![](media/image1.png){width="2.261111111111111in" height="1.21875in"}

> **NIGERIA**
>
> **ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS**
>
> **FINAL REPORT**
>
> under USAID Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00
>
> Biodiversity and Sustainable Forestry (BIOFOR) Indefinite Quantity
> Contract (IQC)

*Submitted by:*

**ARD, Inc.**

159 Bank Street, Suite 300

Burlington, Vermont 05401

*telephone: (802) 658-3890 fax: (802) 658-4247*

*email: ard@ardinc.com*

# Acknowledgements

Nigeria is a tremendous varied and complex country with a significant
endowment of natural resources. Attempting to describe the "state of the
environment" and to provide an informed analysis of the threats to the
nation's natural resources is a Herculean task. The Environmental
Analysis (EA) Team believes that it has made a contribution in this
regard and provided at least a snapshot of what the major environmental
issues and threats are today.

This contribution has relied heavily on the assistance of
others---public servants, private institutions and companies, NGOs, a
multitude of individuals---from across the country. We were greatly
encouraged by the spirit in which we were received and the help and
guidance provided by so many.

We are especially indebted to the staff of USAID/Nigeria who provided us
with assistance at every step while we were in Nigeria. We would
especially like to thank Dr. Ravi Aulakh, the Program Economist and SO2
Team Leader for her guidance and assistance with all phases of our
assignment; Mssrs. Nduka Okaro and Abdulkadir Gudugi who accompanied us
on our field visits and provided invaluable networking assistance and
background on the agricultural sector; Mr. John Brodman for not only
tolerating us while we shared his office space, but also provided
valuable insights about the energy sector and critical editorial
comment; and also to Ms. Happiness Enere and Ms. Sherifat Somotun for
their logistical and administrative assistance whenever we were at the
USAID office. We are also grateful for the time spent and the commentary
provided on drafts of this report by all of the reviewers in
USAID/Nigeria and USAID/Washington.

On our visits to the field we came in contact with more than one hundred
people who assisted us with our task. With are especially grateful to
Dyno Keatinge at IITA, Dr. Festus Akindele and Dr. Wilson Eed of
Geomatics who provided us with some of the maps used in this report as
well as access to recent environmental reports, to Tony Bassey of NCF in
Calabar for unselfish assistance beyond the call of duty, and to Mr. Tim
Adkins of Savanna Conservation who contributed generously with his time,
insights, and knowledge of Nigeria's natural environment.

The cast was large and most helpful each step of the way, and each one a
valuable contributor to the information reported and analyzed in this
volume.

# Table of Contents

**[Acknowledgements]{.smallcaps} [i](#acknowledgements)**

List of Tables, Figures and Boxes [v](#list-of-tables-figures-and-boxes)

Acronyms and Abbreviations [vi](#acronyms-and-abbreviations)

Part I Nigeria Environmental Analysis

1.0 Background [1](#background)

2.0 Executive Summary [2](#executive-summary)

2.1 Purpose [2](#purpose)

2.2 Findings [2](#findings)

3.0 Purpose and Approach [7](#purpose-and-approach)

4.0 The Nigerian Context [9](#the-nigerian-context)

4.1 Biophysical [9](#biophysical)

4.2 Socioeconomic [10](#socioeconomic)

4.3 Legal/Political [11](#legalpolitical)

5.0 Constitutional and Legislative Framework for Environmental
Management
[14](#constitutional-and-legislative-framework-for-environmental-management)

5.1 Constitutional Framework for Environmental Management
[14](#constitutional-framework-for-environmental-management)

5.2 The Federal, State and Local Government Legislative Framework for
Environmental Management
[15](#the-federal-state-and-local-government-legislative-framework-for-environmental-management)

5.2.1 The Federal Legislative Framework for Environmental Management
[15](#the-federal-legislative-framework-for-environmental-management)

5.2.2 The State Legislative Framework for Environmental Management
[16](#the-state-legislative-framework-for-environmental-management)

5.2.3 The Local Government Legislative Framework for Environmental
Management
[17](#the-local-government-legislative-framework-for-environmental-management)

5.3 The Judicial Framework for Environmental Protection
[17](#the-judicial-framework-for-environmental-protection)

5.4 International Conventions and Treaties
[18](#international-conventions-and-treaties)

6.0 Institutional and Policy Framework for Environmental Management
[20](#institutional-and-policy-framework-for-environmental-management)

6.1 Federal Institutional and Policy Framework
[20](#federal-institutional-and-policy-framework)

6.1.1 Federal Ministry of Environment/Policy on the Environment
[21](#federal-ministry-of-environmentpolicy-on-the-environment)

6.1.2 Other Federal Institutions Playing Important Roles in
Environmental Management
[23](#other-federal-institutions-playing-important-roles-in-environmental-management)

6.1.3 Sectoral GFRN Agencies and Policies
[23](#sectoral-gfrn-agencies-and-policies)

6.2 State and Local Government Institutional and Policy Frameworks to
Support Environmental Management and Protection
[24](#state-and-local-government-institutional-and-policy-frameworks-to-support-environmental-management-and-protection)

6.2.1 State Government Institutional and Policy Framework for
Environmental Management and Protection
[24](#state-government-institutional-and-policy-framework-for-environmental-management-and-protection)

6.2.2 Local Government Institutional and Policy Framework for
Environmental Management and Protection
[24](#local-government-institutional-and-policy-framework-for-environmental-management-and-protection)

6.3 Civil Society Organizations Supporting Environmental Management
[25](#civil-society-organizations-supporting-environmental-management)

6.4 Private Sector Organizations Supporting Environmental Management
[25](#private-sector-organizations-supporting-environmental-management)

6.5 Universities [27](#universities)

7.0 Environmental Status and Threats
[29](#environmental-status-and-threats)

BLUE [30](#blue)

7.1 Freshwater Resources [30](#freshwater-resources)

7.2 Coastal and Marine Resources [32](#coastal-and-marine-resources)

BROWN [33](#brown)

7.3 Air Quality [33](#air-quality)

7.3.1 Transportation-Related Air Pollution
[35](#transportation-related-air-pollution)

7.3.2 Air Pollution from Stationary Sources
[36](#air-pollution-from-stationary-sources)

7.3.3 Air Quality Monitoring [39](#air-quality-monitoring)

7.3.4 Health Effects of Air Quality Pollutants
[40](#health-effects-of-air-quality-pollutants)

7.3.5 Suggested Actions to Improve Air Quality
[41](#suggested-actions-to-improve-air-quality)

7.4 Urban Water Resources [41](#urban-water-resources)

Source of Urban Water Supply [42](#source-of-urban-water-supply)

7.4.1 Water Quality Measurement [43](#water-quality-measurement)

7.4.2 Drinking Water Treatment [43](#drinking-water-treatment)

7.5 Urban and Municipal Environmental Management
[44](#urban-and-municipal-environmental-management)

7.5.1 Management of Sanitation Systems in Nigeria
[44](#management-of-sanitation-systems-in-nigeria)

7.5.2 Municipal Solid Waste [45](#municipal-solid-waste)

7.5.3 Industrial Waste [50](#industrial-waste)

7.6 Energy [52](#energy)

7.6.1 Energy Demand [52](#energy-demand)

7.6.2 Energy Sources and Production [53](#energy-sources-and-production)

7.7 Environmental Impacts of the Petroleum Industry
[56](#environmental-impacts-of-the-petroleum-industry)

7.7.1 Oil Industry and Area Communities
[57](#oil-industry-and-area-communities)

7.7.2 Environmental Impacts [57](#environmental-impacts)

GREEN [60](#green)

7.8 Agricultural Land Uses [60](#agricultural-land-uses)

7.8.1 Crop Production and Farming [61](#crop-production-and-farming)

7.8.2 Animal Husbandry [64](#animal-husbandry)

7.9 Savanna and Forest Ecosystems [66](#savanna-and-forest-ecosystems)

7.9.1 Savanna Types [66](#savanna-types)

7.9.2 Natural Forest Types [67](#natural-forest-types)

7.10 Biodiversity [69](#biodiversity)

7.11 Desertification [70](#desertification)

8.0 Summary of Current Donor Activities in Relevant Programming Areas
[74](#summary-of-current-donor-activities-in-relevant-programming-areas)

8.1 Multilateral Donor Organizations Active in the Environment Sector
[74](#multilateral-donor-organizations-active-in-the-environment-sector)

8.2 Bilateral Donor Organizations Active in the Environment Sector
[76](#bilateral-donor-organizations-active-in-the-environment-sector)

9.0 Priority Actions to Improve Environmental Management and Governance
[78](#priority-actions-to-improve-environmental-management-and-governance)

9.1 Legal and Policy Reform [78](#legal-and-policy-reform-1)

9.2 Institutional Strengthening [78](#institutional-strengthening-1)

9.3 Economic Incentives [79](#economic-incentives-1)

9.4 Regulation and Enforcement [79](#regulation-and-enforcement)

9.5 Environmental Education and Awareness
[79](#environmental-education-and-awareness)

9.6 Research [80](#research-1)

10.0 Recommendations for USAID/Nigeria
[81](#recommendations-for-usaidnigeria)

10.1 Potential Linkages Between Environment and Current Mission Programs
[81](#potential-linkages-between-environment-and-current-mission-programs)

10.2 Illustrative Stand-Alone Environmental Activities
[86](#illustrative-stand-alone-environmental-activities)

10.2.1 Soil and Water Conservation [87](#soil-and-water-conservation)

10.2.3 Support to Protected Area Management
[89](#support-to-protected-area-management)

10.2.4 Biogas Pilot Project [91](#biogas-pilot-project)

10.2.5 Other Potential Activity Areas
[92](#other-potential-activity-areas)

Part II Tropical Forests and Biodiversity in Nigeria: FAA 118/119
Assessment

1.0 Background II-[2](#background-1)

2.0 Executive Summary II-[3](#executive-summary-1)

3.0 Major Natural Habitats of Nigeria
II-[6](#major-natural-habitats-of-nigeria)

3.1 Overview II-[6](#overview)

3.2 Savanna and Grassland II-[6](#savanna-and-grassland)

3.3 Forests II-[7](#forests)

3.4 Freshwater Ecosystems II-[7](#freshwater-ecosystems)

3.5 Coastal Areas II-[8](#coastal-areas)

3.6 Habitats of International Importance
II-[9](#habitats-of-international-importance)

4.0 Tropical Forests in Nigeria II-[13](#tropical-forests-in-nigeria)

4.1 Overview II-[13](#overview-1)

4.2 Importance of Nigerian Forests
II-[13](#importance-of-nigerian-forests)

4.3 Description of Nigeria's Natural Forests
II-[13](#description-of-nigerias-natural-forests)

4.4 Management of Nigerian Forests
II-[16](#management-of-nigerian-forests)

5.0 Status of Biodiversity in Nigeria
II-[18](#status-of-biodiversity-in-nigeria)

5.1 Overview II-[18](#overview-2)

5.2 Birds and Mammals II-[18](#birds-and-mammals)

5.3 Reptiles, Amphibians and Fish II-[18](#reptiles-amphibians-and-fish)

5.4 Invertebrates II-[19](#invertebrates)

5.5 Plants II-[19](#plants)

5.6 Other Biodiversity II-[20](#other-biodiversity)

5.7 Significance of Nigeria's Biodiversity
II-[20](#significance-of-nigerias-biodiversity)

6.0 Threats to Nigeria's Biodiversity and Tropical Forests
II-[21](#threats-to-nigerias-biodiversity-and-tropical-forests)

6.1 Overview II-[21](#overview-3)

6.2 Habitat Degradation II-[21](#habitat-degradation)

6.3 Unsustainable Use II-[23](#unsustainable-use)

6.4 Institutional and Management Threats
II-[25](#institutional-and-management-threats)

7.0 Tropical Forests and Biodiversity Conservation efforts in Nigeria
II-[27](#tropical-forests-and-biodiversity-conservation-efforts-in-nigeria)

7.1 Background II-[27](#background-2)

7.2 Organizations Playing a Role II-[27](#organizations-playing-a-role)

7.3 Nigeria's Involvement in Global Conservation Agreements
II-[29](#nigerias-involvement-in-global-conservation-agreements)

7.4 Conservation Approaches in Nigeria
II-[29](#conservation-approaches-in-nigeria)

8.0 Overall Recommendations for further Biodiversity and Tropical
Forests Conservation Efforts in Nigeria
II-[33](#overall-recommendations-for-further-biodiversity-and-tropical-forests-conservation-efforts-in-nigeria)

9.0 The Relationship between USAID/Nigeria and the Conservation of
Biodiversity and Tropical Forests
II-[35](#the-relationship-between-usaidnigeria-and-the-conservation-of-biodiversity-and-tropical-forests)

Annexes

Annex A. FAA Sections 118/119 A-[1](#annex-a.-faa-sections-118119)

Annex B. Documents and Sources Consulted
B-[1](#annex-b.-documents-and-sources-consulted)

Annex C. Institutions and Persons Consulted
C-[1](#annex-c.-institutions-and-persons-consulted)

Annex D. Scope of Work D-[1](#annex-d.-scope-of-work)

# List of Tables, Figures and Boxes

**[[Part I]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

**[Tables]{.underline}**

Table 3.1. Nigeria Environmental Analysis Team
[8](#table-3.1.-nigeria-environmental-analysis-team)

Table 4.1. Nigeria's Geopolitical Zones 12

Table 5.1. Environmental Conventions and Treaties Ratified by GFRN 19

Table 7.1. Major Inland Water Resources of Nigeria 31

Table 7.2. Ambient Air Quality at Selected Sites in the Rivers and
Bayelsa States 37

Table 7.3. Air Quality Data at Four Niger Delta Stations 37

Table 7.4. Comparative Evaluation with Recommended Limits 38

Table 7.5. Source of Water in Urban Lagos (1997) 42

Table 7.6. Estimated Costs of a Plastic-Waste Recycling Facility in
Ibadan 48

Table 7.7. Kaduna Organic Waste Recylcing Facility 49

Table 7.8. Wastewater from Crude Oil Processing 59

Table 7.9. One Productivity Estimate of Nigeria's Soils 61

Table 7.10. Summary of Dominant Vegetation and Landuse Classes for
1976/78 and 1993/95 63

Table 7.11. Estimates of Natural Forest Cover in Southern Nigeria 67

Table 7.12. Issues Related to Desertification in the Savanna Lands of
Nigeria 72

Table 7.13. Illustrative Activities by Stakeholders in Controlling
Desertification 73

**[Figures]{.underline}**

Figure 4.1. The Niger Delta [10](#figure-4.1.-the-niger-delta)

Figure 4.2. The States and Federal Capital Territory of Nigeria
[13](#figure-4.2.-the-states-and-federal-capital-territory-of-nigeria)

Figure 7.1. Ecozones of Nigeria (1953-1995) 66

**[Boxes]{.underline}**

Box 5.1. Examples of State-Level Environmental Legislation 16

Box 5.2. Land Tenure and Land Use 18

Box 5.3. GFRN Steps Toward Implementation of CBD and FCCC 19

Box 6.1. Resource Allocation in Nigeria 28

Box 7.1 Nigeria Ministry of Environment's Priority Action List 29

Box 7.2. A Proxy Ranking of Major Environmental Problems in the Niger
Delta Region
[34](#box-7.2.-a-proxy-ranking-of-major-environmental-problems-in-the-niger-delta-region)

Box 7.3. Energy Efficient Cooking in Rural Africa 39

Box 7.4. Monitoring Limitations 39

Box 7.5. Key Steps to a Safe Drinking Water Supply Treatment 44

Box 7.6. Gully Erosion 65

Box 7.7. Desertification is... 70

Box 7.8. Over fifty-five years ago... 71

**[[Part II]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

**[Tables]{.underline}**

Table 1.1. Nigeria Environmental Analysis Team
II-[2](#table-1.1.-nigeria-environmental-analysis-team)

Table 3.1. The Land Area under Difference Vegetation Types and Amount of
Land Designated as Forest Reserves
II-[6](#table-3.1.-the-land-area-under-difference-vegetation-types-and-amount-of-land-designated-as-forest-reserves)

Table 3.2. Select IUCN Red List Species Found in the Niger Delta
II-[11](#table-3.2.-select-iucn-red-list-species-found-in-the-niger-delta)

Table 4.1. Estimates of Natural Forest Types in the High Forest Zone in
Southern Nigeria II-14

**[Boxes]{.underline}**

Box 6.1. Biosafety II-23

Box 6.2. Bushmeat II-24

# Acronyms and Abbreviations

ADS Automated Directives System (USAID)

AGFA Associated Gas Framework Agreement

AGO Automotive Gas Oil

AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

API American Petroleum Institute

bbl/d barrels per day

Bcf billion cubic feet

CASSAD Center for African Settlement Studies and Development

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity

CBNRM Community-Based Natural Resources Management

CBO Community-Based Organization

CD Convention on Desertification or Canadian Dollars

CDA Community Development Association

CEDA Center for Environment and Development in Africa

CERASE Center for Environmental Resources and Sustainable Ecosystems

CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research

CIDA Canadian International Development Agency

CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species

CNL Chevron Nigeria Limited

CO Carbon Monoxide

CO~2~ Carbon Dioxide

CSO Community Service Organization

D&DA Department of Drought and Desertification Amelioration

DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane

DFID Department for International Development (UK)

D/G Democracy and Governance

DOE Department of Energy (U.S.)

DOS Department of State (U.S.)

DPK Dual Purpose Kerosene

DPR Department of Petroleum Resources

EA Environmental Analysis or Assessment

EC Department of Environmental Conservation

ECN Electric Corporation of Nigeria

EF&CZM Department of Erosion, Flood Coastal Zone Management

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EIS Environmental Information System

EMP Environmental Management Project (World Bank)

EPA Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.)

F Department of Forestry

FAA Foreign Assistance Act

FAO Food and Agricultural Organization

FCCC Framework Convention on Climate Change

FCT Federal Capital Territory

FEPA Federal Environmental Protection Agency (now FMoE)

FMoA Federal Ministry of Agriculture

FMoE Federal Ministry of Environment

FORMECU Forestry Management, Evaluation and Coordinating Unit

FRIN Forest Research Institute

GAP Gum Arabic Activity

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GEF Global Environment Facility

GFRN Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria

GIS Geographic Information System

GMO Genetically Modified Organism

GMP General Management Plan

GNP Gross National Product

GPS Global Positioning System

HDI Human Development Index

HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus

HPFO High Pour Fuel Oil

IBA Important Bird Area

ICBP International Council for Bird Preservation

ICJ International Court of Justice

IFDC International Fertilizer Development Center

IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture

IPP Independent Power Producers

IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature

JV Joint Venture

KEPA Kaduna Environmental Protection Agency

LG Local Government

LGA Local Government Association

LEEMP Local Empowerment and Environmental Management Program

LNG Liquefied Natural Gas

LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas

LRFO Low Pour Fuel Oil

LSWC Lagos State Water Corporation

MoE Ministry of Environment

MoWR Ministry of Water Resources

NACGRAB National Center for Genetic Resources and Biotechnology

NAPIMS National Petroleum Investment Management Services

NCE National Council on the Environment

NCF Nigerian Conservation Foundation

NCSC National Center for State Courts

NDDC Niger Delta Development Commission

NDI National Democratic Initiative

NEPA National Electric Power Authority

NEST Nigerian Environmental Action/Study Team

NGO Nongovernmental Organization

NH~3~ Ammonia

NNPC Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation

NO~2~ Nitrogen Dioxide

NPS National Park Service

NTFP Non-Timber Forest Product

ODA Overseas Development Assistance (Philippines)

OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

OP Overall Priority

OPEC Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries

PC&EH Department of Pollution Control and Environmental Health

PCB polychlorinated bi-phenyl

ppm parts per million

PR&S Department of Drought and Desertification and Statistics

PSC Production Service Contract

PTA Parent-Teacher Association

RECLED Response, Compensation and Liability for Environmental Damage

RSPB Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

RUSEP Rural Sector Enhancement Program

SAFGRAD Semi-Arid Food Grain Research and Development

SCF standard cubic foot

SEPA State Environmental Protection Agency

SG State Government

SO Strategic Objective

SO~2~ Sulfur Dioxide

SPM Suspended Particulate Matter

STCP Sustainable Tree Crops Project

STD Sexually Transmitted Disease

SWL Soil and Water Conservation

Tcf trillion cubic feet

TCP Technical Cooperation Program

TDGE Thematic Donor Group on the Environment

TSP Total Suspended Particulates

UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification

UNDP United Nations Development Program

UNEP United Nations Environmental Program

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization

UNICEF United Nations International Children's Fund

USAID US Agency for International Development

UTF Unilateral Trust Fund

WAGP West Africa Gas Pipeline

WCS Wildlife Conservation Society

WHO World Health Organization

WRI World Resources Institute

WWF World Wildlife Fund

# 1.0 Background

This environmental analysis presents an overview of the environment
sector in Nigeria and provides a threats and opportunities assessment
that is a formal requirement of the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID) strategic planning process. This
analysis is designed to support the priority-setting process of
USAID/Nigeria as it develops its future programming for the next three
to five years.

The formal requirement stems from U.S. Congress' 1986 amendments to the
Foreign Assistance Act (FAA), namely Sections 118 and 119 (see Annex A).
Its intent was to alert USAID and the foreign assistance community to
strong congressional interest in the wise and prudent management of
environmental resources in countries where the U.S. provides assistance
(Russo, 1994). Sections 118 "Tropical Forests" and 119 "Endangered
Species" of the FAA codify the more specific U.S. interests in forests
and biological diversity. These two provisions require that all country
plans include (a) an analysis of the actions necessary in that country
to conserve biological diversity and tropical forests; and (b) the
extent to which current or proposed USAID actions meet those needs.
Section 118/119 analyses are specific legal requirements of all USAID
operating unit strategic plans. It should be noted that ADS 22 CFR 216.5
requires USAID to conduct their assistance programs in a manner that is
sensitive to the protection of endangered or threatened species and
their critical habitats. These regulations are also in place to help
Missions make the best use of current scientific and social research on
environment in their decision-making processes.

In 1999, the Africa Bureau approved the USAID/Nigeria two-year
Transition Country Strategic Objective. This was approved without
adherence to the Automated Directives System (ADS) environmental
assessment requirements due to its short timeframe. An extension, until
December 2003, of the Transition Strategic Plan was approved in May
2001, with the condition that an environmental assessment now be
completed due to the longer term (two to four years) nature of the
strategy. This document supports that process by providing a broad
overview of threats facing the environment in Nigeria, based on
available data and interviews with expert informants within and outside
the Mission. Although this document presents the relative severity of
the threats facing each sector, these need not necessarily dictate
environmental priorities and assistance strategies. Similarly, the
opportunities section of this assessment is provided for a broad range
of parties who might be interested in addressing "environmental threats
in Nigeria."

As noted above, this document is in two parts. Part I is an overall
assessment of the environment and environmental quality issues, problems
and opportunities in Nigeria. Part II is the direct response to FAA
Sections 118/119 and provides the Tropical Forestry and Biodiversity
assessment for USAID/Nigeria. Annexes at the end of the document provide
additional supporting material. Annex B contains the documents and
sources consulted in the course of the analysis exercise and Annex C
lists the persons and institutions interviewed and visited throughout
the course of the analysis. Annex D is the Scope of Work provided by
USAID.

# 2.0 Executive Summary

## 2.1 Purpose

This environmental analysis was conducted to:

-   Provide an overall state of the environment report examining the
    general status, issues, problems and opportunities related to
    Nigeria's environment sector;

-   Identify the primary causes of environmental degradation in Nigeria
    and suggest options to address them;

-   Describe current and successful approaches of interventions in the
    environmental sector by private interests, bi- and multilateral
    donors, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and other institutions;

-   Analyze opportunities and constraints associated with the major
    elements (forests, land, wildlife, coastal and marine resources,
    air, water) of the environment;

-   Provide recommendations as to how USAID/Nigeria can best integrate
    special targets of opportunity into its Strategic Objective 2 (SO2)
    program;

-   Provide recommendations as to how USAID/Nigeria might be able to
    integrate "environment" into its current and future portfolio;

-   Provide a concise evaluation of Nigeria's biodiversity and tropical
    forest resources; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Identify the extent to which required actions for conservation are
    satisfied by current or proposed USAID/Nigeria programs.

## 2.2 Findings

Nigeria's natural environmental resources and the quality of its air,
water, and soils are severely threatened. Increasing poverty, high
population growth and migration, especially into urban areas, and
political/institutional constraints are the underlying causes for
environmental degradation in the country.

Nigeria is Africa's most populous nation; one out of every five people
living in sub-Saharan Africa lives here. Its population growth rate is
above three percent and rural to urban migration is making the country's
cities some of the largest in the world. Although Nigeria receives
considerable revenue from its large multinational oil industry sector,
this money rarely trickles down to the populace who are generally poor
and growing poorer. This combination of expanding population and
increasing poverty puts increasingly severe demands upon the natural
environment, the institutional structures and the resources available to
manage them. The technical capacity to deal with the enormity of the
problem is generally weak and the lack of enforcement of (and compliance
with) existing regulations make for huge institutional obstacles when
trying to effectively tackle environmental issues.

These causes lead to the major threats of unsustainable use of renewable
natural resources, unplanned urban development and oil industry
operations that confound sound community practices to manage natural
resources for their mutual benefit.

Nigeria presently contains considerable biodiversity as well as some
very important tracts of fairly undisturbed tropical forests. Its
diversity of natural ecosystems ranges from semi-arid savanna to montane
forests, rich seasonal floodplain environments, rainforests, vast
freshwater swamp forests and diverse coastal vegetation. Nigeria, in the
Niger Delta region, contains the largest remaining tract of mangroves in
Africa---the third largest in the world. But all of this is threatened.

Most of the land in Nigeria has been converted to agricultural or
pastoral uses and agricultural encroachment threatens the natural areas
that remain. Desertification, the loss of soil fertility, insufficient
quantities and quality of water and enormous erosion problems have
followed in the wake of overuse and mismanagement of the country's
resources. Environmental problems that stem from large unplanned urban
centers with inadequate solid and municipal waste disposal practices and
the impacts of the oil, mining and manufacturing industries are taking
their toil on water and air quality in many areas. Add to this the
escalating practices of overfishing, uncontrolled logging, and many
other unsustainable uses of the natural resources that remain, and
threats to the survival of significant components of Nigeria's
biodiversity is very real. There is, however, still some hope.

Since the return to democracy in 1999, there has been a renewed interest
in environmental management and protection. The newly created Federal
Ministry of the Environment (FMoE) is pushing an agenda that makes
priority issues of gas flaring, marine and coastal resources
degradation, desertification, and industrial and urban pollution. The
recently formed Niger Delta Development Commission has a transparent
mandate and dynamic leadership to help that unique and resource-rich
region seek and develop community-based solutions to the social and
environmental problems that have been growing for decades. In many
states across the country, there are encouraging signs that public
leaders, NGOs and community-based organizations (CBOs) are focusing
actively on threats to the environment and donors are moving to help
implement environmental activities that result in improved livelihoods
for the people of Nigeria.

USAID/Nigeria currently supports vigorous programs in health, democracy
and governance, agriculture, education, and energy and infrastructure.
While the Mission does not support an environment program, per se, it is
worthwhile to note most USAID/Nigeria programming areas could be
leveraged to impact positively on environmental management. Conversely,
it is also true that improved environmental management would impact
positively upon most of USAID/Nigeria's current programming areas.

3.  **Conclusions and Recommendations**

This analysis identified three major threats to effectively managing
Nigeria's environment:

-   The unsustainable use of renewable natural resources,

-   Unplanned urban development, and

-   Petroleum industry operations.

To plan for effective activities and to manage the environment in a more
sustainable manner, the GFRN needs to address and mitigate these
threats---and the underlying causes of environmental degradation
mentioned above: increasing poverty, population growth and migration,
and political and institutional constraints. To help improve
environmental management and governance the environmental analysis (EA)
team aggregated what it saw as priority actions into the areas of:

+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| -   Legal and policy reform       | -   Institutional strengthening  |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| -   Economic incentives           | -   Regulation                   |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| -   Research                      |                                  |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+

#### Legal and Policy Reform

Although the federal framework needs work in some areas, it is the
states, due to the highly varied nature of the most pressing
environmental threats they face, that need to be empowered to develop
and enforce legislation promoting sustainable use of environmental
resources. Sectoral policies are highly centralized and also suffer from
lack of coordination. There needs to be an integrated, multisectoral
approach to policy development and implementation at both the national
and state levels.

USAID/Nigeria is continuing to gain valuable experience though its
democracy and governance programming. Its work with the National
Assembly, where members have ranked environment as an important
thematic, might be an opportunity for expanded activity. Being aware of
elected officials' sensitivity to environmental issues with their
constituents and providing support to House and Senate Environment
Committees are new places to focus attention. USAID programming has
already been involved with the development and implementation of
constituency outreach programs in other sectors. Assisting outreach
programs grappling with pressing environmental issues such as gully
erosion, water use and management, urban sanitation and pollution would
be a logical step.

#### Economic Incentives

In Nigeria, the lack of effective resource valuation has strong negative
impacts on the management of renewable natural resources and on the
sustainable use of water and soils that effect overall quality and
production potential. More complete knowledge of markets, better access
to markets and use options for resources and their associated risks are
unknown, or incomplete. There is considerable room for improvement in
just about every economic activity that depends on clean and abundant
sources of water, fertile soil, protection of infrastructure and
populations from erosion, construction material from trees, food from
plants and animals, etc.

Through a variety of programming, USAID/Nigeria is working with partner
institutions, researchers, and other donors to improve agricultural
practices, expand technologies available to farmers and improve their
access to and knowledge of local and international markets for their
production. The recent start of the gum arabic program provides a solid
linkage between rural livelihoods and environmental products. There are
similar opportunities that can be captured with other high-value or
specialty product in other regions of the country, building on the
training and management experience being gained with local producer
associations. The benefits already being realized under SO2 could be
expanded by strengthening ties with the Sustainable Tree Crops Program,
exploring additional options for non-timber forest product (NTFP)
markets with the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA)
and other partners, and looking at incentives to leverage opportunities
with other donor programs/activities in the area of soil fertility and
soil and water conservation.

#### Research

Overuse and poor management of existing resources have created enormous
problems and substantial holes in Nigeria's natural resource base.
Public records at the federal and state levels are poor, and too often
out of date. They are nonexistent at the local and community levels,
except for the indigenous knowledge of local land stewards. There is a
definite need to more information, better science and solid monitoring
of environmental change.

Working with IITA, the International Fertilizer Development Center
(IFDC), Semi-Arid Food Grain Research and Development (SAFGRAD) and
others, USAID/Nigeria has developed a good reputation for providing
valuable financial and technical assistance backed with good science.
The reputation and assistance associated with these programs is almost
exclusively within the domain of the agricultural sector. A slight
movement into the greater environmental arena to include water use and
water quality, soil and water conservation, gene pools of
wild/traditional crops and the management of tree crops and NTFPs could
provide added benefits for ongoing programs and count considerably
towards increasing conservation and environmental awareness.

#### Institutional Strengthening

The capacity to integrate environmental concerns into economic
development planning and activities is extremely weak in Nigeria.
Unfortunately in many instances, there is also the lack of political
will to even attempt do so. The capacity is greatest at the federal
level, but there are usually no "flow-down" mechanisms to the state, and
certainly not to the local government levels where environmental threats
need to be directly addressed. NGOs and CBOs are numerous, and to their
credit, pooling resources and gathering strength in many areas of the
country. Many of these latter groups address environmental issues or
conflict resolution around environmental degradation problems. Several
have direct ties to international groups.

USAID/Nigeria is presently working with producer associations, local
traders and exporters to strengthen access to and knowledge about gum
arabic markets. Training in marketing techniques as well as management
techniques to grow trees and improve yields are examples of activities
that will, over time, improve environmental conditions and environmental
awareness in areas where the activities take place. Similar
institutional strengthening could also occur with producers of other
natural/environment products with high or niche value. There are also
potential opportunities to assist or leverage programs and institutions
in the Niger Delta region in particular. Oil companies are developing
broad programs that provide assistance to NGOs and other local
institutions that seek to mitigate environmental degradation.

A number of Nigerian NGOs are also actively engaged in environmental
education, community conservation and other environmental initiatives.
USAID/Nigeria should continue to examine ways to work with international
foundations that support NGOs and CBOs operating in Nigeria (e.g., the
MacArthur Foundation, the Ford Foundation) that work to empower
communities to effectively manage natural resources.

In education, USAID/Nigeria is focusing on literacy training. Using
materials that provide an environment and natural history focus would
improve environmental awareness at a very basic level and help instill
an environmental ethic that is only beginning to show itself in some
areas of the country. Additionally, where the attention is on working
with civic society entities, such as Parent-Teacher Associations (PTAs)
and the like, work could also be done to include related efforts of
environmental educational NGOs, such as the Nigerian Conservation
Foundation's (NCF) Conservation Club initiatives that are being
developed in various locales around the country.

#### Regulation

Legal and political frameworks for environmental management require
further work; considerable gains in improved environmental management
could be made by effectively enforcing existing regulations, both in
regards to pollution control and biodiversity conservation. Any credible
change in Nigeria's enforcement of environmental regulations will
require more than simple "capacity building," it will require building
the political support or "the political will" to see the regulations
enforced. These types of changes are long term and require raising the
awareness of a wide range of stakeholders (e.g., resource users, judges,
etc.) as to the interrelated nature of environment, economics and
health.

One area that could use immediate focus is access to the Ecological
Fund. Making the management of the Ecological Fund more transparent, and
holding its users more accountable, could go a long way to promoting
improved environmental management in Nigeria. Again, USAID/Nigeria's
democracy and governance program could provide the most direct link to
addressing regulatory issues such as the transparency of this Fund.

Another regulatory area (as well as an institutional one) that would
benefit from additional assistance would be in strengthening the court
system at the state level. This might first involve raising
environmental awareness among court officials, both in a general sense
and vis-à-vis the existing legislative framework. This might serve to
help strengthen the application of environmental legislation among the
judiciary.

Nigeria's environmental problems are extensive. Reversing these trends
will require significant political and popular will, not to mention huge
amounts of financial and human capital. The process has started and each
small step has to be seen only as positive. Within this framework, USAID
and other donors and institutions need to work in a coordinated effort
to ensure that the scale of their efforts is as large as possible.

# 3.0 Purpose and Approach

This analysis of environment and natural resources in Nigeria was
conducted for the purposes of:

-   Providing an overall state of the environment report that would
    examine the general status, issues, problems and opportunities
    related to Nigeria's environment sector. This assessment reviewed
    the status and threats to the nation's forest resources, inland
    waters, and coastal and marine habitats and evaluated them in terms
    of their biodiversity, their use for subsistence and commercial
    purposes, governance issues related to their management, and how
    natural resources and agriculture are related to rural livelihoods
    and poverty. Urban and energy issues related to the environmental
    quality of air, water and land resources were also addressed for
    this nation where almost one-half of the population resides in, or
    in close proximity to, large cities;

-   Identifying the primary causes of environmental degradation and
    suggesting options to address them;

-   Describing current and successful approaches in interventions in the
    environmental sector by private interests, bilateral and
    multilateral donors, NGOs and other institutions;

-   Analyzing opportunities and constraints associated with the major
    elements (forests, land, wildlife, coastal and marine resources,
    air, water) of the environment;

-   Providing recommendations as to how USAID/Nigeria can best integrate
    special targets of opportunity into its SO2 program;

-   Providing a concise evaluation of Nigeria's biodiversity and
    tropical forest resources; and

-   Identifying the extent to which required actions for conservation
    are satisfied by current or proposed USAID/Nigeria programs.

The analysis was conducted by an ARD team of four expatriate specialists
with expertise in biodiversity, natural resources management and
governance, natural resources policy and energy/urban environmental
planning. Key support was also provided by local specialists from the
Ibadan-based Center for African Settlement Studies and Development
(CASSAD) in the areas of urban planning, water resources, energy,
forestry, sociology, agriculture and natural resources. Administrative
and logistical support was provided via the Lagos and Abuja offices of
Support Management Services, Ltd. A complete list of the team
specialists and their field schedule is found in Table 3.1.

The analysis was conducted over a six-week period that began with
consultations and a scoping exercise with USAID's Africa Bureau and
Global Bureau staff in Washington, DC. Following an intensive period of
interviews and documentation review in Abuja, the team traveled to
cities and field sites in seven of Nigeria's 36 states reviewing
environmental threats, issues and opportunities in five of the nation's
six geopolitical regions. Visits, interviews and discussions were held
in the field based on the scoping exercise, consultations with
USAID/Nigeria staff, discussions with Nigerian government officials,
research and other key contacts made by ARD's EA team members.
USAID/Nigeria SO2 staff also accompanied the EA team to a majority of
the sites visited outside of Abuja.

Additional time was allotted to revising the report based on comments to
the draft report by USAID/Nigeria and Africa Bureau. Oral briefings were
given at the mid-point and at the end of the in-country visit to
USAID/Nigeria staff and the U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria in Abuja. Another
briefing was given to Africa Bureau and Global Bureau staff following
the submission of the final report document to USAID/Nigeria.

##### Table 3.1. Nigeria Environmental Analysis Team

  ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------
  **Specialist**               **Specialty Area**

  Steve Dennison, Ph.D.        Team Leader/Natural Resource
                               Economics/Policy

  Patricia Foster-Turley,      Biodiversity
  Ph.D.                        

  Ramzy Kanaan                 Natural Resources Governance

  Davinder Sood, Ph.D.         Urban Environmental Management and Energy

  Prof. Nurudeen Adedipe,      Agriculture and Natural Resource Policy
  Ph.D.                        

  Adebayo Alao                 Urban Planning

  Fatai Balogun, Ph.D.         Energy

  Nicolas Dosumu               Data Collection Specialist

  Prof. L.K. Jeje, Ph.D.       Water Resources

  Prof. Bunyamin Ola-Adams,    Biodiversity and Forestry
  Ph.D.                        

  Prof. Adepoju Onibokun,      Sociology and Urban Planning
  Ph.D.                        
  ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------

# 4.0 The Nigerian Context

## 4.1 Biophysical

Although not a large country in the general context of Africa, Nigeria's
923,769 km² is quite variable ecologically and physically. Located
roughly ten degrees north of the equator and eight degrees east of the
Greenwich meridian, this West African country shares its 4,047-km
international border with four Francophone nations---Benin, Niger, Chad
and Cameroon. Its southern border is the Atlantic Ocean's Gulf of
Guinea.

The country is characterized by a strong climatological gradient north
to south with definitive dry and wet seasons. It is this gradient that
defines Nigeria's ecological zones. Beginning along the northern border
with Niger and moving south, the country can be classed into six
ecological zones: savanna, lowland rainforest, freshwater swamp forest,
mangrove forest and coastal vegetation, and along the eastern border
with Cameroon, a montane forest zone. The savanna zone can be further
divided into Sahel, Sudan, Guinea and derived savanna zones. The Jos
Plateau, in the middle of the country and in the savanna zone, is often
given a separate designation due to its higher elevation and vegetation
that occurs there but nowhere else in West Africa. Details on these
classifications are found elsewhere in this report.

Rainfall in the north rarely exceeds 600 mm annually, and most of this
falls during the June to July period. Some regions of the south, in
contrast, have as much as 4,000 mm of rain annually and the rainy season
is much longer, lasting from February to October.

Topography in Nigeria is, for the most part, gentle and rolling,
punctuated in several areas in the north by low escarpments bordering
stream valleys and in the south by broad peneplains formed by the
country's river systems. As noted above, the Jos Plateau in the central
portion of the country is characterized by rugged terrain and elevations
that exceed 5,000 feet above sea level. Along the eastern border with
Cameroon, the terrain is mountainous with elevations ranging from over
7,000 feet in the south to peaks of volcanic plugs that have spires
greater than 4,000 feet above sea level. Volcanic plugs are also
scattered across much of the central part of the country, providing
striking contrasts to the savanna vegetation surrounding them. The
Yourobaland Plateau, entering from the western border with Benin, points
like a long finger running southeast for about 200 km in the southwest
portion of the country.

Nigeria is drained by three major river systems. In the north, the
Komadougou-Yobe with headwaters formed by the Hadejia, Jama'are and
Misau Rivers flows northeast from the north-central portion of the
country, eventually forming the border with Niger before it empties into
Lake Chad in the extreme northeast corner. This system also comprises
the Hadejia-Nguru wetlands, an important freshwater estuary for
wildlife.

The Niger River system consists of the Niger itself flowing into the
country across its western border juncture with Benin and Niger and
southeasterly to the south central part of the country. There it is
joined by its major tributary, the Benue River, which flows
southwesterly from its headwaters in the mountainous border with
Cameroon. From this juncture at Lokoja, it flows almost due south
emptying into the Atlantic through the Niger Delta (see Figure 4.1). The
Niger River is the third largest in Africa and sixth largest in the
world.

##### Figure 4.1. The Niger Delta

![](media/image4.png){width="3.75in" height="3.6458333333333335in"}

Source: Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria, Ltd.

Other smaller rivers form the coastal drainage system and are simply
classed as east or west depending on their orientation to the Niger
Delta.

There are only two water bodies of significance in Nigeria: Lake Chad in
the northeast, and Kainji Lake that was formed by damming the Niger
River in the west central part of the country. The latter has a surface
area of about 127,000 ha. Lake Chad is shared by four countries:
Nigeria, Niger, Chad and Cameroon. Nigeria's sector encompasses about
550,000 ha.

Hydrologically, the country is influenced by geologic structure. Areas
of igneous structure (primarily the Jos Plateau, the central and
southern sections of the country) are dominated by surface runoff while
the areas of sedimentary formation are characterized by groundwater
retention. The Chad Basin and the Sokoto-Rima Basin in the north are
more associated with groundwater than surface water (GFRN, 2000).

The coast and the Niger Delta are comprised of an extensive system of
lagoons, barrier beaches, and mangrove swamps stretching along the
853-km coastline from Benin to Cameroon. Much of the western end of the
coastline has been degraded due to anthropogenic factors (26% of
Nigeria's population lives within 100 km of the coast), and many of the
barrier islands on the outer reaches of the Niger Delta are being
battered by erosion. But due to inaccessibility by the population at
large, portions of the outer Delta and eastern coastline remain in a
good natural state.

## 4.2 Socioeconomic

Nigeria is home for the continent's most populous nation, estimated at
more than 120 million people. Almost half live in urban areas, the
majority of them in large, sprawling cities in the south like Lagos,
Ibadan, Warri, Benin City and Port Harcourt. Cities of over 1 million
people like Kano, Kaduna and Sokoto also exist in the north. The
population is characterized by a strong rural to urban migration.
Although the last census was in 1991, annual growth rate estimates are
over 3%. Population densities, even in rural areas, especially in the
southeast part of the country, are often above 200 persons/km² (NEST,
1991).

Nigeria's people are tremendously diverse, composed of more than 250
ethic groups. Historically this has been a source of civil strife and
conflict that continues today. The most populous and politically
influential among them are the Hausa and Fulani (30%), Yoruba (20%),
Igbo \[Ibo\] (18%), Ijaw (10%), Kanuri (4%), Ibibio (4%) and Tiv (2%)
(Atlapedia, 2000). About half of Nigeria's population are Muslim, forty
percent are Christian and the remaining ten percent follow indigenous
beliefs.

Following the discovery of oil in the Niger Delta in the 1950s and the
rapid development associated with that, significant economic progress
was made in the 1970s and 1980s. By the 1990s, the economy was becoming
severely hobbled by political instability, corruption and poor
macroeconomic mismanagement. Coupled with the continuously increasing
population that exerts increasing pressure on urban and rural land and
water resources, serious consequences have ensued. One of the most
serious is the large number of people who now live under conditions of
extreme poverty and deprivation. Nigeria ranks among the low human
development countries of the world. Its Human Development Index (HDI) is
0.439, placing it in the 151^st^ position among the 1,174 nations on the
1998 HDI ranking (UNDP, 2000). Life expectancy at birth is low (56
years) as is gross domestic product (GDP) per capita (US\$300) (U.S.
DOS, 2000).

Nigeria's economy is dominated by petroleum. It is extremely
overdependent on the capital-intensive oil sector, which provides an
estimated 80% of the nation's government revenues (GDP), 90 to 95% of
its export earnings and over 90% of the foreign exchange earnings
(U.S.DOE, 2002). Other sectors pale beside oil. The largely subsistence
agriculture sector has not kept pace with rapid population growth and
now Nigeria is a food importer, where once it was a net exporter to
other countries in the region. According to the World Bank (2001),
agriculture's share of the GDP has declined from 33% in 1990 to less
than 28% today.

In addition to oil, other industries process coal, tin, palm oil,
rubber, hides and skins, textiles, cement, footwear, chemicals,
fertilizers and ceramics. Major agricultural production includes cocoa,
peanuts, palm oil, corn, rice, sorghum, millet, cassava, yams, rubber,
cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, timber and fish (Mapscom, 2001).

## 4.3 Legal/Political

Nigeria is comprised of 36 states and a Federal Capital Territory (FCT)
that are grouped in six geopolitical zones. Table 4.1 shows how the
states are grouped by zone and Figure 4.2 presents the geographic
distribution of the states. The nation's capital, Abuja, was officially
moved from Lagos in 1991. The transition to the new capital is still
very evident both in terms of physical infrastructure and a transient
government population that all but vacates the FCT on weekends.

####### Table 4.1. Nigeria's Geopolitical Zones

  --------------------- -------------------------------------------------
  **Zone**              **Constituent States**

  North West            Jigawa, Kaduna, Kano, Katsina, Kebbi, Sokoto,
                        Zamfara

  North East            Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba, Yobe

  North Central         Benue, Kogi, Kwara, Nassarawa, Niger, Plateau

  South West            Ekiti, Lagos, Ogun, Ondo, Osun, Oyo

  South East            Abia, Anambra, Ebonyi, Enugu, Imo

  South South           Akwa-Ibom, Bayelsa, Cross-River, Delta, Edo,
                        Rivers

  Federal Capital       Abuja
  Territory             
  --------------------- -------------------------------------------------

The current constitution was adopted in 1999 and the present government
represents the first democratically elected body in more than thirty
years. The executive branch consists of the president, who is both chief
of state and the head of government, elected by popular vote for no more
than two four-year terms. (The next presidential election is scheduled
for 2003.) The Federal Executive Council, an appointed body, functions
as a cabinet within the executive branch.

The legislature is bicameral consisting of a Senate (with 103 seats,
three from each state, one from the FCT) elected by popular vote to
serve four-year terms, and a House of Representatives, also elected by
popular vote to serve four-year terms. The next election period is
scheduled for 2003. Because both the executive branch and the
legislature will be popularly elected in 2003, the political and
economic agendas in the period leading up to the vote are apt to be the
only focus of action for the country.

The judicial branch is made up of the Supreme Court with judges
appointed by the Provisional Ruling Council and the Federal Court of
Appeals with judges appointed by the federal government on the advice of
an Advisory Judicial Committee.

State governments are headed by a governor who appoints commissioners to
oversee various state ministries. It is noteworthy that state ministry
structure varies between states and does not necessarily follow the
federal model. Local government associations (LGAs) function as the main
supporting bodies for activities within each state.

The next section provides a broad overview of the constitutional and
legislative, and institutional and policy frameworks for environmental
management and protection.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ![](media/image5.png){width="6.481944444444444in"                     |
| height="5.507638888888889in"}                                         |
|                                                                       |
| #####                                                                 |
|                                                                       |
| ##### Figure 4.2. The States and Federal Capital Territory of Nigeria |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

# 5.0 Constitutional and Legislative Framework for Environmental Management

The Constitution of the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria
(GFRN-1999) provides for a three-tiered governmental structure, that
consists of the federal government (GFRN), the state governments (SGs),
and the local governments (LGs). The Constitution specifies the roles
and jurisdictions of the three tiers of government and describes the
powers vested in the three arms of government---the executive, the
legislative and the judicial---at each tier. The legislative and
judicial arms of government are highlighted in this section, vis-à-vis
their roles in environmental management. The executive arm of
government, including the federal ministries, state ministries and the
service departments of LGs, are discussed in Section 6, Nigeria's
Institutional and Policy Framework for Environmental Management.

## 5.1 Constitutional Framework for Environmental Management

The Environmental Objectives and Directive of State Policy on the
Environment contained in the Constitution state that, "the State shall
protect and improve the environment and safeguard the water, air and
land, forest and wildlife of Nigeria" (Constitution, Chapter 2, Article
28). In an effort to develop a framework within which the goals of
protecting and improving the environment can be realized, the
Constitution allocates certain legislative competencies to each of the
three tiers of government. The responsibility for applying the
legislation falls to the judiciary. The specific competencies of the
National Assembly, the state assemblies and the local government
councils are discussed below.

***The Executive Legislative List***

Part I of the Second Schedule to the Constitution contains the Exclusive
Legislative List, which documents the realms over which the National
Assembly of the GFRN is solely empowered to make, amend and repeal
legislation. From the perspective of environmental management and
protection these realms include, but are not limited to coastal and
marine fisheries; mines and minerals---including oil fields and oil
mining, national parks, and water---from sources affecting more than one
state.

***The Concurrent Legislative List***

Part II of the Second Schedule to the Constitution, the Concurrent
Legislative List, describes the realms over which both the National
Assembly of the GFRN and the House of Assembly of any state, are
empowered to act. From an environmental perspective these realms include
the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity to areas
not covered by the national grid system; the establishment of research
centers for agricultural studies; the regulation and coordination of
scientific research; industrial, commercial and agricultural
development.

***The Functions of Local Government Councils***

Part I of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution, the Functions of
Local Government Councils, describe the roles and jurisdictions of local
government councils. Again, from the perspective of environmental
management and protection these realms include the consideration and
making of recommendations to a state commission on economic planning and
development; the development of agriculture and natural
resources---other than the exploitation of minerals; and the
establishment and maintenance of infrastructure, public markets, etc.

As a whole, the constitutional framework for environmental management
remains highly centralized. The result is a system in which the federal
and state governments are given the primary responsibility for
developing and applying the legislative framework for environmental
management, including the provision of supervisory and regulatory
functions, while the primary responsibility for economic planning and
development resides with LGs. In addition to increasing the capacity of
LGs to integrate environmental planning and management into their
day-to-day activities, decentralizing certain supervisory and regulatory
functions to institutions at the local level---institutions with some
incentive and capacity to carry out regular activities
on-the-ground---could go a long way toward supporting improved
environmental management

## 5.2 The Federal, State and Local Government Legislative Framework for Environmental Management

The legislative framework for environmental management by the federal
government, state and local governments are discussed below.

### 5.2.1 The Federal Legislative Framework for Environmental Management 

The legislative arm of the GFRN, the National Assembly, is a bicameral
legislative body comprised of the Senate and the House of
Representatives. In addition to participating in the general activities
of the House and Senate, members are also assigned to topical
committees. The House and Senate Committees on the Environment are given
primary responsibility for the review and oversight of the existing
environmental legislation, the collection and analysis of relevant
information, and the development of informed draft legislation designed
to strengthen the legal framework for environmental management. These
committees are each comprised of five sub-committees: Biodiversity
Conservation, Desertification, Erosion and Flood Control, Industrial
Waste Management, and Pollution Control. It is the responsibility of
these sub-committees to focus on strengthening the legislative framework
relevant to their assigned technical areas.

During the 1990s, the federal government took substantial steps toward
integrating environmental concerns into the developmental planning and
implementation process. As part of this effort some of the major steps
taken by the GFRN include:

-   The enactment of the EIA Decree (1992), to integrate environmental
    concerns into all major activities throughout the country.
    Procedural and Sectoral Guidelines for Agriculture and Rural
    Development, Oil and Gas, Infrastructural Manufacturing and Mining
    activities in the country were also put in place.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The establishment of Guidelines and Standards for Environmental
    Pollution Control, Regulations on Effluent Limitations, Pollution
    Abatement in Industries, as well as Regulations for the Management
    of Solid and Hazardous Wastes.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The enactment of the National Parks Decree (1991; revised in 1999),
    establishing the National Park Service as a parastatal
    (paramilitary) organization under the Federal Ministry of
    Environment (FMoE), responsible for the planning and management of
    the National Park System, and its constituent National Parks.

Since the return to democracy, and in light of the changing times and
changing environ-mental, economic and social priorities, the House and
Senate Committees on the Environment have recently started to review
existing environmental legislation. Stemming in part from this review,
but more so from the pressing environmental concerns of their
constituents, the House and Senate Committees on the Environment have
already developed pieces of draft environmental legislation (e.g., a
bill, drafted by the House Committee on the Environment, to study and
mitigate the effects of gully erosion is currently pending approval of
the Senate.

In spite of recent legislative developments, there remains a pressing
need to comprehensively review and evaluate the applicability and
efficacy of the existing legal framework for environmental management
and protection. Many of the existing environmental laws date back to the
colonial era, and in some cases these laws are outdated or even
irrelevant (Caldecott, J. & A. Babatunde Morakinyo, 1996). In other
cases, gaps exist in the legal framework, or in the legal-institutional
linkages that must be addressed if the framework is going to serve as an
effective tool for promoting improved environmental management and
protection (Olaniran, O., 2000). The National Assembly and its
constituent committees are very new institutions. And while their
capacity for legislative review and development continues to increase,
the technical understanding of "what makes good environmental
legislation" is largely lacking. In order to bridge this gap, additional
technical resources will be needed to assist the National Assembly.

### 5.2.2 The State Legislative Framework for Environmental Management 

The SG legislative arm is comprised of a unicameral legislative body,
the House of Assembly, headed by the Speaker. At present, state
assemblies vary in terms of their capacity to review and develop quality
legislation (Wayne Propst, 2002). Many of the state assemblies, as yet,
do not have environment committees; even in those state assemblies that
have established environment committees, most committee members lack
both general experience in the legislative review and development
process, and the technical capacity necessary to effectively inform the
legislative review and development process.

As with federal legislation, many of the existing state environmental
laws are remnants from the colonial era. However, the incidence in the
development of new state-level environmental legislation appears to be
increasing. In most cases, the development of new legislation is
targeted to curtail the degradation or promote the improved management
of those natural resources that are particularly important to a state's
economy.

### 5.2.3 The Local Government Legislative Framework for Environmental Management

Nigeria's 36 states and the FCT comprise of 774 LGAs. The LG legislative
arm is the legislative council. Unlike their federal and state
government counterparts, LGs are not empowered to enact, repeal or
revise legislation (although they do have the some latitude to develop
and enforce local by-laws). Instead their role, in general terms, is
twofold: to make recommendations to state institutions regarding
economic planning and development, and to serve as the basic vehicle (of
the state) for development at the LGA level (GFRN, Report of the
Presidential Committee on the Review of the 1999 Constitution, Fourth
Schedule, Part 1, 2001).

Within the current environmental management and protection framework,
LGs are by and large excluded from participating in the legislative
review, revision and redrafting process. This not only limits
local-level inputs into the legislative process, but also serves to
decrease local-level institutions awareness of and ownership over
environmental management and protection. In order to effectively build
local-level capacity for environmental management and protection key
local-level institutions will need to become actively involved in the
legislative process.

## 5.3 The Judicial Framework for Environmental Protection

The judiciary arm of the government is responsible for applying the
legal framework at the federal, state and local government levels. At
the federal government level, the judiciary is comprised of the Supreme
Court and the Federal Court of Appeals. At the state level, the
judiciary is comprised of the Federal High Courts. There is no judiciary
flow-down to LGs. Instead, state courts are responsible for applying the
legal framework at the LG level. Also operating at the local level, but
not under the control of the judiciary, are both traditional courts and
Sharia courts, which are empowered to rule on a variety of civil
issues---some of which impact access to renewable natural resources
(e.g., inheritance).

To date, the application of existing environmental laws by the judiciary
has been largely inconsistent and ineffective. The problems in applying
the legal framework seem to stem from a combination of the lack of the
necessary political will, and a general lack of awareness of the
interrelated nature of environment, economics and health. To overcome
these constraints, environmental awareness and capacity-building
activities will need to be developed that target the judiciary as a key
stakeholder in the environmental management process.

## 

## 5.4 International Conventions and Treaties

In addition to Nigeria's federal environmental law framework, the
country is also party to various international environmental conventions
and treaties designed to promote environmental management and
protection. A summary list of the environmental conventions and treaties
signed by the GFRN are included in Table 5.1. Following the table is a
summary of specific steps taken by the GFRN toward the implementation of
two of these conventions and treaties: the Convention on Biological
Diversity, and the Framework Convention on Climate Change.

####### Table 5.1. Environmental Conventions and Treaties Ratified by GFRN

  --------------------------------------------------- -------------------
  **Convention/Treaty**                               **Date Ratified by
                                                      GFRN**

  Convention on the Protection of the World Cultural  1974
  and Natural Heritage                                

  Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by TBD
  the Dumping of Wastes                               

  Convention on International Trade in Endangered     1974
  Species (CITES)                                     

  Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species 1987 (Signatory
  of Wild Animals                                     only)

  Convention on the Law of the Sea                    1986

  Vienne Convention on the Protection of the Ozone    2001
  Layer                                               

  Montreal Protocol on Substance that Deplete the     1988
  Ozone Layer                                         

  Basel Convention on the Transboundary Movement of   1991
  Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal                 

  Framework Convention of Climate Change (FCCC)       1994

  Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)            1994

  Convention on Desertification (CD)                  1997
  --------------------------------------------------- -------------------

# 6.0 Institutional and Policy Framework for Environmental Management

Historically, the institutional framework for environmental management
in Nigeria has been inconsistent and the policy framework has lacked an
integrated approach, both at the federal level of policy development,
and at the state and local government agency level of policy
implementation. These problems have been compounded by an extended
period of political instability, during which time environment
management has, by and large, lacked the support of government. The
result has been an often changing, yet highly centralized institutional
and policy framework, that suffers from problems of institutional
overlaps---and associated problems, such as lack of adequate resources.

## 6.1 Federal Institutional and Policy Framework

The federal institutional framework for environmental management has
been in a state of almost constant flux for the past quarter century.
During this time, primary responsibility for environmental management by
federal government has shifted numerous times---from the Ministry of
Economic Development in 1975, to the Ministry of Works and Housing in
1979, to the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (FEPA) in 1988, and
to the Ministry of Environment (FMoE) in 1999. This flux in
national-level institutions has resulted in an inconsistent approach
toward policy development at the federal level, and has led to an even
more inconsistent approach toward policy implementation at the levels of
state and local government.

Primary responsibility for the development of policies, strategies and
action plans resides with the sectoral federal government agencies. Over
the past ten years, several sound policies, such as the Policy on the
Environment and the National Urban Development Policy, have been
developed through participatory processes that have solicited broad
stakeholder input from the various levels of government, civil society
organizations and the private sector. However, the majority of sectoral
policies, strategies and action plans have been developed with little or
no input from stakeholders outside of the centralized lead sectoral GFRN
agency (Onibokun, 2002)---the result of which has been policies that
lack input vital to successful implementation at the state and local
government levels.

On another level, the overall policy framework for environmental
management lacks intersectoral coordination. Environmental management
is, by its very nature, cross-sectoral. However, to date very little
cross-sectoral coordination in policy development has been attempted
(the Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy and the Green Agenda 2010 are
two notable exceptions---both of which were developed under the office
of the Vice President with broad stakeholder input). The result has been
the development of a series of sectoral policies, strategies and action
plans, with conflicting goals and more so, conflicting guidance on
approaches for the utilization of environmental resources. These
conflicting national-level policies, strategies and action plans "flow
down" to state and local governments for implementation, further
decreasing the possibility of sound environmental management at the
local level.

This section will begin with an overview of the structure and policy of
the FMoE. This will be followed by a brief discussion of other
national-level agencies with a hand in environmental management in
Nigeria.

### Federal Ministry of Environment/Policy on the Environment

In June 1999, the newly elected democratic government, in an effort to
ensure that environmental issues receive priority attention in the
Nigeria's development agenda, created the FMoE. To consolidate the
primary responsibility for environmental management in one institution,
the FMoE absorbed FEPA and accepted the transfer of relevant departments
and units from various other federal ministries (e.g., Forestry
Department from the Federal Ministry of Agriculture \[FMoA\], Soil
Erosion and Flood Control Department from the Ministry of Water
Resources \[MoWR\]). The broad mandate of the FMoE, as elaborated in the
revised 1999 National Policy on the Environment, is to coordinate
environmental protection and natural resource conservation for
sustainable development, and specifically to:

-   Secure a quality of environment adequate for good health and well
    being,

-   Promote the sustainable use of natural resources,

-   Restore and maintain the ecosystem and ecological processes and
    preserve biodiversity,

-   Raise public awareness and promote understanding of linkages between
    environment and development, and

-   Cooperate with government bodies and other countries and
    international organizations on environmental matters (GFRN, 2000).

FMoE's structure is comprised of eight departments (seven technical and
one administrative), four supporting services units, and two
parastatals. As one can imagine with a new ministry, comprised primarily
of departments and units absorbed from other federal agencies, the
organization is undergoing some "growing pains." But overall, the
division of responsibilities for environmental management and protection
among the seven technical departments and the two parastatals are fairly
clear (with a few exceptions). A summary of the primary responsibilities
of the seven technical departments and two parastatals follows:

-   Department of Planning Research & Statistics (PR&S) -- PR&S is
    comprised of three divisions, and assumes overall responsibility for
    FMoE coordination. Planning is responsible for the development of
    rolling plans, and the coordination of State Ministries of
    Environment (MoEs). Council Affairs is the responsible arm of the
    Ministry for the coordination of international affairs (Global
    Environment Facility \[GEF\], United Nations Development Program
    \[UNDP\], etc.), and for liaison with the National Council on
    Environment. Research and Statistics is charged with a range of
    tasks related to operational, organizational and management
    research, as well as development and maintenance of the Ministry's
    library services and publications.

-   Department of Drought and Desertification Amelioration (D&DA) --
    D&DA operates through two divisions. Drought & Desertification
    Forecasting and Preparedness is responsible for identifying
    vulnerable areas, developing early warning systems and preparedness
    contingency plans, and monitoring the impact of global climate
    change on drought and desertification. Drought & Desertification
    Management is responsible for a range of renewable natural resource
    planning and management activities (including rangeland management,
    fuelwood management, etc.), in addition to targeted interventions
    (e.g., dune fixation, soil and water management, etc.), in areas at
    risk from drought and desertification.

-   Department of Environmental Assessment (EA) -- EA consists of three
    divisions. Environmental Standards and Monitoring is responsible for
    the development and management of reference laboratories, analytical
    services and environmental studies. Oil and Gas Pollution Control is
    charged with developing and enforcing guidelines and standards for
    the oil and gas industry. EIA is primarily responsible for EIA
    guideline development and EIA processing.

-   Department of Environmental Conservation (EC) -- EC is comprised of
    two divisions. Biodiversity and Endangered Species Conservation is
    responsible for zoological and botanical surveys, wildlife inventory
    and monitoring, exotic and invasive species control, and management
    and enforcement of CITES. Nature Conservation and Watershed
    Management is responsible for protection of biosphere and nature
    reserves, registration, documentation and operations of protected
    areas, management of wetlands of national and international
    importance, and delineation and characterization of major watersheds
    and fadamas.

-   Department of Erosion and Flood Coastal Zone Management (EF&CZM) --
    EF&CZM is comprised of three divisions. Soil Erosion Monitoring and
    Control is responsible for land degradation hazard assessment and
    monitoring and assessment of gully erosion areas. Flood Forecasting
    Monitoring and Control is charged with flood plain mapping and
    monitoring and maintenance of flood control infrastructure. Coastal
    Zone Management is responsible for monitoring and controlling
    coastal and river bank erosion, coastal land management, and
    dredging and reclamation of affected areas.

-   Department of Forestry (F) -- the Forestry Department is comprised
    of three divisions. Forest Resources Survey and Products Utilization
    is responsible for, among other things, the utilization, processing,
    promotion and marketing of certain non-timber forest products
    (NTFPs - e.g., gum arabic). Agro-Forestry Support Services and
    Extension is charged with agroforestry and communal forestry
    development, and the development of nurseries. Forest Management is
    charged with forest reserve management, forest fire prevention and
    control, and forest pest and disease monitoring and control.

-   Department of Pollution Control and Environmental Health (PC&EH) --
    PC&EH consists of three divisions. Environmental Health and
    Sanitation is responsible for establishing guidelines and monitoring
    domestic waste management facilities (and eventually sewerage
    management and treatment plants). Pollution Abatement and Waste
    Management is primarily responsible for the oversight of industrial
    treatment facilities. Industrial Compliance and Chemical Management
    is responsible for ensuring compliance with regulations and
    standards governing pollution from industrial and chemical sources.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   National Parks Service (NPS) -- NPS, a parastatal (paramilitary)
    under the FMoE responsible for the planning and management of the
    National Park System, and its constituent National Parks.

-   Forest Research Institute of Nigeria (FRIN) -- FRIN, a parastatal
    under the FMoE that is primarily responsible forest research,
    including the inventory of Nigeria's forests and forest resources.

While still a young organization, the FMoE shows promise. The
organization is staffed by a cadre of professionals trained in and aware
of the intricacies of environmental management, who appear to be
tackling many of the in-house requirements of the Ministry. That being
said, the Ministry's inability to effectively integrate (both
horizontally---to the various sectoral federal government agencies whose
activities impact upon the environment; and vertically---to the state
and local government levels) environmental concerns into the planning
and development activities of other governmental agencies, especially
those in the productive sectors, very seriously impacts upon the
potential for improving environmental management. In order to affect any
real change will require the full support of the government to establish
effective linkages and lines of communication between the FMoE and the
various federal, state and local government agencies responsible for
planning and development activities on the ground.

### 6.1.2 Other Federal Institutions Playing Important Roles in Environmental Management 

###### **The National Council on the Environment**

The National Council on the Environment (NCE) was established in 1990 to
provide a forum for the consultation and harmonization of environmental
management throughout the federation. Membership includes the
commissioners of environment from all 36 states, as well as the
secretaries to the state governments. Officially, the role of the NCE is
twofold: to advise the presidency on environmental matters, and to
assist in the development of sound environmental policies.

###### **The Ecological Fund**

The Ecological Fund was established as a financing mechanism to support
a wide range of initiatives that promote improved environmental
management. The Fund is supported by an annual earmark of 2% of the
Federal Account. The organization of the Ecological Fund is comprised of
four committees: Desertification, Erosion, Gas and Oil, and General
Environmental Matters. Any federal or state government agency can, in
theory, apply for funds to address pressing environmental problems that
fall under any of these four categories. For those activities selected
to receive support from the Fund, allocations are made directly from the
Fund to the state government (through the governor) in which the
activity is to be implemented. While the annual earmark is sufficient to
simultaneously address a wide range of environmental activities,
mismanagement of funds---and in particular the "misdirection" of funds
by governors to support other priorities (e.g., state employee salaries,
education and health initiatives, etc.)---drastically impacts the
functionality and efficacy of the Ecological Fund.

### 6.1.3 Sectoral GFRN Agencies and Policies

There are a large number of sectoral GFRN agencies whose policies and
activities have a direct impact on the environment. These include:

-   The Ministry of Water Resources (freshwater resources),

-   The Ministry of Health (environmental health),

-   The Ministry of Agriculture (land use, agriculture, livestock &
    fisheries),

-   The Ministry of Transport & National Maritime Authority (coastal &
    marine resources management),

-   The Ministry of Education (environmental education),

-   The Ministry of Works and Housing (infrastructure development),

-   The Ministry of Solid Minerals (non-oil mineral resources),

-   The Ministry of Power and Steel (energy production),

-   The Ministry of Culture and Tourism (tourism), and

-   The Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC-petroleum).

Between (and often times within) these ministries, the division of roles
and responsibilities over natural resources and other aspects of the
environment are unclear, and overlaps in institutional mandates are the
norm, rather than the exception. In the case of freshwater resources,
the MoWR is considered the lead institution. However, the Ministries of
Health, Agriculture and Works and Housing all contain departments, units
or parastatals that focus on aspects of water resource management. This,
in and of itself, is not a problem but the lack of interministerial
coordination and collaboration---and the cascading effects this
situation has at the state and local government levels, results in
considerable inefficiency.

## 6.2 State and Local Government Institutional and Policy Frameworks to Support Environmental Management and Protection

### 6.2.1 State Government Institutional and Policy Framework for Environmental Management and Protection

The institutional and policy framework for environmental management at
the state level is variable from one state to another. Prior to the
establishment of the FMoE, the responsibility for environmental
protection resided with the State Environmental Protection Agency.
Stemming from the creation of the FMoE, each state is expected to
establish a state MoE to assume primary responsibility for
implementation of the National Policy on the Environment at the state
level. However, in reality many states have yet to establish MoEs, and
in those states where they have been established, the institutional
structure---and the staff skills contained therein---are inconsistent.
While many states, such as Kaduna and Lagos, have established state MoEs
which can be supported in their capacity to promote improved
environmental management and regulate enforcement at the state level;
other states such as Cross River have yet to establish a MoE. In such
cases, the lack of an established institutional presence capable of
serving as the "champion" for environmental management and protection at
the state level is one of the first obstacles that needs to be overcome
for environmental management to truly take hold.

### 6.2.2 Local Government Institutional and Policy Framework for Environmental Management and Protection

As already stated, local governments are charged with the responsibility
for economic planning and development at the local level. While still
quite weak, there is a general sense that the functional capacity of
local governments is increasing. That being said, the current ability to
local governments to integrate environmental management and protection
into their economic development plans is still extremely weak. One major
cause is the lack of an institutional flow down from the federal and
state MoEs to the local government level, which severely impacts the
ability of local governments to incorporate environmental concerns and
priorities into their work. Typically, local governments are comprised
of six departments: Administration, Finance, Works, Agriculture, Health,
and Education and Social Services. While the technical skill contained
in these six departments continues to increase, there is generally no
local government official aware of existing environmental legislation
and regulations, let alone conversant in environmental management. This
lack of capacity at the local level is one of the most critical issues
to be addressed if effective environmental management and protection is
to be realized.

## 6.3 Civil Society Organizations Supporting Environmental Management

A growing number of civil society organizations are becoming active
partners in Nigeria's environment sector. Currently, NGOs are working to
improve various aspects of environmental management and protection, from
conservation to urban environmental management. The roles played by
these civil society organizations include advocacy, education, community
development, training and the provision of financial and techncial
assistance. A brief summary of the environmental NGOs follows.

The Nigerian Conservation Foundation (NCF) formed partnerships with the
World Wildlife Fund (WWF)-UK, and Birdlife International has grown into
Nigeria's largest and most active conservation NGO. A range of other
conservation NGOs have become well established over the past 15 years.
These include the Nigerian Environmental Action/Study Team (NEST),
Savanna Conservation Nigeria, the Center for Environmental Resources and
Sustainable Ecosystems (CERASE), Delta Environmental Network, the Niger
Delta Wetlands Center, the NGO Coalition for Environment, Cercopan and
Pandrillus. Although the GFRN is not a member of the Union for
Conservation for Nature (IUCN), four Nigerian NGOs are members: NCF,
NEST, CERASE and Savanna Conservation. Various international NGOs,
including Wetlands International, the Wildlife Conservation Society
(WCS) and others also have ongoing programs within Nigeria.

## 6.4 Private Sector Organizations Supporting Environmental Management

Private sector investment in environmental management in Nigeria
continues to increase. The private sector organizations supporting
environmental management range from oil companies and technical
assistance firms to international foundations. Brief summaries of the
types of initiatives supported by these organizations are provided
below.

***Private Foundations***

-   ***The A.G. Leventis Foundation*** is a private charitable
    foundation that supports a wide range of development activities
    around the world. The Leventis Foundation Nigeria supports
    activities in West Africa and is very active in the fields of
    agriculture, education and environmental conservation. The Leventis
    Foundation Nigeria has established and continues to support three
    agricultural schools specializing in innovative ways of training
    small farmers to improve productivity, efficiency and environmental
    sensitivity that take advantage of the latest research at the IITA
    and elsewhere. The trainees spend a year at the schools, and then
    returning to their farms and communities, are advised and supported
    by the schools' extension programs. By their example, they transfer
    their skills to other farmers in their area, while the schools also
    organize shorter training courses and farmers' days for the
    surrounding communities. In the field of environmental conservation,
    the Foundation provides support to a number of environmental NGOs
    including the NCF and Pro-Natura International. A major contribution
    in this field involves the construction of a Resources Center at
    Okomu, in a government-protected high rainfall forest area in Edo
    State; and the setting up of an agroforestry conservation program
    for local farmers.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ***The Ford Foundation*** is a private grant making institution
    whose goals are to strengthen democratic values, reduce poverty and
    injustice, promote international cooperation, and advance human
    achievement. The Ford Foundation has been supported activities in
    Nigeria for more than 40 years. Through the Foundation's Community
    and Resource Development Program it has provided support to
    community development associations (CDAs) and action-research NGOs
    that work to reduce poverty and improve natural resources
    management. The Community Resource Development Program also provides
    support for micro-finance projects that target women's groups and
    poor communities, and is helping to build and strengthen sustainable
    sources of asset building. A special emphasis is placed on
    supporting community-based projects that enhance livelihoods while
    preserving the environment.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ***The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation*** is a
    private, independent grant making institution that supports
    research, policy development, information dissemination, and
    education and training in four programming areas. The Foundation's
    environmental activities are primarily supported through the Program
    on Global Security and Sustainability. The Foundation has five
    overseas offices, one of which is located in Nigeria. In Nigeria,
    the MacArthur Foundation provides support to a number of
    organizations involved in the promotion of improved environmental
    management, many of which are focused on issues related to the Niger
    Delta, including The Niger Delta Wetlands Center in Port Harcourt,
    and Pro-Natura International in Iddo. In addition, the MacArthur
    Foundation also supports conservation initiatives based in the U.S.
    that focus on activities in Africa, including the Africa
    Biodiversity Collaborative Group---supporting collaborative work for
    biodiversity conservation in Africa, and the American Zoo and
    Aquarium Association---supporting an international planning meeting
    about the bushmeat crisis in Africa.

#### 

#### Oil Companies

While the oil companies and their operations continue to be a source of
environmental degradation---especially in the Delta---they are also
increasingly providing support for community development activities.
While the commitment of these companies to community development and
environmental management are highly variable, certain companies appear
to be making genuine efforts to engage local stakeholders and to provide
support for local-level priorities. Chevron Nigeria Limited (CNL)
reports to have invested more than \$30 million over the past five years
to support a range of development activities. Two examples of
CNL-supported activities are provided below.

-   ***The Western Niger Delta Development Program.*** Beginning in
    2000, CNL's Nigeria Business Unit committed to this five-year, \$1
    million per year project which seeks to address critical social,
    economic and developmental problems in the Delta by initiating
    skills acquisition training, micro-credits for establishment of
    small businesses, basic education and teacher training, and health
    education. The goal of this expanded project is to train and educate
    a total of 1,000 people in our communities.

-   ***Benikrukru Fish Farm and Poultry Project.*** In association with
    Enterprise for Development International, this project was developed
    with the Abiteye community---which is located near one of CNL's out
    flow stations---and was designed to improve local livelihoods
    through improved fish farming and poultry raising.

***Consulting/Technical Assistance Firms***

The capacity of Nigerian firms and organizations to provide quality
environmental technical services is highly variable from one firm to the
next, although some well-qualified firms exist. The range of services
offered by these firms include, but are not limited to geographic
information system (GIS), global positioning system (GPS) and digital
image interpretation; natural resource inventories; and EIA. There are
also a considerable number of NGOs that provide advisory and technical
assistance services in the environmental sector, many of which possess
the capability to design and carry out social research.

## 6.5 Universities

Universities also have a role to play in improving environmental
management. Faculty members at many Nigerian universities have long been
involved in academic studies of natural resources in various areas of
the country. The foci of theses studies is widely scattered and the data
and results are often difficult to access. Recently, as part of
Nigeria's activities on behalf of the CBD, a number of "Linkage Centers"
have been established in Nigerian universities and institutes to
consolidate and disseminate this information. One such center, the
Linkage Center for Forests, Conservation and Biodiversity at the
University of Agriculture in Abeokuta is focusing entirely on
coordinating data and research relevant to biodiversity conservation.
Other such nodes in the country include Linkage Centers for Arid
Environments (in Maiduguri), for Freshwater Environments (in Minna), for
Highlands/Montane Environments (in Jos), for Delta Environments (in Port
Harcourt) and for Marine and Coastal Environments, in conjunction with
the Nigerian Institute for Oceanography and Marine Biology in Lagos.
Another sister Oceanography Institute also exists within the University
of Calabar. As a rule, most of these programs are underfunded and could
use added resources before they can be successful in their various
missions.

#   {#section-3 .unnumbered}

# 7.0 Environmental Status and Threats

This section of the report documents the status and threats to natural
environmental components, environmental quality and a series of
integrated problems affecting Nigeria's environment. The components are
organized, for purposes of discussion, under the large, loosely defined
categories of Blue, Brown and Green. Each component is presented within
a general framework that provides first an overview of its current
status followed by a discussion of what the EA team views as the major
threats to its sustainability. The FMoE's priorities (see Box 7.1) as
outlined by the Honorable Minister of State for Environment (Okopido,
2002) also figured into this analysis. Additional information about
illustrative activities pertaining to alleviating the degradation or
stress is also introduced. Later, Section 8 highlights specific programs
by a variety of institutions that address environmental issues
confronted by Nigeria. Section 9 lists a number of priority areas where
the EA team believes additional improvements in environmental management
and governance can be made to diminish and mitigate the threats
discussed in this analysis. Section 10 concludes the state of the
environment section of the report by pointing out linkages with current
USAID programming and making recommendations for discrete actions for
environmental improvement.

## BLUE

## 7.1 Freshwater Resources

Nigeria is blessed with a vast expanse of inland freshwater and brackish
ecosystems. Their full extent has never been accurately measured due to
seasonal variations that occur depending on rainfall. The Niger-Benue
and the Chad (Hadejia/Komadugu/Yobe) systems predominate the
hydrological landscape of the country. A few other minor systems flow
directly into the Atlantic along the south coast of the country. The
Niger River, the third longest river in Africa, begins in the Founta
Djallon highlands of Guinea near the western coast of West Africa. The
Niger is already more than four-fifths of the way to its terminus when
it enters Nigeria. But the waters of the Benue, which begin in the
mountains of Cameroon on Nigeria's eastern border, almost double the
volume of the Niger when they join in the south central part of the
country. From there they represent a major force, especially in flood
stage, as they flow southward and empty into the Gulf of Guinea through
the Niger Delta.

An inventory of inland water resources, completed in 1985 by Ita et al,
provides a good illustration of what does exist. Table 7.1 presents
these data. The total surface area of water bodies in Nigeria, excluding
deltas, estuaries and miscellaneous wetlands suitable for rice
cultivation is estimated to be about 148,869 km², or almost 16% of the
total area of Nigeria (Ita, 1993).

The floodplains are included in these estimates even though they are the
most variable in extent. They represent a major resource as they expand
with seasonal rains. In the northern reaches of the country in the Sahel
and Sudan savanna zones, they are critical for the livelihoods of human
and wildlife populations. The Hadejia-Nguru wetlands (about 62,000 km²),
a Ramsar site in Yobe State, world-renowned for its waterfowl and
migratory bird populations, is an excellent example of these types of
resources. A good resource and summary by state of wetlands in Nigeria
has recently been completed. (NCF, 2002). Using Ramsar criteria for
inclusion, it presents a quick inventory of these areas.

Soil erosion, siltation, salinization, irrigation, saltwater incursion
and pollution from urban and municipal sources each pose grave threats
to Nigeria's freshwater resources. In times of drought, and/or with
areas confronted with desertification (see Section 7.11) these threats
are even more exacerbated. In the dryland areas of the north, human
habitation relies heavily of groundwater resources that are recharged
from freshwater percolation and runoff during the rainy season. Anything
that upsets this balance threatens the livelihoods and economy of the
people who live there.

The irrigation projects, dams and pumps in the Lake Chad Basin have
seriously altered the natural flows of freshwater. Drought and
desertification factors have placed an additional cost and burden on
obtaining potable water in this area. Risks to human health are likewise
increased. Flora and fauna are becoming more endangered because water
regimes and flows have been permanently altered with consequences that
lead to a direct loss to biodiversity in the region.

####### Table 7.1. Major Inland Water Resources 

####### (including brackish and freshwater floodplains) of Nigeria

  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------
  **Water body**                                  **Surface area (ha)**

  **Major rivers:**                               

  Anambra River                                   1,401,000

  Benue River                                     129,000

  Cross River                                     3,900,000

  Imo River                                       910,000

  Kwa Iboe River                                  500,200

  Niger River (less Kainji & Jebba lakes)         169,800

  Ogun River                                      2,237,000

  Oshun River                                     1,565,400

  Subtotal                                        10,812,400

  Major lakes and reservoirs:                     

  Lake Chad                                       550,000

  Kainji Lake (man-made)                          127,000

  Jebba Lake (man-made)                           35,000

  Shiroro Lake (man-made)                         31,200

  Goronyo Lake (man-made)                         20,000

  8 others (man-made)                             90,400

  Subtotal                                        853,000

  Floodplains                                     3,221,500

  Total, major freshwater resources               14,886,900

  **Other fresh water bodies:**                   

  Delta and estuaries, brackish                   858,000

  Other (minor reservoirs, fishponds)             104,400

  Miscellaneous wetlands suitable for rice        4,108,100

  Total, all inland water bodies                  19,958,000
  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------

*Adapted from: Ita et al, 1985 and Ita, 1993*

In the areas surrounding the central plateau, siltation from upstream
erosion seriously degrades freshwater resources. Hazardous wastes from
mine tailings also threaten water and soil quality at sites considerably
downstream from the pollution's source. In the South East, erosion has
severely limited the population's access to clean water and threatened
freshwater fish populations. Also in the South East and in all the urban
areas of the south, industrial and municipal wastes foul fresh water
systems to the degree that local populations can no longer rely on them
for their daily needs. At extreme costs to society, potable water has to
be trucked in, further hampering the environmental quality of the
region. Nigeria's wetlands and other freshwater habitats are important
reservoirs of fish and other aquatic food items for people, as a habitat
for a myriad of other diverse species, and for the water resources
themselves. Both water quality and quantity are important to all the
species that depend upon these resources. Various studies in Nigeria
have shown high levels of heavy metals in some rivers where industrial
wastes are discharged, high levels of siltation in areas with extensive
logging and farming, and other disturbances, too (Ita, 1994). Inland
fisheries in rivers are depleted due to these factors, although the
fisheries in lakes and reservoirs are thought to be relatively stable
due to restocking with hatchery fish and better controls (Shimang,
2002). Depending on the type of fish introduced---native vs. non-native,
this might also present a problem for native species. One non-native,
the water hyacinth, has invaded a number of waterways with deleterious
effects on fishing access for people and competition with native aquatic
species. Wildlife associated with wetlands is largely in a decline.

The next section (7.2), as well as Section 7.4, address additional
water-related issues that threaten Nigeria's environment.

## 7.2 Coastal and Marine Resources

The coastline of Nigeria is approximately 853 km long stretching from
the western border with the Republic of Benin to the eastern border with
Cameroon. The coastal shore consists of barrier islands, sandy beaches,
lagoons, estuaries, mud beaches, and creeks and includes the Niger Delta
(see Figure 4.1). Mangroves and estuaries extend from 10 to 150 km
inland. Further inland are freshwater swamp forests and other low-lying
habitats, which are all considered to be part of the coast. The coastal
area is heavily populated with about 20% of Nigeria's residents living
in one of the nine coastal states. Offshore, the continental shelf
occurs from 15 km off Lagos to more than 85 km off Calabar. The
Exclusive Economic Zone, established in 1978, extends to 200 nautical
miles offshore (CIDA, 1997).

The marine and coastal environment of Nigeria is rich in resources and
species diversity. The mangroves found here are the largest remaining
tract in Africa, and the third largest in the world, covering an area of
about 9,723 km². The mangrove ecosystem provides a nursery and breeding
ground for many of the commercial fishery species taken in the Gulf of
Guinea. Nigeria's coast is said to have about 199 species of finfish and
shellfish, a number of which are taken commercially. The Nigerian shrimp
fishery is especially strong, and shrimp are now being exported to other
countries, including the U.S. About 80% of the fisheries resources in
coastal areas, however, are harvested by local residents (Ajao, 2001).
Artisanal fisherfolk harvest a large variety of fish, crustaceans and
mollusks from the estuaries and channels, and utilize mangrove and swamp
forest products for a variety of domestic uses. A variety of birds,
mammals and reptiles inhabit the mangroves and swamp forests of the
coast, including a few endemic species like the Sclater's guenon and the
Nile Delta red colobus monkey. Although a few species of sea turtles lay
eggs on Nigerian beaches, they are rare and under threat from human
predation.

The coastal area is greatly impacted by the activities of oil companies,
including the destruction of mangroves to provide areas for drilling
activities and staff housing, improper waste and sewage disposal,
intrusion of saltwater further into freshwater areas as a result of the
construction of navigable canals, the occasional oil spill, the
establishment of exotic Nypa palm and other factors. As of now, there
are still no officially protected areas in the mangrove belt. Many
marine resources are also harvested unsustainably both commercially and
by local fisherfolk with virtually no controls.

***Niger Delta***

Although the Niger Delta has not been singled out for global attention
as a Ramsar site, or a Biosphere Reserve, it is a world-renowned area
with extraordinary biodiversity and natural resources potential. In
physical terms, the Niger Delta is one of the world's largest wetlands,
covering more than 20,000 km² where the Niger and Benue Rivers split
into a network of channels before entering the sea. The Niger Delta
portion of the coast covers about 500 km of the coastline and
encompasses a total of 21 estuaries. Four distinct ecological zones
comprise the Delta: barrier islands, mangroves, freshwater swamp forests
and lowland rainforests. The barrier islands rim the shore and consist
of sandy beaches and coastal forests, which represent a unique habitat
containing much biodiversity, and is still largely intact (Moffat and
Linden, 1995).

In terms of natural resources, the Niger Delta is the richest part of
Nigeria. It has large oil and gas deposits, extensive forests, good
agricultural land and abundant fish resources. The Delta's mangrove belt
is about 30 to 40 km wide and has not yet been commercially harvested
for timber; aside from localized cutting, it is still relatively
undisturbed. Further inland are the seasonal and permanent freshwater
swamps and swamp forests that are also still fairly intact. The
ecological zone under most pressure in the Delta is the lowland
rainforest, which is rapidly being degraded to derived savanna through
logging and agricultural expansion. These diverse habitats and the wet
tropical climate have led to a diversity of species. For instance, there
are more freshwater fish species here (197) than in any other coastal
system in West Africa, including 16 endemics. Some species listed in the
IUCN Red Data book (Hilton-Taylor, 2000) such as the spotted-neck otter
(*Hydrictis maculocolis*) and the white-throated guenon are said to be
locally common in the Delta.

The Niger Delta is most well know as the repository for oil and gas and
related commercial extraction activities (see Section 7.6) that make up
Nigeria's largest source of foreign exchange. The development
surrounding oil operations, and the heavy concentrations of people on
the higher elevations, have led to localized disturbances, pollution,
oil spills and other environmental problems. The abundant fishery
resources are, in many cases, being harvested unsustainably. Despite
these problems, biologists and conservationists in Nigeria and elsewhere
consider the Niger Delta to be a global natural resource and one that
needs more conservation attention while it is still in fairly good
shape. The region, like the rest of the country, has abundant
environmental threats. Box 7.2 illustrates one proxy ranking of the
major environmental problems that exist in the Niger Delta. Overall
priorities are assigned based on their environmental significance of the
issue and the present value of a projected future benefit stream
assuming the problem is mitigated.

##### 

## BROWN

## 7.3 Air Quality

In Nigeria, ambient air pollution emanates from three major
sources---energy generation, industry, and transportation---all of which
increase with population and economic growth.

Rapid urbanization is major contributing factor to all three sources.
Increasing urban populations have required more roads to accommodate an
ever growing number of vehicles, thereby creating sprawling
metropolises. This situation in Nigeria, given the lack of effective
urban planning, has caused severe degradation of air quality.

In key urban centers, such as Lagos, heavy dependence on oil-dominated
transportation is the major contributor to degraded air quality. Motor
vehicles produce more air pollution than any other single human activity
(World Resources, 1996). Transportation requires huge amounts of energy.
Globally, 20% of all energy produced is used for transportation. Of
this, between 60 and 70% goes toward transporting people, and the rest
toward moving freight (World Energy, 1993).

##### Box 7.2. A Proxy Ranking of Major Environmental Problems in the Niger Delta Region 

+-------+--------------+--------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
| **Pr  | **Problem or | **C    | **C    | **Pot  | **In  | **O    |
| oblem | source**     | urrent | urrent | ential | terve | verall |
| t     |              | e      | health | interv | ntion | prio   |
| ype** |              | nviron | si     | ention | co    | rity** |
|       |              | mental | gnific | bene   | sts** |        |
|       |              | si     | ance** | fits** |       |        |
|       |              | gnific |        |        |       |        |
|       |              | ance** |        |        |       |        |
+-------+--------------+--------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
| *     | Erosion      |        |        |        |       |        |
| *Land |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| res   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ource |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| deg   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| radat |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ion** |              |        |        |        |       |        |
+-------+--------------+--------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
|       | coastal      | High   | Low    | High   | High  | Mo     |
|       |              |        |        |        |       | derate |
+-------+--------------+--------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
|       | riverbank    | High   | Low    | High   | High  | Mo     |
|       |              |        |        |        |       | derate |
+-------+--------------+--------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
|       | Flooding     | Low    | High   | High   | High  | M      |
|       |              |        |        |        |       | oderat |
|       |              |        |        |        |       | e-High |
+-------+--------------+--------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
|       | Sea level    | Low    | Low    | Mo     | High  | Low    |
|       | rise         |        |        | derate |       |        |
+-------+--------------+--------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
|       | Agricultural | High   | Mo     | High   | Mod   | High   |
|       | land         |        | derate |        | erate |        |
|       | degradation  |        |        |        |       |        |
+-------+--------------+--------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
| *     | Fisheries    |        |        |        |       |        |
| *Rene |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| wable |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| res   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ource |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| deg   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| radat |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ion** |              |        |        |        |       |        |
+-------+--------------+--------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
|       | stock        | Low    | Mo     | High   | Low   | High   |
|       | depletion    |        | derate |        |       |        |
+-------+--------------+--------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
|       | habitat      | Mo     | Mo     | Mo     | Mod   | Mo     |
|       | degradation  | derate | derate | derate | erate | derate |
+-------+--------------+--------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
|       | Forestry     |        |        |        |       |        |
+-------+--------------+--------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
|       | d            | High   | Mo     | High   | Low   | High   |
|       | eforestation |        | derate |        |       |        |
+-------+--------------+--------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
|       | mangrove     | Low    | Low    | Low    | Low   | Low    |
|       | d            |        |        |        |       |        |
|       | eforestation |        |        |        |       |        |
+-------+--------------+--------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
|       | freshwater   | High   | Low    | High   | Low   | High   |
|       | forest       |        |        |        |       |        |
|       | degradation  |        |        |        |       |        |
+-------+--------------+--------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
|       | barrier      | High   | Low    | High   | Low   | High   |
|       | island       |        |        |        |       |        |
|       | degradation  |        |        |        |       |        |
+-------+--------------+--------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
|       | Biodiversity | High   | Mo     | High   | Low   | High   |
|       | loss         |        | derate |        |       |        |
+-------+--------------+--------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
|       | Exotic       |        |        |        |       |        |
|       | species      |        |        |        |       |        |
|       | invasion     |        |        |        |       |        |
+-------+--------------+--------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
|       | Nypa palm    | Low    | Low    | Low    | Mod   | Low    |
|       |              |        |        |        | erate |        |
+-------+--------------+--------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
|       | Water        | Mo     | Mo     | High   | Mod   | High   |
|       | hyacinth     | derate | derate |        | erate |        |
+-------+--------------+--------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
| **    | Water        | Low    | Low    | Mo     | Low   | Mo     |
| Envir | c            |        |        | derate |       | derate |
| onmen | ontamination |        |        |        |       |        |
| tal** |              |        |        |        |       |        |
|       |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| **p   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ollut |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ion** |              |        |        |        |       |        |
+-------+--------------+--------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
|       | Oil          |        |        |        |       |        |
+-------+--------------+--------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
|       | industrial   | Low    | Mo     | Mo     | Mod   | Mo     |
|       |              |        | derate | derate | erate | derate |
+-------+--------------+--------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
|       | toxic &      | Mo     | Mo     | Mo     | Low   | High   |
|       | hazardous    | derate | derate | derate |       |        |
|       | substances   |        |        |        |       |        |
+-------+--------------+--------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
|       | sewage       | Mo     | High   | High   | Mod   | High   |
|       |              | derate |        |        | erate |        |
+-------+--------------+--------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
|       | Air          |        |        |        |       |        |
|       | pollution    |        |        |        |       |        |
+-------+--------------+--------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
|       | gas flaring  | Low    | Low    | Low    | High  | Low    |
+-------+--------------+--------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
|       | industrial   | Low    | Mo     | Mo     | Low   | Mo     |
|       |              |        | derate | derate |       | derate |
+-------+--------------+--------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
|       | vehicular    | Low    | High   | Mo     | Mod   | High   |
|       |              |        |        | derate | erate |        |
+-------+--------------+--------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
|       | Solid wastes |        |        |        |       |        |
+-------+--------------+--------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
|       | industrial   | Low    | Mo     | Mo     | Mod   | Mo     |
|       |              |        | derate | derate | erate | derate |
+-------+--------------+--------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
|       | municipal    | Mo     | High   | High   | Mod   | High   |
|       |              | derate |        |        | erate |        |
+-------+--------------+--------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
| **    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| Notes |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| on    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| the   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ra    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| nking |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| si    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| gnifi |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| cance |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| used  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| in    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| pr    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| iorit |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| izing |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| env   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ironm |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ental |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| pro   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| blems |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| in    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| the   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| Niger |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| Del   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ta:** |              |        |        |        |       |        |
|       |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| For   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| the   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| env   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ironm |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ental |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| sig   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| nific |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ance, |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| long- |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| term, |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| l     |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| arge- |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| scale |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| and   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| sev   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| erely |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| disru |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ptive |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| env   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ironm |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ental |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| pro   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| blems |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| are   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| r     |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| anked |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| h     |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| igher |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| than  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| s     |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| hort- |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| term, |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| l     |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ocal, |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| and   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| moder |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ately |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| disru |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ptive |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ant   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| hropo |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| genic |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| a     |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ctivi |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ties. |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| H     |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ealth |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| si    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| gnifi |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| cance |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| is    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| simi  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| larly |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ra    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| nked, |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| with  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| stre  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ssors |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| that  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| i     |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| mpact |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| large |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| p     |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| opula |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| tions |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| or    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| cause |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| s     |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ubsta |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ntial |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| d     |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| irect |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| h     |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ealth |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| im    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| pacts |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| r     |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| anked |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| h     |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| igher |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| than  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| those |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| with  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| sm    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| aller |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| scale |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| or    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ind   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| irect |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| h     |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ealth |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| eff   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ects. |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| The   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| e     |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ffect |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| on    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| eco   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| nomic |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| pr    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| oduct |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ivity |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| is    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| inc   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| luded |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| in    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| the   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| evalu |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ation |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| for   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| both  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| h     |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ealth |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| and   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| en    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| viron |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ment. |              |        |        |        |       |        |
|       |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| Pote  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ntial |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| f     |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| uture |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| env   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ironm |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ental |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ben   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| efits |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| are   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| an    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| est   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| imate |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| of    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| the   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| pr    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| esent |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| value |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| of    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| all   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| f     |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| uture |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ben   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| efits |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| of    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| mitig |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ating |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| the   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| pro   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| blem. |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| Con   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| seque |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ntly, |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| int   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| erven |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| tions |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| with  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| short |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| -term |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ben   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| efits |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| (     |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| e.g., |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| w     |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ithin |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| five  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| y     |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ears) |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| are   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| r     |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| anked |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| h     |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| igher |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| than  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| int   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| erven |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| tions |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| which |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| re    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| quire |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| l     |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| onger |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| pe    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| riods |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| for   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ben   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| efits |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| to    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| man   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ifest |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| thems |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| elves |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| (     |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| e.g., |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| more  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| than  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| five  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ye    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ars). |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| The   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ben   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| efits |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| are   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| com   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| pared |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| with  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| the   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| pr    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| esent |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| value |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| of    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| in    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| terve |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ntion |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| costs |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| to    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| d     |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| erive |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| an    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| est   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| imate |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| of    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| the   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| net   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| pr    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| esent |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| value |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| of    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| addre |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ssing |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| the   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| i     |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ssue. |              |        |        |        |       |        |
|       |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| In    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| es    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| tabli |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| shing |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| the   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ov    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| erall |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| p     |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| riori |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ties, |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| equal |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| w     |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| eight |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| is    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| given |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| to    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| each  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| of    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| the   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| crit  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| eria. |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| Depe  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| nding |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| on    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| the   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| magn  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| itude |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| of    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| the   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| issue |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| it is |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| given |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| a     |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| r     |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ating |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| of    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| High  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| (3),  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| Mod   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| erate |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| (2),  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| or    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| Low   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| (1)   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| FOR   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| EACH  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| CRITE |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| RION. |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| The   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ov    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| erall |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| pri   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ority |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| asses |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| sment |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| fo    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| llows |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| this  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ra    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| nking |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| as    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| well. |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| To    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| dete  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| rmine |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| the   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ov    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| erall |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| prio  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| rity, |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| the   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| sum   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| of    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ran   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| kings |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| of    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| the   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| env   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ironm |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ental |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| and   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| h     |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ealth |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| param |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| eters |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| is    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| added |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| to    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| the   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| net   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| in    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| terve |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ntion |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ben   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| efits |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| (b    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| enefi |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ts-co |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| sts). |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| From  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| this  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ca    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| lcula |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| tion, |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| the   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ov    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| erall |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| pri   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ority |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| (OP)  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| is    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| rated |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| as    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| High  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| (OP   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| 5),   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| Mod   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| erate |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| (2\<O |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| P\<5) |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| or    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| Low   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| (OP   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| 2). A |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| Low   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ra    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| nking |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| does  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| not   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| mean  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| that  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| the   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| pr    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| oblem |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| is    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| un    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| impor |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| tant, |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| only  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| that  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| it is |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| a     |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| less  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| s     |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ignif |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| icant |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| pr    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| oblem |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| than  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| the   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| h     |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| igher |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| r     |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| anked |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| is    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| sues. |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| The   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ra    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| nking |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| pro   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| vides |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| a     |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| cri   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| tical |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| in    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| itial |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| step  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| for   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| f     |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ormul |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ating |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| pol   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| icies |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| and   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| pro   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| grams |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| to    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ad    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| dress |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| the   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| most  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| impo  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| rtant |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| env   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ironm |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ental |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| prob  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| lems. |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| Given |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| the   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| weak  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| i     |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| nform |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ation |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| base, |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| the   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| fram  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ework |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| and   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| the   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| prior |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ities |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| s     |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| hould |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| be    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| re    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| fined |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| as    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| addit |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ional |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| i     |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| nform |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ation |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| and   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| v     |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| alues |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| are   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| inc   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| orpor |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ated. |              |        |        |        |       |        |
|       |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| A     |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| fu    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| rther |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| note: |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| Water |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| con   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| tamin |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ation |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| from  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| oil   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| activ |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ities |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| inc   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ludes |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| only  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| oil   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| poll  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ution |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| and   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| other |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| aq    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| uatic |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| imp   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| acts. |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| Other |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| s     |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ignif |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| icant |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| con   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| cerns |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| assoc |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| iated |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| with  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| oil   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| a     |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ctivi |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ties, |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| incl  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| uding |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| defo  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| resta |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| tion, |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| f     |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| orest |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| de    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| grada |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| tion, |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| loss  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| of    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| bio   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| diver |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| sity, |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| gas   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| fl    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| aring |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| emis  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| sion, |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| and   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| solid |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| w     |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| astes |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| are   |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| in    |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| corpo |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| rated |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| into  |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| other |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| c     |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| atego |              |        |        |        |       |        |
| ries. |              |        |        |        |       |        |
+-------+--------------+--------+--------+--------+-------+--------+

*Adapted from: Moffat, D. and O. Linden. 1995. Perception and reality:
assessing priorities for sustainable development in the Niger River
Delta. Ambio 24(7-8):527-538.*

Air (and marine pollution) problems in Nigeria are further exacerbated
by Nigeria's lack of an effective pollution control policy. Sporadic
enforcement of environmental laws is ineffective. Overall, there is no
great incentive for industrial facilities to implement pollution
abatement strategies. This is particularly true for the oil industry
even though the GFRN has indicated that it is no longer willing to
tolerate their avoidance of taking responsibility for reducing
pollution.

### 7.3.1 Transportation-Related Air Pollution

Transportation-related air pollution in Nigeria is primarily a problem
in large cities such as Lagos, Port Harcourt, Kano and Kaduna.
Additional threats to air quality include power plants, factories, and
other stationary sources including the thousands of privately owned
diesel generators used for backup power.

Increasing vehicle ownership, especially among the middle and upper
classes, has meant more travel. Thus, automobile-related pollution is
the fastest growing source of degrading air quality. The situation is
compounded by poor urban transportation planning as manifested by
congestion in both large and small cities of Nigeria. Clogged city
streets exact a major toll on economic productivity and exacerbate air
(and noise) pollution.

In highly congested city centers, traffic can be responsible for as much
as 90 to 95% of the ambient carbon monoxide levels, 80 to 90% of the
nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons and a large portion of the
particulates, all posing a significant threat to human health and
natural resources (World Resources, 1996). Nigeria's current use of
leaded gasoline contributes to the high levels of lead in the ambient
air. While unleaded gasoline has been introduced in many developing
countries, there are no plans to do so at this time in Nigeria, even
though two of its oil refineries are producing unleaded gas.

#### Air Quality Impact of Used Vehicles

Nigeria has lagged behind in reducing or averting overreliance on
privately owned vehicles, a situation particularly true for urban
centers. Since a majority of these vehicles are older and pre-owned
(used), they are generally heavier polluters than newer ones and present
a serious air pollution problem. While a number of these are legally
imported and generally documented, others stay unregistered. The total
number of these vehicles in Nigeria could not be ascertained. Reducing
the imports of these vehichles or placing stringent conditions on them
has been politically difficult.

Poorly maintained vehicles can emit 100 times the pollutants of a
properly maintained modern vehicle (Callahan, 1995). In Nigeria, air
quality is further compromised by the lack of automotive emission
standards. Logical actions to decrease pollution from vehicles range
from simple idle checks of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions
from gasoline-powered vehicles or a visible smoke check on
diesel-powered vehicles, to programs that retrofit vehicles with
pollution control devices to an accelerated retirement (scrapping)
program of pre-owned vehicles. Any of these actions would help to
significantly improve air quality, especially in congested cities like
Lagos. But they also require significant political will and enforcement
capabilities, both of which are lacking in Nigeria's current
environmental quality arena.

### 7.3.2 Air Pollution from Stationary Sources

High urban and industrial demand for energy has contributed to both
ambient air pollution and greenhouse warming. Studies indicate that good
housekeeping can save a substantial amount of energy in Nigeria (UNDP,
2001). Industrial air pollution can be significantly reduced by
preventing it in the first place---at the source, followed by recycling
and reuse of the pollutants (e.g., industrial \[air\], heat \[or waste\]
to the extent technically and economically feasible). This can be
followed by treatment, detoxification or destruction of what is left,
and finally, release to the atmosphere.

During the field study, two major industrial contributors---coal-fired
power plants and gas flaring from oil drilling were identified as the
air pollutant culprits, but the extent of the pollution and its
contribution could not be gauged. Based on the available data and
discussions with various individuals in FEPA and other federal and state
agencies, carbon dioxide (CO~2~) and particulates were identified as two
key pollutants.

#### Industrial and Coal-fired Power Plants

Reducing emissions from coal and oil-fired power plants can come via
three routes:

-   Upgrading or cleaning coal,

-   Reducing demand for power through energy efficiency measures, or

-   Minimizing or removing subsidies.

None of these measures are under consideration in Nigeria. Use of
alternative energy sources, such as methanol from sugarcane or
industrial energy solar systems---although technically (and economically
in similar economies) feasible---is generally nonexistent.

No specific air pollution data was available from the power plants.
However, coal being the major feedstock for most power produced in
Nigeria, and given the poor state of environmental compliance, it can be
safely assumed that these facilities are significant source of CO~2~,
SO~2~ and other pollutants. CO~2~ is also a major contributor to global
climate change.

As an illustrative case, Table 7.2 provides summary data of ambient air
quality at selected sites in two of Nigeria's states. The data was
collected from a variety of sites ranging from a freshwater swamp to
rural and urban residential areas to areas adjacent and inside a variety
of industrial areas. Given increased environmental degradation,
increased poverty and population levels and continued lack of
environmental compliance, it is quite likely that the levels shown in
this table have increased, even though the original data is old.

##### Table 7.2. Ambient Air Quality at Selected Sites in the Rivers and Bayelsa States 

+-------+-------------+------+------+--------+--------+-------+------+
| **Sr. | #           | **S  | *    | **N    | **CO** | ####  | *    |
| No.** | ## Location | PM** | *SO~ | O~2~** |        | NH~3~ | *CO~ |
|       |             |      | 2~** |        |        |       | 2~** |
+-------+-------------+------+------+--------+--------+-------+------+
| 1\.   | Clean Swamp | 15.9 | \<   | \<10.9 | 1-2    | 33.9  | \-   |
|       |             |      | 25.0 |        |        |       |      |
+-------+-------------+------+------+--------+--------+-------+------+
| 2\.   | Industrial  | 12   | 52   | 16.2   | 1-2    | \<5.6 | \-   |
|       | sw          | 96.7 |      |        |        |       |      |
|       | amp/ambient |      |      |        |        |       |      |
+-------+-------------+------+------+--------+--------+-------+------+
| 3\.   | Industrial  | 1    | 96.0 | 13.3   | 2      | \<5.6 | \-   |
|       | upl         | 60.3 |      |        |        |       |      |
|       | and/ambient |      |      |        |        |       |      |
+-------+-------------+------+------+--------+--------+-------+------+
| 4\.   | C           | 12   | \<   | 15.0   | 2      | \-    | \-   |
|       | onstruction | 12.0 | 25.0 |        |        |       |      |
|       | s           | (24- |      |        |        |       |      |
|       | ite/asphalt | hr.) |      |        |        |       |      |
+-------+-------------+------+------+--------+--------+-------+------+
| 5\.   | Urban       | 24.4 | \<   | \<20.0 | \-     | \-    | \-   |
|       | residential |      | 25.0 |        |        |       |      |
+-------+-------------+------+------+--------+--------+-------+------+
| 6\.   | Rural       | 22.5 | 225  | 20.6   | 2      | \-    | \-   |
|       | Residential |      |      |        |        |       |      |
+-------+-------------+------+------+--------+--------+-------+------+
| 7\.   | pH          | 6.1  | \-   | \-     | \-     | \-    | 300  |
|       | /Industrial | --   |      |        |        |       | -500 |
|       | layout      | 13.4 |      |        |        |       |      |
+-------+-------------+------+------+--------+--------+-------+------+
| 8\.   | Chemical    | 20   | \<25 | \<15.0 | 2      | 174.  | \-   |
|       | Plant       | 8.00 |      |        |        | 9(One |      |
|       | (           |      |      |        |        | -hr.) |      |
|       | Industrial) |      |      |        |        |       |      |
+-------+-------------+------+------+--------+--------+-------+------+
| 9.0   | Rural       | 4516 | \-   | \-     | 62     | 869.1 | \-   |
|       | Industrial  |      |      |        |        |       |      |
+-------+-------------+------+------+--------+--------+-------+------+
| Av    |             | 24   | 8    | 2 hrs. | Spot   | 1 hr. |      |
| erage |             | hr.  | hrs. |        |        |       |      |
| Time  |             |      |      |        |        |       |      |
+-------+-------------+------+------+--------+--------+-------+------+

*Pollutech Nigeria Limited. 1996, "Proceedings of the First Consensus
Building Workshop on the Preparation of Rivers and Bayelsa States
Environmental Action Plan. Port Harcourt. Organized by Nigerian Federal
Environmental Protection Agency and World Bank.*

While the values for the other pollutants are not especially elevated
when compared against recognized norms, the levels of suspended
particulate matter (SPM) in the air measured in μg/m3 (which is also
equivalent to parts per million, ppm) and the pH levels are extremely
hazardous. (The high SPM levels are probably due somewhat to the fact
that they were recorded during the harmattan season.) Shah et al. (1997)
emphasizes that any level of SPM above zero is a dangerous condition for
human health. Indoor urban values for this study were in the range of
153 to 260 μg/m3, while ambient values downstream of an industrial
facility range from 1212.0 to 1295.7 μg/m3 inside an industrial facility
(during harmattan season). These high particulate values come from
natural and anthropogenic sources, but from an environmental and human
health perspective, they are very dangerous.

During a visit to the Shell facility in Port Harcourt, an EIA submitted
by Shell to FEPA as part of Nigerian regulatory requirements was briefly
reviewed. Table 7.3 is indicative of the air quality at Shell's four
fields. These data, taken in June by Shell contractors, indicate the
presence of unacceptable levels of CO, CO~2~, NO~2~, HC, SO~2,~ and SPM.
Table 7.4 compares the figures in the EIA report with Nigeria's FEPA and
the World Health Organization (WHO) standards. The health effects of
these pollutants are discussed in Section 7.3.4.

##### Table 7.3. Air Quality Data at Four Niger Delta Stations 

  -------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
  **Stations**   **CO        **CO~2~     **NO~2~     **SO~2~     **HC        **SPM       **Average
                 (μg/m3)**   (μg/m3)**   (μg/m3)**   (μg/m3)**   (μg/m3)**   (μg/m3)**   Time**

  Soku           2.25        414         0.125       0.5         134         246         3 hours

  Buguma         1.25        395         0.05        0.025       88          226         3 hours

  Alakiri        1.75        415         0.15        0.05        134         247         3 hours

  Bonny          1.75        431         0.175       0.75        144         248         3 hours
  -------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

*Shell Nigeria, 2001, "Limited Environmental Impact Assessment for
Sokei-Buguma-Alakiri-Bonny Trunk Line Replacement." Shell Nigeria, Port
Harcourt.*

#######  

##### Table 7.4. Comparative Evaluation with Recommended Limits

  -------------------------- ---------------------- -----------------------
  **Air Quality Parameter**  **FEPA standard**      **WHO standard**

  CO                         20 ug/m3               60 ug/m3

  CO~2~                      350 ug/m3              \-

  NO~2~                      260 ug/m3              350 ug/m3

  SO~2~                      15 --113 ug/m3         150 ug/m3

  VOC/HC                     260 ug/m3              260 ug/m3

  SPM                        250 ug/m3              260 ug/m3
  -------------------------- ---------------------- -----------------------

#### Gas Flaring

The flaring of natural gas further exacerbates air pollution from the
direct production and consumption of fossil fuels. Due to the lack of
gas utilization infrastructure, Nigeria flares approximately 75% of the
gas it produces and re-injects about 12% for enhanced oil recovery. Gas
flaring contributes to both the production of the acid in acid rain and
increased carbon emissions into the atmosphere.

Given the low combustion efficiency (80%) of gas flaring in Nigeria, a
large portion of the gas is vented mainly as methane. This not only
results in a significant economic loss but also contributes to
environmental damage. The poorly combusted gas contains high
concentrations of methane that trap 20 times more heat than CO~2~ (World
Energy, 1995), making it an important greenhouse gas that contributes
significantly to global climate change.

One local study (Pollutech, 1996) estimated that 12 million tons of
methane is released into the atmosphere every year in Rivers and Delta
States. It also subjects plants to heat radiation, high temperatures and
excessive light and gas deposits (dry and wet, depending on the season).
In the Niger Delta, Pollutech (1996) also noted that affected plants
show symptoms of chlorosis (leaf discoloration): scorching, browning and
desiccation, stunting and death after prolonged exposure. All types of
plant species are affected to some degree and their susceptibility seems
to vary from species to species. The same study also noted that the gas
flares attracted yam tuber beetles and grasshoppers that destroy crops.

In terms of human impact, a NEST study (1991) observed "discomfort and
misery" in local populations living near flared gas areas due to fumes,
heat and combustion gases, as well as increased incidences of illness.

#### Indoor Air Pollution

For many urban residents in Nigeria, air pollution from indoor smoke
(usually from use of wood fuels for cooking) poses a greater threat than
outdoor air pollution. Smoke is widely recognized as an eye irritant. It
also contains numerous toxic and carcinogenic chemicals damaging to
human health and the environment over prolonged exposure.

No data was available on the extent of wood use in Nigeria. However,
from various discussions and observations, it is still the most
prevalent energy source in the country (see Section 7.6.2) and in many
urban centers as well. One observes large quantities of wood for sale
along major transportation arteries at the entrance to most cities.

Programs to design and disseminate cleaner burning wood (or charcoal)
cookstoves have been underway in many developing countries. China,
India, Nepal and Kenya have made significant progress. Most of these
programs are designed to improve efficiency, not reduce air pollution.
One cookstove (described in Box 7.3) has made significant inroads in
achieving both. This, or similar technologies, could be explored for
Nigeria in so long as wood remains a primary source of fuel for cooking.
It would help to reduce the health risks from indoor pollutants and also
decrease overall demand on the nation's woodstocks.

### 7.3.3 Air Quality Monitoring

In Nigeria, the data on air quality is outdated and unreliable. Given
the adverse health and environmental impacts of air quality, it is very
important to develop and monitor appropriate data. The impact of air
pollutants needs to be elevated to a higher profile in the eyes of the
Nigerian public. This should be complemented with a greater capacity and
political will to particularly enforce regulatory compliance to
improvements of urban air quality. This requires recognition of
legislated air quality standards backed by solid studies with good
science, and establishing monitoring systems. Such systems are generally
nonexistent in Nigeria.

Equipment for air quality monitoring includes automatic, portable
high-resolution analyzers capable of collecting data continuously, and
personal monitors. These can be quite costly. If budgets are tight, it
may be possible to consider a limited number of pollutants. Portable
continuous monitors for particulate matter 10 microns in aerodynamic
diameter (PM~10~) are available for US \$3,000. The cost of setting up
and operating one continuous station monitoring six 'classical'
pollutants (see below), supported by several satellites sites monitoring
only PM~10~ and lead for three years, may be on the order of US \$1.5
million to \$2.5 million (World Bank, 1993).

### 7.3.4 Health Effects of Air Quality Pollutants

The six most important pollutants to monitor regularly for better air
quality are what the WHO calls the "classical" pollutants:

-   Lead;

-   PM ~2.5~/PM~10~ (particulate matter smaller than 2.5 and 10 microns
    in aerodynamic diameter, respectively);

-   Carbon monoxide (CO);

-   Sulfur dioxide (SO~2~);

-   Nitrogen dioxide (NO~2~); and

-   Ozone.

Particulate matter is the general term for the mixture of solid
particles and liquid droplets found in the air. Scientific studies show
that deleterious health effects include breathing and respiratory
diseases, cardiovascular diseases, alterations in the body's defense
systems against foreign materials, damage to lung tissues,
carcinogenesis and premature mortality.

Motor vehicle particle emissions and the particles formed by the
transformation of motor vehicle gaseous emissions tend to be in the fine
particle range. Fine particles (those less than 2.5 micrometers in
diameter) are of serious concern because they can easily reach the
deepest recesses of the lungs, causing significant health problems.

A suggested high priority for Nigeria is to reduce lead content in
gasoline. Transitions in a number of developing countries have been made
in a year or less (Bailey, 2002). In Thailand, this process has been
accomplished through a tax subsidy, making it cost-effective for
refineries to produce unleaded gasoline. In addition, leaded gasoline
prevents the use of catalytic converters on gas-burning engines;
catalytic converters help limit vehicle emissions of hydrocarbons,
carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides.

At present, two of Nigeria's four refineries are currently producing
unleaded gasoline and distributing it in southeastern Nigeria. Within
the limitations of supply and needed infrastructure, the use of unleaded
gasoline can be increased in Nigeria. Also, the risk of using unleaded
gasoline in older vehicles is minimal and any repairs, if needed, are
easy and inexpensive. An international gathering has called for a
complete phase-out of leaded gasoline in sub-Sahara Africa by 2005, and
has recommended intermediate reductions in lead content (currently 0.8
gm/lt) to an average 0.4 gm/lt by 2002 and to 0.2 gm/lt by 2003 (U.S.
EPA, 2001).

Health problems due to air pollution have typically been associated with
airborne particulates, which include total suspended particulates (TSP)
and particulate matter of 10 microns or less in diameter (PM~10~ is the
more damaging, smaller particles), and ambient lead. Damage to
structures, forests and agricultural crops tend to be primarily linked
with SO~2~ and with ground-level ozone.

### 7.3.5 Suggested Actions to Improve Air Quality

Improving air quality, especially in Nigeria's urban areas, can best be
achieved by reducing vehicle pollution. Motor vehicles emit large
quantities of CO~2~, hydrocarbon, nitrogen oxides and other toxic
substances. Each of these, along with their secondary by-products (such
as ozone), can cause adverse effects on health and the environment.

Achieving any air quality improvement goal will require a comprehensive
strategy. The object is to bring the quality to a healthy level, or
alternatively to the limits of effective technological, economic and
social feasibility. It will require emission standards for new vehicles,
clean fuels, programs designed to ensure vehicles are maintained in a
manner that minimizes emissions, and traffic and demand management and
constraints. The emission reduction goals should be achieved in the
least costly manner.

Alternative fuels are also recommended to reduce air pollution. These
fuels include methanol (made from natural gas, coal or biomass), ethanol
(made from grain or sugar), vegetable oils, methane, liquefied petroleum
gas (LPG) composed of propane and butane, electricity, hydrogen,
synthetic liquid fuels derived from hydrogenation of coal, and various
blends such as gasohol (gasoline and alcohol). LPG is widely used. For
example, 94% of Japan's 260,000 taxis use LPG (OECD, 2001). LPG is
produced in the extraction of heavier liquids from natural gas and as a
byproduct in petroleum refining. One plant has just come on line in the
Niger Delta and another is due to start production soon.

In the course of their visits the EA team's attention was called several
times to the fact that exporting countries do not have any export
restrictions on pre-owned automobiles. In general, the prevailing
attitude seems to be that it is up to the importing country to determine
its own environmental priorities and to decide whether the social
benefits of used vehicles outweigh the environmental costs. The
following three approaches in other countries have proved successful.

-   Ban/minimize (e.g., through taxes) imports of certain types of used
    vehicles or engines.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Place a high tax on imported used vehicles or engines.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Require imports to pass stringent emissions requirements as a
    condition of registration.

Nigerian policymakers can review these (and other) options for relevance
and use.

In the industrial sector, enforcement of the existing regulations is
needed. Capacity at various enforcement levels should be increased. NGOs
and other institutions can help to raise the consciousness about air
quality issues while the federal, state and local governments should
work to muster the political will to enforce compliance.

## 7.4 Urban Water Resources

Nigeria is blessed with abundant water resources, both underground and
surface. The distribution of these resources varies between
regions---the south, with about 3,000 mm/year, has markedly higher
rainfall than the drier north (about 500 mm/year). In Nigeria, drinking
water sources include rivers, lakes and reservoirs. Boreholes are
drilled in many areas all across the country into aquifers for water. In
many rural riverine communities, river water is the main source. In
communities close to the Atlantic Ocean, high salinity in the river
water makes it unfit for consumption.

A fundamental problem affecting urban Nigerians is the lack of safe
drinking water, even though their access is often better than rural
areas in Nigeria. Overall, the water supply both from public and private
sources has not kept pace with the growing urban population. Existing
water supply systems are plagued by poor maintenance, poor management
and the inability to generate sufficient revenue. There have been some
unsuccessful attempts though multilateral loan projects to increase
capacity of these systems in several urban areas.

In most major towns, a state utility is responsible for water supply.
However, these utilities only serve a small portion of the population.
For example, according to one study, in 1997, the Lagos State Water
Corporation (LSWC) only served 20% of the urban households in Lagos.
Other city water sources (see Table 7.5) such as tankers, yard-wells,
public standpipes and water vendors met the rest of the needs (CASSAD,
2001).

##### Table 7.5. Sources of Water in Urban Lagos (1997)

+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| #                               | **% Households Receiving Water**   |
| ## Source of Urban Water Supply |                                    |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| Water Seller                    | 37                                 |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| Yard Well                       | 30                                 |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| Yard Standpipe                  | 14                                 |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| Public Standpipe                | 10                                 |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| House Connection/Piped Water    | 6                                  |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| Water Tanker                    | 3                                  |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+

*Source: CASSAD. 2001. Situation Analysis Report. Center for African*

*Settlement Studies and Development. p.143.*

Inadequate treatment, runoff, discharges, and organic and inorganic
matter are serious threats to drinking water quality in Nigeria.
Although wastewater effluent standards regulate discharges from
industries into surface water, monitoring to ensure compliance in
Nigeria appears to be an impossible task, given numerous technical
constraints and political interference.

Untreated discharge of industrial pollutants has degraded the surface
water quality in many areas such as Kaduna. These areas depend upon the
local streams and rivers as a source of drinking water. Such discharges
have also increased biological oxygen demand, reduced the waters
dissolved oxygen and increased the treatment costs or the health risks
for the population using raw river water. In another state capital,
Maidugari, sufficient clean and treated water exists in the local
reservoir but frequent disruptions and insufficient power with the
electricity supposedly supplied by the Nigeria Electric Power Authority
means that pumps usually don't run. Private vendors are selling water by
tapping uncontrolled boreholes to fill the supply gap. This increases
the health risk, draws down (and possibly pollutes) the water supply in
the aquifer, and pollutes the air because small, private diesel-powered
generators are used to pump the water.

The most immediate impact of reduced accessibility and affordability of
water is on women and children. When water becomes more expensive and
less accessible, women and children, who bear most of the burden of
daily household chores, must travel farther and work harder to collect
water---often resorting to water from polluted streams and rivers.

#### Drinking Water in Ibadan

An in-house water connection is no guarantee of regular water supply.
One study indicated that 34.3%, 26.8 percent, and 25.8 percent of
households in Ibadan, Kaduna, and Enugu respectively had no piped
potable water, even when a connection for such water existed (Streen,
1989).

To illustrate the status of drinking water supply, the situation in
Ibadan is typical of most Nigerian urban areas. Problems of water
shortage cut across social classes in Ibadan. A substantial amount of
productive man-hours are lost daily as a result of workers searching for
potable water in the city. Even on the University of Ibadan campus,
potable water is a scarce commodity, causing a waste of time at the
expense of official duties.

Moreover, the quality of water is not always guaranteed because
occasionally, the water is either not clear, has sediments, or a bad
taste. The incidence of cholera, typhoid fever, and dysentery is common,
according to the University. Many people buy commercially processed
bottled drinking water.

On the whole, the reliability of the water supply to households improves
as one moves from the core areas to newer suburban areas. Nevertheless,
rapidly emerging suburban slums in Ibadan and Kaduna seldom have water
in their taps, whether they are illegally or legally connected.

### 7.4.1 Water Quality Measurement

There are two broad measures of water quality: measuring oxygen levels
or demands in the water and measuring the concentration of heavy metals.
Water sampling methods vary according to the water body. Timing of
measurements is often an issue, since concentrations can vary
substantially as the flow varies. A given pressure may cause a few
problems when flow is at its peak but may have a major impact at times
of low flow.

Prior to the arrival of FEPA, Nigeria public water supply standards were
based on U.S. standards published in *Standard Methods*. Current laws
and regulations require enhancing and maintaining water quality to
protect public health. However, these are rarely enforced. And given the
lack of the state-of-the art equipment for determining levels of
contaminants in water samples, set standards are probably not often met.

### 7.4.2 Drinking Water Treatment 

Raw water is treated to remove undesirable contaminants. The most
commonly used processes include filtration, flocculation and
sedimentation and disinfection. Advanced systems include ion exchange
and adsorption. Actual treatment steps are based on contaminants in the
source water used by the facility.

Nigerian LGAs in charge of water supply face multidimensional problems
to supply safe drinking water, including inadequate funding, poor
planning and a lack of cost recovery mechanisms, as well as trained
staff. The fact that management responsibilities overlap and are
scattered across a number of participating organizations presents
another barrier. Privatization is often presented as a panacea for these
ills, but in fact needs to be carefully reviewed for each city's
context. Experience has shown that in some cases, rather than
contributing to poverty reduction, water privatization and greater cost
recovery make water less accessible and less affordable to the
low-income communities that make up the majority of the population in
developing countries.

Finally, the state of the environment generally can be a telling sign of
the quality of water. Since comprehensive water quality monitoring in
Nigeria is still in its infancy, a clear picture of the status of water
pollution and the extent to which water quality has been impaired from
different uses is not available. However, the contamination of ground
water and lakes can quickly devastate ecosystems to the detriment of
biological diversity. Such visible indicators are very conclusive. While
technological improvements are helpful, political, institutional and
social constraints are the crux of the problem. This makes an
integrated, interdisciplinary approach to water management necessary.

## 7.5 Urban and Municipal Environmental Management

In its narrowest sense, sanitation refers to the disposal and management
of human waste or excreta, sometimes diluted with water as sewage.
Environmental sanitation includes proper hygienic behavior.

One of the fundamental problems affecting urban residents in Nigeria is
the lack of adequate and safe sanitation systems. Compounding this
situation is the unhygienic behavior resulting from inadequate awareness
of information on disease transmission on the part of urban residents.
Practices such as defecating or urinating on side streets (or in the
bush) and infrequent washing of hands are common, contributing to
unhealthy personal hygiene.

### 7.5.1 Management of Sanitation Systems in Nigeria

From the discussions during the field visits, it appears that only a
fraction of the urban sewage is treated in Nigeria. The percentage of
households covered by sanitary means of disposal has been slowly
increasing, especially in urban areas.

These include urban populations served by connection to public sewers or
household systems such as 'soak--away pit latrines', pit privies,
pour-flush latrines, conventional septic tanks, communal toilets, and
other such facilities. The urban city cores, especially the wealthier
neighborhoods, are covered with a centralized system. The poorer
neighborhoods have no such facilities.

A 'Soak-Away' system is a modified version of a conventional septic
tank. Biosolids separate out in one chamber, unlike the septic tanks,
where the liquid portion is not removed and percolates in to the ground.
In areas where the water table is high and soil conditions favorable,
this can cause groundwater contamination. Many neighborhoods rely on
groundwater for their water supplies. This system is common in middle
class urban neighborhoods.

In most cities, management of the urban services including sanitation is
in the hands of LGAs. However, there are other agencies that participate
in the program in one way or the other, including federal, state, and
local agencies responsible for health, water and public works. The weak
coordination and overlapping responsibilities do not create synergy and
fail to meet the systems requirements. It reflects a serious policy
void., in spite of the federal government's policy that sanitation
service providers should enjoy autonomy and freedom from political
influence.

However, in spite of the poor sanitation systems, the LGAs visited have
not moved beyond the rhetoric to implementation. Several factors seem to
contribute to this situation. Key among these are the lack of funds
(such as for equipment purchases) and absence of a strong institutional
capacity (including adequate funding, efficient organization, clear
lines of authority, and qualified personnel), which has further
exacerbated the urban degradation. In some cities such as Lagos, local
government mandates have been expanded, adding new responsibilities such
as industrial pollution controls to the traditional responsibilities of
urban management. The relentless pace of urban growth further exacerbate
these problems, far outstripping the capacity of the government to
manage and respond to demands for urban services. The political needs
have prevented implementing adequate user charges for sanitation
services.

The revenue base of the LGA is small as compared to their growing needs.
Low revenues have resulted for many reasons---least of which is the lack
of funds from the federal government. A key problem, however, is the
weak local revenue generation. Often, political will has been lacking to
implement measures such raising property taxes in richer neighborhoods.
LGA leaders find it easier to ignore the needs of the poor than raise
taxes of richer constituents. If LGAs are to meet the needs of their
jurisdiction, they must stand on firm footing and raise revenues through
(increased) property taxes, special taxes such as business taxes, motor
vehicle registration taxes, user fees, local surcharge on national taxes
or other measures.

### 7.5.2 Municipal Solid Waste

Municipal solid waste management is an essential public service that
benefits all urban residents. These are defined to include refuse from
households, non-hazardous solid (not sludge or semisolid) waste from
industrial and commercial establishments, refuse from institutions)
including non-pathogenic waste from hospitals), market waste, yard waste
and street sweepings. Sometimes, construction and demolition debris is
also included. However, for the purpose of this review, such wastes are
excluded from consideration.

In Nigeria, the scale of urban consumption and waste generation---and
the negative impacts associated with them---varies dramatically from
city to city, depending in a large part on a city's wealth and size.
Wealthier neighborhoods and cities have the highest level of resource
use and waste generation. By contrast, per capita resource use and
levels of waste generation tend to be quite low among the urban poor.
Thus, poorer cities are less of a threat to the environment. However,
their local impacts can be severe. The urban poor often find settlements
in ecologically poor neighborhoods.

Regardless of the level of income, it is not feasible (or desirable) to
exclude service from poorer neighborhoods unable to pay for services
since public cleanliness and environmental waste disposal are essential
elements of a clean city.

In Nigeria, there is no clear and effective framework for waste
management. The existing framework does not seem to work, given the
littering and piling of trash along city streets and medians in most
urban centers. Previously, municipalities under the oversight of states
were responsible for solid waste management. The states subsequently
transferred this responsibility to LGAs, whose total number in Nigeria
grew by leaps and bounds---at present totaling 774. LGAs are responsible
for all city services including water, sanitation, health and solid
waste management. Overall, these LGAs are poorly equipped with funding
and institutional capabilities.

In addition, during discussions with relevant officials, a conspicuous
lack of delegation of relevant powers to lower levels of government that
are typically responsible for implementation was evident. There also
seems to be a lack of a clear and broadly accepted long-term policy, and
a predictable and flexible regulatory regime targeting economic
incentives and cost recovery. These efforts need to be strengthened by
an increased awareness and education---with the long-term objective of
changing the behavior of manufacturers and consumers in the direction of
minimizing waste generation.

#### Current Practices

Waste disposal problems are typically associated with non-biodegradable
or bio-accumulative substances such as solvents, heavy metals and
chemical sludges. These are often industrial wastes but can also arise
from poor consumer behavior such as improperly disposing waste oil on
the ground by numerous small auto repair facilities in Nigeria.

Municipal waste collection and disposal in Nigeria's urban centers
overall appears to be in a dismal state, as evidenced by field visits to
various urban centers. It also seems waste is currently collected on an
intermittent basis in the poorer neighborhoods, while regular pick ups
occur in selected localities; wealthier urban neighborhoods seem to
indicate this. This was evidenced by trash strewn along medians,
roadside piles and in many other places. In addition to the health and
environmental impacts, the trash piles create health hazards and a
breeding ground for mosquitoes. Clogged drains were a common occurrence
in Lagos, Port Harcourt, Calabar and Kaduna. The cities of Ibadan and
Aba seem to lead the pack. In addition to the trash, hundreds of junked
motor vehicles---cars, trucks, buses etc. were seen all along major
arteries in Ibadan and Iba. In other cities less junked vehicles were in
evidence--- seen in dozens, rather than hundreds. The vast number of
junked vehicles and the visible signs of rusting and rotting indicated
that these have been sitting for very long periods---perhaps years.
Obviously, none of the LGAs (the organization responsible for removal
and environmental disposal, including recycling) has taken any action.
There is no incentive for better performance or conversely, no penalty
for poor performance.

In all cities visited, open fires on trash dumps were seen; these
provide an (unhealthy) means of disposal of accumulated piles. In Lagos,
the Lagos Waste Management Authority experimented with incineration.
However, for unknown reasons, the practice was abandoned.

The team also observed a number of disabled hauling trucks waiting for
repair for weeks, according to the facility manager. Given the limited
equipment, the situation has deteriorated rapidly. In some places,
limited composting is also practiced. None of the cities visited has any
formal waste separation. Recycling and reuse is left to city scavengers.
In general, LGAs are badly strapped for cash, the major limiting factor
to a wider and more effective solid waste collection. Other constraints
include lack of technical staff, institutional organization and lack of
public sensitivity.

The most common method bordering environmental disposal is disposal in
open dumps. This also involves the use of transfer stations. However,
transfer stations observed in the cities visited were generally in
disarray; it seems trash pick-ups have not been made for several days.
In a few locations, in addition to scavengers, animals were seen feeding
on the trash.

Open dumps are an inexpensive option in land disposal of solid wastes.
Open dumps have the lowest initial capital investment and operating
cost. LGAs with a lack of equipment and expertise often go for open
dumps.

Open dumps, however, pose significant risks to human health and the
environment, especially as municipal solid waste becomes more complex.
In addition, the cost of remediating these sites can easily exceed their
total lifetime capital and operating costs. Contaminated groundwater may
never be returned to usable condition and other environmental impacts
may take many decades to ameliorate. Open dumps also attract numerous
birds that feed on the waste, which can make them more serious disease
vectors than flies or rodents.

The other two types of landfill disposal---controlled dumps and sanitary
landfills in the true sense did not exist in the cities the EA team
visited. Controlled dumps have planned capacity, partial leachate
management, regular (not usually daily) cover, basic record keeping and
are sited with respect to site's geology and hydrology.

#### Recycle and Reuse in Nigeria

A sound waste management program involves recycle and reuse along with
other elements indicated below:

+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| -   Available baseline data and | -   Screening type of industry     |
|     information                 |                                    |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| -   Collection and safe         | -   Land-use zoning/development    |
|     disposal                    |     control                        |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| -   Recycling and biogas        | -   Legislative reforms            |
|     generation                  |                                    |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| -   Sewage treatment plants     | -   Public toilets                 |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| -   Lack of private sector      |                                    |
|     participation               |                                    |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+

As part of recycle and reuse activities, a few modest composting
operations exist. In addition, some planning to recycle waste seems to
have been initiated as indicated by the following feasibility studies.

***Ibadan Plastic-waste Recycling Plant**.* (CASSAD, 2001). Ibadan
generates significant quantities of plastic wastes including nylon,
polythene, broken/discarded plastic products such as jerry cans,
bottles, bowls and balls. CASSAD, under the sponsorship of UNICEF,
conducted a feasibility study for a modest (undefined size) pilot
plastic-waste recycling project in the communities of Ayeye and Elta, in
Ibadan on a cost-sharing arrangement. To gain useful information, the
study also reviewed the operations of a plastic recycling facility at
Idi-Ayunre in Oluyole LG. All projected equipment will be supplied by a
Nigerian company.

The total estimated cost as well as cost sharing is indicated in Table
7.6.

##### Table 7.6. Estimated Costs of a Plastic Waste Recycling Facility in Ibadan 

+------+--------------------------+----------------------+-----------+
| *    | **Items**                | **C                  | **Cost    |
| *Sr. |                          | ost-sharing/Agency** | (N)**     |
| N    |                          |                      |           |
| o.** |                          |                      |           |
+------+--------------------------+----------------------+-----------+
| 1\.  | Machinery and Equipment  | UNICEF               | 1,975,000 |
+------+--------------------------+----------------------+-----------+
| 2\.  | Personnel                | Community            | 535,000   |
+------+--------------------------+----------------------+-----------+
| 3\.  | Capacity                 | UNICEF               | 860,000   |
|      | Building/Monitoring      |                      |           |
+------+--------------------------+----------------------+-----------+
| 4\.  | Land                     | Community            | 100,000   |
+------+--------------------------+----------------------+-----------+
| 5\.  | Super Structure.         | LGA                  | 500,000   |
+------+--------------------------+----------------------+-----------+
|      | ## TOTAL COST            |                      | **3,      |
|      |                          |                      | 970,000** |
+------+--------------------------+----------------------+-----------+

The concept of the facility is based on local community participation
and involvement. Participating communities have an institutional
structure to sustain the community-based venture. Other participants
include representatives from the state, LGAs and NGOs. This
participation significantly increases the viability of the project.

***Slaughterhouse Waste Recycling Project**.* CASSAD also conducted a
feasibility study for a slaughterhouse waste-recycling project based in
Port Harcourt. The proposed project will use bone and blood from
slaughterhouses to produce poultry feed supplement, phosphate
fertilizer, bone powder and blood meal for pharmaceutical use. At
production rates of four tons per day, a gross income of N3 million and
a net profit of N675,00 per year was projected. The total cost of the
plant including equipment, land, installation and labor was estimated at
N5.4 million (CASSAD, 2001).

***Organic Waste Recycling in Kaduna***. Another assessment under
UNICEF/CASSAD evaluated the feasibility of installing an biodegradable
organic wastes facility processing 20 tons of organic wastes per day. A
similar plant based on local technology and manpower is in operation in
Ibadan in Oyo State. Kaduna produces significant quantities of organic
wastes, including animal wastes from cows, poultry droppings, piggery
wastes, crop residues and some suitable industrial wastes---the city is
home to the large Nigerian brewery and a few smaller ones.

Table 7.7 itemizes the project's costs.

##### Table 7.7. Kaduna Organic Waste Recycling Facility

  -------- ---------------------------- -------------------------- -----------
  **Sr.    **Item**                     **Cost-Sharing**           **Cost
  No.**                                                            (N)**

  1\.      Machinery and Equipment      UNICEF                     5,316,710

  2\.      Capacity Building for        UNICEF                     350,000
           Project Staff                                           

  3\.      Project Monitoring           UNICEF                     500,000

  4\.      Personnel (3-month costs)    State                      428,000
                                        Government/LGA/Community   

  5\.      Super-structure/Buildings.   Community/LGA              1,000,000

  6\.      Land                         State Government           100,000

           **TOTAL PROJECTED COSTS**                               7,719,710
  -------- ---------------------------- -------------------------- -----------

In addition to cost sharing, the proposed plant includes key
participation and management control by LGA, the state, and in addition
to CASSAD, the Poverty Alleviation and Development Center, a local NGO.
The project cost can be recovered in four to six years, and in addition,
it will generate local employment opportunities. No formal cost-benefit
analysis was provided.

#### Private Sector Participation

Local or metropolitan governments typically have handled solid waste
management. In Nigeria, local governments are usually involved. However,
LGAs are poorly funded, inadequately staffed and do not have the overall
capacity to manage urban wastes. The EA team's site visits to Ibadan,
Lagos, Calabar and other cities confirms this viewpoint.

Given this situation and the growing urban waste, private sector
participation is desirable. Such participation may involve one or more
aspects of solid waste management including collection, transfer,
recycling, resource recovery and disposal of municipal wastes. The types
of private sector participation most common to solid waste management
are contracting, concession, franchise and open competition. Each option
offers relative advantages and disadvantages and has been successfully
used to varying degrees in developing countries. For example, Thailand
has used private sector participation for operation and maintenance of
equipment.

Open competition is a more common option. In open competition, the
government freely allows qualified private firms to compete for refuse
collection, recycling, or disposal services. Also, individual households
and establishments make private arrangement with individual firms for
refuse collection and/or recycling. In addition, the government grants a
license to qualified individual firms for private provision of disposal
services. The government's role in open competition is to license,
monitor, and, as needed, sanction private firms. Costs are directly
billed by private firms to their customers. Collusion can be a cause of
concern in open competition.

For private sector participation, a number of contextual issues need to
be carefully researched, including those of cost recovery, efficiency,
accountability, management, finance, economics of scale, legislation,
institutional management and cost.

In the Nigerian context, this will require review and overhaul, as
needed, of applicable policy and legislative infrastructure and will
require building institutional capacity to draft, implement and manage
private sector participation. It will require generation of much needed
baseline information, including reliable characterization of urban
municipal wastes from various localities, socially acceptable approaches
to city slums and community involvement and participation, as well
transparency and competitive procurement.

Currently, in Nigeria, there are associations of private refuse
companies in the states of Lagos and Oyo, and agreements on prices are
made among companies. In situations where private companies can be
relied on to not be excessively greedy, such price fixing practices
might be tolerable. However, where profits are disproportionately high,
price fixing is clearly unacceptable.

Despite conditions of open competition and unrestricted entry into the
refuse collection business in various cities within Nigeria, it seems
that the private sector has waxed and waned in response to general
economic conditions, providing service when the economy is good and
retreating from service delivery when bad. Only a handful of the private
firms operating in Nigeria (no more than 10 out of more than 100 firms)
have made an investment in appropriately designed refuse vehicles. The
remainder use depreciated equipment from construction (open tipper
trucks), which they can readily use for other business activity when the
profit potential of refuse collection business is down. At this
juncture, it is interesting to observe that the one argument most often
used for privatizing refuse collection (no barriers to entry) is
essentially the same as one reason for private sector failure in Nigeria
(no barriers to exit).

With significant growth in economic activity, a business as usual
scenario will lead to significant damage to human health and
environment. Limited monitoring can lead to unreliably measured results.

### 7.5.3 Industrial Waste

Waste is generally referred to as a material from a manufacturing
process that has no value to the manufacturer and that has to be
disposed of in some manner.

With rising economic standards and with many imported consumer goods
(particularly food items), Nigerians increasingly have access to
packaged goods, often using plastics, which makes waste disposal
difficult. The development and widespread use of new packaging
substances such as plastics have improved the standards of living for
millions, but they have also introduced new threats to the environment,
as typified by the histories of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT)
and polychlorinated bi-phenyls (PCBs). Thus, industrial development also
brings in its wake problems of environmental pollution that often need
abatement. In Nigeria, the four most industrialized states are Lagos
(home to approximately 60% of the Nigerian industries), Rivers, Kaduna
and Kano. Collectively, these states share approximately 80% of the
Nigerian industry.

Cleanup of industrial waste is costlier than prevention. The lowest
level in the hierarchy (avoidance, utilization, minimization, recycle,
reuse etc.) and the one that all other levels strive to eliminate, is
remediation of the impacts of waste discharged to the environment.

The key industries in Nigeria are cement and asbestos, fertilizer and
agro-chemicals, metallurgy and mining, tanneries, textiles and petroleum
and petro-chemicals. At present, the petroleum industry contributes over
85% annually to Nigeria's foreign exchange revenues. Environmental
pollution from these industries is regulated by FEPA and various state
and other regulatory agencies. Between these agencies, the relationships
are overlapping and not harmonized for regulatory environmental
enforcement.

The EA team visited four industries: oil in Port Harcourt, breweries and
textile industries in Kaduna, and tanneries in Maiduguri. In addition,
the team had major discussions with FEPA, State Environmental Protection
Agencies (SEPAs) and a number of other representatives in the industry,
government and NGOs (see Appendix C). A brief overview of the
environmental aspects, followed by overall compliance is presented
below:

***Tanneries and Textiles***

Tanneries are mostly concentrated in the Kano and Kaduna industrial
zone. Tanneries are notorious for polluting the environment. Key
pollutants include heavy metal chromium, toxic dyes, suspended
particulate matters and others. The textile industry extensively uses a
number of dyes and chemicals during the manufacturing process, depending
upon the type of raw (fiber) material used. The Nigerian textile
industry specializes in the production of fiber---cotton, synthetics or
knitted materials. Environmental pollutants are generated during the
process of desizing, scouring, mercerizing, dyeing and bleaching. The
key pollutants are toxic waste fumes and dust (cotton fluff), sulfur
dioxide, carbon monoxide, heavy metals, color, total suspended solids
and fabric wastes.

***Oil Industry***

Oil drilling and exploration can generate significant environmental
pollution. The Niger Delta region, where this industry is concentrated,
highlights this situation. The situation is described in Section 7.7.

***Status of Environmental Compliance***

Most of the industrial effluents are discharged with little or no
treatment into nearby water bodies. For example, all three of Kano's
major industry effluents are discharged into Jakar River. The river also
supplies irrigation water for vegetables and is a fishing ground for the
residents. No statistics on the volume of liquid or solid wastes
generated was available.

Waste management efforts are closely linked with the income levels.
However, it the poor, mostly urban poor, given the proximity of
industries to urban areas are the biggest sufferers. Such proximity to
industrial facilities, often the result of the desire of the poor to
live near places of employment, poses health risks. The 1984 accident,
the worst in the industrial history at the Union Carbide plant in
Bhopal, India caused over 2900 deaths and at least 100,000 injuries,
affecting mostly the shanty town dwellers.

There is an urgent need to enforce the current environmental
regulations. It was not surprising to hear from the Nigerian brewery
staff in Kaduna that the large brewery is not meeting environmental
requirements. The chemical analysis provided by the distillery staff
supported the contention. The status was similar with the area's large
textile industry. The situation was apparent in terms of deep, dirty
blue, greasy water at each outfall. The water ultimately is discharged
to Kaduna River, home of the area's fishery and water needs.

The KEPA staff overall expressed their inability, given political
pressures, to enforce the current regulations. In addition to inadequate
laboratory facilities, the staff also is inadequately trained in
compliance and enforcement matters.

It is also important to note that much of the industrial and product
design is based on industrial country has been practices, and almost all
of the fundamental science on which regulation is based as been carried
out in more advanced economies than Nigeria. While some opportunities to
leapfrog may be available, policymakers should review the situation in
their own Nigerian context, especially for affordable technologies and
compliance systems.

Ongoing challenges faced by Nigeria\'s enforcement program include
limited funding, lobbying from powerful groups and individuals,
interagency conflicts and political instability. Changes have been
proposed in the system for imposition and collection of fines, and to
include negotiation between government and industry in the enforcement
process. In Nigeria, the national consciousness of environmental
problems is not high enough to support a large-scale national
enforcement program or polluter-pays principle.

## 7.6 Energy 

Nigeria has considerable energy resources---the major ones being wood,
hydropower, petroleum, coal and gas. The GFRN exercises a major role in
managing many of these resources; their development, however, is carried
out either by individuals, private corporations, or government
organizations. Although the potential for solar and wind energy appear
to be abundant, they as yet remain untapped in commercial quantities.

### 7.6.1 Energy Demand

Given the population growth and economic development, energy demand in
Nigeria has been on the rise. Petroleum products, including premium
motor spirit, kerosene, automotive gas, oil and liquefied petroleum gas
(LPG), dominate commercial energy consumption in Nigeria. That being
said, commercial energy consumption in Nigeria remains low. The reasons
for this low commercial demand for and consumption of energy include,
but are not limited to rising levels of poverty; low industrialization
levels; relatively low ownership and usage of automobiles (around 20
cars per 1,000 people); and, weak penetration of appliances such as
refrigerators, freezers and air conditioning into the general
population. (U.S. DOE, 2000).

In terms of household energy demand and consumption, while liquified gas
and kerosene are becoming increasingly common sources of energy in urban
areas, woodfuel and charcoal remain the primary sources for household
energy in rural and peri-urban Nigeria. As with the commercial sector,
per capita energy consumption is quite low, estimated at 8.3 million Btu
---for comparative purposes: per capita consumption in the U.S. is
estimated at 355. 9 million Btu (Bendi, 2001).

### 

#### Electricity

The National Electric Power Authority (NEPA) was created by governmental
decree in 1972, through the merger of the Electricity Corporation of
Nigeria and the Niger Dams Authority. The decree gave NEPA the mandate
to maintain and coordinate an efficient and effective system of
electricity supply for all parts of the federation.

Nigeria houses approximately 5,900 megawatts (MW) of installed
electricity-generating capacity, primarily from three hydro and five
thermal stations. NEPA continues to maintain the lead role in managing
the generation and distribution of electricity through the national
grid, linking the major cities and many of the large towns in the
Federation. All in all, NEPA provides electricity to an estimated 40% of
the population---the majority of whom are urban dwellers.

In rural areas, electrification rates are far lower, and it is estimated
that only 10% of rural households have access to electricity. In some
states, such as Jigawa, it is estimated that only 6.2% of the population
has access to electricity---contributing to a situation that negatively
impacts upon economic productivity, educational opportunities and
healthcare (SELF, 2000).

Over the years NEPA has been victimized by mismanagement, weak
institutional capacity, corruption and frequent political maneuverings.
As a result, Nigeria is facing a serious power crisis due to declining
electricity generation. The causes of this crisis are threefold:

-   Poorly developed commercial energy infrastructure (including
    pipelines and electricity grids) to deliver commercial energy to
    customers

-   Poor maintenance and neglect of the existng power generation and
    distribution infrastructure, and;

-   Weak revenue streams stemming from a combination of low tariffs,
    poor evolved billing and collection systems, and rapidly increasing
    demand.

The result is a power sector that operates well below its estimated
capacity, and that suffers from increasingly frequent power outages and
load shedding. At the federal level, the government is attempting to
remedy the situation by increasing NEPA's capacity for generation and
distribution. In addition the GFRN is moving to increase foreign
participation in the power sector and to improve the environment for the
operation of independent power producers to generate and sell
electricity. There is also a plan, as part of a larger effort to
increase privatization, to privatize NEPA in the near future.

### 7.6.2 Energy Sources and Production

Following is a brief discussion of the potential of key energy sources
in Nigeria, and the main threats to the sustained use of these energy
resources.

#### Hydropower

Nigeria's hydropower production has increased fourfold over the past 25
years and contributes to nearly 38% of the country's electricity
generation (DOE, 2001). Currently Nigeria's hydropower potential is
estimated at approximately 8000 MW, with an annual energy generation
potential of 36,000 gigawatts (GWh). The existing installed hydropower
capacity from the three major hydropower stations---two located on the
Niger River at the Kainji and Jebba dams, and the third on the Kaduna
River at the Shiroro dam---is estimated to be 1,900 MW (CASSAD, 2002).
NEPA currently has plans for a fourth hydropower station to be located
at Zungeru, in Niger State.

Although hydropower is considered a relatively clean energy source of
energy, it does carry with it certain environmental and social costs,
many of which are felt downstream from the actual generating facility.
These may include changes in the ecology of the river and on a larger
scale changes in the ability of the riverine ecosystem to provide much
needed ecological processes and services. At the present time, due in
large part to a lack of reliable scientific data, it is very difficult
to estimate the effects Nigeria's hydropower industry has had, and
continues to have on the environment. It should be noted, however, that
flooding continues to be a serious problem for those living in close
proximity to the dam---for example, a heavy flood in October 1998 swept
away more than 15 settlements located around Kainji Dam and along the
coast of the Niger River. Some reports lay blame the flooding on the
lack of regular dam maintenance. There are also reports that as a result
of recent flood episodes, the Kainji Dam has shifted. If true, this may
pose not only critical environmental and social threats to the region,
but also serious economic threats to Nigeria on the whole.

#### Oil

Commercial energy consumption in Nigeria is predominantly dominated by
petroleum products. These product include the premium motor spirit
(PMS), dual purpose kerosene (DPK), automotive gas oil (AGO), LPG, low
pour fuel oil (LPFO), high pour fuel (HPFO), bitumen, base oils,
paraffin wax and sulfur. Consumption of these products in the economy
accounts for over 70% of the total energy demand in various sectors.
Transportation, household and industrial sectors are the major consumers
of petroleum products in Nigeria. A discussion of the various
environmental issues associated with the oil industry are presented in
Section 7.7.

#### Natural Gas 

Nigeria has the ninth largest reserves of natural gas in the world.
Proven reserves are estimated at 124 trillion cubic feet (Tcf),
including more than 3.4 Tcf of reachable gas. Additional reserves are
estimated at 25 Tcf (DOE, 2002).

Natural gas is an emerging fuel in Nigeria, with great potential. In
1970, natural gas consumption was below 3% of the total (commercial)
primary energy consumption. Current estimates now place natural gas
consumption at 25% of energy consumption in the commercial sector
(Davies, 2001). Several projects are currently underway, in an effort to
meet the increasing demand. For instance, in partnership with a private
sector consortium, Nigeria recently completed a liquefied natural gas
(LNG) project, estimated at a cost of \$3.8 billion, to process natural
gas at Bonny Island. The facility, not yet fully operational, is
expected to process 252.4 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of LNG annually. A
number of similar projects are currently in various stages of design
--designed to meet both domestic needs and for export. One such project,
the West Africa Gas Pipeline (WAGP) is planned to export gas to Benin,
Togo and Ghana. Several distribution schemes are also planned to
increase domestic use. The proposed \$580 million Ajaokuta-Abuja-Kaduna
pipeline is designed to supply natural gas to central and northern
Nigeria, while the proposed Aba-Enugu-Gboko pipeline will deliver
natural gas to portions of eastern Nigeria.

The Lagos State government and Gaslink Nigeria Limited (Gaslink), a
local gas distribution company, are developing a pilot program to
deliver natural gas to nine residential neighborhoods in the state.
Gaslink, which supplies natural gas to nearly 30 industrial customers in
Lagos' Ikeja industrial district, plans to expand operations to include
150 industrial customers, 250,000 residential/commercial customers and
25 independent power plants.

#### Coal

Coal reserves in Nigeria have been estimated at 2.5 billion tons,
lignite at 250 million tons, and limestone at 600 million tons, spread
over fifteen states (Bendi, 2001). In addition, there is an estimated 50
million tons of coking coal (CASSAD, 2002), and a large deposit of
bituminous coal exists in Ondo State that has yet to be exploited.

The parastatal Nigerian Coal Corporation is responsible for operation of
most of the existing mines. Its current plans call for increasing
production to meet or exceed the previous level of 900,000 tons,
achieved in 1959. The Nigerian coal mining industry is slowly being
privatized. A production-sharing agreement with Nordic Industries, a
consortium of Danish, British and local firms was recently signed to
develop the coal industry. The Okab/Odigbo mine district in the northern
Kogi State has reserves estimated at 22 million tons and is due to be
developed. The Enugu mine has a capacity to produce 150,000 tons per
year.

Nigerian coal is considered of average quality in terms of sulfur
contents. Coal production in Nigeria, so far, has been very low.
Cumulatively, it is an insignificant fraction of the total reserves due
to declining annual production. Outside consumption at the household
level, it is used for industrial heat and limited thermal power
generation. Use of coal for electricity production requires relatively
expensive clean technologies, and treatment for liquefaction and
gasification make it more versatile. Thus, relevance of these and other
issues in the context of increasing coal utilization in Nigeria must be
fully evaluated.

#### Fuelwood

Given the widespread lack of access to modern fuels, fuelwood remains
the most important source of domestic energy in the country.
Unfortunately, reliable estimates of per capita fuelwood demands and
potential fuelwood supplies are unavailable. However, even in the
absence of reliable statistics it has become clear that there is a
growing and alarming shortage of fuelwood which affects a very large
number of rural Nigerians. Clearing land for agriculture and the legal
and illegal harvesting of fuelwood, both for household consumption, but
increasingly for sale at market, are two of the major driving forces
behind deforestation in Nigeria.

While specific strategies for sustainable development are beyond the
scope of this study, political leadership and policies to promote wood
supplies are sorely needed. There will also be a need to close the gap
between expanding mandate and reduced capacity of the public agencies.
Previous autocratic, centralized policies may need a serious review to
include a decentralized approach, participation and input from NGOs, the
rural communities and the private sector. It is also important to
decrease reliance on fuelwood through the provision of other suitable
fuel sources.

#### Solar

The sun, a source of unlimited energy, can potentially provide the
equivalent of about 25,000 times the total amount of energy presently
used from all other sources in the world. In Nigeria, the geographic and
climatic conditions show a high potential for solar energy. Its
geographic location within the tropics, between latitudes of 4° and 13°
North coupled with its land expanse (about 983.2 x 10^6^m^2^) allows it
to receive abundant radiation (about 16.7 x 10^15^ kilojeules \[KJ\])
every clear day. Estimates indicate that solar electricity could provide
35 times the current electricity production (CASSAD, 2001). The
economics of conversion are very high at this time, but research in many
countries has shown increasingly lower costs in conversion and improved
cost-competitiveness with grid-supplied electricity.

In Nigeria, at present, exploitation of solar power remains extremely
limited. In the commercial sector, a few companies in Nigeria marketing
and selling solar energy conversion systems such as solar electric power
systems, packaged power systems, photovoltaic systems, solar-powered
irrigation systems, and renewable energy system batteries. Some of these
firms include Comfort Zone (Nig.) Limited in Ikeja-Lagos, Fleet and Cosy
Ltd. in Lagos, Subrec Engineering Limited in Kaduna and Solarmate
Engineering Limited in Lagos.

SELF, a private U.S. firm, supported by the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) and the Jigawa State government, is involved in a solar rural
electrification project providing solar home systems to several
villages, and providing electricity to village schools and health
clinics in Jigawa State. This project will install solar home systems in
300 rural homes, solar power to 30 water pumping systems, electricity to
45 village health clinics, and enhance educational opportunities for
children by bringing solar power to three rural schools (Self, 2000).

## 7.7 Environmental Impacts of the Petroleum Industry

The first discovery of commercial quantities of oil in Nigeria was in
1956. Today, the country produces approximately two million bbl/d of
crude oil. Nigeria is the largest oil producer in Africa, and the fifth
largest in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).

Estimates of Nigeria's oil reserves vary from sixteen to twenty-two
billion barrels, mostly found in small fields in the coastal areas of
the Niger Delta. According to the Nigerian constitution, all minerals,
oil and gas belong to the GFRN, which negotiates the terms of oil
production with international oil companies.

The discovery of oil has transformed Nigeria's political economy, and
oil has for the past two decades provided approximately 90% of foreign
exchange earnings, and 80% of federal revenue---over half of which is
from Shell. Total revenues are projected at \$16.6 billion (African
Business, 2002). Nigeria also has huge reserves of natural gas, yet to
be fully exploited. Most exploration and production activities in
Nigeria are carried out by European and U.S. oil companies operating
joint ventures (JVs) in which the Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation
(NNPC), a parastatal, owns 55 or 60%. More recent contracts related to
offshore fields have been structured rather as "production sharing
contracts" in which the government is not a formal partner. Shell
operates a JV that produces close to one-half of Nigeria's crude
production; ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, Elf, and Agip operate other JVs,
and a range of international and national oil companies operate smaller
concessions.

Given the large role of oil in the Nigerian national economy, the
policies and practices of the oil companies have been an important
factor in the decision making of the Nigerian government. Because the
oil companies are operating JVs with the government they also have
opportunities to influence government policy. At present, the oil
industry is going through several changes initiated by the NNPC. For
instance, the government recently announced the withdrawal of all
subsidies on crude oil and refined petroleum products in January 2002,
following two-year struggle to force the change. One side benefit is apt
to be lesser corruption. Earlier, NNPC was paying a subsidized rate of
\$9 per barrel. It is privatizing the four (NNPC) refineries and a
commission will be set up to regulate competition (African Business,
2002).

### 7.7.1 Oil Industry and Area Communities

The multinational oil companies operating in Nigeria face a difficult
political and economic environment, both nationally and at the oil
producing community level where their facilities are located. At the
community level, companies are faced with increasing protests directed
at oil company activities and the lack of development in the Delta;
these have included incidents of hostage taking, closures of flow
stations, sabotage and intimidation of staff.

Environmental degradation has contributed to ethnic unrest in the
region, especially the Niger Delta. People in the region protest that
the activities undertaken by foreign oil firms have contributed to the
degradation the local environment and are the target of much of their
ire. But the government is also quite at fault for the unrest and the
environmental problems due to it own mismanagement of oil and gas
activities and its very lax enforcement of environmental laws and
regulations. These kinds of problems also surface in other sections of
this report and represent one of the underlying causes of environmental
degradation in the country.

The oil companies are also legitimately concerned with preventing damage
to their facilities and to the environment and to protect their
personnel. The problems become more convoluted with the inevitable
security arrangements between the oil companies and the GFRN, as are the
internal oil company provisions for security responses in the event of
incidents of hostage taking, sabotage or intimidation.

At the same time, the companies are emphasizing their commitments to
avoid violent confrontations between community members and security
forces. Shell and Chevron also have very visible and successful
community outreach and self-help programs that have the participation of
large cross sections of the Niger Delta communities and NGOs and that
are also supported in no small way by other private sector institutions.
(SPDC, 2000a). These and other efforts to reduce the risks of
environmental degradation through targeted socioeconomic activities,
such as those being overseen by the Niger Delta Development Commission
(NDDC, 2001) should also help improve the relationship between the Delta
populations and the oil companies.

### 7.7.2 Environmental Impacts

The major environmental impact of the petroleum industry has been,
without doubt, in the Niger Delta. The Delta is one of the world's
largest wetlands, the largest in Africa. It encompasses over 20,000 km²,
of which an estimated 6,000 km² is mangrove forest. As described
elsewhere (see Sections 7.2 and 7.10) it has high biodiversity typical
of extensive swamp and forest areas, with many unique species of plants
and animals.

The environmental damage is well documented. It has occurred in all
three environmental media---soil, water and air. Only the extent of the
damage is subject to dispute. The oil companies operating in Nigeria,
however, maintain that their activities are conducted to the highest
environmental standards; but Nigerian environmental laws, when compared
to their international equivalents, are very poorly enforced.

Although major environmental damage has been caused by oil
drilling-related infrastructure development, gas flaring and oil spills,
not all the environmental problems are the direct responsibility of the
oil industry (see Box 7.2). The remaining discussion in this section now
deals directly with environmental impacts related to the petroleum
industry.

#### Land Degradation and Water Quality Impacts

Undesirable, environmentally polluting discharges of liquid, solid and
gaseous wastes accompany almost all stages of oil production. In
addition, all drilling has associated drilling wastes. Key among these
are drilling-waste fluids or muds, drilling waste solids, produced
water, and volatile compounds. The drilling-waste muds may be freshwater
gel, saltwater, or oil invert-based systems (e.g., oil invert mud
systems may contain up to 50% \[by volume\] of diesel oil). Occasional
chemical discharges, though of short duration during construction,
hydrostatic testing, commissioning, pigging, and maintenance of the
pipeline systems, usually contain corrosion and scale inhibitors,
biocides, oxygen scavengers, and other environmentally damaging agents.

Produced waters, including injection waters and solutions of chemicals
used to intensify hydrocarbon extraction and separation of the oil-water
mixtures, are one of the main sources of oil pollution in offshore oil
and gas production. Formation water and brine are extracted along with
oil and gas. Injection water is pumped into the injection wells in
hundreds of thousands of tons to maintain pressure in the system and
push the hydrocarbons toward the producing wells. Oil, low-molecular
weight hydrocarbons, inorganic salts and technological chemicals usually
pollute these waters.

Another potential source of oil pollution is produced sand extracted
with oil. The amount of produced sand coated by oil can vary in
different areas, even during production in the same area. Most often,
this sand is cleaned of oil and dumped overboard at the well site.
Sometimes, it is baked or calcified and transported to the shore. These
wastes have a regular and long-term impact on the marine environment.
Table 7.8 shows average values of pollutants in the wastewater stream
from crude oil processing.**\
**

Also, as a hydrocarbon reservoir is being depleted, the ratio between
the water and oil fraction in the extracted product increases, and water
becomes the prevailing phase. At the same time, both the volumes of
discharged waters and the difficulties of their treatment increase. The
cleaning of produced water is complicated and expensive, offering the
temptation of poor or no treatment, especially under poor enforcement
conditions in Nigeria.

####### Table 7.8. Wastewater from Crude Oil Processing

  --------------------------------- -------------------------------------
  **Parameter**                     **Average values (mg/liter)**

  Oil and grease                    7-1,300 (200

  Total organic carbon              30-1,600 (400)

  TSS                               20-400 (70)

  Total dissolved solids/TDS        30,000-200,000 (100,000)

  BOD                               120-340

  COD                               180-580

  Phenol                            50

  Cadmium                           0.7

  Chromium                          2.3

  Copper                            0.4

  Lead                              0.2

  Mercury                           0.1

  Nickel                            0.4
  --------------------------------- -------------------------------------

Source: World Bank. 2000.

The main environmental challenges from on-shore activities result from
oil spills, gas flaring and deforestation. In the Niger Delta, one of
the most visible consequences of the numerous oil spills has been the
loss of mangrove trees. The mangrove forests are a source of fuelwood
for the local people and a habitat for the area's biodiversity.

Also on shore, poorly designed causeways and canals constructed and used
by the oil industry affect the hydrology of the seasonally flooded
freshwater swamp and the brackish water of the mangrove forest. This
kills off crops, destroys fishing grounds, and damages drinking water
supplies. Saltwater incursion, especially in the outer reaches of the
Delta and along the major water thoroughfares is an increasing problem.

#### Atmosphere Pollution by Oil and Gas Operations 

Atmospheric emissions accompany most oil and gas operations. Atmospheric
pollution caused by oil and gas development includes gaseous products of
hydrocarbon evaporation and burning as well as aerosol particles of
unburned fuel. From the ecological perspective, the most hazardous
components are nitrogen and sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide and products
of the incomplete burning of hydrocarbons. These components interact
with atmospheric moisture, transform under the influence of solar
radiation, and precipitate onto the land and sea surfaces to form fields
of local and regional pollution.

Technical means to rectify and prevent atmospheric pollution during
offshore oil and gas production are practically identical to analogous
methods that are widely and often effectively used on land and in other
industries. However, offshore atmospheric emissions, thus far, have not
received attention, probably due to the remoteness of these developments
from densely populated places. No estimates of the extent of oil and
gas-related atmospheric pollution in Nigeria are available.

The effects of gas flaring are discussed in a separate section (7.3.2)
under air quality.

#### Oil Refining Operations

Nigeria has four oil refineries at Kaduna, Warri and Port Harcourt I and
II, with a total nominal refining capacity of 438,750 bbl/d, although
production rarely reaches this figure due to frequent breakdowns and
operating problems. In theory, Nigeria's refinery capacity is sufficient
to meet its domestic consumption requirements. In practice, the
refineries are poorly configured and inefficient, leading to frequent
shortages of refined products, both for the domestic and foreign
markets. Product prices are heavily subsidized, encouraging smuggling on
a large scale to neighboring states for resale at higher prices. It has
been estimated that smuggling amounts to over 32,000 bbl/d, largely to
Benin, Niger, Chad and Cameroon. Nigeria has become a large importer of
light petroleum products.

On the environmental side, the contaminants, sulfur, nitrogen and metals
found in increasing proportion in heavy crude oil for refining,
contribute to pollution, interfere with refinery operations and corrode
equipment, adding to the cost of refining, increased expenses of
regulatory compliance, reduced operating efficiency and diminished
product yield.

Oil refineries maintain a flare system to provide safety pressure relief
for the various process units in a refinery. During start-ups, shutdowns
and routine operations, excess hydrocarbon gases are generated and
diverted to the flare system. At the flare stack, the hydrocarbon gases
are burned as a method of destruction. As a result, the flares are a
major source of hydrocarbon losses. Minimizing flaring, therefore, must
be a priority for both environmental and economic reasons.

#### Oil Spills

Oil spills are a normal occurrence in the oil industry and are
detrimental whether they occur on-shore or offshore. In every case it is
important to minimize their occurrence. Spills kill fish and
agricultural crops, and pollute water, with serious consequences on the
communities and families affected, especially on dry land or in
freshwater swamp zones where spills are contained in a small area. The
long-term effect of these major pollution incidents, regular small
spills, and effluents deliberately discharged to the environment, is
largely unevaluated.

#### The frequency of oil spills has varied considerably and the volume associated with these accidents has also been high. Regardless of the cause the oil companies and the people of Nigeria have to work agressively to keep the incidents and the volumes silled at a minimum to protect their valuable surface respources, especially in the Niger Delta region with its unique natural inheritance.

## GREEN

## 7.8 Agricultural Land Uses

Agriculture in Nigeria involves four broad systems of land use: crop
production, animal husbandry, fisheries and forestry/agroforestry. This
section addresses the crop production and livestock systems focusing on
threats, current practices and opportunities to/for those aspects of
land use. Fisheries and forest uses are discussed elsewhere in this
report.

The soils in Nigeria are the critical base for agricultural land uses
and in order to support any type of production need to be used wisely
and conserved. The major soil types according to the FAO soil taxonomy
classifications are listed in Table 7.9. Even though they vary in their
potential for agricultural use, no soil type (at least for any extensive
area) would contribute to high productivity anywhere in Nigeria. In
fact, almost fifty percent of the soils found in the country fall into
the two lowest classes of productivity. These latter types are alfisols,
acrisols, ferrasols and arensols and they have low productivity due to
poor soil moisture retention capacity and low organic matter. Except for
the ferrasols, they are the most dominant types found in the northern
dry parts of the country (Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria
\[GFRN\], 2000). With an agricultural resource base of this magnitude,
Nigeria's farmers and herders begin with an immediate disadvantage.
These facts only further underscore the fragility of the land and the
need to always be vigilant to its conservation.

##### Table 7.9. One Productivity Estimate of Nigeria's Soils

  ---------------- ----------------------------------- ------------------
  **Productivity   **Soil classes**                    **% of land area**
  grade**                                              

  High             None found in Nigeria               \-\--

  Good             Fluvisols, gleysols, regosols       5.52

  Medium           Lixisols, cambisols, luvisols,      46.45
                   nitosols                            

  Low              Acrisols, ferralsols, alfisols,     31.72
                   vertisols                           

  Poor             Arenosols                           16.32
  ---------------- ----------------------------------- ------------------

Adapted from: Agboola, S.A. 1979. An Agricultural Atlas of Nigeria.
Oxford University Press, Oxford.

### 7.8.1 Crop Production and Farming

Crop production in Nigeria can be broadly classified into three types of
farming: rotational fallow, semi-permanent or permanent cultivation, and
mixed farming each with variations. Permanent cultivation may be under
rain-fed or irrigated systems, or as is common in sparsely populated
areas rotational fallow within a land rotation system may exist.

Rotational fallow is a traditional system that was widely practiced
throughout West Africa (as well as other regions of the world). The
cropping phase on a plot of land was farmed until yields decreased and
then allowed to go fallow where grasses and other vegetation were
allowed to return under a natural state. Grazing was also sometimes
permitted. Under this system, soils and nutrients were built back up
with very little if any other productive inputs. With increasing
population and demand for more land fallow times decreased or ceased to
exist altogether. Without proper stewardship of the soils and the water
falling on these plots (protection from wind and water erosion,
compaction, loss of nutrients) and little or no fallow period the land
resources become very susceptible to the processes of desertification
(see Section 7.11).

Permanent or semi-permanent cropping systems in Nigeria are used to
refer to perennial tree crop-based farming systems. Long-term crops such
as coffee and cocoa determine a plot's use for an extended period of
time and secondary annual cropping is done by the farmer to support and
reduce risks associated with his/her main cash crop. Agroforestry (and
certain types of intercropping) also sometimes fall under this rubric.
In these instances, the farmer will also grow shrubs or trees
interspersed with his/her main cover crop, again to reduce the overall
risk that might be associated with the loss of one or more of the crops,
provide soil protection or other environmental improvements in addition
to eventually gaining income from the longer-term crop. Environmental
risks with this type of system are definitely less, but the use of fire
to (annually) clear the land or careless plowing techniques can
significantly increase the risks, especially to erosion as in the
fragile soil types of the South East states.

Mixed farming (crop and animal production) is also widely practiced in
Nigeria. Traditionally this was a semi-permanent system whereby plots or
areas of land where allowed to be fallow for several years and a
rotational system of grazing and crop production was used. It is still
widely practiced. Farmers with livestock need to use extra precautions
to avoid over compaction of soils on fragile or marginal sites, and to
be wary of overgrazing that will result in valuable soil loss.

Today these traditional systems are breaking down and the fragile
balance between man-made/managed environments and the renewability of
natural resource ecosystems is crumbling due to overuse. Yudelman (1987)
noted that the accelerating deterioration of the resource base in the
region is significantly reducing production. In the absence of
appropriate or functional technical changes, producers are farming more
intensively either by shortening the fallow period or extending
production into less hospitable areas. Both are happening to alarming
degrees in Nigeria.

A recent nationwide study (Geomatics International et al., 1998) on
comparative land use over an 18-year period reported that an additional
nine percent of the entire country (84,073 km²) had come under
agricultural production. Most of this "new" land was derived from areas
of less intensive use or unexploited land such as savanna, forest or
swamp. Overall, (see Table 7.10) the report concluded that by 1995
slightly more than 60% of the total land area of Nigeria was classified
for agricultural uses compared to 44% in 1978.

In several regions of the country, and particularly in the more arid
portions of the north, large-scale mechanized agriculture is being
promulgated and practiced. The fragility of the soils, particularly
their low nutrient content, is more pronounced here. Often these large
operations are complimented by large irrigation schemes to help provide
the necessary water that allow the farms to produce the quantities of
cash crops necessary to stimulate the regional and national economies
and help pay back the loans taken out to finance the projects. Large
areas adjacent to Lake Chad, in the Hadejia-Nguru basin, and in the
North West in the Sokoto River basin, irrigated perimeters are
operating. Quite often, boreholes and deep artesian wells have been dug
to supplement the agricultural effort and also to help serve domestic
needs.

All of these water resources are fragile and their sustainability for
both quality and quantity needs to be assured. Knowledge about their
reliability is relatively unknown. Current water management practices in
these areas, and especially in those listed above is suspect.
Waterlogging occurs in some cases and there is definite knowledge on the
increasing salinity of the soils in many of these perimeters. This
condition not only decreases agricultural yields but also harms the
ability of the area to support birdlife and other wild fauna, thereby
creating a negative impact on the country's biodiversity.

##### Table 7.10. Area Summary of Dominant Vegetation and 

##### Landuse Classes for 1976/78 and 1993/95

  --------------------- ------------- ----------- ------------- ----------- ----------
                        **1976/78**               **1993/95**               

  **Land Use Category** **% of        **km^2^**   **% of        **km^2^**   **Change
                        country**                 country**                 km^2^**

  Intensive (crop)      35.5          322,794     40.2          365,491     42,697
  agriculture                                                               

  Extensive (grazing)   18.3          166,326     20.6          187,236     20,910
  agriculture                                                               

  Sudan savanna         12.5          113,880     9.0           81,694      -32,186

  Guinea savanna        16.6          151,293     9.0           81,386      -69,907

  Floodplain            1.0           9,451       2.3           20,918      11,467
  agriculture                                                               

  Disturbed forest      1.6           14,573      2.1           18,990      4,417

  Gully erosion         0.0           122         2.0           18,517      18,395

  Shrub swamp           1.9           16,899      1.0           9,248       -7,651

  Freshwater swamp      2.0           18,316      1.8           16,499      -1,817

  Undisturbed forest    2.9           25,951      1.3           12,114      -13,387

  Sahel savanna         1.4           12,549      1.3           11,983      -566

  Discontinuous         0.7           6,137       1.2           11,248      5,111
  grassland                                                                 

  Mangrove forest       1.1           9,994       1.1           9,977       -17

  Agriculture / denuded 0.4           3,518       1.0           9,206       5,688

  Continuous grassland  0.1           1,034       0.9           7,989       6,955

  Natural water         0.7           6,591       0.9           7,851       1,260

  Montane forest        0.7           6,762       0.7           6,759       -3

  Urban (major + minor) 0.2           2,083       0.6           5,444       3,361

  Riparian forest       0.8           7,402       0.6           5,254       -2,148

  Sand dunes            0.1           812         0.5           4,829       4,017

  Montane grassland     0.2           1,739       0.3           3,112       1,373

  Reservoir             0.2           1,327       0.3           2,888       1,561

  Rock outcrop          0.2           1,424       0.3           2,632       1,208

  Tree crop plantation  0.1           830         0.2           1,641       811

  Forest plantation     0.1           997         0.2           1,573       576

  Teak Plantation       0.1           628         0.1           1,156       528

  Irrigation project    0.0           147         0.1           988         841

  Grass marsh           0.5           4,882       0.1           871         -4,011

  Salt marsh / tidal    0.0           4           0.1           545         541
  flat                                                                      

  Agricultural project  0.0           16          0.1           485         469

  Alluvial              0.1           487         0.0           269         -218

  Livestock project     0.0           52          0.0           139         87

  Mining                na            na          0.0           62          62

  Canal                 0.0           2           0.0           29          27
  --------------------- ------------- ----------- ------------- ----------- ----------

Geomatics International Inc., Geomatics Nigeria Ltd. and Beak
Consultants Ltd. 1998. The assessment of vegetation and land use changes
in Nigeria between 1976/78 and 1993/95. Submitted to: Forest
Manage-ment, Evaluation and Coordinating Unit (FORMECU), Nigerian
Federal Department of Forestry under the World Bank Environmental
Management Project (EMP).

The dams created to impound the water are also deleterious to the
environment, trapping sediment that would normally wash downstream and
provide fresh, nutrient-loaded soils that vegetative cover could use to
its benefit. Moffat and Linden (1995) also surmise that the dams on the
Niger River are having a significant effect on the longevity of the
Niger Delta. The sediment that washed downstream annually with the
floodstage of the river no longer happens. It is trapped upstream behind
the dams. This cannot contribute to the seaward building of the Delta,
but rather the forces of the Atlantic are now winning and coastal
erosion is becoming more severe and actually removing significant
portions of the outer Delta's structure.

Overall, the fragile soils of Nigeria face two major threats from
agricultural land use: declining soil fertility and erosion. Declining
soil fertility has been identified in every part of the country and
actions to alleviate it have been noted, especially in the South West
(Akinwande, 2002) and the South East (Mbagwu, 2000). Fertilizer
applications are often seen as the panacea for this type of degradation.
Too often the costs of such inputs are beyond the means of subsistence
and even if they can be applied, the effect is short-lived and carries
other environmental and health risks. Properly addressing soil fertility
issues requires a sustained effort with education, hands-on training, a
great deal of patience, indigenous knowledge that only the landowner can
provide, secure tenure and luck.

Intensified agricultural uses, including agricultural encroachment into
forested areas and overexploitation of the land, has resulted in extreme
erosion problems in many parts of Nigeria. Table 7.10 reports that the
area impacted by gully erosion increased by 18,395 km² in the 18 years
prior to 1995. This threat is most severe in the states of the South
East and the North Central zones (see Box 7.6). Local and state
governments are expending millions of Niara in attempts to alleviate the
problem (Mbagwu, 2000). In the central portion of the country, the high
plateau region around Jos has been denuded for decades. The extensive
mining activities have also exacerbated gully and sheet erosion in
Plateau State (Jones, 1975; Longtau and Gwaivangmin, 1999).

Although the alarm has been sounded, there is little evidence of
activities being implemented on the ground to alleviate the problems.
Policies at the national level are being promulgated but there appears
to be little coordination among activities or with resources at the
community level. NGOs and CBOs in the South East zone are helping to
raise awareness and to educate farmers and communities about the causes
of erosion in their region. And states are helping to finance activities
aimed at repairing the damage done to the hardest hit areas (Mbagwu,
2000). But there is yet to be any strong national or local movements to
take preventative action. There are pockets of successful interventions.
In Borno and Yobe States successful pilot activities (Gadzama, 2002)
have occurred where CBOs have been empowered to utilize resources
effective to relieve degradation caused by declining soil fertility and
erosion. Also across the north and in the central portion of the
country, soil and water conservation measures such as terracing,
vegetative bunds, ploughed ridges and micro-catchments have been
constructed by local farmers with success on a small scale (Longtau and
Gwaivangmin, 1999). In some cases, local NGOs provided assistance for
these efforts. Despite future plans for some pilot site areas on
*fadama* lands, no institution has stepped in to aggressively promote
the simple technologies that have been used successfully for more than a
decade in the surrounding region (Cameroon, Niger, Burkina Faso, Benin,
Mali). Somebody needs to do something, and soon.

### 7.8.2 Animal Husbandry

Livestock production in Nigeria is predominantly (at least in terms of
numbers) the pastoral type. Estimates include 16 million cattle, 13.5
million sheep, 26 million goats and 2.2 million pigs and 150 million
poultry (GFRN, 2000). In the Sahelian and savanna zones of the country,
animals are herded, usually by Fulanis with these zones hosting about
90% of the cattle and two-thirds of the sheep and goats. (Almost all of
the donkeys, camels and horses are in these northern zones.)

During the dry season, the Fulani herders move southward as far as the
deciduous forest and northwards into the Sahel as far as the rains will
allow for fresh grass and water during the rainy season. For Nigeria,
this transhumance migration has transboundary ramifications because
during the dry season many of the herders and their animals come from
Chad, Cameroon and Niger.

There are two pastoral corridors in Nigeria through which these
migrations pass. One is in the northwest running from Niger and Benin
through the western states and ending in Oyo State. The second runs from
the northeast corner moving animals from Niger and Chad southwesterly
through the eastern states and terminating in the Benue/Niger river
basins.

During drought years, this movement of large numbers of animals has a
tremendous negative effect on the soils, rangeland and even the woody
vegetation in the country, especially along these corridors. They are a
serious cause of erosion and desertification. And water resources, which
are always in short supply during the dry season in these areas, becomes
even more threatened. Watering points, which are often used by the
country's sedentary population in these regions, also become sources of
conflict as water use is competed, or public health risks rise when
animals and humans are forced to use the same water sources.

Conflict with farmers is also on the rise in and adjacent to these
pastoral routes. Nigeria's growing population is being forced more
frequently to farm more and more marginal lands, areas that before were
used only for livestock. This not only causes conflict among users, but
it also seriously degrades the soil and biological resources of the
country.

## 7.9 Savanna and Forest Ecosystems

Shrubs, trees and other woody vegetation is classified into seven major
cover types in Nigeria. In the north four savanna types prevail, classed
roughly by rainfall and moving from north to south, these are: Sahel,
Sudan, Guinea, and derived. Figure 7.1 illustrates these zones and also
show the southward movement of the arid areas since 1953. The southern
part of the country contains what remains of true forest cover types.
These include rainforests, montane forests, freshwater swamp forests and
mangrove (salt and fresh water) forests.

##### Figure 7.1. Ecozones of Nigeria (1953-1995)

  --------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------
  ![](media/image6.png){width="2.061111111111111in"   ![](media/image7.png){width="2.061111111111111in"   ![](media/image8.png){width="2.061111111111111in"
  height="1.7756944444444445in"}                      height="1.7756944444444445in"}                      height="1.7756944444444445in"}

  --------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------

Source: Geomatics International et al.

### 7.9.1 Savanna Types

The Sahel savanna is found mainly in the northeast and along the
northern border with Niger. In addition to grasses, shrub species
(*Combretum spp*.) and acacias predominate. Forest cover rarely exceeds
10% except along season watercourses. The Sudan savanna contains similar
species to the Sahel zone with a greater frequency of *Acacia albida*,
*Tamarindus indica*, *Schelocarya birrea* and forest cover of up to 20%
of the land area. The Guinea savanna is found in the middle belt of
Nigeria, and is typified by open woodland with tall grasses and
fire-resistant trees. African mahogany at one time was an indicative
species of this zone. They have all but disappeared today, being a
favorite species for local wood products like mortars. Tree cover here
varies between 15 to 25% in undisturbed areas. The derived savanna is
found further south and is a broad band that borders the remaining
forest zone, and is continuing to spread south as more forestland is
degraded into agricultural uses. Tree cover here is as much as 30%.
Although savanna tree species are not as valuable for timber as those
found in rainforests, a few species are commercially harvested. Many
other trees are cut for fuelwood by residents in these areas, or cleared
to make room for agriculture (Beak Consultants et al., 1999).

Desertification (see Section 7.11) is also causing the borders of the
drier savanna types to move southward. These lines of definition between
all the various savanna types are vague and overlapping, and continually
influenced by fire, drought and anthropogenic factors. Only a small
amount of natural savanna has been protected in Nigeria, and the many
large savanna animals often found elsewhere in Africa have become
greatly reduced in numbers and range.

### 7.9.2 Natural Forest Types

Nigeria has six main types of natural forestland: lowland rainforest,
freshwater swamp forest, savanna woodlands, riparian forests, mangrove
forests and montane forests. The savanna woodlands mentioned in the
previous section and riparian forests occurring in watercourses in the
central and northern parts of the country also contribute to the
nation's natural forest resource base. In addition, there are increasing
areas under oil palm and rubber plantations. Planted agroforestry
species also contribute to the resource, but not significantly. Table
7.11 presents one recent estimate of the natural forest area in the
south of Nigeria.

####### Table 7.11. Estimates of Natural Forest Cover in Southern Nigeria

  ----------------------- ------------------------- ---------------------
  **Forest type**         **Estimated Area (ha)**   **% in Forest
                                                    Reserves**

  Lowland forest          1,700,147                 20.7

  Freshwater swamp forest 1,611,360                 4.9

  Savanna woodland        392,321                   2.3

  Riparian woodland       84,355                    0.1

  Mangrove forest         5,314                     \--

  Montane forest          3,847                     \--

  Total                   3,797,344                 28.0
  ----------------------- ------------------------- ---------------------

Adapted from: Beak Consultants et .al., 1999

#### Lowland Rainforests 

Lowland rainforest once covered much of the southern terrestrial areas
of Nigeria, where an abundant rainfall regime favors the development of
this ecosystem type. Unfortunately, excessive exploitation of timber,
agricultural encroachment and other anthropogenic changes has greatly
reduced these forests in extent. Although rainforest patches still are
found in a belt in southern Nigeria from the western to eastern borders
of the country, the largest remaining tracts of rainforest are primarily
found in Cross River, Bendel and Ondo States (FAO, 1981) contiguous with
the rainforests in neighboring Cameroon.

Nigeria's lowland rainforests are characterized by a great variety of
plant species arranged in a complex vertical structure of forest
canopies. Some economically important rainforest trees include
mahoganies, African walnut (Lovoa) and Mansonia and a number of others
that are increasingly endangered by illegal and legal logging
activities. Many NTFPd are extracted from these forests and have
important values as food items, medicinals, and other domestic uses by
local residents.

#### Freshwater Swamp Forests

Freshwater swamp forests are found in southern Nigeria, on the landward
side of the mangrove belt, where salinity decreases beyond the tolerance
of mangrove species. Swamp forests are dominated by species *of Raphia,
Pandanus, Calamus* and *Alchornea*, with a canopy that sometimes is as
high as 15 meters tall (NEST, 1991). Those swamp forests the furthest
inland are only seasonally flooded and are characterized by climbing
palms (rattan) and a variety of other species that make the forest
nearly impenetrable. Although some NTFPs are collected, large tracts
have been relatively untouched by commercial ventures. A bigger threat
to swamp forests is the intrusion of saltwater into many areas due to
the development of navigational canals, primarily to enhance activities
of the oil industry.

#### Riparian Forests

Riparian forests consist of forest types found on narrow strips
bordering water bodies. Many of these forests have been spared from
agriculture influences due to difficult access and periodic flooding
regimes (Beak Consultants et al., 1999). These forests are important to
the protection of watersheds, and when they are destroyed, siltation and
degradation of the watercourses becomes severe. These forests also have
a role to play in the migration and movement of many animal species,
forming corridors of connectivity between different forest patches. The
riparian forests of the Jos Plateau are also known to contain a unique
assemblage of species including a number of endemics plants and a few
endemic birds and mammals. These forests are under intense threat and
only small amounts still remain.

#### Mangrove Forests

####### 

####### Mangrove forests in Nigeria range along 708 km of coastline with an extent of from 16 to 90 km from the shore inland, encompassing 5,591 km² of land (Isebor and Awosika, 1993). Mangroves survive in marine and brackish habitats and are replaced further inland by freshwater swamp forests. Nigerian mangroves are dominated by red mangroves (*Rhizoporaceae spp.*) and also include white mangroves (*Avicennia spp.*) and a few other mangrove species. The mangrove understory includes a thick undergrowth of other salt-tolerant plant species. 

### Local residents also use mangroves for firewood, for dying their fishing nets, and also collect a number of NTFPs from the understory. As mangroves are cut for firewood, or opened up for navigational canals, villages, and oil company operations, they are gradually being replaced by Nypa palms (*Nypa fructicans*), an exotic plant species that is a fast colonizer. Unfortunately, the Nypa palm but does not provide the same extensive ecological services provided by native mangroves. 

#### Montane Forest

### 

### In Nigeria, montane forests are found primarily on the highlands that form the southeastern border between Nigeria and Cameroon. Although some of this high altitude area consists of grassland, shrubs and rocky outcrops, there are some patches of montane forests along the eastern, southern and western sections that merge gradually into lowland rainforest at the base. Due in large part to their geographical isolation and unique microclimate, they contain considerable biodiversity and many of the plant and animal species found here are endemic to these areas. Two types of montane forests can be discriminated, the mist forests with a diversity of moss and epiphyte species and uneven canopies, and drier forests higher up, where dwarf and stunted trees occur. The Jos Plateau is another highland area that once contained tracts of montane forests. This area has been highly modified by anthropogenic factors and now only remnant patches exist.

Major threats to Nigeria's forest resources are unsustainable uses and
poor management of existing forested land, including lack of
enforcement. The derived savanna zone described above is an excellent
example of these effects. The primary forest is overexploited and gives
way to agricultural land or secondary forest with species that are of
lesser economic value and importance for biodiversity conservation. Lack
of affordable access is the only reason today why the montane forests in
the southeast and the freshwater swamps along the coast and in the Niger
Delta still exist.

Management of existing forestland is nil or ineffective due to poor
training, lack of enforcement and poor data (Beak Consultants et al.,
1999). Even when concessions are granted legally for harvest they have
no inventory data to back up the sale and licensing (Akindele, 2002).
Unless local people are empowered to protect the remaining forest land
outside of reserve areas most of Nigeria's remaining natural primary
forest cover is sure to disappear.

## 7.10 Biodiversity

Nigeria is a tropical nation encompassing a variety of diverse habitats
and ecosystems---features that lead to a large amount of biodiversity in
terrestrial and aquatic species. Like many developing nations, the
continued resources necessary to thoroughly catalogue these species has
been lacking and much of the diversity is relatively undocumented. The
data that exists come from a number of studies of particular taxa and
particular sites of interest to various researchers. Most of the
information available concentrates on those species of particular
economic or aesthetic importance to people. Most species, including many
plants, terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates, small mammals, reptiles,
amphibians, fish, etc. in much of the country remain undocumented.

As of 1992, Nigeria was said to have 274 mammal species and 839 bird
species (FEPA, 1992). Since then more birds have been documented in
Nigeria, bringing the latest total of Nigerian birds to 889 species
(Ezealor, 2002). Nigeria is known as a global hotspot for primate
species, with a great diversity found especially in the Gulf of Guinea
forests of Cross River State and adjacent parts of Cameroon. Some
important endemic birds and mammals include three monkey species, the
white-throated monkey (*Cercopithecus erythrogaster*), Sclater's guenon
(*Cercopithecus sclateri*) and the Niger Delta red colobus (*Procolobus
pennantii epieni*) and three birds, the Anambra waxbill (*Estrilda
poplipaia*), the Ibadan malimbe, (*Malimbus ibadanensis*) and the Jos
indigo-bird (*Vidua maryae*) (Aminu-Kano, 2001). The most endangered
gorilla subspecies on earth, the Cross River gorilla (*Gorilla diehli*)
with an estimated population of less than 250 individuals is found only
in a couple of protected areas near the Nigeria/Cameroon border (Bassey
and Oates, 2001).

Nigerian reptiles, amphibians and fish are not nearly as well known as
the birds and mammals. In the Nigeria country study on biological
diversity (FEPA, 1992), Nigeria was said to harbor 135 reptile species,
109 amphibian species and 648 fish species but various other studies
over the years quote widely differing numbers of these vertebrates. The
forests along the southeastern border with Cameroon area known to be a
hotspot for amphibian biodiversity. Invertebrates are even less known,
but the tropical forests bordering Cameroon are also a hotspot for
butterfly speciation, with an estimated 1000 species in Cross River
National Park alone (Larson, 1977). The Biodiversity Country Study
(FEPA, 1992) estimates that Nigeria has more than 20,000 insects, 77
mollusks, 5 echinoderms, etc. but these numbers are largely suspect.

Due to the diversity of habitats in Nigeria and the tropical climate,
there is a great diversity of plant species found in the country. There
have been many localized studies of plants in Nigeria, but few sources
of consolidated information. According to the 1992 country study (FEPA,
1992), more than 848 algae species have been identified in the marine
and freshwater habitats and over 5,103 higher plant species and less
than 200 lower plant species have been identified, although the number
of these plants is most definitely much higher. Nigeria's plants include
many species with traditional value as food items, medicinals and for
various domestic uses and a number of these plants have been catalogued
in various specific areas of the country. Nigeria is also an epicenter
for diversity of wild varieties of important crop plants, including
cowpeas (*Vigna unguiculata*), West African rice (*Oryza sativa*), yams
(*Dioscorea* spp.), Bambara groundnuts (*Vigna subterranea*), Kersting's
groundnut (*Macrotyloma geocarpum*), African yam bean (*Sphenostylis
stenocarpa*), and winged bean (*Psophocarpus tetragonobus*) (Dr. Ng,
IITA, 2002). A number of these wild crop relatives are presently
endangered.

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Hilton-Taylor, 2000) of
globally threatened species includes 148 animals and 146 plants that are
found in Nigeria. Of these, 26 animals and 18 plants are classified as
endangered and another three animals and 15 plants are critically
endangered worldwide. Many more species are endangered or threatened in
Nigeria alone, but viable populations still exist in other countries.

Nigeria's extraordinarily large human population includes one out of
every five people living in sub-Saharan Africa. This population is
growing rapidly and migrating to increasingly large urban centers that
are among the largest cities in the world. Although Nigeria receives
considerable revenue from its large multinational oil industry sector,
this money rarely trickles down to the populace who are generally poor
and growing poorer. This combination of expanding population and
increasing poverty is putting increasingly severe demands upon the
biodiversity that remains.

## 7.11 Desertification

Desertification and persistent drought is common at this region's
latitude of Africa and the eight northern-most states of Nigeria have
experienced these conditions for quite some time (see Box 7.8. Today
desertification is further exacerbated by a rapidly growing population
and it constitutes a very serious environmental threat for the region.
Although it most directly affects the northern tier of states it has
dire economic consequences for the whole country. Some estimates place
the southward advance of the desert conditions as high as 0.6 km per
year. As noted earlier, the Minister of State for the Ministry of
Environment (Okopido, 2002) lists it in the top three environmental
problems that affect Nigeria.

The northern border shared with Niger is in the Sahelian/Sudan savanna
ecological zone. Annual rainfall rarely exceeds 600 mm and usually
occurs in the three-month period of June to August. Unpredictability and
unreliability characterize the pattern of rainfall. Acacia trees and
shrub species predominate here in open savanna grassland and a tree
canopy cover that rarely exceeds 10%. The climate is harsh. Streambeds
remain dry for most of the year and are prone to flashfloods and the
accompanying erosion in the short rainy season. Soil surface
temperatures often exceed 50º C at the peak of the dry season
(April/May). Wind blown erosion is a common problem especially with
Nigeria's burgeoning population seeking arable land is cultivating more
and more marginal areas. Because of its low and variable biological
production this savanna ecosystem is very sensitive to human and animal
population pressure.

This zone is also home to the largest livestock population in the
country and supports the bimodal movements of transhumance populations
that follow the rains as they move north and then retreat southward as
the rainy season ends. There are two pastoral corridors in Nigeria
through which these animals pass. One is in the northwest running from
Niger and Benin through the western states and ending in Oyo State. The
second runs from the northeast corner moving animals from Niger and Chad
southwesterly through the eastern states and terminating in the
Benue/Niger river basins.

It has been estimated that upwards of 50% of the northern tier of states
in the North West and North East geopolitical zones are affected by
desertification. These states, with a population of about 30 million
people, account for about 43% of the country's total land area (GFRN,
2000). And in the next line of buffer states 10 to 15% of the land area
has been influenced by desertification (Gadzama, 2002).

Natural causes of desertification include the poor physical condition of
soils, covering vegetation, topography as well as the inherent extreme
climatic variability. This latter variable is the most important natural
component of desertification in Nigeria.

Human activities disrupt ecological systems. Poor land use and
population pressures erode the sustainability of natural resources.
Over-exploitation (of water and biological resources), overgrazing,
deforestation, wood extraction and poor irrigation practices are the
main anthropogenic factors leading to desertification. Table 7.12
consolidates some of the issues related to desertification in the
drylands of Nigeria.

##### Table 7.12. Issues Related to Desertification in the Savanna Lands of Nigeria

+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| **Issues**        | **Causes**                                       |
+===================+==================================================+
| Drought           | -   Climatic variations                          |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Low soil water holding capacity              |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Inherent low soil | -   Low soil organic matter levels in drylands   |
| fe                |                                                  |
| rtility/declining | -   Cultivation of marginal lands                |
| soil fertility    |                                                  |
|                   | -   Population pressure resulting in             |
|                   |     reduced/eliminated fallow period             |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Land tenure problems                         |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Inadequate feed   | -   Livestock population in excess of carrying   |
| and fodder for    |     capacity of the rangelands                   |
| livestock         |                                                  |
|                   | -   Increasing migration of livestock from       |
|                   |     neighboring countries (Chad, Cameroon,       |
|                   |     Niger)                                       |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Encroachment of crop cultivation into        |
|                   |     designated "livestock routes" and grazing    |
|                   |     reserves                                     |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Depletion of      | -   Damming of rivers (also deprives downstream  |
| water resources   |     users access to water)                       |
| (surface and      |                                                  |
| groundwater)      | -   Increasing human and livestock populations   |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Increasing demand caused by increased        |
|                   |     urbanization and industrialization           |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Low forest cover  | -   Excessive wood extraction for fuel and       |
|                   |     construction                                 |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Bush burning                                 |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Uncontrolled land clearing for agricultural  |
|                   |     purposes                                     |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Poor legislative  | -   Low level of education and public awareness  |
| framework         |                                                  |
|                   | -   Conflicting policies and regulations         |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Poor enforcement of existing laws            |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Poor              | -   Uncoordinated research efforts on problems   |
| institutional     |     relating to drought and desertification      |
| framework         |                                                  |
|                   | -   Obsolete research and meteorological         |
|                   |     equipment                                    |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Low and/or erratic funding for early warning |
|                   |     systems or anti-desertification projects     |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Uncoordinated approaches to planning and     |
|                   |     implementation                               |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Insufficient involvement and empowerment of  |
|                   |     all stakeholders, especially resource-users  |
|                   |     in activity planning and implementation      |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+

Adapted from: Federal Republic of Nigeria. 2000. National Action
Programme to Combat Desertification and Mitigate the Effects of Drought.
Ministry of Environment. 58p.

Impacts of desertification and drought on Nigeria are many. The
socioeconomic impact could be disastrous. It has a severe impact on food
security, livelihood, economic, social and cultural activities all
resulting in a low food security index. It can also lead directly to
migration from rural to urban areas and probably also results in
disruption to families as men abandon their households in search of
employment elsewhere.

Desertification also directly affects available water sources, both
above ground and underground. Reduced water resources not only affects
vegetation and wildlife, but also local populations who rely on these
for daily needs. Decreases in water supply leads directly to higher
incidences of disease and greater health risks to human populations.

Drought and desertification has shown during the last quarter century in
this Sahelian region and in the Horn of Africa that they can be the
cause of extreme economic and social strife, especially in zones where
natural resources are already heavily competed. The Lake Chad Basin, and
also the region around Sokoto in the northwest has many types of rural
land users, notably fisherfolk, herders, hunters and farmers.

Loss of biodiversity happens swiftly in times of drought or where
desertification threatens the natural environment. In northern Nigeria,
desertification continues to seriously threaten flora and fauna. Natural
habitats have all but disappeared. The Hadejia-Nguru wetlands, a Ramsar
site of global significance as a waterfowl habitat, is not only
threatened by drought conditions and direct human influences but also by
interrupted water flows caused by upstream dams and poor irrigation
practices.

As a party to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification
(UNCCD), Nigeria is working to develop programs and policies to slow
down and hopefully stop the effects of desertification. Government and
NGOs are beginning to develop policies and raise awareness of the issue,
its causes and actions that need to be taken. A national policy has been
developed (GFRN, 1999; GFRN, 2000; MoE, 2000). It is one that recognizes
that it is not just an institutional issue, but also one that requires
incentives to empower local people to guard their precious resources. It
requires implementers to utilize indigenous knowledge (Longtau and
Gwaivangmin, 1999), as well as to communicate among and between sectors
and to utilize successful experiences within the country and from
through the region. In addition, linkage centers such as the Center for
Arid Land Studies can help to pool experiences and knowledge, and
together with NGOs working in the threatened states, to raise awareness
and assist local specialists and the local populations to work together
(Gadzama, 2000; Folorunso, 2002). Table 7.13 provides illustrative
actions that stakeholders in the battle against desertification could
logically take on.

##### Table 7.13. Illustrative Activities by Stakeholders in Controlling Desertification

+---------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| **Stakeholder**     | **Illustrative roles**                         |
+=====================+================================================+
| NGOs and CBOs       | -   Advocacy, environmental education, and     |
|                     |     public awareness                           |
|                     |                                                |
|                     | -   Mobilization and management of resources   |
|                     |     and local participation                    |
|                     |                                                |
|                     | -   Implementation and monitoring of           |
|                     |     activities                                 |
+---------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Private sector      | -   Activity identification                    |
|                     |                                                |
|                     | -   Funder                                     |
|                     |                                                |
|                     | -   Social marketing                           |
+---------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Public sector       | -   Policy formulation                         |
|                     |                                                |
|                     | -   Activity implementation, coordination and  |
|                     |     monitoring                                 |
|                     |                                                |
|                     | -   Funder                                     |
|                     |                                                |
|                     | -   Extension services                         |
|                     |                                                |
|                     | -   Environmental education and public         |
|                     |     awareness                                  |
|                     |                                                |
|                     | -   Cross-sectoral mobilization and            |
|                     |     coordination                               |
+---------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Academia            | -   Appropriate research to support            |
|                     |     desertification control                    |
|                     |                                                |
|                     | -   Activity implementation assistance         |
|                     |                                                |
|                     | -   Information management and linkage centers |
+---------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Development         | -   Information and technical assistance       |
| partners            |                                                |
|                     | -   Incremental funding for activities;        |
|                     |     leveraging opportunities                   |
|                     |                                                |
|                     | -   Capacity building                          |
+---------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Resource users      | -   Activity identification                    |
|                     |                                                |
|                     | -   Activity execution                         |
|                     |                                                |
|                     | -   Monitoring                                 |
+---------------------+------------------------------------------------+

*Adapted from: Federal Republic of Nigeria. 2000. National Action
Programme to Combat Desertification and Mitigate the Effects of Drought.
Ministry of Environment. 58p.*

# 8.0 Summary of Current Donor Activities in Relevant Programming Areas

Donor investment into Nigeria's environment began in earnest in the late
1980s. Many of these early donor investments focused on local-level
environmental problems in high profile regions of Nigeria (e.g., the
Niger Delta). Other initiatives sought to address the local effects of
regional or global environmental problems (e.g., desertification). By
the early-1990s a considerable number of multilateral and bilateral
organizations were financing specific environment/environment-related
initiatives. This level of assistance continued through the mid-1990s,
until the establishment of military rule. Although many multilateral
donor-funded programs remained in place during the military regime, the
majority of the bilateral investment into the environment sector---along
with investments into various other sectors---was tabled.

Since the Nigerian government's return to democracy, numerous
multilateral and bilateral organizations have returned to the
environment sector. In an effort to "coordinate" donor activities, a
Thematic Donor Group on the Environment has been established. The Donor
Group, which is co-chaired by the Canadian International Development
Agency (CIDA) and UNDP, meets quarterly to share information on partner
activities in an effort to allow funds to be leveraged and overlap
reduced.

## 8.1 Multilateral Donor Organizations Active in the Environment Sector

The following is not an exhaustive list, but rather a brief summary that
highlights the major multilateral organizations that are actively
supporting improved environmental management in Nigeria. Where relevant,
pipeline projects are discussed:

***World Bank***

The World Bank has historically been the most active multilateral
organization in the environmental sector. During the 1990s, the World
Bank supported numerous projects and activities (Environmental
Management Project, Fadama I, etc.) in the environment and
environment-related sectors, the large majority of which came to a close
between 1996 and 1998. Currently the World Bank is developing a new
programming cycle that will include two large credit projects in the
environment sector. These projects are:

-   ***Fadama II*** is being designed to support necessary
    infrastructure and institutions to expand small-scale irrigation in
    Nigeria. The project is also looking to provide support to the
    pastoral sector. Ultimately, Fadama II will strive to promote the
    development of linkages between farmer interest groups and the
    private sector. Fadama II will very likely have a GEF-financed
    component to address issues of biodiversity conservation and
    sustainable use of renewable natural resources. Currently the World
    Bank and GEF are working with the FMoE to develop the GEF component.

-   ***Local Empowerment and Environmental Management Program (LEEMP)***
    is a combination of two earlier planned projects (the Micro
    Watershed and Environmental Management Project, and the Community
    and Local Government Development Project), LEEMP will channel
    considerable financial and technical resources to support natural
    resources governance and management at the community level. The
    project will very likely contain a GEF-financed component that will
    work with the NPS and NGOs to improve protected area and buffer zone
    management in and around Yankari and Kainji National Parks.

***Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)***

In Nigeria, the FAO supports two types of initiatives: Technical
Cooperation Programs (TCP) and Unilateral Trust Fund (UTF) Projects.
TCPs are funded through the FAO investment center in Rome. UTFs are
funded through a trust fund, paid into by the GFRN on an annual basis.
In Nigeria, FAO activities focus "on-farm", and many are targeted at
increasing food security. However, FAO also supports environmental
activities; of particular interest is the planned TCP-funded
Streamlining Environmental Law Project---while still under development,
it is expected that this project will focus on aspects of biosafety and
biotechnology.

***International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)***

IFAD, with World Bank and FAO assistance, is implementing two large
projects:

-   The Root and Tuber Expansion Program -- targeting 26 states in the
    mid-south, and

-   The Community-Based Agriculture and Rural Development Program
    (\$28.6 million) -- targeting eight states in the north.

***United Nations Development Program (UNDP)***

In Nigeria, the UNDP is most active in the environment sector through
its Sustainable Agriculture, Environment and Rural Development Program,
which strives to improve food security and environmental management
through work with poor smallholder farmers, fisherfolk and rural
artisans. In this approach, the UNDP/Nigeria is working to provide an
integrated framework to address the linked problems of poverty, food
insecurity and environmental degradation. Specifically, Program
activities strive to enhance the production, productivity and incomes of
smallholder farmers, fisherfolk, and artisans, as well as to improve
their access to credit and productive assets. As part of this effort,
the UNDP is working to improve physical access to rural markets, and is
focusing these activities on between eight and 15 communities per state.

***United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)***

UNICEF is currently supporting a range of activities in the urban
sector, and has also been active in small-scale activities designed to
increase the provision of safe drinking water in rural parts of Nigeria.
One ongoing UNICEF-funded activity is the Urban Services Program, where
UNICEF is seeking to enhance the provision of basic urban/municipal
services; specifically, potable drinking water, electricity and waste
disposal. This program stresses collaboration with communities, and
works with a range of NGOs.

***World Health Organization (WHO)***

While focused primarily on health issues, a number of WHO activity areas
relate directly to environmental health. In Nigeria, the WHO activity
that is may impact most heavily on the environment sector is the Health
Cities Program. Through this program, WHO is conducting health
surveillance studies, and helping the government to establish and
monitor health standards, many of which are related to environmental
health.

## 8.2 Bilateral Donor Organizations Active in the Environment Sector

While numerous bilateral donors have established programs in Nigeria,
CIDA and the U.K.'s Department for International Development (DFID)
currently appear to be the most active in terms of the support they
provided to the environmental sector. The following section briefly
highlights CIDA's and DFID's relevant programming in the environment
sector.

***Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)***

CIDA is currently in the process of developing a long-term program in
Nigeria. This new program will focus in two areas: health and
environment. In environment, CIDA is particularly interested in focusing
on land degradation and water resources management. CIDA is funding two
projects in the environment area, one in Borno State (addressing
desertification) and the other in Cross River State (addressing
forest/natural resource management).

In Borno State, CIDA is funding a small project implemented through
Pro-Natura. Through this project they have established two 4-ha tree
plots, in three communities across the three distinct ecozones. The goal
of Phase 1 has been: a) to plant the trees, and b) to derive a
benefit-sharing scheme. Phase II of this project will focus on
generating greater up-front support for the initiative and will provide
additional capacity building to support community organization with
state government, local government and civil society organizations---and
possibly private sector involvement.

The overall size of the CIDA Mission is quite small (expected to be
between \$5-6 million, over five years---focused on both health and
environment). However, in addition to supporting discrete activities
through country-level programming, CIDA is also currently supporting two
environmental initiatives in Nigeria through its \$100 million (CD)
Global Climate Change Program. One of these activities provides funding
to NEST to strengthen the capacity of GFRN institutions to comply with
the FCCC requirements. This activity works with federal and local
governments as well as the NGO and media communities to raise awareness
and focus attention on issues related to climate change. The second
initiative works through IITA to develop and test drought-resistant
maize varieties (focused mainly in the Kaduna region), as a means to
increasing food security in drought-prone regions of the country.

***Department for International Development (DFID)***

Following the return to democracy, DFID reactivated their Nigeria
program. At this time, DFID looked initially to restart activities that
had been suspended during military rule. One such DFID-supported
activity was the Community Forestry Project in Cross River State. This
environmental activity focused Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) and
DFID support on improving both community and state management of forest
resources. Specifically, the activity focused on building the capacity
of 15 communities to rationalize forest management, and worked with the
Forestry Commission to reorganize and raise revenue. DFID funding for
this initiative will expire in 2003, and currently CIDA is considering
continuing/furthering aspects of this activity.

Based upon the new DFID Country Strategy, new programming activities
will be focused on four states. Discrete activities are still in the
planning stages. However, in the environment realm, one likely
DFID-funded activity will focus on improved management of the Nguru
Wetlands, an internationally recognized Important Bird Area (IBA) and a
Ramsar site located in the northeast of Nigeria.

# 9.0 Priority Actions to Improve Environmental Management and Governance

This environmental analysis identified three major threats to
environmental management in Nigeria:

-   The unsustainable use of renewable natural resources,

-   Unplanned urban development, and

-   Petroleum industry operations.

In order to begin planning and managing the environment in a more
sustainable manner, the GFRN will need to begin effectively addressing
and mitigating these threats---and the underlying causes of
environmental degradation in Nigeria: increasing poverty, population
growth and migration, and political and institutional constraints. In
this section, the EA team identifies the priority actions needed to
improve environmental management and governance. The priorities are
divided into five areas: Legal and Policy Reform, Institutional
Strengthening, Economic Incentives, Regulation and Enforcement, and
Research.

## 9.1 Legal and Policy Reform

The constitutional framework allows both the federal and state
governments to develop legislation for the management and use of most
renewable resources. While the federal framework needs some improvement,
states---due to the highly varied nature of the most pressing
environmental threats they face---will need to be empowered to develop
**and** enforce legislation that promotes sustainable use, if
environmental management is to improve. Currently, the status of the
legislative framework at the state level is generally regarded as
insufficient to support the goals of environmental management. Equally
weak is the ability, at the state level, to enforce existing
environmental legislation and regulations. In order to affectate any
reasonable change, support will need to be targeted at both the National
Assemblies and at the various state government (and local government)
agencies responsible for enforcement. In the still nascent
democratically elected State Assemblies, technical assistance will be
required to ensure that environmental priorities are effectively
addressed in the legislation review, revision and development process.
Likewise, those agencies responsible for enforcement of environmental
legislation and regulations will need assistance to ensure that they
understand and are empowered to carry out their mandates.

Sectoral policies in Nigeria are highly centralized. They also suffer
from lack of coordination. The results are conflicting sectoral
approaches to renewable resources management that agencies at the levels
of state government and local government are charged to implement. If
the framework for environmental management and protection is to be
improved, considerable efforts will be needed to institute an
integrated, multisectoral approach to policy development **and**
implementation.

## 9.2 Institutional Strengthening

The capacity of governmental institutions, especially those at the local
and state government levels to integrate environmental concerns into
economic development plans and activities is currently extremely weak.
While the level of environmental awareness is high in the federal and
state MoEs, this is not the case in the state and local government
sectoral agencies (such as the state Ministries of Agriculture and local
government Departments of Agriculture). These agencies typically lack
the necessary expertise to integrate environmental concerns into their
planning and development activities. The capacity of these institutions,
especially at the level of local government---where no flow-down from
the FMoE exists---will need to be increased if they are to be able to
effectively integrate environmental concerns into their day-to-day
activities. While all local government departments could benefit from
environmental awareness training and capacity building, it is the
opinion of the EA team that targeting the local government Departments
of Agriculture, Works, Education and Social Services, and
Finance---e.g., those local government departments whose activities most
heavily impact upon the environment---could go a long way toward
improving environmental management and the local level.

In addition, and as discussed below (under 9.4), there is also
considerable need to strengthen the capacity of those institutions
responsible for the enforcement of environmental legislation and
regulations.

## 9.3 Economic Incentives

The lack of effective resource valuation has strong negative impacts on
the management of renewable natural resources. This is true, for
example, in the case of forest products (both wood and non-wood).
Decreased value at the local level (due in part to lack of awareness and
also to lack of access to markets), especially in areas where
communities---and their resident individuals---have scant access to
alternate sources of livelihood, promotes overharvesting (unsustainable
use) of economically viable resources. The connection between economics
and renewable natural resource use is clearly understood in the
development community, but adequate economic incentives need to be
established if sustainable, renewable natural resource use is to have a
chance of succeeding.

## 9.4 Regulation and Enforcement

While the legal and political frameworks for environmental management
require further work, considerable gains in improved environmental
management could be made with pollution control and biodiversity
conservation by effectively enforcing existing regulations. Currently
the lack of enforcement of environmental regulations serves to undermine
environmental management and protection. Regulations are put in place to
"safeguard" the environment. Without enforcement these regulations are
rendered useless. In most cases, this lack of enforcement stems from
weak institutional capacities of the institutions ostensibly responsible
for the enforcement efforts. Affecting any credible change in Nigeria's
enforcement of environmental regulations will require more than just
"capacity building;" it will require building the political support or
"the political will" to see the regulations enforced. These types of
changes are long term and require raising the awareness of a wide range
of stakeholders (e.g., resource users, judges, etc.) as to the
interrelated nature of environment, economics and health.

## 9.5 Environmental Education and Awareness

Environmental education and awareness is a critical long-term strategy
focused on promoting behavioral change to support sustainable
environmental management. Programs can be developed to target all
audiences, ranging from the general populace (through various social
marketing strategies) to children in schools. The general public in
Nigeria is often unaware of the environmental consequences of their
actions and how these in turn effect affect them. Targeted social
marketing with select environmental messages can go a long way toward
beginning to address this gap. If truly sustainable environmental
management is to be realized, considerable education and awareness
efforts that promote behavioral change will need to be undertaken in
Nigeria.

## 9.6 Research

Effective environmental management is predicated upon the ability to
make informed decisions. This, in turn requires that targeted data be
systematically collected and managed and made available to decision
makers. Currently in Nigeria, there is a glaring lack of a systematized
approach to environmental data collection and management. Although
university faculty and other specialists have conducted a considerable
number of research projects, the results of these studies are widely
scattered, and often inaccessible. In addition, much faulty and
incomplete information is gathered and cited in perpetuity, leading to
an unrealistic assessment of the problems and the opportunities for
addressing them in Nigeria. Targeted and coordinated applied research is
needed to develop a credible baseline of information within all
environmental sectors. Data on sources of pollutants, air and water
quality and other environmental conditions need to be collected
throughout the country. Similarly, flora and faunal surveys need to be
conducted in all terrestrial, freshwater and coastal habitats and
remaining natural areas need to be mapped in extent and quality. It is
only with such baseline information that appropriate management regimes
can be devised and implemented in Nigeria.

# 10.0 Recommendations for USAID/Nigeria 

## 10.1 Potential Linkages Between Environment and Current Mission Programs

This section draws on findings discussed in the previous section and
examines them in the context of where improved environmental management
could most logically be linked to USAID/Nigeria's current programming.
These potential linkages are discussed below, by USAID/Nigeria Strategic
Objective.

#### SO1: Sustain transition to democratic civilian governance

1)  Increase the transparency of the Ecological Fund

Access to the Ecological Fund is highly problematic. While the Fund
earmarks a substantial allotment of money (2% of the Federal Account) to
support a range of environmental initiatives, current management of the
Fund has resulted in considerable inefficiencies and in the
misappropriation of funds. Making the management of the Fund more
transparent, and holding its users more accountable could go a long way
to promoting improved environmental management in Nigeria.

2)  Strengthen the federal legislative framework to support
    environmental management

> Expand the National Democratic Initiative's (NDI) ongoing work with
> the National Assembly, to provide support to the House and Senate
> Environment Committees, to strengthen the federal legislative
> framework for environmental management and protection. To date, NDI
> has not provided support in the environmental arena, but Assembly
> members have ranked environment as an important thematic area where
> they would like to receive assistance. NDI is currently looking for
> ways to expand into "new" thematic areas.

3)  Integrate key environmental concerns into the National Assembly
    Members Constituency Outreach Activity

> Through the NDI-implemented National Assembly Members Constituency
> Outreach Activity, support has already been provided to National
> Assembly members on the development and implementation of constituency
> outreach programs. To date, programs have focused on democracy and
> governance (D/G) and health (primarily HIV/AIDS) issues. Given the
> enormity of environmental problems, NDI and many National Assembly
> members are eager to expand the activity to focus on pressing
> environmental concerns. Initial focal areas may include erosion, water
> use and management and environmental sanitation.

4)  Strengthen the capacity of state courts

> The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) is currently implementing
> an SO1 activity through which it is working to strengthen the capacity
> of courts at the state level. Currently the program is working with
> courts in Lagos and Kaduna. Given the current weak application of
> environmental legislation by the judiciary---especially at the state
> level, it may prove beneficial to work through NCSC to raise
> environmental awareness among court officials, both in general
> environmental matters and vis-à-vis the existing legislative
> framework.

5)  Strengthen civil society organizations that promote environmental
    management

A number of Nigerian NGOs are actively engaged in environmental
education, community conservation and other environmental initiatives.
Select NGOs can be strengthened in their work to empower communities to
effectively manage natural resources. Nationally based NGOs could also
be supported to develop stronger advocacy for environmental issues.
USAID should also continue to examine ways to work with international
foundations that support NGOs and CBOs operating in Nigeria (e.g., the
MacArthur Foundation, the Ford Foundation) that also support aspects of
this work.

6)  Develop environmental awareness among governmental officials

> Be aware of elected official's sensitivity to environmental issues and
> how they successfully respond to their constituents on these issues.
> And vice versa, share information about how elected officials are
> successful in promoting critical issue agendas both with their
> constituents and their fellow politicians. There may be good links to
> environment in these situations.

#### SO2: Strengthen institutional capacity for economic reform and enhance capacity to revive agricultural growth

Current programming by USAID/Nigeria under this SO is broad and has
significant potential as Nigeria struggles to provide a greater and
renewed focus on the agricultural sector. Despite its rush to
urbanization, the majority of the population remains rural and very
dependent on agriculture. Activities being undertaken under this SO are
aimed at strengthening the growth in the sector and providing more
transparent and better opportunities for a larger spectrum of farmers to
participate in that process at less risk. There are several areas where
current activities and future programming can intersect with
opportunities to decrease threats to water and land (soil) resources,
improve livelihoods of rural populations and enhance biodiversity
conservation.

1)  Examining crosscutting themes related to the environment

There are numerous crosscutting themes with environmental issues and
agricultural activities. Water issues, especially in the northern
Sahelian and savanna zones are critical. Opportunities for improving the
availability and the quality of water resources for both rural and urban
populations cannot be overlooked for any activities where water is a
component. Impacts on desertification, soil fertility, and crop yield
are all at stake. Related impacts like improved health measured by a
reduction in risks posed by waterborne diseases, hazardous wastes or
other pollutants are obvious ones.

Capitalizing on current linkages with IITA, or leveraging new ones such
as the FAO's food security program or the World Bank's micro-watershed
activities could increase funding efficiencies to improve impact.
USAID's work with IITA in the Rural Sector Enhancement Program (RUSEP)
seeks to make progressive linkages with researchers, farmers, processors
and markets. Participating farmers could benefit from improved
management and market links associated with products that are secondary
to their primary production, but have important environmental impacts.
(See also the NTFP discussion below.) This is certainly the case with
the gum arabic activity where increased local incomes and improved
environmental conditions are main objectives of improved management and
planting of *Acacia senegal* trees in the northern states.

Because food security has been named as a top priority issue by the
FMoE, the EA team also wants to point out that every precaution should
be taken to keep gum arabic tree species (*Acacia senegal* and *A.
seyal*) separate from areas of millet and sorghum production. These tree
species are preferred resting, roosting and nesting environments for
many of the birds that plague cereal crops. We recognize that this is a
conundrum of sorts because farmers will want to plant the acacia trees
in their fields to help improve both their cash flow and the
environment. But there may also be reluctance on the part of some
farmers to participate because of the bird risk, or farmers on adjacent
lands may also protest acacias being planted so close to their fields.

Another opportunity with benefits similar to those of the gum arabic
program also exists with the Agency's Sustainable Tree Crops Project
(STCP). This project, which operates in Nigeria as well as 13 other
African nations, works with the IITA based in Ibadan as well as other
public, private and NGO partners. This program's emphasis on increased
tree productivity and improved socioeconomic return for smallholder
farmers can, through managed activities, help to improve degraded land,
enhance and protect biodiversity and contribute to resource
conservation.

By expanding traditional agricultural boundaries slightly, engaging
farmers participating in USAID-funded programs to talk about their
perspective on environmental risks (desertification, water quality and
water quantity, wind- and water-caused erosion) small, but valuable
changes can often be affected to either reduce risks associated with
further environmental degradation, or actually improve microsite
conditions on the farmers' lands. USAID's funding to the IFDC under the
Developing Agricultural Input Markets in Nigeria Project and to the
SAFGRAD project should also be examined through the lens of
environmental improvement, especially at the microsite level as each
farmer's situation is different. One of the greatest challenges facing
Nigerian agriculture today is declining soil productivity. Using the
resources of these projects to help keep one eye on the risks to the
environment (soil and water) as traditional practices, improved
technology/techniques, and greater market access are championed will
help lessen the chances of degradation and improve the long-term
livelihood of farmers.

2)  Increasing the market potential and/or adding value to NTFPs

> Throughout Nigeria, NTFPs are gathered for use as foodstuffs, building
> materials, medicinals, etc. Some of these products have very high
> market values. However, the local communities gathering these products
> rarely have access to larger markets. Instead, they tend to harvest
> products, which they in turn sell to a middleman (or a chain of
> middlemen). Based on information gathered during our site visits, it
> appears that between the harvest and the final sale (in Lagos or Kano,
> for example) the price of some products can increase by more than
> 1000%. Those harvesting the NTFPs, perhaps out of lack of awareness or
> more likely due to better access to markets, tend to receive "a
> pittance" for their harvest. As a result there is a strong tendency to
> increase the amount of product harvested to increase the overall
> economic yield. This pressure to harvest greater quantities for
> external markets has led to unsustainable levels of removal for many
> NTFPs. In the geopolitical South East region, where pressures on
> unique ecosystems of the tropical rainforests are already stressed due
> to increasing population growth, land clearing for agricultural uses
> and unsustainable harvesting of primary forest products, this is
> especially true. At current rates of removal, the rural livelihoods
> dependent upon many of these NTFPs is in serious jeopardy, not to
> mention the direct threats to biodiversity conservation from the
> overharvesting.
>
> Given this scenario, the potential may exist to build upon the model
> of the gum arabic activity (GAP) that has just started in the north to
> support improved access to markets. USAID/ Nigeria can monitor this
> new experience for replication with other high-value niche crops that
> are collected, such as some of the NTFPs in the South East, for adding
> greater value locally. The products would not have to be those
> destined for export out of the country, but rather those where a large
> discrepancy exists between the value to the producer/collector and the
> value to the end consumer. Forming producer associations to improve
> market knowledge and to help self-regulate the resource, training
> producers to improve collection techniques to conserve the resource
> base, and incorporating techniques to improve yield quantity and/or
> quality are similar to the objectives of the GAP. A vigilant eye for
> opportunities with NTFPs could improve livelihoods and reduce threats
> to biodiversity conservation in the South East and possibly other
> geopolitical regions.

3)  Supporting the conservation of wild crop relatives

> Many of the same organizations that work to develop improved crop
> varieties are also involved in conserving wild crop relatives such as
> those that abound in many areas of Nigeria. The country is well known
> as the epicenter for diversity of a number of varieties including
> cowpeas, winged beans, yams and others. Existing partners such as the
> IITA could be supported to become more engaged in protecting wild
> crops (for their regional and/or genetic value), an important
> component in biodiversity conservation.

#### SO3: Develop the foundation for education reform

1)  Expanding the use of environmental education concepts within the
    present Mission programming

> There are a number of synergies possible between the activities and
> contractors involved in SO3 and with activities that can relate to the
> conservation of forests and biodiversity. Environmental education in
> any form is a strong tool towards the development of a more
> environmentally conscious society. Where/when local opportunities
> exist, classroom teachers could be encouraged to engage local human
> and institutional resources such as specialists or NGOs for classroom
> visits or even a "walk around the block" to point out the natural
> environment and how we interact with it in positive and negative ways.
> Instruction should not just come from a manual or a book. Within this
> SO, for instance, although a strong focus is literacy, this can be
> taught in some cases using material with an environmental and natural
> history focus. Interactive radio teaching tools can easily relay
> environmental stories and material to students while also serving the
> primary literacy function. Additionally, where the attention is on
> working with civic society entities, such as PTAs and the like, work
> could also be done to include related efforts of environmental
> educational NGOs, such as the NCF's Conservation Club initiatives that
> are being developed in various locales around the country.

#### SO4: Increase the use of family planning, maternal and child health, child survival, STD/HIV services and preventative measures within a supportive policy environment

1)  Strengthening family planning programs in environmentally sensitive
    areas

> Excessive population growth coupled with increased resource use and
> poor resource management are key elements driving the degradation of
> remaining forests and biodiversity in Nigeria. Family planning
> messages that illustrate overpopulation's impact on natural resources
> are valuable. Not only do large families require more time and labor
> inputs to provide basic food and shelter requirements, but larger
> families (taken collectively) also tend to have a larger negative
> impact on available natural resources. More marginal land needs to
> cultivated, more wood needs to be collected to help cook for the
> family and more water resources are required for basic needs and
> drinking. Large families make it more difficult to survive, or even
> maintain an acceptable quality of life. Where effective family
> planning programs are in place, these effects lessen. Strong synergies
> are possible between this SO and natural resources conservation,
> especially in areas of rich biodiversity. Environmental awareness
> activities could also be included as an expansion of the population
> awareness efforts under the health SO, using the same contractors and
> awareness techniques that have already been developed for targeted
> Nigerians but with different messages.

2)  Increasing the attention to water quality issues

Issues related to water are the closest tie-ins to this USAID/Nigeria
SO. Opportunities to leverage funds or experiences that improve/enhance
water quality often have direct links to the environment and can improve
child survival.

#### SPO: Improve management of critical elements of the infrastructure and energy sector

1)  Developing alternate energy sources that have less destructive
    environmental impacts

> There are numerous options with the development of alternate energy
> sources in rural populations, especially those that are found in and
> around forests where firewood is being unsustainably harvested,
> transported and marketed. Land stewards (including farmers) and forest
> managers could be provided with greater incentives (through
> chain-of-custody permitting, policy changes, permits, etc.) to manage
> their woodstocks more sustainably and thus ensure longer and improved
> access to this very important energy resource.

2)  Leverage opportunities currently underway for reducing environmental
    impacts and degradation associated with the oil industry

> The petroleum industry companies operating in the Niger Delta area are
> working hard to improve their public relations with local populations.
> Each company has whole divisions working with local communities, NGOs
> and the public sector to affect programs that will improve local
> livelihoods and the overall socioeconomic condition of the area.
> Opportunities exist and are growing to leverage resources that will
> expand these activities so that they can reach greater numbers of
> people. USAID needs to be kept abreast of these programs to learn
> where it might have an impact. The "new kid on the block," the Niger
> Delta Development Commission (NDDC) is also aggressively examining
> alternatives to environmental, social, health, and infrastructure
> problems that have plagued the area for years. It appears to have
> dynamic leadership and a clear mandate to help affect change both
> through discrete activities and through working side by side with the
> region's states and municipalities to promulgate effective policy
> changes. There definitely should be opportunities here for USAID to
> assist with activities to mitigate environmental problems in this
> critical region of Nigeria.

## 10.2 Illustrative Stand-Alone Environmental Activities

During discussions with the U.S. Ambassador, USAID's Mission Director,
the SO2 team and other Mission staff, the EA team learned that the
Mission is currently seeking to support one, or potentially a few,
discrete environmental activities. These would be in addition to seeking
logical opportunities to link improved environmental management to
current and future Mission programming areas (discussed in Section
10.1). From our discussions, it was very clear that any recommendations
for stand-alone activities would need to meet five criteria. According
to these criteria the activity must:

-   Be implemented within a two-year timeframe,

-   Stay within a budget of no more than \$1.5 million,

-   Yield demonstrable results within the two-year timeframe,

-   Be implemented in an area where a supportive political and
    institutional environment exists, and

-   Be implemented in an area that is considered to be a high priority
    to the Mission.

From the EA team's collective experiences, and based on discussions with
a broad range of stakeholders, four potential activity areas that meet
these criteria were identified (in addition, Section 10.2.5 presents two
additional potential activity areas that warrant further examination
against the five criteria). These activity areas were also selected, as
much as possible, to help address the environmental priorities outlined
by Nigeria's FMoE (see Box 7.1). It should, however, be noted that the
application of the five criteria or filters (noted above) pose
significant constraints to activities capable of addressing the many of
the environmental priorities identified by the FMoE. Specifically, the
EA team found the budget and the ability to have demonstrable results
within a two-year timeframe, to be the two most difficult criteria to
satisfy.

Brief discussions of each of the illustrative stand-alone activities
follows.

### 10.2.1 Soil and Water Conservation

Desertification and gully erosion are two of the primary environmental
threats named by the FMoE, and outlined in Box 7.1. There are numerous
low technology soil and water conservation (SWC) activities that could
be undertaken in targeted areas to help:

-   Decrease erosion from water and wind,

-   Increase agricultural yields of traditional crops,

-   Increase water infiltration,

-   Promote soil formation in the important humus and a-horizons, and

-   Provide additional yields from grasses and woody vegetation that are
    commercially important.

Constructing small micro-catchments, terracing, creating earthen bunds
and vegetative ridges are all labor-intensive activities that can be
done with hand tools for local farmers. These are techniques that have
been utilized for centuries in semi-arid and arid zones around the
world, and successfully over the last twenty years in neighboring
Sahelian countries. They also utilize indigenous knowledge, and have
already been employed by some farmers in Nigeria (Gadzama, 2002; Longtau
and Gwaivangmin, 1999).

Other donors (World Bank, DFID, etc.) have soil and water conservation
components planned for upcoming projects in Nigeria. USAID/Nigeria could
leverage some of the opportunities in certain areas, or could promote
only one or two specific technologies, or decide to implement activities
in separate areas. Success in other areas of the Sahel has been enhanced
where NGOs and CBOs have already helped to increase environmental
awareness in the region.

Examining SWC activities against the selection criteria noted earlier,
the following points stand out:

1.  The techniques can be employed in a single dry season, preferably on
    relatively flat terrain that is already being cultivated by farmers.
    The scale should be relatively small, perhaps working with only
    several hundred farmers in a small area. Employing the techniques on
    adjacent parcels increased the collective benefits. The main
    constraint is being able to engage sufficient labor to construct the
    water catchments well in advance of the rainy season so as to
    capture the full effect of the rains.

2.  Overall cost per farmer is low, although farmers would be expected
    to provide in-kind labor on their own land. Simple implements/hand
    tools would need to be provided in most cases. Most of the cost
    would be in the initial training and information dissemination.
    Using Nigerian farmers who have already employed these techniques
    would provide more impetus to others. Many Hausa farmers in
    neighboring Niger have employed these techniques and may also be a
    resource. Engaging a local NGO or CBO with interests in agriculture
    and the environment would also make the effort more cost effective.

3.  Results can be seen in the first year (assuming the SWC techniques
    are in place before the rainy season). Micro-catchments help
    increase water infiltration, making more moisture available to
    crops. As water from rain storms moves across a farmer's land, these
    tied ridges and bunds also help slow the movement of water, increase
    the buildup of silt and other nutrients that are normally carried
    away and create a richer micro-environment for planted crops. By the
    end of the second rainy season, additional benefits to participating
    farmers are usually even more tangible in terms of greater yields
    and less erosion and increased soil buildup, especially of the humus
    layer.

4.  These techniques are most appropriate for the Sahel and Sudan
    savanna zones. USAID/Nigeria is already active with other programs
    in several states in the north. The EA team's visit to Kaduna and
    Borno States indicated that agricultural activities are a mainstay
    of local economies and that there is a high sensitivity to
    environmental problems like desertification. The EA team also
    learned that Bauchi State has dynamic leadership and ongoing
    environmental activities that would allow easier entry for
    activities such as these. Also, there is local experience with these
    techniques that would facilitate their expansion over a larger area.

5.  Soil and water conservation falls within the domain of agriculture.
    These techniques would complement USAID/Nigeria programming under
    SO2. Participating farmers could realize gains in terms of crop
    yields, increased soil fertility, and presumably, better livelihood,
    not to mention an improvement of the productive capacity of their
    land. These activities could also complement the agroforestry
    component of the gum arabic activity currently being implemented
    under SO2. It has been the EA team's experience that farmers tend to
    shy away from planting *Acacia nilotica* and *Acacia senegalensis*
    because they are preferred by birds who also damage millet and
    sorghum crops. This fact may make tying the two activities more
    problematic in some areas.

The EA Team recognizes that SWC activities are not a "new" activity in
Nigeria. But this should not make them less appealing. Having successful
cases nearby is usually a very positive attribute. Carefully planned,
strategic (in terms of both timing and location) activities can have
(visually) dramatic results. Their low cost and relative simplicity also
usually implies they can join easily with other planned or ongoing
endeavors. Well-planned SWC activities can also help leverage funds and
resources for similar or related activities.

2.  **Environmental Capacity Building for Local Government
    Associations**

The capacity for the environmental management and protection at the
local government level---the level at which most of Nigeria's economic
planning and development activities occur---is virtually nonexistent.
Typically, local governments are comprised of six departments:
Administration; Finance; Works; Agriculture; Health; and, Education and
Social Services. While the technical skills contained in these six
departments continues to increase, there is generally no local
government official aware of existing environmental legislation and
regulations, let alone conversant in environmental management. This lack
of basic capacity at the local level is one of the most critical issues
to be addressed if effective environmental management and protection is
to be realized.

Promoting environmental awareness at the local government level (general
awareness on the interrelated nature of environmental management and
economic development, and targeted awareness programs that highlight the
existing legal and policy frameworks) and providing targeted training to
individuals in the Agriculture, Works and Finance Departments (e.g.,
EIA, integration of environmental concerns into the planning and
development process, etc.) that would allow them to better integrate
environmental concerns into their routine activities, would go a long
way toward addressing the need for improved environmental management at
the local level. Likewise, focusing these activities on a series of
adjacent LGAs would allow for both priority local problems and priority
problems occurring across a landscape to be addressed. This approach
could also build off of economies of scale.

Examining this activity using the five criteria identified earlier, the
following points stand out:

1.  The development and implementation of an environmental awareness
    campaign and training program that targets key stakeholders at the
    local government level would likely take between five and 12 months,
    which is well within the allowable timeframe. This would also allow
    ample time for follow-up and assessment, and for the roll-out of
    programs to other LGAs---if deemed appropriate.

2.  The costs associated with both awareness and training activities
    developed and implemented in a series of adjacent LGAs would fit
    well within the available budget.

3.  The range of demonstrable results from such an effort could include
    a more environmentally aware public, with a better understanding of
    the interaction between environment, agriculture, economics and
    health; more effective application of existing environmental
    regulations---including EIA; more effective application of
    environmental legislation; and local governments that are more
    capable of incorporating environmental concerns into their planning
    and development activities.

4.  Through our field visits and consultations with stakeholders, we
    identified Borno, Kaduna and Lagos States as areas where capable
    State Ministries of Environment exist that could be easily be
    engaged as partners in the development and implementation of
    awareness and training programs---an important step in building
    state-level capacity. Equally as important, capable NGOs exist in
    all three states that could be engaged to liaise between communities
    and government.

5.  Due to the relatively low costs associated with awareness and
    training activities, it would be possible to develop and implement
    activities across a series of LGAs in a number of states.

This activity, through awareness raising and training activities with
would also contribute to addressing the need for capacity building
raised by the Minister of State for Environment (Okopido, 2002).

### 10.2.3 Support to Protected Area Management

Protected areas planning and management are vital steps in the promotion
of *in-situ* biodiversity conservation. Currently, not one of the eight
Nigerian National Parks has an approved General Management Plan (GMP). A
GMP is a most valuable tool in protected areas management. It contains
the basic set of information needed to successfully manage the resources
of the park---in the present and in the future.

Throughout the developing world, parks do not only serve the strategic
purposes of conservation and recreation--- they are often also strategic
economic resources to those living in and around the park. These
strategies, basically conservation and use, are often in conflict.
Participatory protected area planning is a process by which the full
range of stakeholders (NPS, communities, special interest groups---such
groups of individuals engaged in herding, gathering, etc.) are actively
engaged as partners in the conservation process---in order to secure
stakeholder buy-in and support for the conservation initiative. The
result of the process is a GMP, which lays the framework for the
management and development of the park and its surrounding buffer zone
for a set amount of time into the future (typically around 10 years).

In addition to strengthening the capacity of the NPS to conserve
biodiversity in a given location, support to a protected area planning
effort could also serve to:

-   Reduce conflicts over renewable natural resources through the
    promotion of a collaborative environment for resource management,
    and

-   Promote sustainable resource use/livelihoods for communities living
    in/around the park.

Examining this activity using the five criteria identified earlier, the
following points stand out:

1.  The development of a GMP generally requires six to15 months. This is
    within the allowable timeframe and it is conceivable that the GMP
    could be developed, and that certain aspects of the GMP could be
    implemented.

2.  The resources required to develop a GMP (inclusive of technical
    expertise) could easily be covered within the available
    budget---leaving ample room in the budget for the implementation of
    key components of the GMP.

3.  The range of demonstrable results from such an effort will likely
    include more effective conservation, decreased localized resource
    conflicts, and increased rural livelihoods.

4.  Through our field visits and consultations with stakeholders, we
    identified Kumuku and Yankari National Parks as areas where the
    necessary political will exists to implement such an activity.
    Specifically, these locations possess the necessary support from
    federal, state and local government. Capable NGOs also exist and are
    already active on the ground. In addition, although our schedule did
    not allow us to visit and meet with stakeholders from around
    Gashaka-Gumpti National Park and Kainji National Parks, we feel that
    both locations would warrant further investigation as potential
    activity sites.

5.  The Mission, as we understand, is inclined to divide resources
    equitably across the six geopolitical zones. However, the
    recommendation of the Ambassador and SO2 Team Leader indicated that
    with the relatively small amount of money available, distributing
    the money across the six geopolitical zones did not make sense.
    Assuming this approach is acceptable, the Mission would need to
    decide whether Kaduna or Bauchi---or Adamawa or Niger State should
    be the recipient of such an activity.

This activity would also contribute to addressing the biodiversity and
protected areas management priorities outlined by the Minister of State
for Environment (Okopido, 2002).

### 10.2.4 Biogas Pilot Project

Biogas is a useful source of decentralized energy that is produced via
the digestion of animal, human and agricultural wastes, under anaerobic
conditions.

Animal manure is a major feedstock for most of the digesters in the
developing world. These wastes are a source of carbon as well as
nitrogen required for successful operation of an anaerobic fermentation
process. As much as 8 to 9 ft^3^ of gas can be produced per pound of
volatile solids added to the anaerobic digester when the organic matter
is highly biodegradable (night soil, animal wastes). The overall
conversion efficiency is, however, low---roughly 10 to 15%---and depends
upon the type of feedstock. The process, in addition to providing
energy, also converts raw manure into an environmentally safe enriched
fertilizer with more available nutrients than raw manure. The
technology, therefore, offers an integrated system that lends itself to
a rural setting. Millions of biogas digesters are successfully operating
in rural and semi-urban areas of China, India, Thailand and many other
countries.

Nigeria's semi-urban and rural areas generate significant quantities of
biodegradable wastes to support biogas operation. In the rural areas,
livestock wastes and other feedstock is generally available. At the
urban level, significant amounts of biodegradable municipal wastes are
produced. Currently, these wastes are either uncollected or poorly
collected and often poorly disposed. In addition, in cities such as
Kaduna, large amounts of industrial (non-toxic) biodegradable wastes,
such as wastes produced by the area's large breweries are also
available.

Nigeria's rural as well as semi-rural areas also have significant
amounts of uncollected or often poorly utilized wastes. These include
animal manure, agricultural wastes and other organic residues.

For a selected area in Nigeria, depending upon the available feedstock,
a few biogas digesters of suitable size can be installed. During the EA
team's visit to Kaduna Environmental Protection Agency (KEPA), the
Health Department indicated its desire and willingness to install a few
digesters. The proposed installation(s) can be facilitated by local
NGOs, and cost-shared by the industry since it can save waste disposal
costs while also meeting the environmental regulations. Participation by
NGOs allows opportunities for training local resources to generate
needed management and organization to support participation with the
local environmental ministry. In addition to Kaduna, other cities like
Port Harcourt and Ibadan also expressed similar interest. Staff at the
University of Miadugari also reported experience with biogas
technologies.

Biogas is a proven technology. Its feasibility and economic viability is
well established for a number of developing country rural and urban
settings. A family-sized (2 cu^3^/day or more) biogas digester costs
approximately \$3,200, excluding the cost of local labor. For the rural
areas, the technology is easily adaptable and can use a number of
locally available skills and a number of materials for construction. At
present, a few biogas digesters are operating in Nigeria. One of these
in Zaria provides gas for water heating for the prison laundry.

Introduction and use of biogas technology, based on a proper evaluation
and backed by adequate management and organizational support, can
provide the following benefits:

-   The collection of animal and other wastes can provide employment
    opportunities, and can help to reduce health and social problems
    associated with lack of adequate sanitation services.

-   The generated gas can be used as cooking fuel to decrease the
    dependence on firewood and charcoal or economically deployed to
    provide additional income-generating opportunities.

-   The process's by-product is an environmentally stable
    nutrient-enhanced product providing potential for increased
    agricultural production and also income-generating opportunities.

-   The process provides environmentally safe disposal of wastes.

Using the five filters named earlier, the following points are noted for
a biogas option:

1.  Installation of a family-sized (2 cu^3^) biogas digester requires
    four to five months. During this time a feasibility study can be
    developed, and if acceptable, a biogas digester installed.

2.  The resources required to install a biogas digester are generally
    locally available. The large gas steel holder for the Indian design,
    if required, may require importation of materials to be fabricated
    in Nigeria. The costs are within the projected total cost of \$3200
    as indicated above.

3.  The demonstrable results, gas production (in less than a month of
    installation), and improved agricultural yields vary with the
    crop(s), but is usually less than six months. Similarly, potential
    income-generating opportunities, both for gas used and raw material
    (paid) collection could show results in less than a year.

4.  Biogas has a wide range of proponents in Nigeria, including the city
    governments (primarily for biodegradable municipal waste), the
    agricultural community and industries such as Nigerian breweries
    with available, biodegradable wastes. The proposed site around
    Kaduna has additional support from KEPA.

5.  If the available funding resources are to be divided among the six
    geopolitical zones, any of the zones is likely to welcome biogas.
    This is based on our field trip and overall knowledge of high USAID
    priorities related to rural development.

Implementing an activity to generate biogas for small-scale users would
directly address the industrial and urban pollution priority listed by
the FMoE by using waste materials that are currently collected and
managed by municipal authorities at a considerable cost.

### 10.2.5 Other Potential Activity Areas

Other areas identified by the EA team that warrant further investigation
for potential support by USAID/Nigeria include:

-   **Adding value to timber and non-timber forest products:** Through
    consultations with stakeholders in the South South---especially in
    Cross River State---timber and non-timber forest products are
    undervalued. This is through a combination of the lack of access to
    markets and the lack of awareness as to the real market value of
    locally harvested and sold products. Developing activities that help
    to counter this trend could have a positive impact on the use
    pattern associated with many renewable natural resources.

-   **Planning to support the development of a national-level
    Environmental Information System (EIS):** The link between data
    collection, data management and informed decision making is clear.
    Nigeria's current lack of planned, systematized data collection and
    management is a major factor affecting the present and future
    potential for environmental management. If this trend is to change a
    vertically and horizontally integrated approach to environmental
    data collection and management, proper incentives for data sharing
    must be developed. An activity that targets integrated planning for
    EIS as the first logical step in this process could be developed and
    supported.

# Part II

# Tropical Forests and Biodiversity in Nigeria: 

# FAA 118/119 Assessment 

# 1.0 Background

This Biodiversity and Tropical Forests Assessment has been produced for
the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)/Nigeria
in fulfillment of Sections 118 and 119 of the Foreign Assistance Act
(FAA) guidelines for U.S. government agencies working abroad. This
assessment was prepared as part of an overall Environmental Analysis
Study conducted by ARD, Inc. from February to early April, 2002 for
USAID/Nigeria under the Biodiversity and Sustainable Forestry (BIOFOR)
Indefinite Quantity Contract (IQC) No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00, Task Order
No. 807.

The ARD Environmental Analysis (EA) Team (Table 1.1) spent five weeks in
Nigeria researching and developing the contents of the Environmental
Analysis Report and this Biodiversity and Tropical Forests Assessment.
The team was joined by USAID Strategic Objective (SO) 2 team members on
field trips to Lagos, Port Harcourt, Calabar, Kajuna, Maiduguri and
Ibadan to meet with key officials and experts, and to visit various
field sites.

##### Table 1.1. Nigeria Environmental Analysis Team

  ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------
  **Specialist**               **Specialty Area**

  Steve Dennison, Ph.D.        Team Leader/Natural Resource
                               Economics/Policy

  Patricia Foster-Turley,      Biodiversity
  Ph.D.                        

  Ramzy Kanaan                 Natural Resources Governance

  Davinder Sood, Ph.D.         Urban Environmental Management and Energy

  Prof. Nurudeen Adedipe,      Agriculture and Natural Resource Policy
  Ph.D.                        

  Adebayo Alao                 Urban Planning

  Fatai Balogun, Ph.D.         Energy

  Nicolas Dosumu               Data Collection Specialist

  Prof. L.K. Jeje, Ph.D.       Water Resources

  Prof. Bunyamin Ola-Adams,    Biodiversity and Forestry
  Ph.D.                        

  Prof. Adepoju Onibokun,      Sociology and Urban Planning
  Ph.D.                        
  ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------

This Biodiversity and Tropical Forests Assessment was compiled largely
by the EA Team's biodiversity specialists from an analysis of existing
documents, and from interviews with relevant government, nongovernmental
organization (NGO) and university representatives from around the
country. An attempt was made to present this biodiversity assessment as
a self-contained document, but some of the relevant information is
covered in more detail in Part I of the Nigeria Environmental Analysis
Report. Similarly, some sections of Part I contain material presented
more fully in this biodiversity report. It is hoped that this
Biodiversity and Tropical Forests Assessment will have utility within
not only the USAID system, but elsewhere in Nigeria, where such an
updated consolidation of available information could be most useful to
those actively engaged in conservation of Nigeria's fragile, threatened,
but globally important biodiversity and natural ecosystems.

# 2.0 Executive Summary

Nigeria is a biologically diverse country with an extraordinarily large
human population that includes nearly one out of every five people
living in sub-Saharan Africa (World Resources Institute, 2000). This
population is growing rapidly and migrating to increasingly large urban
centers that are among the largest cities in the world. Although Nigeria
receives considerable revenue from its large multinational oil industry
sector, this money rarely trickles down to the populace, who are
generally poor and growing poorer. This combination of expanding
population and increasing poverty is putting increasingly severe demands
upon the few natural areas and significant biodiversity that remain.

Despite these negative pressures, Nigeria presently contains
considerable biodiversity as well as some very important tracts of
fairly undisturbed tropical forests. A diversity of natural ecosystems,
including coastal areas, rivers, freshwater wetlands, lakes, savannas,
plateaus, and mountains and a tropical climate with varying patterns of
rainfall from north to south combine to form conditions ripe for the
development of high levels of biodiversity. Nigeria has the largest
remaining tract of mangroves in Africa and the third largest in the
world, and despite oil company operations, much of this mangrove forest
is still in good shape. The Niger Delta area of the coast contains not
only mangroves but also unique swamp forests that are relatively
pristine in many areas and harbor a number of endemic species and many
non-timber forest products (NTFPs) that local communities rely upon. The
lowland rainforests and adjacent montane areas along Nigeria's
southeastern border with Cameroon are critically important habitats for
a number of endangered and endemic species of primates, plants and other
many other taxa and along with adjacent areas in Cameroon are known to
be a biodiversity hotspot for primates, butterflies and amphibians. The
most endangered subspecies of gorilla on earth, the Cross River gorilla
(*Gorilla gorilla diehli*) is found in a restricted part of this habitat
and holds on with 250 or less animals remaining in the population,
broken into two separate, isolated groups. The Jos Plateau is another
unique habitat that contains a number of endemic and endangered plant
species and two endemic birds in the remaining small bits of habitat
that have not been totally destroyed by anthropogenic factors. The
protected savanna areas of Nigeria also contain some of those large
mammals and birds that draw ecotourists to other parks around Africa.

For the most part, the remaining natural forestland and diverse species
of international importance exist only in a few protected and/or
otherwise inaccessible areas. The eight national parks of Nigeria, and
the relatively small number of other areas that actually receive
protection, harbor a number of rare, endangered and threatened plant and
animal species. Many other notable species still remain in the Niger
Delta swamp forests and mangroves that are unsuitable for farming and
difficult to log. Aside from the localized activities of oil companies
and various unsustainable hunting and fishing practices, there has been
little timber extraction and other large-scale forms of habitat
destruction in the Delta. There are, however, no protected areas in the
Niger Delta, and this relatively secure situation is unlikely to remain
so. Another important pocket of biodiversity is the Cameroon Forest
Ecoregion along the Nigerian border with Cameroon, where many species
still exist in the more inaccessible areas.

Most of the land in Nigeria has been converted to agricultural or
pastoral uses and agricultural encroachment threatens the natural areas
that remain. Environmental problems stemming from large unplanned urban
centers with inadequate solid and municipal waste disposal practices and
the impacts of the oil, mining and manufacturing industries are also
taking their toil on water and air quality in many areas. Add to this
the escalating practices of overfishing, uncontrolled logging and many
other unsustainable uses of the natural resources that remain, and the
threats to the survival of significant components of Nigeria's
biodiversity are increasingly severe.

Effective biodiversity and tropical forest conservation in Nigeria
requires a careful juxtaposition between the needs of a large and
growing human population today and the long-term sustainability of the
natural resources the people ultimately depend upon for the future. A
three-pronged approach is needed to recognize this dichotomy and to
strike an acceptable balance between today's needs and tomorrow's
quality of life for Nigerians:

1.  **Sustainable agriculture**: In Nigeria, most of the original
    natural habitats have already been converted to agricultural use and
    agricultural conversion is continuing to eat away at the rest of the
    natural ecosystems and the diverse species contained therein.
    Continued efforts are needed to ensure the most effective
    utilization of existing farmland and to increase their productivity
    and sustainability while also working towards stemming agricultural
    conversion of the remaining natural areas.

2.  **Sustainable use of remaining forest, wetland and savanna resources
    outside of protected areas**: Efforts are needed to develop, promote
    and expand upon economically viable and sustainable uses of those
    natural areas that have not yet been converted to agriculture, tree
    monoculture plantations and aquaculture projects. Many of these
    areas are already heavily used by local communities, and in some
    cases, by commercial enterprises that obtain various NTFPs from
    them. Much more work is needed to ensure that key natural products
    are harvested sustainably by all those involved in their extraction.
    Further value-added approaches also need to be developed to bring
    more revenue from such products into the communities in critical
    natural areas.

3.  **Adequate protection of protected areas**: Finally, even with steps
    one and two in place, there is still a strong need to ensure the
    solid protection of key protected areas under federal, state and
    community jurisdictions. Such protected areas provide a reservoir
    for biodiversity and critical ecosystem components, and may one day
    in Nigeria, like elsewhere, become an attractive focal point for
    tourists and citizens alike. Nigeria's protected areas for the most
    part still sorely need on-the-ground protection before they can be
    effective in these roles.

In Section 8, this report outlines a number of general recommendations
that may be effective in stemming the loss of forests and biodiversity
in Nigeria and that address all elements of this three-pronged approach.
A combination of efforts aimed at policy reform and implementation, law
enforcement, environmental awareness and education, improved
agricultural practices and expanded community involvement are all
needed. Although USAID cannot undertake all of them, some activities
would easily fall within the existing Mission strategic objectives, as
described in Section 9.

Despite the complexities of biodiversity and tropical forest
conservation in Nigeria, there is still some hope. The new recognition
of democracy in Nigeria can also hold out hope for a new appreciation of
preserving some of the remaining natural world and the biodiversity
within it. Nigerian governmental policies are already reflecting an
interest in environmental conservation, and if the institutional
weaknesses could be sorted out and more stringent enforcement practices
put into play, the tide could turn. An increasing number of NGOs are
also working towards environmental conservation and a few of these have
implemented successful conservation approaches in some areas. It is up
to the rest of the world to help these budding efforts by providing
further capacity-building efforts and partnerships for not only local,
but also global benefits gained from the conservation of the fragile
natural world of Nigeria.

# 3.0 Major Natural Habitats of Nigeria

## 

## 3.1 Overview

Nigeria is a diverse tropical country encompassing a variety of
different natural habitats including savannas, tropical forests,
wetlands, lakes, rivers and coastal areas. Rainfall in Nigeria is
heaviest along the coast and in the southeast leading to the development
of rainforest in this region. By contrast, the northern part of Nigeria
receives much less rain and encompasses increasingly drier vegetation
zones. Three different highland areas are found in Nigeria: the Yoruba
highlands in the west, the Jos Plateau in the central part of the
country, and the mountains bordering Cameroon in the east. The diversity
of landscapes and climatic conditions results in a corresponding
diversity of plants and animals.

A recent study (Geomatics International et al, 1998) has found that
40.2% of Nigeria has been converted to intensive (crop) agriculture,
20.6% to extensive (grazing) agriculture and another 0.6% to urban
development. The remaining land (less than 39%) contains important
biodiversity and natural ecosystems, and is the basis of this report.

##### Table 3.1. The Land Area under Difference Vegetation Types and Amount of Land Designated as Forest Reserves

+----+-------------------------------+----------------+---------------+
| *  | **Vegetation type**           | **Total land   | **Area of     |
| *S |                               | (km^2^)**      | forest        |
| /N |                               |                | reserves**    |
| ** |                               |                |               |
|    |                               |                | **(km^2^)**   |
+----+-------------------------------+----------------+---------------+
| 1  | Sahel savanna                 | 31,463         | 2,572         |
| \. |                               |                |               |
+----+-------------------------------+----------------+---------------+
| 2  | Sudan savanna                 | 342,158        | 31,247        |
| \. |                               |                |               |
+----+-------------------------------+----------------+---------------+
| 3  | Guinea savanna                | 400,168        | 38,271        |
| \. |                               |                |               |
+----+-------------------------------+----------------+---------------+
| 4  | Derived savanna               | 75,707         | 3,208         |
| \. |                               |                |               |
+----+-------------------------------+----------------+---------------+
| 5  | Rain forest                   | 95,653         | 19,986        |
| \. |                               |                |               |
+----+-------------------------------+----------------+---------------+
| 6  | Fresh water swamp forest      | 25,653         | 256           |
| \. |                               |                |               |
+----+-------------------------------+----------------+---------------+
| 7  | Mangrove swamp and coastal    | 12,782         | 522           |
| \. | vegetation                    |                |               |
+----+-------------------------------+----------------+---------------+
| ## |                               | **983,584**    | **96,062**    |
| ## |                               |                |               |
|  T |                               |                |               |
| ot |                               |                |               |
| al |                               |                |               |
+----+-------------------------------+----------------+---------------+

## 3.2 Savanna and Grassland

About four-fifths of Nigeria was once savanna but much of this land has
been converted to agriculture or grazing lands. The remaining savanna
lands are found in the north and central areas of Nigeria, and are often
classified into four different types based largely on rainfall amount
and timing: the Sahel, Sudan, Guinea and derived savanna. The Sahel
savanna is found in the northeast and is typified by grasses, open thorn
scrub and scattered thorny trees. The Sudan savanna zone is found in the
north and is covered by a drift of sand in many areas and dominated by
grasses and some shrubs and trees, but it has been greatly modified by
man for centuries. The Guinea savanna is found in the middle belt of
Nigeria, and is typified by open woodland with tall grasses and
fire-resistant trees. The derived savanna is found further south,
bordering the remaining forest zone, and is continuing to spread south
as more forestland is degraded into agricultural uses. Desertification
is also causing the borders of the drier savanna types to move
southward. These lines of definition between all the various savanna
types are vague and overlapping, and continually influenced by
anthropogenic factors.

Only a small amount of natural savanna has been protected in Nigeria,
and the many large savanna animals often found elsewhere in Africa have
been greatly reduced in numbers and range. In Nigeria, attempts have
been made to preserve savanna habitats and species. For instance,
Yankari National Park in Bauchi State was initiated as a game reserve in
the 1950s and later turned into a national park with the primary purpose
of protecting the Sudan savanna ecosystem and the large game populations
it harbored. Despite this protection, although elephants and lions still
occur, a number of other large mammals including the African wild dogs,
cheetah, giraffe and a few antelope species have been extirpated. Large
mammal populations in other protected areas in Nigeria's savannas are in
worse shape and those outside of protected areas are virtually
nonexistent.

##  Forests

Tropical forests are just one category of the many ecosystems in Nigeria
that are important for biodiversity conservation. Because these habitats
are of special interest to the U.S. government, they are considered in
more detail in the next section. In summary, Nigeria's forests fall into
three basic categories: those in the drier middle and north latitudes,
the lowland rainforest in the southern humid zone, and the coastal
mangroves and freshwater swamp forests. Montane forests are also found
on the border with Cameroon, but the Guinea woodlands that once occurred
on the Jos Plateau have nearly disappeared. Most other forested habitats
are similarly declining at a rapid rate. According to the changes in
land use study (Geomatics International et al, 1998), undisturbed
forest, including rainforests and savanna woodlands, made up 2.9% of the
total area of Nigeria in 1976/1978 but only 1.3% in 1993/1995 while the
extent of disturbed forests has similarly increased. Riparian forests
also declined significantly. Only the coastal mangroves and swamp
forests showed little loss in extent over the course of the study (see
Figure 7.1 of Part I of this report).

Although the forests of Nigeria are small compared to other ecosystems,
they harbor the bulk of the globally important biodiversity of the
nation. The lowland rainforests in the south contain a great diversity
of primates and butterflies, many NTFPs of regional and global
importance and many valuable hardwood tree species. The mangroves along
the coast provide spawning and nursery grounds for important fishery
resources. The swamp forests further inland and the remaining patches of
riparian forest on the Jos Plateau and the mountains bordering Cameroon
contain a variety of endemic species of plants as well as animals. The
threats to these forests are increasing, and the protective measures in
place are sorely inadequate.

## 3.4 Freshwater Ecosystems

> Nigeria is endowed with a diversity of freshwater resources including
> seasonal and permanent rivers, lakes, and wetlands but these are all
> under varying degrees of threat. Nigeria has two major rivers, the
> Niger and the Benue that meet in a series of tributaries and channels
> to form the Niger Delta. Further north, other rivers flow into the
> Niger and Benue Rivers and to Lake Chad. Rivers including the Cross,
> Imo, Ogun, Osun Benin, and others also flow into the Atlantic Ocean.
> All told, there are eight main river basins in Nigeria (Ita, 1994). A
> number of these have been dammed, diverted, polluted or otherwise
> disturbed, along with their aquatic flora and fauna. Riparian marsh
> and swamps along river courses are also under threat. For instance, by
> 1990, the natural freshwater marsh and swamps along the Niger, Benue
> and Hadejia Rivers had nearly disappeared due to floodplain
> agriculture (Geomatics International et al, 1998). Freshwater swamp
> forests are extensive in the south, adjacent to mangrove areas. Two
> large lakes are found in Nigeria: Lake Chad in the northeast and
> manmade Kainji Lake in the west. Nigeria also has many natural and
> manmade lakes, reservoirs, fish ponds, abandoned mine pits and other
> freshwater sources throughout the country. Many of these water
> features provide important breeding and feeding habitats for a
> diversity of bird species (NCF, 2002). The Hadejia-Nguru wetlands in
> the northwest have been protected for many years and were recently
> declared a Ramsar site. Other wetlands throughout Nigeria are not so
> fortunate.
>
> Wetlands and other freshwater habitats in Nigeria, as elsewhere, are
> important reservoirs of fish and other aquatic food items for people,
> as a habitat for a myriad of other diverse species, and for the water
> resources themselves. Both water quality and quantity are important to
> all the species that depend upon these resources. Various studies in
> Nigeria have shown high levels of heavy metals in some rivers where
> industrial wastes are discharged, high levels of siltation in areas
> with extensive logging and farming, and other disturbances (Ita,
> 1994). Inland fisheries in rivers are depleted due to these factors,
> although the fisheries in lakes and reservoirs are thought to be
> relatively stable due to restocking with hatchery fish and better
> controls (Shimang, 2002). Depending on the type of fish
> introduced---native vs. non-native, this might also present a problem
> for native species. One non-native, the water hyacinth (*Eichhornia
> crassipes*) has invaded a number of waterways with deleterious effects
> on fishing access for people and in competition with native species.
> Wildlife associated with wetlands is largely in decline, with aquatic
> birds becoming rarer, crocodiles and some turtles virtually
> nonexistent in many areas, and other less conspicuous species most
> likely declining as well.

## 3.5 Coastal Areas

The coastline of Nigeria is approximately 853 km long, stretching from
the western border with the Republic of Benin to the eastern border with
Cameroon. The coastal shore consists of barrier islands, sandy beaches,
lagoons, estuaries, mud beaches, and creeks and includes the Niger
Delta. Mangroves and estuaries extend from 10 to 150 km inland. Further
inland are freshwater swamp forests and other low-lying habitats, which
are considered part of the coast. The coastal area is heavily populated,
with about 20% of Nigeria's residents living in one of the nine coastal
states. Offshore, the continental shelf occurs from 15 km off Lagos to
more than 85 km off Calabar. The Exclusive Economic Zone, extends 200
nautical miles offshore (CEDA, 1997).

The marine and coastal environment of Nigeria is rich in resources and
species diversity. The mangroves found here are the largest remaining
tract in Africa, and the third largest in the world, covering an area of
about 9,723 km². The mangrove ecosystem provides a nursery and breeding
ground for many of the commercial fishery species taken in the Gulf of
Guinea. Nigeria's coast is said to have about 199 species of finfish and
shellfish, a number of which are taken commercially. The Nigerian shrimp
fishery is especially strong, and shrimp are now being exported to other
countries, including the United States. About 80% of the fisheries
resources in coastal areas, however, are harvested by local residents
(Ajao, 2001). Artisanal fisherfolk harvest a large variety of fish,
crustaceans and mollusks from the estuaries and channels and utilize
mangrove and swamp forest products for a number of domestic uses. A
variety of birds, mammals, and reptiles inhabit the mangroves and swamp
forests of the coast, including a few endemic species like the Sclater's
guenon (*Cercopithecus sclateri*) and the Nile Delta red colobus monkey
(*Procolobus pennantii epieni*). Although a few species of sea turtles
lay eggs on Nigerian beaches, they are rare and under threat from human
predation.

The coastal area is greatly impacted by the activities of oil companies,
including the destruction of mangroves to provide areas for drilling
activities and staff housing, improper waste and sewage disposal,
intrusion of salt water further into freshwater areas as a result of the
construction of navigable canals, the occasional oil spill, the
establishment of exotic Nypa palm (*Nypa fruticans*) and other factors.
As of now, there are still no officially protected areas in the mangrove
belt. Many marine resources are also harvested unsustainably both
commercially and by local fisherfolk with virtually no controls.

## 3.6 Habitats of International Importance

Nigeria has a number of globally important ecological areas, but few of
these have yet to receive the international conservation attention they
deserve. Only two sites have been included in international listings:
one Ramsar site and one United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Biosphere Reserve. Global
conservationists are just now recognizing two other areas of extreme
biodiversity importance in Nigeria: the Niger Delta and the Cameroon
Highland Forests. Although parts of these areas are under heavy threat
from anthropogenic factors, much viable habitat and diverse species
still remain. Other areas in Nigeria, such as Lake Chad and the riparian
forests of the Jos Plateau are important but these, sadly, are already
heavily degraded.

***Niger Delta***

Although the Niger Delta has not been singled out for global attention
as a Ramsar site or a Biosphere Reserve, it is a world-renowned area
with extraordinary biodiversity and natural resources potential. The
Niger Delta is one of the world's largest wetlands, covering more than
20,000 km², where the Niger and Benue Rivers split into a network of
channels before entering the sea. The Niger Delta portion of the coast
covers about 500 km of the coastline and encompasses a total of 21
estuaries (see Figure 4.1 in Part I of this report). Four distinct
ecological zones comprise the Delta: barrier islands, mangroves,
freshwater swamp forests and lowland rainforests. The barrier islands
rim the shore and consist of sandy beaches and coastal forests, which
represent a unique habitat containing much biodiversity, and are still
largely intact (Moffat and Linden, 1995). The Niger Delta mangrove belt
is about 30 to 40 km wide and not yet commercially harvested for timber,
and aside from localized cutting it is still relatively undisturbed.
Further inland are the seasonal and permanent freshwater swamps and
swamp forests that are still fairly intact. The ecological zone under
most pressure in the Delta is the lowland rainforest, which is rapidly
being degraded to derived savanna through logging and agricultural
expansion. These diverse habitats and the wet tropical climate have led
to a diversity of species. For instance, there are more freshwater fish
species here (197) than in any other coastal system in West Africa,
including 16 endemics. Some species listed in the International Union
for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red Data Book (World Resources
Institute (WRI), 2000), such as the spotted-neck otter (*Hydrictis
maculocolis*) and the white-throated guenon (*Cercopithecus
erythrogaster*), are said to be locally common in the Delta (see Table
3.2).

The Niger Delta is best known as the repository for oil and gas and
related commercial extraction activities that make up Nigeria's largest
source of foreign exchange. The development surrounding oil operations
and the heavy concentration of people in the areas of highest elevation
have led to localized disturbances, pollution, oil spills and other
environmental problems. The abundant fishery resources have in many
cases been harvested unsustainably. Despite these problems, biologists
and conservationists in Nigeria and elsewhere consider the Niger Delta
to be a global natural resource and deserving of conservation attention.

***Cameroon Highlands Forest Ecoregion***

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Global 200 listing of ecoregions of
particular importance to biodiversity and ecosystem diversity has
pinpointed the "Cameroon Highlands Forest Ecoregion" as an area of
global significance. This area stretches along the border between
Cameroon and southeast Nigeria and includes adjacent areas in both
countries. Within this ecoregion, two different areas have been singled
out for international conservation attention. The first area, at the
northern edge of this ecoregion, combines the Gashaka Gumti National
Park in Nigeria and adjacent Tchabal Mbabo National Park in Cameroon to
form a transboundary project presently seeking Global Environment
Facility (GEF) project development funds. This area includes montane
forests and grasslands, lowland forests and savanna in a continuous
transition, a rare occurrence in West Africa. This diversity of habitats
has led to a variety of plant and animal species and the montane area in
particular includes many endemics. The area is especially endowed with
amphibians, with at least 60 endemic species found to date, and up to
18% of the plant species are also endemic to this area, although they
may be found in both countries and are not "true endemics". Elephants
and other species use this area as a corridor for migration. Due to the
protected nature of these adjacent parks, the area is well situated for
conservation action.

Another area within this ecoregion, but further south, has also been
singled out. The "Gulf of Guinea Forests" include montane areas, lowland
forest and coastal areas in Cross River State and adjacent areas of
Cameroon, and the island of Bioko. This area is known to be a hotspot
for primates (22 species), and for butterflies (which may have more than
1,000 species when survey work is completed). Of particular interest in
this area is the Cross River gorilla (*Gorilla gorilla diehli*) with a
population of less than 250 individuals broken up into two areas, and
thus the most severely threatened of any gorilla subspecies in the
world. Conserving aspects of the Gulf of Guinea Forest area has been an
initiative of the Nigerian Conservation Foundation (NCF), Wildlife
Conservation Society (WCS), and other partners for a number of years. A
recent study on the area's biodiversity is presently in draft form, and
will be distributed within a few months.

***Omo UNESCO Biosphere Reserve***

The Omo Forest Reserve was originally designated in 1925 and has gone
through various degrees of protection since then. In 1977, the Strict
Nature Reserve at its core was declared a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve, the
only one in the country. This reserve is only a couple of hours drive
from the metropolitan areas of Lagos, Ibadan and Abeokuta but has
managed to preserve patches of mixed moist semi-evergreen rainforest and
remnant populations of mammals including forest elephants and duikers,
and a high degree of plant and animal biodiversity. Studies in the
reserve include 26 one-hectare permanent plots that have been monitored
since 1975, and various university-based projects. Enclaves within the
buffer zone areas of the reserve include communities that farm, fish,
hunt and collect forest products (Ola-Adams, 1999). The close proximity
of this reserve to major universities, and the diversity of social and
biological factors at play here make this an ideal conservation study
area for Nigerian students and faculty alike.

##### Table 3.2. Select IUCN Red List Species Found in the Niger Delta

  --------------------- ---------------------- --------- ------------- ----------
  **Common Name**       **Scientific Name**    **IUCN    **Nigeria**   **Niger
                                               2000 Red                Delta**
                                               List**                  

  **Mammals: Primates**                                                

  Angwantibo            *Arctocebus            LR        I             Common
                        calabarensis*                                  

  Red-capped mangabey   *Cercocebus torguatus* LR        I             \*

  White-throated guenon *Cercopithecus         EN                      Common
                        erythrogaster*                                 

  Sclater's guenon      *Cercopithecus         EN                      Common
                        sclateri*                                      

  Niger Delta red       *Procolobus pennantii  EN        I             \*
  colobus               epieni*                                        

  Olive colobus         *Procolobus verus*     LR        I             \*

  Chimpanzee            *Pan troglodytes*      EN        I             \*\*

  **Mammals:                                                           
  Carnivores**                                                         

  Cape clawless otter   *Aonyx capensis*       NL        I             ?

  Crested genet         *Genatta cristata*     EN        I             Common

  Spot-necked otter     *Lutra maculicollis*   VU        I             ?

  Leopard               *Panthera pardus*      NL        I             \*\*

  **Mammals:                                                           
  Ungulates**                                                          

  Ogilby's duiker       *Cephalophus ogilbyi*  LR                      \*\*

  Yellow-backed duiker  *Cephalophus           LR        I             \*\*
                        sylvicultor*                                   

  Heslop's pygmy hippo  *Hexaprotodon          CR        I             \*\*\*
                        liberiensis heslopi*                           

  Water chevrotain      *Hyemoschus aquaticus* DD        I             \*

  Bates' pygmy antelope *Neotragus batesi*     LR                      \*

  Sitatunga             *Tragelaphus spekii*   LR        I             Common

  **Mammals: Other**                                                   

  Atlantic hump-backed  *Sousa teuszii*        DD        I             ?
  dolphin                                                              

  Manatee               *Trichechus            VU        I             Common
                        senegalensis*                                  

  Elephant              *Loxidonta africana*   EN        I             \*\*

  Long-tailed pangolin  *Manus longicaudata*   NL        I             \*

  Tree pangolin         *Manus tricuspis*      NL        I             ?

  Brush-tailed          *Atherurus africanus*  NL        I             Common
  porcupine                                                            

  Rufous-nosed rat      *Oenomys hypoxanthus*  DD                      ?

  **Birds**                                                            

  Anambra Waxbill       *Estrilda poliopareia* VU                      ?

  Falcons               *Falconidae*           Varied    I             ?

  Parrots               *Psittacidae*          Varied    I             ?

  **Reptiles**                                                         

  Nile monitor lizard   *Varanus niloticus*    NL        I             Common

  Royal python          *Python regius*        NL        I             \*

  Rock python           *Python sebae*         NL        I             \*

  Serrate hinge-back    *Kinixys erosa*        DD                      \*
  tortoise                                                             

  Home's hinge-back     *Kinixys homeana*      DD                      \*
  tortoise                                                             

  Nile crocodile        *Crocodylus niloticus* NL        I             ?

  Slender-snout         *Crocodylus            DD                      ?
  crocodile             cataphractus*                                  

  W. African dwarf      *Osteolaemus           VU        I             Common
  crocodile             tetraspis*                                     

                                                                       

  **Legend:**                                                          

                                                                       

  IUCN 2000 Red List:                                                  
  CR = Critically                                                      
  Endangered, EN =                                                     
  Endangered, VU =                                                     
  Vulnerable, LR =                                                     
  Lower Risk, DD = Data                                                
  Deficient, NL = Not                                                  
  Listed                                                               

  Nigeria: I =                                                         
  Prohibited Species                                                   
  under the Federal                                                    
  Endangered Species                                                   
  Act of Nigeria                                                       

  Niger Delta: Common =                                                
  relatively common in                                                 
  delta in suitable                                                    
  habitat, \* = reduced                                                
  to small part of                                                     
  original range in                                                    
  delta, \*\* = reduced                                                
  to relict populations                                                
  in delta, \*\*\* =                                                   
  probably extinct                                                     
  (Status according to                                                 
  authors of the Niger                                                 
  Delta Environmental                                                  
  Survey Final Report                                                  
  --------------------- ---------------------- --------- ------------- ----------

*Adapted from: Environmental Resources Managers Ltd., 1997, Niger Delta
Environmental Survey Final Report, Phase I. Lagos, Nigeria, pp. 31-32,
and Hilton-Taylor, C. 2000. 2000 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
IUCN, Gland (Switz.) and Cambridge (UK,) 61 pp.*

***Hadejia-Nguru Wetlands Ramsar Site***

The Hadejia-Nguru wetlands is a floodplain complex on the southern edge
of the Sahel savanna in northeastern Nigeria. The Hadejia and Jama'are
Rivers that supply this floodplain originate on the Jos Plateau and flow
seasonally into Lake Chad. This area has long been noted for its
importance to both breeding and wintering waterbirds and Paleartctic
waterbirds passing through. It is also known to harbor at least 89
species of freshwater fish and many savanna animals. This area is under
threat from water diversions and flooding due to dam construction, from
grazing livestock, and from agricultural expansion. A number of NGOs,
including NCF, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and
IUCN have been collaborating with the state government and local
communities to help conserve this area. Due in large part to this
international attention, the Nguru Lake and Marma Channel complex in the
Hadejia-Nguru Wetlands was designated as Nigeria's first Ramsar site in
2000. Other Ramsar sites are now being determined for possible
inclusion, based on a report and study of wetlands conducted by the NCF
for the Federal Ministry of Environment (FMoE, 2002).

# 4.0 Tropical Forests in Nigeria

## 

## 4.1 Overview

Nigeria is largely an agricultural country with large urban centers, but
despite this predominate use of land, important tracts of forest still
remain. The major forest types were summarized in the previous section
along with the rest of Nigeria's natural ecosystems, but are described
in further detail here. The way forests are managed in Nigeria is of
special conservation interest and is detailed separately in this
section. This further information is provided here in recognition of the
special attention tropical forests receive under the U.S. government's
FAA 118 requirement. The threats to forests cannot be considered
separately from the threats to the nation's biodiversity and habitats,
however, and the conservation actions are intimately interrelated. For
this reason, the threats to forests and biodiversity are considered
together in Section 6 and organizations and actions involved in
conserving these are considered together in Section 7. The
recommendations at the close of this report likewise relate to forests
and all the rest of the ecosystems and biodiversity in Nigeria.

##  Importance of Nigerian Forests

Like elsewhere in the world, the forests of Nigeria are important for
the ecosystem services they provide, including watershed protection,
climate control, and as habitats for a diversity of other plant and
animal species. In Nigeria, the forests also provide valuable commercial
timber sources and other commercially harvested products such as resins,
spices, rattans and many more. Local Nigerians also benefit largely from
forest resources as a source for fuelwood and building materials; and
for a myriad of NTFPs with various uses as food, flavorings, medicine,
various domestic uses, and also in some cases, for their traditional
values. Many of these products harvested by communities are also
important for their trade and cash value. Bushmeat, for instance, is
hunted widely by community residents, but has too great a value for
personal consumption (see Box 6.2 in Section 6 for more on this
subject). Instead, these animals are sold for a high price in markets in
urban centers, and the local communities instead eat "ice fish" which is
frozen, imported sea fish like mackerel and herring locally available at
a lower price.

The biodiversity in Nigeria's remaining forests is an important
reservoir for many rare and endangered species, and for many genetic
strains of wild crop species that may ultimately have further
agricultural uses. Much of the biodiversity in Nigerian forests remains
unexplored and undocumented, and no doubt many new species will someday
be found, especially in the montane and swamp forest areas where little
work has been done to date. Unfortunately the forests are disappearing
more rapidly than studies are being initiated and it is likely that many
forest species will go extinct before they are even officially
recognized.

## 4.3 Description of Nigeria's Natural Forests

A major study of forests in Nigeria was commissioned by the Forestry
Management, Evaluation and Coordinating Unit (FORMECU) of the Federal
Department of Forestry and completed in 1999 (Beak Consultants et al,
1999). This study covered 27 Nigerian states with significant forest
resources, including about two-thirds of Nigeria's total land area.
Seventeen of these states, in southern Nigeria, were found to contain
significant natural forest resources, and are termed "high forest
states" in this report. It is within these states that nearly all of the
important natural forests in Nigeria are found. The remaining ten
states, further north, contain only patches of savanna woodland or
riparian forests and are mainly included in the Forestry Management,\
Evaluation and Development in Africa (FORMECU) study for their
plantation estates.

Nigeria has six main types of natural forestland, lowland rainforest,
freshwater swamp forest, savanna woodlands, riparian forests, mangrove
forest and montane forests. Within the high forest states, the extent of
each forest area is represented in Table 4.1. In the drier parts of the
country further north, there are some remaining natural savanna
woodlands and riparian forests not included in this table, but these
become scarcer further north as conditions are drier and conversion to
agriculture and overharvesting of firewood has depleted them. In
addition, there are an increasing number of tree monocultural
plantations, such as rubber and oil palm, but these contribute nothing
to conservation of natural biodiversity and are not discussed here.

####### Table 4.1. Estimates of Natural Forest Types in the High Forest Zone (17 states) in Southern Nigeria 

+----------------------+------------+-----------------+---------------+
| **Natural Forest     | **Within   | **Outside       | **Total       |
| Type**               | Forest     | Forest Reserves | Forested Area |
|                      | Reserves   | (i.e., in Free  | in the State  |
|                      | (ha)**     | Areas) (ha)**   | (ha)**        |
+----------------------+------------+-----------------+---------------+
| Lowland rainforest   | 788,053    | 912,094         | 1,700,147     |
+----------------------+------------+-----------------+---------------+
| Freshwater swamp     | 186,621    | 1,424,739       | 1,611,360     |
+----------------------+------------+-----------------+---------------+
| Tr                   | 85,789     | 306,532         | 392,321       |
| ees/woodlands/shrubs |            |                 |               |
|                      |            |                 |               |
| (savanna woodland)   |            |                 |               |
+----------------------+------------+-----------------+---------------+
| Tr                   | 4,018      | 80,337          | 84,355        |
| ees/woodlands/shrubs |            |                 |               |
| (riparian forests)   |            |                 |               |
+----------------------+------------+-----------------+---------------+
| Mangrove with trees  | 0          | 5,314           | 5,314         |
+----------------------+------------+-----------------+---------------+
| Montane              | 0          | 3,847           | 3847          |
+----------------------+------------+-----------------+---------------+
| **TOTAL**            | **1        | **2,732,863**   | **3,797,344** |
|                      | ,064,481** |                 |               |
+----------------------+------------+-----------------+---------------+

*Source: Beak Consultants et al, 1999.*

***Lowland Rainforests***

Lowland rainforest once covered much of the southern terrestrial areas
of Nigeria, where an abundant rainfall regime favors the development of
this ecosystem type. Unfortunately, excessive exploitation of timber,
agricultural encroachment and other anthropogenic changes have greatly
reduced these forests in extent and in biological diversity. Although
rainforest patches still are found in a belt in southern Nigeria from
the western to eastern borders of the country, the largest remaining
tracts of rainforest are primarily found in Cross River, Bendel and Ondo
States (FAO, 1981). The rainforest belt of Nigeria is contiguous with
the rainforests in neighboring Cameroon, and many of the species are
found in both countries. Although many species are endemic to these
forests, since they occur in both countries, they cannot be considered
"true endemics."

Lowland rainforests are characterized by a great variety of plant
species arranged in a complex vertical structure of forest canopies.
Some economically important rainforest trees include mahoganies, African
walnut (*Lovoa*), *Mansonia* and a number of others that are
increasingly endangered by illegal and legal logging activities. Many
other NTFPs extracted from these forests are prized by local residents
for their food and medicinal value, and for other domestic uses. A
number of rare or endangered rainforest animal species, including
primates, forest antelopes, rodents and birds are overharvested as
bushmeat and are exceeding scarce and rarely seen. Increasingly
monocultural plantations of rubber, cocoa, oil palm and the like are
planted within former rainforest areas, with a resulting loss of habitat
and biodiversity. Other forms of agriculture also abound, although crops
can be grown on lowland forest soils, long fallow periods are necessary
between plantings, leading to the destruction of ever more forest areas
for future crops.

***Freshwater Swamp Forests***

Freshwater swamp forests are found in southern Nigeria, on the landward
side of the mangrove belt, where the salinity decreases beyond the
tolerance of mangrove species. Swamp forests are dominated by species of
Raphia, Pandanus, Calamus and Alchornea, with a canopy sometimes as high
as 15 meters (NEST, 1991). Those swamp forests furthest inland are only
seasonally flooded and characterized by climbing palms and a variety of
other species that make the forest nearly impenetrable. A number of rare
and endangered species still thrive in these forests, due to their
inaccessibility. A few species of endemic primates also thrive here in
locally common numbers. Although NTFPs are collected from some areas of
the swamp forest, large tracts have been relatively untouched by
commercial ventures. A bigger threat to swamp forests is the intrusion
of saltwater into many areas, due to the development of navigational
canals, primarily to enhance activities of the oil industry.

***Savanna Woodlands***

North of the rainforest belt in Nigeria there is a large band of derived
savanna, which has undergone large-scale anthropogenic modifications.
Aside from extensive agricultural areas, this zone contains some relict
forest patches with species indicative of the rainforests and others
known throughout the middle savanna belt. Further north the conditions
get drier, the woody vegetation gets sparser and the trees thornier. The
Guinea savanna area includes areas of mixed deciduous and semi-deciduous
woodlands. Further north, in the Sudan savannas, baobob trees
(*Adansonia digitata*) are characteristic while the Sahel savanna is
virtually treeless (NEST, 1991).

Although savanna tree species are not as valuable for timber as those
found in rainforests, a few species are commercially harvested. Many
other trees are cut for fuelwood by residents in these areas, or cleared
to make room for agriculture (Beak Consultants, et al, 1999). The
savanna habitats also support a good number of large mammals such as
various antelopes, elephants, lions, etc., which are all characteristic
of savannas found elsewhere in Africa. These animals are increasingly
scarce in Nigeria, and nearly nonexistent in areas outside those few
protected areas that actually receive protection.

***Riparian Forests***

Riparian forests consist of lowland rainforest, freshwater swamp forests
and other forest types found on narrow strips bordering water bodies.
Many of these forests have been spared from agriculturization due to
difficult access and periodic flooding regimes (Beak Consultants et al,
1999). These forests are important to the protection of watersheds, and
when they are destroyed, siltation and degradation of the watercourses
becomes severe. These forests also have a role to play in the migration
and movement of many animal species, forming corridors of connectivity
between different forest patches. The riparian forests of the Jos
Plateau are also known to contain a unique assemblage of species,
including a number of endemics plants and a few endemic birds and
mammals. These forests are under intense threat, however, and only
marginal amounts still remain.

***Mangrove Forests***

Mangrove forests in Nigeria range along 708 km of coastline extending
from 16 to 90 km from the shore inland, encompassing 5,591 km² of land
(Isebor and Awosika, 1993). Mangroves survive in marine and brackish
habitats and are replaced further inland by freshwater swamp forests.
Nigerian mangroves are dominated by red mangroves (*Rhizoporaceae*) and
also include white mangroves (*Avicennia*) and a few other mangrove
species. The mangrove understory includes a thick undergrowth of other
salt-tolerant plant species.

Mangroves provide a number of ecological services including the habitat
and nursery ground for a productive range of fish, crustacean and
mollusk species that are harvested locally and in offshore fisheries.
Local residents also use mangroves for firewood, for dying their fishing
nets, and collect a number of NTFPs from the understory. As mangroves
are cut for firewood, or to enable the construction of navigational
canals, villages and oil company operations, they are gradually being
replaced by Nypa palms (*Nypa fructicans*), an exotic plant species that
is a fast colonizer, but does not provide the extensive ecological
services provided by native mangroves. As yet, there are no protected
areas in Nigeria that include mangroves.

***Montane Forests***

Montane forests contain considerable biodiversity, and due in large part
to their geographical isolation and unique microclimate, many of the
plant and animal species found here are endemic to these areas. In
Nigeria, montane forests are found primarily on the highlands that form
the southeastern border between Nigeria and Cameroon. Although some of
this high altitude area consists of grassland, shrubs and rocky
outcrops, there are some patches of montane forests along the eastern,
southern and western sections that merge gradually into lowland
rainforest at the base. Two types of montane forests can be
discriminated: the mist forests with a diversity of moss and epiphyte
species and uneven canopies; and drier forests higher up, where dwarf
and stunted trees occur. The Jos Plateau is another highland area that
once contained tracts of montane forests. This area has been highly
modified by anthropogenic factors, and now only remnant patches exist.

## 4.4 Management of Nigerian Forests

Nigerian forests are managed by the Federal Department of Forestry, by
State Departments of Forestry and by communities throughout the forest
zones. Three management categories exist for those remaining tracts of
natural forest: protected areas, forest reserves and nonconcession
areas.

***Protected Areas***

Nigeria includes a number of different types of protected areas, under
the auspices of authorities ranging from the federal to local levels.
The eight national parks in Nigeria are managed by the Federal National
Park Service and include some representative forest types, in some cases
very large tracts of them. Although these national parks have quite a
bit of paper protection, most do not have management plans and the staff
is generally unequipped and untrained. Other areas, such as the
OmoBiosphere Reserve and the many game reserves in the country, are
often even less protected. Within many of these protected areas,
however, are "strict nature reserves" that may receive more conservation
attention that the larger areas. Probably the most protected of the
protected areas in Nigeria are those that are considered by local
communities to be sacred groves or juju shrines and are under local
prohibitions. Another category that receives strong protection are those
few reserves in private hands, such as the NCF Lekki Island swamp forest
and the remnant forest within the International Institute of Tropical
Agriculture (IITA).

***Forest Reserves***

Forest reserves are numerous around the country and are under various
management regimes that vary widely from state to state. Forest reserves
are administered under the Department of Forestry in the Ministry of
Agriculture and Natural Resources in the various states. For the most
part, these reserves are managed as a source of revenue and without a
conservation mandate. Many of these forest reserves have been converted
to plantations for rubber, pulpwood, oil palm and other monocultures. In
the 17 high forest states in the Forest Resources Study (Beak
Consultants et al, 1999), for instance, the ratio of forest reserves to
total land area was found to be 10.25%. This number is deceptive,
however. Although forest reserves cover nearly two million ha of
land---1,976,586 ha to be exact---only 53.9% is occupied by natural
forest types, and the rest consists of plantations or cropland.

Wild timber is also extracted from most of these reserves although few
controls exist in the field to monitor such activities. On paper, some
of these states, such as Cross River, manage the extraction of timber
based on charging fees for stumpage, with more economically valuable
species commanding a higher fee. In other states, further discriminatory
charges are added based on the economic value of the trees. Some states
also specify the size of tree that can be harvested. In some states
particular tree species are under strict protection. In other states the
permits are managed according to concession areas that are being
harvested regardless of the size or number of trees. There is also a
widespread amount of corruption in managing the forests and officials
are often pressured or encouraged to offer more permits than are
sustainable. There is very little monitoring of various activities on
the ground, providing an easy track towards escalating deforestation
practices.

***Non-concession Areas***

The forestland that is not included in protected areas or in forest
reserves (which includes the majority of forestland in Nigeria) is
considered to be "free" forest, but "free-for-all" is a more apt phrase.
Except in a few cases where communities are sustainably managing forests
in their neighborhood, much of this forestland is rapidly becoming
degraded or disappearing entirely. It is still a common practice in some
communities in the south where anyone in the community can clear a patch
of forest in their common area, sell the timber and turn it into
cropland. This land then belongs to the individual, who will need to
clear more land as the rainforest soil gives out and this land must go
fallow. As more people inhabit these communities, the loss of free
forests is exponentially increasing. Similarly, many of the forest
products and wildlife in these free areas have been overexploited to
near extinction. A few examples do exist, however, where communities
have continued in sustainable, traditional extraction practices or have
recently learned the practices of sustainability from NGOs, and are now
working to actively manage their own forests. In Nigeria, many believe,
it is this practice that holds the best hope for the important forests
and biodiversity still remaining.

# 5.0 Status of Biodiversity in Nigeria

## 

##  Overview

Nigeria is a tropical nation encompassing a variety of diverse habitats
and ecosystems---features that lead to a large amount of biodiversity in
terrestrial and aquatic species. Like many developing nations, the
continued resources necessary to thoroughly catalogue these species has
been lacking and much of the diversity is relatively undocumented. The
data that exists comes from a number of studies of particular taxa and
particular sites of interest to various researchers. Most of the
information available concentrates on species of particular economic or
aesthetic importance to people. Large mammals, birds and butterflies
(Larson, 1995) with aesthetic appeal to expatriots have been well
studied in certain regions. Economically and/or traditionally important
fish, invertebrates, and plant species have been similarly focused on
within Nigeria. Most species, including many plants, terrestrial and
aquatic invertebrates, small mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, etc.
in much of the country remain undocumented. In preparing papers for the
Convention on Biological Diversity (FEPA 1992, FEPA 1996, etc.) an
effort has been made to gather existing data into a single source, but
this information is still sketchy and probably inaccurate. Some of the
existing information is summarized here.

## 5.2 Birds and Mammals

As of 1992, Nigeria was said to have 274 mammal species and 839 bird
species (FEPA, 1992). Since then more birds have been documented in
Nigeria, bringing the latest total of Nigerian birds to 889 species
(Ezealor, 2002). Most of Nigeria's birds and mammals are also found in
other countries in Africa with similar habitats, but a few species,
known as endemic species, only occur in Nigeria. Some important endemics
include three monkey species: the white-throated monkey (*Cercopithecus
erythrogaster*), Sclater's guenon (*Cercopithecus sclateri*) and the
Niger Delta red colobus (*Procolobus pennantii epieni*); and three
birds: the Anambra waxbill (*Estrilda poplipaia*), the Ibadan malimbe,
(*Malimbus ibadanensis*) and the Jos indigo-bird (*Vidua maryae*)
(Aminu-Kano, 2001). In addition, some birds and mammals are near
endemics and found in some habitats shared with neighboring countries.
The Gulf of Guinea forests of southeastern Nigeria, western Cameroon and
Bioko Island of Equatorial Guinea are one such area with an exceptional
number of near endemic primate species (Oates and Bergi, 2001).

Many of Nigeria's birds and mammals are at very low population levels
and only found in a few protected areas, where they are still threatened
due to lack of adequate protection. Some larger species such as
giraffes, various antelopes, ostriches, vultures, etc. which may be
common in other African countries, have all but disappeared in Nigeria
due to a combination of habitat destruction and severe hunting pressures
(FMoE, 2001).

## 5.3 Reptiles, Amphibians and Fish

Nigerian reptiles, amphibians and fish are not nearly as well known as
the birds and mammals. In the Nigeria country study on biological
diversity (FEPA, 1992), Nigeria was said to harbor 135 reptile species,
109 amphibian species and 648 fish species but various other studies
over the years quote widely differing numbers of these vertebrates.
Reptiles are the most studied and those that are hunted for food, like
turtles and tortoises, are known to be rapidly disappearing in Nigeria.
Over 230 fish species are said to be found in inland waters (Shimang,
2002) and many more found in coastal and marine habitats. The best known
fish species are those with commercial value, but many others that are
less obvious, smaller and found in restricted and specialized habitats
no doubt would be found, if anyone took an interest.

One snake (*Nahelya egbensis*) and five amphibians are endemic to
Nigeria (Aminu-Kano, 2001) and undoubtedly a number of fish species as
well, but there is little available information on these. As with the
higher vertebrates, a number of these are considered near endemics and
are found in neighboring countries with similar habitats.

## 5.4 Invertebrates

Aside from a few economically important invertebrates, such as various
prawns and mollusks, little information is available on the diversity of
this large group of organisms. Various insects including ants and
butterflies have been studied in certain habitats, and new species are
found wherever anyone looks. For instance, Larson has done some
extensive butterfly collecting in the Gulf of Guinea forests and
estimates that there are around 1,000 species in the Cross River
National Park alone (Larson, 1977). A particularly significant
collection of insects resides in the Department of Crop Protection and
Environmental Biology at the University of Ibadan. The Biodiversity
Country Study (FEPA, 1992) estimates that Nigeria has more than 20,000
insects, 77 mollusks, 5 echinoderms, etc., but these numbers are largely
suspect.

## 5.5 Plants

Due to the diversity of habitats in Nigeria and the tropical climate,
there is a great diversity of plant species found in the country. There
have been many localized studies of plants in Nigeria, but few sources
of consolidated information. According to the 1992 country study, more
than 848 algae species have been identified in the marine and freshwater
habitats and over 5,103 higher plant species have so far been identified
and less than 200 lower plant species have been identified, although the
number of these plants is definitely much higher (FEPA, 1992).

Due to the geographical isolation and the unusual climatic conditions of
Nigeria's montane areas, many of the plants found here are endemic
species, and some even represent monospecific endemics, with a single
species found in the genus. Many of these montane plants are highly
endangered, especially those found only in riparian habitats on the Jos
Plateau. In a recent study of forest and forest products in 25 forest
states in Nigeria (Beak Consultants et al, 1997), it was found that a
total of 58 tree species, especially those that have been selectively
harvested for economic value, were thought to be endangered in the study
area.

Nigeria's plants include many species with traditional value as food
items, medicinals and for various domestic uses, and a number of these
plants have been catalogued in specific areas of the country. Nigeria is
also an epicenter for diversity of wild varieties of important crop
plants, including cowpeas (*Vigna unguiculata*), West African rice
(*Oryza sativa*), yams (*Dioscorea spp.*), Bambara groundnuts (*Vigna
subterranea*), Kersting's groundnut (*Macrotyloma geocarpum*), African
yam bean (*Sphenostylis stenocarpa*), and winged bean (*Psophocarpus
tetragonobus*) (Dr. Ng, 2002). A number of these wild crop relatives are
presently endangered.

## 5.6 Other Biodiversity 

Microorganisms, bacteria, viruses, etc. are little known in Nigeria as
well as almost everywhere else. The Biodiversity Country Study (FEPA,
1992) estimates that there are 3,423 fungi species in Nigeria, 134
"plankton" species, more than 500 virus species, 55 bacteria, etc. Aside
from the fungi, these numbers most likely do not come close to the true
situation of biodiversity of these taxa.

## 5.7 Significance of Nigeria's Biodiversity

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Hilton-Taylor, 2000) of
globally threatened species includes 148 animals and 146 plants that are
found in Nigeria. Of these, 26 animals and 18 plants are classified as
endangered and another 3 animals and 15 plants are critically endangered
worldwide. Many more species are endangered or threatened in Nigeria
alone, but viable populations still exist in other countries.

Nigeria is known as a global hotspot for primate species, with a great
diversity found especially in the Gulf of Guinea forests of Cross River
State and adjacent parts of Cameroon. The most endangered gorilla
subspecies on earth, the Cross River gorilla (*Gorilla gorilla diehli*)
with an estimated population of less than 250 individuals, is found only
in a couple of protected areas near the Nigeria/Cameroon border (Bassey
and Oates, 2001). The Gulf of Guinea forests are also a hotspot for
butterfly speciation. Similarly, the forests further north along the
Cameroon border are also known to be a hotspot for amphibians.

Nigeria's wild varieties of various crop species are also of global
importance for the diversity they represent and the potential attributes
that might make some of these plant varieties less susceptible to
disease, more drought resistant, or other positive features that might
enhance domesticated crop types.

# 6.0 Threats to Nigeria's Biodiversity and Tropical Forests

## 6.1 Overview

The threats to biodiversity, tropical forests and the rest of the many
ecosystems and natural habitats in Nigeria are overwhelming and
escalating. A key feature of Nigeria's ecology is its large and
burgeoning human population and the increasing pressure this population
growth is putting upon the natural environment. Urban areas are
congested and growing, without adequate environmental safeguards.
Population estimates vary, but the WRI approximations for 2000 (WRI,
2000) estimate at least 111 million people and others believe that
Nigeria's population may be at least 120 million. No matter what the
exact numbers are, Nigeria is known to be the most densely populated
country in Africa. Although Nigeria has some very large urban centers,
more than 70% of the people live in rural areas where they depend upon
agriculture and other natural resources for their survival (FEPA, 1992).
This growing rural population puts increasing demands upon the natural
habitats and plant and animal species of Nigeria, which decrease in
extent and numbers as the human population increases. Add to this the
environmental contamination stemming from urban and industrial centers
and the picture becomes clear. Nigeria's natural environment is rapidly
becoming degraded---along with the quality of life that future Nigerians
can expect.

The direct threats to biodiversity and ecosystems in Nigeria can be
grouped into two conservation categories: habitat degradation and
unsustainable use. Overriding all these threats, however, are the
administrative and management conditions of the country that are
allowing such conditions to continue.

## 6.2 Habitat Degradation

Habitat degradation is visible in all terrestrial and aquatic habitats
throughout Nigeria. In terrestrial habitats, the major degradation
factor is conversion of natural habitats to agricultural uses. In a
study of land use changes in Nigeria (Beak Consultants et al, 1997) it
was determined that agricultural lands, including crops and grazing
land, in 1976/1978 made up 53.8% of the land in Nigeria. Similar data
from 1993/1995 shows that another 84,073 km² have been converted to more
cropland and grazing land, bringing the total to 60.8% of the land area
of Nigeria. This land was obtained from natural habitats such as
savannas, forests and swamps with resulting negative impacts on the
diversity and populations of indigenous species. Since then, this trend
towards further agricultural land conversion is continuing, to the
detriment of the natural habitats that remain.

Often the conversion of natural areas to agricultural land happens in
predictable sequences. In forest ecosystems, initially any remaining
valuable timber is harvested and sold commercially. Already after such
activities, the forests are degraded and some valuable biodiversity is
lost. The remaining trees and shrubs are cleared using fire, until
finally, land is opened up for crop planting. The forest soil cannot
sustain sequential crops without long periods of fallow, so new areas
are increasingly sought for more planting in future years. Making
matters worse, often these set fires burn out of control and many more
ha are lost. With more people in Nigeria every year, this process is
escalating. Conversion to agriculture is occurring in many protected
areas, in community-owned land, and in state managed forests without
serious control. Rainforest and savanna woodland areas are the most
threatened from agricultural conversion at this time. Mangroves are not
yet harvested commercially in Nigeria, and mangrove soil is not
conducive to growing crops. If and when aquaculture projects take off in
Nigeria, these forests also will be under threat of conversion. Swamp
forests similarly are not yet widely converted to agricultural use, but
if rice growing increases in scale in Nigeria, these areas too, will be
threatened.

Terrestrial degradation of ecosystems can be less obvious than land
conversion, but still damaging to biodiversity. In areas where
particular species, such as hardwood trees, rattans, medicinal and food
plants and other NTFPs are harvested unsustainably, not only are these
species lost but also a myriad of associated plants, insects, fungi,
etc. that require these specific hosts to meet their own ecological
requirements for survival. The tree fall gaps in logged areas also lead
to the establishment of secondary growth that often cannot fully
replicate the old growth that was lost. There is also the case of
genetic erosion, for instance, when the largest, straightest, most
vigorous trees are selectively logged, leaving the puny behind to
reproduce.

Aquatic degradation is often less visible but no less harmful to the
species that depend on this environment. Many aquatic species have very
particular requirements in water quality, flow, and seasonality, all
factors that are undergoing anthropogenically induced changes in
Nigeria. Pollution from urban centers, industrial areas, mining and
agricultural runoffs are impacting the water quality of rivers and
streams throughout the country. Clearing riparian forests for
agriculture is changing the nearshore microhabitats for fish, amphibians
and other species. Soil erosion is a rampant problem throughout Nigeria,
and adds more than normal levels of silt to some bodies of water, such
as Lake Chad, with predicted negative effects on some aquatic species.
Damming and diversion of waterways block migratory routes of fish and
other species and stem the flow of necessary nutrients and silt to the
estuaries and deltas of the country, thus leading to lowered
productivity, and loss of land in these areas.

Finally, in both terrestrial and aquatic habitats, the introduction of
exotic species has been a factor in habitat degradation. In Nigeria,
there has been recent attention to three introduced plants that are
leading to habitat disturbances in various environments. One, the water
hyacinth (*Eichhornia crassipes* ) causes worldwide problems in many
major waterways and lakes. In Nigeria, this is also true, and a number
of rivers are now nearly closed to navigation due to the proliferation
of this surface floating plant, which tangles in boat engines and
changes the character of the ecosystem by shading out some native
species and displacing others. In coastal areas, the Nypa palm (*Nypa
fruticans*) introduced in Calabar from Southeast Asia is also a problem.
In areas where mangroves have been cut and otherwise disturbed, Nypa
palm is the first to regrow, thus outcompeting the mangroves. Mangroves
have an extensive root structure that provides sheltered habitats for
many species of fish, mollusks and crustaceans, and the fallen leaves
continually replenish the soil. In areas where mangroves have been
replaced by Nypa palms, these nurturing features are lost to the
ecosystem. Even terrestrial plants can become a problem. In Yankari
National Park, for instance, the introduced Neem tree (*Azadirachta
indica*), which was initially planted for its medicinal value and value
as a shade tree, has proliferated to the detriment of less hardy native
species that cannot compete with it, or grow in its understory. Although
these examples are all plants, introduced animals too can be a problem.
Governmental attempts to stock lakes and reservoirs with fish to be
harvested often do not consider whether these fish are native or not. In
many places in the world such non-native species have totally crowded
out native species to the point of extinction. Lake Victoria in East
Africa is one such example, but no doubt there are other examples right
in Nigeria. Species and strains that are produced through biotechnology
and introduced to the country may also provide other threats to natural
biodiversity unless appropriate safeguards are met (see Box 6.1).

## 6.3 Unsustainable Use 

Nigeria is rife with examples of unsustainable use of many animal and
plant species, both legally and illegally, but it is difficult to find
hard data. Most rural Nigerians depend to some degree on food items and
other products they can extract from the wild. As the population
increases, so does the rate of extraction of key species. In addition,
other species have an economic value and are overexploited for financial
gain. Few controls are in place to make these activities sustainable
over the long term.

One problem receiving international attention in Nigeria is the
"bushmeat" trade (see Box 6.2). In most natural habitats in Nigeria,
edible-sized animals have all but disappeared. Great apes, monkeys,
duikers, rodents, birds, turtles, etc. are all hunted and consumed
wherever they occur. Bushmeat has a high commercial value, and is often
exported to urban centers where it commands a high price and is
considered a delicacy. Unbelievably, communities living in forested
areas in the southeast get most of their own protein from "ice fish"
which is usually mackerel and herring that is frozen and imported. These
fish can be purchased by a villager at a cheap price, while he sells his
bushmeat to supplement his income.

The trade in endangered species is also said to be quite high in
Nigeria. It is claimed that gorillas, monkeys, parrots, etc. are
captured in neighboring Cameroon, trucked by land to Kano, and then
flown out to various Middle Eastern and South Asian markets where they
are considered to be status symbol pets. Every baby chimpanzee or monkey
and every parrot that appears in this trade is representative of many
others lost in the process.

Overfishing is also a problem in much of Nigeria. Although hard data is
scarce, the Department of Fisheries suggests that a number of fish
stocks have declined and they are looking towards aquaculture to provide
the quantity of fish that Nigerians require. The amount of fish recorded
commercially is only one aspect of the issue, however. Up to 70% of the
production of fish and shellfish in Nigeria is taken by artisanal
fisherman, with few catch records available. Studies at the University
of Calabar's Institute of Oceanography, however, show that certain fish
found in local markets have declined in quantity and size during a
five-year period (Sieghard Holzloehner, 2002).

Unsustainable use of trees and other plant species is also a problem in
Nigeria. Commercially valuable hardwoods have nearly disappeared from
most forests in Nigeria, no matter what degree of protection these
forests supposedly have. Certain NTFPs, such as rattans (for making
furniture); the vegetable delicacy afang (*Gnetum* *spp*.); and *Prunus*
(a cure for prostate cancer) are being overharvested due to market
demand. Most NTFPs are harvested using unsustainable techniques, like
uprooting them, or peeling off all the bark, or cutting down a tree to
get to the rattan vine, when more sustainable techniques would be
possible.

## 6.4 Institutional and Management Threats

Overlaying the ecological threats to biodiversity and tropical forests
in Nigeria are a host of institutional and management problems that do
nothing to help a conservation agenda. The ineffectiveness of existing
environmental policies, regulations, and enforcement is visible at all
layers of government, beginning at the top and flowing down into the
communities. One major problem is the lack of coordination of
environmental policies and responsibilities among various government
ministries. Ostensibly, the newly formed Ministry of the Environment
(formerly FEPA, now FMoE) holds most of the power in environmental
protection. However, other ministries such as the Ministry of Water
Resources and the Ministry of Agriculture, also manage elements of the
natural world. In some cases, the goals and policies of one ministry are
in conflict with that of another. For instance, the Federal Department
of Fisheries (under the Ministry of Agriculture) is under a mandate to
"produce enough fish in a sustainable way to meet the needs of the
populace and for export" (Shimang, 2002). Recognizing that the fishery
stock in natural freshwater and coastal areas is already sorely
depleted, this department is looking at aquaculture to meet their goals.
Although at the moment aquaculture makes up only about 2.5% of the
tonnage of the domestic fish production, the government is working to
increase this to 71.2%. The Fisheries Department is eyeing the 1.6
million ha of natural land in Nigeria that they claim is suitable for
aquaculture. This land consists of the very swamp forests, mangroves,
wetlands and associated biodiversity that the FMoE is trying to
conserve. Many other such examples exist in the government structure,
and until the discrepancies are sorted out no one can go forward.

Nigeria has many good environmental laws and policies, but most of these
are never enforced. There is an overall lack of knowledge of these laws
even among those agencies entrusted with enforcing them. Even when the
laws are known, there is little capability to enforce them. Throughout
the entire system there is much room for entrepreneurial government
officials to look the other way when, perhaps, more timber than
permitted is being extracted, or large fishing trawlers are fishing in
inshore waters. No one is out in the field to actually monitor these
commercial activities and individuals who ignore the rules can make much
money.

Even at the local level, existing laws are often not known, or if they
are, they are widely ignored. The need for immediate sustenance and
income in communities near natural areas overrules any interest in
official laws set by others. In the best of conditions the communities
themselves can work together to manage their resources sustainably. But
the population pressures and immediate needs are in many cases
overriding traditional management systems. As aquatic resources are
being depleted, artisanal fisherfolk are using smaller mesh nets, and
ignoring any seasonal fishing regulations, even those traditional ones
formerly in place. In forest habitats, similarly, community forests are
no longer boundless and full of resources that can be endlessly tapped.
Various products with domestic or commercial use are often gone from
these forests, and animals of any type are scarce beyond the markets. In
some communities, the land tenure system is also breaking down. Where
once it made sense, in a time of plenty, for any individual to be able
to clear a patch of community forest and plant crops and own the land
individually, now this practice is leading to the loss of major forest
areas with resources that were once the entire community's assets.

Protected area management is also a problem to biodiversity conservation
in Nigeria. The eight national parks have (on paper) the highest degree
of protection, especially the core areas and strict nature reserves
within them. But the paramilitary National Park Service lacks the human
resources and equipment to manage these resources in the field. Rangers
rarely have guns, radios or other basic equipment and cannot compete
with poachers who do. Some of the national park boundaries are still
encroached upon by agriculture, and pockets of commercial activities
take place within their cores. Forest reserves under state management
are even worse off, and receive nominal protection. Scattered around the
country are sacred groves, research plots, private reserves like the
Lekki Conservation Center of NCF and the forest reserve within IITA, and
other small plots of land that are tightly protected. But these areas
are small in size, widely scattered and are the exception rather than
the rule.

Finally, in order to effectively manage natural resources there must be
accurate data on the distribution and abundance of the resources
involved, the amount harvested from year to year, and the ecological
parameters of sustainability for each. In Nigeria, such information is
often lacking. Small studies have been done on a few NTFPs in some
forests, or in artisanal fisheries in some coastal communities, or
market surveys of various products but there is no overall body of data
necessary for effective management. At the rate the resources are being
depleted, such information is too late for many species already
disappearing from Nigeria.

# 7.0 Tropical Forests and Biodiversity Conservation efforts in Nigeria

## Background

Biodiversity conservation has had a long history in Nigeria stemming
back to colonial days, but in the past couple of decades concern has
slipped considerably in lieu of other more pressing problems facing the
government and residents. A number of Nigerian NGOs and ex-patriot
experts have continued to maintain an interest in wildlife conservation,
but these efforts have, by and large, been localized and/or focused on
particular taxa, such as birds and large mammals. The development of the
multinational oil industry, while infusing the government with foreign
exchange has also led to a disregard for adequate environmental controls
that might interfere with profits. Today, with the initiation of the
FMoE, however, governmental attention seems to again be focused on the
natural environment, and the work of NGOs is becoming more visible. Some
of the major players and conservation activities underway in Nigeria are
summarized here.

## Organizations Playing a Role

In Nigeria, biodiversity and tropical forest conservation activities are
the mandate of various governmental entities, NGOs, university faculty
and institutes, and supported in part by donors and private foundations.
Aside from the contributions of the nonprofit arm of various oil
companies, there is as of yet little conservation investment by the
private sector. From the GFRN side, the primary environmental entity is
the newly formed FMoE that has raised the role of the old Federal
Environment Protection Agency (FEPA) to a ministerial level, while
adding other responsibilities formerly situated elsewhere in the federal
system. Other remaining ministries, however, still have federal
environmental activities, some of which appear to be in conflict with an
environmental conservation and protection mandate. The Ministry of
Agriculture, for instance, includes the Fisheries Department and other
more terrestrially based components, all striving to increase the
production of food resources in Nigeria despite the environmental
consequences. The Ministry of Water Resources has jurisdiction over
water sources for people regardless of the deleterious effects water
development activities may have on the diversity and abundance of
natural fisheries that are crucial to many residents of Nigeria. Such
conflicts among the policies and goals of these federal agencies still
need to be reconciled. Other anomalies exist at the federal level as
well. For instance, one federal entity with a strong biodiversity
conservation role, the National Park Service, has been set up to
function as an independent parastatal agency, with a mandate of
protection, but without enough resources to do this effectively, and
little chance of raising significant funding from tourism to accomplish
its mission in tourist-scarce Nigeria.

Other government agencies at the state level, local government level and
community level are also charged with aspects of biodiversity
conservation. Often the administration of game and forest reserves is
managed at the state level and most often the resources and capacity are
not available to meet this task. Although the governmental system varies
from state to state, some of the overlapping responsibilities evident at
the federal level occur at this level as well in many states. In local
government areas, similar nuances and conflicting roles also are
widespread. In many areas, the communities themselves also have official
ownership roles in managing forests and other natural areas in their
midst. Traditional land tenure and extraction practices in some cases
can still help to sustainably manage these resources. As the population
increases, and the land area and abundance of resources shrinks,
however, these management regimes increasing fail to ensure the survival
of key resources for the next generation.

A growing number of NGOs in Nigeria are tackling various aspects of
biodiversity and tropical forest conservation initiatives (NCF, 2000).
One of the longest standing has been the Nigerian Field Society,
established in 1930, and known for the publication of the *Nigerian
Field Journal*. In 1980, the NCF was formed and has grown with
partnerships with the WWF and Birdlife International into Nigeria's
strongest and most active conservation NGO. A number of other NGOs have
proliferated since then throughout Nigeria. Among the most prominent are
the Nigerian Environmental Action/Study Team (NEST), Savanna
Conservation Nigeria, Center for Environmental Resources and Sustainable
Ecosystems (CERASE), Delta Environmental Network, Niger Delta Wetlands
Center, NGO Coalition for Environment, Cercopan and Pandrillus. Although
the GFRN is not a member of the IUCN, four Nigerian NGOs are members:
NCF, NEST, CERASE and Savanna Conservation. Various international NGOs,
including Wetlands International, the Wildlife Conservation Society and
others also have ongoing programs within Nigeria. Many other smaller
local and regional NGOs have also proliferated around the country.
Activities of these NGOs range from environmental education, to
community development work, to species and habitat-focused programs, and
most involve a myriad of stakeholders and partners. Together these NGOs
have a major civil society role that may well turn out to be the most
effective mechanism to ensure the sustainability of wildlife and
ecological resources in Nigeria.

Universities also have a role to play in Nigeria's conservation efforts.
Faculty members at many Nigerian universities have long been involved in
academic studies of wildlife, plants and other natural resources in
various areas of the country. The foci of theses studies is widely
scattered and the data and results are often difficult to access.
Recently, as part of Nigeria's activities on behalf of the Convention
for Biological Diversity (CBD), a number of "Linkage Centers" have been
established in Nigerian universities and institutes to consolidate and
disseminate this information. One such center, the Linkage Center for
Forests, Conservation and Biodiversity at the University of Agriculture
in Abeokuta is focusing entirely on coordinating data and research
relevant to biodiversity conservation. Other such nodes in the country
include Linkage Centers for Arid Environments (in Maiduguri), for
Freshwater Environments (in Minna), for Highlands/Montane Environments
(in Jos), for Delta Environments (in Port Harcourt) and for Marine and
Coastal Environments, in conjunction with the Nigerian Institute for
Oceanography and Marine Biology (in Lagos). The Oceanography Institute
resides within the University of Calabar. As a rule, most of these
programs are underfunded and could use added resources before they can
be successful in their various missions.

Many of the conservation entities and activities described here are
funded in part by multilateral donors, like the World Bank and the UN
Environmental Program (UNEP), and bilateral donors such as the UK
Department for International Development (DFID) and the Canadian
International Development Agency (CIDA). A variety of other foundations
also play a role in supporting various conservation efforts. Some of
these foundations are the nonprofit and public relations arm of various
industrial giants, such as multinational oil companies. Shell, Chevron
and Statoil are highly visible in this regard in the Niger Delta and
beyond, but not as visible in the conservation world as their extraction
activities are on the natural horizon. Other private foundations in the
U.S. and Europe also play a role in supporting conservation activities
in Nigeria. The Laventis Foundation, for instance, is said to invest
\$600,000 in biodiversity conservation activities each year in Nigeria.
The Ford and the MacArthur Foundations in the U.S. are visible in
providing NGO support in various conservation activities throughout
Nigeria.

## Nigeria's Involvement in Global Conservation Agreements

The GFRN is a signatory to most of the major natural resources
conventions and treaties including the following:

-   Convention on the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural
    Heritage,

-   Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by the Dumping of
    Wastes,

-   Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES),

-   Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals,

-   Convention for Cooperation in the Protection and Development of
    Marine and Coastal Environment of the West and Central Africa
    Region,

-   African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural
    Resources,

-   Convention on the Law of the Sea,

-   Vienne Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer,

-   Montreal Protocol on Substance that Deplete the Ozone Layer,

-   Basel Convention on the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes
    and their Disposal,

-   Framework Convention of Climate Change (FCCC),

-   Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD),

-   Convention on Desertification (CD), and

-   Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance.

Although this list is extensive, the compliance with the conditions of
these treaties varies widely. For instance, it is only in the past few
years, largely through the Akassa Project in the Niger Delta where
community monitoring and protection of sea turtles had begun, that
Nigeria was able to meet the conditions of the Convention on the
Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals from which it had
previously been excluded. Similarly, it was only in February 2001 that
Nigeria joined the Ramsar Convention and established its first Ramsar
site in the Hadejia-Nguru wetlands. Such increasing conservation
activities of the GFRN are an optimistic sign.

## Conservation Approaches in Nigeria

***Traditional Approaches***

There have long been traditional approaches to biodiversity conservation
in many communities around the country. In some areas, certain trees are
spared in the process of farming because of the usefulness of their
products, for providing shade or for religious purposes. The types of
trees that are protected vary from one community to another. In other
areas, some natural forests are dedicated to deities, deemed to be
sacred, and are therefore insulated from use and sometimes entry. The
protection and management of these forest areas is based on regulations
and taboos that are stipulated and approved by custom and accepted by
the local people. These anthropological reserves or sacred groves serve
as important reservoirs of living collections of useful plants from
which local people could obtain various items such as food, medicine and
other materials. In some areas, local customs also protect various
species from overharvesting within community land areas. Various rules
and taboos regarding the timing and amount of collections of some plant
species, taboos regarding catching fish with roe on their way upstream
to spawn, and other traditional measures also serve a biological
conservation role. Unfortunately, the human population pressures are
increasing, and more and more such customs are being lost in the
challenge of day-to-day survival of the increasingly resource-scarce
communities.

Other biodiversity conservation measures are inherent in traditional
agro-ecosystems that involve the maintenance of populations of viable
and adaptable plant races as well as wild and weedy relatives of crops
on farms or home gardens. This process allows for continued dynamic
adaptation of plants to the environment and the exchange of genes
between crops and wild relatives, thereby increasing genetic diversity.
As more and more farmers turn to improved hybrid species, however, this
practice is in decline and much of the natural variability is lost.

***Protected Areas***

Official biodiversity conservation activities in Nigeria have had a
strong focus on the establishment and maintenance of various types of
protected areas. At present, there are eight national parks managed by
the National Park Service, a parastatal federal government entity and
often in conjunction with various NGOs like Savanna Conservation Nigeria
and the NCF, and with support from the Leventis Foundation and other
private sector entities. These parks include a number of key wildlife
habitats and representative ecosystems throughout Nigeria and are among
the better protected of Nigeria's protected areas. Unfortunately, most
of these parks lack a master plan and all lack the human capacity and
financial resources to adequately protect and maintain them. In addition
to the national parks, on paper there is an extensive list of game and
forest reserves that are managed by various state entities. Within some
of the forest reserves and national parks are Strict Nature Reserves
("inviolate plots") that were set aside to preserve representative
forest habitats in an untouched state for posterity. Game reserves were
set up with the primary role of conservation of animal species. Although
there are exceptions---such as those reserves that are working with NGO
partners---for the most part these protected areas actually receive
little protection and are continually being eroded away by logging,
agricultural expansion and unlimited hunting and gathering activities.
Scattered around Nigeria are also some small protected areas that are
managed privately, such as the remnant forest plot at the IITA in
Ibadan, and the coastal swamp forest plot in Lagos that was purchased by
Chevron and now managed by the NCF. Although such reserves are often the
most protected natural habitats in Nigeria, they are also the smallest
in extent.

***Community Conservation Work***

Many conservationists believe that the best hope in protecting and
conserving natural resources is to involve communities in developing and
implementing their own resource management strategies. In Nigeria, this
work is strongly supported by a number of NGOs working in various
habitats and with different communities throughout the country. Savanna
Conservation Nigeria, for instance, is working on various community
development projects in areas around two national parks and one game
reserve in the savanna belt of Nigeria. Depending on the location and
the needs of the different communities, this work includes a number of
aspects such as conflict resolution between communities and the park,
self-managed hunter groups, and various poverty alleviation schemes. In
the southern forest belt of Nigeria, the NCF, the NGO Coalition for the
Environment, the DFID Community Forestry Project and other programs are
working with selected communities in and around the remaining forest
tracts using a variety of education, alternate sources of income and
natural resource management strategies. The Akassa Project similarly
works with fishing communities in the Niger Delta to empower them to
manage and/or protect their fisheries, mangroves, sea turtles and other
resources. The IUCN and NCF are likewise working with communities in the
Hadejia-Nguru wetlands area. Many other NGOs around the country are
working at the community level, with some success.

***Environmental Education***

The NCF has long played a role in helping to shape and implement
environmental education programs in Nigeria. In 1987, the NCF helped
develop and draft a national conservation education strategy that, among
other things, stipulates that this subject be integrated in the primary
and secondary public school curricula. Unfortunately, despite this
policy, resources and will are largely lacking to carry this out in most
schools in the country. One environmental education approach that seems
to be more effective is the development of Conservation Clubs in many
schools. These clubs are an extracurricular activity taught by
schoolteachers that have been trained and provided with appropriate
educational material by NCF. Besides NCF, many other NGOs also include
environmental education as one component of a fuller conservation-based
program. There is now also an environmental education certificate and
B.A. degree program at the University of Calabar and a couple of other
universities, which are providing teachers with appropriate knowledge
and skills to work with schools and NGOs as the demand for these
programs increases.

***Ex-situ Conservation Activities***

In many countries, *ex-situ* approaches, where plant and animal species
and/or genetic materials are maintained and studied away from their
natural habitats, are often widely used conservation strategies. In
Nigeria, this is true for plant conservation activities, especially
those that involve commercially important crop and tree species. Various
*ex-situ* techniques include seed storage, pollen storage, meristem and
tissue cultures, clonal seed orchards and others. In Nigeria, various
such *ex-situ* biodiversity conservation projects are conducted at the
Forestry Research Institute of Nigeria in Ibadan (which also does some
*in-situ* conservation work*),* Cocoa Research Institute of Nigeria,
Rubber Research Institute of Nigeria in Benin*,* Nigerian Institute for
Oil Palm Research*,* National Cereals Research Institute in Badaggi*,*
National Root Crop Research Institute, in Umudike*,* Institute for
Agricultural Research in Samaru*,* Institute of Agricultural Research
and Training, Moor Plantation in Ibadan, National Horticultural Research
Institute in Ibadan*,* and the National Center for Genetic Resources and
Biotechnology (NACGRAB). The IITA is a prominent international
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)
institution based in Ibadan that conducts various biodiversity
initiatives focused on diverse African crop species, including some
important to Nigeria. Nigeria also has a few botanic gardens and
arboreta, the most notable of which is the Murtala Mohammed Memorial
Botanical Gardens in Lagos.

Although it is widely recognized as a useful tool for plant
conservation, an *ex-situ* approach to conservation of animal species in
Nigeria is not yet a viable option in Nigeria. Some Nigerian
institutions are focusing on various domestic animal species, but not
with an eye to biological diversity. A few projects are also now
underway to "domesticate" the grass-cutter (*Thryonomys swinderianus*),
a rodent with great value as "bushmeat" but so far this has not proven
in most cases to be an economically viable approach to community
conservation. Zoos and aquariums are, for the most part, nonexistent or
in terrible disrepair. A few NGOs in Cross River with international
support, are the strong exception and are doing a good job in rescuing
and rehabilitating forest monkeys (*Cercopan*) and larger primates such
as drills and chimps (*Pandrillas*).

***Flora and Faunal Surveys***

Throughout the years, many surveys have been made of the flora and fauna
of selected areas and reserves in the country by university professors
and their students. Recently, in-depth surveys of the flora and fauna of
the Cross River tropical forest area have been undertaken by the WCS and
NCF, and various national parks and reserves are also receiving
increased survey attention. For the most part, however, any survey
information is largely scattered and difficult to access. As part of its
mandate under the CBD, the GFRN is beginning to start to consolidate
this information. Other countrywide initiatives, such as the Important
Bird Areas survey by the International Council for Bird Preservation
(ICBP), Birdlife and NCF, and the associated Wetlands Inventory by NCF
and other partners, are attempts to help remedy this need. The
Conservation Division of the FMoE is interested in developing a
countrywide flora and fauna survey, if sufficient resources and
capacity-building efforts become available.

***Other Approaches***

Many other approaches to biodiversity conservation are also evident in
Nigeria but to a much smaller extent than those major approaches
described above. A few organizations are working to help shape various
environmental policies. Some are engaged in research on particular
species in particular locations. Others are working to remove exotic
plant species, planting mangroves and other activities. Ecotourism
efforts, where these exist, are in their infancy, due largely to the
lack of tourists to this country despite the Nigerian National Park
Service's and various NGOs' best attempts.

A few conservation approaches applied successfully elsewhere in the
world have not yet become part of the Nigerian biodiversity scene. For
instance, no one seems to be talking about reintroducing species that
have become extirpated, and no large-scale zoos and aquariums are being
planned. As the capacity of Nigeria improves and the will to conserve
increases in strength, more than likely these initiatives too will
appear one day in Nigeria.

# 8.0 Overall Recommendations for further Biodiversity and Tropical Forests Conservation Efforts in Nigeria

Effective biodiversity and tropical forest conservation in Nigeria
requires a careful juxtaposition between the needs of a large and
growing human population today and the long-term sustainability of the
natural resources that people ultimately depend upon for the future. A
three-pronged approach is needed to recognize this dichotomy and to
strike an acceptable balance between today's needs and tomorrow's
quality of life for Nigerians:

-   **Sustainable agriculture**: In Nigeria, most of the original
    natural habitats have already been converted to agricultural uses
    and agricultural conversion is continuing to eat away at the rest of
    the natural ecosystems and the diversity of species contained
    therein. Continued efforts are needed to ensure the most effective
    utilization of existing farmlands and to increase their productivity
    and sustainability while working towards stemming agricultural
    conversion of the remaining natural areas.

-   **Sustainable use of remaining forest, wetland and savanna resources
    outside of protected area**: Efforts are needed to develop, promote
    and expand upon economically viable and sustainable uses of those
    natural areas that have not yet been converted to agriculture, tree
    monoculture plantations and aquaculture projects. Many of these
    areas are already heavily used by local communities, and in some
    cases, by commercial enterprises that obtain various NTFPs from
    them. Much more work is needed to ensure that key natural products
    are harvested sustainably by all those involved in their extraction.
    Further value-added approaches also need to be developed to bring
    more revenue from such products into the communities in critical
    natural areas.

-   **Adequate protection of protected areas**: Finally, even with steps
    one and two in place, there is still a strong need to ensure the
    solid protection of key protected areas under federal, state and
    community jurisdictions. Such protected areas provide a reservoir
    for biodiversity and critical ecosystem components, and may one day
    in Nigeria, like elsewhere, become an attractive focal point for
    tourists and citizens alike. Nigeria's protected areas for the most
    part still sorely need on-the-ground protection before they can be
    effective in these roles.

Within the framework of the status and threats to biodiversity and
tropical forests in Nigeria, the players and activities presently
underway to address them, and the inherent difficulties and challenges
that have come to light during this study, eight general recommendations
are made here. Many other interventions are also needed and possible,
but under the present conditions in Nigeria, these seem to be the most
needed in the short term, and the most likely to show positive results
for any development and conservation investments that are made at this
time. Specific recommendations include:

1.  Agricultural practices need further improvement throughout Nigeria
    to increase crop yields on existing agricultural lands, while
    helping to stem the loss of further natural habitats to agricultural
    conversion. Where appropriate, this work should include the
    introduction of sustainable forestry techniques and agroforestry
    practices that promote a diversity of useful native species.

2.  A bottom-up approach involving work at the community level is
    crucial to developing adequate conservation mechanisms for forests
    and biodiversity. Communities and NGOs need strengthening in aspects
    of management of natural resources, sustainable harvesting of key
    resources like some NTFPs and fisheries, and other aspects of
    community-based natural resources management (CBNRM). These
    community activities are especially needed in and around areas with
    global biodiversity and natural resources importance, such as the
    Niger Delta and the southeastern forests.

3.  From the top, overlapping and often conflicting environmental
    policies and institutional structures need to be sorted out in the
    GFRN. A clearinghouse for integration of environmental policies at
    the presidential level should be activated, empowered and supported
    to preclude conflicts among the mandates of different government
    agencies.

4.  Where adequate natural resource laws and regulations do exist, these
    need to be better understood by the populace and by the agencies
    charged with their enforcement, and they need to be enforced.
    Constituency building efforts should be undertaken to encourage
    public support for these efforts, and to ensure appropriate
    implementation of improved environmental policies.

5.  Existing protected areas need further strengthening and capacity
    building to ensure their adequate safeguarding. Master plans are
    still needed for most national parks, and virtually all of the game
    and forest reserves. Park officials, rangers and wardens need
    training in conservation, education, protection and community
    liaison work and they need to be better equipped to carry out their
    roles. The network of protected areas needs to be analyzed and
    expanded upon to include adequate representation of all major
    ecosystems in Nigeria, and to include corridors between them that
    protect the migratory routes of large mammals and other species.

6.  Environmental awareness and advocacy activities need to be
    strengthened at all levels in Nigeria. Public awareness campaigns
    are strongly encouraged to help develop further advocacy efforts for
    improved biodiversity and forest conservation in Nigeria. Existing
    NGOs that already play environmental advocacy roles should be
    further helped in these efforts.

7.  Environmental education needs to be strengthened and better
    integrated into primary and secondary school curricula, and better
    teaching materials need to be developed and more teachers trained in
    these subjects. The role of NGOs in environmental education
    activities also needs strengthening.

8.  More work is needed to identify information gaps and to gather
    baseline information on the species and ecosystems of Nigeria.
    Nigeria-wide faunal and floral surveys by specialists that go out to
    the field, then scientifically document and preserve their findings
    are especially needed at this time. Linkage Centers and other
    clearinghouse institutions should be strengthened in their roles of
    collecting, coordinating and analyzing biodiversity information and
    in disseminating this information to those who can use this
    information to make better natural resources management decisions.

# 9.0 The Relationship between USAID/Nigeria and the Conservation of Biodiversity and Tropical Forests 

At present, USAID/Nigeria has no SO or program that is designed
specifically with the conservation of biodiversity or tropical forests
in mind and no expressed immediate interest in doing so. If and when
sufficient environmental funds become available and sufficient political
interest is aroused, the USAID mission might well create a niche for
itself within one or more of the necessary conservation activities
listed in Section 8 of this report.

From a global biodiversity and tropical forests perspective, two
geographic areas of Nigeria are of particular concern: 1) the montane
and lowland forests bordering Cameroon in the South South Geopolitical
Zone and a bit further north; and 2) the mangrove and swamp forests in
the Niger Delta region in the South South and South East Zones. The
states in these zones might also be ones in which particular
biodiversity and tropical forestry activities might have the most global
impact. Depending on the political will and potential partnership base
in these individual states and in the Local Government Associations
(LGAs) and communities within them, some areas in these zones might be
most advantageous for any planned focused biodiversity conservation
activities by USAID.

In the meantime, in fulfillment of the FAA 118/119 U.S. Congressional
mandate, some ideas are suggested that outline various synergies between
existing SOs and possible biodiversity conservation activities, and a
number of cautions that program managers should keep in mind when
implementing their USAID programs in Nigeria. Moreover, whenever USAID
is implementing programs in the geographic areas mentioned above,
particular attention should be addressed to the potential global
biodiversity consequences.

#### SO1: Sustain transition to democratic civilian governance

**Synergies**: Work with civil society organizations and NGOs can
include various Nigerian groups that have an environmental perspective
and work to empower communities to effectively manage their own natural
resources. Nationally based NGOs could also be supported to develop
stronger advocacy for environmental issues.

**Cautions**: None are evident.

#### SO2: Strengthen institutional capacity for economic reform and enhance capacity to revive agricultural growth

**Synergies**: SO2 is expected to be the home for any new environmental
activities within USAID/Nigeria, and was so chosen for the many
synergies possible between agricultural programming and other
environmental objectives. One strong immediate synergy could be possible
within the programmatic area of support for improved crop varieties.
Many of the same organizations that work to develop improved crop
varieties are also involved in conserving wild crop relatives such as
those that abound in many areas of Nigeria, a known epicenter for
diversity of a number of varieties, including cowpeas, winged beans,
yams and a few others. Without necessitating new partners, existing
partners such as the IITA could be supported more fully to engage in
such important biodiversity conservation work. Another area of synergy
can occur at the policy level, with an effort to include among the
development of improved agricultural policies, those that recognize the
impact of agriculturization on other elements of the natural world and
attempt to balance these.

**Cautions**: There are many potential conflicts between agriculture and
natural environments in Nigeria and elsewhere. Agricultural encroachment
upon natural lands is one of the major threats to forests and
biodiversity in Nigeria. It is important that Mission-supported programs
do not encourage further expansion of agricultural activities into
forestland and other areas with rich natural biodiversity. This is
especially important for programs such as the Rural Sector Enhancement
Program (RUSEP) that in part aim to increase the area under cultivation
for target crops. Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) are needed in
specific locations before more land is cleared. In programs involving
the development of new crops, such as the gum arabic work, it is
important that only those trees known to be noninvasive are used in
these projects to reduce the impacts on biodiversity of native species
in and around target areas.

#### SO3: Develop the foundation for education reform

**Synergies**: There are a number of synergies possible between the
activities and contractors involved in SO3 and with activities that can
relate to the conservation of forests and biodiversity. Environmental
education in any form is a strong tool towards the development of a more
environmentally conscious society. Within this SO, for instance,
although a strong focus is literacy, this can be taught in some cases
using material with an environmental and natural history focus.
Interactive radio teaching tools can easily relay environmental stories
and material to students while also serving the primary literacy
function. Additionally, where the attention is on working with civic
society entities, such as Parent-Teacher Associations (PTAs) and the
like, work could also be done to include related efforts of
environmental educational NGOs, such as the NCF's Conservation Club
initiatives that are being developed in various locales around the
country.

**Cautions**: None are evident.

#### SO4: Increase the use of family planning, maternal and child health, child survival, STD/HIV services and preventative measures within a supportive policy environment

**Synergies**: Excessive population growth is a key element driving the
degradation of remaining forests and biodiversity in Nigeria. Where
effective family planning programs are in place, these effects lessen.
Strong synergies are possible between this SO and natural resources
conservation, especially in areas of rich biodiversity. Environmental
awareness activities could also be included as an expansion of the
population awareness efforts under the health SO, using the same
contractors and awareness techniques that have already been developed
for targeted Nigerians but with different messages.

**Cautions**: None are evident.

#### SPO: Improve management of critical elements of the infrastructure and energy sector

**Synergies**: There are few direct links between the activities in this
SPO that involve privatization of railroads and ports and better
aviation safety, with biodiversity and tropical forest conservation.
There are possible synergies in the development of alternate energy
sources in rural populations, however, especially those that are found
in and around forests where firewood is being unsustainably harvested.

**Cautions**: Care should be taken in improving farm-to-market roads in
order to ensure that these roads do not lead to increased logging and
other natural resource extractive activities along the way. All
site-specific activities should also be carefully guided to avoid undue
additional stresses on key natural resources and areas.

# Annexes

# Annex A. FAA Sections 118/119

Foreign Assistance Act, Part I, Section 118 - Tropical Forests

Sec. 118.\\73\\ Tropical Forests.

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

\\73\\ 22 U.S.C. 2151p-1. Sec. 118 was added by sec. 301(3) of Public
Law 99-529 (100 Stat. 3014). See also footnote 71.

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

(a) Importance of Forests and Tree Cover.\--In enacting section
    103(b)(3) of this Act the Congress recognized the importance of
    forests and tree cover to the developing countries. The Congress is
    particularly concerned about the continuing and accelerating
    alteration, destruction, and loss of tropical forests in developing
    countries, which pose a serious threat to development and the
    environment. Tropical forest destruction and loss\--

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(1) result in shortages of wood, especially wood for fuel; loss of
    biologically productive wetlands; siltation of lakes, reservoirs,
    and irrigation systems; floods; destruction of indigenous peoples;
    extinction of plant and animal species; reduced capacity for food
    production; and loss of genetic resources; and

(2) can result in desertification and destabilization of the earth\'s
    climate. Properly managed tropical forests provide a sustained flow
    of resources essential to the economic growth of developing
    countries, as well as genetic resources of value to developed and
    developing countries alike.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(b) Priorities.\--The concerns expressed in subsection (a) and the
    recommendations of the United States Interagency Task Force on
    Tropical Forests shall be given high priority by the President\--

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(1) in formulating and carrying out programs and policies with respect
    to developing countries, including those relating to bilateral and
    multilateral assistance and those relating to private sector
    activities; and

(2) in seeking opportunities to coordinate public and private
    development and investment activities which affect forests in
    developing countries.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(c) Assistance to Developing Countries.\--In providing assistance to
    developing countries, the President shall do the following:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(1) Place a high priority on conservation and sustainable management of
    tropical forests.

(2) To the fullest extent feasible, engage in dialogues and exchanges of
    information with recipient countries\--

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(A) which stress the importance of conserving and sustainably managing
    forest resources for the long-term economic benefit of those
    countries, as well as the irreversible losses associated with forest
    destruction, and

(B) which identify and focus on policies of those countries which
    directly or indirectly contribute to deforestation.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(3) To the fullest extent feasible, support projects and activities\--

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(A) which offer employment and income alternatives to those who
    otherwise would cause destruction and loss of forests, and

(B) which help developing countries identify and implement alternatives
    to colonizing forested areas.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(4) To the fullest extent feasible, support training programs,
    educational efforts, and the establishment or strengthening of
    institutions which increase the capacity of developing countries to
    formulate forest policies, engage in relevant land-use planning, and
    otherwise improve the management of their forests.

(5) To the fullest extent feasible, help end destructive slash-and-burn
    agriculture by supporting stable and productive farming practices in
    areas already cleared or degraded and on lands which inevitably will
    be settled, with special emphasis on demonstrating the feasibility
    of agroforestry and other techniques which use technologies and
    methods suited to the local environment and traditional agricultural
    techniques and feature close consultation with and involvement of
    local people.

(6) To the fullest extent feasible, help conserve forests which have not
    yet been degraded, by helping to increase production on lands
    already cleared or degraded through support of reforestation,
    fuelwood, and other sustainable forestry projects and practices,
    making sure that local people are involved at all stages of project
    design and implementation.

(7) To the fullest extent feasible, support projects and other
    activities to conserve forested watersheds and rehabilitate those
    which have been deforested, making sure that local people are
    involved at all stages of project design and implementation.

(8) To the fullest extent feasible, support training, research, and
    other actions which lead to sustainable and more environmentally
    sound practices for timber harvesting, removal, and processing,
    including reforestation, soil conservation, and other activities to
    rehabilitate degraded forest lands.

(9) To the fullest extent feasible, support research to expand knowledge
    of tropical forests and identify alternatives which will prevent
    forest destruction, loss, or degradation, including research in
    agroforestry, sustainable management of natural forests, small-scale
    farms and gardens, small-scale animal husbandry, wider application
    of adopted traditional practices, and suitable crops and crop
    combinations.

(10) To the fullest extent feasible, conserve biological diversity in
     forest areas by\--

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(A) supporting and cooperating with United States Government agencies,
    other donors (both bilateral and multilateral), and other
    appropriate governmental, intergovernmental, and nongovernmental
    organizations in efforts to identify, establish, and maintain a
    representative network of protected tropical forest ecosystems on a
    worldwide basis;

(B) whenever appropriate, making the establishment of protected areas a
    condition of support for activities involving forest clearance of
    degradation; and

(C) helping developing countries identify tropical forest ecosystems and
    species in need of protection and establish and maintain appropriate
    protected areas.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(11) To the fullest extent feasible, engage in efforts to increase the
     awareness of United States Government agencies and other donors,
     both bilateral and multilateral, of the immediate and long-term
     value of tropical forests.

(12) To the fullest extent feasible, utilize the resources and abilities
     of all relevant United States Government agencies.

(13) Require that any program or project under this chapter
     significantly affecting tropical forests (including projects
     involving the planting of exotic plant species)\--

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(A) be based upon careful analysis of the alternatives available to
    achieve the best sustainable use of the land, and

(B) take full account of the environmental impacts of the proposed
    activities on biological diversity, as provided for in the
    environmental procedures of the Agency for International
    Development.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(14) Deny assistance under this chapter for\--

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(A) the procurement or use of logging equipment, unless an environmental
    assessment indicates that all timber harvesting operations involved
    will be conducted in an environmentally sound manner which minimizes
    forest destruction and that the proposed activity will produce
    positive economic benefits and sustainable forest management
    systems; and

(B) actions which significantly degrade national parks or similar
    protected areas which contain tropical forests or introduce exotic
    plants or animals into such areas.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(15) Deny assistance under this chapter for the following activities
     unless an environmental assessment indicates that the proposed
     activity will contribute significantly and directly to improving
     the livelihood of the rural poor and will be conducted in an
     environmentally sound manner which supports sustainable
     development:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(A) Activities which would result in the conversion of forest lands to
    the rearing of livestock.

(B) The construction, upgrading, or maintenance of roads (including
    temporary haul roads for logging or other extractive industries)
    which pass through relatively undegraded forest lands.

(C) The colonization of forest lands.

(D) The construction of dams or other water control structures which
    flood relatively undegraded forest lands.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(d) PVOs and Other Nongovernmental Organizations.\--Whenever feasible,
    the President shall accomplish the objectives of this section
    through projects managed by private and voluntary organizations or
    international, regional, or national nongovernmental organizations
    which are active in the region or country where the project is
    located.

(e) Country Analysis Requirements.\--Each country development strategy
    statement or other country plan prepared by the Agency for
    International Development shall include an analysis of-

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(1) the actions necessary in that country to achieve conservation and
    sustainable management of tropical forests, and

(2) the extent to which the actions proposed for support by the Agency
    meet the needs thus identified.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(f) Annual Report.\--Each annual report required by section 634(a) of
    this Act shall include a report on the implementation of this
    section.

**Foreign Assistance Act, Part I, Section 119 - Endangered Species**

Sec. 119.\\75\\ Endangered Species.\--

(a) The Congress finds the survival of many animal and plant species is
    endangered by over-hunting, by the presence of toxic chemicals in
    water, air and soil, and by the destruction of habitats. The
    Congress further finds that the extinction of animal and plant
    species is an irreparable loss with potentially serious
    environmental and economic consequences for developing and developed
    countries alike. Accordingly, the preservation of animal and plant
    species through the regulation of the hunting and trade in
    endangered species, through limitations on the pollution of natural
    ecosystems, and through the protection of wildlife habitats should
    be an important objective of the United States development
    assistance.

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

\\75\\ 22 U.S.C. 2151q. Sec. 119, pars. (a) and (b) were added by sec.
702 of the International Environment Protection Act of 1983 (title VII
of the Department of State Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1984 and
1985, Public Law 98-164; 97 Stat. 1045).

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

(b) \\75\\ In order to preserve biological diversity, the President is
    authorized to furnish assistance under this part, notwithstanding
    section 660,\\76\\ to assist countries in protecting and maintaining
    wildlife habitats and in developing sound wildlife management and
    plant conservation programs. Special efforts should be made to
    establish and maintain wildlife sanctuaries, reserves, and parks; to
    enact and enforce anti-poaching measures; and to identify, study,
    and catalog animal and plant species, especially in tropical
    environments.

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

\\76\\ Section 533(d)(4)(A) of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing,
and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1990 (Public Law 101-167; 103
Stat. 1227), added \`\`notwithstanding section 660\'\' at this point.

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

(c) \\77\\ Funding Level.\--For fiscal year 1987, not less than
    \$2,500,000 of the funds available to carry out this part (excluding
    funds made available to carry out section 104(c)(2), relating to the
    Child Survival Fund) shall be allocated for assistance pursuant to
    subsection (b) for activities which were not funded prior to fiscal
    year 1987. In addition, the Agency for International Development
    shall, to the fullest extent possible, continue and increase
    assistance pursuant to subsection (b) for activities for which
    assistance was provided in fiscal years prior to fiscal year 1987.

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

\\77\\ Pars. (c) through (h) were added by sec. 302 of Public Law 99-
529 (100 Stat. 3017).

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

(d) \\77\\ Country Analysis Requirements.\--Each country development
    strategy statement or other country plan prepared by the Agency for
    International Development shall include an analysis of-

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(1) the actions necessary in that country to conserve biological
    diversity, and

(2) the extent to which the actions proposed for support by the Agency
    meet the needs thus identified.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(e) \\77\\ Local Involvement.\--To the fullest extent possible, projects
    supported under this section shall include close consultation with
    and involvement of local people at all stages of design and
    implementation.

(f) \\77\\ PVOs and Other Nongovernmental Organizations.\-- Whenever
    feasible, the objectives of this section shall be accomplished
    through projects managed by appropriate private and voluntary
    organizations, or international, regional, or national
    nongovernmental organizations, which are active in the region or
    country where the project is located.

(g) \\77\\ Actions by AID.\--The Administrator of the Agency for
    International Development shall-

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(1) cooperate with appropriate international organizations, both
    governmental and nongovernmental;

(2) look to the World Conservation Strategy as an overall guide for
    actions to conserve biological diversity;

(3) engage in dialogues and exchanges of information with recipient
    countries which stress the importance of conserving biological
    diversity for the long-term economic benefit of those countries and
    which identify and focus on policies of those countries which
    directly or indirectly contribute to loss of biological diversity;

(4) support training and education efforts which improve the capacity of
    recipient countries to prevent loss of biological diversity;

(5) whenever possible, enter into long-term agreements in which the
    recipient country agrees to protect ecosystems or other wildlife
    habitats recommended for protection by relevant governmental or
    nongovernmental organizations or as a result of activities
    undertaken pursuant to paragraph (6), and the United States agrees
    to provide, subject to obtaining the necessary appropriations,
    additional assistance necessary for the establishment and
    maintenance of such protected areas;

(6) support, as necessary and in cooperation with the appropriate
    governmental and nongovernmental organizations, efforts to identify
    and survey ecosystems in recipient countries worthy of protection;

(7) cooperate with and support the relevant efforts of other agencies of
    the United States Government, including the United States Fish and
    Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the Forest Service, and
    the Peace Corps;

(8) review the Agency\'s environmental regulations and revise them as
    necessary to ensure that ongoing and proposed actions by the Agency
    do not inadvertently endanger wildlife species or their critical
    habitats, harm protected areas, or have other adverse impacts on
    biological diversity (and shall report to the Congress within a year
    after the date of enactment of this paragraph on the actions taken
    pursuant to this paragraph);

(9) ensure that environmental profiles sponsored by the Agency include
    information needed for conservation of biological diversity; and

(10) deny any direct or indirect assistance under this chapter for
     actions which significantly degrade national parks or similar
     protected areas or introduce exotic plants or animals into such
     areas.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(h) \\77\\ Annual Reports.\--Each annual report required by section
    634(a) of this Act shall include, in a separate volume, a report on
    the implementation of this section.

# Annex B. Documents and Sources Consulted

Adeola. A.O. and Adelipek, N.O. 2001. Nigerian Biodiversity Update \--
Executive Summary. Abeoluta (Nigeria). 19p.

Agboola, S.A. 1979. *An Agricultural Atlas of Nigeria*. Oxford
University Press, Oxford (U.K.)

Ake, Claude, "Shelling Nigeria Ablaze," Tell, 1/29/96, p.34

Akinwande, A. 2002. Personal communication. Permanent Secretary, Oyo
State Ministry of Environment and Water Resources.

Aminu-Kano, M., 2001. The State of Nigeria's Forests and Biodiversity.
Presented at: National Summit of the Nigerian Environment, Abuja, Sept.
18-20, 2001.

Anonymous. 1999. "Environmental degradation threatens Nigeria". Daily
Mail & Guardian (Johannesburg, South Africa), August 12, 1999.

Anonymous. 2002. Privatising Nigerian Oil. African Business, February
2002. IC Publications, London (United Kingdom). p.25.

ARD, Inc. 2001a. Cambodia Environmental Review: Status and Trends in
Environmental Management and Options for Future Action. Prepared for
USAID/Cambodia. 50p. App.

ARD, Inc. 2001b. Future Directions for USAID Support to Conflict
Mitigation in Nigeria. Burlington (Vermont, USA). ARD/USAID.

Atlapedia. 2000. Nigeria. Altapedia online,
[www.atlapedia.com/online/countries/nigeria.htm](http://www.atlapedia.com/online/countries/nigeria.htm)

Bailey, M. 2002. Personal Communication. Marianne Bailey, Feb. 4, 2002.
Office of International Affairs, U.S. EPA, Washington DC.

Bassey, A. E. and J.F. Oates. 2001. Proceedings of the International
Workshop and Conference on the Conservation of the Cross River Gorillas,
Calabar, Nigeria, 6^th^-9^th^ April, 2001. 79 P.

Beak Consultants, Ltd, Geomatics International, and Geomatics Nigeria,
Ltd. 1999. Forest Resources Study Nigeria -- Revised National Report,
Volume I -- Overview. Ibadan (Nigeria).

Bendi, M. 2002. See:
http://www.mbendi.co.za/indy/ming/coal/af/ng/p0005.htm

Caldecott, J. and A.B. Morakinyo. 1996. [In]{.underline}:
Decentralization and Biodiversity Conservation. World Bank,Washington,
D.C. pp.79-93.

Callahan, K. 1995. "California Air Resources Board Proposes to Suspend
ZEV Mandates". Electric Transportation Coalition. CARB. p.1.

Center for African Settlement and Studies (CASSAD). 2001a. Situation
Analysis Report. Ibadan (Nigeria). p.143.

CASSAD. 2001b. Technical Details on the Implementation of Pilot
Waste-to-Wealth Projects in Ibadan, Port-Harcourt and Kaduna. CASSAD,
Ibadan (Nigeria). Prepared for UNICEF, Lagos.

Center for African Settlement Studies and Development. 2002. The Nigeria
Environment Profile. In DRAFT. . Ibadan (Nigeria). 117p.

Center for Environment and Development in Africa. 1997. Coastal Profile
of Nigeria. FEPA Large Marine Ecosystem Project for the Gulf of Guinea.
73p.

Chenvirol Resources, Ltd. n.d. Delta State Environmental Action Plan.
Prepared for GFRN Federal Environmental Protection Agency and Delta
State Environmental Protection Agency. 206p.

Collins, M. and G. Evans. 1986. The influence of fluvial sediment supply
on coastal erosion in West and Central Africa. Shoreline Management 2:
5-12.

*The Economist*. 2002. March 9, 2002, p.54.

Ellis, G. (Director). 1994. "The Drilling Fields." Text from film by
Catma Films.
[www.essentialaction.org/shell/issues.htm](http://www.essentialaction.org/shell/issues.htm).

Environmental Resources Managers Ltd. 1997a. Niger Delta Environmental
Survey Phase 1 Report, Vol. I: Environmental and Socioeconomic
Characteristics. Lagos (Nigeria). 271p.

Environmental Resources Managers Ltd. 1997b. Niger Delta Environmental
Survey Phase 1 Report, Vol. IV: Abridged Version of Findings and
Recommendations of Phase 1 Report. Lagos (Nigeria). 118p.

Ezeala, P. 2000. Sahara Desert closes in on Nigeria. NatureWatch, Jan.
2000: 6-8.

Ezealor, A. U. 2002. Important Bird Areas, Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Draft, 2002. Nigerian Conservation Foundation, Abuja, Nigeria; Royal
Society for the Protection of Birds, Bedfordshire, UK and BirdLife
International, Cambridge, UK. Draft \-- January 2002. 36p.

FAO, 1981. Land Use Area Data for Nigeria. Based on the work of P.E.T.
Allen and N.N. Shinde, Project Working Document No. 1, Vol. 2, FO:
NIR/77/009. Federal Department of Forestry, Lagos.

FEPA. 1992. Biological Diversity in Nigeria, A Country Study 1991-92.
Abuja (Nigeria). 57p.

FEPA, 1996. Agenda 21: Natural Resource Aspects of Sustainable
Development in Nigeria. Abuja (Nigeria). 47p.

FEPA. 1997. National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. Abuja
(Nigeria). 99p.

Geomatics International Inc., Geomatics Nigeria Ltd. and Beak
Consultants Ltd. 1998. The assessment of vegetation and land use changes
in Nigeria between 1976/78 and 1993/95. Submitted to: Forest Management,
Evaluation and Coordinating Unit (FORMECU), Nigerian Federal Department
of Forestry under the World Bank Environmental Management Project (EMP).

Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (GFRN). 1997. National
Urban Development Policy for Nigeria. Federal Ministry of Works and
Housing. 66p.

GFRN. 1999a. Combating Desertification and Mitigating the Effects of
Drought in Nigeria. National Report on the Implementation of the UN
Convention to Combat Desertification, Submission at the 3rd Session of
the Conference of the of the Parties, Recife, Brazil. Ministry of
Environment. 36p.

GFRN. 1999b. National Park Service Decree 1999. 43p.

GFRN.1999c. National Policy on the Environment, Revised Edition. Federal
Environmental Protection Agency. 43p.

GFRN. 2000. National Action Programme to Combat Desertification and
Mitigate the Effects of Drought. Ministry of Environment. 58p.

GFRN. 2000. Approved Structure and Programmes of the Federal Ministry of
Environment. Ministry of the Environment.

GFRN. 2001a. Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (Draft). The
National Core Team for the PRSP Project. 50p.

GFRN. February, 2001b. Report of the Presidential Committee on the
Review of the 1999 Constitution: The Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria 1999 (Amendment) Bill, 2001. Volume II Parts 1-3.

Foloruunso, O. 2002. Personal communication. Coordinator, UNIMAID/FEPA
Linkage. Maidugari (Nigeria).

Gadzama, N.M. 2000. The problem of desertification in Nigeria. Presented
at: UK/Nigeria Bilatral Forum on Environment, 14 September 2000.
Whitehall, London, U.K. 16p.

Gadzama. N.M. 2002. Personal communication. University of Maiduguri

Gundling, G. 2000. Cross River State Community Forestry Project: Legal
Consultancy Report Part II; Forestry Legislation for Cross River State
-- A Review and Concept for New Legislation. DFID/ERM, UK & Scott Wilson
Kirkpartick & Co. Ltd. 38p.

Hilton-Taylor, C. (compiler) 2000. 2000 IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. xviii and 61 P.

Hudec, P.P., E.C. Akpokodje, and M.O. Umenweke. 1999. Causes and
prevention of gully erosion in South-East Nigeria. International
Development Research Centre. Windsor, Ontario (Canada).
<http://www.cs.uwindsor.ca/gully/erosion>

Isebor, C.E. and Awosika, L.F. 1993. Nigerian Mangrove Resources: Status
and Management. *In*: Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of
Mangrove Forests in Latin America and Africa Regions. International
Society for Mangrove Ecosystems. Mangrove Ecosystems Technical Report
No. PD 114/90. pp.169-185.

Ita, E.O. 1993. Inland Fishery Resources of Nigeria. CIFA Occasional
Paper No. 20. FAO, Rome. 120p.

Ita, E.O. 1994. Aquatic Plants and Wetland Wildlife Resources in
Nigeria. FAO. Rome. 52p.

Ita, E.O., E. Saaado, A. Pandogari and B. Ibitoye. 1985. Inventory
survey of Nigerian inland waters and their fishery resources I. A
preliminary checklist of inland water bodies in Nigeria with special
reference to ponds, lakes, reservoirs and major rivers. Kanji Lake
Research Institute Technical Report Series No. 14. KLRI, New Bussa. 51p.

IUCN. 1993. Environmental Synopsis \-- Nigeria. Gland (Switzerland).
39p.

Jones, R. 1975. Report on a soil conservation consultancy to study soil
erosion problems on the Jos Plateau. Land Resource Report No. 6, Central
Nigeria Project. Ministry of Overseas Development, London. 16 p.

Lagos State Government. n.d. Policy and the environment. Lagos State
Environmental Protection Agency. 13p.

Larson, TB. 1997. Butterflies of the Cross River National
Park---diversity writ large. Proceedings of the workshop: Essential
Partnership --- the Forest and the People. Cross River National Park,
Calabar, Nigeria. Pp. 229-235.

Longtau, S. R. and A. Gwaivangmin. 1999. Rethinking natural resource
degration in semi-arid Sub-Saharan Africa: Soil and water conservation
in northern Nigeria. CRUDAN, Jos (Nigeria) for ODI, London (U.K.) 43p.

Maps.com. 2001. Nigeria factbook.
www.maps.com/explore/factbook/nigeria.html

Mbagwu, I. 2000. Erosion eats up southeastern Nigeria. NatureWatch, Jan.
2000: 30-31.

Ministry of Environment (MOE). 1999. Approved Forestry Development
Programme. Federal Department of Forestry, Abuja (Nigeria). 95p.

MOE. 2000. Report of the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Combating
Desertification and Deforestation. MOE, Abuja (Nigeria). 109p.

MOE. 2001. Nigeria, First National Biodiversity Report, July 2001.
Abuja, Nigeria. 40p.

MOE, 2001. A Survey of Wetlands in Nigeria. A report of survey conducted
by the Nigerian Conservation Foundation for MOE, Abuja, Nigeria. 34 p.

Moffat, D. and O. Linden. 1995. Perception and Reality: Assessing
Priorities for Sustainable Development in the Niger River Delta. Ambio.
Vol. 24, No. 7-8, pg. 527-538.

Niger Delta Development Commission. 2001. NDDC Profile. NDDC, Port
Harcourt (Nigeria). 26p.

Nigerian Environmental Study/Action Team (NEST). 1991. Nigeria\'s
Threatened Environment, A National Profile. NEST, Ibadan (Nigeria).
288p.

Nigerian Conservation Foundation (NCF). 2000. A Directory of Nigerian
Non-Governmental Organizations Involved in Environmental Issues. NCF,
Lagos (Nigeria). 30 p.

Oates. J. F. and R.A. Bergl. 2001. Biodiversity Patterns and
Conservation in the Gulf of Guinea Forests. Conservation International,
Washington D.C. and The Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, NY.
October 2001 Draft copy. 96 P.

Odivwri, E. 2002. "State Govs are Diverting Ecological Fund". [This
Day]{.underline}. Leaders & Company Ltd., Lagos (Nigeria).

Okopido, O.F. 2002. Personal communication. Minister of State, Nigeria
Ministry of Environment.

Ola, D. and I. Osuoka. 2000. Pipe Dream \-- The West Africa Gas Pipeline
Project and the Environment. Benin City, Nigeria. Environmental Rights
Action/Friends of the Earth, Nigeria & Oilwatch Africa . 30p.

Ola-Adams, B.A. 1999. Biodiversity Inventory of Omo biosphere Reserve,
Nigeria. Nigerian National Man and the Biosphere Committee. UNESCO.
351p.

Olaniran, O. 2000. Nigeria: Environmental Assessment of Proposed
Community Based Poverty Reduction Project. The World Bank. 28p.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2001.
"Older Gasoline Vehicles in Developing Countries and Economies in
Transition: Their Importance and the Policy Options for Addressing
Them." OECD, Paris, p.20.

Owuama, C.O. 1997. Environmental consequences of poor runoff management
in South-East Nigeria. Journal of Environmental Systems 25(3).

Page, K. 2000. USAID/Kenya Strategic Plan: Environmental Threats and
Opportunities Assessment. 40p. App.

Pollutech Nigeria Limited. 1996. "Proceedings of the First Consensus
Building Workshop on the Preparation of Rivers and Bayelsa States
Environmental Action Plan. Port Harcourt, Nigerian Federal Environmental
Protection Agency and World Bank.

Rangeley, R. 1994. International River Basin Organizations in
Sub-Saharan Africa. Technical Paper 250. World Bank, Washington, DC

Raufu, A. 2000. War on Nigeria\'s wetlands. NatureWatch, Jan. 2000:
10-11.

Russo, S. 1994. Consideration of biological diversity and tropical
forestry in the context of country program strategy planning in the
Bureau for Africa: Review and guidelines. Winrock/EPAT, Arlington, VA
(Contract No. DHR-5555-Q-00-1085-00. 117p.

SELF, 2000. In:
[http://www.self.org/nigeria.asp](http://www.self.org/nigeria.asp))

Shah, J.J., T. Nagpal, and C. Brandon (eds) 1997. Urban Air Quality
Management Strategy in Asia. A Guidebook. Washington, DC, The World
Bank. p.111

Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria, Ltd. 2000a. Continuous
Stakeholders Consultation for Sustainable Development, Year 2000 and
Beyond. Lagos (Nigeria). 44p.

Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria, Ltd. 2000b. 1999 People
and the Environment Annual Report. Lagos (Nigeria). 42p.

Shell Petroleum Development Company Nigeria, Ltd. 2001a. "Limited
Environmental Impact Assessment for Sokei-Buguma-Alakiri-Bonny Trunk
Line Replacement." Shell Nigeria, Port Harcourt (Nigeria).

Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria, Ltd. 2001b. 2000 People
and the Environment Annual Report. Lagos (Nigeria). 51p.

Shimang, G.N. 2002. Issues of fisheries development in Nigeria ---
Constraints and prospects. A paper presented at the Sustainable
Fisheries Workshop. World Bank, Washington, DC. 35p.

Simire, M. 2000. The rising profile of community forestry in Cross River
State. NatureWatch, Jan. 2000:34-35.

Simpson, F., P.P. Hudec, E.C. Akpokodje, and M.O. Umenweke. 1999.
Strategic water resource management, Nigeria. *In*: Proceedings, People
and Systems for Water, Sanitation and Health, 27^th^ WEDC Conference.
Lusaka (Zambia). Pp.313-315.

Sinnatamby, G. 1990. Low Cost Sanitation. [In]{.underline}: *The Poor
Die Young*, J.E. Hardoy, S. Cairncross and D. Satterthwaite (eds.)
Earthscan, London. Pp.127-157.

Streen, R.E. and R.R. White (eds). 1989. *African Cities in Crisis:
Managing Rapid Urban Growth*. Westview Press, Boulder (Colorado). p.85

United Nations Development Program. 2000. Nigeria Common Country
Assessment (DRAFT). UNDP. Lagos (Nigeria).

United Nations Development Program (UNDP). 2001 "Energy and the
Challenge of Sustainability". World Energy Assesment. UNDP, New York.
p.199.

US Department of Energy (DOE). 2000. See:
www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/nigeria.html.

US DOE. 2002. See: www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/africa.html

U.S. Department of State (DOS). 2000. Nigeria Fact Sheet.
<http://www.state.gov/p/af/ci/ni/>

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1997. "Water on Tap: A
Consumer's Guide to the Nation's Drinking Water." U.S. EPA. Office of
Drinking Water. EPA Publication No. 815-K-97-002. p.6.

U.S. EPA. 2001. Regional Conference on the Phase-out of Leaded Gasoline
in Africa. International Conference in Dakar, Senegal. June 26-29, 2001.

World Conservation and Monitoring Centre. 1988. Nigeria, Conservation of
Biological Diversity. Cambridge, UK. 60p.

World Bank. 1990. Towards the Development of an Environmental Action
Plan for Nigeria. The World Bank, Washington, DC. 110p.

World Bank. 1993. "Air Quality Management in Sri Lanka," Inter-country
Study No. 1. p.22

World Bank. 2000. See:
http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/essd/essd.nsf/GlobalView/PPAH/\$File/70_oil.pdf

World Bank. 2001. Nigeria at a glance. <http://www.worldbank.org/data/>

World Resources Institute. 1993. "World Resources 1992--1993".
WRI/UNEP/UNDP, Washington, DC. p. 203

World Energy Council. 1993. "Energy for Tomorrow's World: The Realities,
the Real Opportunities, and the Agenda for Achievement". Kogan Page,
London/New York. p. 51.

World Energy Council. 1995. Survey of Energy Resources. WEC, London.
p.56.

World Resources Institute. 1996. "The Urban Environment 1996--1997". WRI
with the World Bank and the United Nations, Washington, DC. p. 86.

Watts, M. 1997. Black God, White Heat. [In]{.underline}: *Geographies of
Resistance*. Pile, S. and M. Keith (eds). London, Routledge.

Yudelman, M. 1987. Prospects for agricultural development in Sub-Saharan
Africa. Occasional Paper. Winrock International, Little Rock (Arkansas).

# Annex C. Institutions and Persons Consulted

######## Borno State, Maiduguri 

[University of Maiduguri]{.underline}, 3 & 4 Mar 02

Prof. N. Gadzama, Founder, Center of Arid Lands Studies

Eml: gadzama@infoweb.abs.net

Prof. O. Folorunso, Dean of Agriculture and Coordinator, UNIMAID/FEPA
Linkage

Eml: olatuinji@infoweb.abs.net

[Borno State Ministry of Housing and Environment]{.underline}, 4 & 5 Mar
02

Mr. A. Ashemi, Commissioner Tel: 076-323-856

Mr. A.G. Ndirmbula, Permanent Secretary Tel: 076-232-856

Mr. A. Abana, Director, Environmental Health & Waste Management, BOSEPA

Mr. M. Shettima, Director, Division of Environment

[Chad Basin Development Authority]{.underline}, 4 Mar 02

Mr. S. Dumbai, Executive Director/Services Tel: 076-231-036

[ProNatura/CIDA Agroforestry & Afforestation (Pilot)
Project]{.underline}, 5 Mar 02

Mr. Mari Madu, Coordinator Tel: 076-342-667

Mr. M. Souley, Deputy Director, BOSEPA & Assistant Coordinator

[Borno State Agriculture Development Program]{.underline}, 5 Mar 02

Acting Program Manager

Mr. J. Daniel, Director, Agricultural Technical Services

Director, Monitoring & Evaluation

Director, Fadama

Director, Institutions

[Borno State Water Corporation]{.underline}, 5 Mar 02

Mr. M.C. Barma, Acting General Manager

[Borno State Ministry of Animals & Forestry]{.underline}, 5 Mar 02

Mr. M. Kurna, Director, Forestry Tel: 076-232-956

[Nietal Nigeria, Ltd]{.underline}., 5 Mar 02

Mr. M. U. Tomsu, General Manager Eml: tomsu@infoweb.abs.net

**Cross River State, Calabar**

[Cross River National Park]{.underline}; 23 Feb 02

Abong E. Abong, Tourism Officer, Cross River National Park Tel:
089-232-2261

General Manager, CRNP

Tony Bassey, NCF/Regional Secretary Southeast Tel: 087-236-593

Eml: biodiversity@hyperia.com

[Cercopan]{.underline}, 24 Feb 02

Ken Banks, Project Coordinator Tel: 087-234-670

> Eml: cercopan@compuserve.com

Sarah Seymour, Darwin Initiative Project---in-country coord.

Jennifer Schell, Fundraising/PR, 'Debo, vet

[Pandrillus Foundation]{.underline}; 24 Feb 02

Liza Gadsby, Project Co-director Tel: 087-234-310

> Eml: drill@infoweb.abs.net

[Calabar Forestry Commission]{.underline}, 25 Feb 02

Colo D. Agbor, Permanent Secretary, Forestry and his staff: Chris Agbou,
Leo Agbor

Tel: 087-236-453 Eml: crsfp@betta.linkserve.com

[Cross River State Water Board, Ltd.]{.underline}

Enambe E. Enambe, Secretary

Mark Uma Echeghe, Public Relations

B.B. Offiong, Assistant Director

David Animpuye, Commercial Department

Engr. Elemi B. Towa, Director Planning Department

Nte Basiekanem, M.D.

[DFID Community Forestry Project/Calabar]{.underline}; 25 Feb 02

Robert Spencer, Project Manager, CRS Community Forestry Project

Tel: 087-236-452 Eml: crscfp@betta.linkserve.com

Dr. David Atte (community development advisor) Eml:
datte@betta.linkserve.com

Mrs. Oma (awareness, education and outreach)

[Institute of Oceangraphy, Univ. of Calabar]{.underline}; 25 Feb 02

Prof. Obonekezie, Director

Sieghard Holzloehner, oceanography and marine biology

> Eml: gbis@phca.linkserve.com

Paul Udo, Sr. Research Fellow

Edet Ita, Res. Fellow

Ekom Akpan, Dept. of Physical Oceanography Eml: akpanrobek@yahoo.com

[Export P Zone (EPZ)]{.underline}

Nick Mirpuri, Director, Combination Industries Ltd Tel: 87-210-0022

Eml: info@niksnacks.com

Nimisha Mirpuri, Alternate Director, Combination Industries Ltd

######## Federal Capital Territory, Abuja 

[U.S. Agency for International Development]{.underline}, 11-15; 1, 11-14
Mar

Mr. T. Hobgood, Mission Director

Ms. S. Suggs, Deputy Mission Director

Ms. D. Rollins, Program Officer

Ms. L. Gorton, General Development Officer, SO4 Team Leader

Dr. Ravi Aulakh, Chief, Office of Economic Growth**,** SO2 Team Leader

Tel: 09-413-8374 Eml: raulakh@usaid.gov

Mr. A. Gudugi, Agricultural Economist

Mr. N. Okaro, Performance Monitoring Specialist Eml: nokaro@usaid.gov

Mr. W. Duncan, Private Sector Officer

Dr. Eke Uka, Macro Economist

Dr. John R. Brodman, Manager, Energy Program Eml: jbrodman@usaid.gov

Ms. M. Wright, Democracy & Governance Officer, SO1 Team Leader

Ms. E. Hart, Democracy & Governance Advisor

Dr. Sandy Oleksy-Ojikutu, Senior Education Advisor Eml:
sojikutu@usaid.gov

[U.S. Embassy]{.underline}, 11 Mar 02

Mr. H. Jeter, U.S. Ambassador

[Federal Ministry of Environment]{.underline}, 11, 13, 14 Feb 02

Dr. Imeh F. Okopido, Hon. Minister of State

Tel: 09-523-4931 Eml: imet.okopido@hyperia.com

Mr. A. Olojede Tel: 09-234-2807 Eml: aolojede@yahoo.com

#### 

#### Department of Conservation/Ministry of Environment, 4 Mar 02

John Mshelbwala, Chief Conservation Officer

World Bank Resident Mission, 14 Feb 02

Dr. Samuelwari Eremie, Senior Agricultural Specialist

Tel: 09-314-5269 Eml: seremie@worldbank.org

FAO Resident Mission; 15 Feb 02

Mr. Hashim A-Shami Tel: 09-413-7547 Eml: fao-nga@field.fa.org

Mr. El Hadj Omar Tel: 09-413-7547 Eml: fao-nga@field.fao.org

CIDA Mission; 15 Feb 02

Mr. Chris Gilbreth

Paul Adebo, Program Assistant

Ms. Evelyn Lee, Counsellor, Head of AID Eml:
evelyn.lee@dfait-maeci.gc.ca

#### National Assembly; 14 Mar 02

Honorable Nze Chidi Duru, Chairman, Committee on Privatization &
Commercialization, House of Representatives, GFRN

Tel: 09-523-5017 Eml: nzeduru@yahoo.com

Honorable Lynda Chuba Ikpeazu, Chairman, Sub-Committee on Erosion and
Flood Control, Environment Committee, House of Representatives, GFRN

Tel: 09-523-5052 Eml: lyndachuba@yahoo.com

#### National Democratic Institute, 13-14 Mar 02

Wayne Propst, Resident Director Tel: 09-523-5052

> Eml: wpropstndi@aol.com

Fran Farmer, Senior Technical Advisor Tel: 09-523-3341

Eml: ffarmerndi \@aol.com

Mr. Boudrin Adebo, Program Assistant Tel: 09-523-3341

Eml: joeadebo@aol.com

[Nigeria National Park Service]{.underline}; 15 Feb 02

Alh. Lawan B. Marguba, Conservator General Tel: 09-234-5508

[ProNatura/Leventis Foundation]{.underline} 28 Feb 02

Mr. Phil Hall

Mr. Ahmed Mantey

## Kaduna State, Kaduna & Birnin Gwari 

[Kaduna State, Environmental Protection Agency]{.underline} (KEPA), 4
Mar 02

Aminu S. Sasri, Director, Laboratory Services,

Raymond N. Angani, General Manager Tel: 062-236-501

Esther S. Kazah, Director, Environmental Technology

G. Hussani, Director of Enforcement

[Kaduna State Ministry of Environmental and Natural Resources
(MENR)]{.underline}, 4 Mar 02

Tanima Jibril Jama'a, Permanent Secretary Tel: 062-211-600

John Haruna Malan, Hon. Commissioner Environment Tel: 062-211-963

Danjuma Azumi, Zonal Director, (Federal)

Aluju Jumare, Director, Policy and Institutional Framework

Rufai Alhaji Mohammad, Director of Environment Tel: 062-211-600

Abdullah H. Mohammad, Director of Finance and Administration

Timothy P. Boo, Project Manager, KDFMP Afaka

[Kaduna State, Ministry of Agriculture,]{.underline} 4 Mar 02

Alh. Saidu Kakangi, Permanent Secretary Tel: 062-248-321

[Kaduna State, Agricultural Development Project]{.underline}, 6 Mar 02

Dr. Abdulkadir A. Kassim, Project Manager, Tel: 062-238-212

[Traditional Authority, Birnin Gwari LGA]{.underline}, 5 Mar 02

Waziri, Abdelkader Jabril

[Kumuku National]{.underline} Park, 5 Mar 02

Alh. Ibrahim M. Goni, Officer-in-Charge

[Birnin Gwari Local Government]{.underline}, 5 Mar 02

Idriss Musalla AlHassan, Council Secretary

[Nigerian Breweries Plc]{.underline}, Kaduna, 5 Mar 02

Obinali Nwankwo, Brewery Manager Tel: 062-231-370

Eml: obinali_nwanko@heineken.nl

Ben N. Igwe, Technological Controller Tel: 062-232-870

Damian Ihedioha, Program Coordinator Tel: 008-105-167

[United Nigerian Textiles PLC]{.underline}, 5 Mar 02

Dr. P.M. Chun, General Manager Tel: 062-234-100

[Finetex Limited]{.underline} (Textiles), 5 Mar 02

Raymund F. Palma, Deputy Managing Director Tel: 062-230-243

[Savanna Conservation Nigeria]{.underline}, 4 & 5 Mar 02

Tim Adkins, Director Tel: 062-217-965 Eml: scnk@wwlkad.com

[Performance Services Nigeria, Ltd.]{.underline} (Environmental
Consulting Firm), 5 Mar 02

Alk MOHAMMED Hamidu Hong, Managing Consultant Tel: 09-670-0952

[National Water Resources Institute]{.underline}, 6 Mar 02

Dr. Salisu Abdulmumin, Director Tel: 062-317-897 Eml: nwri@wwlkad.com

######## Lagos State, Lagos 

[Lagos State Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning]{.underline},
20 Feb 02

Engr A.M.A.. Shekoni, Permanent Secretary Tel: 497-033 to 53, Ext. 4873

Dr. A. Adedeji, General Manager, Lagos State Environmental Protection
Agency

Tel: 493-0280

[US Consulate]{.underline}, 20 Feb 02

Nathan Flook, Economic Officer Tel: 01-261-0050

[Lagos State Waste Management Authority]{.underline} (LASWMA), 21 Feb 02

Mr. 'Shola Popoola, General Manager/CEO Tel: 470-6035

> Eml: ponpola@yahoo.com

Mr. J.O. Fregene, Assistant General Manager, Operations Tel: 775-8928

[Nigerian Institute for Oceanagraphy and Marine Research]{.underline},
21 Feb 02

Thomas Olatunde Ajayi, Director Tel: 01-261-7530 Eml: niomr@hyperia.com

Mrs Augustina Ogbenyealu Anyanwu, Head, Marine Biology Tel: 01-612-2274

E.A. Ajao, Physical and Chemical Oceanography Division Tel: 01-261-9517

Catherine Isebor

[Nigerian Conservation Foundation]{.underline}, 20 Feb 02

Mr. Alade Adeleke, Conservation Manager Tel: 01-264-2498 Eml:
ncf@hyperia.com

Mrs. A.A. Fagbayi-Mohammed, Principle Manager, Education

**Oyo State, Ibadan**

Nigerian Environmental Study/Action Team (NEST), 18 Feb 02; 19 Feb 02

Damian Ihedioha, Programme Coordinator Tel: 02-810-5167

Eml: nestnig@nest.org.ng

Prof. David Okali, Chairman Tel: 02-810-5167

Eml: nestnig@nest.org.ng

[Geomatics]{.underline}, 19 Feb 02

Dr. Festus Akindunni, Managing Director Tel: 02-810-5577

Eml: akindunni@geoniger.com

Dr. Femi Akindele, Forestry Consultant

Mr. K. Ogunfolabi, Systems Administrator

International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), 17,19 Feb 02

Dr. D. Keatinge, Director, RCMD Tel: 02-241-2626

Eml: dkeatinge@cgiar.org

Dr. Nyat Quat Ng, Genetic Resources Unit

Maj Manczak: Project Coordinator, IITA-NCF Watershed Management Project

Oyo State, Ministry of Environment and Water Resources, 19 Feb 02

Mr. A. Akinwande, Permanent Secretary

Mr. M.A. Siyanbade, Director, Finance & Admininstration

Ms. A. Aderinto, Director, Town Planning

Engr. D. Oyesina, Director, Environmental Sanitation & Sewerage

Mr. A. O.S. Babalola, Director, Planning, Research and Statistics

[Nigerian Environmental Study/Action Team]{.underline}, 19 Feb 02

Damian Ihedioha, Program Coordinator

[Centre for African Settlement Studies and Development]{.underline},
18-20 Feb 02

Prof. Nurudeen Adedipe, Agriculture & NRM Specialist

> Tel: 02-810-3120 Eml: cassad@infoweb.abs.net

Prof. Bunyamin Ola-Adams, Biodiversity & Forestry Specialist

Eml: oladams2000@yahoo.com

Prof. Adepoju Onibokun, Chairman & Social Scientist

Tel: 02-810-2726 Eml: cassad@infoweb.abs.net

Prof. L.K. Jeje, Water Specialist

Dr. Fatai Balogun, Energy Specialist Tel: 036-233-106

Mr. Adebayo Alao, Urban Planning Specialist

Mr. Nicolas Dosumu, Data Collection Specialist

**River State, Port Harcourt**

[Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources]{.underline}, 25 Feb 02

Dr. Adolphus Nweke, Director, Inspectorate Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring

Eng, Ashley Emenike, Chairman, Advisory Committee on Natural Gas
Utilization

Tel: 084-238-238

[Niger Delta Human & Environmental Rescue Organization]{.underline}
(ND-HERO), 25 Feb 02

Azibaola Robert, President

[Niger Delta Development Commission]{.underline} (NDDC), 26 Feb 02

Mr. Godwin Omene, Managing Director/CEO Tel: 084-239-643

Mr. Dan Akpovwa, Public Affairs Unit

[Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited]{.underline}
(SPDC), 26 Feb 02

Mr. Olukayode A. Soremekun, Corporate Community Program Development
Advisor

Tel: 084-237-210 Eml: olukayode.a.soremekun@spdc.shell.com

Ms. Ngozi Amah, Partnering Advisor Tel: 084-237-210, Ext. 20172

Dr. Jonathan Onyeme, Acting Head, Environmental Assessment

[Institute for Pollution Studies, River State Univ. of Science &
Technology]{.underline}, 26 Feb 02

Prof. N.O. Isirimah, Director Tel: 084-572-408

S. A. Braide, Deputy Director & NDES Phase 2 Project Coordinator

Eml: sbraide@hotmail.com

######## Washington, DC 

#### U.S. Agency for International Development

Carl Gallegos, Deputy Director, ANR&RE, AFR-SD <Cgallegos@usaid.gov>

Dan Deely, EGAT/ENV Water <Ddeely@usaid.gov>

M.P. Crosby, Sr. Science Advisor <Mcrosby@usaid.gov>

Russ Backus, Regional Coordinator, EGAT/ENV <Rbackus@usaid.gov>

Denise Mortimer, AFR/SD <Dmortimer@afr-sd.org>

Mary Rowen, Biodiversity Advisor, EGAT/ENV <Mrowen@usaid.gov>

Jon Anderson, NR Policy Advisor, AFR/SD <Janderson@usaid.gov>

Richard Watts, AFR-SD Tel: 202-712-0585

#### The World Bank

Charlotte Bingham, Chief, Environment Division, AFTE Tel: 202-473-8021

Talib Esmail, Nigeria GEF Program Tel: 202-458-4536

#### World Wildlife Fund

Kate Newman, Biodiversity Support Program Tel: 202-861-8347

Denise Gilbert

#### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Marianne Bailey Tel: 202-564-6402

#### Others

Heather Meese, Bushmeat Task Force

John Oates, Wildlife Conservation Society

# Annex D. Scope of Work

**Scope Of Work for the**

Nigeria Environmental Analysis

**A. Background**

In August, 1999, the Africa Bureau approved the USAID/Nigeria two‑year
Transition Country Strategic Objective. The Transition Strategy was
approved due to its short-timeframe, without adherence to the ADS
requirements for an environmental assessment,

On May 8, 2001 the Africa Bureau approved a request from USAID/Nigeria
for an extension of the Transition Strategic Plan until December 2003.
During the R4 Review .the Global Bureau requested the Mission to adhere
to the ADS requirement for an environmental assessment given the
longer-term nature of the strategy from two to four years. As required
under the ADS section 201.3.4.1l.b, all CSPs must include a biodiversity
and tropical forest assessment. The assessment must be completed before
CSP decisions are made so that the results can be incorporated into the
long‑term CSP that the Mission is planning to develop toward the end of
the current transition strategy period. As required under the Foreign
Assistance Act (Section 118 and 119), the assessment must include:

> • A concise evaluation of the countrywide status of biodiversity and
> tropical forest resources, focusing on management issues and required
> actions for conservation; and
>
> • A determination as to the extent to which these required actions for
> conservation are satisfied by the current or proposed Mission
> programs.

The ADS regulations also indicate that while not required, an Operating
Unit "can save time and be more efficient by including all aspects of
environment when undertaking the mandatory biodiversity and tropical
forestry work." For example, these environmental aspects may include a
wide variety of topics including water resources, urban environmental
issues and desertification.

## B. USAID/Nigeria Program

The Nigeria Mission is not presently implementing an environmental
program. Strategic Objective (SO) 2 is most closely linked to
environmental issues. S02 is entitled "Strengthen Institutional Capacity
For Economic Reform and Enhance Capacity to Revive Agricultural Growth."

As indicated in the Transition Strategy, S02 will focus on the economic
management to lay the foundation for a longer‑term more comprehensive
program that will expand on current initiatives and focus more on
industrial, service sector, and agricultural revitalization. The program
will require preliminary studies and assessments, as well as close
coordination with the rest of the donor community.

There are a number of existing and planned agricultural analyses. For
example, a fertilizer marketing survey and rice studies are presently
being conducted in Nigeria. Tree crops analyses are also being planned
under the AFR/SD Tree Crops program (Refer to Attachment 2 of this sow
for a schedule of studies).

While most of the efforts to date in S02 have focused on agriculture and
economic growth, an interagency assessment that was conducted in
November 1999 did identify some potential areas the environment sector.
The sector assessment indicated that opportunities should be pursued for
training in the areas of environment and forestry.

The subject environmental analysis will focus on identifying environment
sector opportunities under the Strategic Objective 2. However, the
environmental analysis will also identify opportunities for synergism
under the Mission's three other Strategic Objectives:

-   SO1‑Sustain Transition to Democratic Civilian, Governance;

-   SO3‑Develop the Foundation for Education Reform;

-   SO4‑Increased use of Family Planning, Maternal and Child Health,
    Child Survival/Sexually Transmitted Disease/HIV Services, and
    Preventative Measures; and

-   Improved Management of Critical Elements of the Infrastructure and
    Energy Sector.

**C. Nigeria's Environment**

Nigeria maintains the largest human population of any country in
Africa‑120 million people. The Republics of Niger and Chad border the
country to the north, Atlantic Ocean to the south, Cameroon to the east
and the Republic of Benin to the west. Nigeria has a total land area of
923,773 square kilometers and a variety of climatic and ecological
zones.

The oil sector dominates the Nigerian economy and accounts for ninety
percent of its exports. However, most of the people in Nigeria make
their living in the agriculture motor. The types of agricultural
production are closely related to the main ecological zones. For
example, the forest region supports tree crops such as cocoa and food
crops including yams, cassava, maize and rice. On the other hand, in the
drier savanna zones, grain crops such as millet and sorghum predominate.

The ecological zones range from tropical forest vegetation in the south
to Guinea-savanna in the north. The five biogeographical zones in
Nigeria are:

-   Guinea‑Congolian zone;

-   Guinea‑Congolion/Sudanian regional transition zone;

-   Sudanian zone;

-   Sahel transition zone; and

-   Afromontane‑like zone.

There is a wide range of environmental problems in Nigeria. Over
population *(annual rate* Of Increase by 2.83 percent based on the
current estimates by the Nigerian National Population Commission),
inappropriate natural resources management (NRM) systems, poor
environmental governance, weak enforcement of regulations are
contributing to these problems. The most important of these problems
are:

-   Land degradation (including desertificition and soil erosion);

-   Accelerated deforestation and loss of biodiversity;

-   Unregulated chemical and industrial contamination and oil spillage;

-   Water pollution; and

-   Inadequate coastal zone management.

While the extent and severity of desertification has not been fully
quantified, it has been estimated that the country is losing
approximately 351,000 square kilometers of landmass to desert conditions
annually. Desertification is affecting the ten northern States and is
advancing southwards at a rate of 0.6 kilometers per year. Drought and
desertification are the most important environmental problems affecting
the ten northern states of the country. Erosion and desertification are
catastrophic in five states and are adversely affecting approximately
fifty million people.

While not yet fully quantified, desertification is said to be the most
pressing environmental problem in Nigeria. Population pressure
compounded by the influx of migrants from neighboring countries is
resulting in overgrazing and over-exploitation of marginal lands. This
influx of population from neighboring countries and drought has
aggravated the desertification problem.

The large majority of Nigeria's population is dependent upon its natural
resources for food, shelter and income. As a result, there are many
areas in Nigeria that are suffering from degradation resulting from
unsustainable environmental practices. For example, only ten percent of
Nigeria's original tropical high forests remain. The conversion of
forests to other land uses is primarily the result of unsustainable
agricultural and intensive forestry practices.

As much of Nigeria's tropical forests have been destroyed, the Nigerian
government must take urgent measures if representative portions of the
forests are to be preserved. Deforestation has resulted from a
combination of three processes: uncontrolled logging practices, an
increase in the area used for subsistence farming, and the rapid spread
of cash cropping by peasant farmers.

While the total land area of Nigeria is 923,768,000 ha, in 1992 forests
accounted for only 9.61 percent (8,874,225 ha) of the total land area.
During the period of 1980 to 1992, it is estimated that 43.48 percent of
the total forest ecosystem had been converted to other uses as a result
of human activities. Current estimates put the rate of rainforest
depletion at three and one‑half percent a year. Limited research
suggests that deforestation has resulted from a combination of two
processes:

-   Uncontrolled logging practices and

-   An increase in the area used for subsistence farming (Many Nigerians
    use wood as a primary fuel source).

The continued loss of Nigeria's tropical forests has taken its toll on
the country's biodiversity resources. Nigeria has a diverse collection
of flora and fauna, including 274 species of mammals, 830 species of
birds and 5,081 plant species. Out of the animal species, 0.14 percent
are threatened and 0.22 percent are endangered.

Nigeria maintains important biodiversity resources. One reason for its
importance is that there is an overlap between several biogeographical
zones including the biologically rich Guinea‑Congolian forests. The
diversity of Nigeria's wildlife resources is impressive. For example,
the maintenance of 274 mammal species makes Nigeria the eighth most
important country in Africa for mammal species. Of these mammals, two
primates are endemic: the white‑throated guenon ([Cerecopithecus
erythrogaster]{.underline}) and Sclater's guenon ([C*.*
sclateri]{.underline}). Both of these primates are endangered. There are
also twenty‑three primate species that include the chimpanzee ([Pan
troglodytes]{.underline}) and the gorilla ([Gorilla g.
diehli]{.underline}). Other important mammal species that are threatened
include the African elephant ([Loxodonta africana]{.underline}), black
rhinoceros ([Diceros bicornis]{.underline}).

The activities undertaken in Nigeria to conserve biodiversity
conservation include the establishment of six National Parks, twenty‑six
Game Reserves, twenty‑five Conservation plots, nine Strict Nature
Reserves, one Biosphere Reserve and fourteen proposed Game Reserves.
However, only 3.4 percent of Nigeria's land is included within protected
areas and most of these protected areas are located within the savannah
biome.

It is estimated that over 90% of Nigeria's total land area suffer from
one form of erosion or the other. There are over 2000 active gully
erosion spread across the country. Coastal erosion is also very
prevalent along the 835 km coastline of Nigeria with over 50 erosion
sites identified, and having an estimated mean shoreline retreats of 2
to 30 meters per year. Soil erosion generally poses threats to the
people and their economic activities including depletion of farmlands,
loss of forest resources and over all reduction in agriculture outputs.
In addition to the severe coastal erosion problem, the other major
erosion problems facing the marine environment in Nigeria include public
health and ecosystem quality issues.

Nigeria also has substantial environmental pollution problems resulting
from industrial, agricultural and urban mismanagement. For example,
Lagos is the only city in Nigeria that maintains a sewage treatment
facility. However, even that sewage treatment facility is inadequate to
keep up with the growing population. As a result untreated sewage is
still dumped directly into the lagoon. A 1979 survey indicated that the
majority of the urban population relies on pit latrines or does not have
any sanitary facilities.

In addition to untreated sewage pollution, pollution from textiles and
food processing facilities is commonly dumped into nearby rivers.
Eventually, these pollutants find their water to Nigeria's coastal
environment where they cause damage to coastal ecosystems and endanger
human health. Oil spillage is also a major problem in Nigeria. During
the period of 1976‑1983, there were an estimated 1360 oil spills in
Nigeria with over 1.4 million tons of oil into the coastal wagers of
Rivers State in eastern Nigeria.

The impact of pollution on the coastal environment as Nigeria maintains
some of the most extensive and valuable coastal wetlands in West Africa.
There are three primary wetland area along the coast of Nigeria:

-   Lagos and Lekki lagoons and system;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Niger Delta; and

-   Cross River wetlands and delta.

These wetland area are characterized by the presence of mangroves and
are important breeding and nursery grounds for fish and crustacean
species. Other important wetland areas include the Benin River mangroves
and Calabar Estuary. Nigeria maintains more than thirty‑five percent of
all West African mangroves (approximately 3.2 million of a total of
approximately 9.7 million ha). These mangroves still maintain large
stands. For example, the Niger Delta maintains 500,000 ha of mangroves.

However, there are no records indicating that any marine or coastal
protected areas exist in Nigeria. The development of environment
regulations and legislation has only recently begun. Some rare fish
species are present and the fish fauna in general may be particularly
diverse. While the marine environment of West Africa does not contain
coral reef ecosystems, numerous coral communities are thought to exist
in this region. Documentation of these potentially important communities
specifically, and the broader marine environment, is lacking.

West Africa's coastal ecosystems are being rapidly degraded as a result
of multiple human impacts, including over‑fishing; sewage discharge;
pollution from pesticides, fertilizers, and industrial waste; conversion
of land for agriculture, fuel wood, oil and mineral extraction, land
reclamation and freshwater diversion. All of the threats are connected
in one way or another to rapid expansion of the human population in the
coastal zone without benefit of coordinated comprehensive marine
resources and coastal zone use plans.

Since much of the land degradation and loss of biodiversity in Nigeria
is due to unsustainable agricultural practices, the integration of
agriculture and environmental management is one of the country's
important challenges.

## D. Specific Tasks

The assessment is first and foremost a tool to facilitate Mission
planning and decision making. With this in mind, the report document
should frame specific Mission program options which can address the:

-   Environmental issues identified by the team for each of the
    environment sub-sectors (e.g., forestry, water resources); and

-   Opportunities to integrate environmental issues into existing or
    planned Mission activities (e.g., agriculture, economic development,
    education, tree crops, micro-enterprise development) (Refer to
    Attachment 2 for a list of other planned S02 analyses).

The report should also serve as an educational tool, seeking to inform
Mission staff and others on present trends and recent advances in the
scientific study of tropical forests, biodiversity and their management.

The environmental advisors shall develop an environmental report
composed of two distinct report sections as indicated below:

> 1). Overall state of the environment report; and

2)  Tropical Forests and Biodiversity Report (Foreign Assistance Act
    Sections 118/119).

#### Task Number 1: Overall State of the Environment Report

The consultants will make use of the Report Outline in Attachment I as a
basis for the development of the report.

The consultants will make use of the three pronged approach indicated
below for the development of the report. This approach emphasizes the
identification and description of successful interventions (and
associated enabling conditions) over extensive descriptions of
environmental problems.

> 1\) Identify the underlying causes of environmental degradation in
> Nigeria and suggest strategic options to address them.
>
> 2\) Identify and describe in detail successful approaches and
> interventions by all institutions (e.g., NG0s, government, private
> sector) and under what enabling conditions.
>
> 3\) Analyze opportunities and constraints associated with all
> environmental elements (e.g., coastal management, forestry resources).

The consultants will provide information on each of the environmental
elements listed in Attachment I using the three‑pronged approach as a
means to focus their collection of data. As an attachment to the written
report, the consultants will develop an information matrix for each
primary environmental element listed in Attachment I (e.g., urban,
desertification, tropical forests and biodiversity, watershed
management, water resources management).

For example, under tropical forests the matrix will contain information
on forestry sector constraints, underlying causes of constraints, the
identification of successful field interventions by USAID and other
institutions (past and present as appropriate), the enabling conditions
which were necessary in order to achieve success, lessons learned from
the success, and suggestions for accelerating the success.

The consultants will conduct a comprehensive literature review on each
of the topics listed in Attachment I and a list of references will be
included in the report. The consultants will meet with representatives
from selected institutions in Nigeria in order to gather information for
the report. The consultants will also conduct targeted field visits to
successful sites in order to collect the necessary information for the
report and information matrix.

The consultants will identify opportunities to integrate environment
opportunities within the Mission's current and planned program. For
example, the consultants will examine planned activities under the Tree
Crops Program, fertilizer marketing survey and the rice survey. The
consultants will also identify opportunities for the Mission to address
environment in the course of developing SO2 agro-business plans.

Finally, the consultants will provide recommendations as how the Mission
can best integrate special political targets of opportunity (e.g.,
Gorilla earmark) into its SO2 program.

The intent of this scope of work is for the consultants to approach the
gathering of information on tropical forests and biodiversity in the
same way as the other environmental topics in the report. Treating
tropical forests and biodiversity like the other environmental topics
will encourage the team members to identify opportunities to integrate
tropical forests and biodiversity into the Mission's rural development
program.

However, there are special legal requirements (Foreign Assistance Act,
Sections 118/119) for USAID to obtain specific information on tropical
forests and biodiversity as part of the development of a CSP. Task 2 is
included below for this reason. The challenge for the consultants is to
gather information for the development of the Part I (State of the
Environment Report) that can also be used in Part II (Actions Necessary
and Planned to Conserve Tropical Forests and Biodiversity) in Attachment
I.

Task Number 2: Tropical Forests and Biodiversity Report (Foreign
Assistance Act Sections 118/119)

As required under the Foreign Assistance Act (Section I 18 and 119), the
assessment must include:

-   A concise evaluation of the countrywide status of biodiversity and
    tropical forest resources, focusing on management issues and
    required actions for conservation; and

-   Identification of the extent to which these required actions for
    conservation are satisfied by the current or proposed Mission
    programs.

The consultants will conduct the activities identified below in order to
comply with the requirements stipulated above.

The consultants will make use of the Report Outline in Attachment I as a
basis for the development of the report.

As required in the development of Task Number I above, the environmental
consultants will make use of the three‑pronged approach. This approach
emphasizes the identification and description of successful
interventions (and associated enabling conditions) over extensive
descriptions of environmental problems.

As described in Task I above, the consultants will develop on
information matrix for each of the elements listed under the Tropical
Forests and Biodiversity section in Attachment I (e.g., Ecosystem
Protection, Species Diversity). In the course of completing the Tropical
Forests and Biodiversity section, the consultant report will provide
additional information on the topics indicated below.

-   Document tropical forest and biodiversity trends in Nigeria
    associated with its management, biophysical condition, productivity
    and diversity.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Identify and analyze key threats to biodiversity (e.g., pollution,
    policy environment, bushmeat, unsustainable timber extraction).

-   Describe the major ecosystem types and protected areas in Nigeria.

-   Describe the relationship between biodiversity and agriculture‑both
    as an opportunity to conserve biodiversity (e.g., tree crops) and as
    cause of biodiversity loss (e.g., agricultural expansion).

-   Describe the relationship between biodiversity and other rural
    development activities underway or planned (e.g., agriculture,
    energy, infrastructure development, economic growth, policy reform).
    Identify opportunities to integrate biodiversity conservation into
    activities that the Mission is planning under its planned CSP.

-   Provide information regarding threatened and endangered plant and
    wildlife species in Nigeria and activities underway and planned to
    protect these species.

-   Identify and describe recent, current and planned conservation
    efforts in Nigeria.

-   Identify the scope and effectiveness of existing and past
    conservation efforts. This information will be summarized in a
    matrix format.

-   Provide information regarding the effectiveness of GON management
    authorities that are responsible for tropical forests and
    biodiversity in Nigeria.

-   Identify USAID's comparative advantage to address biodiversity and
    tropical forestry issues.

Also per the description in Task I above, the environmental consultants
will develop an information matrix for tropical forests and biodiversity
(and the other environmental elements). The matrix will contain
information on forestry sector constraints, underlying causes of
constraints, the identification of successful field interventions (past
and present as appropriate), the enabling conditions which were
necessary in order to achieve success, lessons learned from the success,
and suggestions for accelerating the success. The matrix will also
include a description of other international donor and NGO tropical
forestry and biodiversity activities.

## E. Organizational Responsibilities and Coordination

**USAID/Nigeria**

USAID/Nigeria is the primary client for this activity. The Mission will
be responsible for providing financial support and oversight. The
Mission will also provide comments (along with AFR/SD) on the draft
reports submitted by the contractor.

**AFR/SD**

AFR/SD provides technical backstopping to USAID/Nigeria. As the scope of
work will address both agriculture and environment, both ANRE
agriculture and natural resources management staff will provide
oversight to the contractor for the environmental analyzes. ANRE staff
assistance may be in the form of providing technical information and/or
staff for short‑term assignments to USAID/Nigeria.

G/ENV

The Global Bureau provides USAID Missions and the regional Bureaus with
technical assistance and information on environment and rural
development. The Global Bureau will be responsible for working with
ANRIS and the Mission staff to accomplish the environmental analyses.
This assistance may be in the form of providing technical information
and/or staff for short‑term assignments to USAID/Nigeria.

**F. Technical Assistance Mechanisms**

As discussed in Section C above, the scope of work will be accomplished
using a combination of USAID/Washington technical staff and a private
contractor. (A Rural Environment Advisor from the USAID Regional Urban
Development (RUDO) Office in South Africa will also be contacted to
determine the feasibility his/her availability to provide technical
assistance to the Mission.)

The primary source of the technical assistance will come from the
private contractor. An Indefinite Quantity Contract (IQC) will be
selected by the Mission with assistance from the Global Bureau's
Environment Team and ANRE staff. Proposals from the environment IQCs
will be reviewed and selected by the Global Bureau and ANRE staff.

## G. Schedule

The final report will be completed by the end of February 2002 in order
for the information to be used during the development of the CSP. With
this in mind, the environmental analysis will be conducted during the
period of December 2001 through February 2002.

## H. Level of Effort

A level of effort of two months in Nigeria will be required to
accomplish this activity:

-   1 week initial scoping assessment (First week of December 2001);

-   3 weeks to conduct literature review and conduct field studies
    (January‑February

-   2002); and

-   2 weeks to write the final report (February 2002).

## I. Deliverables

-   One scoping assessment containing information on key contacts,
    existing projects, technical reports and suggested areas of focus by
    the team by December 7, 2001.

-   Work plan and schedule within three days of arrival in Nigeria by
    the consultants preparing the report by January 7, 2002.

-   On February 8, 2002, a draft report (Part I and Part II) based on
    the outline in Attachment I and the tasks identified above. USAID
    will provide comment back to contractor within one week for
    incorporation into the final report

-   An oral debriefing to USAID/Nigeria upon submission of the report on
    February.8, 2002.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Final report will be submitted to USAID/Nigeria on February 22, 2002
    that addresses all comments from USAID. The report will be provided
    on one diskette along with six hard copies.

The final report should use the following format:

-   Table of Contents

-   List of Acronyms

-   Executive Summary

-   Background

-   Findings (Underlying Causes/Successful Approaches)

-   Recommendations

-   Conclusion

-   List of Contacts

**BIBLIOGRAPHY**

Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999. [Combating Desertification and
Mitigating the Effects of Drought in Nigeria.]{.underline} National
Report on the Implementation of the United Nations

Convention to Combat Desertification in those Countries Experiencing
Drought and/or

Desertification Particularly in Africa, Lagos, Nigeria,

Russo, Sandra. 1994. [Consideration of Biological Diversity and Tropical
Forestry in the Context of Country Program Strategy in the Bureau for
Africa: Review and Guidelines]{.underline}. U.S. Agency for
International Development. Washington, D.C. 117 pp.

The World Conservation Union. 1993. [Environmental Synopsis -
Nigeria.]{.underline} Commission of the European Communities Under
contract 7‑5040/91/28.

U.S. Agency For International Development. 1999. [USAID Transition
Strategy For Nigeria.]{.underline} Lagos, Nigeria. 52 pp.

U.S. Agency For International Development. 2001. Extension of
USAID/Nigeria's Transition Strategy. Memorandum dated May 8, 2001 from
Valerie Dickson‑Horton (Acting Assistant Administrator, Africa Bureau)
to Thomas Hobgood (Director, USAID/Nigeria).

World Conservation Union. 1992. [Country Study Report for]{.underline}
[Nigeria on Cost Benefits and Unmet Needs of Biological Diversity
Conservation]{.underline}. United Nations Environment Program.