Abstract

Forest products are materials gotten from forest, for the direct consumption or commercial use such as timber and non-timber forest products. The destruction of forest in Andoni due to the exploration and consumption of forest products are done without determining the values of these products that could have been lost. This study attempts to determine the value of identified forest products information gathered through the use of questionnaire focus group discussion, field survey and other related materials. The simple percentage analysis shows that forest products have a lot of value to the people; hence community dwellers involved in it. Conclusively, forest product were identified and categorized into wildlife species (wild animal) and plant species which usefulness were been influenced by socio-external factor, economical factor and livelihood security factor. The economic value of forest product in a study area is N532,351,300.00 while the expected value is N865,648,300.00. Therefore, the government at all levels should provide indiscriminate exploitation of premature forest product policy on forest management that are appropriate. These should be made to effectively reflect and enhance forest protection and improvement of livelihood of the people.

Introduction

In most developing nations, forests are very important in the livelihood of the local people. Forests are part of the ecosystem that is characterized by dense and extensive tree cover, which often consists of stands that varies in character such as species, composition structure, age, class and associated process and commonly includes Meadow, stream, fish and wildlife (Cote, 2003). Forest products are materials derived from forestry for direct consumption or commercial use such as timber and non-timber forest products. Forest is still the only component of the biosphere that provides all the necessary ingredients for the existence of the people of Andoni. Forest products are very important resources, hence they are useful to socio-economic development of the Andoni people. A lot of human population that lives in the rain forest and most communities such as the Andoni community depends on these forest resources to live.

Literature Review

There are many timber and non-timber forest products in our community forest. The word “timber” is easily understood, but NTFPs refers to any other forest resources other than timber. Most communities in the Niger Delta lies within the rich lowland area of the ecosystem. This readily class our forest among one of the many different shades of lowland tropical forest. The pioneering concept about NTFPs is due to some of the blurred boundaries between timber and non-timber products, which makes it difficult in defining a forest and the evolving nature of the concept (Ahenka and Boon, 2011).

However, the India Act (1927), section 2(4) defines forest products in legal state to include timber, charcoal, wood oil, resin, natural varnish, bark, myrobalan, mahua flowers (whether found inside or brought from a forest or not), trees and leaves, flowers and fruits, plants (including grass, creepers, reeds and moss), wild animals, skins, tusks, horns, bones, cocoons, silk, honey, wax, other parts or produce of animals, and also includes peat, surface oil, rocks and minerals, etc when found inside or brought from a forest, among other things (India Forest Act, 1927). This is due to the increasing recognition that NTFPs can contribute significantly to the livelihood of forest dependent communities bringing about household food security and nutrition, generate additional employment and income, and offers opportunities for NTFP based enterprises (FAO, 2006; Ahenkan and Boon, 2008; 2010; Subedi, 2006). NTFPs are more accessible to the poor to extract, contributing to foreign exchange earnings and support biodiversity and other conservative objectives (Andel, 2000; FAO, 1995; Charlie and Sheona, 2004) which can be harvested with relatively low impact on the forest environment (FAO, 2008; Newmann and Hirsch, 2000).

In recent times, forest and NTFPs has been increasing recognized as rich reservoir of many valuable biological resources (Ibrahim, 2016). It constitute an important and cheap sources of vitamin, mineral, protein, carbohydrate and fat, which contribution to the diet of humans cannot be quantified (Etukudo, 2000). Thus, the contribution of forest in terms of diet to improve nutritional status of human is enhanced by their availability. Consequently, rural dwellers rely heavily on NTFPs as a means of reducing poverty level of the people (Odebiyi and Ogunjobi, 2003). Forest provides wide range of benefits at the local, natural and global (Agbogidi and Eshegbeyi, 2008).

Economically, forest ecosystem serves as a source of important NTFPs to the people, in form of poles and timber for building houses, firewood, charcoal, etc. It also gives cultural services like, aesthetics, recreation, food as well as medicine herbs (Walsh, 1994). When forest products are conserved and utilized sustainably they have economic value. Hence, it is very important for forest products to be valued in monetary terms so that when they are cleared for any reason compensation can be paid adequately.

Definition of Value

Value has different meaning to different people. However, the appropriate meaning can best be obtained from the situation in which it is been used. Therefore, value is the measure of the relationship between demand and supply. On this note, when the word value is been used by a valuer, it means market value.

According to Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (2016), market value is defined as the estimated amount of money for which an asset or liability should exchange on a valuation date between a willing buyer and willing seller in arm’s length transaction after proper marketing and where the parties had each acted knowledgably prudent and without compulsion (RICS).

The Study Area

The study area is some communities in Andoni. Andoni is a Local Government Area of Rivers State. It has an Island with an area of over 90sgm (233km²) and a population over 311, 500 as at the last census (Nigeria 2006 census). The Andoni people speak Obolo language as their mother tongue. Their traditional occupation is fishing, hunting and farming because of their geographical location in the coastal area. It is located on latitude N4⁰32’57 “W.N7⁰26’47 “E and longitude 4.54917⁰ N7.44639⁰E. It is a coastal community with low lying land in the tropical rainforest, mangrove and nypa palm forest region of the Niger delta. It is located in the Sothern part of Rivers State and bounded in the North by Ogoni, East by Opobo/Nkoro and Akwa Ibom State, in the West by Bonny Island and in the South by the Atlantic Ocean.

Figure 1.

Fig. 1: Map of Rivers State showing the study area.

Material and Methods

In making sure that the aim of this research work is completed, the methodology taken commenced with the collection of data (primary and secondary) and after that, analyzing the data collected. The study area was visited in February 17, 2018 through March 3, 2018. Within the period of visiting the area, data were collected, using direct observation, questionnaire (for face to face interview) and focus group discussion. During the focus group discussions, questions such as what kind of animals do you hunt in the forest, what are the forest products cultivated in the forest, their prices and the usefulness, how has the forest products been useful to you and the community etc. where some question asked the hunters, farmers, herbalist and others. In realizing the purpose of the site visitation, series of discussion were engaged with the collectors and non-collectors of the forest products and their inputs included in the report. Also in making sure that unimportant information are excluded from other sources of data collection, the focus group discussion (FGDs) was employed. In the focus group discussion which began at 3pm and ended at 6pm,different types of people were gathered, especially the forest users which includes the hunters, farmers, forest dependents and the dwellers of the communities at a point in the study area to discuss the forest products collected, its usefulness, market price and the history of the study area.

Findings

The findings show that the respondents identified and categorized forest products into wildlife species (wild animals) and plant species.

Wild Life Species: They are traditionally refers to as undomesticated animal species in the forest but has come to also include all organisms that grows or lives wild in the forest without being introduced by human beings in the ecosystem.

Plant Species: They are plants that are found in the tropical rainforest. Plants that provides shelter and food for rainforest animals as well as taking part in the gas exchanges which provide much of the oxygen supply in our environment.

Uses of Forest Products

The findings also shows that the uses of forest products were influenced by three (3) factors, including:

1. Socio-external factor: The need and use of forest products for shelter, materials for ceremonies and worship.
2. Economical factor: It is significant in local in foreign trade, which generates income and added value to the moral economies
3. Livelihood security factor: It is the component of food security, sources of income, improving moral development, extensive use of biological products and creating employment.

The Use of Forest and its Products Include:

• Timber production for construction
• Wild animal are source of protein (food)
• Artisanal activities
• Sources of energy (cooking)
• Medicine
• Income generation
• Tourism
• Raw material

Loss of Forest Product

The findings show that the loss of value of forest and its products is as a result of development which is stated by the forest users and community dwellers.

Monetary Value of Forest Products

The FGDs provided clarity on some numbers of issues that gave the needed information on how valid and credible information ascertained from the forest users (farmers, hunters, fishermen/women, businessmen/women, herbalist and civil servants and community dwellers).

Below are the tables showing the results of the values of the various forest products, using the farm gate price and city market price.

Source: Field Survey 2018

From the focus group discussions the participants indicated that the range of animals consumed and sold in the market includes the above mentioned in table 1. Its shows that the proximity of the forest to the people, enables the hunters to hunt these animals and it plays a significant role in the local economy in terms of income generation from hunting activity and sources of diet.

Source: Field Survey 2018

Participants in the focus group discussion indicated that some plants are used as medicinal plants, timber, log, electric poles, canoes, industrial wood, fuel wood (fire wood), charcoal, scaffolds etc as shown in table 2.

Source: Field Survey 2018

Table 3: reveals the quantities of forest products collected by the forest users. One of the key informants stated that” I have earned a lot of income to sustain my family and trained three (3) of my children in school through medicine plants (roots, leaves and barks) collected as forest products for treatment of various ailment”.

Source: Field Survey 2018

Table 4: reveals the economic value of forest product given its average price and the actual price. In the above table, the quantity of forest products collected is multiplied by the average price to get the actual price. Each forest products actual price is summed up to get total actual price of ₦532,351,300.00.

Source: Field Survey 2018

Table 5: reveals the expected values of forest product annually when profit and overhead is added to city market price of forest products. In the above table the actual price (city market price plus 5percent of the actual) is multiplied by the quantity of the forest products collected, to get the actual value. Each forest product actual value is summed up to get the total actual value of ₦865,648,300.00.

Conclusion

The specific objectives of this study is to identify the type of forest products, ascertain the market price of the identified forest products, determine the prices of the identified forest product and professionally determine the values of these identified forest products.

Generally, the selected forest products were found to be the most valuable resources useful to the communities in the study area. These forest products were categorized as wild life animal and wild plants. The most identified useful forest products were firewood, honey, tuber logs, snails wild fruits, wild vegetables, wild mushrooms, wild animals, bamboo, raffia etc. These forest products are among the useful forest products in Andoni communities.

The purpose of valuing is to determine the values of these forest products in monetary terms. And in carrying out the valuation of the forest products, it was observed that the annual value from forest products was N532, 351,300. And the expected value of forest products in the study area when compared to the city prices with 5% profit and overheads was N865, 648,300.

Recommendation

Based on the findings of the study towards the quantity and the valuation of some selected forest products used as extracted by local communities in the study area (Andoni), the following recommendations should be in place as to address and to fill the gaps observed in the study to communities within and among the forest zones.

1. From the findings gathered from this research work, there is no base value on forest products. Therefore, there is an urgent need for the decision makers to work with registered Estate Surveyors and Valuers and other professionals, so as to provide base value of forest product that should be incorporated into the existing law.
2. The government at all levels should provide indiscriminate exploitation of premature forest product policy on forest management that are appropriate. These should be made to effectively reflect and enhance forest protection and improvement of livelihood of the people.
3. Inventory of forest products should be conducted in the same forest (as it was done in this case study) as to identify more valuable forest products and local knowledge acquisition of forest products from the communities around the forest as to be used by extension workers and other forest stakeholders to add knowledge about forest products to other forest users.

References

1. Abdallah, R. K. (2001). The Use of Medicinal Plants for Maternal Care and Child Survival in Tanzania. A Case Study of Villages Around Zaraninge Forest Reserve in Bagamoyo District. Dissertation for Award of MSc Degree at Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania, 90.
2. Adepoju, A. A. and Salau, A. Sheu. (2007). Economic Valuation of Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs). Munich Personal RePEc Archive, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology and University of Ibadan. l8
3. Agbogidi, O. M. (2010). Contribution of Non-Timber Forest Products to Food Security in Nigeria, In: Onyekwely, J. C., Adekunle, V. A., and Oko, D. O. (eds). Proceedings of the 2^nd Biennial National Conference of the Forests and Forest Products Society (FFPN) held in the Federal University of Technology Akune, Ondo State between 26^th – 29^th April 2010, 372-377.
4. Ahenkan, A. and Boon, E. (2011). Non- Timber Forest Products (NTFPs): Clearing the Confusion in Semantics. Journal for Human Ecology, 33(1), 1-9.
5. Akinnifesi, F. K., Jordaan, D. and Ham, C. (2005). Building Opportunities for Small holder Farmers to Commoditize Indigenous Fruit Trees and Products in Southern Africa: 2.Processing, Markets and Rural Livelihoods. In: Proceeding of the Conference on International Agricultural Research for Development, 11-13October 2005, 1 Tropentag Stuttgart-Hohenheim. 10.
6. Baker, N. (2001). Developing Needs Based Inventory. Workshop Methods for Non-Timber Forest Products held in Rome, Italy, 4-5 May 2001. 95.
7. Belcher, B. and Schreckenberg, K. (2007). Commercialization of Non-Timber Forest Products: A Reality Check. Development Policy Review, 3:355-377.
8. Belcher, B. M. (2003). What isn’t a NTFP? International Forestry Review, 2:161-168.
9. Bih, F. (2008). Assessment Methods for Non-Timber Forest Products in Off-Reserve Forests. Case Study of Goaso District, Ghana. Unpublished Ph.D Thesis Freiburg, Germany: DerAlbert-Ludwings Universities
10. Bulte, E. H., Van Kooten, G. C., (1999). Marginal Valuation of Charismatic Species: Implications for Conservation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 14(1): 119-130.
11. Campbell, B. M., Luckert, M. and Scoones, I. (1991). Local- level Valuation of Savanna Resources: A Case Study from Zimbabwe. 26.
12. Chemonics International Inc (2008). Preliminary Rural Livelihood Zoning Tanzania: A Special Report by the Famine Early Warning System Network. United States Agency for International Development, Dares Salaam, Tanzania. 49.
13. Chettleborough, J., Lumeta, J. and Magesa, S. (2000). Community Use of Non-Timber Forest Product. A Case Study from the Kilombero Valley. The Society for Environmental Exploration, UK and University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, 22.
14. CIFOR (2003). Science for Forests and People, CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. [www.cifor.c giar.org] site visited on 23/04/2011.
15. Cote, M. (2003). Dictionary of Forestry Ordre des ingeniew Forestriers du Quebec, 744.
16. Cunningham, A. B. (2000). People, Wild Plant Use Conservation.Applied Ethno-Botany. London: Earthscan.
17. De Beer, J.H. and McDermoth, M. (1989). The Economic Value of Non- Timber Forest Product in South- East Asia. Amsterdam, the Netherlands Committee for IUCN.
18. Dharmaratne, G. S., Sang, F.Y. and Walling, L.J., (2000). Tourism Potentials for Financing Protected Areas. Annuals of Tourism Research 27(3): 590-610.
19. Etukudo, I. G. (2000). Forest: Our Divine Treasure. Uyo, Nigeria, Durand Publishers.
20. FAO (1989). Household Food Security and Forestry: An Analysis of Socio- Economic Issues. Community Forestry Note No.1. Rome, Italy. 147.
21. FAO (1992). Forest Resources Assessment-Tropical Countries. Forestry Paper No. 112. Rome, Italy. 354.
22. FAO (1997). Agricultural and Food Marketing Management. Food and Agriculture Organization. Rome, Italy. 344.
23. FAO (1999). Towards a Harmonized Definition of Non-Wood Forest Products. Unasylva 198:63-64.
24. FAO (2001). State of the World’s Forest. Rome, Italy. 295.
25. Garrod, G., & Willis, K. G., (1999). Economic Valuation of the Environment, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
26. Sinden, J. A., (1994). “A Review of Environmental Valuation in Australia”, A Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, 62(3), 337-369.
27. UNEP (2011). Environmental Assessment of Ogoniland. UNEP, Nairobi, KENYA.