Content uploaded by Israel Osunsina
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Israel Osunsina on Sep 26, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS OF PROTECTED AREAS: A CASE STUDY OF
FOUR NATIONAL PARKS IN NIGERIA
1 2 1 3 4
Osunsina I. O. O*., Ogunjinmi A. A., Yisau M. A., Inah E. I. and Osunsina J.
1Department of Forestry and Wildlife Management, College of Environmental Resources Management,
Federal University of Agriculture, P.M.B. 2240, Abeokuta. Nigeria.
2Department of Wildlife and Ecotourism Management,
Federal University of Technology, Akure, Ondo State, Nigeria.
3Department of Forestry and Wildlife Resources Management, Faculty of Agriculture,
University of Calabar P.M.B. 1115, Calabar Cross River State, Nigeria.
4Federal College of Forestry Mechanization, P.M.B. 2273, Afaka, Kaduna. Kaduna State.
*E-mail: ; osunsinaioo@funaab.edu.ng osunsinaisrael@yahoo.com
Abstract
The management of protected areas was assessed in four national parks in Nigeria. This was done to identify the
weaknesses, strength and threat to the four protected areas. Data were collected with well-structured questionnaires
administered on ten (10) Managers of each of the selected protected areas. The data obtained were analyzed using
descriptive statistics, mean and graphs. Prevalent Threat Index (PTI), Protection Area Susceptibility Index (PASI),
the Mean Score of Threat Factor (MSTF) and the Relative Threat Factor Severity Index (RTFSI) were also
calculated. The results found weaknesses in funding, staffing, research inventorying of biodiversity and threats and
community relations. The numbers of staff found in the Parks were not adequate and as such the available staff
cannot effectively cover the land area of the park for protection against illegal activities. The study concluded that the
parks need to be properly funded by the Government.
Keywords: Assessment, Protected Area Management, Effectiveness, National Parks
Hockings et al., 2006; Leverington et al., 2008). A
wide survey of Protected Area assessments has found
that broad partici pation improve s acc uracy,
completeness, acceptance an d usefulness of
evaluation results (Paleczny and Russell, 2005).
Society is continuing to invest resources into
acquiring and managing protected areas, believing
that they are the backbone of biodiversity
conservation and that they deliver a range of other
social, economic and environmental benefits (Flona
et al., 2010).
We need to evaluate the extent to which these reserves
really do protect their values and deliver benefits to
the community (Hockings and Phillips, 1999; Ervin,
2003a; Southworth et al., 2006; Timko and Innes,
2009), and demonstrate proper accountability, good
management practices and transparency in reporting
(Hockings et al., 2006, 2009). Evaluations have been
undertaken using a wide variety of methodologies;
most of them based around the IUCN-WCPA
Pr o t ected Ar e a Mana g ement E ffec t i veness
Framework (Hockings et al.2006), which provides an
overall structure and guidance on the purpose of
management effectiveness evaluation, the selection
and measurement of indicators and the analysis and
use of data (Nolte et al., 2010).
Introduction
Protected areas span the globe. Almost all countries
have set aside at least a part of their territory for the
purpose of nature conservation. More than 130,000
sites have been reported to the World Data Base of
Protected Areas (WDPA) by 2010 and this number is
still increasing (Nolte et al., 2010). Protected Areas
constitute a major component of national and regional
strategies to control biodiversity loss. They are
considered as in situ repositories' of genetic wealth as
well as relics of pristine landscapes that deeply touch
the spiritual, cultural, aesthetic and relational
dimensions of human existence (Chape, et al., 2003;
Putney, 2003).
Society is continuing to invest resources into
acquiring and managing protected areas, believing
that they are the backbone of biodiversity
conservation and that they deliver a range of other
social, economic and environmental benefits. Over
12% of the earth's terrestrial surface is now in
nationally designated protected areas (UNEP-
WCMC, 2008) but global biodiversity continues to
decline at an alarming rate (Butchart and others 2010).
Management effectiveness evaluation has become a
mo re prominent feature of Protec ted Area
Management over the past decade (Hockings, 2003;
155
Applied Tropical Agriculture
Volume 23, No. 2, 155-165, 2018
© A publication of the School of Agriculture and Agricultural Technology,
The Federal University of Technology, P.M.B. 704, Akure, Nigerian.
zones ranging from Shrub Savanna to Sudan Guinea
Savanna; fringing lowland rainforest, to montane
forest and grassland habitats. The gradation of these
ecosystems depends on the altitude and the north-
south spread. It should also be noted that these
different vegetation-types harbour exceptionally high
level of biodiversity. The Park's montane forests
appear to be of relatively rare-dry type, characterized
by the presence of species more typical of semi-
deciduous forest, with little distinction elsewhere in
Africa (Osunsina, 2010)
Kainji Lake National Park: Kainji Lake
National Park (KLNP) was established in 1979 by the
merger of the two former Game Reserves–Borgu
Game Reserve (located between Niger and Kwara
States) and the Zugurma Game Reserve (located in
Niger State), the two reserves have been gazetted in
1962 and 1971 respectively as Game Reserves by the
then Northern Regional Government. It was
therefore known to be the first National Park and the
second largest of all the seven National Parks in
2
Nigeria with land area of 5,340.83 km . The Park lies
0 1 0 1 0
between latitude 9 40 –10 30 N and longitude 3
1 0 1
30 –5 50 E (UNEP-WCMC, 2003) and it has a
savanna vegetation. Night temperature can be as low
0
as 7 C near Oli River. The drainage system in the two
sectors of Kainji Lake National Park is maintained by
the Oli, Menai and Doro Rivers (Borgu sector) while
the Manyara and NuwaZurugi Rivers maintains the
Zurguma sector. The major vegetation type of Kainji
Lake National Park as classified by Keay (1959) is
Northern Guinea Savanna ecotype. Afolayan (1977)
and Milligan (1978) identified seven vegetation sub-
types; Burkea africana/ Detarium microcarpum
woodland, Afzelia africana woodland, Isoberlinia
tomentosa woodland, Terminalia macroptera
woodland, Diospyros mespiliformis dry forest, Acacia
“complex” dry forest and Riparian forest and
woodlands in Kainji Lake National Park.
Old Oyo National Park: Old Oyo National Park
is located in the northern part of Oyo state, south-
western Nigeria. It has a total land area of 2,512sq.km
and derives its name from the ruins of Oyo Ile, the
ancient political capital of the Yoruba Empire. The
Park lies between latitudes 8°101 and 9°051N and
longitudes 3°00' and 4°02'E. The Head Office is
located in Oyo town, Oyo State. (NNPS, 2010).
The need for protected area effectiveness evaluation
echoes calls to measure, evaluate and communicate
the effectiveness of conservation strategies more
generally (Saterson et al., 2004; Sutherland et al.,
2004; Brooks et al., 2006). Good management needs
to be rooted in a thorough understanding of the
individual conditions related to a protected area, be
carefully planned and implemented and include
re gul ar monitori ng, lea ding to cha nge s in
management as required (Nolte et al., 2010). The
study was carried out on the managemen t
effectiveness of Protected Areas using four (4) of the
national parks in Nigeria as case study.
Materials and Method
Study Area
The study was carried out in Cross River National
Park (CRNP), Gashaka Gumti National Park
(GGNP), Kainji Lake National Park (KLNP) and Old
Oyo National Park (OONP).
Cross River National Park (CRNP): Cross
River National Park is located in the rainforest
ecological zone in the extreme south eastern corner of
Nigeria on the border with the Republic of Cameroun.
2
The park occupies a total land area of about 4000km
of tropical rainforest ecosystem which thins out
progressively to montane savannah vegetation at the
edge of Obudu Plateau in Okwangwo. The southern
2
Oban sector has an area of 3000km while the northern
Okwangwo division near Obudu covers an area of
2
1000km . The park lies within longitudes 5°05' and
6°29'N and latitiudes 8°15' and 9°30'E (NNPS, 2010;
Osunsina, 2010).
The Park is home to many species of plants and
animals, some of which are; Gorilla, Drill,
Chimpanzee, Forest elephant, Leopard and
Butterflies. Flora species include Anceistocladus
korupensis, Prumus africana, Irvingia gabonensis
etc. The park has two entry points, Erokut entry point
at Akamkpa and Butatong Base Camp in Okwangwo
division (NNPS, 2010)
Gashaka-Gumti National Park (GGNP)
Gashaka-Gumti National Park is the largest and most
scenic of all the seven National Parks in Nigeria. It
2
covers a total area of 6,731 km , located in the North-
eastern part of the country. The park has enclave
2
villages covering a land area of 329.5 km covering
0 1
geographically. The Park lies between latitudes 6 55
0 1 0 1 0 1
and 8 00 N, and within longitudes 11 11 and 12 13 E
at a location between Adamawa and Taraba States,
with adjoining spectacular, temperate-like Manbilla
Plateau. Gashaka-Gumti has five distinct ecological
156
Osunsina et al/Applied Tropical Agriculture 23 (2), 155-165, 2018
PTI = No of Protected area Officers mentioning
that particular threat factor × 100
Officers of all Protected area Interviewed
Protected Areas Susceptibility Index (PASI): To
determine the susceptibility of protected areas to
threat factors, a Protection Area Susceptibility Index
(PASI) was also calculated as a proportion of the
threat factors (out of the total indentified) that were
impacting on biodiversity and conservation,
irrespective of their frequency of mention by
interviewees:
PASI = No of Threat types occurring × 100
Total no of threat types identified in the study
The Mean Score of Threat Factor (MSTF): The
mean score of threat factors is calculated as
MSTF = Sum of all the scores for that
particular threat factor
The total number of respondents
The Relative Threat Factor Severity Index
(RTFSI): The relative threat factor severity index
(RTFSI) is calculated as
RTFSI =
The means score for a particular threat Factor
The maximum possible score
A ranking system revealed the most prevalent threat
factors and susceptible protected areas based on PTI
and PASI respectively (Okello and Kiringe, 2004 and
Kiringe and Okello, 2004).
Results
Human Activities Constituting Threat to
Biodiversity
There are several human activities constituting
threats to the parks ecosystem and these varied with
the parks and they are greatly affected by the socio-
economic activities of people around the park and are
also influenced by the vegetation of the parks. Figure
1 shows the threat to biodiversity in CRNP. The
major threats to biodiversity are hunting (35.4 %) and
logging activities (28.7 %) which are very
pronounced because of the rainforest vegetation of
the park and the presence of merchantable and
exploitable economic trees. Other threats to
biodiversity in this park include collection of NTFP's
(majorly vegetables, fruits and seeds which were
highly in abundance in the area'10.4 %), Illegal
fishing (7.9 %) and poisoning of water bodies for the
purpose of fishing (6.7 %).
Most of the park is low and plain, rising from 300m to
500m above the sea level at its highest. Notable hills
in the Park, namely Yemoso, Gbogun and Kosomonu.
The southern part is drained by Owu, Owe and Ogun
Rivers, while the northern sector is drained by Tessi
River. The park experiences two seasons in a year, the
wet and dry seasons. The rainy season begins in April
through September while the dry season begins from
October to March. The park is rich in fauna and flora
resources, significant among which are Buffon Kob,
Buffalo, Bushbuck and a wide variety of Birdlife.
Ethno-historical site includes the ruins of the city
wall, the great 'Agbaku' cave, Python cave, Detune
wall, the Oyo-Ile Reservoir (NNPS, 2010).
Methods of Data Collection
The data for this study were collected using multi-
stage random sampling technique. The Parks were
divided into ranges which serve as units for protection
and conservation activities and are located in various
geographical zones for ease of protection and
administrative activities. Primary dat a and
Information were gathered from Park staff. A total of
40 protected area managers were interviewed, 10
were chosen from each Park comprising of
Conservators of Park, Heads of Department of Park
Protection and Conservation, Sector heads, Range
heads and Bit heads in the Park. The primary data
collection tool of the RAPPAM methodology is the
rapid assessment questionnaire. The questionnaire
covers all aspects of the international evaluation
framework developed by the World Commission on
Protected Areas
(WCPA) and used by Ervin (2003b).
Data Analyses
Data obtained were presented and analyzed with
descriptive and inferential statistics.
Biodiversity Threat Analysis: A synthesis of
the threat activities and underlying causes as
perceived by the Rangers; (Protected Area Officers);
was done to identify the types of threat factors
impacting on biodiversity and conservation within
and around the protected areas. To establish the
prevalence of threat factors across protected areas,
two indices were calculated. The indices are
(i) The proportion of protected areas where a threat
factor was identified irrespective of how many times
it was mentioned by interviewees for each protected
area.
(ii) Prevalent threat index, PTI was determined as the
proportion of the frequency of occurrence of a threat
factor based on the number of interviewees who
mentioned it across protected area. The Prevalent
Threat Index (PTI) is calculated as:
157
Management Effectiveness of Protected Areas
questions for each of the Park frame work elements.
Table 1 summarizes the findings on the four Parks
indicating system objectives provided for the
protection and conservation of biodiversity,
management plan includes specific biodiversity-
related objectives, management policies are
consistent with Park objective and employees
understand the Park objectives. Furthermore, the
protected areas were legally secured and their
locations were consistent with the Park objectives.
Weaknesses were not consistent. A weakness in one
Park was often strength in another, while in some
Parks, the weaknesses were similar. Table 1 includes
all weakness found in the four parks showing which
weaknesses were directly related to financial
resources, which one were related to broad macro-
level policies involving other sectors.
The staff indicated that the parks were not well
funded and as such they were unable to carry out their
management activities effectively. Some of the
management weaknesses appeared concurrently in
the four parks. This study found weaknesses in
funding, staffing, re search inv entorying of
biodiversity and threats and community relations.
The numbers of staff found in the Parks were not
adequate and as such the available staff cannot
effectively cover the land area of the park for
protection against illegal activities. The Parks also
In GGNP, threat to biodiversity were mainly hunting
(25.8 %) and grazing (22.1 %) necessitated by the
abundance of grassland available in the savannah
vegetation. Other threats to biodiversity include
fishing (13.2 %), logging (9.9 %), poisoning of water
bodies for fishing purposes (8.0 %) collection of
NTFPs/Vegetables (4.7 %) and illegal settlements
(4.7 %) (Figure 2). Illegal settlement was also a threat
due to the village enclaves located in GGNP. The
major threats to biodiversity in KLNP are hunting
(32.7 %) and grazing (28.2 %). Grazing is as a result
of the luxuriant northern guinea savannah grassland
which provides fodder for the cattle and other
domestic livestock most importantly during the dry
season. Fishing activities (14.1 %) also constitute
threat to biodiversity, most especially the unregulated
fishing activities going on in the Kainji Lake Basin
(Figure 3). Other threats include logging (9.7 %) and
farming (7.9 %) (Figure 3). In OONP, the major threat
to biodiversity is hunting (33.6 %) and closely
followed by grazing (26.9 %) necessitated by the
southern guinea savanna, which provides flourishing
grassland for the cattle herds during the dry season
(Figure 4). Fishing activities (10.7 %), logging (9.4
%) and bush burning (6.7 %) also constituted threat to
biodiversity in the area.
Evaluation of Management Activities
The rapid assessment questionnaire included
158
Osunsina et al/Applied Tropical Agriculture 23 (2), 155-165, 2018
Elements of assessing management effectiveness
CRNP
GGNP
KLNP
OONP
Objective
Park objectives provide for biodiversity protection.
S
S
S
S
Management plan includes specific biodiversity-related objectives
S
S
S
S
Management policies are consistent with Park objectives.
S
S
S
S
Employees understand the Park objectives.
S
S
S
S
Local communities support the Park objectives.
W
-
-
-
Legal Security.
Park has long term, legally binding protection.
S
-
S
S
There are no unsettled disputes regarding tenure or use rights.
-
W
-
S
The boundary demarcation is adequate to meet Park objectives.
-
-
S
-
Resources are adequate to conduct critical law enforcement activities
-
-
S
-
Conflicts with local communities are resolved effectively.
-
-
S
-
Design
The sitting of the Park is consistent with the objectives.
S
S
S
S
The Park layout and configuration optimize biodiversity conservation.
-
S
S
S
The Park zoning system is adequate to achieve park objectives.
-
S
S
-
The land use in surrounding areas enables effective Park Management.
-
-
W
-
The Park is linked to other conserved or protected land.
S
-
-
W
Staffing
The level of staffing is sufficient to effectively manage the area.
W
W
W
W
Staff members have adequate skills to conduct critical management activities -
-
-
-
Staff members have adequate training and development opportunities. W - - -
Staff performance is adequately monitored.
S - S S
Staff employment conditions are sufficient to retain staff. - W S -
Communication and Information.
There are adequate means of communication between field and office. W - - -
Ecological and social data are adequate for management planning. - - W -
There are adequate means of collecting new data.
- W - -
There are adequate systems for processing and analyzing data.
W
W
-
-
There is effective communication with local communities.
-
-
W
-
Infrastructure
Transportation is adequate to perform critical management activities.
W
W
-
-
Field equipment is adequate to perform critical management activities.
W
W
-
W
Staff facilities are adequate to perform critical management activities.
W
W
-
W
Maintenance and care of equipment is adequate for long term use.
-
-
S
-
Visitor facilities are appropriate for the level of visitors use.
-
-
S
-
Finances
Funding is adequate to conduct critical management activities
W
W
-
W
Funding is regular as at the time needed
W
W
S
W
Management Planning
There is a comprehensive, recent management plan.
-
W
S
-
There is an inventory of natural and cultural resources.
W
-
S
S
There is a strategy for addressing park threats and pressures.
-
-
S
S
There is a detailed work plan with specific targets and objectives.
-
-
S
-
The results of research are routinely incorporated into planning
-
-
S
-
Research and Monitoring
The impacts of Park uses are adequately monitored
S
-
S
S
Research on key ecological
issues is consistent with Park needs.
-
S
S
-
Research on key social issues is consistent with
Park needs.
-
-
S
-
Table 1. Summary of evaluation of management activities in the selected Nigerian National Parks
S - Strength, where 60% or more of the respondent answered strongly agreed or agreed; W, - Weakness,
where 60% 0r more respondents answered disagreed or strongly disagreed. A dash (-) indicates
that the element was neither a strength nor a weakness.
159
Management Effectiveness of Protected Areas
In terms of prevalent threat index (PTI), illegal
grazing and infiltration of livestock into the park had a
threat index of 56.43% (Table 2). Illegal killing of
wildlife for bush meat (for the local markets) and
poaching of large mammals for trophies and other
products had a prevalence threat index of 53.07%,
followed by logging and deforestation of the parks
with an index of 55.08%, and illegal fishing in water
bodies located in the park with an index of 35.08%.
Other threat factors had prevalence threat index of
less than 20% (Table 3). The only park susceptible to
100% of the identified threat factors was GGNP. The
other parks recorded 90.9% prote cted area
susceptibility index each. The results of the mean
threat factor shows that human encroachment in terms
of their densities and distribution around the Park
recorded the highest mean score (19.5 ± 0.65),
followed by Agricultural expansion and other
incompatible land use changes (18.5 ± 4.5),
unsustainable use, demand and over exploitation of
fruits and plants by local communities (16.0±1.73)
and pollution of water bodies that harm biodiversity
directly or indirectly (16.0 ± 2.45). The relative threat
factor severity index (RTFSI) indicated that human
encroachment in terms of density and distribution
around the Park (0.98) was the most severe factor
affecting the parks. This is closely followed by
agricultural expansion and other incompatible land
use changes (Table 4).
Threat Activities
Various threat activities and their underlying causes
were mentioned by the park officers (Rangers) from
which 11 main factors threatening biodiversity and
wildlife conservation were identified (Table 2).
Illegal killing of wildlife for bush meat was reported in
the selected 4 parks for this study. Other threat factors
that occurred in all the 4 parks include human
encroachment in terms of their densities and
distribution around the park, unsustainable use,
demand and over exploitation of forest fruits,
vegetables and plants by local communities,
agricultural expansion and other incompatible land
use changes, illegal mining of solid minerals from the
park (Table 2).
Indiscriminate burning of bush that destroys wildlife
habitat, logging and deforestation of parks, illegal
grazing and infiltration of livestock into the park and
illegal fishing in water bodies located in the park were
also discovered to be threats affecting the
management of the four selected national park .
Pollution of water bodies that harm biodiversity
directly or indirectly occurred in 3 parks and gathering
of fuelwood in the park occurred in 2 of the parks
(Table 2).
160
Osunsina et al/Applied Tropical Agriculture 23 (2), 155-165, 2018
Table 2: Threat factors' prevalence and severity against biodiversity conservation in
the selected Nigeria's Park
Threat factor identified
from Park Officers
Number of Parks where the
threat factor exist
Prevalence Threat Index
(PTI)
Illegal killing of wildlife for
their bush meat for the local
market
4 (100%) 53.07%
Human encroachment in
terms of their densities and
distribution around park
4 (100%)
7.93%
Unsustainable use, demand
and over-exploitation of forest
fruits, vegetables and plants
by local communities
4 (100%)
10.37%
Agricultural expansion and
other
incompatible land use
changes to biodiversity
requirement
4 (100%)
15.56%
Pollution of water bodies that
harm biodiversity directly or
Indirectly
3 (75%)
8.85%
Illegal mining of solid
mineral from the park
4 (100%)
3.97%
Indiscriminate burning of bush
that destroys wildlife habitat
4 (100%)
7.02%
Logging and deforestation
of park
4 (100%)
35.08%
Illegal grazing and infiltration
of domestic livestock into the
park
4 (100%)
56.43%
Illegal fishing in water bodies
located in the Park.
4 (100%)
35.08%
Gathering of fuel wood in the
park
2 (100%) 2.75%
161
Management Effectiveness of Protected Areas
Table 3: Susceptibility of parks to threat against biodiversity and conservation within
and around the selected parks
National Park Threat factors within and
Outside National Parks
Protected Area
Susceptibility Index (PASI)
Cross River 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10
10 (90.9%)
Gashaka Gumti 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11
11 (100%)
Kainji Lake 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10,11
10 (90.9%)
Old Oyo
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10
10 (90.9%)
Key to threat: 1- Illegal settlement; 2- Hunting; 3- Fishing; 4 – Grazing; 5 – Logging; 6 – Illegal mining
of Minerals; 7 – Agricultural Expansion(Farming); 8 – Pollution, Poisoning of water;9 – Indiscriminate
Bush Burning; 10 - over-exploitation of Forest Fruits and Plants;11 – Fuel wood collection
Table 4: The threat factors that operate against biodiversity in some Nigeria's Park, their
prevalence and severity as stated by Protected Areas Officers (Rangers)
Threat factor identified from
Parks by Park Officers
Mean threat factor score
(Mean ± SE)
Relative Threat Factor
Severity Index (RTFSI)
Illegal killing of Wildlife for thier
bush meat for the local Market
8.25 ± 1.26 0.41
Human encroachment in
terms of their densities and
distribution around Park
19.5 ± 0.65
0.98
Unsustainable use, demand
and over -exploitation of Forest
fruits, Vegetables and Pl ants by
local communities
16.0 ± 1.73
0.80
Agricultural expansion and other
incompatible land use changes to
biodiversity requirement
18.5 ± 4.5
0.93
Pollution of water bodies that
harm biodiversity directly or
Indirectly
16.0 ±
2.45
0.80
Illegal mining of solid mineral
from the park
6.0 ± 0.71 0.30
Indiscriminate burning of bush
that destroys wildlife habitat
11.25 ± 2.29 0.56
Logging and deforestation
of Park
10.0 ± 3.0
0.50
Illegal grazing and infiltration
of livestock into the Park
8.0 ± 1.47
0.40
Illegal fishing in water bodies
located in the Park.
10.75 ± 3.09 0.54
Gathering of Fuel wood in the
Park
5.5 ± 0.5 0.28
Mean Value 12.27 ± 1.04 0.59 ± 0.07
162
Osunsina et al/Applied Tropical Agriculture 23 (2), 155-165, 2018
data and research means that protected area staff are
unlikely to be able to test their assumptions, adapt
other strategies, learn from their mistakes, or share
their lessons -one hall marks of effective, adaptive
management (Erwin 2003b; Salafsky et. al., 2001).
Erwin (2003a) also affirmed that inadequate research
and monitoring efforts are not unique to certain parks
alone but also to many protected area systems,
including those in the United States, even though their
resources are comparatively ample.
On natural resources inventory, the quality of natural
resources inventories ranked as a weakness only in
CRNP, it was strength in KLNP and OONP. In CRNP
the respondents observed that natural resources
inventories were inadequate because of the
incomplete data on threatened species. Moreover,
many of the qualifying comments for a “Mostly yes”
response to the statement about natural resources
inventory indicated that, while biodiversity
inventories do exist, the vast majority of them are
based on theoretical data rather than on ground – truth
data (data based on field observations). Some of the
wild animal species believed to be abundant are in
reality seriously threatened, while some have not
been located / observed for over a period of six years
but are still believed to be found in the park. Examples
include the water buck (Kobus defassa) in KLNP and
Gorilla (Gorilla gorilla) (rarely seen) in CRNP. The
fact about their status seems cloudy.
Erwin (2003b) reported that natural resource
inventories that account for the full range of species
within a park are rare; rarer still are those that account
for the distribution, habitat and processes of those
species. There is, therefore, an urgent need for a
detailed and accurate natural resources inventory,
without which a management plan, would be a mere
facade and the management activities that flow from
it are fanciful exercises. Oye (2002) also advocated
for an urgent need for a complete management plan
for both protected areas, rather than operating an
annual work plans as practiced presently.
The three elements that related to community
relations – community support of the park objectives,
conflict resolution and effective communication with
local communities – have a poor performance in all
the four parks. KLNP only showed the strengths in
this area. This may primarily be because of the
GEF/LEEMP programme going on in KLNP, which is
part of an integrated conservation and development
program. This observation is in line with findings of
Erwin (2003b) that there are serious conflicts between
the park officials and the local communities in many
of the protected areas. The problems of conflict
Discussion
The results of the management weakness appear
concurrently in the four parks. There were
weaknesses in five major areas: (1) funding, (2)
staffing, (3) research, (4) inventorying of biodiversity
and threat and (5) community relations. Inadequate
funding was a major weakness for all the four parks:
CRNP, GGNP. KLNP and OONP. Funding was
con s i d ered in a dequate t o con d u c t crit i c a l
management activities and irregular as at the time
needed to conduct these activities. This has prevent
irreplaceable and unacceptable losses to natural and
cultural resources Erwin (2003a). Inadequate funding
has directly led to many other management problems,
including inadequa te communication gadget,
transportation for anti poaching patrol, gun and
ammunition. Erwin (2003a) reported that under-
funding of protected areas appears to be a systemic
problem in other parts of the world. James et al.,
(2001) documented that protected areas across Africa
and Latin America are managed on less than US $150
2)
per square kilometer (km for less than the generally
2
accepted US $ 250 per km needed to adequately
manage tropical parks. There is the need to properly
fund the parks so that they can adequately fulfill their
purpose of being established. Oye (2002) advocated
that greater funding is needed for the management of
the Nigerian protected areas. Spergel (2002)
identified a variety of potential financing mechanisms
for protected areas, including annual government
allocations, park visitor's fees, resources extraction
and hunting, fines from illegal activities and
international donor contribution.
The major staffing weakness across the protected
areas was in the number of staff. Erwin (2003a)
indicated that lack of funding was the indirect cause of
this shortfall in the numbers Protected Area Staff. Rao
et al., (2002) noted that some Myanmar's parks had no
staff at all while others have few staff that are not
enough to adequately perform management duties.
Similarly, Singh (1999) reported that some of Indian's
national parks and its wildlife sanctuaries did not have
staff allocated to them. Brandon et al., (1998) and
Terborgh et al., (2002) corroborated the inadequate
staffing problem as being a wide spread phenomenon
in many protected area systems. All the four Parks
assessed are battling with the problems of inadequate
staffing, due to Gover nment restriction on
employment and inadequate funding. There is also an
inadequacy of research, including sociological,
ecological, and threat – related research. This was a
weakness noted in all the four parks assessed. Equally
worrisome is the logical conclusion that data are not
systematically used to inform management planning
and decision making. The system lack of adequate
163
Management Effectiveness of Protected Areas
J.C. and Watson R., (2010): Global
biodiversity: indicators of recent
declines. Science 328:1164–1168 Ch a p e,
S., Blyth, S.,Fish,L.and Spalding, M.
(Compilers).(2003): United Nations List of
Protected Areas. Gland, Switzerland and
Cambridge, UK: IUCN, UNEPWCMC
Ervin J. 2003a Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of
protected area management (RAPPAM).
Gland (Switzerland): World wide fund for
nature.
Ervin J. 2003b Rapid Assessment of protected area
management effectiveness in four countries
Bioscience Vol. 53 No 9, pg 833 – 841
Hockings, M., and Phillips, A. (1999): How well are
we doing? Some thoughts on the
effectiveness of protected areas. Parks
9:5–14.
Hockings, M. (2003): Systems for assessing the
effectiveness of management in
Protected areas. BioScience 53,.823 – 832.
Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Dudley, N., Leverington, F.
and Cou rra u, J. (200 6): Evaluating
effectiveness: a framework for assessing the
management of protected areas, 2nd edn.
Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines
Series No.14 IUCN, Gland, Switzerland,
105 pp
Hockings, M., Cook, C., Carter, R.W. and James, R.
(2009): Acc ountability, re por ting or
management improvement? Development
of a State of the Parks Assessment System in
Ne w South Wale s . E n v i ronme n t a l
Management 43:1013–1025.
Keay, R.W.J. (1959): An outline of Nigerian
rd
vegetation.3 edition. Federal Ministry of
Information, Lagos (1960).An example of
the northern Guinea zone vegetation in
Nigeria. Inform. Bull, Dept. For. Res
Nigeria.
Kiringe, J. W. and Okello, M. M. (2007): Threats and
their relative severity to Wildlife protected
areas of Kenya Applied Ecology a n d
Environmental Research 5 (2): 49 – 62.
Leverington, F., Hockings, M. and Costa, K.L. (2008):
Management effectiveness evaluation in
protected areas; A Global study University of
Queensland, IUCN-WCPA,TNC, WWF,
Gattor Australia.
Milligan, K. R. (1978): An ecological basis for the
management of Kainji Lake National Park,
Ph.D. Thesis University of Ibadan.
Nigeria National Park Service (2010):
E v o l u t i o n o f p a r k s i n
Nigeria.www. nigeriaparkservice.org/
okomu/default.aspx.retrieved June 2017.
around these parks can be partly attributed to
population increase. There are indicators of new
settlements springing up around the parks. This
observation is in line with the previous study
conducted by Okeyoyin (2009).
Conclusion and Recommendations
The parks need to be properly funded by the
Government. Majority of the management problems
are closely tied to inadequate funding. There should,
therefore, be provision of patrol vehicles, gun and
ammunition, communication gadgets and kits for the
rangers to be able to perform their duties effectively
and boldly without fear of armed poachers. The Park
should also seek for external funding from
international donor agencies. There is also need for
the Parks to adequately train their staff, since it is only
a well trained staff that can effectively implement
management plan and objectives.
Acknowledgments
I am most grateful to the Nigeria National Park
Service most importantly the Conservator General,
for giving me the approval to work in the Parks. I am
also grateful to the Conservator of Park and Staff of
Cross River National Park, Gashaka Gumti National
Park, Kainji Lake National Park and Old Oyo
National Park. I am highly indebted especially to
Rangers who served as guide, interpreters and field
assistants.
References
Afolayan, T.A. (1977): Effects of fire on the
vegetation and soils in Kainji Lake National
Park, Nigeria. Invited MAB-3 project paper
presented at the International Rangeland
Congress, Colorado, USA.
Brooks J.S., Franzen M.A., Holmes C.M., Grote
M.N., and Mulder, M.B. (2006): Testing
Hypotheses for the Success of Different
Conservation Strategies. Conservation
Biology 20:1528–1538
Butchart, S.H.M., Walpole, M., Collen, B., van
Strein, A., Scharlemann, J.P.W., Almond,
R.E.A., Baillie, J., Bomhard, B., Brown, C.,
Bruno, J., Carpenter, K., Carr, G.M.,
Chanson, J., Chenery, C., Csirke, J.,
Davidson, N.C., Dentener, F., Foster, M.,
Galli, A., Galloway, J.N., Genovesi, P.,
Gregory, R., Hockings, M., Kapos, V.,
Lamarque, J.F., Leverington, F., Loh, J.,
McGeogh, M, McRae, L., Minasyan, A.,
Morcillo, M.H., Oldfield, T., Pauly, D.,
Quader, S., Revenga, C., Sauer, J., Skolnik,
B., Spear, D., Stanwell-Smith, D., Symes,
A., Spear, D., Stuart, S., Tyrrell, T.D., Vie,
164
Osunsina et al/Applied Tropical Agriculture 23 (2), 155-165, 2018
values of protected areas. In: Harmon, D.
and A. Putney (Eds). The full value of parks:
From economics to the intangible. Lanham,
MD, USA: Rowman and Littlefield
Publishers.
Saterson, K.A., Christensen, N.L., Jackson, R.B.,
Kramer, R.A., Pimm, S.L., Smith, M.D. and
Wiener, J.B. (2004): Disconnects in
evaluating the relative effectiveness of
conservation strategies. Conservation
Biology 18:597–599
Sutherland, W.J., Pullin, A.S., Dolman, P.M. and
Knight, T.M. (2004): The need for evidence-
based conservation. Trends in Ecology and
Evolution 19:305–308
Timko, J.A. and Innes J.L. (2009): Evaluating
ecological integrity in national parks: case
studies from Canada and South Africa.
Biological Conservation 142(3):676–688
United Nations Environmental Programme – World
Conservation and Monitoring Centre
(UNEP and WCMC) (2003): IUCN
Management Category II (National Park).
www.unep-wcmc.org/sites/pa/0302p.htm
UNEP-WCMC (2008): State of the world's protected
areas: an annual review of global
conservation progress. UNEP-WCMC,
Cambridge, UK
Nolte, C., Leverington, F., Kettner, A., Marr, M.,
Nielsen, G., Bomhard, B., Stolton, S., Stoll-
Kleemann, S., and Hockings, M. (2010):
Protected Area Management Effectiveness
Assessment in Europe. A Review of
application, methods and results. University
of Griefwald, University of Queensland,
Europarc Federation, UNEP, WCMC,
WWF,BfN. Pp. 92
Okello, M. M. and Kiringe, J. W. (2004): Journal of
Sustainable Tourism Vol. 12, No 1, 2004.
Okeyoyin, O. A. (2009): Impact of livelihood
activities of local communities on wildlife
resources in Kanji Lake National Park,
Ni geri a . Un p ublis hed Ph .D Thesi s ,
University of Ibadan, Ibadan. Pg 124
Osunsina, I.O.O. (2010): Anthropomorphic
dimensions of Biodiversity Conservation in
Nigeria. National Parks.Unpublished Ph.D
Thesis.University of Agriculture Abeokuta.
Nigeria pg 363
Paleczny, D.R. and Russell, S. (2005): Participatory
approaches in Protected Areas Assessment
Reporting. Proceedings of the Parks
Research forum Ontario University of
Guelph, Canada.
Putney, A. (2003): Introduction: Perspective on the
165
Management Effectiveness of Protected Areas
