INTRODUCTION

A variety of resources abound in the forests of Nigeria and they include soil and its mineral deposits, water sources, rock outcrops, rare landscapes and, in the biological sense, plant and animals in all their various forms. The forest is, therefore, an economic treasure house of resources and if properly managed Nigeria’s forests can supply its people’s needs in perpetuity (Hissain, 1987). These resources are important because of the value that society attaches to them. Timber, for example, is universally enjoyed for its varying and various functions. Although fruits, fungi, herbs, bees and other non-timber do not enjoy the universality and the versatility of timber they are also important. There is, therefore, a wide range of demand for these resources and, consequently, differences in the sales level and the charges attached to them.

The sale of forest resources is one of the major ways in which government interacts closely with the people through the generation of economic social and cultural activities. These activities become the source of employment for timber contractors, tree takers, sawmillers, timber lorry drivers, machine operators, log rolling crew, timber clerks and gatherers of non-wood forest products. It is from this plethora of activities that government derives its policy for attaining specific forestry goals and implementation of economic development activities. One of the most important aspects of this policy is the forest revenue system, which is essentially the sale of forest goods and services.

The forest revenue system is, therefore, an instrument used by government to achieve various goals and objectives in forest management. It is also a tool for obtaining maximum benefits from the management of forest resources. Such benefits include the stimulation of industrial development, efficiency in the utilisation of wood, promotion of private sector activities in natural forest management and forest plantation development as a business, the enhancement of the marketing of forest products and sustaining the diversity of the forests.

During the colonial era a variety of forest charges were introduced throughout Nigeria. The first forest law was passed in 1908 and it imposed different fees on offenders, especially farmers, to discourage them from practising their vocation through shifting cultivation. The farmers were thus prevented from destroying trees because of the penalties the law imposed on them. The original intention of forest charges was, therefore, to serve as deterrent measure to preserve the forest. However, with more forest reservation taking place everywhere in the country, forest charges have remained because of the revenue they generate for government. In addition, forest charges have been accepted worldwide as an indication of both the concern for and the value of forest resources.

Since independence, the development of the forest revenue system has been a nagging problem for the forestry sector. Firstly, an effective revenue system must be reviewed from time to time to reflect changes in the economy. Secondly, the models used to determine forest revenues in the past were not clear. This has led to calls by forest managers for a clearer forest revenue system in the country. In 1981, a study of the forest revenue system was carried out and, in 1993, the Forestry Management, Evaluation and Co-ordinating Unit (FORMECU) organised a national workshop on forest revenue system development in Nigeria. The workshop addressed ways of improving the Nigerian forest revenue system with the objectives of addressing and achieving forestry goals and looking at the problems of forest development in Nigeria.

In Nigeria, forest estates are held in trust by the state governments on behalf of the people. In defining the objective of a forest revenue system, therefore, the type of ownership structure and the complexity of forest resources must be taken into consideration. However, whatever system of forest revenues is adopted, it is usually aimed at promoting a sustainable forest management, equity in the distribution of forest benefits to the community, promotion of rural development and stability of the forest resource.

The objectives of the forest revenue system play a significant role in the choice of models for fixing charges on forest products and services. Besides this, other factors, such as disagreement among professional forestry practitioners about what model of forest revenues should be adopted, have to be considered. In Nigeria, the authority responsible for formulating the model for forest charges is the state government. Because the states have independent policies, there are various models existing in the country and the models are not properly harmonised in Nigeria under the federal system of government. In addition, factors such as revenue sharing and the timing of the period of review of the system should be considered in the choice of model.

The objective of this report is to examine the current forest revenue situation in Nigeria with respect to financing forestry institutions from the revenues collected from the forestry sector and from government revenues collected from individuals and other sectors of the economy. It considers how money flows from the forest sector to government and back into the forest sector.

To facilitate the writing of this report, the State Forestry Services in the 36 States of Nigeria were visited by six teams, each covering all of the states within a geo-political zone. The six geo-political zones and the states visited are shown in Table 1.

The teams collected revenue data from each state, using a format structured in line with the terms of reference for the country report preparation. Seven states (Yobe, Gombe, Kaduna, Nasarawa, Adamawa, Niger and Plateau) could not make available any data at the time of preparing the report, despite visits by the teams. The states where data was available about forest revenues are shaded in grey in Figure 1 below.

The most comprehensive reports covering tariffs for individual tree species came from States in the South West and other states like Edo, Taraba, Kwara, Kogi and Benue. The information available from the remaining states, especially the states in the North, was scanty. Kano State made a nil return on revenue, because forestry in the state is regarded as a social service.

This lack of information has limited the scope of the report somewhat.