Effects of participatory forest management on livelihood capitals of the community in Cox's Bazar,...

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Effects of participatory forest management on livelihood capitalsof the community in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh

Abu Saleh Md. Golam Kibria • Mohammed Jashimuddin •

Inoue Makoto

Received: 3 October 2012 / Accepted: 23 March 2013

� The Japanese Forest Society and Springer Japan 2013

Abstract In Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh, we surveyed 80

households to observe the effects of participatory forestry

(PF) on the livelihood of local participants. We analyzed

the effects on livelihood capitals to compare in two ways:

(1) before and after participation, and (2) participants and

non-participants. In Cox’s Bazar, there were some signifi-

cant changes regarding income sources, but annual income

was little changed after participation in participatory for-

estry. Literacy (about 10 % after participation) and mobile

phone ownership (75 %) were significantly higher than

before. Housing conditions were better (brick walls: 7.5 %;

sun-grass roof: 70 %) than those of non-participants (brick

walls: 0 %; sun-grass roof: 77.5 %). PF ensured legal

rights on forest lands for participants, while non-partici-

pants were illegally living on public forestland. However,

expenses were considerably higher than income; people

were still struggling with poverty and many of them suf-

fered from malnutrition. This ultimately put pressure on all

capital. People had redistributed their available capital to

cope with adversity, and there was a trend toward

involvement in economic activities other than forests. Our

study found that social capital was more influenced by PF

more than other capitals. Due to the involvement with the

PF program, people were feeling much more secure,

women had elevated status, and social relationships

became stronger.

Keywords Before and after � Livelihood � Participants

and non-participants � Participatory forestry

Introduction

The disappearance of natural forests in developing coun-

tries negatively affects the livelihoods of people dependent

on forest products and services (Poore 1986; Brosius 1997;

Maruyama and Morioka 1998). An increase in population

growth and human poverty, the acute shortage of fuel

wood, fodder, and timber, and a continuous decline in the

amount of per capita cultivable land have led to a severe

degradation of the primary forests of Bangladesh (Salam

et al. 1999). Khan et al. (2004) found that a significant

portion of the country’s designated forestland is actually

devoid of trees. About 3.3 % of hill forest areas and 31.9 %

of deciduous forest areas have already been encroached

(Muhammed et al. 2005). Maser (1994) suggested that if

changes are not made, the present limitation will become

future scarcities.

The failure of state-led resource management has dem-

onstrated that there was a need to change state policies and

strategies to involve people living in and near forests

(Hong 2005, cited in Nath and Inoue 2010). Rana et al.

(2007) argued that protection of an environment that is

crucial for sustainable development in Bangladesh cannot

be ensured without the proper management, maintenance,

and expansion of forest resources. Some economists have

argued that the conservation of tropical forests will be

difficult unless the people who use these forests are com-

pensated (Pearce 1996). People’s participation in forestry

A. S. M. G. Kibria (&) � I. Makoto

Laboratory of Global Forest Environmental Studies, Department

of Global Agricultural Sciences, Graduate School of Global

Agriculture and Life Sciences, The University of Tokyo,

Bunkyo, Tokyo 1138657, Japan

e-mail: [email protected]

M. Jashimuddin

Institute of Forestry and Environmental Sciences, University of

Chittagong, Chittagong, Bangladesh

123

J For Res

DOI 10.1007/s10310-013-0403-4

activities started formally in Bangladesh in the 1980s under

forestry extension programs on national forestlands (Rana

et al. 2007).

Muhammed et al. (2005) reported that, during

2000–2003, more than 23,000 individuals benefited from

the final felling of participatory forestry (PF) plantations in

Bangladesh. This work has generated a total of US$5.6

million in government income and US$5.3 million in

participants’ income. Some of the forest-derived products,

such as firewood, vines, or fruit collected for household

consumption, remain a hidden harvest, the value of which

is often difficult for economists to quantify (IIED 1995).

Although PF is now considered as a part of government

and donor orthodoxy in forestry investment, it is not yet

clear what impacts such PF projects have on participants’

livelihoods (Bandyopadhyay and Shyamsundar 2004).

Despite the governmental emphasis and popular support in

Bangladesh, systematic academic research on the role of

PF in the livelihoods of participant farmers has remained

remarkably limited (Khan et al. 2004. Thus, this research

was attempted to analyze the effects of PF on the livelihood

capital of the participants in Cox’s Bazar.

Materials and methods

Conceptual framework

At the household, community, and social levels, the assets

available constitute a stock of capital which can be stored,

accumulated, exchanged, or depleted, and put to work to

generate a flow of income or other benefits (Lipton and

Ravallion 1995; McGregor 1998; Moser 1998).

Natural capital is made up of the natural resource stocks

from which resource flows useful to livelihoods are

derived, including land, water, and other environmental

resources (Booth et al. 1998; Carney 1998).

Improved access to physical or produced capital (basic

infrastructure and the production equipment and means

which enable people to pursue their livelihoods) is an

essential element of strategies to reduce household poverty.

In addition to physical capital, the available financial

resources (including savings, credit, remittances, and pen-

sions) engage them with different livelihood options

(Carney 1998). Both the quantity and quality of labor

resources available to households are subsumed under

human capital by some analysts (e.g., Carney 1998), while

some items noted by Lipton and Ravallion (1995) and

Moser (1998) are treated differently by others. But both

quality and quantity are important to the fulfillment of

productive and reproductive tasks. Although evidence on

the relevance of educational level to farm incomes varies

(e.g., Rodriguez and Smith 1994), the level includes social

relationships at the household, community, and social

levels (Booth et al. 1998). Social capital can be defined as

the features of social organizations that facilitate coordi-

nation and cooperation for mutual benefit of the members

and society as a whole (Putnam 2001).

Households build their livelihoods on the basis of their

assets and available opportunities. Household ‘‘livelihood

assets’’ are augmented through ‘‘entitlements’’ to locally

available capital, such as tree and forest resources (Soussan

et al. 2001). People in the study areas were living on the

forest lands and the main livelihood activity was to extract

forest resources to support both the physical and financial

needs of the families. Different households within the same

locale have diverse levels of household assets. Using the

available five capital assets, people engage in various

livelihood strategies in order to achieve livelihood objec-

tives (DFID 2000; Soussan et al. 2001) in response to the

opportunities arising, level of resource access, risk aver-

sion, and perceived benefits. On this basis, they then

engage in ‘‘livelihood activities’’ (Soussan et al. 2001).

Involving the forest-dependent people in forest manage-

ment and protection, and prohibiting their long traditional

dependence on natural state forests, is likely to change their

livelihoods in various ways. Examining the changes of

livelihood capital after joining to the PF projects will

eventually represent the effects of that forestry manage-

ment approach. The success of a community development

project largely depends on the changes in the livelihoods of

the target group.

Selection of the study area

We selected the Cox’s Bazar district purposively for this

study after discussion with Forest Department officers.

They informed us that the area is a major example of PF

plantations, and that there are several successful plantations

in that area. Moreover, our purpose was to compare 5 years

before the forestry program with 5 years after the program.

We selected the projects which were started in the year

2005–2006. Cox’s Bazar has many plantations within this

range. The study area lies at 21�350000N and 92�010000E. The

total area of the Cox’s Bazar district is 2,491.86 km2. It is

bounded by the Chittagong district on the north, the Ban-

darban district on the east, and the Bay of Bengal on the

south and west (Wikipedia 2010). The Cox’s Bazar district

consists of two forest divisions: Cox’s Bazar South Forest

Division and Cox’s Bazar North Forest Division, each

comprising 10 forest ranges. The projects studied were

aimed at poor forest-dependent people in engaging in PF to

improve their livelihoods and consequently to reduce the

forest destruction. The Forest Department in Cox’s Bazar

followed the interval of 2 m 9 2 m for planting trees in PF

project areas. Each participant was allotted a 1- or 2-ha

J For Res

123

plantation under the PF program based on land availability.

Rotation of the plantation was fixed as 10 years by the

Forest Department. After the final harvest, each participant

will receive 45 % of the total return of their allotted

plantation. The Forest Department will receive 45 % of the

final return as the cost of management of the plantation.

And the remaining part of the return (i.e., 10 %) will be

deposited in a tree farming fund (TFF) for the next term of

plantations. But other returns such as fuel wood, litter, or

products from intermediate tending operations were

enjoyed solely by the participants. According to the PF

program guidelines, the Forest Department planted Acacia

auriculiformis (70 %), Acacia hybrid (15 %), Acacia

mangium (10 %), and some native species (5 %), such as

Dipterocarpus turbinatus, Anthocephalus chinensis,

Terminalia balerica, Phyllanthus embelica, Terminalia

arjuna, and Aquilaria agallocha.

A preliminary visit was made to both forest divisions to

select the sample sites, which was done by randomly

choosing two forest ranges from each division. In each

forest range, one forest beat was then randomly selected.

Thus, a total of four forest beats from four selected forest

ranges in both the forest divisions were selected for the

study. The selected sample sites were Dulahazara Beat of

Fashiakhali Range and Fulchari Beat of Fulchari Range in

Cox’s Bazar North Forest Division, and Panerchar Beat of

Panerchara Range and Khuniapalong Beat of Khuniap-

along Range in Cox’s Bazar South Forest Division (Fig. 1).

From each selected beat, we randomly chose 10 participant

households and 10 non-participant households for data

collection. In total, 80 households were therefore studied.

Data collection and analysis

We arranged an interview with the head of each selected

household. For interviews, we used the interpersonal, i.e.,

face-to-face, communication method. Data were collected

using well-justified questionnaires whose questions were

designed to collect data on the five forms of capital:

human, physical, natural, financial, and social. DFID’s

conceptual framework mentioned five livelihoods capital:

human, social, financial, physical and natural. DFID’s

framework has been used by numerous researchers as an

analytical tool for addressing, monitoring and evaluating

various livelihood resources of individuals, households,

groups, villages, regions, or nations (Scoones 1998). We

collected information on demographic features of the

families, household assets, economic conditions of the

families, social cohesion and inclusion, resource ownership

security matters, and women empowerment. All the data

from before participation were also justified with the help

of the available family members including interviewees to

get precise information. To supplement the collected data,

we also collected information from secondary sources such

as published books, journals, leaflets, and official records

from the local Forest Department. Very recent and updated

information and literature were collected from internet

sources.

The collected data were then analyzed to determine the

impact of PF on the lives of participants. Two comparisons

were performed: (1) between about 5 years before and after

joining PF (i.e., the 10-year period before the survey) and

(2) between the present conditions of the participants and

non-participants to evaluate the impact of the forestry

program on the society as a whole. To analyze socioeco-

nomic variables, a one-way ANOVA was performed by

using SPSS 16.0.

Fig. 1 Cox’s Bazar showing the study area (black triangle). (Source:

Banglapedia 2006)

J For Res

123

Results

Income sources and expenditures

Table 1 shows all the income sources and expenditures of

participant and non-participant families which were analyzed.

Comparing before and after participation

Participatory plantations ensured a certain amount of fuel

wood supply. Fuel wood collection was a daily routine for

children and adults. But once the community obtained a

plantation, fuel wood (dead branches) or forest litter were

collected from the plantation. Children alone could do that.

That is why all adult males and stronger boys had other

income-generating activities, but sometimes they also

helped to collect some fuel wood. People needed less time

and effort for fuel wood collection than before. As a result,

they could dedicate more time for other income-generating

activities in the city center or nearby markets. Adult male

participants who were engaged in cutting forest trees

mostly for fuel wood spent more time earning money by

rickshaw pulling (income from this changed significantly

from 30 to 42 % of total income). The home garden as an

income source (1.60 %) became less significant after

joining the forestry program because income from home

gardens was limited in comparison to other earning

opportunities, especially rickshaw pulling and wage labor

(48 %). But those changes could not significantly influence

annual income (increased by Tk 1,411 after participation;

US$1 = Tk 81.83) and expenditure (increased by Tk

4,023). At about the same time, livelihood expenses were

soaring and the income–expenditure gap widened. People

were still struggling with poverty despite the increased

income.

Comparing participants and non-participants

Agriculture was a small contributor to participants’ family

income (4 % of total income), which was significantly lower

than that of non-participants’ family income. To support

their livelihoods, people were mostly engaged in wage labor,

from which participants (43 %) and non-participants (48 %)

obtained the major portion of their family income. Rickshaw

pulling was the second-most common way in which partic-

ipants earned a significantly higher (42 %) portion of their

total household income than non-participants (19 %). The

contribution of non-forest businesses and services to family

income was found to be significantly lower for participants (3

and 0.28 %, respectively) in comparison to the non-partici-

pant (7 and 4 %, respectively). In addition to those income

sources, poultry was noted to be the major one from which

non-participants received 6 % of their household income.

This was significantly higher than participants (3 %).

However, home gardens and livestock also added apprecia-

ble income for families of both categories (participants

obtaining 1.6 and 4 % of their family income, and non-par-

ticipants obtaining 1.6 and 6 %). However, people said they

were not involved in cutting forest trees or selling them on

the market. Overall annual family income of participants was

found to be higher, but the difference in income between

participants and non-participants was insignificant. How-

ever, participants (Tk 63,063 per year) and non-participants

(Tk 55,209 per year) expended more money than they

earned. It was remarkable that participants were expending

significantly more money on education and clothing than

non-participants.

Human capital

To assess human capital, we analyzed the number of

household members, sex, literacy, and age classes

(Table 2).

Table 1 Income sources and expenditures of participants and non-

participants

Variables Participants Non-

participantsBefore After

Income sources (% of total income)

Agriculture 2.87 3.48* 8.51

Home garden 9.24 1.6a 1.6

Livestock 6.81 3.81 5.77

Poultry 8.25 3.22 6.38

Wage labor 41.21 43.25 48.21

Rickshaw pulling 30.14 41.95a,* 18.69

Businesses (non-forest) 1.56 2.7* 7.3

Businesses (forest-based) – – –

Service 0.2 0.28* 3.56

Mean annual income (Tk) 56,210 57,621 48,000

Expenditures (Tk/year)

Food 33,400 36,300 34,260

Education x 2,409* 1,200

Communication x 7,200 7,215

Medicine x 3,600 3,600

Livestock x 7,200 5,430

Clothing 52,00 5,460* 2,415

Social work x 1,230 1,200

Mean annual expenditures (Tk) 59,040 63,063 55,209

Tk Bangladeshi currency (US$1 = Tk 81.83 as of 2012); x unavail-

ability of reliable data; – 0 (zero)

* Significant difference between participants and non-participants

(where P \ 0.05)a Denotes a significant difference between before and after

participation

J For Res

123


There was a large increase in the number of people in the

10–50 years age range. That group was mainly engaged in

generating family income. Number of people under

10 years and over 50 years of age were not reduced. The

under-10 and over-50 groups account for the lion’s share of

family expenditures, and at the same time family members

within 10–50 years were also required more expenses than

before. That is why, in spite of increased income, the dif-

ference between income and expenditure was widened, as

shown in Table 1. On the other hand, literacy was signif-

icantly higher (about 10 %) than before. Mostly, people

were completing primary education (male 61.59 % and

female 54.27 %), but before and after participation, edu-

cation levels were statistically identical. Only 10 % of the

total population could receive secondary education, but

while the portion for males increased somewhat (7 %),

female enrollment in secondary education was unchanged

according to the statistical analysis.


The mean number of participants from each household was

observed to be six, with three males and three females.

Each non-participant family had seven members, consist-

ing of four males and three females. No statistical signifi-

cant difference was observed between participants and

non-participants in that regard. Age class distribution was

similar among the two groups. Family members were

mostly within 10–50 years age range. This group was the

first to try new income-generating activities. As families in

this group have the same number of members on the

Table 2 Different livelihood capitals of participants and non-

participants

Capital Participants Non-

participants

Before After

Human capital

Members per family

(mean no.)

Household members 5.0 6.0 7.0

Male 3.0 3.0 4.0

Female 2.0 3.0 3.0

Members B10 years 2.0 2.0 2.0

Members 10–50 years 1.0 4.0a 4.0

Members [50 years 1.0 1.0 1.0

Literacy (%)

Total 17.05 27.18*,a 8.74

Illiterate males 40.76 34.25a 50.36

Illiterate females 42.19 38.57a 40.90

Primary males 56.46 61.59* 46.05

Primary females 54.38 54.27 49.86

Secondary males 2.78 7.26a 5.24

Secondary female 3.43 2.32 5.53

Graduate males – 2.40 1.47

Graduate females – – –

Male–female literacy ratio (%) 59:62 66:61 50:60

Physical capital (% of households)

Mud-walled house 98.64 92.50 95.0

Brick-walled house 1.36 7.50a –

Sun-grass roof house 76.58 70.0a 77.50

Tin roof house 16.34 20.0 20.0

Brick roof house 8.0 10.0 2.50

Televisions 21.77 30.0 30.0

Radios 86.54 75.0 65.0

Bicycles 2.56 2.50 -

Motorcycles 4.87 5.0 –

Mobile phones – 75.0*,a 42.50

Financial capital

Livestock (average no./

household)

Cows 4.0 2.0a 1.0

Goats x 1.0 2.0

Poultry x 21 25

No. of loans (average no.) – 1.0 1.0

Food security

(% of households)

Surplus 1.48 2.50 –

Sufficient 11.37 5.0a 7.50

Marginal 40.52 32.50 20.0

Shortage 47.25 60.0a 72.50

Natural capital

Landholdings

(% of households)

Table 2 continued

Capital Participants Non-

participants

Before After

Own Land 10.0 10.0 2.50

Leased Land – 100.0*,a –

Land outside the area 5.0 5.0 –

Resource ownership security (% of households)

Very secure 1.65 75.0*,a –

Neither secure nor insecure 28.47 5.0*,a 35.0

Moderately secure – – 5.0

Moderately insecure 70.24 20.0*,a –

Very insecure – – 60.0*

x Unavailability of reliable data; – 0 (zero)



participation

J For Res

123

average, the annual income per family did not vary sig-

nificantly, as illustrated in Table 1.

The literacy rate of participants (27 %) was significantly

higher than that of non-participants (9 %). This reveals that

many underprivileged people had been deprived of edu-

cation. The male and female illiteracy levels were not

found to be significantly different between participants and

non-participants. This was also true for secondary educa-

tion among people in that area. But males of participant

families had a significantly higher primary education

enrollment rate (62 %) than non-participant males (46 %).

However, among participants and non-participants, the

male and female literacy ratios were similar: 66:61 and

50:60, respectively.

From this observation, it is clear that most of the people

in the study area had received primary education. Discus-

sions with the respondents let us know that primary edu-

cation was provided by NGOs (e.g., BRAC) for free. But

many of them received no further education because they

were not financially capable. To meet the basic needs of the

family, small children were sometimes pushed into fuel

wood collection (e.g., dead branches, litter) from the

reserve forests, and many boys who were capable of work

were also sent to work as helpers in hotels or garages, or on

buses.

Physical capital

To determine physical capital, we assessed house condi-

tions, household appliances such as televisions and radios,

motorcycles, bicycles, and mobile phones (Table 2).


Mud-walled houses were common in the study area, irre-

spective of participation in the forestry program. Though

such types of house owners decreased from 99 to 92 % of

the total households of the area, that reduction was not

significant. After the PF program, people had some sort of

security to live on the state-owned forest lands, and they

started to build permanent houses. And this result demon-

strates that yet many of them were free of the fear of that

kind of security risk. Mobile phone possession increased

greatly among the participants (to 75 %) after participa-

tion. No significant change in ownership rates was found

for other physical possessions. It was also found that some

participants (5 %) had motorcycles from the start. These

physical resources were good indicators that a family was

well off, because income from PF alone was insufficient to

own such expensive items. Increased income may supply

the money to purchase such things, but it is likely that some

well-off people entered the forestry program, which was

not permitted according to the Bangladesh Forest Act,

1927. During participant selection, some biased or illegal

activities may have occurred. Forest Department officials

explained the inclusion of rich people as a measure for

reducing conflicts with influential people and for improv-

ing the security of the whole plantation.


Houses were mostly mud-walled among participants

(92 %) and non-participants (95 %), and the rates for sun-

grass roofs were 70 % for participants and 78 % for non-

participants, while other homes had brick walls with brick

or tin roofs. Ownership rates for televisions and radios,

which are the major means of entertainment among rural

people, showed no significant difference between non-

participants and participants. Mobile phone possession was

statistically higher among the participants (75 %) com-

pared to non-participants (43 %). Very few participants

(5 %) had motorcycles, while non-participants had none.

This reveals that participants were better off than non-

participants. Since there had as yet been no plantation

harvest, it was clear that participant selection was impaired

by some veiled illegal activities.

Financial capital

To measure financial capital and livestock resources, we

examined financial credit sources and food security

(Table 2).


We observed that people moved away from the depen-

dency on livestock resources after joining the program.

They reduced the number of cows from four to two per

family, which was statistically significant. Raising

domestic animals became expensive due to the increase of

feed cost in recent years. And grazing area was not ade-

quately available. Participants were used to graze their

cattle in the nearby forests, but as those forests were taken

under the PF projects, they had to travel further away from

the house to feed their cattle. In addition, trees planted in

the project area were mostly Acaica spp., and thus the

availability of fodder species was also reduced. Moreover,

people preferred other jobs to earn money. For all these

reasons, keeping cattle was becoming less popular.

The food sufficiency rate was significantly reduced after

participation from 11 to 5 % of households. As a con-

comitant, the portion of households experiencing food

shortages increased from 47 to 60 %. But the number of

households with a marginal or surplus supply of food was

similar before and after participation. Food was expensive

and income was not sufficient to cover all costs. The so-called

J For Res

123

vicious cycle of poverty compelled people to limit their

food consumption.


With regard to financial capital, no significant difference

was found between the two groups of people. Non-partic-

ipants had more livestock than participants. The average

numbers of livestock per household of participants and

non-participants were similar (cows: 2 and 1; goats: 1 and

2; and poultry: 21 and 25, respectively). We noticed that

each household had on average received one loan from

NGOs, irrespective of social status. People in both the

participant and non-participant groups experienced food

shortages (60 and 73 %, respectively). Households with

marginal food security were 33 and 20 % among partici-

pants and non-participants, respectively. Some of the par-

ticipants (5 %) and non-participants (8 %) had sufficient

food. Very few participants (2.5 %) were found to have

surplus amounts, while no non-participant family had sur-

plus food.

Natural capital

To measure natural capital, we examined rights and own-

ership of lands and security of possessing the rights or

ownerships (Table 2).


All the households acquired certain amounts of land for

planting trees and managing the plantations with the

assistance of the Forest Department. Some participants

(5 %) had their own land outside the project area even

before the start of participatory forestry. This proves that

some rich people were included during participant selec-

tion. People felt much more secure (75 %). However, about

20 % of the participants were somewhat worried because

of their long-term experience with Forest Department

people. But it was evident that the PF program enhanced

feelings of security as it was found that the percentage of

people feeling somewhat insecure declined from 70 to

20 % of total participants. At the same time, that part of

society which was not concerned about the security of land

tenure also declined significantly, from 28 to 5 %.


To assess natural capital, we determined the percentages of

landholdings of the two groups of people. Our study found

that all participants (100 %) were leasing land. In addition

to leased land, some participants also owned some land,

amounting to only 10 % of participants and 2.5 % of non-

participants. But a few participants (5 %) owned land at

outside localities which might be located in their sadar

upazila (district), whereas non-participants had no such

land.

Both groups were living on government forestland,

which raised the constant risk of government intervention

on the land they had settled. They had no other place to go

because they were landless. This uncertainty had been a

perennial source of concern, but the problem was solved

when PF started in that area. From Table 2, it is clear that

75 % of the participants were socially feeling very secure

in terms of land and tree tenure, while no one felt very

insecure. This differed significantly from the feelings of

non-participants, of which 60 % felt highly insecure and no

one felt very secure with their land and tree tenure. Thirty-

five percent of the non-participants felt neither secure nor

insecure, whereas a significantly lower percentage of par-

ticipants (5 %) were recorded under this category. On the

other hand, some participants (20 %) thought that they

were in a moderately insecure position, which was signif-

icantly higher than non-participants who felt the same

(0 %). In general, it can be said that participants felt more

secure about their land and trees, whereas non-participants

showed anxieties.

Social capital

In this study for measuring social capital, social cohesion,

and inclusion, we considered security status in terms of

land and trees, as well as empowerment (Table 3).


Participants who did not care about social cohesion were

significantly reduced, from 57 to 17 %. A large number of

participants (34 %) informed us that they were in a good

relationship. Some participants (4 %) defined the rela-

tionship between them as very close. All female partici-

pants (100 %) were more highly evaluated in their families

and society as a whole. Neglectful attitudes towards

females totally disappeared (0 %) because they were par-

ticipants, while all the non-participant women felt that they

were somehow not well accepted in the society.


The cooperative relationship between the forest governing

authority and the local community may lead to the

improvement of certain social variables. As the final har-

vesting had not yet been done, except for some interme-

diate thinning, in the studied area, the significant impacts of

PF on human, physical, financial, and natural capital were

not distinct, but in the case of social capital, some obvious

J For Res

123

impacts of PF were clearly observed. Those forestry

practices helped to improve the level of social capital

among participants by settling them in permanent villages

and by forming plantation executive committees. Our study

observed that no participant or non-participant felt very

distant from other members of the society. However, the

presence of negligible distances among community mem-

bers was agreed equally by both categories of people. But

some of the non-participants (17.5 %) felt rather close,

which was significantly higher than the participants (0 %).

On the other hand, a significantly higher number of par-

ticipants (60 %) opined that they had very strong rela-

tionships owing to the initiation of PF compared to the non-

participants (7.5 %). It was statistically demonstrated that,

on the whole, PF improved relationships among partici-

pants more than among non-participants. This might be

ascribed to participants’ anticipation of future benefits and

regular interaction both among themselves and with the

Forest Department in the management of such a huge

plantation to ensure better returns.

To understand guarantees for empowerment, we con-

sidered satisfaction of participants for being participants,

the empowerment of women, and women’s feelings of

encouragement. Table 3 shows the curious result that all

the participants were very happy to be participants and all

non-participants were very unhappy for not being partici-

pants. No one (i.e., 0 or about to 0 %) was found in

between these two stances concerning PF. This means that

people were very eager to be involved in PF. From this

result, it is evident that, if the government failed to include

non-participants in participatory forestry, it might desta-

bilize social relationships.

Gender equity was found to have improved due to par-

ticipatory forestry. The study found that, after becoming

participants, 100 % of women were more highly regarded

than before, while for non-participant women it was

exactly the opposite, i.e., 100 % of women were not highly

regarded in the society. But some participant women

(37 %) were occasionally held in low regard, which was

significantly higher than non-participant women. Accord-

ing to the rules, females who did not have husbands or

adult sons to support were preferred for inclusion as PF

members. Inevitably, women were motivated to come

forward and join the PF project as beneficiaries. Those

disadvantaged women were not usually able to join pro-

jects like PF in the male-dominated society unless there

was a rule for mandatory women involvement. Moreover,

under the PF program, women participants were encour-

aged by their husbands and other family members to take

part in the meetings and other management activities of the

plantation, which ultimately increased confidence among

the women and also made them more active in household

affairs.

Discussion

Principles like employment and economic stability are of

vital importance for community forestry to work and

establish itself (Ontario Ministry for Natural Resources

1994). In this study, we observed that income sources of

the families were changed greatly due to the involvement

with PF, though the total income was not significantly

changed. People were living near the plantation forests of

PF, but as yet they were getting only a fuel wood supply for

household consumption and not a cash return. Participants

confirmed that, as they became involved in PF, they

diversified their livelihood activities away from forest

dependence (Table 1), which reduced the pressure on the

forests and involved them more with other parts of the

community. In Table 1, it is shown that they were not

Table 3 Components of social capital results of participatory

forestry

Components Participants Non-

participants

Before After

Social cohesion and inclusion (% of household)

Feeling of closeness to others

Very distant – – –

Somewhat distant 28.82 22.50 22.50

Neither distant nor close 57.33 17.50a 52.50

Somewhat close – 33.85* 17.50

Very close 4.44a 60.0* 7.50

Guarantee for empowerment

Satisfaction (% of

households)

Very happy x 100 –

Very unhappy x – 100

Empowerment of women (% of women)

Women held in higher regard – 100* –

Not in high or low regard – – –

Held in poor regard 3.38*,a – 100

Held in somewhat poor

regard

42.0 37.20* –

Held in somewhat higher

regard

– – –

Encouragement of women (% of women)

Encouraged x 75.63* –

Discouraged x 24.38* 78.79

x Unavailability of reliable data; – 0 (zero)



participation

J For Res

123

engaged in any tree cutting or selling from forests because

they were frightened of the punishment or exclusion from

the list of participants. However, they were dependent on

forests to meet some household needs, such as leaf litter for

cooking. But everyone blamed some anonymous persons

(refusing to give names) from their societies including non-

participants who were sometimes cutting trees or extracting

sandy hill soils or clearing some parts of the reserve forests

for farming. Whatever the reason for hiding information

regarding forest resource extraction, it is clear that people

were sufficiently aware of legal matters at that time.

The gap between income and expenditure was widened

and poverty was sustained, in spite of increased income

(Table 1). In the course of the last several decades, in

general rural incomes have increased in developing coun-

tries, yet natural forests have been disappearing at a high

rate (Fomete and Vermaat 2001) because of the imbalance

between the income and expenditure. People living in

forest lands were extremely poor, and through this plan-

tation program it was very difficult to completely eradicate

poverty from that society. The World Bank (2003) has

observed that a large number of people suffering from

extreme poverty live on ‘‘fragile’’ lands. Poor people are

concentrated where natural, physical, social, and human

capital are low, and the greatest poverty is experienced

among people in forest-based economies (Mehta and Shah

2003). Our research findings also imply this.

Literacy was significantly increased due to the partici-

pation. Government and NGO initiatives for education may

be the direct cause of this improvement, but by being

participants people got the opportunities to work with

educated Forest Department and NGO people, whose

influence made them aware of the importance of education.

This indirect effect perhaps contributed to the overall

education level of the participant society (Table 2).

Increases in literacy and family income engendered chan-

ges in people’s housing and possessions. People informed

us that, in the meetings with the project authority, as well

as the plantation management, they discussed many things

concerning community development, especially education,

health and sanitation, employment, etc. From those meet-

ings, participants also got to know the sources of funds for

their livelihood development from government and NGOs,

etc., which significantly benefited them.

After participation, mobile phone possession increased

greatly among participants. We also found that some par-

ticipants possessed motorcycles and owned land from the

beginning, even before the start of PF (Table 2). This

reveals that, during participant selection, some richer

people had been included illegally. The Forest Department

explained the reason, saying that the poor and vulnerable

people were not sufficiently capable to protect themselves

from pressures applied by social elites. Participants indi-

cated some discontent over those powerful people, sus-

pecting that they may create problems during the

distribution of the final harvest benefit. Livestock resour-

ces, which are an important source of household income

(SIS 2004), a store of wealth (CAST 2001), and a form of

insurance (Fafchamps and Gavian 1997), were reduced

after participation because of the plantation taking place on

the land previously used for grazing (i.e., degraded forest

land) and the higher prices of animal feed. It was evident

that the PF program enhanced people’s feelings of security

(Table 2). In the society, PF could increase happiness.

Females were actively encouraged to join in PF and work.

Moreover, all female participants were enjoying greater

esteem in the family and society as a whole, while all the

non-participant women were not well treated in the society

(Table 3).

Conclusion

The impacts of PF on human, physical, financial, natural,

and social capital occurred in different magnitudes

depending on the capital type. The trend toward changing

involvement in income-generating activities other than

forest-related sources is a positive impact of PF will ulti-

mately reduce the pressure on the adjacent national reserve

forests. However, the participants blamed other people (not

wishing to name anyone) from their communities, both

participants and non-participants, who were used to harvest

trees, extract sandy hill soils or clear some of the reserved

forest areas for farming. It is clear that just a plantation

allocation by PF will not make notable differences. After

the final harvest, participants will get their shares. Conse-

quently, they will be better off and less dependent on the

forests. Therefore, it is important to include alternative

income generation (AIG) in the PF agenda. Besides this,

although the inclusion of local elites was not well accepted

by participants, they were not inclined to talk about that

during interviews because of fear. The influence of local

influential persons in any PF activity should be closely

monitored and restricted, or else PF will definitely lose its

practical relevance. At the same time, the Forest Depart-

ment should strengthen their activities to protect the nearby

reserve forests.

Acknowledgments We aregrateful to the University Grants Com-

mission of Bangladesh for funding the research. We would also like to

express our deep gratitude to Md. Hossain, Md. Abdur Rahman, and

Md. Rafiqul Islam, ACFs of FD, as well as some anonymous people

of the Forest Department for their assistance during our field work.

J For Res

123

References

Bandyopadhyay S, Shyamsundar P (2004) Fuelwood consumption

and participation in community forestry in India. World Bank

Policy Research Working Paper 3331. The World Bank,

Washington, DC

Banglapedia (2006) Document was found on http://www.

banglapedia.org/HT/C_0364.HTM. Last Accessed 15 Aug 2012

Booth D, Holland J, Hentschel J, Lanjouw P, Herbert A (1998)

Participation and combined methods in African poverty assess-

ment: renewing the agenda. Department for International

Development, Social Development Division, African Division,

London

Brosius JP (1997) Endangered forest, endangered people: environ-

mentalist representations of indigenous knowledge. Hum Ecol

25:47–69

Carney D (1998) Implementing the sustainable rural livelihoods

approach. Paper presented at DFID Natural Resource Advisers

Conference, 5–9 July

CAST (Council for Agricultural Science and Technology) (2001)

Role of animal agriculture in the human food supply. Ames,

USA

DFID (2000) Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets. Department for

International Development, London

Fafchamps M, Gavian S (1997) The determinants of livestock prices

in Niger. J Afr Econ 6:255–295

Fomete T, Vermaat J (2001) Community forestry and poverty

alleviation in Cameroon. Rural Development Forestry Network.

Network Paper 25 h. Overseas Development Institute, London

Hong HN (2005) Can Gio: Turning mangroves into riches. In: Durst

PB, Brown C, Tacio HD, Ishikawa M (eds) In search of

excellence: exemplary forest management in Asia and the

Pacific. RAP Publication 2005=02, Asia-Pacific Forestry Com-

mission, FAO, Bangkok, Thailand, pp 49–60

IIED (1995) The hidden harvest: the value of wild resources in

agricultural systems. A summary. International Institute of

Environment and Development, London

Khan NA, Choudhury JK, Huda KS (2004) An overview of social

forestry in Bangladesh. Forestry Sector Project, Government of

Bangladesh, Dhaka

Lipton M, Ravallion M (1995) Poverty and policy. In: Behrman J,

Srinavasan TN (eds) Handbook of development economics, vol

3. Elsevier, Amsterdam

Maruyama M, Morioka N (1998) The impact of deforestation in

Brazilian Amazonia: the indigenous people of Rondonia State.

J For Plan 4:71–75

Maser C (1994) Sustainable forestry philosophy, science, and

economics. St Lucie Press, USA

McGregor JA (1998) A poverty of agency: resource management

amongst the poor in Bangladesh. Paper presented to the 5th

Workshop of the European Network of Bangladesh Studies, Bath

Mehta AK, Shah A (2003) Chronic poverty in India: Incidence,

causes and policies. In: Hulme D, Shepherd A (eds) Special issue

on ‘‘Chronic poverty and development policy.’’ W Dev 31:

491–511

Moser CON (1998) The asset vulnerability framework: reassessing

urban Poverty reduction strategies. W Dev 26:1–19

Muhammed N, Koike M, Sajjaduzzaman M, Sophanarith K (2005)

Reckoning social forestry in Bangladesh: policy and plan versus

implementation. Forestry: an International. J For Res

78:373–383

Nath TK, Inoue, M (2010) Impacts of participatory forestry on

livelihoods of ethnic people: experience from Bangladesh. Soc

Nat Resour 23(11):1093–1107

Ontario Ministry for Natural Resources (1994) Partnerships for

community involvement in forestry: a comparative analysis of

community involvement in natural resource management.

Queen’s Printers for Ontario, Sault Ste. Marie

Pearce D (1996) Global environmental value and the tropical forests:

demonstration and capture. In: Adamowicz W, Boxal P, Luckert

M, Phillips W, White W (eds) Forestry, economics and the

environment. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 11–49

Poore D (1986) The vanishing forest: the human consequences of

deforestation. Zed, London

Putnam R (2001) Social capital measurement and consequences. In:

Helliwell JF (ed) The contribution of human and social capital to

sustained economic growth and well-being. Ottawa, Ontario,

pp 117–135

Rana MA, Noguchi T, Muhammed N (2007) Collaborative protected

area management in Bangladesh. Impact of participatory forest

management (PFM) on socio-economic development in Bangla-

desh: a case study in the Madhupur Sal Forest. J For Econ

53:46–56

Rodriguez A, Smith S (1994) A comparison of determinants of urban,

rural and farm poverty in Costa Rica. W Dev 22:381–397

Salam AMD, Noguchi T, Koike M (1999) Present conditions and

prospects of homestead forestry in Bangladesh. Asi Prof

27:523–535

Scoones, I (1998) Sustainable rural livelihoods: a framework for

analysis. IDS Working Paper 72, Institute of Development

Studies 1998

SIS (State Institute of Statistics) (2004) General agricultural census

2001. Result of the agricultural holdings (households) survey.

State Institute of Statistics, Prime Ministry Republic of Turkey

No. 2924, Ankara

Soussan J, Blaikie P, Springate-Baginski O, Chadwick M (2001)

Understanding livelihood processes and dynamics. Livelihood-

Policy Relationship in South Asia Working Paper 1, University

of Leeds, UK

Wikipedia (2010) The online document found on world wide website

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cox’s_Bazar_District. Last visited

on 17 July 2010

World Bank (2003) World development report 2003: Sustainable

development in a dynamic world: transforming institutions,

growth, and quality of life. The World Bank, Washington, DC.

Oxford University Press, New York

J For Res

123

http://www.banglapedia.org/HT/C_0364.HTM

http://www.banglapedia.org/HT/C_0364.HTM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cox’s_Bazar_District

Effects of participatory forest management on livelihood capitals of the community in Cox's Bazar,...

Documents

Transcript of Effects of participatory forest management on livelihood capitals of the community in Cox's Bazar,...