestation is desirable because it results in financial
gain. For others, the negative environmental and social impacts of deforestation may be more
important. Perspectives and values can be very different. An assessment of the positive and the
negative is not an easy task because it is necessarily loaded with value judgments. However,
much of the human-induced deforestation and forest degradation is, in varying degrees,
economically wasteful and environmentally negative, as well as socially undesirable. Often, just
a few individuals benefit. The process usually induces adverse effects on the social condition of
weaker sectors of society and leads to the progressive impoverishment of ecosystems. Some
types of deforestation and forest degradation result in costs to society that amply exceed benefits
(no matter how these are measured), and are simply inappropriate. If this is so why do
inappropriate deforestation and forest degradation occur especially in Enugu State?

2.3 GLOBAL TREND OF DEFORESTATION: CAUSES AND PROCESSES

Throughout history, the fates of the world's forests have strongly reflected the pattern and
intensity of land use by societies. Demand for agricultural land, timber, and other forest products,
as well as technological change in agriculture, significantly impacts the mode and rate of
transformation of forested areas. In the views of Kapos, (2000), biophysical triggers may also
play a role, such as fire dynamics, which are linked to agricultural activities or other natural
phenomena. These demands are often linked to present-day developing countries experiencing
deforestation which even affect our country Nigeria and Enugu State.

The total world’s forest area according to Adeofun, (1991), has diminished considerably, from
about 5 to 4 billion hectares, over the last one hundred years. In the views of Mathews (1983),

13
temperate closed forest suffered the greatest losses of about (32 to 35%), the subtropical woody
savannas and deciduous forests declined by about 21 to 24 percent while the tropical diminished
to the tune of 15 to 20%. These estimates revealed that the tropical rain forests suffered the least
exploitation over the period. This was adduced to the fact that they were inaccessible as at that
period.

Deforestation has however intensified in the tropical rain forest since the Second World War.
This is because the growing rural population invades the forests in search of land for their crops,
fuelwood for cooking, and fodder for their animals. Also most tropical nations in an attempt to
raise foreign exchange earnings to execute economic development programs, turn to the forests
as a readily exploitable resource. As a result of this relentless exploitation most world tropical
forests are diminishing.

In most developing countries like Nigeria especially in Enugu State, deforestation is fast
accelerating. About 11million hectares of forest are cleared for other uses annually in developing
countries according Adeofun, (1991). Nigeria’s forest cover in 2000 was estimated at 13.5
million hectares compared to 17.5 million hectares in 1990 (FAO, 2001), indicating a forest
cover loss of close to 400 thousand hectares per annum, or a decline of about 2.6%.
Forest/woodlands now stand at only 13% of the total land area (FAO, 2001). Between 1950 and
1983, Melillo et al (1985) reported that forest and woodland areas declined by about 38% in
Central American and 24% in Africa. These estimates represent only the area completely cleared
for uses. The forests and woodlands are also deteriorating in quality. Each year 4million hectares
of natural tropical forests are exploited, thus becoming “secondary regrowth forests” according
FAO, 2001.

The prevailing traditional utilization practices only allow for the mature stems of those few tree
species with high merchantable value to be removed and this, according to Guppy (1984),
usually accounts for about 10 to 20% of the standing volume. Apart from this, another 30 to 50%
of the trees are also destroyed during logging operations thereby leaving the soil to be highly
disturbed to impede regeneration. In the open woodlands and savannas, fuelwood and fodder
demands are out-stripping forest regeneration as population increases and forest stocks decline.

14
Aderson and Fishwick (1984) reported that fuelwood consumption now exceeds natural
regeneration by 70% in Sudan, 75% in Northern part of Nigeria, about 150% in Ethiopia and
200% in Niger. Majority of the population that depends mostly on fuelwood are cutting wood
faster than it is growing back (FAO, 1983). This has made the woodlands to become
progressively sparser and eventually disappearing at a faster rate.

It is interesting to note that deforestation has a number of repercussions, which include among
others deforestation that can lead to soil erosion or impoverishment, especially in tropical areas
where soils tend to be thin and nutrient-poor. Deforestation is linked to habitat loss and
biodiversity loss, particularly in humid tropical forests. Furthermore, Giest and Lambin (2002)
reported that deforestation affects the hydrological cycle through changes in evapo-transpiration
and run-off and even concluded that deforestation, and particularly forest burning, contributes to
green-house gas emissions that bring about climate change. Despite its apparent ease of
detection, deforestation rates are still a matter of debate.

Today, roughly 39million square kilometers (29%) of the world’s land surface is under forest
cover (FAO, 2000), and of that 28million square kilometers is in so-called “closed forests” of
40% canopy cover or above (Singh et al. 2001). Since the end of the last ice age, approximately
half the world’s forest cover has been lost, most of it due to the expansion of human activities
and settlements (Kapos, 2000). In terms of primary forest (that is defined as a forest that has
never been logged and has developed following natural disturbances and under natural processes,
regardless of its age), in contrast to secondary forest (that is defined as forests regenerating
largely through natural processes after significant human or natural disturbance, and which differ
from primary forests in forest composition and/or canopy structure), or other successional
forests, (like any forest type that has in its interior significant areas of disturbance by people,
including clearing, felling for wood extraction, anthropogenic fires, road construction, etc) much
less remains. The WRI (1997) estimates that only one-fifth of the world’s original forest cover
remains, largely in blocks of undisturbed frontier forests in the Brazilian Amazon and boreal
areas of Canada and Russia.

15
 Table 1: Deforestation rate of some countries total cum primary forest cover 2000-2005
Country Total Total forest cover Primary forest cover
land area Area Area Annual Total Annual Annual Area Area Annual Total Annual Annual Rate of
(‘000ha) 2005 2005 change change change change 2005 2005 change change change change change
(‘000ha) (%) 1990- 1990- 1990- 2000- (‘000ha) (%) 1990- 1990- 1990- 2000- 1990-
2005 (ha) 2005 (%) 2000 (%) 2005 (%) 2005 (ha) 2005 2000 (%) 2005 (%) 2000 vs.
(%) 2000-
2005
Nigeria 92,377 11,089 12.2 -409667 -35.7 -2.38 -3.12 326 0.4 -82000 -79.0 -5.27 -11.14 111.41
Viet Nam 33,167 12,931 39.7 237867 38.1 2.52 2.06 85 0.3 -19933 -77.9 -5.13 -10.91 112.64
Cambodia 18,104 10,447 59.2 -166600 -19.3 -1.09 -1.90 322 1.8 -29600 -58.0 -4.05 -5.88 45.22
Sir Lanka 6,561 1,933 29.9 -27800 -17.7 -1.14 -1.43 167 2.5 -6000 -35.0 -2.33 -3.05 30.46
Indonesia 190,457 88,495 48.8 -1871467 -24.1 -1.61 -1.91 48,702 25.6 -1447800 -30.8 -2.06 -2.59 25.88
Panama 7,552 4,294 57.7 -5467 -1.9 -0.16 -0.06 3,023 40.0 -45533 -18.4 -1.26 -1.33 5.84
Guatemala 10,889 3,938 36.3 -54000 -17.1 -1.14 -1.28 1,957 18.0 -26800 -17.0 -1.14 -1.28 12.82
Papua New 46,284 29,437 65 -139067 -6.6 -0.44 -0.46 25,211 54.5 -266600 -13.7 -0.94 -0.95 0.50
Guinea
Brazil 851,488 447,698 57.2 -2821933 -8.1 -0.52 -0.63 415,890 48.8 -2974867 -9.7 -0.59 -0.80 34.99
Brunel 577 278 52.8 -2333 -11.2 -0.80 -0.69 278 48.2 -2333 -11.2 -0.80 -0.69 -13.06
Senegal 19,672 8,673 45 -45000 -7.2 -0.48 -0.51 1,598 8.1 -10733 -9.2 -0.60 -0.67 10.43
Bolivia 109,858 58,740 54.2 -270333 -6.5 -0.43 -0.45 29,360 26.7 -135200 -6.5 -0.43 -0.45 4.50
Peru 128,522 68742 53.7 -94267 -2.0 -0.13 -0.14 61,065 47.5 -123000 -2.9 -0.11 -0.36 214.69
French 9,000 8,063 91.8 -1867 -0.3 -0.03 0.00 7,701 85.6 -13867 -2.6 -0.19 -0.15 -17.37
Guiana
Colombia 113,891 60,728 58.5 -47400 -1.2 -0.08 -0.08 53,062 46.6 -52800 -1.5 -0.09 -0.11 11.03
Madagascar 58,704 12,838 22.1 -56933 -1.6 -0.49 -0.28 10,347 17.6 -10400 -1.5 -0.12 -0.07 -43.61
Congo 34,200 22,471 65.8 -17000 -1.1 -0.07 -0.08 7,464 21.8 -5600 -1.1 -0.07 -0.07 0.75
Total 1,731,305 880,795 43.5 -5793267 -8.3 -0.57 -0.62 666,558 38.5 -5253067 -10.6 -0.67 -0.84 25.6

Source: FAO, 2005

2.4 DEFORESTATION ACTIVITIES IN AFRICA

Agriculture is the main cause of deforestation in African countries according to Persson, (1987).
The forests of this continent now cover less than half the area for which they are considered the
natural climax. The greatest forest cover changes are occurring in West Africa where large
population exits. Howard and Lanly (1975) in their views reported that the forest area in Cote-
de-Ivoire has been reduced by 30% in a ten year period. But according to FAO (2003) in the
same Cote-de-Ivoire the annual rate of change of forest from 1999-2000 is put at -3.1%.
However, deforestation is most severe in the dry sub-tropical woodlands of the Sahel zone. This
is because more than 90% of the population in this zone depends on fuelwood for cooking and
their average annual per capital consumption of fuelwood ranges from 225kg to 450kg (Eckhom,
1976). Furthermore, Club de Sahel (1978) stated that in this zone wherever population densities
exceed twenty five persons per square kilometer, total deforestation is inevitable. In Nigeria,
FAO 2011 reported that the country lost 55.7% of its total primary forests between 2000 to 2005
and the rate of forest change increased by 31.2% to 3.12% per annum.

16
The spread of deforestation is most noticeable near urban areas. The growth of urban areas
brings about appreciable demands for fuelwood, charcoal and sawn wood and this account for
much of the observed decline in forest stocks. The cost of the cooking with fuelwood or charcoal
will continue to be lower than the cost of other commercial alternatives as long as local wooded
areas and forests are not depleted. Thus the demand for fuelwood in urban areas will remain
strong and continue to account for much of the spread of deforestation in Africa, the
opportunities of substituting fuelwood with commercial fuels in these areas notwithstanding.

Another important deforestation issues in Africa is as regards land clearing by farmers. It is a

known fact that land clearing is taking place extensively and perhaps contributes as much as/or
more than fuelwood consumption to deforestation in Africa. Timberlake (1985) reported that
population growth and migration into coastal country side also play vital role in land clearing. As
estimated five million hectares of forests were converted to agriculture in Cote-de-Ivorie
between 1966 and 1980 while farmers destroyed some 300million cubic metres of merchantable
timber, far more than was exported during the period. Felling of trees on farmlands is also
widespread. In Nigeria for example, unpublished surveys in the south and northern zones
revealed that farm tree densities have declined from 15% per hectare in 1950’s to 3% per hectare
in 1970’s (Anderson, 1986). Meanwhile, FAO (2003) reported that annual rate of change of
forest in Nigeria from 1990-2000 stood at -2.6%.

Deforestation estimates for some African countries have been given by Lanly (1983). For
example, the rate of forest depletion in Cote-de-Ivorie and Nigeria is estimated as high as 5% to
6% per year while Ochanda and Epp (1982) stated that in Kenya the indigenous forest now
covers only 1.9% of the land area and remote sensing have shown that about 16% of the forest is
being lost in each ten year period. For Africa as a whole Parry (1986) reported that only 6% of
the land area is forested and that if clearance continues at the present rate, the forest cover would
have been reduced to 5% by the year 2000.

17
2.5 DEFORESTATION IN NIGERIA
Nigeria’s land resources are being managed at crisis level as reported by Adeofun, (1991). This
is because increasingly pressure on the land resources has generated conflicts between economic
development and resources conservation. Such conflicts are further pronounced by the adopted
poor land-use systems which tend to cause environmental degradation. Although several factors
might be responsible for the misuse of land, it is commonly centered on the removal of the tree
vegetation without any attempts at its regeneration. Thus the destruction of vegetation results in
extinction of valuable wildlife and timber species, siltation of streams and soil degradation
through severe erosion in Nigeria.

The influence of socio-economic factors is an important aspect of deforestation that demands

emphasis. In the views of Williams (1987), the extended family system is the most social unit,
which is the basic land holding unit in Nigeria. Furthermore, William (1987) stated that strong
attachment to land is derivable from the agrarian structure of the economy. There is no land
without an owner, thus the Nigerian culture recognizes man as an entity inseparable from land.
Ethnic groups’ polarization and their different historical backgrounds did not allow for a
homogenous land tenure system in the country. This notwithstanding, lands were acquired
through settlement of family groups in areas of no resistance or of conquest as the case may be.

The individual land tenure system in the country and state now is gradually replacing the
communal land tenure system. This is basically as a result of increase in population, of the study
area which according to NPC (2006) is 3,257,298 with annual growth rate of 3%; introduction of
exotic cash crops, and the land commercialization. The common features of this land tenure
system are that it encourages land speculation and landlessness among indigenous members of a
community. The impacts of the various land tenure systems on the depletion of forest resources
have some significance in two respects. In the first instance, a communal land tenure-system is
not compatible with agricultural production by small holder farmers in areas of high population
densities. This is because this system limits members of the same land holding unit to a specified
land area, increase in farming population results in a decreased land-to-man ratio and a
consequent reduction in the fallow period. The shorter fallow periods often leads to incomplete

18
restoration of soil fertility, a break in the nutrient cycle, depletion of the lands resources and soil
degradation by erosion. The individual land tenure system leads to land fragmentation,
speculation and land commercialization. The system renders farmers landless especially those
who could not acquire land by transfer, inheritance or rent thus given room for landlords to
exploit the poor on their own traditional lands.

The trend in the land-use often gives rise to the emergence of migrant farmers. According to
Eckholm (1975) these farmers as rootless and landless people often squeezed from their
homeless by unequal land tenure or population growth. In the reviews of Udo (1975), these
migrant farmers are responsible for deforestation of most forest land in Nigeria. The above
accretions thus tend to be in line with the findings of Keay (1995) in which he stated that a
combination of high density of human settlements in the rainforest zones and a concomitantly
intensive land-use systems of farming, timber exploitation, grazing, forest regeneration and fire,
has caused vegetation changes as plant communities fail to attain their climax. The depletion of
the natural vegetation has therefore been as a result of the various land-use abuses, resulting in
various forms of land degradation such as soil erosion, loss of water shed and desert
encroachments which are all abounds in the various parts of the country even in the study area.

According to Butler (2005), report shows that 12.2% or about 11,089,000 hectares of Nigeria is
forested, of this number, 2.9% or roughly 326,000 hectares is classified as primary forest, the
most biodiverse form of forest. Furthermore, Butler (2005) still reported that between 1990 and
2000, Nigeria lost an average of 409,700 hectares of forest per year. This amounts to an average
annual deforestation rate of 2.38%.
The socio-economic factors and conditions also exert great influence on forest depletion on
Nigeria. For instance, the economic benefits of timber supply to local and foreign markets have
greatly induced the over exploitation of the natural forests. In the views of Enabor (1981), the
exploitation of the natural forests in the country started as early as the 1930’s when more
Nigerian timber species gained acceptance at the international market. Aurson (1998) reported
that about one million trees were felled for exported in Nigeria then between 1905 and 1956 of
which more than 50% came from forests of South-western Nigeria.

19
The forest areas that produce the timber supply in the country is just about 2% of the total forest
reserve area. Going by the rapid population increase in Nigeria that stood at 140,033,542 with
average annual growth rate of 3.2% according to NPC (2006), the timber resources are
inadequate to meet the demand for wood and wood products in the country. As far back as 1981,
FAO (1981) estimates thus revealed that log output volume in Nigeria decreased from 52% in
1960 to about 30% in 1975. This shortfall in log output volume is an indication of forest
depletion within this period. The annual consumption of fuel wood and charcoal has increased to
80million m3 in 1981 according to FAO (1981) estimate. This shows that there is an over
dependence on biomass for energy requirement in the country as far back as the period in
question. Coupled with this is the problem of hunting and grazing of livestocks, unsuitable land
use practices such as burning of forests and timber extraction, all these have an overall adverse
effect on forest depletion in the country.

The growth of urbanization and the development of infrastructures such as the establishment of
industries, construction of highways, airports, and stadia among other human activities have
greatly influence the depletion of forest resources in Nigeria. The construction of highways and
the increase in the housing estates are perhaps the major forest depletion factors. In both cases,
large areas of forest lands must be converted. Similarly the creation of forest plantations through
artificial regeneration method (afforestation projects) has resulted into large scale destruction of
existing forest vegetation.

2.6 POSSIBLE CAUSES OF DEFORESTATION IN ENUGU STATE

Many forests are far from being virgin or pristine and have been interfered with by man
especially in Enugu State. Shifting cultivation is a factor in point even though its practice is
usually consistent with the regenerative capacity of the forest. Under shifting cultivation, the
population is low and mobile, the economy is subsistence, the pattern of farming is polycropping
after adequate fallow periods and there is an ample area of forest in reserve for future use, thus
making this system of agriculture efficient and sustainable (Denevan, 1992).The abundant
cultivated patches encourage the regeneration of the forest from seeds brought in by wind and

20
animals from the adjacent forest. Big trees that are purposefully retained in the plots also
encourage forest re-growth (Clay, 1988), all contributing to resource abundance.

Unfortunately, forests are fixed resources whereas human population in Enugu State is
increasing at 3% per annum according to NPC 2006 in Nzeh (2007). However, it is not
surprising that rising population densities in Enugu State led to the collapse of the shifting
cultivation system and the advent of rotational, bush fallowing that has turned a large proportion
of the original forests into bush vegetation. This means of deforestation has been powerfully
assisted by the introduction of chain saws into societies that used only less efficient steel axes. In
the views of Okoji (2001), in south eastern Nigeria which Enugu State is among, the rural poor
have no alternative source of energy for cooking but wood from the forest and this usually cause
deforestation in that area. Okoji (2001) equally stated that the same is truth for over 30% of
urban dwellers within the region. Forest resources are also lost through commercial logging i.e.
logging for construction, furniture purposes or for export. As further reported by Okoji (2001),
such commercial logging may be selective where less than 10% of the tree are cut, more than
60% of the forest trees may be damaged and large trees may be connected by other vegetation
such as lianas. Large trees damage small ones when they fall and removing the logs damages
vegetation and soil (Parks, 1992).

Another factor contributing to forest resource depletion in the study area and beyond is the
establishment of tree crop estate agriculture. This system according to Uyanga (1980) in Cross
River State alone, have resulted to approximately 75,962 hectares of forest been converted to
commercial monocrops such as cocoa, oil palm and rubber based on this operation. The fact that
such estates are monocropped and that the undergrowth is regularly slashed or sprayed with
herbicides, means absolute elimination of forest resources and edible snails are usually collected
by slashers. In short, forest resource depletion, arising from deforestation, is a complex
phenomenon with multiple causes and varying contributions, but by and large, anthropogenic
even stated the same in Enugu State as reported by Okoji (2001).

21
According to Okoji (2001), from environmental point of view, and depending on the extent of
deforestation, forest depletion reduces and sometimes brings to an end the functions and services
of the forest ecosystem. Meanwhile, deforestation has increased soil erosion in several parts of
the country and even in different communities of Enugu State.
There are some basic concepts concerning forest decline that need to be explained. This forest
decline is interpreted as deforestation or degradation or a combination of both. According to
FAO (1997), deforestation is define as the “sum of all transitions from natural forest classes
(continuous and fragmented) to all other classes”. The loss of forest cover attributed to these
transitions must occur over less than 10% of crown cover for the phenomenon to qualify as
deforestation.

In addition to above issues, forest decline is the result of actions by a number of agents. These
agents are individuals, groups of individuals or institutions that directly convert forested lands to
other uses or that intervene in forests without necessarily causing deforestation but substantially
reducing their productive capacity. Other agents include shifted cultivators, private and
government logging companies, mining and oil and farming corporations, forest concessionaires
and ranchers. These agents clear forest lands or selectively exploit forests for agricultural
expansion, to subsist, for mining, to obtain forest products and fuelwood, among other important
forestry products. All these enumerated agents and even others not listed here are among the
possible causes of deforestation in Enugu State.

22
Figure 1: Causes of forest decline
Adapted from Arnoldo, (2000)

2.7 MAJOR FACTORS OF DEFORESTATION

Deforestation which is the product of the interaction of many environmental, social, economic,
cultural and political forces works differently in any given region. The mix of these forces varies
from decades to decades, and from country to country according to Roper and Robert (2006). As
a consequence, generalizations are dangerous. According to Roper and Robert (2006) still, in
most cases, deforestation is a process that involves a competition amongst different land users
for scarce resources, a process exacerbated by counter-productive polices and weak institutions.
It creates wealth for some, cause hardships for others, and almost always brings serious
consequence for the environment.

This deforestation can be classified into different forms on the basis of the factors causing such
deforestation. Five major categories of deforestation have been recognized by Umeh (1986) and
they are: deforestation by government for developmental projects; deforestation arising from
afforestation; deforestation without afforestation; deforestation due to ecological factors; and
deforestation arising from fuelwood cutting and animal husbandry.

23
2.7.1 Deforestation from developmental projects: This is a powerful factor which has
contributed largely to deforestation in Enugu State and Nigeria at large. Large areas of forest
estates have been encroached upon and cleared by the government for other forms of land use.
For example, in Enugu State it has been reported that large proportion of forest reserves located
in different places like Ngwo in Udi local government area and Ugwuoba of Oji-river local
government area have been lost to rural expansion, agriculture activities and Power Holding
Company of Nigeria, PLC (PHCN) national grid lines. Also, so many forest reserves have been
deforested as a result of road construction. Umeh (1986) pointed out further that in Oyo State
large areas of Ago Owa, Ife, Ogunpa dam plantations and Gambari forest reserves have been lost
to farm settlement, industrial development and urbanization. Also according to Umeh (1986), 20
hectares of Ogun river forest reserve were converted into fish-pond. The impoundment of river
Niger at Kainji also resulted into several hectares of forest lands being depleted. This is the
situation in most forest estates all over the country with the trend been more in areas of high
population density.

2.7.2 Deforestation arising from afforestation: Aforestation means establishing a forest on an

area from which vegetation has always or long been, therefore the process of afforestation
usually involves deforestation. In most cases, economic timber species and other forest products
are cleared and burnt to prepare the site for plantation establishment through the artificial method
of regeneration.
It has been estimated according to Adeofun (1991), that about 150,000 hectares of plantations
have been established in Nigeria since 1978 through afforestation. This is as a result of the
inability of the natural method of regeneration to cope with the rising demand for wood and
wood products in the country. Thus, afforestation can be said to be necessary evil since
plantations of fast growing species with shorter rotation ages have to be established in other to
satisfy both the national and state wood demand.

2.7.3 Deforestation without afforestation: The most important factor of deforestation in the
tropics is deforestation without afforestation. This factor can be broken down into different
components which include the following: role of forest farmers in terms of shifting cultivation;

24
role of timber trade in terms of timber extraction; animal husbandry and its role in deforestation;
and deforestation through firewood cutting. Perhaps the most important of all these factors is the
role of the shifting cultivators. It has been estimated that about 140 million forest farmers occupy
2 million km2 of the tropical moist forest and they are believed to have eliminated at least
100,000km2 of forest annually as reported by Adeofun (1991). Also, in the views of Adeofun
(1991) still, out of the present tropical moist forest in Africa, about 400,000km2 are being
utilized under the shifting cultivation practice of agriculture and this has accounted for forest loss
estimated at about 40,000km2 per year.
Another important factor is the role of the timber extraction. A lot of timber species are removed
from both the reserved forest estates and the free areas without replenishment. Also, the general
trend is that timber extraction is always far ahead of afforestation especially in Enugu State,
hence this extraction and consumption trend will generate growing pressure to exploit the forest
estate and the consequent deforestation and degradation.

2.7.4 Deforestation due to ecological factors: Ecological factors such as drought, erosion, wind
throws etc are well known agents of deforestation and they have claimed very large areas of our
forest resource base. In areas where these conditions or factors are severe drought for example
has led to deforestation and subsequent desertification especially in the northern parts of the
country.

2.7.5 Deforestation arising from firewood cutting and animal husbandry: In many parts of the
country including Enugu State, forests are being destroyed as a result of widespread cutting of
wood for fuel. This is more pronounced in the rural areas according to Nzeh and Eboh (2007),
FAO (1985), and National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) 2006 statistics shows that they (rural
dwellers) depends on fuel wood for up to 75% of their total annual energy requirement. Animal
husbandry also plays a substantial role in deforestation especially in the savanna region of the
country. The ecosystem are subjected to unrestricted livestock grazing, with the nomadic
herdsmen habitually looping the branches and tops of young trees to provide fodder for cattle as
reported by Adeofun (1991).

25
2.8 IMPACTS OF DEFORESTATION ON THE ENVIRONMENT
According to Ogigirigi, (1986) the impacts of deforestation on the environment are many and the
most direct impacts are noticeable on the soil, hydrology and the atmosphere. This is because the
major role of forest in maintenance of environmental stability is in providing physical protection
on the soil by interception thereby reducing the sticking force and frictional action of rain and
wind.
2.8.1 Deforestation and soil erosion: Soil erosion is the most pronounced form of environmental
degradation all over the country today and even in Enugu State which is directly linked with
deforestation. Soil erosion is generally brought about by the action of water or wind when
vegetation cover is removed such that all the physical protection offered by the vegetation is also
removed.
The continuous forest exploitation and removal of vegetation cover for various purposes has
increased in intensity and rate with population increase in the country so much to the extent that
soil erosion has become so pronounced in many parts of the country. The direct impact on soil
and accelerated run-off in areas without vegetation cover leads to serious soil erosion and the
consequent development of extensive gulley which may extent over a very large area. Many
examples of gulley and sheet erosion have been reported in many part of the country. For
example, Adeofun (1991) reported that the extent and intensity of gulley erosion in parts of old
Imo and Anambra States, Southeast of Nigeria. Whereas, Okoji (2001), highlighted various
forms of erosion in different parts of the country in relation to forestry practices that should be
adopted. Soil erosion usually reduces soil productivity, retards agricultural economy and
destroys costly infrastructural facilities such as building and road networks due to constant
deforestation.

2.8.2 Deforestation and wind erosion: In Southern part of Nigeria, coastal and gulley erosion are
of greater importance. This is because these parts of the country have a long duration and high
intensity of rainfall and hence erosion by water is more prominent. In the northern part of the
country, however, erosion by wind is of greater significance in environmental degradation. The
rapid rate of desert encroachment in this part of the country has been attributed to excessive

26
deforestation resulting in exposure of dry sandy soils of the semi-arid zones to strong winds
during the long dry seasons (Anon, 1977).

Deforestation and the consequent wind erosion in this region accelerates desert conditions typical
of a moisture less environment, desiccating winds, drifting sand dunes and the extreme difficulty
in establishing a thriving animal or plant life. These conditions constitute a precursor to
desertification and its aftermath Adeofun (1991).

2.8.3 Impact of deforestation on water resources: Deforestation impact on water resources is

very important in views of the fact that it poses serious water resources problems resulting from
the extensive destruction of watersheds. Results of hydrological investigations from tropical Asia
have shown the significance of forest cover in proper and efficient management of soil and
watershed resources as reported by Adeofun (1991).

Removal of vegetation cover reduces interception of rainfall which varies from a few to as many
as 50% of total annual precipitation. Deforestation will increase the rate and volume of run-off
thereby resulting into increased stream flow which often gives rise to flooding and usually with
disastrous consequences to life and property. Increase rate of run-off will also adversely affect
recharge of underground water, and water storage capacities of water courses. This according to
Enabor (1986) is already evident along the River Niger and Benue and many other rivers in the
savannah zone of Nigeria.

The increased rate and volume of run-off arising from deforestation will increase the sediment
load in the run-off water and its erosion power. This will eventually lead to sedimentation of
surrounding water bodies, which after a long period will result to a progressive reduction in
volume and depth of the water bodies until they become seasonal or eventually disappear. The
protective effect of forest cover on water yield and erosion has been demonstrated by an
accidental fire in the Snow Mountains of New South Wales in Australia (Brown, 1999). The
flow of pattern changed abruptly after the fire while water yield and sediment load increased
significantly in the first four year after the fire. Champhaka (1986) also reported the adverse

27
consequences of deforestation to watershed in some Asian countries where many water bodies
are completely silted up and dams disrupted. Other impact of deforestation often leads to the
permanent lowering of the water table, especially when such deforestation is permanent and
irreversible such as in the case of the semi-arid regions of Nigeria. Deforestation arising from
indiscriminate land clearing and bush burning in the savannah regions of Nigeria has been
identified as factors aggravating the hydrological problems in these areas as recorded by
Adeofun (1991).

2.8.4 Deforestation and atmospheric conditions: There has been a global concern about the
possible consequence of deforestation on atmospheric conditions. Many literatures have reported
that the likely increase of carbon dioxide percentage in the atmosphere by up to 10% and a
resultant increase in global temperature through the green house effect is a possible effect of total
deforestation of all tropical rainforest.

Deforestation also has its implication for the general climate chnage. For example, the negative
impacts of deforestation are already measurable in the form of increase in light intensity, air and
soil temperatures and decrease in soil moisture and atmospheric relative humidity according to
Woodall (1992).

A very important consequence of deforestation is the elimination of the gene pool, the permanent
loss of valuable plant and animal genetic resources. Many plant species of importance such as
valuable commercial species and source of pharmaceutical products are near extinction as a
result of deforestation. Also the destruction of wildlife habitat has drastically reduced animal
populations and productivity such that many rare species are now threatened with extinction as
reported by Roper and Robert (2006).

2.9 AGRICULTURAL EXPANSION AND DEFORESTATION

Over the years, researchers have identified agricultural expansion as a common factor in almost
all studies on deforestation. Indeed, much of the increase in food production has been at the
expense of hundreds of millions of hectares of forest even in Enugu State. Although there are no

28
exact estimates of how much farm and grazing land was originally under forest, the point
remains that a large portion was cleared for agriculture, and that additional land will be cleared
in the future. Efforts are therefore under way to gain a better understanding of the relationship
between the two sectors. Large population increases and growing per capita consumption will
place unprecedented strains on resources and present new challenges to the sustainable
management of forests, including other wooded land.

About 50% of the world's inhabitants, mostly in developing countries, are likely to suffer
malnutrition and poverty in the next 50 years unless technologies to increase current levels of
agricultural productivity are developed in time (IIASA and FAO, 2002).
Capital formation per agricultural worker has remained stagnant or declined in countries where
more than 20% of the population is undernourished and where agriculture is essential to alleviate
poverty and improve food security (FAO et al. 2002). By 2050, the global population is expected
to increase by about 3 billion to a total of about 9 billion, with growth occurring primarily in
developing countries where the potential to increase arable land is minimal according to (IIASA
and FAO, 2002).
The net impact of climate change on agriculture in developing countries is expected to be
negative and more significant than in industrialized countries (IIASA and FAO, 2002). Such
extreme conditions over the next 50 years are likely to result in significant incentives to expand
agriculture, mostly but not entirely on new land cleared through deforestation. In many
industrialized countries, however, the area under agriculture is shrinking, and land thus
abandoned is being converted to forest but this is not the case in Nigeria and Enugu State.

To shed light on whether there is a clear relationship in the dynamics between forested and
agricultural areas; FAO (2002), analyzed qualitative temporal change trends on the basis of
global statistics. However, this analysis excluded the identification of factors that drive
agricultural expansion or contraction and the processes that facilitate such changes.

Preliminary findings from FAO (2002) indicated that agricultural land is expanding in about
70%, declining in 25% and roughly static in 5% in developing countries of the world. In two-

29
thirds of the countries as reported by FAO (2002) where agricultural land is expanding, forest
area is decreasing, but in the other one-third, forests are expanding. In 60% of the countries
where agricultural land is decreasing, forests are expanding. In most of the rest (36%), forests are
decreasing. Other wooded lands (shrub and forest fallows) have roughly maintained their share
of the land. However, given the dynamic nature of land use, some land might revert to secondary
forests over time.

Because other wooded lands may be a buffer for changes in land use, it is important to
understand changes in these areas. Integrated assessment and monitoring of trees outside forests
is necessary to draw meaningful inferences for wider cross-sectoral policy interventions in the
forest, agriculture and environment sectors (IIASA and FAO, 2002). As agricultural expansion
into forests seems inevitable (FAO, 2001), a key question for future sustainable livelihoods, food
security and sustainable forest management is the extent to which this buffer can absorb or
cushion the expected increase in the demand for agricultural production.
Further analysis by FAO (2002), shows that it is equally important to recognize that many
technological innovations is required to intensify agricultural production since the green
revolution have had a positive impact on forest area. Without them, much more land would be
needed to produce today's amounts of wheat, maize, rice and other major food crops.
Indeed, the more agriculture is intensified on a sustainable basis, the less pressure there will be to
deforest in order to provide new areas for agriculture. This point has significant implications in
terms of forging links among environmental interests, agricultural research and intensification
efforts. Therefore the following are particularly needed; among them is that:
• There should be direct policy linkages between forest and agricultural uses of land,
perhaps through national or regional land-use policy initiatives;
• Furthermore, there is need for new initiatives to support agricultural research,
technological development and activities that help bring about sustainable increases in
yields per hectare of farmland;
• And finally, there is critical need for increased support for forestry research, the
development of planted forests and land-use policies that can help to reduce pressure on

30
 ancient and fragile forests – areas that are also linked to economic aspects of forest
production, industry development and trade.
There is need for one to note that both forestry and agriculture face similar challenges especially
in the developing countries like ours. Today, agriculture and the forest sector are more
inextricably linked than ever before as they face similar challenges in coping with poverty and
food insecurity. While these problems contribute to forest deforestation, destruction and
degradation, the solution for alleviating them and for minimizing the negative impacts of
agriculture on the environment involves a complex set of factors, using the best of old and new
technologies, innovative ideas and modern institutional arrangements. The sustainable
management of forests and trees, including the use of agroforestry and watershed management,
is an integral part of the effort to reduce food insecurity, alleviate poverty and improve
environmental quality for the rural poor. Technological innovations and new management
methods that increase agricultural and forest yields per hectare can also have a significant
positive impact on the world's forests.

2.10 CONTRIBUTIONS OF DEFORESTATION TO LIVELIHOOD SYSTEMS

In sub-Saharan Africa, forest goods and services are extremely important for rural livelihoods,
providing food, medicine, shelter, fuel and cash income (Kaimowitz, 2003). It is estimated that
more than 15 million people in sub-Saharan Africa earn their cash income from forest-related
enterprises such as fuelwood and charcoal sales, small-scale saw-milling, commercial hunting
and handicraft. In addition, between 200,000 and 300,000 people are directly employed in the
commercial timber industry (Oksanen and Mersmann, 2003). For some countries, the forestry
sector is an important foreign exchange earner. For example, between 1993 and 2002, the value
of net exports of various wood-based products from countries in sub-Saharan Africa amounted to
more than US$2 billion (FAO, 2003). However, the national statistics on the contribution of
forest products to the countries’ economies are extremely poor (Mabugu and Chitiga, 2002;
FAO, 2004; Vincent, 1998) and only in a few countries are there comprehensive government
programs of environmental accounting where forestry contributions to the national accounts are
captured, e.g. South Africa (FAO, 2004; World Bank, 2006).

31
Meanwhile, forestry sector contributes significantly to Nigerian economy, though most of its
resources are yet to be tapped. Forests provide products such as fuel wood, chewing sticks,
timber, poles, rattans, fruits, seeds, pulp wood, leaves, mushroom and wildlife. They as well
provide such services as environmental protection such as soil protection against erosion and
strong winds, protection of watershed and enhancement of nutrient cycling for maintaining soil
fertility. According to Adeyoju (1981), forest is a tract of land covered by plant association
predominantly composed of trees and other woody vegetal. They have been direct provider of
shelter and food for people and livestock, water, medicinal plants, building materials and fuel
(UNEP, 2002). Forests also provide habitats for many plant and animal species. On a global
scale, forests are the basis for sustainable and predictable global progress and development
(Robert, 1989; FAO, 2000, 2001).World over, forest is now being increasingly acknowledged for
its importance and its resources in the improvement of human welfare (FAO, 1983). Natural and
man-made forests have economic, social and environmental benefits and they play important
roles in the economic development of any society (Okonkwo, et al, 2002).

According to FAO (1994), Forest industry in developing countries contributes about 2.7% of the
GDP and so is even more economically important to these countries than it is to the
industrialized countries. Hence the increase in demand for forest products, leading to increasing
pressure on available forest resources which eventually results in degeneration, deforestation,
desertification and subsequent general environmental degradation.

2.11 EVALUATION OF FOREST POLICY IN NIGERIA

Forests in Nigeria are recognized as a formable base sustaining the economy of the country and
livelihoods of the rural populace. The forest provides the raw materials for both primary and
secondary industries while generating employment for a sizable number of people. According to
FAO (2003), before independence, the available forest resources could adequately cater for the
country’s requirements, both to meet the export market and local consumption. However, after
independence, there was a pressure on the forest resource to generate income to support the
young economy and meet the needs of the ever-increasing population. It is therefore become
glaring that the available resources could not be taken for granted without conscious programme
interventions.

32
Forestry is administered in the country at three tiers of government, i.e. federal, state and the
local government areas. The primary role of federal department of forestry (FDF) under ministry
of environment is to formulate national forestry policy; play an advisory role to the state forestry
department (SFD) among other important functions. In the views of FAO (2003), SFDs manage
the forest resources at the state level but the roles of local governments differ from northern to
southern part of Nigeria. In the north, they have virtually no responsibility for managing the
forest resources, while the contrary is the case in the south.
Nigeria currently has less than 10% of her total land area under constituted reserve as reported by
Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources (FMANR) 1988. According to FMANR
(1988), the importance of forest resources to the economy of Nigeria is aptly captured in the
1988 forestry policy guideline. Forest was reflected as an important source of re-investible
capital and a source of income. It serves as a foundation for industrialization and enhances the
stability of the rural population.
The forests of Nigeria contribute substantially to the national gross domestic product (GDP) and
sustenance of the livelihood of the people.

Figure 2. Forestry GDP as percentage of total GDP in Nigeria

Source: CBN, 2006.
According to Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) (2006), forestry contributions to Nigeria’s GDP
vary from time to time. From CBN (2006) forest contribution to GDP in the country are 0.92%
in 1981, 0.89% in 1982, 0.97% in 1983, 1.00% in 1984 and 0.91% for 1985. Further observation
of CBN (2006) shows that forestry contributions to GDP of the country were 0.99% in 1986,

33
1.01% in 1987, 0.96% in 1988, 0.68% in 1989 and 0.45% for the year 1990. In-depth analysis of
the forestry contributions to the national GDP indicated that forest contributed 0.67%
respectively from the year 1991 to 1993. But, forest contributions to GDP in the country were
0.69% in 1994 and 1995, 0.66% in 1996, 0.65% in 1997, and 0.64% for both 1998 and 1999.
Critical diagnosis of the forest contributions to GDP of the country further reveled as 0.62% for
2000, 0.60% for 2001, 0.58% for 2002, 0.54% for 2003 and 2004, and 0.53% for both 2005 and
2006. From this analysis of figure 2 above, the contribution to the national GDP by forestry
sector was high in the early 80’s up till 1987. After the year 1987 there was a sharp decline in the
contribution of forest to the national GDP. The decline in the forest contribution to the GDP of
the nation may be attributed to heavy deforestation activities in the country due to poor forestry
management.
The trend of forest management in Nigeria is well documented in literature as reported by
(Umeh, 1992 and Kio et al. 1992). In Nigeria, constituted intervention in forestry development
started in 1887 when the office of woods and forests was created in the colony and protectorate
of Lagos. In the same year, Mamu forest reserve was created to form a buffer between Ibadan
and Ijebu territories.
In 1901, the first forest ordinance came into effect to regulate the sale of timber concessions, to
impose forestry fees and minimum exploitation girths and to mandate concessionaires to plant 20
plant tree seedlings at each stump site. This practice was, however, found ineffective and later
abounded. According to FAO (2003), this experience impacted largely on subsequent forest
management practices adopted in Nigeria and is on record that forestry ordinance of 1916 was
fashioned out of that of Burma. FAO (2003) also reported that at formative stage, due regard was
given to standard forest management practices, thus bestowing a high degree of sanctity on the
forestry sector. Forest reservation was virtually completed in the high forest areas by 1940.
Tropical shelter wood system was introduced but later abandoned while attempt at artificial
regeneration through taungya system started in 1926. The recent times have however, witnessed
an absolute disregard for forest management. Forest reserve is thus not maintained while plans
are either non-existent or abandoned.

34
In the view of FAO (2003) and Egboh (1985), the country has made several attempts at putting
in place programme that would ensure the efficient management of her forest resources. These
include the reservation policy pioneered by the colonial administration in the nineteenth century,
the establishment of industrial plantations from 1978, and land use and vegetation (LUV) survey
between 1975 and 1978. Others include, rural forestry development in Nigeria formulated in
1981, production of perspective plan for the period 1990 to 2005 and formulation of a Nigerian
forest action program (NFAP) in 1997 which was called tropical forests action programme
(TFEAP) before 1992. However, most of these initiatives have had limited impact in turning
around the precarious state of the forest estates.

2.12 FORESTRY POLICY AND INSTITUTIONAL REFORMS IN NIGERIA

According to FAO (2003), the forestry sector in Nigeria did not have a separate policy before the
commencement of the national forestry action programme (NFAP). But it was further reported in
FAO (2003) that what obtained was an encapsulation of the national forest policy (NFP) within
an overall “agricultural policy for Nigeria” which was published in 1988 under the aegis of the
Federal Ministry of Agriculture.
FAO (2003) equally stated that this policy reform packaged in the NFAP has led to the setting up
of two committee i.e. national committee on review of forestry and/wildlife legislation and the
national policy forestry policy review committee. The national committee on review of forestry
and wild life legislation has finalized a bill to be forwarded for consideration by the national
assembly while the second committee has visited Southern African countries and Malaysia to put
in proper perspective their input to the new national forestry policy within the last
administration.

In the views of FAO (2003), the NFAP has succeeded in changing the perception of policy
makers and planers that forestry does not contribute much to the economy of the nation. In
addition, the NFAP has succeeded in reviving the forestry sector and provided individual and
group trainings to both formal and informal forestry. There is also in each state in the country
forest action plan, which serves as guide for their forestry development initiative. Another
remarkable successes recorded was the instutionalization of dialogue between the stakeholders in

35
the forestry sector as a prelude to programme design. And finally to a large extent, the current
thinking in the forestry circle has moved to bottom-top approach programme design.

Notwithstanding the many successes recorded by NFAP, it was reported by Lowe (1994) and
FAO (2003), that full accomplishment of the NFAP objectives has been hampered by political
instability in the country and ineffective political support. Too, the programme suffered an
appreciable set-back resulting from late replacement of requisite personnel and disbursement of
fund. Other limiting factors as stated by Lowe (1994) and FAO (2003) include non-release of
counterpart fund and inability to convene a roundtable conference of partners.

2.13 THEORETICAL FRAME WORK

The theoretical framework of this study is based on dynamic model of deforestation. The model
emphasis irreversibilities and the dynamics of development in empirical approach which is
important for understanding and projecting land use in a developing country like Nigeria.

According to Wiersum (1997) in Chukwuone (2003), forestry is set of activities that are carried
out to maintain forests for the continuing use of their products and services. It is about
management of natural capital and the extraction and provision of goods and services ranging
from market benefits such as timber and non-timber resources as reported by Nzeh and Eboh
(2007), to non market benefits such as watershed protection, carbon storage, and environmental
amenities. These benefits are returns of natural capital of forests. A reduction in natural capital,
due to deforestation or forest fire/bush burning for example, will eventually reduce the benefits
especially economic, while conservation, for example, through reforestation can be interpreted as
an investment in natural capital or even replacement. Maintaining benefits of forests through
conservation requires some cost.
In this concept of dynamic model of deforestation, according to Kerr et al. (2003), which can be
applied to Nigeria situation each hectare of land j, risk neutral by assumption, selects T, the time
when land is cleared, to maximize the expected present discounted value of returns from use of
land hectare j:

36
 ∞
T
∫ s ∫
− rt − rt − rt
This implies: M a x T jt e dt + R jte d t − C Te (1)
0
T

where:

Sjt = expected return to forest uses of the land

Rjt = expected return to non-forest land uses

CT = cost of clearing net of obtainable timber value and including lost value

r = the interest rate

Two conditions are necessary for land clearing to occur at time (T). First, clearing must be
profitable. However, even if so, it may be more profitable to wait and clear t+1, so (2) must hold:

dC T
R jt − S jt − r t C t + > 0 (2)
dt

and if a second-order condition hold’s this necessary condition is also sufficient for clearing.
Consistent with this dynamic of forest deforestation model, it is assume that deforestation has
irreversibilities, since trees take time to grow and incurring the costs development changes
marginal returns to land uses. Therefore, if deforestation is separated from reforestation
transitions and empirically examine only the former (in contrast to the forest-share equations,
common in the literature, that explain how much forest is present at a point in time without
regard for extent of previous deforestation). In the model, deforestation transitions for parcels of
land occur when condition (2) is satisfied but was not previously. When this event occurs differs
across space, due to difference in returns arising from variation in exogenous land quality and
access to markets and from exogenous and endogenous temporal shifts. These individual or
institution decisions determine the aggregate patterns of deforestation over time. However, one
observes not a discrete clearing of individual parcels of land but continuous rate of loss in larger
areas. Aggregating the model’s predictions for these areas yield our empirical approach.
For such aggregated data, it is clear that it does not perfectly observe the variable in (2) because
data on forest and explanatory variable are measured for larger areas, i.e. the districts, so that Xit
(i = district, t = time) yields a single estimated net benefit from clearing for an entire district
37
while actual returns and changes in costs in fact vary across parcels of land in that district. Thus
Xit imperfectly measure land parcels’ net benefits from clearing as given by the variables in (2).
Meanwhile, it is explicitly acknowledging that one do not measure returns perfectly, such that
clearing occurs if:

dCT
Rijt − sijt − rtCt + = Xit β − ξ ijt > 0 (3)
dt

where again i refers to an area, j to a specific land parcel, ij to a specific parcel j known to be in I,
and ξ ijt is a parcel-year-specific term for the unobserved relative returns to forested land uses,
so:
Probability (satisfying (3) so that cleared if currently in forest) = Prob ( ξ ijt <Xitß) (4)
Since Xit are the same for each parcel in a district, the model’s predictions are effectively
predictions of districts’ rates of deforestation during any given observed time interval. The
predicted clearing rates depend upon the Xit as well as on the assumed distribution of the ξ ijt.
If the cumulative distribution of ξ ijt is logistic, then it implies a logit model for each parcel:

1
F ( X it β ) = (5)
1 + e x p ( X it β )

But for group data it estimates this model using the minimum logit chi-square method also
^
known as “group logit”. If h it is an area’s measured rate of forest loss, then one can estimate:

lo g h i t
X β + µ
^
it i t (6)
1 − h i t

The variance of the µ it can be estimated by

1
^ ^
, where I it represents the number of
I i t h i t (1 − h i t )

forested parcels of land within area i at beginning of interval t, and then estimator is consistent
and asymptotically.

38
2.14 ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK
There are a number of approaches that can be used to analyze data. The first set of common,
simple but important analytical tools used in data analysis is the descriptive statistical tool
McNally and Othman, (2002). These include tables, graphs, charts, frequency distributions,
percentages, mean and standard deviation among others. On the other hand, some specific
objectives and some quantitative data require in-depth analysis and may need more complex
analytical tools than the simple descriptive statistical tool for better understanding. However, the
choice of analytical techniques which was used in this study depends on a host of factors which
among others include the objectives of the study, availability of data, among other reasons. In
this study, in addition to the descriptive statistical tools, both total economic valuation
techniques, logit models and multiple regression of analysis were employed.

2.14.1 CONCEPT OF TOTAL ECONOMIC VALUATION (TEV) MODEL

Value is the worth of a product or service to individual or a like-minded group in a given
context, often involving a complex of relationship according to Brown, (1984). In the views of
Adepoju and Salau, (2007) values are of concern not just in the field of economies but also for
other fields of profession. Therefore, economic values are human oriented and human assigned.
Values are specific to given context and situation.
Forest valuation should therefore, always be situation specific and result should be attributed
back only to group studied and to the actual context and situation studied as reported by Adepoju
and Salau (2007); FAO, (1995). Meanwhile, economic value associated with forest can be
classified into four categories. They are: direct-use values (including consumptive and non-
consumptive values); indirect-use values; option values and finally existence/bequest values.
Summation of all these value is the total economic value (TEV).
In the views of Bann (1997), the concept of TEV model is used to assess the total economic
contribution, or benefit, of particular forest land use. This total valuation is most appropriate
where a full account of the economic contribution associated with a particular forest land use
option is required (e.g., as part of a natural resource accounting exercise). The aim of a total
valuation is to value as many, of the net production and environmental benefits associated with
the forest land use option. As with all valuation, a problem is that the net production benefits of

39
certain land use options, such as timber operations, land clearing for agriculture, mining, will be
much more visible than the net environmental impacts of these land uses. Due to this, extra
efforts were employed in order to estimate the non-marketed values of the forest. Therefore for
the non-market values of the forest inputted current market values of the forest were used.
Meanwhile, extent of many land use options involve the eventual depletion of the productive
capacity of the resources (e.g., timber, wildlife habitat, soil fertility), there is also a user cost
element (i.e. user cost (of capital) is defined as the implicit rental value of capital services, or the
price a firm/someone should pay itself for the use of the capital stock it owns or is considering
acquiring. It may also be considered as the price the firm/someone would pay if it rented capital
goods to obtain capital services, just as in the case of labour) which must be accounted for. That
is, the forest resource can be viewed as a form of natural capital, and any degradation, deforested
and depletion of that resource due to current activities means that future income opportunities are
foregone.
Thus, a full accounting of the total economic value (TEV) of any single forest land use option
involves the valuation of net production or direct benefits, NBd, plus (or minus) any external
environmental impacts, NBi, less any user costs, Cu, resulting from deforestation associated with
that option.
TEV = NBd + NBi - Cu … … … … … … … … (1)
Total valuation is clearly data and research intensive and has rarely been attempted for tropical
forests as reported by Bann (1997). This is largely due to the difficulty of obtaining reasonable
monetary estimates of non-marketed benefits and external environmental impacts.
Since most attempts at a total valuation of tropical forest have difficulty in obtaining realistic
estimates of net external environmental impacts, they tend to concentrate instead on deducting a
measure of user cost from the direct production or income benefits earned.
Studies in Indonesia and Costa Rica have employed a depreciation accounting approach to
measuring user costs for agricultural conversion and unsustainable timber harvesting (Repetto et
al 1989). In these studies, net forest depreciation is assumed equivalent to the entire net receipts
(in terms of stumpage value) that could be derived annually from the marketing of wood
removed through deforestation and unsustainable timber extraction. The full potential rent
foregone is then multiplied by the net changes in the forest stock to derive the user cost of

40
deforestation and forest degradation. But, for the approach and analytical model for valuing
deforestation in Enugu State this study adopted the model used by Adepoju and Salau (2007)
whose mathematical concepts are presented in the next chapter.
2.14.2 LOGIT REGRESSION MODEL

This model can handle explanatory variables that are not continuous or take different values for
different categories of responses. Generalized logit models like ordinary regression model, can
contain continuous or discrete explanatory variable. Let π j ( Xj ) denote the probability of response
j, j=1…j, at the ith setting of values of k explanatory variables xi = (l,xil...xik). In terms of
response probabilities, the generalized logit model is:
exp( β ' jxi )
π j ( xj ) = j

∑ exp( β ' hxi)

h =1
… … … … … … … (1)
log π j ( xi ) / π j ( xi )  = β ' jxi, j = 1 − 1

for identifiability, I take βj = 0, in which case log π j ( xi ) / π j ( xi )  = β ' jxi, j = 1 − 1 … (2)

An important application of the logit models is in the determination of effects of explanatory

variable on a subject’s choice of a discrete set of options-for instance, the choice of
transportation system to work (drive, bus, subway, bicycle), housing (buy house, buy
condominium, rent), primary shopping location (downtown, mall A, mall B, other), brand of
toothpaste, political party preference or occupation. Models for response variable consisting of a
discrete set of choices are called discrete-choice models.
In many discrete-choice applications, for a given subject, an explanatory variable takes different
values for different response choices. As predictors of choice of transportation system, “cost”
and “transit time to reach destination” take different values for each choice. As predictors of
choice of product, “price” and amount spent on advertising take different values for each choice.
Explanatory variable of this type are “characteristics of the choices”, include income, education,
and other demographic characteristics. They differ from usual explanatory variables, for which
values remain constant across the choice set such variables, “characteristics of the chooser”,
include income, education and other demographic characteristics. According to McFadden
(1974), such application of the model should be limited to situations where the alternatives can
plausibly be assumed to be distinct and weighed independently in the eyes of each decision-

41
maker”. The multinomial logit model has been used by Theil (1969) to study chains of transport
modes, but according to Crags and Uhler (1970) it is used to study the number of automobiles
demanded, and to study structure of asset portfolios of households, and by Schmidt and Strauss
(1975b) to study the determinants of occupational choice.
Furthermore, Schmidt and Strauss (1975b) considered the multinomial model with individual
characteristics which include education, experience, race and sex. After estimating the
parameters, one can predict the probability that an individual with a specified set of
characteristics will choose any particular occupation. They concluded, on the basis of these
results, that there is strong evidence in favor of race and sex discrimination.

2.14.3 Multiple regression analysis

Multiple regression analysis is an econometric tool used to estimate variables (Koutsoyiannis,
1977). It is used to determine how changes in a given variable (independent variable) affect other
variables (dependent variables). The independent variables are used to induce change or explain
the behaviour of dependent variable. The multiple regression model can be expressed implicitly
or explicitly. Mathematically, the implicit form is expressed as:
Y = f(x1, x2, x3. x4 …xn) + µ … … … … … … … … (1)
Where:
Y = Dependent variable
x1…xn = Independent variables
f = functional relationship which is how Xs are transformed to Y
µ = Error term, which accounts for the influence of various errors
While the explicit form is expressed as:
Y = b0 + b1x1 + b2x2 + b3x3 … bnxn + µ … … … … … … … (2)
Where;
Y = Dependent variable
b0 = Constant error term
b1, b2, b3 … bn = Parameter estimates (coefficients) i.e. the basic descriptive measures of
population or the expected value.
µ = Error term

42
2.15 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY

Deforestation

Sources of
Agents of deforestation: deforestation
Choice variable

Decision parameters and Local level causes of

agents characteristics deforestation

Institutions Infrastructure Markets Technology

Macro-level causes of
Policy variables and trend/structural factors deforestation

Figure 3: A framework of different types of variables affecting deforestation

Source: Sunderlin and Resosudarmo, (1996).
Figure 3 above illustrates the relationships between the main types of variables, and provides a
simple logical approach to analyzing deforestation. The starting point of that approach is to
identify the agents of deforestation (farmers, ranchers, plantations, loggers, etc) and their relative
importance in forest clearing. These agents’ actions are the direct sources of deforestation.
Theoretically, at least, the magnitude of their effects can be directly measured-although it may be
difficult to do so as reported by Sunderlin and Resosudarmo, (1996). The combination of
variables at the second and third level illustrates the agents’ decision problem. Agents make
decisions about choice variables based on their own characteristics and exogenous decision
parameters. Together these determine the set of permissible choices and constitute the immediate
causes of deforestation. Meanwhile, broader economic, political, cultural, demographic, and
technological forces determine the agents’ characteristics and decision parameters. These factors
43
can be thought of as the underlying causes of deforestation. In other words, this study
distinguishes between explanations of deforestation at three different levels: sources, immediate
causes and underlying causes. In contrast, most existing literature-when it makes any distinction
at all-normally only distinguishes between two levels. Typically, it refers to ‘sources’ of
deforestation as first-level, direct or proximate causes, and merges the ‘immediate’ and
‘underlying’ causes, labeling them second-level, indirect, ultimate or underlying causes or
deriving forces of deforestation.
This study considers a distinction between immediate and underlying causes useful and
necessary for several reasons. First, it helps to single out the parameters that are directly relevant
to decision-makers. Secondly, methodologically, micro-level models handle the immediate cause
better, whereas macro-level models focus on underlying causes. Thirdly, since the underlying
causes determine the decision parameters, mixing these two levels flaws the cause-effect
relationship, and creates serious problems in regression models. Furthermore, one obtains much
more conclusive results for the immediate causes than the underlying causes.

2.4.15.1 Working definition of forest

For the purpose of this study, a forest is defined as a land area of more than 0.5hectares, with a
tree canopy cover of more than 10%, which is not primarily under agricultural or other specific
non-forest land-use as reported by (FAO, 1981).

2.4.15.2 Working definition of deforestation

For the purpose of this study, deforestation is defined as removal of forest vegetation, like trees,
shrubs and other non-wood forest products without intention of replacement according to FAO
2005.

44
 CHAPTER THREE

3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 THE STUDY AREA

The study area is Enugu State of Nigeria which was created out of the former Anambra State in
1991. According to Ukwu et al. (1998), Enugu State is located in the south-eastern region of
Nigeria, an irregular trapezoid territory between Latitudes 50551 and 70101 North and Longitudes
60501 and 70551 East. It is bounded in the north by Kogi and Benue States, in the east by Ebonyi
and Abia States, in the south by Ebonyi, Abia and Anambra, and in the west by Anambra State.
In the views of Ukwu et al. (1998), the present Enugu State is a lineal descendant of the Eastern
Region, one of the three original regions which since Independence has been progressively split
into nine states, and this state’s include; Abia, Akwa-ibom, Anambra, Bayelsa, Cross River,
Ebonyi, Enugu, Imo and Rivers States. Administratively the state has its Headquarters at Enugu.

Ecologically, Enugu State lies mostly in the forest-savanna mosaic of the drier northern reaches
of the humid tropical zone of Southern Nigeria, with mean annual rainfall decreasing from about
200 cm at its southern extremities to about 150 cm in the north (Ukwu et al. 1998). The soils
vary locally but may be grouped into three main types: the red clayey ferralitic soils of the cross
River Basin, the red-yellow ferralitic soils of the plateau and the sandy flood-plains of the
Anambra Basin at the western limits. The escarpment zone is a zone of great variety and inter-
digitation of soil types, as reported by Ukwu et al. (1998).
The State occupies an area of about 8,022.95km2 (Ezike, 1998) and has a population of
3,257,298 and with average annual growth rate of 3.0% according to (NPC, 2006).

In Nigeria and Enugu State in particular, the natural vegetation falls into two main divisions,
namely, forests (mangrove swamp forest, fresh-water swamp forest and rain forest) and tropical
grasslands or savanna (guinea, Sudan and Sahel) according to Iloeje, 1981. Perkins and
Stembridge (1959) reported that the forest region of southern Nigeria is divided into mangrove
swamp forest, fresh water swamp forest and rain forest. But, Enugu State is characterized by
mixture of savanna and rain forest area. The vegetation of Enugu State as reported by (Iloeje
45
1981) is a by-product of centuries of tree devastation by man and fire, and a continuous attempt
by the plants to adapt. These made the trees grow long taproots and develop thick barks which
enable it to survive the long dry season and resist bush fires. Most of the trees have umbrella-
shaped canopies which not only shade the ground but limit loss of soil moisture. Example of
trees found here are the locust bean trees, sheabutter tree, oil bean tree, isoberlina tree among
others and the trees grow in clusters, generally not more than 6 metres high, and are interspaced
with elephant grass growing to a height of 3 to 3.6 metres (Iloeje 1981).

Enugu State with seventeen local government areas is divided into three agricultural zones which
include: Awgu zone, as Awgu, Aninri, Enugu South, Nkanu East, Nkanu West and Oji-River;
Enugu zone, which are made up of Enugu East, Enugu North, Ezeagu, Igboetiti and Udi; but
Nsukka zone are Igboeze North, Igboeze South, Isiuzo, Nsukka, Udenu and Uzo-Uwani.

In Enugu State, farming is predominately people’s occupation and this is done in a small-scale.
Prevalent crops are cassava, yam, maize, rice, melon, groundnut, pepper and economic trees like
oil palm, cashew, cocoa, oranges, kola nuts, and pears among other trees found in the state.
There are forests of different density in Enugu State as reported by Nzeh (2004). In Enugu State,
crop farms by famers are usually in small holding of about 1 to 3 hectares, but poultry farming
are also carried out in some parts of the state but strictly on subsistence level, together with goat
and sheep production (Orebiyi and Nzeh, 2002).

These small scale farmers practice, land rotation and mixed cropping on scattered farmland
procured mainly through inheritance land tenure arrangement and more recently on hired basis.
Family labour plays very important role in labour employed. Exchange of labour occasionally is
carried out in small areas and hired commercial labour constitutes another source of labour in
this area.

3.2 SAMPLING PROCEDURE

In the sampling procedure, both purposive and random sampling techniques were employed to
ensure a good spread of respondents for the study.

In the first stage of the sampling procedure, within the three agricultural zones – Awgu, Enugu
and Nsukka as earlier mentioned two (2) local government areas were purposively selected from

46
each of the zones. This was done so that only local government areas where forests exist will be
covered. This gave a total of six (6) local government areas for the study. The selected local
government areas include – Awgu, Oji-River, Enugu-East, Udi, Igboetiti and Uzo-uwani.

The second stage involves selection of communities. Two (2) rural communities where forests
exist were selected purposively from each of the selected six (6) local government areas. This
gave a total of twelve (12) communities. The selected communities include – Mmaku, Obeagu,
Umuagu, Akpugo-eze, Amaorji Nike, Emene, Ngwo-uno, Nsude, Ukehe, Aku, Adani and Nkpologu.

Third stage was the selection of respondents (i.e. household heads). Twenty (20) household
heads were randomly selected to avoid bias from each of the twelve (12) rural communities,
making a total number of two hundred and forty (240) household-heads.

3.3 DATA COLLECTION

Data for this study were collected from both primary and secondary sources. The primary data
were obtained by the use of structured questionnaire. Information sought include, among others,
age of household heads, occupation of household heads, cash income from selected forest
products (e.g. timber, fuel wood, fruits, bamboo etc), information on consumption of forest
output, expenditure on forest outputs, employment from forest production, causes of
deforestation, financial and economic losses of deforestation, changing strategies of resource
management in forest as applied by the households and even other constraints associated with
deforestation activities. Furthermore, personal contacts, oral interviews and observations were
used during visitation; this aided the primary data collection techniques.
Secondary data were sourced from relevant publications which include: text-books, bulletins,
periodicals, journals, annual reports, seminar papers, unpublished materials of relevance to the
study, report documents from different ministries and even internet search to obtain the most
recent information on the subject matter.

3.4 ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES

Data collected during the study were analyzed using relevant econometric and other statistical
tools in other to achieve specific objectives.

47
Objectives i, iii and v were also realized by using descriptive statistics, such as frequency tables,
percentages, graphs, charts and so on.
Objective iv was analyzed by the use of total economic valuation (TEV) model of valuing
deforestation.
But objective ii was analyzed by employing logit model and multiple regression analysis.

3.4a SPECIFICATION OF TEV MODEL

For the purpose of this research, total economic valuation (TEV) model for realizing objective iv
is represented as follows:

TEV = [∑ DV + ∑ IDV + ∑ EV + ∑ BV ] …………………………………………………………………………...1

TEV = [∑ ADN + ∑ ADNN ] ...…………………………………………………………...2

ADN = {∑ DV + ∑ IDV } ……………………………………………………………………………………………………3

ADNN = (∑ EV + ∑ BV ) ………………………………………………………………………………………………....4

DV = (∑ CUV + ∑ NCUV ) ……………………………………………………………....5

CUV = [∑ (CMG + IMG + TM + FR + AN )] …………………………………………….….6

NCUV = ∑ ( SV ) ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….7

IDV = ∑ ( EPV + CV + Spv) ……..........................................................................................8

{
TEV=  ∑ (CMG + IMG + TM + FR + AN )  +  ∑ ( SV + EV )  +  ∑ ( EPV + CV + Spv )  +  ∑ ( r )  }
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….9

Where:

TEV = Total Economic values of deforestation (annual in Naira).

DV = Monetary value of the forfeited benefits due to direct loss of use of forest

IDV = Monetary value of the forfeited benefits due to indirect loss of use of forest.

48
EV = Monetary value of the forfeited benefits due to loss of existence use of forest

BV = Monetary value of the forfeited benefits due to loss of bequest use of forest

CUV = Monetary value of the forfeited benefits due to loss of consumptive use of forest

NCUV = Monetary value of the forfeited benefits due to loss of non-consumptive use of forest

CMG = Monetary value of the forfeited benefits due to loss of commercial marketable use of
forest

IMG = Monetary value of the forfeited benefits due to loss of industrial marketable use of forest

TM = Monetary value of the forfeited benefits due to loss of timber harvesting

ADN = Monetary value of the forfeited benefits due to loss of annual wood use of forest

ADNN = Monetary value of the forfeited benefits due to loss of annual non-wood use of forest

FR = Monetary value of the forfeited benefits due to loss of fruits gathering use of forest

AN = Monetary value of the forfeited benefits due to loss of animals harvest use of forest

SV = Monetary value of the forfeited benefits due to loss scientific use of forest

EPV = Monetary value of the forfeited benefits due to loss of environmental protection use of
forest

CV = Monetary value of the forfeited benefits due to loss of cultural use of forest

Spv = Monetary value of the forfeited benefits due to loss of herbal use of forest

r = any other values not associated with the above values.

3. 4b SPECIFICATION OF LOGIT MODELS:

Logit models and multiple regression analysis were used to achieve objective ii.

49
3.4. b1 Logit model
This model was used to address objective ii which is to identify and analyze the factors that
influence the decision to deforest in the study area.
In the multinomial logit model, according to Enete (2003), a set of coefficients β(1),β(2), β(3), were
estimated as:

e x β (1 )
P r( Z = 1) = … … … … … … (1).
e x β (1 ) + e xβ (2 ) + e xβ (3)

e xβ (2)
P r( Z = 2 ) = x β (1 )
… … … … … … (2).
e + e xβ (2) + e xβ (3)

e x β ( 3)
Pr( Z = 3) = … … … … … … (3).
e x β (1) + e xβ ( 2 ) + e xβ (3)

The model however is unidentified in the sense that there is more than one solution to β(1),β(2),
β(3), that leads to the same probabilities for Z=1, Z=2 and Z=3. To identify the model, one of
β(1),β(2), β(3), is arbitrarily set to 0. That is, if we arbitrarily set β(3)=0 the remaining coefficients
β(1),β(2), would measure the change relative to the Z=3 group. This simply means that we will be
comparing households that have access to more than 60% of landholdings forest to those that did
not have such access (1 and 2). Then setting β(3)=0, the above equations (1) to (3) become:

e x β (1)
Pr( Z = 1) = … … … … … … … (4).
e x β (1) + e x β ( 2 ) + 1

e xβ (2)
Pr( Z = 2) = …… … … … … … (5).
e x β (1) + e x β ( 2 ) + 1

e x β ( 3)
Pr( Z = 3) = … … … … … … … (6).
e x β (1) + e x β ( 2 ) + 1

The relative probability of Z =1 to the base category is given as:

P r( Z = 1) x β (1 )
= e … … … … … … … (7).
P r( Z = 3)

50
If we call this the relative likelihood and assume that X and β(1)k are vectors equal to (X1, X2, X3,
... Xk. and β(1)1, β(1)2,…,β(1)k) respectively. The ratio of relative likelihood for one unit change in X1
relative to the base category is then:

β 1(1 )
β β x
(1) (1 )
e X 1
+ ... + ( x 1 + 1) + ... + k β 1(1 )
1 k
= e … … … … (8).
β 1( 1 )
β x β x
(1 ) (1)
e X 1
+ ... + 1
+ ... + k
1 k

Therefore, the exponential value of a coefficient is the relative likelihood ratio for one unit
change in the corresponding variable as reported by Enete (2003).

3.4. b2 Definition of Variables.

From the discussion so far, the dependent variable is defined to have two possible values: 1 if the
household cleared forest for agricultural and any other activities in the last six (6) years; 0 if the
household has not cleared forest for any activity in the last six (6) years.

Therefore, deforestation in the study area may be related to the following farmer specific model:

Pr = f (Fx, Gd, Ae, Ed, Dx Hs, Lc, Ta, Cr) +µ

Where:

Pr = Clearance of forest for agricultural/other activities within the past six (6) years (ha).

Fx = Assistance from forest extension agents (1 for assistance, 0 other wise)

Gd = Gender of respondent (1 for male, 0 for female)

Ae = Age of household heads (years)

Ed = Educational attainment of household heads (years of formal schooling)

Dx = Deforestation experience (Number of years in deforestation operation)

Hs = Household size (number)

Lc = Location of land [i.e. distance from home (Km)]

Ta = Total land holding (ha)

51
Cr = Credit access (amount of farm credit obtained last year in Naira)

µ = error term

3.4. b3 Multiple linear model of farm level

But, for the farm specific model of deforestation in the study area using multiple regression
analysis, it is represented as:

Y = f (Dt, Sx, Tk, La, Te, Or, Az,) +µ.

Where:

Y= Number of years since the farmland was first cleared for cropping

Dt = Distance from home of respondents (Km)

Sx= Size of land own by respondent (ha)

Tk = Topography of land own by respondent (1, for flat land, 0, otherwise)

La = Land tenure system use by respondent (1, if inheritance; 0, if otherwise)

Te = Types of cropping for the past three (3) years (1, if sole cropping, 0 if otherwise)

Or = Output of land per year for the past three (3) years (Percentage of annual farm output)

Az = Amount of fertilizer for the past three (3) years (kg)

µ= Error term

It is important to state here that the above model seeks to ascertain how forestland cleared in
different time period is related to current patterns of management and use. This will provide
some insights into the dynamics of forestland clearance and give indications as to the incentives
and stimuli for deforestation and changing land use patterns.

52
 CHAPTER 4

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 Nature and extent of deforestation

4.1.1 Clearing of forest for agricultural activities

Figure 4.1 shows that 93% of the respondents reported that they cleared forest for agricultural
activities within the past six (6) years. Furthermore, from the same figure 4.1, only 7% of the
respondents agreed that they did not clear forest for any agricultural activities within the last
six(6) years.
The implication of the above high percentage of the respondents being involved in clearing
forests for agricultural activities within the last six (6) years indicated that there is constant
deforestation occuring in the study area. This equally implies that there will be higher rate of
climate change in Enugu State since deforestation, as reported by Adesina and Adejuwom
(1994), is one of the major causes of climate change.

Figure 4.1: Distribution of respondents according to clearing of forest for agricultural

activities within the past six (6) years
Source: Field survey, 2009

4.1.2 Use patterns of deforested land

Figure 4.2 below indicated that there are different historical dynamics of deforested land in
Enugu State in which different crops are grown in different year period. From the figure below,

53
higher percentage of the respondents 36% reported that in the first 5years or less of their
deforestation of land; they grew mixed crops of yam/cassava/maize/okro. From the same figure,
23% of the respondents reported that in the first 5years or less of their deforestation of land they
crop yam/cassava/melon; whereas 18% of the respondents said that they grew combined crops of
yam/cocoyam/cassava/maize. The figure below also shows that 9% each of the respondents
reported that they grew combined arable crops of cassava/groundnut/okro and other crops like
soybean respectively at their first 5years or less of deforestation of land. Finally, as 9% of the
respondents reported that in the first 5years or less of their deforestation of land they grew other
crops like soybean among others, only 5% of the respondents agreed that they grew combined
tree crops like oil palm/cashew/cocoa/oranges in the first 5years or less of deforestation of land
in their community.

From the analysis above, one can see the switch in resource allocation preference of the farming
households in Enugu State in which much of the arable crops and few of the tree crops are used
to replace the forest. The lower percentage of respondents that reported that they grew tree crops
as listed above to replace forest is expected because these farmers engage in farming activities to
make quick returns to their capital investment and it takes higher years for tree crops to mature
and yield revenues to these rural farmers. Due to this reasons, these farmers engage in growing
mainly arable crops in any deforested land of the state; be it at the earlier years of deforestation
or later years.

Figure 4.2: Distribution of respondents according to types of crops grown in different years
Source: Field survey, 2009
54
4.1.3 Number of hectare(s) of land cleared for agricultural activities

From figure 4.3 below, 50% of the respondents in the study area agreed that they cleared ≤3
hectare(s) of land for agricultural activities within the past six (6) years. Also the same figure 4.3
indicated that 42% of the respondents stated that they cleared between 4 and 6 hectares of land
for agricultural activities. Finally, only 8% of respondents cleared ≥ 7 hectares of land for the
same purposes within the past six (6) years as seen in figure 4.3.

Figure 4.3: Distribution of respondents according to hectares of land cleared for

agricultural activities
Source: Field survey, 2009

4.1.4 Nature of deforestation

Figure 4.4 shows that 62% of the respondents agreed that the degree of deforestation in the
study area is moderate. Futhermore, 28% of the repondents stated that the degree of deforestation
in Enugu State is high but only 10% of the respondents reported that the degree of deforestation
in the study area is very high. The implication of both high and very high nature of deforestation
in the study area is that the economy from forestry resources will be further depleted thereby
creating a reduced income and employment for rural households who dependent in forestry
earning for their livelihood.

55
Figure 4.4: Distribution of respondents according to nature of deforestation.
Source: Field survey, 2009

4.2 Factors that influence decision to deforest

4.2.1 Determinants of rural household heads farmland clearing for cropping activities
To ascertain the determinants of farmland clearing for cropping activities, a multiple regression
analysis was carried out. The four functional forms – linear, double-log, semi-log and
exponential were used. The linear functional forms was chosen since it provided higher number
of variables with significant levels and also based on its records of having best R2, F-ratios and
also the best coefficients when signs and significant are considered.

The F-test was statistically significant at 5% level, suggesting a relationship between the
characteristics of farmland clearance for cropping activities and the independent variables.

Table 4.1: Linear regression results of the determinants of the forest clearing for cropping
activities.
S/N Explanatory Variables Coefficients t-ratios
1. Distance from home(Dt) -1.218884 -0.65
2. Size of land (Sx) 3.821211 (1.72)**
3. Topography of land (Tk) -1.42735 -0.27
4. Land tenure system (La) 0.509881 (2.03)**
5. Types of cropping (Te) 17.61003 (3.19)**
6. Output of land per year (Or) 0.0040607 0.04

56
7. Amount of fertilizer (Az) 0.0013264 0.02
8. Constant term 4.58664
2
9. R (0.4726)
10. F-Value (12.21)**
11. N 216
** Significant at 5%
Source: Computer Analysis of the field survey Data, (2009).
4.2.2 Analysis of Regression Results
From the results in the table 4.1, based on the linear functional form model, the R2 value of the
model is 0.4726 implying that the independent variables in the model explained only about 47%
of the variability in farmland clearance effect. This means that outside the tested variables, some
variables which may be relevant in the regression model were omitted. Such variables may
include farming experience, leadership status of households, economic orientation of household
heads (i.e. percentage of total household output from farming clearance activities that is
marketed), technology use for the clearance of the farming activities, off-farm employment,
educational levels of respondents, etc. Outside the above factors, the remaining variables are
those assumed to have no significant effect on the level of R2 and can be justified by the nature
of the study. Specific deductions were made using the T-ratios.
The coefficients of both size of land (Sx), land tenure system (La), and types of cropping (Te)
were both positively signed and significant at 5% in conformity with the apriori expectations.
This implies that both variables are significantly related to the level of farm land clearance (i.e.
are major determinants of farmland clearance for cropping activities in the study area).
Coefficients of distance from home (Dt), topography of land (Tk), output of land per year (Or),
and amount of fertilizer used (Az) are insignificant at 5%. They were therefore ignored.

Since the variables were not significant at 5% level when their coefficients were compared, it
implies that no significant relationship exists between them and level the of farm land clearance
(i.e. they are minor or no determinants to farmland clearance for cropping activities in the study
area) when considered separately but the F-test confirms that in combination these factors affect
level of farmland clearance by rural households significantly.

57
4.2.3 Plot-level analysis of factors influencing the decision to clear forest for
agricultural/other activities.
A set of socioeconomic characteristics of forest clearance to determine the decision of the
farmers as regards whether to clear or not clear plots of land for agricultural/other activities was
analyzed. These are: information from change agents, years of experience acquired in
deforestation, educational attainment of households, credit acquisition, size of household,
proximity of land location, land holding, age of household and gender of respondents. The study
applied logit model to determine the effect of forest clearance by agricultural/other activities in
the past six (6) years. The essence was to determine the key socioeconomic characteristics of
deforestation that influences their conversion to agricultural and other uses. The result of the
analysis is presented in table 4.2
Table 4.2: Model estimates of socioeconomic factors influencing the decision to clear forest
for agricultural/other activities
S/N Variables Coefficients Z

1. Assistance from forest extension agents (Fx) -0.0056531 -0.01

2. Gender of respondent (Gd) -3.159365 -(2.33)**
3. Age of household heads (Ae) 0.0024837 0.08
4. Educational attainment (Ed) -0.55427 -(4.77)**
5. Deforestation experience (Dx) 1.247557 (3.43)**
6. Household size (Hs) 0.2491188 (2.19)**
7. Location of land (Lc) 0.0460843 0.21
8. Total land holding (Ta) 0.54655 (2.87)**
9. Credit access (Cr) 0.0003239 1.63
10. Constant term -4.56821 -1.51
11. N 216
y = Pr (pr) (predict)
= .94678812
** Significant at 10%
Source: Computer Analysis of the field survey Data, (2009).
As shown in the table 4.2 above, part of objective ii was realized using logit model to determine
the effect of socioeconomic factors on deforestation. From the result above, the overall goodness
58
of fit as reflected by Pro>Chi2 value was good (0.946). In terms of consistency with apriori
expectations on the relationship between the dependent variable and the explanatory variables,
the model appears to have performed well.

The analysis of result shown in table 4.2, indicates that deforestation experience (Dx), household
size (Hs) and total land holding (Ta) were positive and significant at 10%. This is consistent with
the apriori expectation. This shows that households with deforestation experience, larger
household size and even greater total land holding were likely to be involved in more clearance
of the forest for agricultural and other activities for the past six (6) years. Also the same table 4.2
shows that gender of respondent (Gd) and educational attainment (Ed) of the respondents were
significant at 10% and negatively signed. The implication of the above analysis is that those
households in the study area with better educational background and where the gender of the
household heads are female are most likely not to be involved in much clearance of forest for
agricultural/other activities for the last six (6) years. Thus, this leads to decrease in the clearance
of forest for agricultural/other activities in the past six (6) years. This agrees with the reports of
(Godoy, et al, 2006; Moran, 1989; Moran, 1989a and Tongpan, 2000) which confirms that
formal education lowers pressure on the forest because it should ease out-migration and the
adoption of modern farm technologies that raise the productivity of land and of labor.
Furthermore, this agrees with the findings of Phillips (1994) that research in Asia shows that
farmers with more than four years of education found it easier to adopt new farm technologies
thereby create less negative impact in deforestation of the environment for agricultural/other
activities.

Meanwhile, from the table 4.2 above, coefficient of assistance from forest extension agents (Fx),
age of household heads (Ae), location of land (Lc) and credit access (Cr) are insignificant at 10%
and therefore were ignored. Since the variables were not significant at 10% level when their
coefficients were compared, it implies that no significant relationship exists between them and
level of clearance of forest for agricultural/other activities for the past six (6) years in the study
area. This means that they are minor or no determinant to the level of clearance of forest for
agricultural/other activities in the study area when considered separately but the Z-test confirms

59
that in combination these factors affect level of clearance of forest for agricultural/other activities
significantly in the past six (6).

4.3 Activities and processes associated with deforestation

Farmers’ behavior and practices regarding forest conversion to other land uses is by this research
referred to as the various options and alternative uses of forestland including all the actions
involved in such uses. This study identified many activities and processes involved in this act
resulting to numerous deforestation occasioned in Enugu State. This is in line with the finding of
Adger (1993), which stated that most of the competition for space between human and other
species is demonstrated by the conversion of land (including forestry areas) to agriculture,
infrastructure, urban development, surface mining, fuel wood collection, industry and
unsustainable forest use.

4.3.1 Conducts that cause deforestation

According to figure 4.5 below several factors are attributable to deforestation in the study area.
From the figure 4.5, one can see that respondents in the sampled size that agreed that bush fire is
the highest cause of deforestation recorded 22%. Also the same figure 4.5 shows that 19% of the
respondents stated that fuel wood harvesters are the second highest cause of deforestation.

Critical analysis of the figure 4.5 indicated that 15% of the respondents reported that timber
haversters were among the first third major causes of deforestation in the study area. Further
more, both agricultural expansion and population growth recorded 13% respectively as the major
causes of deforestation as can be seen in figure 4.5 below. Finally, from figure 4.5 it can be seen
that the least of the causes of deforestation in Enugu State are miners and pest which accounted
for 1% and 2% respectively.

The higher percenatge of the respondents that reported that fuel wood harvesters are second to
the major causes of deforestation agreed with Odoemena (2006) which reported that fuel wood is
a traditional source of energy for domestic use in Enugu State, and that because of the lean
financial resources of the poor rural households in the state, they usually find it economically

60
difficult to resort to other sources of energy for domestic activities (cooking and pressing
clothes) except fuelwood thereby resulting to forest exploitation called deforestation.

Figure 4.5: Distribution of respondents according to causes of deforestation

Source: Field survey, 2009
4.3.2 Perception of deforestation
The table 4.3 below shows the distribution of respondents according to their perception of
deforestation in the study area. According to table 4.3, timber harvesters (98), agricultural
expansion (97), fuel wood harvesters (85), bush fire (81), and population growth (75), are in the
major categories of the high causes of deforestation as perceived by the respondents.
Furthermore, from the same table 4.3 below, causes of deforestation perceived by the
respondents in the study area as moderate include among others animal husbandry (91),
population growth (86), and timber harvesters (71), government activities (69), agricultural
expansion, (62) and bush fire (57). Finally, the low perception of causes of deforestation as
shown by the respondents in the study area are; pest (117), miners (113), flood (105), animal
husbandry (85) and government activities (72). From the analysis below, one can see that major
causes of deforestation as perceived by the respondents in the study area agreed with what Nzeh
and Eboh (2009) reported that both flooding, erosion, agricultural expansion and timber
harvesting are among the peculiar climate change risks especially in the Southeast of the country.

61
Table 4.3: Distribution of respondents according to their perception of deforestation
Perception of deforestation

Activities High Moderate Low

Timber harvesters 98 71 28

Agricultural Expansion 97 62 24

Fuel wood harvesters 85 72 32

Bush Fire 81 57 58

Population growth 75 86 27

Government activities 23 69 72

Pest 18 24 117

Flood 17 37 105

Animal husbandry 16 91 85

Miners 10 24 113

Source: Field survey, 2009

4.3.3 Number of years engaged in deforestation

Figure 4.6 stated that 40% of the respondents in the study area agreed that they were enagaged in
deforestation activities for period less than or equal to three (≤3years) only. Furthermore, the
same figure 4.6 below indicated that 30% respondents agreed that they were involved in
deforestation activitives between 4 and 6 years and ≥7years respectively. The implication of
figure 4.6 below shows that the rate of deforestation activities in Enugu State is of recent on the
high side. This may be connected to the high population growth rate of the state which stood at
3,257,298 with an annual average growth rate of 3%, according to NPC (2006), but without

62
corresponding increase in employment generation. Therefore, for the households to sustain their
livelihood, they usually engage in exploitation of the forest resources.

Figure 4.6: Distribution of respondents according to period engaged in deforestation

Source: Field survey, 2009

4.3.4 Methods of deforestation by households

Figure 4.7 contains the distribution of respondents according to ways in which households
engaged in deforestation in the study area. From the figure 4.7 below, 62% of the respondents
were engaged in deforestation activities in Enugu State through the use of manually operated
equipments. Critical analysis of the figure 4.7 indicated that 25% of the respondents were
involved in deforestation by the use of both mechanical and manual means. Finally, from the
same figure 4.7, only 13% of the respondents in the study area agreed that they use mechanical
ways for deforestation in Enugu State. The lower percentage recorded by those respondents that
use modern means for deforestation may be linked to lack of modern knowledge concerning
forestry activities due to infrequent presence of forest extension agents as observed in figure
4.22.

63
Figure 4.7: Distribution of respondents according to ways households engage in
deforestation.
Source: Field survey, 2009

4.3.5 Marketing of forest products

Figure 4.8 below indicated that 73% of the respondents reported that they marketed forest
products. Some of the forest products marketed by these respondents include food products
(nuts, mushroom, oil seed, and fruits), fibre products (bamboos, grasses, and leaf), animal
products (honey, bush-meat, shell, and eggs), extractive products (gum, latex, and dyes),
medicinal and cosmetic plant products, fuelwood, timber, charcoal among others. From the same
figure 4.8, only 27% of the respondents reported that they did not market their forest products.
The implication of higher percentage of the respondents engaged in marketing their forest
products in the study area is enough indication to show that much of the forests are been
deforested in the area due to economic reasons.

Figure 4.8: Distribution of respondents according to marketing of forest products

Source: Field survey, 2009

64
4.3.6 Location for marketing of forest products
From figure 4.9 below, it shows that 63% of the respondents market their forest products in the
rural markets. The same figure 4.9 indicated that 30% of the respondents stated that they market
their products in urban market of the study area, whereas only 7% of the respondents reported
that they market their forest products at both rural and urban markets.

According to Youdeowei et al. (1999), the distribution of forest products is a crucial aspect of
forestry in providing the link between the resource and user. The implication of the below high
percentage of those respondents that market their forest products rurally is that if there are higher
returns from any of the marketing out-let, there is tendency that more people will be involved in
deforestation activities.

Figure 4.9: Distribution of respondents according to location for marketing of forest

products
Source: Field survey, 2009
4.3.7 Access to formal and informal credits
Figure 4.10 below indicated that 63% of the respondents did not have access to any form of
credit in the study area. From the same figure 4.10, 37% of the respondents reported that they
had access to credit. From the below figure one can say that due to low percentage of
respondents who had access to credit facilities in the study area the rate of deforestation will be
low. This is because according to Nzeh and Eboh (2008), lack of adequate financial resources is
one of the impediment to both marketing, harvesting and processing of forest products.

65
Figure 4. 10: Credit accessibility by respondents.
Source: Field survey, 2009
4.3.8 Sources of credit
From figure 4.11, it can be seen that 69% of the respondents stated that their major access to
credit was only through their friends. The same figure 4.11 indicated that 14% of the respondents
had access to credits only from bank(s), while 13% reported that their access to credit(s) is from
their extended family .Finally, only 4% of the respondents had access to credit(s) through
government agency in the study area.
According to Nzeh and Eboh (2004), people engaging in any enterprise (forestry or otherwise)
need credit to support the activities, be it from bank, friends, personal saving, cooperatives
among others, if not, the enterprise will be unstable. This non-availability of credit gives rise to
inadequate financing of the project, thereby affecting productivity, efficiency of operations and
rates of returns especially in a country like Nigeria characterized by low farm and non-farm
incomes and high dependence on external credit assistance by both urban and rural dwellers.

66
Figure 4.11: Distribution of respondents according to source(s) of credit(s).
Source: Field survey, 2009

4.3.9 Distance of forests from home

From figure 4.12, it can be seen that higher percentage of respondents (59%) reported that the
distance of forest from their home was 4 to 6kilometers. Also from the same figure 4.12, it can
be observed that 17% of the respondents agreed that the distance of forest from their home was ≤
3kilometers, but other respondents 14% and 10% stated that the distances from their homes to
forest were ≥10 kilometers and 7 to 9 kilometers respectively. As can be seen from the below
figure 4.12, the implication of proximity of forest to home will mean that more deforestation will
be taking place; hence so many households relied on forest for income, employment and fuel
wood.

Figure 4.12: Distribution of respondents according to distance of forest from home

Source: Field survey, 2009
67
4. 3.10 Type(s) of land ownership by household

Findings represented in figure 4.13 indicate that higher percentage of the respondents (55%)
stated that the type(s) of land they own in the study area were cultivable arable land. Also figure
4.13 below shows that 41% of the respondents and 4% of the respondents reported that the
type(s) of land owned by households in the study area were forest/woodland and non-cultivable
arable land respectively.
The lower percenatge of households that owned forest/woodland in the study area recently, as
can be seen from the figure below, confirms that there was high rate of deforestation activities in
the study area. The gradual activities of deforestation in the study has negative implcations to the
environment in Enugu State, because this deforestation, according to Nzeh and Eboh (2009) is
one of the major causes of climate change in sub-Saharan Africa.

Figure 4.13: Distribution of respondents according to types of land owned by houeshold.

Source: Field survey, 2009

4.3.11 First clearing of farmland by household

Figure 4.14 below indicates that 67% of the respondents stated that their household farmland was
first clearned in ≤ 40years. Furthermore, figure 4.14 shows that 24% of the respondents agreed
that their household farmland was first cleared for cropping activities between 41 to 80 years
ago. But, only 9% of the respondents reported that their household farmland was first cleared ≥
81years ago.

68
Figure 4.14: Distribution of respondents according to number of years since farmland was
first cleared for cropping
Source: Field survey, 2009

4.4: Economic Losses from deforestation

The global economy is losing more money from the disappearance of forests (called
deforestation) than through the recent global financial crisis, according to an EU-commissioned
study as reported by Black (2008). Black (2008) further puts the annual cost of forest loss at
between $2 trillion and $5 trillion. The figure comes from adding the value of the various
services that forests perform, such as providing clean water and absorbing carbon dioxide among
others according to Black (2008).

4.4.1 Total amount of money lost (N) from forest exploitation in the past three years

Figure 4.15 indicated that thirteen million, three hundred and sixty-nine thousand naria
(N13,369,000.00) only was the amount of money lost due to forest exploitation in the study area
in the year 2008. Crictical analysis of figure 4.15, also shows that thirteen million, one hundred
and thrity-seven thousand (N13,137,000.00) only was the amount of money lost to forest
exploitation in Enugu State in the year 2007. Finally, as shown in the below figure 4.15, nine
million, six hundred and seventeen thousand, four hundred naria (N9,617,400.00) only was the
amount of money lost in 2006 due to forest exploitation. The above figures were obtained from
respondents replies to questionnaries on the amount of money losses for different years in
different deforestation activities.
69
Figure 4.15: Distribution according to total amount of money lost from forest exploitation
for the past three years
Source: Field survey, 2009

Like in other developing areas, rural communities and households in sub-Saharan Africa
including Nigeria especially in Enugu State depend on forest resources to meet up a variety of
livelihood objectives including food security, social security, income and employment
generation, risk management and essential subsistence goods as reported by Nzeh and Eboh
(2008). Forest activities through deforestation, provide household inputs, such as fuel, fodder and
food that is used directly by the household; input into agricultural system such as fodder and
mulch and these products were sources of household income.

According to table 4.4 below, monetary value of the forfeited benefits due to loss of commercial
marketable use of forest (e.g. fuel wood) in the last three years – 2008, 2007 and 2006 recorded
the highest amount of N5,796,000.00, N33,967,000.00 and N43,207,600.00 respectively against
all other different deforestation operations carried out in the study area. Critical analysis of the
monetary value of the forfeited benefits due to loss of commercial marketable use of forest
indicated that the highest amount was loss in the year 2006. Furthermore, table 4.4 equally shows
that losses in monetary value of the forfeited benefits due to loss of timber harvesting recorded
huge amount of money as N19, 515,400.00 in 2008; N16, 627,000.00 in 2007 and N12,
480,400.00 in 2006. This (forest timber harvesting) ranked second amongst losses due to

70
 deforestation after monetary value of the forfeited benefits due to loss of commercial marketable
use of forest. The below analysis indicated that higher amount of monetary losses was recorded
in 2008 from timber harvesting in the study area. This shows that many after fuel woods/other
non-timber materials were harvested from the forest in the study area possibly within the years
2006 and 2007 when the rural roads leading to heavy forested land were opened up for the
harvesting of timber in the year 2008. Finally, from table 4.4, it is obvious that monetary value of
the forfeited benefits due to loss of herbal use of forest recorded N15, 312,008.00 in 2008; N12,
978,607.00 in 2007 and N9, 861,506.00 in 2006.
Table 4.4: Distribution of respondents according to amount of finanical loss from different
sectors of forest use from different operations in the last three years.
Activities Aggregate economic loss from different
deforestation operations in different sectors of
forest use in the last three years in Naira (N)

2006 2007 2008

Monetary value of the forfeited benefits due

to loss of commercial marketable use of
forest (fuel woods etc) (CMG) 5,796,000 33,967,000 43,207,600
Monetary value of the forfeited benefits due
to loss of industrial marketable use of forest
(paper woods etc) (IMG) 13,564,800 11,380,500 7,855,000
Monetary value of the forfeited benefits due
to loss of timber harvesting (TM) 19,515,400 16,627,000 12,480,400
Monetary value of the forfeited benefits due
to loss of fruits gathering use of forest (FR) 5,965,900 4,422,500 2,929,700
Monetary value of the forfeited benefits due
to loss of animals harvest use of forest (AN) 8,581,000 4,411,200 3,922,100
Monetary value of the forfeited benefits due
to loss scientific use of forest (SV) 1,992,000 1,676,150 1,603,950
Monetary value of the forfeited benefits due
to loss of existence use of forest (EV) 1,149,800 874,300 866,300
Monetary value of the forfeited benefits due
to loss of environmental protection use of
forest (Epv). 2,222,100 1,650,900 1,472,200
Monetary value of the forfeited benefits due
to loss of cultural use of forest (CV). 1,756,550 1,686,550 1,485,200

71
Monetary value of the forfeited benefits due
to loss of herbal use of forest (Spv). 15,312,008 12,978,607 9,861,506

Total economic loss value (TEV) 75,855,558 89,674,707 85,683,956

Total number across all households 1080 1080 1080

Per capita TEV 70,236.63 83,032.14 79,337.00

Source: Field survey, 2009

4.4.2 Total economic value loss of forest in three years
Figure 4.16 below shows that total economic value (TEV) loss of forest in the last three years
were N75,855,558.00 for 2008 which represents 30% loss from different deforestation activities
in the study area; N89,674,707.00 which represents 36% loss from various deforestation acts in
Enugu State in 2007 and lastly N85,683,956.00 showing a 34% loss from activities of different
deforestation in the study area in 2006. From the forgoing, it can be seen that much deforestation
loss with higher percentge economic value loss of forest was recorded in the study area in the
year 2007. There was a reduction in both percentage and economic value loss of forest in 2008.
This may be attributable to the current warning from the state government that deforestation
activities in the state should be carried out with caution and with strict approval from the state
forestry commission.

Meanwhile, the higher deforestation losses recorded in the year 2007 may be possible due to the
involvement of many households in deforestation activities. This is because within the year 2007
there were still many civil servants in the study area whom were discharged from public service
and they have no other means of liveihood than to engage in deforestation. Also, the drop in the
percenatge of loss in the year 2008 may be attributable to the new policy of the present
government to recall disengaged civil servants, thereby reducing pressure in the urban and rural
forest as source of income and employment to the households in the study area.

72
Figure 4.16: Distribution according to percentage of economic value loss of forest in three
years
Source: Field survey, 2009

4.5 Socio-economic and institutional characteristics of forest using rural households

Socio-economic profile of the respondents refers to their personal characteristics and conditions,
which influenced the decision of the respondents to deforest an environment. The socio-
economic status considered in this study include age, sex, marital status, level of education,
household size, leadership potential, awareness of extension services, source(s) of income among
others.
4.5.1 Age of respondents
In many economic activities including deforestation activities it require little else than physical
vigour; that is, muscular strength, a good constitution and energetic habits as reported by
(Marshall, 1961). According to Samuelson (1985), muscular efficiency involved in doing a
particular work is a function of age, physical and moral conditions of the key player. Figure 4.17
below shows the age distribution of the respondents in the study area.
Figure 4.17 indicates that the bulk of the respondents fall in the age bracket of (31-60 years) of
age and constitute 52%. The old age group (≥ 61 years) formed 42% of the respondents while the
youth is made up 6% of the respondents. The results of the analysis show that middle-aged men
and women dominate in the deforestation activities in the rural areas. It also suggests that youths
are massively leaving deforestation for other economic activities.

73
Figure 4.17: Distribution of respondents according to age
Source: Field survey, 2009

4.5.2 Sex of respondents

Figure 4.18 shows that 74% of the respondents in the study are males, while the rest (26%) are
females (i.e. more males involve in deforestation than females). The greater number of males
does not presuppose out-rightly that males outnumber the females in the study area. Rather, this
can be attributed to the fact that males seem to have more access to forest and its deforestation
activities than females. This confirms with the finding of Falconer and Arnold (1991) that
generally men have greater access to the cash economy from forest product activities and often
generate cash as their primary activity, while women’s activities revolve more around the
subsistence needs of the household, most particularly food production and child care.

Figure 4.18: Distribution of respondents according to sex

Source: Field survey, 2009
74
4.5.3 Martial status of respondents
From figure 4.19 below it can be seen that 76% of the respondents are married and are involve
in deforestation activities in Enugu State. The same figure 4.19 shows that 15% of the
respondents are single whereas only 9% of the respondents are widows. The implication of the
below result is that many widows in the study area are not involve in deforestation activities.
One may suggest that the reason(s) may be connected to the fear of female going into forests for
many kinds of activities including deforestaion. Furthermore, one may say that the culture of the
area may have not allowed females much access to forestry activities.

Figure 4.19: Distribution of respondents according to marital status

Source: Field survey, 2009

4.5.4 Number of children of respondents

A household unit comprises the household head, wife or wives, children and other dependants
living with them. Explaining the importance of household composition to agriculture, Agu
(1995) said that most farm families in Eastern Nigeria are polygamous – a tendency to have more
children to assist the families in various agricultural productions including clearing, stumping of
woodland and other deforestation acts. Figure 4.20 shows the distribution of respondents
according to number of children and the trend in deforestation.

The results of the analysis as shown in figure 4.20 below indicate that 49% of the respondents
have children between 4 and 6 in the sampled area. The same figure 4.20 equally shows that 32%
of the respondents have children of ≥ 7, whereas only 19% of the respondents reported that they

75
have children of ≤ 3 in number. The implication of the below results might mean that more
children will lead to more hands being involved in the deforestation activities in the study area.

Figure 4.20: Distribution of respondents according to number of children

Source: Field survey, 2009

4.5.5 Educational status of respondents

Generally, education broadens the horizon of human activities, operation and understanding of
his environment. The educated farmer also has better understanding of the importance of forest
to the environment (Desai and Mellor, 1993). He has more access to government programmes,
production credit, improved technologies and membership of rural institutions (cooperatives).
The educated man is also conscious of his environment and tends to preserve forest/wooded
vegetation land. In the study area, deforestation is usually appreciated by all for its role as source
of fuel wood, furniture and building materials among others. Figure 4.21 presents the distribution
of the respondents according to educational attainment and their corresponding deforestation
behaviour.

Figure 4.21 below indicated that the bulk of the respondents (40%) in the study reported that
they had primary education as their highest level of education attainment. From the same figure
4.21, 25% of the respondents agreed that they did not attend any form of formal education.
Critical analysis of figure 4.21 below equally shows that 22% of the respondents reported that
their highest level of education is secondary education, whereas only 13% of the respondents had
post secondary education in the study area. The scenario above indicates that least deforestation
76
activities in Enugu State were attributed to those with post secondary education. This is because
these set of educated respondents understand the negative implications or consequence of
deforestation to the state economy and the environment.

Figure 4.21: Literacy level of respondents

Source: Field survey, 2009

4.5.6 Awareness of forest extension services

As can be deciphered from figure 4.22, only 31% of the respondents were aware of forest
extension services in the sampled size, while the remaining 69% had no knowledge of any forest
extension services. This simply indicates that few percentages of respondents with forest
extension services knowledge may be those living nearer government forest reserve areas.
The implication of the high percentage of the respondents in the sampled size not being aware of
forest extension services is that there will be more deforestation activities by these respondents
leading to indiscriminate exploitation of forest resources.

77
Figure 4.22: Distribution of respondents according to awareness of extension services
Source: Field survey, 2009

4.5.7 Number of visits by forest extension agents

According to figure 4.23 below, from the few number of respondents that acknowledged visit by
forest extension agents, only 72% of the respondents in the study area reported that the visit of
those forest extension agents usually occur bi-monthly. From the same figure 4.23, 15% of the
respondents reported that forest extension agents visit them monthly. Meanwhile, 9% of the
respondents in the study area stated that they had no visit by forest extension agents. Finally,
figure 4.23 equally indicated that few respondents 3% and 1% reported of forest extension agents
visit to them were bi-weekly and weekly respectively.
The non-regular visit by the forest extension agents as showcased in the figure 4.23 may be
attributable to lack of adequate motivation by the government to the change agents and this could
account for the constant deforestation being witnessed in the state.

Figure 4.23: Distribution of respondents according to forest extension agents’ number of

visit
Source: Field survey, 2009
78
4.5.8 Services received from forest extension agents
From figure 4.24 below, it can be seen that 90% of the respondents in the study area who
acknowledged being aware of forest extension agents agreed that they receive information
concerning forest use from these forest extension agents. Furthermore, figure 4.24 equally shows
that both respondents that receive information on marketing of forest products and information
on government policy concerning forest recorded 4% only. Finally, only 2% of the respondents
reported that they received information from forest extension agents in the study area on forest
credits.
The few respondents that receive information about government policies concerning forest still
indicate that these respondents may be engaging in deforestation activities within the state due to
lack of adequate knowledge about recent government programme concerning forest. These
therefore result to negative consequences of deforestation to both humanity and economy of the
state.

Figure 4.24: Distribution of respondents according to types of services received from forest
extension agents.
Source: Field survey, 2009

4.5.9 Other source(s) of income

Part time income earning activities including trading on forestry resources fall within the
category of other sources of income to different households. It usually represents those activities,
which occupy less than 30% of the working time of the households to support their financial base
as reported by (Deepar and Pritchett, 1977).
79
Figure 4.25 contains the distribution of respondents according to other sources of income by the
respondents in the study area. The figure shows that 53% of the respondents reported that their
other source(s) of income is trading on the forestry resources. Also, the same figure 4.25
indicates that 24% of the respondents reported that their other source(s) of income are both
trading on the forestry resources and public service. Further analysis of the same figure 4.25
shows that only 23% of the respondents stated that their other source(s) of income is through
public service.

Figure 4.25: Distribution of respondents according to other sources of income

Source: Field survey, 2009

80
 CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 SUMMARY
Scientific knowledge about deforestation, its causes and consequences have been dominated by
literature, stressing the conceptual and theoretical dimensions of the phenomenon. Generally,
population, economic growth, market penetration, infrastructural development and poverty are
some of the principal factors theoretically held responsible for the deforestation activities. The
interaction of these factors and the magnitude of their effects on the deforestation activities in the
state especially the rural settings are lacking. Yet, it is at the household level that much decisions
to deforest or not is taken. These problems create knowledge gap for stakeholders in forest
management at both private and/or public sector forestry. The situation also posits policy
constraints for public agents, civil society and advocates in sustainable environmental
management especially in Enugu State.

It is against this background that this study was conceived to produce critical reliable knowledge
embodying the clear and better explanation of the economic analysis of losses from deforestation
in the study area.

The specific objectives are to: critically examine the nature and extent of deforestation in the
study area, identify and analyze the factors that influence the decision to deforest, determine and
analyze the resource-use patterns and processes associated with cleared forest land, estimate and
analyze financial and economic losses from deforestation, evaluate the effect of socioeconomic
factors on the deforestation in Enugu State.

The research outcome identified 52% of the sampled size are within the age bracket of 31-60
years. However, with exception of some respondents who made up only 25% of the respondents,
others obtained formal education. The result shows that 40% obtained primary education, 22%
obtained secondary education and the remaining 13% obtained post secondary education. As
revealed by this study, only 31% of the respondents were aware of forest extension services
whereas 69% had no knowledge of any forest extension services, and this usually lead them into
engaging in deforestation activities. The study also observed that 53% of the respondents had

81
trading on the forestry resources as their other sources of income, but 23% of the sampled size
had public service as their other sources of income, as 24% had both (trading and public service)
as their other sources of income.

Another major finding of the study is that bush fire was the highest causes of deforstation in the
study area as it recorded 22%. Also 19% of the respondents stated that fuel wood harvesters were
the second highest cause of deforestation. Whereas only 15% of the respondents reported that
timber haversters were among the first third major causes of deforestation in the study area.

Furthermore, the study appraised the number of period respondents enaged in deforestation
activities in Enugu State by the rural households and it was discovered that 40% of the
respondents in the study area agreed that they were enagaged in deforestation activities for less
than or equal to three (≤3years) only. It was also discovered that 30% respondents agreed that
they were involved in deforestation activitives between 4 and 6years and ≥7years respectively.
The study also explains methods of deforestation by households in Enugu State. From the study,
62% of the respondents stated that they engaged in deforestation activities in Enugu State
through the use of manual equipments. Further investigation reveals that 25% of the respondents
reported that they involve in deforestation by the use of both mechanical and manual means; but
only 13% of the respondents use mechanical deforestation method.

In addition, this study found out that total economic loss (TEV) value of forest in the last three
years were N75,855,558.00 for 2008 which represents 30% loss from different deforestation
activities in the study area. Meanwhile, this study also indicated that N89,674,707.00 which
represents 36% of total loss from various deforestation activitiess in Enugu State in 2007.
Lastly, N85,683,956.00 further represents 34% loss from different deforestation activities in the
study area in 2006.
In regression results for the farmland clearance for cropping activities only size of land, land
tenure system and types of cropping were significant in explaining the observed variabilities in
the dependent variable. Whereas in logit regression model results for socio-economic
characteristics affecting clearance of forest for agricultural/other activities only gender of
respondents, educational attainment, deforestation experience, household size and total
landholdings were significant in explaining the observed variabilities.
82
5.2 CONCLUSION
In conclusion, it is evident that there were economic losses from different sources of
deforestation activities in Enugu State. The major determinants that led to farmland clearance
which result to economic losses from deforestation were land tenure arrangement, types of
cropping and size of farmland of the farming household.

From the analysis of the study, it was observed that gender of the farming household; literacy
status, household size, and even experience of the household in deforestation were other major
causes of economic losses from deforestation in Enugu State. The study also established that
economic losses from deforestation in the study area were driven by bush fire, fuel wood
harvesters, agricultural expansion and population growth.

Furthermore, credit accessibility, proximity to market, technological level of the farmers were
equally factors that affected household decisions toward deforestation of the environment
thereby leading to economic losses. However, from the discussions so far in this study, it should
be easy to deduce that economic losses from deforestation in the forest of Enugu State suffered
both state and local governments’ neglect. Therefore, there is need for improved policy on
deforestation activities in the state if the government hopes to generate both local and foreign
exchange from the forestry sector. This is because the contributions of this sector would not be
met without provision of efficient and effective forestry polices which will reduce under and
over exploitation of the forestry resources. There is also the need to address the concerns of the
rural dwellers that are involved in over and under exploitation of the forestry resources that lead
to economic losses from this sector.

Based on the above premise and other relevant issues raised in this study, it is therefore,
considered very necessary that to meet with the demand of the society, the government and other
interested policy makers may find the following under listed recommendations useful.

83
5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the above research findings, the following recommendations are advanced as means of
preventing economic losses from deforestation in the study area.
i. The study recommends that policies that will divert the abundant energy expended on
indiscriminate deforestation activities by the middle aged men to afforestation,
reforestation, tree husbandry and tree planting in the state should be encouraged. This
will help to checkmate the recent frequent conversion of forestland to arable cropping
and other uses in Enugu State.

ii. The findings from the study indicated that involvement in deforestation declined with
level of education. This implies that attainment of more education improves the income
level and broadens the horizon of the rural farmers in the use of improved technologies,
easy access to inputs and off farm employment. Therefore, the study recommends that
government at all levels should reinvigorate adult literacy programme or expand the
universal basic education programme to allow farmers with the primary education to
upgrade themselves. This will help them improve on their environmental friendliness.
The educational framework should handle issues like positive impacts of deforestation to
the society, factors leading to the forest conversion, effects of conversion and ways of
avoiding unnecessary conversion of the natural resources.

iii. The study equally recommends that forest extension services to the rural households that
engage in forestry activities should be strengthened. The forest extension agents should
adequately be motivated, trained toward giving relevant, clear and sensible technical
advice to the stakeholders in the forestry activities.

iv. The study further recommends that community participation in the forestry conservation
and protection initiatives should be made mandatory. This will encourage these
communities to always innovate indigenous methods to stop under and over exploitation
of forest. They will also develop a sense of ownership and commitment to all decisions
made about reducing deforestation.

84
 v. The study recommends that Enugu State government at all levels should adopt strategies
and policies that will encourage improved farming practices and agricultural methods
such as alley cropping and taungya farming. This will divert the attention of these rural
famers that are constantly involved in deforestation due to proximity of these forests to
their homes. This will further protect our cherished agricultural activities which is the
mainstay of our economy.

vi. The study also recommends that frequent use of workshops, advocacy and seminars are
necessary to educate the rural farmers more on the negative consequences of
deforestation. This will help the rural stakeholders to have adequate information on the
new policies of the government concerning forestry sector.

vii. The study equally recommends the enforcement of the 1901 Act of planting twenty (20)
trees in the place of every one stump.

viii. Finally, the study recommends the provision of energy saving stove by the government to
the rural people. This energy saving stove will help to reduce the quantity of fuelwood
used and hence reduce the level of deforestation.

85
5.4 MAJOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO KNOWLEDGE
The study is well situated in the global concern as it relates toward its contributions to
knowledge in achieving the 7th millennium development goal - to ensure environmental
sustainability (MDGs7).

The unprotected forest areas are typically of a low priority in macro-economic and sectoral
decision-making. Allocation of government budgets at all levels is biased towards this sector;
and yet this is the area where economic activities that make a demonstrable contribution to
national income, output and employment especially at the rural level exist. Because unprotected
forest areas are seen as having little economic or development value, and generate few obvious
financial benefits or public revenues, they receive low budget allocations from central
government, and low investment in the human resources, capital and infrastructure necessary to
maintain them. Meanwhile, this study has shown that economic losses of this sector can be
explored like encouraging the stakeholders in forestry sector to harvest only the mature wood
and non-wood forestry products. The will help this sector to contribute more toward both
national, states and local government’s economy.

Furthermore, this study has led to provision of more essential information on the activities of
deforestation in the state and country at large. Also, the study has expose more the need for
extensive data needs (primary and secondary) in forestry analysis and decision making process in
Enugu state for all the stakeholders.

There exist very little and vague empirical understanding of roles of factors of deforestation in
Enugu state, but this study have helped to expose the interaction of these factors and the
magnitude of their effects in the state especially in the rural settings where such knowledge are
lacking. To both policy makers and other major stakeholders in the forestry sector, this research
highlighted core aggregate economic loss from different forestry operation that need to be
monitored so that such economic resources can be channeled toward improvement of rural and
urban livelihoods of the citizenry.

86
A critical component of this study is the concept of total economic value (TEV) which emerged
in the mid-1980s and is now widely used to identify the economic benefits and losses associated
with both protected and unprotected forests. This study contributes to knowledge by exposing for
the first time the issue of TEV model in the analysis of forestry research in the study area.

Finally, the study has too exposed ways to help ensure better sustainable forest management
practices within the study area and the country as a whole.

87
5.5 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
The following areas are suggested for further studies:
• There is need for an in-depth study on the effect of deforestation and the coping strategies
at the rural level in order to formulate integrated policy for land use.
• It is also important to investigate the impact of macroeconomic variables and market
failures on deforestation at community levels.
• There is need for a study on corruption in the forestry sector and illegal logging in recent
time. This study will advocate improving law enforcement and the institutional
framework, as well as increasing civil society participation in shaping policy,
management, implementation and monitoring of forest activities, to combat corruption in
the forestry sector and illegal logging.
• Finally, a study on household level determinants of investment in forestry products is
necessary for effective policy on sustainable forestland in Nigeria.

88
 REFERENCES

Adeofun, C.O. (1991). An assessment of deforestation in a lowland forest area of Southwest

Nigeria, using remote sensing techquies. Unpublished Ph.D dissertation submitted at Department
of forest resources management, University of Ibadan, Nigeria.
Adepoju, A.A. and Salau, A.S. (2007). Economic valuation of Non-timber forest products
(NTFPs). Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, Ladoke Akintola University of
Technology, Ogbomosomo.
Adesina, F.A. and Adejuwon, J.O. (1994). Climate Change and potential impact on biomass
energy production in Nigeria: A preliminary assessment. Paper Presented at the International
Workshop on the Impact of Global Climate Change on Energy Development Lagos Nigeria,
March 28-30.

Adeyoju, S.K. (1981). Our Forests and Our Welfare: Inaugural Lecture, University of Ibadan,
Ibadan University Press. P11

Adger, N. 1. (993). Trees, people, the missing sink and the greenhouse effect. Centre for Social
and Economic Research on the Global Environment (CSERGE) Working Paper GEC 94-14

Agu, V. C. (1995). “The Implications of Campaign for Family Planning among Small Farmers”.
Paper presented at the Regional Workshop for Small Scale Farmers March 4 – 5, 1994, FACU
Enugu.

Anderson, D. and Fishwick, R. (1984). Fuelwood consumption and deforestation in developing

countries. World Bank staff working papers, No. 704, Washington DC.
Anderson, D. (1986). Declining tree stocks in African countries, World Development Report,
Vol. 14, No. 7, pp 853-863.
Angelsen, A., Shitindi, E.F.K. and Aaarrestad. J. (1999). “Why do farmers expand their land into
forests? Theories and evidence from Tanzania”, Environment and Development Economics 4
(03): 313-31.
Anon, C.S. (1977). Desertification: The Nigerian situation. Paper presented by the Federal
department of forestry and forest research Institute of Nigeria to the United Nations conference
on desertification Nairobi, Kenya.
Ardayfio-Schandorf, E. (1993). Commercialization of fuel wood in Ghana. Paper presented at a
Conference on Women and Forestry in Ghana, Accra.

Arnoldo, C.H. (2000). The Underlying Causes of Forest Decline, Center for international
forestry research (CIFR) occasional paper, No. 30, ISSN 0854-9818.

89
Aruofor, R.O. (1999). An economic appraisal of pricing policy and tariff systems for Gmelina
arborea pulpwood and sawlog in Nigeria. An unpublished M.sc thesis submitted to the
department of Forest Resources Management, University of Ibadan.
Aurson, P.A. (1998). A historical sketch of the forests in Benin. Memo from the former
conservator of forest in the former Western Region of Nigeria.
Bann, C. (1997). The Economic Valuation of Tropical Forest Land Use Options: A Manual for
Researchers, London, United Kingdom.
Barraclough, S. and Ghimire, K.B. (2000). Agricultural expansion and tropical deforestation,
Earthscan.
Black, R. (2008). Nature loss dwarfs bank crisis,
http://www.optimumpopulation.org/blog/?p=203

Brown, J.D. (1999). Hydrological effects of a bush fire in catchments in South Eastern New
Wales, J. Hydro. 15: 77-96.
Brown, T.C. (1984). The Concept of value in resource allocation. Land Economic. Pp231-246.
Butler, R.A. (2005). Nigeria has worst deforestation rate, in- htt://news.mongabay.com
/2005/11/17-forests.html [update].
Campbell, J.Y. (1988). Putting people’s products first: Multiple-use management for non-wood
products in India. New Delhi-India. L.B.H. Publishing company.
Central bank of Nigeria (CBN). (2006). CBN Statistical bulletin 2006, Volume 17.
Champhaka, U. (1986). Watershed management and shift cultivation: three Asia approaches.
Vol. 38 (15). 22-27.
Chukwuone, N.E. (2003). Analysis of conservation and utilization of non-wood forest products
in Southern Nigeria: Implication for forest management and poverty alleviation. An unpublished
Ph.D research finding presented to the department of Agricultural Economics. University of
Nigeria, Nsukka.
Clay, J.W. (1988). Indigenous peoples and tropical forests: models of land use and management
from Latin America. Report No.27.Cambridge, MA: Cultural Survival.
Club-de-Sahel, G. (1978). Energy in the development strategy of the Sahel; situation
perspectives, recommendations, Pairs: Club du-Sahel. p 357.
Crays, J.G. and Uhler, R. (1970). The demand for automobiles, Canadian Journal of economics,
3: 386-406.

Deepa, N. and Pritchelt, L. H. (1997). “Household Income and Social Capital in Rural
Tanzania”. African in the Development Process. London Press.

90
Denevan, W.M. (1992). “Stone versus metal axes: The ambiguity of shifting cultivation in
prehistoric Amazonia”. Journal of the Steward Anthropological Society 20, 153–65.

Desai, B. M. and Mellor, J. W. (1993). “Institutional Finance for Agricultural Development: An

analytical survey of critical issue” Food Policy Review 1. International Food Policy Research
Institute Washington D. C.

Dunster, J. and Dunster, K. (1996). Dictionary of natural resources management. Canada: UBC
press, page 135.

Eboh, E. C. (1995). “Poverty, population growth and environmental degradation; The vicious
cycle of human misery.” in Eboh et al (1995): Rural Development in Nigeria; Concepts,
Processes and Prospects. Enugu; Auto-Century Publishing Company, Enugu, page 274.
Eboh, E.C. (1991). “A Socio-economic survey of Land use intensification indicator in Anambra
state, Nigeria”. Beitrage zur tropischen landwirtscharf und Veterinamedizin.
Eboh, E.C., Oji, K.O., Achike, A.I., Ujah, O.C., Amakom, U.S., Oduh, M.O., Nzeh C.E.P. and
Larsen, B.K. (2006). Renewable Natural Resoureces, Sustaianble Economic Growth and Poverty
Reduction in Nigeria. AIAE Research Paper 1, ISSN 0794-4187, Enugu Nigeria.

Eboh, E.C., Oji, K.O., Achike, A.I., Ujah, O.C., Amakom, U.S., Oduh, M.O., Nzeh C.E.P. and
Larsen, B.K. (2005). Sustainability of economic growth in Enugu state: The role of renewable
natural resources. Final research report submitted to the UK Department for International
Development.
Eckhom, E.P. (1975). Planting for future: Forestry for human needs (World Watch paper 26).
World watch Institute, Washington DC, USA, p 64.

Eckhom, E.P. (1976). Losing ground: Environmental stress and world food prospects. New
York, Norton, 1976, lst edition 223p, New York.

Egboh, E.E. (1985). Forestry Policy in Nigeria, 1897-1960. University of Nigeria Press,. Nsukka.

Enabor, E. E. (1981). “Problems of forest management in Nigeria.” Agricultural Resource

Bulletin. 2(2). Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Ibadan. pp. 15.

Enabor, E.E. (1986). Socio-economic factors of deforestation in Nigeria. pp 111-125 in the

challenge of deforestation in Nigeria (ed. A.B. Oguntala). Processing for FAN conference,
Minna.

Enete, A.A. (2003). Resource use, marketing and diversification decision in cassava producing
household of sub-Saharan Africa. A Ph.D dissertation presented to the department of
Agricultural Economics, Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium.

91
Ezike, J. O. (1998). Delineation of Old and New Enugu State, Published bulletin, Land and
Survey, Ministry of Works, Enugu.

Falconer, J. and Arnold, J. E. M. (1991). Household food security and forestry: an analysis of
socio-economic issues. FAO, Italy, pages, 12, 34, 46, 51, 75 and 79.

FAO, IFAD and WFP. (2002). Reducing poverty and hunger: the critical role of financing for
food, agriculture and rural development. Paper for the International Conference on Financing for
Development, Monterrey, Mexico, 18 March (also available at
www.ifad.org/media/press/2002/20-20.htm).

FAO. (1981). Tropical forest resources assessment project: Forest resources of tropical Africa.
Country briefs part 11. Pp 35-79.

FAO. (1983). “Forest revenue systems in developing countries”, FAO Forestry Paper No. 43.
Rome.

FAO. (1985). “Tropical forestry action plan”. Unasylva Vol. 38, No. 152. Rome.

FAO. (1990). “Learning to see forest through the trees.” Unasylva. 42(165). Rome.

FAO. (1991). Household food security and forestry: An analysis of socio-economic issues.
Rome: FAO.

FAO. (1991b). “Forestry and food security”. Unasylva.

FAO. (1995). “Valuing forest: Context, issues and guideline”. FAO paper No. 127, Rome.

FAO. (1997). State of the World's Forests. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, Rome, Italy, p.200.

FAO. (1998). Statistical Databases, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
Rome, Italy, http://apps.fao.org/

FAO. (2000). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000, Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations, Rome, Italy, http:// www.fao.org/forestry/site/24690/en

FAO. (2001). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000: main report. FAO Forestry Paper No.
140. Rome (also available at www.fao.org/forestry/fo/fra/main/index.jsp).

FAO. (2001). State of the World’s Forests. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.

FAO. (2003). The State of the World's Forests. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.

FAO (2004). Manual for environmental and economic accounts for forestry: a tool for cross-
sectoral policy analysis. Forestry Department, FAO.
92
FAO. (2005). “Mobilizing resources to halve world hunger”. Paper prepared for the 2005 World
Summit. Rome.

Federal Office of Statistics (FOS). (2005). Nigeria Living Standard Survey 2003/2004. Federal
Office of Statistics, Abuja.

FMANR. (1988): Perspective plan for Agricultural Development (1980 – 2015). Abuja, Nigeria.

Geist, H.J, and Lambin, E.F. (2002). Proximate Causes and Underlying Forces of Tropical
Deforestation. Bioscience, Vol. 52, No. 2.

Godoy, R., Groff, S and O'Neill. K. (2006). The Role of Education in Neo-tropical
Deforestation: Household Evidence from Central American Amerindians. Economic
Development and Cultural Change [under review].

Grut, M., Gray, J.W. and Egli, N. (1991). Forest pricing and concession policies: managing the
high forests of West and Central Africa. World Bank Technical Paper No. 143. Washington, DC,
World Bank.

Guppy, N. (1984). Tropical deforestation: A global review. For affairs, Vol. 62, No. 4: 928-965.

Hopkins, B. (1981). “What can of science for Africa? The conservation of African vegetation”.
A contribution to economic development ASUAK symposium of conservation of African
vegetation, Kew Gardens, UK. Pp 1-3.
Howard, J.A. and Lanly, P.J. (1975). Remote sensing for tropical forest surveys. Unasylva,
27(108): 32-37.

Iloeje, N. P. (1981). A new geography of Nigeria, New revised edition, Longman Limited,
Ikeja, pages 58, 61, 105 and 106.

International Institute for Applied System Analysis (IIASA) and FAO. (2002). Global agro-
ecological assessment for agriculture in the 21st century, by G. Fischer, M. Shah, H. van
Velthuizen & F.O. Nachtergaele. Laxenburg, Austria & Rome.
International institute for environmental development (IIED). (1994). “Economic Evaluation of
Tropical Forest Land Use Options: A Review of Methodology and Applications”. International
Institute for Environment and Development, Environmental Economics Programme.

Kaimowitz, D. (2003). Not by bread alone. Forests and rural livelihoods in Sub-Saharan Africa.
In: Oksanen, T, Pajari, B., Tuomasjukka, T. (eds.). Forests in poverty reduction strategies:
capturing the potential. Joensuu, Finland, European Forest Institute. EFI Proceedings No. 47. 45-
64. Available online [URL]:
93
http://www.efi.fi/attachment/f5d80ba3c1b89242106f2f97ae8e3894/241e80d8e1b2b091
9426d5a82060db7e/Proc_47.pdf.

Kapos, V. (2000). Original Forest Cover Map, Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC.

Keay, R.W.J. (1995). An outline of Nigeria vegetation, Lagos: Federal government printer.

Kerr, S., Pfaff, A.S.A., Arturo, A.S.A. (2003). “Development and deforestation: evidence from
Costa Rica”. www.motu.org

Kio, P.R., Abu, J.E., and Lowe, R.G. (1992). High Forest Management in Nigeria. Invited paper
for the IUFRO Centennial Conference, Eberswalde, Germany.
Koutsoyiannis, A. (1977). Theory of Econometrics. Second edition. Macmillan Press Limited,
London.

Lanly, P.J. (1983). Assessment of the forest resources of the tropics. A review of article in
forestry abstract, Vol. 4. No. 6, pp 287-318.

Lowe, R.G. (1994). Forestry in Nigeria; Past, Present and Future. Distinguished seminar series,
FRIN, Ibadan, Nigeria.

Mabugu R and Chitiga M, (2002). “Accounting for forest resources in Zimbabwe.” CEEPA
Discussion Paper No 7, CEEPA. University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.

Marshall, A. (1961). Principles of Economics. The Macmillan Press Ltd. London.

Mathews, E. (1983). “Global Vegetation and land-use”. Journal of Climate and Applied
Meteorology, Vol. 22: 474-487.

McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviours in Zarembka P.

ed. frontiers in econometrics, New York academic press.
McNalley, R., and Othman, M.S.H. (2002). Environmental Economics; A practical guide.
Malaysia: WWF-UK.

Melillo, J.M, Palm, C.A., Houghton, R.A., and Woodwell, G.M. (1985). A comparison of two
recent estimates of disturbance in tropical forests. Environmental Conservation, Vol. 12, No. 1,
Spring: 37-40.

Moran, E. (1989). “Adaptation and Maladaptation in Newly Settled Areas”. In Debra A.

Schumann and William Partridge, editors. The Human Ecology of Tropical Land Settlement in
Latin America. Boulder, Colorado: West view Press, pp. 20-39.

94
Moran, E. (1989a). “Government-directed settlements in the 1970s: An assessment of
Transamazonian highway colonization”. In Debra A. Schumann and William Partridge, editors.
The Human Ecology of Tropical Land Settlement in Latin America. Boulder, Colorado: West
view Press, pp. 172-198.

National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). (2006). 2006 Core welfare indicators questionnaires
(CWIQ), survey, Enugu State, Summary.

National Population Commission (NPC). (2006). Nigeria census figure.

Neely J.A. (1996). Foreword, In Tropical Deforestation, (L.E.Sponsel, T.N. Headland, and R.C.
Bailey, eds), pp. XV–XVII. New York: Columbia University Press.

Nzeh, C.E.P. (2004). Income and employment effects of forest product activities among rural
households in Enugu state, Nigeria. An unpublished M.sc. Research thesis, Department of
agricultural Economics, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
Nzeh, C.E.P. (2007). Socio-economic analysis of marketing of yam in Enugu urban, Enugu
State, Nigeria. Book of Proceedings of 9th Annual National Conference of Nigerian Association
of Agricultural Economists (NAAE), held at 1000 Seater Theatre Abubakar Tafawa Balewa
University (ATBU), Bauchi state, Nigeria, 5-9th November, 2007, Volume 2, pages 514-524.
Nzeh, C.E.P. and Eboh, E.C. (2007). Analysis of income effects of forest products activities
among rural households in Enugu state Nigeria, Journal of Agriculture and Social Research
(JASR), Vol. 7, No. 1, 2007, ISSN 1595-7470. Pages 23-33. www.ajol.info/journals/jasr.

Nzeh, C.E.P. and Eboh, E.C. (2008). Socio-economic analysis of income effects of Forest
products activities among rural households in Enugu State, Nigeria. Journal of Tropical
Agriculture, Food, Environment and Extension, Vol. 7, No.1 ISSN 1119-7455. Pages 22-26.

Nzeh, C.E. and Eboh, R.O. (2009). Study of technological and farming systems adaptation to
climate change in farming communities of Enugu state, Nigeria. A proposal study submitted to
African technology policy studies network (ATPS), 3rd floor, the chancery, valley road, Nairobi,
Kenya.

Ochanda, N., and Epp, H. (1982). Monitoring recent changes in extent of natural forests in
Kenya using remote sensing techniques. International archives of ISPRS, Vol. 24. No 1, pp 489-
496.

Odey, J. (2009). Nigeria’s $750million climate change loss. Report presented by Minister for
Environment, Federal Republic of Nigeria to House of Representative Committee on climate
change in Abuja, Nigeria.

95
Odoemena, B.C. (2006). An econometric analysis of the micro-level determinants of conversion
of woodland to arable cropping in Enugu state. An unpublished Ph.D thesis submitted to the
department of Agricultural Economics, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

Ogigirigi, M.A. (1986). Effects of deforestation in environmental degradation in Nigeria, In the

Challenge of deforestation in Nigeria ed. A.B. Oguntala, Proceeding for Farmers Association of
Nigeria (FAN) Conference, Minna.

Okoji, M.A. (2001). Depletion of Forest resources in Southeast Nigeria: Who loses? The
Environmentalist, Kluwer academic publishers, The Netherlands.
Okonkwo, M.C, Umar, G., and Nwafor, O.E. (2002). Forest Resources Depletion and the
National Economy in Forestry and Challenges of Sustainable livelihood, Abu, J.E.;P.J. Oni and
L. Popoola(eds).Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of Forestry Association of Nigeria,
Akure ,Nigeria. Pp 94-100.

Oksanen, T and Mersmann, C. (2003). Forests in Poverty reduction strategies: An assessment of

PRSP processes in Sub-Saharan Afrin. In Forests in Poverty Reduction Strategies: Capturing the
Potential. EFI Proceedings No. 47 (121-158). European Forest Institute, Finland.

Orebiyi, J. S. and Nzeh, C. E. (2002). Financing of Poultry Production by the Nigerian

Agricultural and Co-operative Bank (NACB) in Enugu State, Nigeria. Journal of Applied
Sciences 5(1): pages 2394 – 2395, Enugu Nigeria.
Oseni, A.M. (1998). An assessment of Nigerian’s wood balance. Paper presented to the 8th
annual conference of Farmers Association of Nigeria, (FAN), IIorin, December, 1978.
Park, C.C. (1992). Tropical rainforest. New York: Routledge.

Park, C.C. (1992). Tropical rainforest. New York. Routledge.

Parry, J.T. (1986). Spaced out-space-craft remote sensing-cost and benefits. Proceeding second
symposium on space activities and their legal implications. Centre for research of air and space
law, McGill University, Montreal, pp 68-100.
Perkins, W. A. and J. H. Stembridge (1959). Nigeria: A descriptive geography, Oxford
University Press, London pages 50 and 56.

Person, R. (1987). Forest resources for Africa: An approach to international forest resources
appraisal. Part 1. Country descriptions. Skogshogskolen royal college of forestry, Stockhol, pp
248.
Phillips, J.M. (1994). “Farmer education and farmer efficiency: A meta analysis”. Economic
Development and Cultural Change. Vol. 43, No.1, Pages149-165.

96
Robert, D. (1989).Land and Food: The technical centre for agriculture and rural cooperation
convention CTA, Lome, pp. 39-43.

Repetto, R. and Gillis, M. (1988). Public policies and the misuse of forest resources. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.

Repetto, R., Magrath, W., Wells, M., Beer, C., and Rossini, F. (1989). "Wasting Assets: Natural
Resources in the National Accounts", World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.

Roper, J. and Robert, R. (2006). Deforestation: Tropical forests in decline. Canadian

International Development Agency, Hull, Quebec, Canada. Page 12.
Samuelson, P. A. (1985). Essentials of economics. McGraw-Hill Book Company London.

Schmidt, P. and Strauss, B.P. (1975b). The prediction of occupation using multiple logit model,
International economics review, Vol. 16 (2), pages 471-486.
Singh, A., Shi, H., Zhu, Z. and Foresman, T. (2001). An assessment of the status of the World's
remaining closed forests. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environment Program (UNEP).
Sunderlin, W.D., Resosudarmo, I.A.P., (1996). Rate and causes of deforestation in Indonesia:
towards a resolution of the ambiguities. CIFOR Occasional paper No. 9. Jakarta, CIFOR.

Theil, H. (1969). “A multinomial extension of linear logit model”. International Economics

Review, 10: 251-259.

Timberlake, L. (1985). Africa in crisis: Earthscan paper-back. London: International Institute for
Environment and Development.
Tongpan, S. (2000). Deforestation and poverty: Can commercial and social forestry break the
vicious circle? Bangkok, Thailand: Thailand Development Research Institute.

Udo, R.K. (1975). Migrant tenant farmers of Nigeria: A geographical study of rural migrations in
Nigeria. African University press, Lagos, Nigeria.
Ujah. O. C and Eboh, E.C. (2003). Measurement of sustainability indicators of forest in Nigeria:
A case study of forest reserves in Enugu state, Nigeria
http://129.3.20.41/eps/othr/papers/0508/0508011.doc
Ukwu I. U, Anyanwu, E. A., Imaga, E.U.L., Akwuba, M., Ofong, I., Nwakoby, F., Omeje, K.,
Onyeukwu, O. E., Umoh, B. D. and Ugwuonah, G. (1998). Enugu State poverty report. Institute
for Development Studies, University of Nigeria Enugu Campus Enugu.
Umeh, L.I. (1986). “Deforestation: Its extent and affects on Nigeria”. In the Challenge of
deforestation in Nigeria (ed.) A.B. Oguntala. Proceeding for farmers Association of Nigeria
(FAN) Conference, Minna.
97
Umeh, L.I. (1992). Forest Management in Nigeria. Problems and the needed strategies.
FORMECU, Ibadan, Nigeria.

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), (2002). Africa, Environment Outlook-Past,

Present and Future Perspectives. 422pp

Uyanga, J. (1980). The plantation economy in the Calabar region: a preliminary analysis.In
Calabar and Environs: Geographic Studies (P.E.B. Inyang, E.J. Usoro, E.M.Abasiekong, and
R.A.O.Sule, eds).Dept.of Geography, University of Calabar.
Van Kooten, G. and Bulte, E. H. (2000). The Economics of Nature. Blackwell Publishers.

Van Kooten, G.C. and Bulte, E. H. (2000). The economics of nature: managing biological assets,
Blackwells.

Vincent J. R. (1998). Theoretical Aspects of Forest Accounting Harvard Institute for

International Development Discussion Paper No. 625.
Williams, G. (1987). Taking the part of peasants: Rural development in Nigeria and Tanzania. Pp
1-39 in African Modernization and development: The political economy of Africa (Eds. P.
Gutwind and T. Watterstein). Rex Collings, London, U.K.
Woodall, G. (1992). The Role of Forests in Climate Change, in "Managing the World's Forests:
Looking for Balance between Conservation and Development" edited by Narendra P. Sharma,
Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., Iowa, pp.75-91.
World Bank (2006) Where is the wealth of our nations? World Bank. Washington DC, USA.

World Resource Institute (WRI). (2000). “The World Bank in the forest sector: A global paper”.
Wasteland news. 8(2) pp 6-12.
WRI. (1994). World Resources 1994 - 1995: A guide to the global environment. Washington,
D.C.: World Resource Institute pp. 400.
WRI. (1985). Tropical forests: A call for action. Report of an international task force convened
by the World Resources Institute, the World Bank and United Nations Development Programme,
Washington, DC.
WRI. (1992). “World Resources, 1992-1993”. A report by the World Resources Institute in
Collaboration with the United Nations Environmental Programme and United Nations
Development programme, New York, Oxford University press.
WRI. (1997). Word resources 1997-1998. Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York.
Youdeowei, A, F. O., Ezedinma, C and Onazi, O. C. (1999). Introduction to tropical Agriculture,
Longman Group Limited.

98