Making the Case for Reforms of Forestry Policy and Law: Lessons and Experiences from Nigeria

Abstract

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development incorporates 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Goal 15 (SDG 15) focuses on terrestrial ecosystems. Regarding forests, it sets targets requiring signatories to promote the implementation of the sustainable management of all types of forests by 2020 and further mobilize significant resources from all sources to achieve sustainable forest management. The United Nations Strategic Plan for Forests 2017 – 2030 advances the vision of SDG 15. Nigeria’s high demographic growth rate has led to the surging demand for land to support settlements and farming. Coupled with extensive illegal or uncontrolled logging, the annual forest net loss of 5% is one of the highest rates globally in percentage terms. This paper is a critical analysis of the policy-law interface of the forestry sector in Nigeria. It examines the country’s trajectory or state of preparedness for sustainable forest management, and it concludes that forestry policy and law in Nigeria must undergo urgent reforms so that the forest commitments such as those under SDG 15 and other regional and global instruments can be ultimately achieved.

Keywords

Nigeria sustainable development goals (SDGs)SDG 15 sustainable forest management forestry policy forestry law

1 Introduction

Nigeria’s forest estate traverses all its main ecological zones from the freshwater/mangrove and lowland rainforest of its Southern regions to the savanna and Sahel areas in the North. 1 Although, there is no globally accepted definition of forest, 2 the FAO’s characterization is based on the extent of tree cover and land use. Under this approach, forest is defined as any land of more than 0.5 hectare with a canopy cover of more than 10% or trees, whether natural or planted, which are capable of achieving a minimum height of 5 metres but it specifically excludes areas that serve agricultural production systems or urban land uses. 3 Accordingly, using the FAO definition, it has been determined that Nigeria’s forests have sharply declined from an estimated 172,340 square kilometres in 1990, that is, 18.9% of the nation’s total land area to 65,834 square kilometres or 7.2% by 2016. 4 The estimated annual forest net loss of 5% is in percentage terms one of the highest ranked globally. 5 There is an abundance of academic literature that has synthesized technical data to identify, analyse and evaluate forest trends and indicators in Nigeria. But the country’s forestry policy and legal frameworks have received scant scrutiny despite changing contexts dictated by, among other factors, rapid demographic growth, increasing urbanization, climate change and adoption of the sustainable development goals (SDGs). Goal 15 (SDG 15) focuses on terrestrial ecosystems and its targets, specifically 15.1, 15.2 and 15.B, require all signatories to promote the implementation of the sustainable management of all types of forests by 2020 and to mobilize significant resources from all sources in order to achieve sustainable forest management. 6 Additionally, Nigeria has accepted commitments under regional and global agreements, which are equally promotive of the sustainable use and conservation of forests. 7 Furthermore, as a party to the Paris Agreement to combat climate change, 8 Nigeria has communicated under its first Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) strategies aimed at decreasing deforestation and forest degradation. 9 The United Nations (UN) Strategic Plan for Forests 2017 – 2030 10 advances the vision of SDG 15 through a framework that recognizes the interconnectedness of forest commitments in regional and global agreements. In this regard, six Global Forest Goals and their associated targets have been incorporated into the UN Strategic Plan for Forests for the purpose of stimulating decisive actions within countries on a voluntary basis. The aim of this paper is to examine the state of forestry policy and law in Nigeria with a view to determining the country’s trajectory or state of preparedness for achieving the SDG forestry targets and indeed making progress on related regional and global commitments.

Table 1
Sustainable Development Goals Goal 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss

TARGETS INDICATORS

15.1 15.1.1

By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services, in particular forests, wetlands, mountains and drylands, in line with obligations under international agreements Forest area as a proportion of total land area

15.1.2

Proportion of important sites for terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity that are covered by protected areas, by ecosystem type

15.2 15.2.1

By 2020, promote the implementation of sustainable management of all types of forests, halt deforestation, restore degraded forests and substantially increase afforestation and reforestation globally Progress towards sustainable forest management

15.3 15.3.1

By 2030, combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil, including land affected by desertification, drought and floods, and strive to achieve a land degradation-neutral world Proportion of land that is degraded over total land area

15.4 15.4.1

By 2030, ensure the conservation of mountain ecosystems, including their biodiversity, in order to enhance their capacity to provide benefits that are essential for sustainable development Coverage by protected areas of important sites for mountain biodiversity

15.4.2

Mountain Green Cover Index

15.5 15.5.1

Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity and, by 2020, protect and prevent the extinction of threatened species Red List Index

15.6 15.6.1

Promote fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources and promote appropriate access to such resources, as internationally agreed Number of countries that have adopted legislative, administrative and policy frameworks to ensure fair and equitable sharing of benefits

15.7 15.7.1

Take urgent action to end poaching and trafficking of protected species of flora and fauna and address both demand and supply of illegal wildlife products Proportion of traded wildlife that was poached or illicitly trafficked

15.8 15.8.1

By 2020, introduce measures to prevent the introduction and significantly reduce the impact of invasive alien species on land and water ecosystems and control or eradicate the priority species Proportion of countries adopting relevant national legislation and adequately resourcing the prevention or control of invasive alien species

15.9 15.9.1

By 2020, integrate ecosystem and biodiversity values into national and local planning, development processes, poverty reduction strategies and accounts Progress towards national targets established in accordance with Aichi Biodiversity Target 2 of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020

15.A 15.A.1

Mobilize and significantly increase financial resources from all sources to conserve and sustainably use biodiversity and ecosystems Official development assistance and public expenditure on conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystems

15.B 15.B.1

Mobilize significant resources from all sources and at all levels to finance sustainable forest management and provide adequate incentives to developing countries to advance such management, including for conservation and reforestation Official development assistance and public expenditure on conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystems

15.C 15.C.1

Enhance global support for efforts to combat poaching and trafficking of protected species, including by increasing the capacity of local communities to pursue sustainable livelihood opportunities Proportion of traded wildlife that was poached or illicitly trafficked

TARGETS	INDICATORS
15.1	15.1.1
By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services, in particular forests, wetlands, mountains and drylands, in line with obligations under international agreements	Forest area as a proportion of total land area
	15.1.2
	Proportion of important sites for terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity that are covered by protected areas, by ecosystem type
15.2	15.2.1
By 2020, promote the implementation of sustainable management of all types of forests, halt deforestation, restore degraded forests and substantially increase afforestation and reforestation globally	Progress towards sustainable forest management
15.3	15.3.1
By 2030, combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil, including land affected by desertification, drought and floods, and strive to achieve a land degradation-neutral world	Proportion of land that is degraded over total land area
15.4	15.4.1
By 2030, ensure the conservation of mountain ecosystems, including their biodiversity, in order to enhance their capacity to provide benefits that are essential for sustainable development	Coverage by protected areas of important sites for mountain biodiversity
	15.4.2
	Mountain Green Cover Index
15.5	15.5.1
Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity and, by 2020, protect and prevent the extinction of threatened species	Red List Index
15.6	15.6.1
Promote fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources and promote appropriate access to such resources, as internationally agreed	Number of countries that have adopted legislative, administrative and policy frameworks to ensure fair and equitable sharing of benefits
15.7	15.7.1
Take urgent action to end poaching and trafficking of protected species of flora and fauna and address both demand and supply of illegal wildlife products	Proportion of traded wildlife that was poached or illicitly trafficked
15.8	15.8.1
By 2020, introduce measures to prevent the introduction and significantly reduce the impact of invasive alien species on land and water ecosystems and control or eradicate the priority species	Proportion of countries adopting relevant national legislation and adequately resourcing the prevention or control of invasive alien species
15.9	15.9.1
By 2020, integrate ecosystem and biodiversity values into national and local planning, development processes, poverty reduction strategies and accounts	Progress towards national targets established in accordance with Aichi Biodiversity Target 2 of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020
15.A	15.A.1
Mobilize and significantly increase financial resources from all sources to conserve and sustainably use biodiversity and ecosystems	Official development assistance and public expenditure on conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystems
15.B	15.B.1
Mobilize significant resources from all sources and at all levels to finance sustainable forest management and provide adequate incentives to developing countries to advance such management, including for conservation and reforestation	Official development assistance and public expenditure on conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystems
15.C	15.C.1
Enhance global support for efforts to combat poaching and trafficking of protected species, including by increasing the capacity of local communities to pursue sustainable livelihood opportunities	Proportion of traded wildlife that was poached or illicitly trafficked

Source: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg15

2 Materials and Methods

The discussions and results presented in this paper have been gathered from a detailed study of primary sources including key government policies, legislation and reported judicial decisions. In addition, relevant, secondary materials such as expert reports and academic literature have been reviewed. The paper also draws on the author’s personal insights and observations gained from serving as a member of the multi-stakeholder committee, which drafted Nigeria’s national forestry policy of 2006.

3 Discussions

3.1 Codifying the National Forestry Policy

Nigeria’s forest estate is characterized by public ownership of protected areas known as forest reserves. 11 Historically and up till the present, such forest reserves have been established and delineated by legislation enacted by sub-national governments. 12 The enactments have typically conferred management rights and responsibilities on state forestry departments (SFDs). 13 Although, there is a federal department of forestry (FDF) within the Federal Ministry of Environment, this agency does not hold or manage any forest reserves. 14 However, under Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution, 15 the federal government is vested with exclusive powers to establish protected areas to be designated National Parks. This has resulted in the federal government, through the National Park Service, having management and control of forest ecosystems lying within the National Parks. 16 In the case of forests lying outside protected areas, these so-called free areas are usually managed by private interests, for example, local communities or corporate bodies. The upshot is that the ownership, governance and management of Nigeria’s forests reflects a patchwork of roles with the responsibilities for forests apportioned between the federal and sub-national governments and private rights being decided by prevailing land tenure practices. 17 This singular factor has led to a contest of rights and responsibilities in Nigeria’s forestry sector between the federal and sub-national governments on the one hand and government authorities and private interests on the other. This paper will argue that this struggle has important ramifications on the extent to which Nigeria can implement forest commitments under SDG 15, the UN Strategic Plan for Forests, and other regional and global agreements.

The first national forestry policy dates back to 1988 (28 years after gaining independence) when it was incorporated into the Agricultural Policy for Nigeria. 18 This initiatory intervention had emerged from a top-down process at a time when Nigeria was being ruled by a military dictatorship that coalesced executive and legislative powers in the Armed Forces Ruling Council. The 1988 policy had obvious limitations as it lacked quantitative targets or detailed strategies on how its objectives would be operationalized. Essentially, the 1988 policy articulated a productionist goal of achieving national self-sufficiency in fuel wood and pulp wood products through the expansion of private forestry and plantation development. The sea change followed Nigeria’s return to participatory democracy in 1999 and the subsequent revisions of the National Policy on the Environment (NPE). Originally introduced in 1991, the NPE has been revised twice. First, in 1999 as a direct response to the national commitments voluntarily accepted by Nigeria under the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 19 and more recently in 2016. 20 The NPE’s significance for the forestry sector derives from its 1999 iteration enshrining for the first time sustainable development as an environmental objective and mainstreaming guiding principles such as the participation principle, which requires that decisions should as much as possible be made by the communities that they will affect or on their behalf by the authorities closest to them. This new policy paradigm led to the FDF constituting in 1999 a forestry policy review committee (FPRC) to draft a replacement for the 1988 antecedent. 21 The FPRC had a broad-based representation drawn from beyond the executive branches of government. This meant that for the first time, non-state actors including representatives of forest communities from across the six geo-political zones of Nigeria, participated in the forestry policy review. The stand-alone national forestry policy that resulted from these nationwide consultations entered into force in 2006. 22

3.2 Implementing the National Forestry Policy

A national forestry policy should be founded on a good understanding of the local context and keep pace with new demands including those resulting from regional and global agreements. 23 But the absence of mandatory periodic reviews meant that the 2006 forestry policy proved incapable of responding to changing circumstances. Regardless, policies such as the NPE, which includes policy statements for all forest ecosystems, continued to support the full implementation of what had effectively become an outdated national forestry policy. As the first-ever expression of the national commitment to sustainable forest management, the 2006 forestry policy crystallized objectives and implementation strategies for 31 priority areas but presented forest area change as the only measurable indicator. 24 It also set the target, which was not time-bound, of increasing the area under sustainable forest management to 25% of Nigeria’s total land area. It was left to the FDF to subsequently project a forest area increase of 25% by 2020 and 30% by 2030. 25 The 2006 forestry policy also notably omitted a definition of sustainable forest management thereby effectively leaving the interpretation and implementation of this key term to the SFDs and other forest actors/users. By way of example, section 105 of the Cross River State Forestry Commission Law 26 opted to define sustainable management of forest resources by providing that ‘sustainable management of forest resources means the management of the forest resources in such a way that the forest cover is not degraded and reduced by human use and that it is increased where ecological reason so require.’ For some commentators, definitional omissions of this nature are an opportunity to select indicators or values for measurement that are based on a firm understanding of local circumstances. 27 In a constitutional democracy comprised of 36 sub-national governments, this omission has translated into a miscellany of implementation models on sustainable forest management. Moreover, the expectation that the 2006 forestry policy would engender legal reforms by the 36 states to implement its objectives was not realized since only a handful of states such as Cross River, Ekiti and Kaduna introduced new forestry legislation after 2006. The reality is that at the inception of the 2006 forestry policy, the share of forests out of the nation’s total land area had been 11.7% but by 2016 it had fallen to 7.2%. 28 This scale of forest loss amplified the policy’s ineffectiveness and led to calls for its revision. 29

The fact that a national forestry policy exists in Nigeria and its post-1988 iteration has resulted from representative and collaborative processes is laudable. What is open to debate is forestry policy adequacy given the guidance available from FAO best practices on forestry policy design. 30 It is submitted that a coherent national forestry policy on implementing sustainable forest management requires criteria and indicators (C & I) on thematic elements that are intrinsic to preserving the environmental, economic, and social values of forests. According to the UN, such thematic elements are (i) extent of forest resources; (ii) forest biological diversity; (iii) forest health and vitality; (iv) productive functions of forest resources; (v) protective functions of forest resources; (vi) socio-economic functions of forests; and (vii) legal, policy and institutional framework. 31 In this light, the continued reliance in the national forestry policy of a single measurable indicator, namely, forest area change, is unhelpful and it surely hints at the much wider problem of forest data availability and accuracy in Nigeria. This paper argues that the selection of new forestry policy goals and strategies is not enough and that a results-based approach is required to ensure that the measurement and reporting of progress achieved is consistent across the elements of sustainable forest management. 32 This means that C & I that are appropriate must be integrated into the national forestry policy. The 2006 national forestry policy was clearly deficient in this regard.

3.3 Justifying a National Forestry Act

The 2006 forestry policy recognized that forestry matters cannot be compartmentalized within sub-national political boundaries because the causes of forest loss and degradation are national in character and impact. Nevertheless, under the constitutional model operating in Nigeria, the national forestry policy has the status of a non-binding instrument because it does not distribute and enforce rights and responsibilities within the forestry sector. That remains the function of forestry law, which at present falls under the mandate of the parliamentary branches of sub-national governments. Each state forestry law has primacy and applies within the territory of the enacting state. Given that there are 36 states in the Nigerian federation, the multiplicity of state forestry laws, which in their earliest forms traced their genesis to the Forestry Ordinance of 1937 33 is another feature of the forestry sector in Nigeria. These enactments serve as the foundation laws for the SFDs. Apart from establishing and delineating forest reserves, they also restrict access and use rights, prescribe fees and charges for forest products, and codify forestry crimes. The powers of the SFDs vary from state to state with monitoring and enforcement capacity being extremely limited or not effective at all and with low criminal penalties for forestry crimes, de facto de-reservation through widespread encroachments and harvesting of forest products is rampant. 34

The irony is that the federal government, having taken responsibility for the introduction of a national forestry policy through the agency of the FDF has lacked the normative or rule-making authority to implement its provisions. This situation has created a disconnect between national forestry policy objectives on the one hand and ground-level actions taking place within the states on the other. The FPRC that helped to draft the 2006 forestry policy had recommended that a National Forestry Act should be enacted with a two-fold intent of providing legal backing to the national forestry policy so that its provisions are enforceable and strengthening the FDF by vesting it with regulatory and enforcement powers. These are powers, which the FDF has lacked since its establishment in 1970. 35 As a result, the FDF only performs research, advisory and coordination functions. The FPRC’s recommendation for a National Forestry Act was accepted by the FDF and subsequently incorporated into the 2006 forestry policy as well as the proposal for the establishment of new protected areas to be known as the national forest estates (NFEs). These would cover fragile lands, watersheds, catchments, and other lands that need to be kept under permanent forest cover.

3.4 Allocating Legislative Powers for Forestry

The question is whether the federal government can enact a forestry law that will have national application in the light of judicial decisions that have interpreted the extent of the respective legislative powers of the federal and state governments? Under the 1999 Constitution, the legislative powers of the federal and state governments are defined by the exclusive legislative List (ELL) and the concurrent legislative list (CLL). Only the federal government, through its legislative arm, the National Assembly, can legislate in respect of matters enumerated in the ELL. However, with the CLL, both the federal and state governments through their legislative arms, the Houses of Assembly, can legislate to the extent prescribed by the Constitution. Matters which are neither listed in the ELL or CLL are described as residual subjects. These fall within the exclusive legislative competence of the states. Forestry is not listed in the ELL or CLL and would therefore appear to be a residual subject in respect of which only the states can exclusively legislate for their territories. Under such a strict constructionist approach, the enactment of a National Forestry Act by the federal government will be unconstitutional as far as the states are concerned. In other words, such an Act, if passed by the National Assembly, would have no automatic application in the states.

The decision in Attorney-General of Lagos State v. Attorney-General of the Federation and 35 Ors, 36 can shed more light on this conundrum although it deals with what appears at first to be an entirely unrelated subject. In that case, the Supreme Court, by a split decision held that urban and regional planning is a residual subject within the exclusive legislative competence of the states. Thus, the apex court decided that the legislative power of the federal government in respect of urban and regional planning is confined to the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. This majority position was predicated on the interpretation of section 20 of the 1999 Constitution, which provides as follows: ‘The State shall protect and improve the environment and safeguard the water, air and land, forest and wildlife of Nigeria’ (emphasis supplied). It was held that urban and regional planning cannot be accommodated within any definition of the environment in section 20. What is relevant for the purposes of forestry is that the majority decided that the federal government has exclusive legislative competence on matters falling within the ambit of section 20. This was based on the fact that section 20 is included in Chapter II of the 1999 Constitution, which lists the fundamental objectives and directive principles of state policy and the ELL vests in the federal government legislative power regarding the ‘establishment and regulation of authorities for the federation or any part thereof to promote and enforce the observance of the fundamental objectives and directive principles.’ To the extent that forestry is expressly listed in section 20 (unlike urban and regional planning), the majority decision evidently lends support to the enactment of a National Forestry Act by the federal government. Indeed, it was the basis for validating extant federal environmental legislation at that time. In contrast, the minority decision in the Attorney-General of Lagos State case was that by virtue of the definition of state in the 1999 Constitution, all tiers of government, that is, federal, state, and local, have legislative competence for matters listed in section 20. Ayoola, JSC held as follows:

‘It is where the Legislative Lists are silent as to a particular matter in respect of which an obligation is created by a provision of Chapter II that the question is left to judicial interpretation, whether the legislative authority to carry the objectives of the Chapter in that particular regard into effect is exclusive or concurrent. In exercising that interpretative jurisdiction, the court cannot ignore the basic structure of our constitution one of the pillars of which is federalism. The Legislative Lists in Schedule II are silent as to the matter provided for in section 20 of the Constitution, ... . This is the environment clause. Since, the State referred to in section 20 is not restricted to the Federal Republic but also to its component units, environment becomes a concurrent subject over which the National Assembly as well as a House of Assembly of a State can legislate subject, of course, to the territorial restriction of the legislation of a House of Assembly; the doctrine of covering the field; and, to due regard paid to the inherent attributes of a State in a federation as an autonomous political unit.’ 37

The minority decision bifurcates the legislative powers on forestry and will empower the federal government to enact a National Forestry Act and equally uphold the rights of states to enact forestry laws. However, in House of Representatives & 5 Ors v Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria & Attorney-General of the Federation, 38 the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed its majority decision in the Attorney-General of Lagos State case. It further held that except as provided under the 1999 Constitution, the federal government cannot legally by legislation impose any responsibility on a state with respect to land within its territory. In summary, the weight of judicial opinion appears to support the federal government exercising exclusive legislative powers with respect to forestry, a subject, which would have ordinarily presented as a matter for the residual list because it is not included in either the ELL or CLL. In such a scenario, existing state forestry enactments would be deemed federal enactments, which ought to be repealed by the federal government upon or before the passing into law of a National Forestry Act. In any event, under section 4(5) of the 1999 Constitution, it is provided that if any state enactment is inconsistent with any federal law validly made by the National Assembly, the federal law will prevail and the state enactment to the extent of the inconsistency will be void (emphasis supplied). But it can be argued that the Attorney-General of Lagos State and House of Representatives cases do not establish any automatically binding precedent but should only be regarded as having persuasive force since the specific issue before the apex court in both cases had nothing to do with the exercise of legislative powers on forestry. This line of argument will allow the federal government to enact a National Forestry Act and leave it to the states to domesticate its provisions within their territories through the enactment of new state forestry laws. 39 Ideally, a decision by the Supreme Court through a suitable test case is required to definitively resolve the issue of legislative competence for forestry. But until such time, it is contended that the federal government is not at present precluded from enacting a National Forestry Act for the purposes of implementing new national policy goals and conferring new regulatory and enforcement powers on the FDF.

Regarding the establishment of new protected areas to be known as the NFEs, this policy objective was first articulated in the 2006 forestry policy. It is problematic in view of the land tenure system currently in force in Nigeria under the Land Use Act (LUA). 40 The reason being that the realization of the NFEs requires land grants from the state governments to the federal government because under the LUA, it is the former that have ownership of land within their territories. 41 Crucially, the House of Representatives case amplifies that unless prescribed by the Constitution, the federal government cannot by legislation impose any responsibility on a state regarding land within its territory. It is therefore doubtful that the creation of the NFEs will receive the necessary political support from the state governments. Rather it is likely to be contentious and divisive based on the firestorm that has followed the federal government’s recent proposals for the establishment of rural grazing areas nationwide. 42

3.5 Nigeria’s Status on Forest Targets of the SDGs

The SDGs are a highly complex policy framework with competing as well as inter-linked objectives and for this reason its implementation can be demanding for signatories. 43 Nigeria’s approach has been to mainstream the SDGs into development policies, sectoral plans and budgets at the national and sub-national levels and have multi-layered institutional frameworks coordinate and ensure coherent implementation. 44 An obvious risk is that mainstreaming is selective or is incomplete. The forestry sector is a case in point. Although, the short-medium term national development agenda, the Nigeria Economic Recovery and Growth Plan, proposes the establishment of one forest plantation in each state and the rehabilitation of all forest reserves, 45 the choice of such actions seems arbitrary and lacking in context as they are not specifically linked to achieving sustainable forest management or the targets in SDG 15. That the official assessment of Nigeria’s progress and status on the SDGs does not reveal data or results for SDG 15 is also telling. 46 This data deficit is a barrier to the valuation of the forestry sector’s contributions. 47 Post-adoption of the SDGs, forestry law and governance reforms introduced to combat illegalities in the tropical timber trades have helped to advance sustainable forest management in several Sub-Saharan African countries. 48 Unfortunately, Nigeria’s experience so far is suggestive of an SDG 15 trade-off in return for opportunities or progress with, for example, human-centred SDGs dealing with the eradication of poverty and hunger and the provision of social services such as education, health, and sanitation. 49

If it is accepted that the SDG 15 targets are global aspirations for forests under the Agenda 2030 and that they do not explain how respective countries should attain them, 50 implementation ultimately becomes in the final analysis a political matter and in Nigeria it is wholly determined by the constitutional allocation of powers in a federal system and the primacy of the states on land ownership and the regulation of physical developments within their territories. The gaps in technical capacities, resources, incentives, and accountability that have bedevilled forest governance and management in Nigeria have already been well documented. 51 Against this background, the absence of any reported progress towards achieving SDG 15 targets is perhaps not surprising.

4 Conclusions and the Way Forward

Nigeria’s trajectory or state of preparedness for achieving targets 15.1, 15.2 and 15.B of the SDGs and related forest commitments, for example, under the UN Strategic Plan for Forests is not promising and can in fact be described as discordant. This is an outcome that can be changed through collective political actions of the federal and states government. Delivering a new national forestry policy must surely go beyond identifying priority areas for sustainable forest management and setting a time-bound target for forest area change. Rather, it must also integrate suitable C&I for tracking the progress achieved, if any. In theory, sustainable development and sustainable forest management are the guiding principles of Nigeria’s forestry sector but the reality is that the forestry policies and laws till date, through a lack of enforcement, have failed to halt forest loss and degradation. New legal and organizational frameworks are imperative to deliver a change in the right direction. The federal government therefore needs to enact a National Forestry Act. This will serve as a framework law to bring about the harmonization of the multiple state forestry law regimes by catalysing the adoption of minimum standards on forest governance and management and strengthening regulatory and enforcement powers of the FDF and SFDs. The National Forestry Act should further include guidelines for participatory forest management because securing the rights of host communities to access forests within protected areas and share in forest revenues has not received serious attention till date. The objective is to enable the FDF and SFDs to concentrate on their core functions of regulation and enforcement and to empower local communities to share in forest revenues as a form of resource control. Finally, achieving natural resource-centred objectives and targets such as those in SDG 15 should be regarded as being integral as opposed to being in competition with delivering progress under the other SDGs.

Footnotes

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2014. Global forest resources assessment 2015: Nigeria country report. Rome: FAO.

Vidal, C., Lanz, A., Tomppo, E., Schadauer, K., Gschwantner, T., di Cosmo, L. & Robert, N. 2008. Establishing forest inventory reference definitions for forest and growing stock: a study towards common reporting. Silva Fennica. 42(2): 247-266.

FAO. 2012. Forest resources assessment working paper No. 180. Rome: FAO.

World Bank. World development indicators. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.FRST.K2?locations=NG&view=chart. Accessed 7 May 2021.

FAO. 2016. Global forest resources assessment 2015: how are the world’s forests changing? Second Edition. Rome: FAO.

See, Table 1. Source: . Accessed 7 May 2021. See also, United Nations. 2015. Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. New York: UN. Ref. A/RES/70/1.

For example, under Article VI of the African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, which was ratified by Nigeria on 2 April 1974 and Article 8 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which was ratified by Nigeria on 29 August 1994.

Nigeria ratified the Paris Agreement on 16 May 2017.

By virtue of decision 1/CP.21, paragraph 22 of the Conference of the Parties, Nigeria’s Intended NDC became its first NDC on 16 May 2017, see, Nigeria’s intended nationally determined contribution. Microsoft Word - Approved Nigeria’s INDC_271115.docx (unfccc.int). Accessed 6 May 2021.

See, United Nations. 2017. ECOSOC resolution 2017/4: United Nations strategic plan for forests 2017– 2030 and quadrennial programme of work of the United Nations Forum on Forests for the period 2017– 2020. N1718462.pdf (un.org). Accessed 27 May 2021.

See, note 1.

Gregersen, H., Contreras-Hermosilla, A., White, A. & Phillips, L. 2004. Forest governance in federal systems: an overview of experience and implications for decentralization. Jakarta: Centre for International Forestry Research.

There is no common model for SFDs. Some are units within State Ministries of Environment or Agriculture, see for example, Kaduna State Forestry Law, No. 7 of 2019. In contrast, Ogun State created a dedicated Ministry of Forestry in August 2004 while Cross River and Ekiti States enacted legislation to establish State Forestry Commissions. See, Cross River State Forestry Commission Law, No. 3 of 2010 and Ekiti State Forestry Law, No. 1 of 2016.

Aruofor, R. 2001. Forestry outlook studies in Africa: Nigeria country report. Abuja: FDF.

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Promulgation) Act, No. 24 of 1999, as amended.

Presently, there are seven National Parks. See, section 18, National Park Service Act, No. 46 of 1999, as amended. Although, the federal government announced in December 2020 that 10 additional National Parks had been created, the enabling legislation has yet to be passed by the federal parliament, the National Assembly.

See, note 12.

Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Water Resources and Rural Development. 1985. Agriculture policy for Nigeria. . Accessed 7 May 2021.

United Nations. 1992. Rio declaration on environment and development; New York: UN. Ref. A/CONF.151/26.

Federal Ministry of Environment (FMEnv). 2016. National policy on the environment (revised). . Accessed 7 May 2021.

See further, Experience of implementing national forestry programmes in Nigeria. Experience of Implementing National Forestry Programmes in Nigeria (fao.org). Accessed 13 May 2021.

See, FMEnv. 2006. National forestry policy. . Accessed 7 May 2021.

FAO. 2010. Developing effective forest policy: a guide. Rome: FAO. Also, Udeagha, A.U., Uluocha, O.B. & Shomkegh, S.A. 2016. Forestry policy and administration in Nigeria: lessons from Tanzania. Intl. Journal of Agric & Rural Dev. 19(1): 2399-2406.

See, note 22.

See, note 1.

See, note 13. Section 125 of the Ekiti State Forestry Law 2016 replicates the same definition.

Sayer, J., Douglas, S., Galloway, G., Riggs, R.A., Mewett, G., MacDicken, K.G., Arts, B., Boedhihartono, A.K., Langston, J. & Edwards B.P. 2020. SDG15: Life on land - the central role of forests in sustainable development. In: Katila, P., Pierce-Golfer, C.J., de Jong, W., Galloway, G., Pacheco, P. & Winkel, G., (eds.). Sustainable development goals: their impacts on forest and people. (pp. 482- 509). Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.

See, note 4.

See, FMEnv. 2019. Nigeria voluntary national report to United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF15). Nigeria.pdf (un.org). Accessed 10 May 2021.

See note 23. Also, FAO. 2011. Framework for assessing and monitoring forest governance. Rome: FAO.

See, United Nations. 2016. United Nations Forest Instrument. UN Forest Instrument. Accessed 25 May 2021.

See further, FAO. 2017. Using criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management: A way to strengthen results-based management of national forest programmes. Rome: FAO.

Cap. 72, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria and Lagos 1958.

See, note 12. Also, Forestry Management, Evaluating & Coordinating Unit. 1999. Summaries of working document for the national forestry policy review committee. Abuja: Federal Department of Forestry; Kalu, C. & Izekor, D.N. 2006. Evaluation of forest policy in Nigeria: a case study of Edo State. Afri. J. Biotechnol. 5(5): 429-433; and Ahmed, Y.M. & Oruonye, E.D. 2017. Challenges of enforcement of forestry legislation in Taraba State Nigeria. Int. J. Geogr. Geol. 6(3): 48-57.

See, note 14.

[2003] 2 NWLR (Pt. 833) 1.

At pp. 226- 227.

[2010] 11 N.W.L.R (Pt. 1205) 213.

There are precedents in which framework laws were first enacted by the federal government before they were subsequently domesticated within the states. For example, in connection with the implementation of the Child’s Rights Act, No. 26 of 2003; Public Procurement Act, No. 65 of 2007; and Fiscal Responsibility Act, No. 31 of 2007. In E.D.O.S.A.C.A. v Osakue & 8 Ors 16 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1645) 199, the Court of Appeal ruled that where the federal government and states exercise concurrent legislative powers, a federal law would not automatically apply to a state without an enabling law to that effect passed by the state legislature.

No. 6 of 1978.

See also, Fajemirokun, B. 2002. Land and resource rights: issues of public participation and access to land in Nigeria. Paper presented at: Proceedings of the First Workshop of the Pan-African Programme on Land and Resource Rights; 25 – 26 March; Cairo, Egypt.

Odoh, I. 7 July 2019. Ruga: how Nigeria averted another civil war. Businessday. https://businessday.ng/lead-story/article/ruga-how-nigeria-averted-another-civil-war/. Accessed 7 May 2021. Also, Johnson-Salami, L. 15 July 2019. Nigeria’s grazing crisis threatens the future of the nation. Financial Times. . Accessed 7 May 2021.

Baumgartner, R.J. 2019. Sustainable development goals and the forest sector – A complex relationship. Forests. 10(2): 152.

Federal Republic of Nigeria. 2017. Implementation of the SDGs: A national voluntary review. . Accessed 7 May 2021.

See, note 44.

In addition, Nigeria has yet to file its voluntary national contributions to the UN Forum on Forests that are required under the UN Strategic Plan for Forests 2017 - 2030, see further, United Nations. Voluntary national contributions. United Nations Forum on Forests Voluntary National Contributions. Accessed 31 May 2021.

FAO. 2018. The state of the world’s forests: forest pathways to sustainable development. Rome: FAO.

Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House). 2020. Forest sector accountability in Cameroon and Ghana: Exploring the impact of transparency and participation. London: Chatham House and Kakuru, W., Kowero, G., Oeba, V., Muta, D., Turyahabwe, N., Bukenya, M. and Busisa, E. 2019. Forest law enforcement, governance and trade (FLEGT): A mechanism for forest resources management in Sub-Saharan Africa. African Journal of Rural Development 4 (1):141-154. Also, Teketay, D. 2016. Forest certification: opportunities, achievements and challenges in Africa. A report. Nairobi: African Forest Forum.

See, notes 27 and 43.

See, note 27.

See, note 34