Content uploaded by Linus Beba Obong
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Linus Beba Obong on Jul 06, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Business and Social Science Vol. 4 No. 16; December 2013
219
Sustainable Livelihood in the Cross River National Park (CRNP), Oban Division, Nigeria
Obong, Linus Beba
Department of Geography & Environmental Science
Box 3628 Unical P. O.
University of Calabar, Calabar
Nigeria
Aniah, Eugene J.
Department of Geography & Environmental Science
University of Calabar, Calabar
Nigeria
Okaba, Lydia A.
Department of Biology
Federal College of Education
Obudu, Cross River State
Nigeria
Effiom, Violet Asuquo
Department of Geography & Environmental Science
University of Calabar
Calabar, Nigeria
Abstract
National parks have become one of the major strategies of conserving biodiversity. However, sustaining this
conservation strategy and indigenous people’s livelihood within the park areas remains a challenge. This study
assessed Sustainable Livelihood in the Cross River National Park (CRNP), Oban Division, Nigeria. The
household questionnaire survey and participatory rural appraisal (PRA) were adopted for data collection. Data
collected were on types of occupation, National Park and livelihood provision, alternative livelihood options,
constraints affecting livelihood activities, and host communities’ support of National Park operations. These were
analyzed and presented in tables, simple percentages and graphical illustrations. The study revealed farming,
gathering of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) and petty-trading as major means of livelihood of the people.
However, activities such as timber logging, poaching, gathering of NTFPs and bush burning with forest-based
farming encroaching into the park were identified as issues of conflict which led to cases of arrests of community
members. In order to make the livelihood of the people within the park area more sustainable the the study
recommended that the: provision of micro credit facilities for small-scale businesses and poultry keeping, the law
that established the national parks should be made to include alternative livelihood of the support zone
communities in national annual budget, agricultural extension services should be delivered to the people to help
farmers on improved and environmentally sustainable methods or techniques of cultivation and application of
agricultural equipments for better yield, and the park management should establish and maintain relations with
the host people, funding agencies, professional bodies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as well as
tiers of government so as to secure funding and training schemes suitable and compatible with support villages
for sustainable alternative means of livelihood.
Key words: Sustainable livelihood, protected area, National Park, alternative livelihood, non-timber forest
products, Oban, Cross River State.
Introduction
The fundamental challenge man is faced with is how to earn a living. Livelihood is the greatest of all challenges
to communities, households and individuals irrespective of age, sex, race, religion or nationality.
© Center for Promoting Ideas, USA www.ijbssnet.com
220
It is the basis for all forms of sustenance in life. The means of earning a living is normally described by scholars
and researchers as “livelihood” (Rigg, 2007). Livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both
material and social resources) and activities required for a means of living. In simple words, livelihood is about
money, food, labour, employment, and assets (Ellis, 2000; Rigg, 2007; Development in Nigeria (DIN, 2008). The
primitive man sustained himself by gathering fruits, nuts, leaves, hunting of animals, fishing, farming (at very
subsistence level), trade by barter, and so on. As he developed in science and technology, his capabilities widened
from self-help skills, technical skills and then, to professional abilities.
Worldwide, indigenous communities in forested areas are low income earners who build their economic activities
around forest mining such as hunting of animals, forest-based farming, timber logging, gathering of building
materials, materials for local craft, medicinal herbs and plants and non-timber forest products (NTFPs) such as
leaves, fruits and honey (Bisong, 2001; Fox, 2006; Bassey and Obong, 2008). It is well known fact that forests
perform several functions in the life of man such as socio-economic functions, productive functions and
protective functions (Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2007). Communities around forested areas
however, often take advantage of these functions by destructive exploitation of the ecosystem. In attempt to
manage the damaging and degrading exploitation, the conservation strategy of Protected Areas (PAs) emerged
(Brockington, 2002); one of such PAs is the National Park.
The establishment of National Parks (a natural area of land and/or sea, designated to protect the ecological
integrity of one or more ecosystems for present and future generations) normally engenders great challenges to the
host communities. Such challenges include interference with their livelihood systems, loss of land for agriculture,
removal of their rights and loss or restricted access to the forest and hunting grounds. Sometimes, there is need for
resettlement of enclave communities whose activities are now injurious to the park and its operations. Therefore,
whenever any government comes up with the policy of establishing National Parks, it is always silent about what
will turn out to be the fate of the host communities of the protected areas.
Common to indigenous forest peoples the world over is the mining of forest resources. Forests provide a wide
range of needs for the people, particularly Africans. For example, forest trees or plants produce a variety of seeds
rich in edible oil and protein, food, spices, flavouring, etc. Forest flora and fauna supply hundreds of medicinal
herbs, materials for local craft and housing, fuel-wood for cooking and heating, forest-based farming, and a gamut
of diverse non-timber forest products (NTFPs). Forest peoples harvest timber, hunt animals for protein and source
for income and cultural practices (Fakoner, 1990; Bisong, 2001; Goodwin and Roe, 2003; Nung, 2009; Adamu,
2008; ). It is out of this valuable resource (forest) that protected areas such as national parks are created for the
purpose of management. Protected areas keep expanding (World Parks Congress, 1992; Chape, et al, 2003). Take
for example, the World Parks Congress (WPC) held in Venezuela in 1992 with participants drawn across
scientists, conservationists, civil servants, business leaders, resource managers and environmental ministers were
pleased to announce that they had surpassed the target to devote 10% of the earth’s surface to protected areas by
2% (WPC, 1992). As good as devoting attention to creating protected areas for management purposes, the human
inhabitants’ sustenance tied to the areas is equally important, but nowhere in the WPC report that the livelihood of
the host people is mentioned or accommodated.
Most often, a larger population of forest dwelling communities depends completely on the ecosystem as a means
of livelihood (Wilkie and Carpenter, 1999; Anani, 1999; Goodwin and Roe, 2003; Nicaragua, 2004; Colchester,
2008). Meanwhile, the establishment of National Parks removes the rights of people in the affected communities
of access to the forest and its resources. It creates problems of limited land for agriculture, loss of hunting ground,
loss of access to materials for housing and local craft. The establishment of National Parks increases
inaccessibility to NTFPs reduces local income to completely forest-dependent households, leaving undue stress
on the people. It is observed in the literature that protected areas are often located in remote areas that are subject
to conflict. According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN, 1994), protected areas are
human inhabited. For example, as at 1985 figures statistics show that some 70 per cent of protected areas are
inhabited by humans worldwide; 86 per cent of protected areas in Latin America are human inhabited (Kemf,
1993). Some 80 per cent of protected areas of South America have indigenous peoples living inside them. In
Central America, 85 per cent of protected areas have human communities (Colchester, 2008). This is common
with tropical forest-dependent people.
International Journal of Business and Social Science Vol. 4 No. 16; December 2013
221
It has been observed by researchers that the strategy to conserve biodiversity through national parks has displaced
many thousands of poor park residents, transforming them into conservation-refugees and has affected additional
large numbers of people as host populations (LIeras, 1991). Other studies have also shown that there are persistent
conflicts between park management and indigenous people over issues of poaching, encroachment into park area
for agriculture, harvesting of non-timber forest products and timber logging (Goodwin and Roe, 2003; Colchester,
2008; Campilan, 2008). At the Cross River National Park, the case is not different. For instance, between 1999
and 2007, not less than 296 cases of arrests were recorded for trespass into the enclave (CRNP, 2008). The figure
reveals that arrests were at its peak in 2005, with a total of 63. It declined to 35 in 2006 and rose again to 58 in
2007 (CRNP, 2008). From this record, it is predictable that the phenomenon is set to increase if nothing tangible
is done to address the situation.
It is rather a surprise that the park management is more interested in recruiting and training of more park rangers
to arrest those trespassing into the enclave (Eniang, 2001; CRNP, 2008), instead of investigating measures to
salvage this helpless state. One would have concluded that the host people are not aware of the need for
conservation of the forest. For instance, Ite (1996) found that despite the high level of community awareness of
the need to conserve the forests of the study area, there is low level of local support for the Cross River National
Park forest initiative.
As could be observed in literature, there is neglect on the side of policy makers in addressing the issues of
including the plight of protected areas’ host communities’ interest in budget planning (Table 1) and those
countries that attempt this give it little attention in national budget planning. The Table reveals that some
countries of the world include protected areas in their national budgets. Kenya ranks first with a total of 56.535
per cent followed by Tanzania with 19.089 per cent and USA, third with 11.747 per cent, etc as budget allocation.
This study by Wilkie and Carpenter (1999) is quite fascinating but shocking in that there is no mention of how it
will be spent with respect to host communities and how they are provided for in alternative livelihood
scheme/programme in order to cope with adjustment in the protected area. According to Park Congress report of
1999, traditionally, conservation efforts, the establishment of protected areas and the sustainable livelihoods by
indigenous peoples have not always been supportive.
From the foregoing, one may conclude that the issue of search for livelihood is responsible for the cases of arrests
since the indigenes trespass to harvest forest resources for sustenance. The presence of the park, therefore, poses a
threat to the local livelihood support system. The deleterious consequences are abject poverty, severe stress,
malnutrition, aggression and restiveness, social vices, conflicts, and forced out-migration to environments that
may be hostile. All these problems are what this study fully explored within the support communities of the Cross
River National Park, Oban Division, Nigeria.
Objectives of the study
The main objectives of the study are:
1. To examine occupational structure and the role of National Park in the provision of alternative livelihood to
the support zone communities
2. To assess the preferred livelihood options by people of the affected communities.
3. To investigate the constraints affecting livelihood activities in the study area
Research hypothesis
The null hypothesis formulated for testing in this work is:
1. The alternative livelihood options of the people are not significantly related.
The study area
The Cross River National Park (CRNP) was established by the National Park Decree No. 36 of 1991 which
caused the upgrading of Oban group, Okwangwo, Boshi and Boshi Extension Forest Reserves, with the head
office in Akamkpa. Today, the operational law establishing it is the National Park Service Act 46 Cap 65 LFN
2004. The park occupies a total land area of about 4,000 square kilometers with central coordinates of 5o 25'
North 8o 35' East, i.e. an areal coverage of 280000 ha (Figure 1.1).
© Center for Promoting Ideas, USA www.ijbssnet.com
222
The Oban Division is approximately 342,459km2 South-East of Nigeria, lying south and east of a loop of the
Cross River and extending along the Cameroon border. The Cross River and its tributaries drain northern parts of
Oban Division, while southern parts are drained by the Calabar, Kwa and Korup rivers. The terrain is rough and
elevation rises from the river valleys to over 1,000m in mountainous areas with an altitude of 100 - 1000m above
sea level (NNPS, 2001).
Cross River National Park (CRNP) is divided into two. The smaller area to the North-East, Okwangwo Division
(NG010), is separated by about 50 km of disturbed forest from the larger Oban Division. Oban Division is
contiguous with Korup National Park in Cameroon (CM019). It is a tropical rainforest with unique experiences.
At the CRNP, activities such as nature hikes, bird watching, outdoor camping, botanical gardens and river rafting
abounds with a large area of lowland and submontane rainforest situated in South-East Nigeria along the
Cameroon border. The study communities are low income earners depending on forest resources in the provision
of food, water, shelter, medicine, recreation and other economic benefits. The land is extensively used for farming
as their primary occupation.
The system of slash-and-burn agriculture has greatly impacted negatively on the forest ecosystem. Other low
scale economic activities are petty retail businesses, sale of agric produce, sale of leaves and fruits from forest
gathering, indiscriminate logging, poaching and bush burning. According to BirdLife International (2007), the
population is growing rapidly and demand for farmland is leading to encroachment in parts of the National Park
previously considered inaccessible and marginal for farming. Traditional ways of exploitation of natural resources
such as hunting, fishing and shifting cultivation adversely affect the park as the human population grows. Fish
stock and other aquatic life have declined as a result of the use of chemicals for fishing.
Materials and methods
A field survey of the study area was carried out and pre-test interview and a check list of questions formulated for
actual field work. The study also utilized the participatory rural appraisal (PRA) in collection of data. The types of
data collected for the study consist of the major occupation of the people, income, and assets owned by the
people. Others include reasons for trespass into park area, constraints in carrying out livelihood activities, cases of
arrest for trespass, and livelihood alternative options of the people generated from both primary and secondary
sources.
Primary data was collected personally by the researcher and field assistant through structured questionnaire and
participatory rural appraisal (PRA). The reason for using the two methods is because there are some limitations to
questionnaire in allowing respondents in cases where further explanation would have been needed; hence, the
PRA was used to get some data that would be difficult to collect with the questionnaire. During PRA, key
informants who are members of the community and were able to provide needed information were gathered and
apprised. Others were the chief, youths and some Park Rangers who are members of the staff.
The secondary source of information and data was obtained from the Cross River National Park Head Office on
the provision of livelihood alternatives to the support zone (SZ) communities and recorded cases of arrests for
violation and trespass. Other secondary sources were previous studies available in the libraries, journals,
handbooks, magazines and the electronic media.
The population for the study includes all households living in Oban, Mkpot and Aking communities. The
population of the communities in 1991 stood at 4,088 people (National Population Census, 1991) spread across
Oban, Mkpot and Aking However, the sample size for the study was 250 households of both males and females.
The communities were purposively selected by the researcher with reasons that they have the required knowledge
of the issues under study. The purposive sampling method is a method that is based on the nothing that the
population of study possesses the character required for study (Joshua, 2008). A simple random sampling design
was used to proportionally select 250 households for administration of questionnaire.
Only household heads were administered with copies of the questionnaire, while key informants were randomly
selected and interviewed with some staff with knowledge of issues on the objectives of study. Data collected from
the field were analyzed and presented using tables, means, simple percentages, graphical illustrations and charts
for better understanding, while data analysis was done according to stated hypotheses.
International Journal of Business and Social Science Vol. 4 No. 16; December 2013
223
The Contingency Chi Square was used to test the hypothesis. The Contingency Chi-Square as a test statistic is
used to test the strength or weakness of a relationship (Mamahlodi, 2006; Joshua, 2008). The model is given by
the expression:
∑ (fo-fe)2
fe
Where:
∑ = summation sign
fo = frequency of observed value
fe = frequency of expected value
The Contingency Chi-Square as a test statistic is used to test the strength or weakness of a relationship (Joshua,
2008).
Data presentation, analysis and discussion of findings
Occupational structure, National Park and livelihood provision in the study area: Data from questionnaire
survey were analyzed and results as presented in Table 2 and Figure 1 reveals that majority of the sample
population are farmers with a total percentage of 47.20. Forest products gathering had the second highest
percentage in the occupational structure of 38.80, while others (which include food vendor (18.75%), business
(6.25%), mat making (6.25%), carpentry (6.25%), driving (6.25%), carrier (6.25%), motorcyclist (12.25%), and
palm wine tapping (31.25%) and timber logging (6.25%)) had total of 6.40 per cent. Civil service, hunting, and
petty-business had percentages of 3.60, 2.00 and 2.00 respectively. Result shows a significant variation in the
number of people involved in forest products collection. It shows that 93.60 per cent of total responses engage in
collection of forest products, while 6.40 say they do not engage in the collection of forest products (Table 4.2).
Further findings from PRA study reveal that a number of products such as leaves are collected from the forest for
food and income. These include leaves such as achi leaf, moimoi leaf, afang leaf, hot leaf, atama, among others.
Other items collected from the forest are fruits such as native pear, mimosup seeds, achi seeds, monkey kola,
bitter kola, bush mango, udara and hot seeds.
Other findings from PRA revealed that almost every member of the communities find a ready source of income
and food for sustenance from the forest. Tables 4.4 and 4.5 indicate that 53.20 per cent of people in the entire
sample earn monthly income of below N1,000, about 24.40 per cent earn about N5,000 a month,14.40 per cent
earn between N6,000 – N10,000, while a total of 2.80 of the sample earn above N21,000 and above.
Findings were made on National Park and alternative livelihood provision to the support zone communities.
Referring to Table 10, it is revealing that only four alternatives were attempted as park’s provision to the support
zone communities (SZC). Details to the table as obtained in the Cross River National Park Report (CRNPR, 2008)
shows that 10,000 assorted tree-crop seedlings such as assorted tree-crops seedlings like cocoa, oil palm, coco
yam, rubbers, citrus, banana, cassava, plantain and bush mango were distributed to interested farmers in many
support zone villages, including provision of assorted agro-chemicals to farmers (see Table 3).
However, the details of provision to individual communities are not available. But the record covers the two
divisions of Okwangwo and Oban. It is obvious in Table 10 that these provisions have been grossly inadequate
with the phenomenal rise in cases of recorded arrest of the locals for trespass into the park area. Figure 6 shows
that there is a relationship between provision of livelihood alternatives and cases of arrest for trespass. Cross
examining Table 10 and 14, it is noticeable that in 1999 and 2001, 5 cases each were recorded and they were
lower than any other year because there were provisions of alternative means of livelihood. All other years saw
rising cases of arrest which is phenomenal. The peak however was in 2005 when 2 boreholes were provided in
two communities.
A further finding from the park reveals that the Federal Law that established Nigeria National Parks (Act 46 Cap
65 LFN 2004) made no provision for alternative means of Support Zone Communities’ (SZC) livelihood. Rather,
it mandated the park management to collaborate with relevant agencies to provide alternative source to wildlife
for protein and income. The host communities noted that there were verbal promises of providing alternatives and
relocation of Mkpot community before park operations started but was not fulfilled.
© Center for Promoting Ideas, USA www.ijbssnet.com
224
Not fulfilling the promise is said to be another reason for trespass to gather forest products, hunting for animals
for protein and income, as well as timber logging. Apart from the recorded arrests in Table 7, the researcher had
several encounters where youths were arrested for trespass into the park area. According to Park Rangers and
other staff of the National Park, the activities of some of the members of the communities are very injurious to the
park, such as illegal exploitation of forest resources in the park area through timber logging, poaching, gathering
of non-timber forest products (NTFPs), and bush burning with forest-based farming encroaching into the park.
Assessment of the preferred livelihood options by people of the affected communities: The study assessed
the preferred livelihood options by the people of the affected communities. The various options of farm inputs and
or improved seedlings, scholarships, micro credit loans or micro finance, market gardening, employment and skill
acquisition or development were identified (Table 4 ).
As shown in Table 4, a total 68.00 per cent of the sampled population are interested in farm inputs and improved
seedlings. This is followed by skill acquisition and or development with a 12.80 per cent, employment with 7.60
per cent, scholarships for education of the youths with 4.40. Others were micro credit loans or finance and market
gardening with 4.80 and 2.40 respectively. Oral interviews with some selected community members why most of
them are interested in farming as an occupation revealed that they have fertile soils for agriculture, that they are
interested in skill because they can use them at all times and that when they are educated they can get jobs.
More findings from PRA reveals that host communities have their community members working with the park as
Park Rangers. Oban is said to have one (1) indigene at the senior cadre, two (2) at intermediate, and five (5) at the
lower cadre as park rangers. Other communities have one or two indigenes at the lower cadre as park rangers.
Although the communities have few of their members with the civil service, they were not employed by the park.
The people (indigenes) object to working as park rangers (which appears to be the only available job opportunity
in the park) because it is more or less a “war-front” to do such a work. This is as a result of attacks form the
members who are aggrieved at their state having been dispossessed of the enclave for conservation by the Federal
Government.
Information gathered during interview in the study area shows that the park once attempted providing micro credit
loans. According to them, the requirements to access the loan facility were too complex and many that none of
them could meet. At the end of the day they were all turned off. Hence, no member of the communities received
the micro-credit loan. They agreed that improved seedlings and other farm inputs such as bush mango, oil palm,
goats were provided to some farmers five years ago. Others were bursary of five thousand (N5,000.00) Naira and
some exercise books to some indigenes about once some five years ago and renovation of primary school and
provision of benches to Nsan and Aking communities.
During PRA, the people were asked to rate over ten (10) the main occupation (livelihood activities) of the study
area. Farming was said to be their main occupation (see Table 5). They cultivate crops such as cassava, plantain,
cocoyam, rubber, palm and few cocoa as identified. Noted during the PRA is the fact that those who engage in
other occupations such as petty-trading and civil service still farm and also gather non-timber forest products from
time to time.
Constraints affecting livelihood activities in the study area
The study also investigated constraints affecting livelihood activities in the area. Findings include conflict with
park officials, decline of forest products, and limited land for agriculture, and decline of forest products (Table 6).
This means that the collection of forest product must be monitored from over harvesting and effective use and
conservation of the resources. However, Table 7 shows a number of arrests recorded by the park for violation and
trespass into the park area for various reasons including gathering forest products, poaching, and forest based
agriculture, among others.
It is certain that this phenomenon will continue as could be deduced during interview, if nothing tangible is done
to address this problem of the people’s means of livelihood within the enclave. Conflict with park officials,
decline of forest products, and limited land for agriculture representing 45.60 per cent of the total sample
population are constraints of carrying out livelihood activities in the study area, 30.40 per cent for decline of
forest products, 12.80 per cent for limited land for agriculture, while 11.20 per cent see conflict with park officials
as constraint to carrying out livelihood activities.
International Journal of Business and Social Science Vol. 4 No. 16; December 2013
225
The arrests of local community members are due to trespass into the park enclave; reasons for the trespass are as
documented in Table 8. More PRA findings on constraints in livelihood activities include inability to identify
boundary lines recognizing where buffer zone stops. Others are decline in forest products in buffer zone area and
community forest and arrests by Park Rangers. Some identified reasons for trespass into the park area include
farming (20%), poaching (15.20%), harvesting of medicinal herbs (6.40%), and timber logging (3.60%). Other
identified causes of trespass include bush burning (12.80%) and overgrown boundary line (2.40%) which covers
beacons and then posing challenge of recognizing where buffer zone stops, this leads to intrusion by indigenes
and use of chemicals in fishing.
Test of hypotheses
The study collected data on the preferred livelihood options in the study area. These data were basically through
questionnaire. The respondents were requested to select the various options according to their preference. The
data were used to test the null hypothesis which states that: “The alternative livelihood options of the people are
not significantly related”. The summary of the result is shown in Table 9. The Contingency Chi-Square was used
to test the hypotheses. This statistic technique is used to test the strength or weakness of a relationship (Joshua,
2008).
The model is given by the expression:
∑ (fo-fe)2
fe
Where:
∑ = summation sign
fo = frequency of observed value
fe = frequency of expected value
Hypothesis
The alternative livelihood options of the people are not significantly related. The summary of the test is presented
in Table 9.
Decision: From the statistical result in Table 9, the calculated X2 of 86.81 is higher than the critical X2 of 11.070
at 0.05 level of significance with 5 degrees of freedom. By this result, the null hypothesis (H0) is rejected and the
alternate which states that “The alternative livelihood options of the people are significantly related”, accepted.
Discussion of findings
Findings of this study reveal that majority of the host peoples are farmers with 47.20, followed by forest gathering
in the occupational structure representing 38.80 per cent, while others (which include food vendor, business, mat
making, carpentry, driving, carrier, motorcyclist, and palm wine tapping and timber logging) including civil
service 2.00 per cent, hunting 2.00 per cent, and petty-business having a total of 2.00 per cent. It was the finding
of the study that only four alternatives were attempted as park’s provision to the support zone communities
(SZC). Details as obtained in the Cross River National Park Report (CRNPR, 2008) shows that 10,000 assorted
tree-crop seedlings such as assorted tree-crops seedlings like cocoa, oil palm, coco yam, rubbers, citrus, banana,
cassava, plantain and bush mango were distributed to interested farmers in many support zone villages, including
provision of assorted agro-chemicals to farmers.
However, information gathered from PRA study revealed that the Federal Law that established Nigeria National
Parks (Act 46 Cap 65 LFN 2004) made no provision for alternative means of Support Zone Communities’ (SZC)
livelihood. Rather, it mandated the park management to collaborate with relevant agencies to provide alternative
source to wildlife for protein and income. The host communities noted that there were verbal promises of
providing alternatives and relocation of Mkpot community before park operations started but was not fulfilled.
Not fulfilling the promise is said to be another reason for trespass into the park area to gather forest products,
hunting for animals for protein and income among others. The preferred livelihood options by people of the
affected communities were also identified. These options includes farm inputs and or improved seedlings,
scholarships, micro credit loans or micro finance, market gardening, employment and skill acquisition or
development. Community members interested in farm inputs and improved seedlings had the highest frequency of
170 (68.00%), followed by skill acquisition and or development with a total of 32 responses (12.80%).
© Center for Promoting Ideas, USA www.ijbssnet.com
226
Employment was the third highest option, then scholarships for education, with little interest or frequency for
micro credit loans or finance and market gardening. During PRA with some selected community members on why
most of them are interested in farming as an occupation revealed that they have fertile soils for agriculture. They
also said that they are interested in skills because they can use them at all times and that when they are educated
they can get jobs.
Further findings show that there is less interest on micro credit loans because there was once an attempt in
providing micro credit loans and no community member was able to access it. The reasons were that conditions to
access the credit facility were unattainable; hence, they do not want to try it any more. But if the facility is
accessible, they will gladly have it for small-scale businesses. Finally, the statistical results show that the
alternative livelihood options of the people are significantly related. The finding is in agreement with the study by
Sutherland (2000) who identified that most local people prefer alternatives that are close to the previous
occupations. This is true since new and exotic occupation may rather cause problems to the people instead of
improving their livelihood activities.
Conclusion
From the findings of this study, the following conclusions were drawn: a) there are enough evidences that the
establishment of national parks have not been playing the “double” sustainability of protecting and conserving
biological resources and ensuring the host indigenes’ means of livelihood, b) that there is significant relationship
among the occupation of the people in the study area, and that the alternative livelihood option of the people is
significantly related.
Recommendations
In order to make the livelihood of the communities within the Cross River National Park more sustainable, the
following measures are recommended:
Micro farming: Provision of facilities that make it possible to engage in micro farming such as poultry keeping,
goat raring, rabbit farming, snail farming, grass cutter farming is recommended. These could be better alternatives
to dependence on wildlife as well as fish farming, mushroom farming, bee keeping, and so on for protein and
income. Others are provision of improved seeds such as cocoa, oil palm, rubber, coco yam, orange (citrus), bush
mango (evangia gabonesis). With the services of extension workers using demonstration farms in teaching local
farmers innovative techniques, these micro farming has proved to be veritable in sub-Saharan Africa in livelihood
sustenance. The same bush meat for protein and income from the forest for daily living could be realized through
micro farming.
Skill acquisition or trademanship programs: Another essential recommendation is to help train and equip as
well as develop skills for technical jobs and for self-help employment within the enclave communities. Skills
when developed or acquired are for life. High intelligence is not necessary since anyone can learn a skill and
survive with it. Skills such as tailoring, art and craft, welding, driving, plumbing, mason, baking, hair dressing,
carpentry, soap making, electrical repairing, barbing, and computer training, among others, promise to predispose
the community members to be self-reliant and divert their attention from depending solely or completely on the
forest.
Micro financing: Provision of micro finance for small-scale businesses should also be made effective and
accessible to the people. Interested members should be identified and recommended from existing cooperatives
age-grades, youths certified by the village council. Small-scale loans should be given without interest or with
minimal or low interest rates. With the credit facility, small businesses could be started and loan paid back
(where necessary) gradually. People who really need this facility for support in small-scale businesses could be
identified with the help of community members otherwise, it will be taken for largesse.
Market gardening and NTFPs domestication: Market gardening and non-timber forest products domestication
are imperative where some of the non-timber forest products could be cultivated in farmyard gardens alongside
other vegetables and fruit crops. Vegetables such as pumpkin, water leaves, okra, bitter leaves, etc are normally
cultivated as market gardening. NTFPs as well could be domesticated and cultivated for the market. These include
afang, “moi moi” leaves, hot leaves, editan, atama, medicinal herbs and other edible leaves and nuts/fruits. It will
heavily engage the farmers and increase their income.
International Journal of Business and Social Science Vol. 4 No. 16; December 2013
227
Agricultural extension services: Extension services should be delivered to the people. Agricultural extension
services are services that help farmers on improved and environmentally sustainable methods or techniques of
cultivation and application of agricultural equipments for better yield. Local people often have no access or do not
access them at all, but when done, farmers will learn new and innovative techniques to productive farming in the
use of improved seeds, use of manure and agro-chemicals in the zone acceptable and non injurious to the park
area.
A Land use plan: Together with the community members, a land use plan should be developed. When done, it
would help farmers sustainably manage available land for their cultivation. In developing a land use plan,
community members should be involved within the area allocated for farming. With such provision, improved
seeds such as rubber, palm, cocoa, bush mango, etc planted, which would benefit the communities directly.
Synergy building, integrative and participatory management system and Livelihood governance: The park
management should establish and maintain relations with the host people, funding agencies, professional bodies
and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as well as tiers of government so as to secure funding and training
schemes suitable and compatible with support villages for sustainable alternative means of livelihood. This is
illustrated in Figure 5.1.
Proper legislation: The law that established Nigeria National Parks should be repealed. This is because it does
not consider the host communities in alternative means of earning a living outside the forest. The law should be
made to include alternative livelihood of the support zone communities in national annual budget.
It is believed that when the recommendations above are implemented, not only would the support zone
communities be taken care of in sustainable provision of alternatives to their livelihoods, it would sufficiently
divert their overdependence on the forest and smooth running of the park operations meeting its establishment
objectives.
References
Adamu, U. (2008). An assessment of socio-economic importance of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) in Jema’a
Local Government Area, Kaduna State. Proceedings of the 50th annual conference of Association of Nigerian
Geographers, Calabar, 126-130.
Anani, K.I. (1999). Sustainable governance of livelihoods in rural Africa: a place-based response to globalism in
Africa. Journal of Development, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada, 42.
Bassey, B. J. & Obong, L. B. (2008). The role of non-timber forest resource (NTFR) in community livelihoods: a case
study of Okiro, Obudu Local Government Area, Cross River State, Nigeria. Journal of Environmental
Research and Policies, 3, 98-105.
BirdLife International (2007). Cross River National Park Oban
Division.http//www.wcs.org/international/Africa/Nigeria/CrossRiver
Bisong, F.E. (2001). Natural resource use and conservation systems for sustainable rural development. BAAJ
International Company, Calabar, 45-50.
Brockington (2002). Fortress conservation: the preservation of the Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania, 26.
Campilan, D. (2008). A livelihood systems framework for participatory agricultural research: the case of UPWARD.
http://www.idrc.ca/en
Chape, S., Blyth, S., Fish, L., & Spalding, M. (2003). United nations list of protected areas. IUCN, Gland Switzerland
and UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK. http://www.nai.uu.se/research/areas/making/
Colchester, M. (2008). Salvaging nature: indigenous peoples, protected areas and biodiversity conservation. World
rainforest movement. http://www.org.uy/subjects/nature
Cross River National Park (CRNP, 2008). Report on activities of Cross River National Park from 1991 to 2007,
presented to House of Representative Committee on Environment.
Development in Nigeria (DIN, 2008). Sustainable livelihoods. http://www.aradin.org/alternative_livelihoods.htm
Ellis, F. (2000). Rural livelihood diversity in developing countries: evidence and policy implications. Natural resource
perspectives London: Overseas Development Institute, 40.
Eniang, E.A. (2001). The role of the Cross River National Park in gorilla conservation. Gorilla Journal, 22.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2007). State of the world’s forests, Rome, 3-4.
Fakoner, J. (1990). The major significance of minor forest products: the local use and value in West Africa humid
forest zone, Rome, 6-9.
© Center for Promoting Ideas, USA www.ijbssnet.com
228
Fox, J. (2006). Introduction: linking rural livelihoods and protected areas in Bangladesh. East-West Center, Honolulu,
Hawaii. http://www.nai.uu.se/research/areas/making
Goodwin, H. & Roe, D. (2003). Tourism, livelihoods and protected areas: opportunities for fair-trade tourism in and
around national parks. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, 27-31.
Ite, U.E. (1996). Community perceptions of the Cross River
National Park, Nigeria. Environmental Conservation, 23 (4), 351-357. www.citeulike.org/group/344/aricle
International Union of Conservation of Nature (IUCN, 1994).
Guidelines for protected areas management categories. IUCN, Cambridge, UK and Gland, Switzerland, 12.
Joshua, M.T. (2008). Some common statistical analysis techniques used in research in education and in social sciences.
Unpublished guide on research in educational foundations, guidance and counseling, University of Calabar,
Nigeria, 1-2.
Kemf, E. (1999). Indigenous peoples and protected areas: the law of mother earth, Earthscan Publications Limited
London, 8-10.
LIeras, E. (1991). Conservation de resources geneticos in-situ diversity: global diversity assessment. UNEP, Cambridge
University Press, 11-14.
Nigerian National Park Service (NNPS, 2002). National Parks Diary. Park Congress (1999). “Reconciling protected
areas and sustainable livelihoods”. http://ictsd.org
Rigg, J. (2007). An everyday geography of the global south.
Routledge, 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, 50-57.
Wilkie, D.S. & Carpenter, J.F. (1999). Can nature tourism help finance protected areas in the Congo Basin? 33, (4).
Table 1: Percentage of national annual budget devoted to protected areas
N
Country
Percentage annual budget
Percentage
*(%)
Ranking
*
1
Cameroon
0.012
0.881
7
th
2
Germany
0.01
0.734
6
th
3
Netherlands
0.02
1.468
5
th
2
Malawi
0.13
9.544
4
th
3
USA
0.16
11.747
3
rd
4
Tanzania
0.26
19.089
2
nd
5
Kenya
0.77
56.535
1
st
Total
100
Data source: Wilkie and Carpenter (1999)
* Calculated and ranked by the researchers
Table 2: Occupational structure of the study area
Sample
community
Variable
Farming
Petty
-
trading
Civil
Servant
Hunting
NTFPs
Others
Oban
35 (36.84%)
3 (3.16%)
6 (6.32%)
0 (0%)
41(43.16%)
10(10.53%)
Mkpot
52 (61.20%)
1 (1.20%)
1 (1.20%)
1(1.20%)
27 (31.80%)
3 (3.53%)
Aking
31 (44.30%)
1 (1.43%)
2 (2.90%)
4 (5.71%)
29(41.41%)
3 (4.30%)
Total %
47.20
2.00
3.60
2.00
38.80
6.40
Data source: Fieldwork (2009).
International Journal of Business and Social Science Vol. 4 No. 16; December 2013
229
Table 3: Provision of livelihood alternatives to host communities
Year
Description of provision
Number provided
Description of provision
1999
Farm
inputs/improved seedlings
10,000
bush mango, oil palm seedlings
2000
None
0
2001
Livestock farming
300
Goats
2002
Educational support
7
bursary of five thousand (N5,000.00)
Naira and some exercise books
2003
Health facilities/drugs
5
2004
Road/culverts
6
2005
Boreholes
2
provided in two communities
2006
None
0
2007
None
0
Source: Cross River National Park (CRNP, 2008).
Table 4: Preferred alternative options by study communities
Community
Variable
Farm inputs
Scholarships
Micro
-
finance
Market gardening
Employment
Skills
Oban
56 (58.95%)
3 (3.20%)
12 (12.63%)
6 (6.32%)
14 (14.73%)
4 (4.21%)
Mkpot
75 (88.24%)
1 (1.20%)
0 (0.00%)
0 (0.00%)
3 (3.53%)
6 (7.10%)
Aking
39 (55.71%)
7 (10.00%)
0 (0.00%)
0 (0.00%)
2 (2.86%)
22
(31.43%)
Total %
68.00
4.40
4.80
2.40
7.60
12.80
Data source: Fieldwork (2009)
Table 5: Scoring of major occupations in the study area
Occupation
Rating
Percentage (%)
Farming
5
50
NTFPs collection
3
30
Petty
-
trading
1
10
Civil service
1
10
Total
10
100
Data source: Fieldwork (2009)
Table 6: Constraints on carrying out livelihood activities
Community
Variable
Conflict with
park Officials
Decline of
forest products
Limited land
for farming
Decline in
fertility of soil
All the above
Oban
12(12.63%)
6(6.32%)
22(23.20%)
0(0.00%)
55(51.90%)
Mkpot
7(8.23%)
56(65.90)
6(7.10%)
0(0.00%)
16(18.82%)
Aking
9(12.86%)
14(20.00)
4(5.71%)
0(0.00%)
43(61.43%)
Total %
11.20
30.40
12.80
0.00
45.60
Data source: Fieldwork (2009).
Table 7: Cases of arrest for trespass (1999 to 2007)
Year
Number of arrests
1999
5
2000
17
2001
5
2002
28
2003
43
2004
42
2005
63
2006
35
2007
58
Total
296
Data source: Cross River National Park (CRNP, 2008).
© Center for Promoting Ideas, USA www.ijbssnet.com
230
Table 8: Reasons for trespass into the park area
Reason(s)
Number of responses
Percentage (%)
NTFPs
87
34.80
Poaching
38
15.20
Farming activities
50
20.00
Fire wood
12
4.80
Logging
9
3.60
Medicinal herbs
16
6.40
Overgrown boundary
6
2.40
Bush burning
32
12.80
Total
250
100
Data source: Fieldwork (2009).
Table 9: Summary of observation X2 Table for hypothesis
X
2
Calculated
X
2
Tabulated
Degree of freedom (df)
Confidence level
86.81
11.070
5
0.05
Data source: Fieldwork (2009).
Figure 1: Occupational structure of the study area
Figure 2: Number of arrests for trespass
Source: Fieldwork, 2009.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Percentage (%)
International Journal of Business and Social Science Vol. 4 No. 16; December 2013
231
Figure 3: Building synergy between governments, NGOs and support zone communities. A model for the
provision of sustainable alternative livelihood in protected areas.
Source: Fieldwork, 2009
Government (funding)
programme)
Support zone communities
(executing programmes directly) NGOs (releasing funds and
monitoring execution)
