ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK

REGIONAL STUDY ON FOREST POLICY AND INSTITUTIONAL REFORM

FINAL REPORT

OF

THE BANGLADESH CASE STUDY

Prepared by:

Dr. NIAZ AHMED KHAN1 Forest and Natural Resource Management Specialist

1 Address for correspondence: Dr. Niaz A. Khan, E-mail: nakhan@spnetctg.com; Fax: 88 031 718901, Tel: 88 031 682797, 017 364462.

The views presented in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or position of the ADB, or its Board of Directors or the Governments they represent. The ADB does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accepts no responsibility for consequence for their use. The term "country" does not imply any judgment by ADB as to the legal or other status of any territorial entity."

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (as of December 2001)

Currency Unit – Taka (Tk)

$1.00 = Tk56

ABBREVIATIONS

ADAB - Association of Development Agencies in Bangladesh BCCS - Bangladesh Country Case Study CBO - Community-based Organization CHIAT - Contour Hedgerow Intercropping Agroforestry Technology CHTDB - Chittagong Hill Tracts Development Board CHT - Chittagong Hill Tracts FAO - Food and Agriculture Organization FD - Forest Department FMP - Forestry Master Plan FRI - Forest Research Institute GDP - Gross Domestic Product HH - household IUCN - International Union for Conservation of Nature JFM - Joint Forestry Management MOEF - Ministry of Environment and Forest NGO - nongovernment organization NTFP - nontimber forest product RHD - Roads and Highways Department SDC - Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation SF - Social Forestry SMU - Sundarbans Management Unit SRF - Sundarbans Reserved Forest UANDP - Upazila Afforestation and Nursery Development Project USP - Upland Settlement Project VFFP - Village and Farm Forestry Project WDB - Water Development Board

MEASURES

m - meter km - kilometer m3 - cubic meter ha - hectare

NOTES

In this Report, “$” refers to US dollars and Tk refers to Bangladeshi taka.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ii

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1

A. Rationale for Case Study 1 B. Methodology 2

II. FORESTRY SECTOR IN BANGLADESH 6

A. The State of Bangladesh Forestry and its Role 6 B. State Forest Policy and Change in Managing Resources 8 C. Institutional Reform 11

III. CASE STUDIES 16 A. Objective 16

B. Case I: The Upland Settlement Project 16 1. Project History and Profile 16 2. Summary of Lessons 18

a. Social Development 18 b. Good Governance 19 c. Pro-poor Growth 20

3. Conclusions 21

C. Case 2 and 3: The Betagi and Pomoro Social Forestry Projects 23 1. Project History and Profile 23 2. Summary of Lessons 24 a. Social Development 24 b. Good Governance 26 c. Pro-poor Growth 28 3. Conclusions 29

D. Case 4: The Upazila (Thana) Afforestration and Nursery 31

Development Project (UANSP) 1. Project History and Profile 31 2. Summary of Lessons 32

a. Social Development 32 b. Good Governance 33 c. Pro-poor Growth 34

3. Conclusions 34

IV. IMPLICATIONS FOR ADB’S STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK 35 FOR FORESTRY SECTOR

APPENDIXES 39

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In line with the Asian Development Bank’s overarching goal of poverty reduction and the intent and spirit of the Regional Study on Forest Policy and Institutional Reform (RETA 5900), the Bangladesh Country Case Study (BCCS) or the Study, has aimed to develop a better and practical understanding of the impact and operation of selected forestry projects. The Study draws on intensive literature survey, stakeholder consultation and empirical fieldwork.

This report documents the overall experiences, lessons, and findings of the Study. By

drawing on the stakeholders’ suggestions, this Study also proffers a suggestive agenda and vision ‘towards better forestry’ and outlines ADB’s prospective role towards achieving the vision through better project design, development, and effective implication. ADB has contributed significantly to Bangladesh’s forestry since the 1980s. The BCCS serves as the validation process of the various assistance extended to the forestry sector.

In carrying out the BCCS, the methodology involved the Inception Workshop, Final

Consultative Workshop and a selective Empirical Survey and Fieldwork. The Inception Workshop started the participatory approach of the Study to policy diagnosis, strategy design and development. The participants represented the major stakeholder groups including forest industrial and commercial dealers; relevant government agencies; advocacy and civil society organizations; international aid and voluntary institutions; academe, research and training institutions; consultants and activists.

The discussion and analysis in the Workshop centered around two broad subjects: (i)

ADB forest policy and strategic framework, and the possible means and approaches to better forest management; and (ii) BCCS design, fieldwork methodology, schedule and implementation process. In following the suggestions and views received from the Workshop participants and other stakeholders, the Empirical Survey and Fieldwork were conducted. The major focus of the fieldwork was on such inquiries as (i) the (selected) project(s)’ contribution to poverty alleviation and social development; (ii) distribution of project benefits and degree of participation in light of equity and sustainability issues as in pro-poor growth; and (iii) the lessons for policy and governance.

For the benefit of a systematic and meaningful fieldwork and subsequent analysis, an

analytical and conceptual framework was developed, which argued that effective poverty reduction would only be achieved through promoting economic opportunities (especially targeted to the poor), social development and good governance. The projects and locations for empirical investigation selected were: the Upland Settlement Project, Chittagong Hill Tracts, Khagrachari; the Betagi and Pomora Social Forestry Projects, Rangunia, Chittagong; and the Thana (Upazila) Afforestation and Nursery Development Project site in the Greater Rajshahi Region.

The empirical research tools chiefly consisted of focus group discussion, (uncontrolled)

ethnographic observation and unstructured interviews. The major findings, lessons, and suggested policy and functional recommendations of the Study were presented in the Final Consultative Workshop. The participants generally agreed to the ‘validity’ and ‘relevance’ of the findings, lessons, and policy implications of the Study.

Bangladesh’s forestry sector contributes only 3 percent to the nation’s Gross Domestic

Product. The forests on state lands have been subjected to organized illicit commercial logging, unplanned and abrupt conversion to agriculture and other non-forestry uses, fire, grazing, and

iii

iii

other anthropogenic influences. Northwest Bangladesh has only about 2 percent tree cover. In 1980s, the rate of forest destruction was 8,000 hectares per year and the annual deforestation rate is estimated to be 3.3 percent. Consequently, per capita forestland has declined from 0.035 ha in 1969 to 0.02 ha in 1990.

Two parallel systems of production forestry exist in Bangladesh: government forests

managed by the Forest Department (FD) and privately-owned homegardens. Of the country's total land area, only about 1.46 million hectares (ha) are designated as government forestland that covers both natural and plantation forests. About 0.72 million ha of land are designated as unclassified state forests under the control of the Ministry of Land. Homegardens constitute 0.27 million ha and are scattered all over the country. The public forestland, unclassed state forests and homegardens together make up about 17 percent (2.46 million ha) of the potential tree-growing area of the country – the lowest figure of any South Asian country. A 1999 study further estimates that the actual forest cover is approximately 1 million ha or only 6 percent of the total land area.

The FD, as an integral part of the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MOEF)

administers the country’s forest resources and manages the public forestlands. Slow pace of institutional reform and bureaucratic reorientation, shortage of technical and skilled staff, poor enforcement of policies and programs, and weak environment monitoring are considered to be the major constraints of this department.

The ever-increasing population of Bangladesh is exerting pressure on existing forests.

The current population is about 126 million and is estimated to reach 177.3 million by 2025 and 210.8 million by 2050. Forest productivity is unacceptably low; recent years’ productivity of forests has declined to a range of 1.5-2.5 cubic meters per hectare per annum from 7-8 cubic meters 20 years ago.

In view of the above problems, limitations and challenges of the Bangladesh forestry

sector, community-based participatory afforestation practices, commonly coined as Social Forestry (SF), have been increasingly felt to be the most feasible strategy for the long-term sustainability of the forests.

The Study took note of the historical development and evolution of the public forest

policies and practices in the Indian subcontinent (including Bangladesh). They manifest two interrelated trends: (i) state-sponsored organized commercialization of forestry, and (ii) progressive alienation of forest-based communities from forest use and management. The current National Forest Policy 1994 marks a major departure from the manifestly commercial considerations of the earlier policies. Despite some positive features, however, the policy still has a number of limitations. Most notable of them is that although it vaguely commits to ‘extend the scope of poverty alleviation and forest-based rural development’, it does not say anything about the how it can actually be achieved, given the unfavorable features of Bangladesh society such as the skewed pattern of resource distribution, residual degree of collectivism and rigidly hierarchical social stratification. The social variables (e.g., land ownership, patronage, social stratification), which impact on forestry, have not been addressed in the policy. Further, it does not propose any specially tailored and targeted forestry interventions for the most vulnerable sections of rural communities (e.g., destitute women, children, landless poor).

The Bangladesh Forest Policy 1994 and ADB’s Policy on Forestry 1995 have a number of common principles and intent, for example in protection of forests, conservation of

iv

iv

biodiversity and sustainable forestry. Both these policies show limitations in (i) explaining the actual and prospective role of forestry in the achievement of social development goals (e.g., poverty reduction); (ii) adequately understanding the root (structural) causes which underlie the major forestry problems; (iii) offering guidance for prioritization of forestry interventions; and (iv) realistically assessing the institutional environment for forestry development.

Prompted mainly by a number of international aid agencies, notably ADB, the Bangladesh Government has initiated a limited number of legal and institutional reform measures in the last few years to include the following:

• Enactment of the Forest Amendment Act 2000 which specifically established SF

as a function of the FD in accordance with the National Forest Policy 1994; • Drafting of the Social Forestry Rules in line with the basic spirit of the current

Forestry Policy and Act, elaborating such functional issues as the role of NGOs, mode and mechanisms of public participation;

• Systematic stakeholder consultation (mainly in the form of regional workshops and meetings) regarding the Social Forestry Rules; and

• Creation of a separate Social Forestry Wing in FD.

These measures do not seem to represent (and arise out of) a well-coordinated and articulated conceptual and institutional framework. The functional and logical links between these reform efforts are not easily discernable.

Against this background, the findings from the three case studies show common

characteristics in lessons learned, yet each case presented specific lessons as well.

Social Development. Some 33 percent of the farmers received training on reading-writing skills and agroforestry. In the absence of periodic back-up and monitoring, the impact of training was limited. Social Forestry (SF) intervention has brought about little change in the nature and implications of the patronage network. The SF farmers are still under the heavy influence of the patrons who provide employment and access to the public services. SF projects contributed to increased status and social recognition. Farmers exploited this social credibility to carve out a few (indirect) benefits: (i) establishing marital connections with affluent families; (ii) commanding respect from fellow villagers; (iii) securing loans from moneylenders; and (iv) accessing public offices. Farmers emerged as a ‘power group’ in local government elections, yet exhibited a low level of collective and cooperative spirit. With their rise in their economic position, farmers tended to split up and move towards individualistic pursuits, and engaged in factional politics and conflicts.

Women’s participation was limited due to reduced mobility, lack of appropriate information/education, and insufficient control over resources. SF brought little qualitative change in the general pattern of women's life and status. There was an absence of a gender policy in the Study sites.

Good Governance. Farmers’ participation was limited to working in the nurseries and plantations. The major decisions concerning the selection of species, participants and sites were made by government agencies. The farmers themselves lost interest in the samity (cooperative) due to a decline in operation and leadership. Farmers often share a feeling of uncertainty and grievance over insecurity of land tenure. There was a lack of interdepartmental coordination and communication and funds were often delayed. The participatory focus of SF

v

v

projects was sometimes at odds with the traditional working style and orientation of government staff. In addition, extension and research activities were carried out on a piecemeal and uncoordinated basis.

Pro-poor Growth. It was found that farmers’ income increased after joining SF projects

and there were some positive impact on expansion of greenery. But they had little influence on the working dynamics of the principal forces of deforestation in the locality, although farmers were found to be aware and conscious about the nature and causes of resource depletion in the locality.

Among the specific lessons from the Upland Settlement Project were that there were

inadequate remedial steps to help farmers face the psychological strain associated with transformation from their nomadic mode of life as shifting cultivators to a relatively permanent livelihood.

A specific lesson from the Betagi and Pomora Social Forestry Projects was in Good Governance. Initially, although under strict supervision of FD, farmers participated in project management through samities (cooperatives). Presently, with the decline in catalytic supervision and collective spirit, farmers have become individualistic.

A specific lesson from the Upazila Afforestation and Nursery Development Project was

in Social Development. About one-third of the total participants were women. Payment rate of waged labor was equal for both sexes in the project area. In Pro-poor Growth, the ‘nursery development’ component performed particularly well; the average annual income was about Tk63,000.

The implications for ADB’s strategic framework for the forestry sector will need to draw on important lessons from the performance of other major ADB forestry projects in Bangladesh not covered by the BCCS. The key issues of those projects point to weak design and misdirected objectives. There has been an over-emphasis on the achievement of physical and quantifiable targets, rather than social goals. Furthermore, there has been inadequate consultation with stakeholders and insufficient research into Bangladesh’s social stratification (patron-client network) which impacts on the farmers’ ability to participate in SF. Farmers’ insecurity over land tenure needs to be addressed through policy and institutional reform. A revision in ADB’s strategic framework for the forestry sector will have to consider six important issues that were elicited from stakeholders/participants during the BCCS. The issues arose as responses to the following questions: Forests for whom? Forestry for what? What can forestry do for poverty reduction? What is the preferred approach to sound forest management? What are the major challenges to sustainable forest management?

What role can ADB play in forestry development in developing countries like Bangladesh? It was clear that the stakeholders considered forests as primarily for people who live

within and around forested tracts. They recognized that forest and forest management are for poverty reduction (in meeting demands for food, fodder, and wood) and for economic

vi

vi

development by way of generating employment in forest industries, in tourism, in environmental sustainability, and in education and research.

The participants argued that the best approach to sound forest management is through

wide consultation with a cross-section of local people to allow them to participate in decision making and implementation. Yet there must be local NGOs that can help them monitor and evaluate forestry projects. Beyond consultations, another important approach needed is to put in place a mechanism at the community level to solve land tenure conflicts. Participants felt there has to be policy and institutional reforms to address this complex issue.

The major challenges they recognized include population pressure, illicit logging leading

to denudation, and lack of empowerment at the grassroots level. The situation has been exacerbated by an ineffective land use tenure policy. These problems have led to an awareness of the insufficient attempts in capacity building of concerned agencies.

For forestry to be an effective tool for poverty reduction, the participants felt there has to

be more alternative programs for livelihood, help in marketing the forest products and improving utilization of forest resources, and introducing alternative bioenergy sources. Another important suggestion is the integration of women into forestry resources.

Participants agreed that ADB can continue playing its supporting role in Bangladesh

through social forestry and plantation development, but it must play also a role in capacity building and institutional reform in concerned agencies like the Forest Department and NGOs. To improve ADB’s portfolio performance and impact of its investments, the participants suggested that ADB reorient its investment policy according to the absorption/utilization capacity of the implementing agency; make the loan conditions more flexible; strengthen private sector initiatives including local community organizations; hold more consultations with stakeholders from project development to implementation; and orient stakeholders on ADB’s procedures, sector goals, and performance.

These issues encapsulated their ideas and vision of better forestry practices in general

and ADB’s role in particular.

1

1

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

A. Rationale for Case Study 1. The Bangladesh Country Case Study (hereafter, BCCS or the Study) is a functional and integral component of the Asian Development Bank’s (ADB) Regional Study on Forest Policy and Institutional Reforms (RETA 5900)2. The overall purpose of RETA 5900 is to continue the development of ADB forest sector policies and strategies for improved livelihood systems, and poverty reduction through sustainable forest resource development and management. Its immediate objective is to revise the ADB forest policy and sector strategy so that it is consistent with and reflective of the needs of Developing Member Countries’ recent thinking, and developments in the sector, and align the policy with ADB’s overarching objective of poverty reduction. The regional study includes four country studies: Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and the Philippines.

2. In line with ADB’s overarching goal of poverty reduction (ADB 1999, 2001), RETA 5900 and its associated country case studies have essentially attempted to explore the role and impact of (selected) forestry projects on poverty and livelihood of targeted participants. Accordingly, the Bangladesh Country Case Study (BCCS), drawing on intensive literature survey, stakeholder consultation and empirical fieldwork, has aimed to develop a better and practical understanding of the impact and operation of selected forestry (and/or rural development) projects with a particular reference to poverty reduction; and to offer lesson learning opportunities in terms of project design, development, and effective implementation. A few clarifications seem imperative at this point: (i) BCCS has not necessarily intended to make a comprehensive and overall assessment of the performance of Bangladesh Forestry Sector; (ii) although the Study, wherever possible, has drawn on empirical research and scientific methodology, this is not meant to be an academic research exercise per se; and (iii) it makes no claim to strict statistical representation of the country’s forestry projects. 3. BCCS mainly has involved two workshops, an Inception Workshop3 and a Final Consultative Workshop, and an empirical fieldwork. BCCS in general and the associated fieldwork in particular have a two-fold orientation: Diagnostic (to assess earlier performance of the studied projects and to elicit lessons) and Design (to suggest ways and means of improving future performance in terms of policy implications).

4. This report documents the overall experiences, lessons and findings of the Study. The first half of the Study critically reviews the extent and management of the country’s forest resources, and identifies the major features and issues of the Bangladesh forestry. Included here is an analysis of the forest policies and institutional reform efforts in Bangladesh by focusing on such issues as the historical evolution of forest policies, the recent institutional and legal reform measures, and a comparative treatment of the current Bangladesh forest policy and the ADB policy on forestry. The objectives, structure, methodology, and conceptual framework of the Study (and its associated exercises) are presented in the first half. The latter part of the report deals with the major findings, experiences and lessons of the empirical fieldwork covering the four studied projects, namely, Upazila Afforestation and Nursery Development Project, Upland Settlement Project, Betagi Social Forestry Project and Pomora Social Forestry Project.

2 For details of the background, intent and nature of RETA 5900, see Briefing Note (RETA 5900, AWFN, ADB, Manila). 3 The detailed proceedings of the workshop can be found in Inception Report (RETA 5900, AWFN, ADB, Manila).

2

2

5. The concluding part critically reviews ADB’s involvement in the Bangladesh forestry sector. By drawing on the stakeholders’ suggestions and public consultation, this part also proffers a suggestive agenda and vision ‘towards better forestry’ and outlines ADB’s prospective role towards achieving the vision. ADB has been substantially involved in the development of the Bangladesh forestry especially since the early 1980s. Its major engagement has been in the form of financing and assisting a number of large projects. The major projects include the Community Forestry Project, the Upazila Afforestation and Nursery Development Project, Forestry Master Plan, the Forestry Sector Plan, the Sundarbans Biodiversity Conservation Project, and the Coastal Greenbelt Project. B. Methodology

6. The major activities concerning BCCS involved the Inception Workshop, Final Consultative Workshop and a selective Empirical Survey and Fieldwork (a summary of the activities may be found in Appendix 1).

7. The BCCS team members represented such diverse academic disciplines as forestry, sociology, public administration, and management (Appendix 2). Each of them was reasonably familiar with the major issues and challenges of the Study, and possessed intimate knowledge of the concerned (local) dialects, geographical peculiarities, and cultures. Additionally, all of them shared considerable experience of ethnographic research.

8. As a part of the orientation and piloting exercise, the team made preliminary field visits to three Social Forestry (SF) sites in the districts of Chittagong and Khagrachari, and held informal interviews and discussions with a cross-section of local people including farmers.

9. The Inception Workshop, which was held on 22 July 2001 in Dhaka (Bangladesh), started the participatory approach of the Study to policy diagnosis, strategy design and development. Out of the 44 persons who were invited, 36 attended the Workshop. The participants were selected purposely, following a careful stakeholder analysis. The major stakeholder groups represented in the Workshop included forest industrial and commercial dealers; relevant government agencies; advocacy and civil society organizations; international aid and voluntary institutions; academe, research and training institutions; indigenous interests, and independent researchers, consultants, and activists.

10. It was acknowledged and explained in the Workshop that adequate number of the representatives of farmers and participants of forestry projects could not be brought to the Workshop for such practical limitations as farmers’ unwillingness to travel long distance, uncomfortable feeling, and possible problem of ‘adjustment to the workshop atmosphere’ etc. This was recognized during the initial field visits. To compensate this limitation and to ensure the inclusion of this key stakeholder group into the consultative process, it was decided to hold (on-farm) group discussions with farmers in selected sites in varied regions of the country. Accordingly, three subteams were sent to the field. These team attempted (i) to inform the farmers about the nature and purpose of the study, and (ii) to act as precursors to the empirical research.

11. The Inception Workshop had the following specific objectives: (i) to introduce and orient the participants with the goals and salient features of the Regional Study on Forest Policy and Institutional Reform (RETA 5900), ADB Forestry Sector Policy and Strategic Framework, and the Bangladesh Country Case Study; (ii) to invite and secure participants inputs into the ADB Forest Policy Revision Process; and (iii) to invite opinions and suggestions of the participants

3

3

regarding the Bangladesh Country Case Study design and implementation by focusing on such issues as fieldwork methodology, indicators and site selection. 12. The discussion and analysis in the Workshop centered around two broad subjects: (i) the ADB forest policy and strategic framework, and the possible means and approaches to better forest management; and (ii) BCCS design, fieldwork methodology, schedule and implementation process4. The detailed program schedule of the Workshop is given in Appendix 3.

Figure 1: Key Dimensions of the Poverty Reduction Framework

13. In following the suggestions and views received from the Workshop participants and other stakeholders, the fieldwork and empirical surveys were conducted, which aimed to (i) help the research team to develop a better and practical understanding of the impact and operation of selected forestry (and/or rural development) projects with a particular reference to poverty reduction; (ii) offer lesson learning opportunities in terms of project design, development and effective implementation; and (iii) provide an opportunity to validate the observations and lessons arising out of the preliminary literature and documentary review and central level interviews.

14. In line with ADB’s overarching goal, the fieldwork essentially attempted to explore the role of forestry in poverty reduction. Understanding and analyzing the impact on poverty and livelihood of targeted participants of forestry projects was considered to be a herculean task by any standard, mainly because poverty is a complex multifaceted phenomenon with inter-sectoral incursions.

15. The major focus of the fieldwork was on such inquiries as (i) the (selected) project(s)’ contribution to poverty alleviation and social development; (ii) distribution of project benefits and

4 For details of the proceedings of the Workshop, see Inception Report (RETA 5900).

Social Development

Good Governance

Pro-poor Growth

Poverty Reduction

4

4

degree of participation in light of equity and sustainability issues; and (iv) the lessons for policy and governance.

16. For the benefit of a systematic and meaningful fieldwork and subsequent analysis, an analytical and conceptual framework was felt necessary. Drawing on a number of literature, notably ADB (1999, 2001), ODA (1995) and Dayal et al. (undated), it was argued that effective poverty reduction would only be achieved through promoting economic opportunities (especially targeted to the poor), social development and good governance (Figure 1).

17. At a more specific level, a list of preferred topics and issues for exploration during the empirical research was developed, following a brainstorming exercise by the participants (Box 1).

Box 1: Issues and Topics Explored for the Framework

Social Development a. Human capital development and physical well-being: (i) Level of knowledge and awareness relating to forestry, plants, forest production, harvesting; (ii) Skills learned through the selected project for the purpose of enhancing income. b. Social capital, social protection and social inclusion: (i) Status differential; (ii) Social relational network (especially patronage); (iii) Security of property and tenure rights. c. Gender and equity development:. (i) Female employment (Is female labor remunerative and equal to male? etc.); (ii) Workload distribution (Are forestry project activities causing extra burden on women?); (iii) Gender division of labor; (iv) Representation in association, meetings, etc.; (v) Concerned user rights, property rights, and tenure. Good Governance a. Level and extent of public participation and involvement in: (i) Project decision-making; (ii) Resource contribution (to investment and recurrent costs); (iii) Implementation, administration, and coordination; (iv) Benefits (actual and perceived). b. Nature and observance of functional contracts/deeds/agreement between project authorities and participants. c. Regular voting/election for leadership Pro-poor Growth a. Employment and income creation b. Environmental sustainability: (i) General health of the forest (e.g., extent of tree cover and greenery); (ii) Project impact on the local forces of deforestation, e.g., logging.

18. The projects and locations for empirical investigation were selected on the basis of the suggestions and guidelines of the participants and stakeholders. These are summarized in the following table.

5

5

Table 1: Fieldwork Projects and Sites: Choice and Rationale

Field Sites/Projects Reasons/Rationale Upland Settlement Project in the Chittagong Hill Tracts

The unique characteristics and distinctive features of life and living in Chittagong Hill Tracts; governmental attempt in ‘rehabilitating’ shifting cultivators (jhumias) through social forestry.

Betagi and Pomora Social Forestry Projects in southern Chittagong

Widespread recognition as a pioneer and successful SF project; community-based initiative; may offer lessons regarding land tenure dynamics in social forestry; possibility of observing the implications of social variables for the development of social forestry.

Thana (Upazila)5 Afforestation and Nursery Development Project site in the northern Bangladesh (Barind tracts), preferably in the greater Rajshahi region.

Completed ADB project; NGO and community-based activities available in the area; possibility of observing NGO-Forest Department functional relationship, foresters-local community relations, degree of public participation and contribution, and impact on environmental sustainability.

19. Besides the above key projects, there were suggestions to conduct brief reconnaissance surveys of other cases to widen the scope and experience of the Study, as far as possible, within the limits of time and logistics.

20. The fieldwork time was about a month and the logistics were limited. Given these limitations of time and resources, it was acknowledged in the Workshop that it might not be possible to address all these topics of inquiry and to explore them in sufficient details. At the end of the fieldwork, however, the study team was expected to develop a general picture of the observed situation and deepen the understanding of the field realities.

21. The empirical research tools chiefly consisted of focus group discussion, informal interviews and (uncontrolled) ethnographic observation. For a deeper understanding, occasional case studies were done especially in observing the implications of complex social variables (e.g., patronage or status differentials) for forestry development. Formal and rigidly structured questionnaire was not administered; instead a simple checklist of discussion topics (Box 1) and a field diary were used, where virtually any observed phenomenon of interest may be noted. This way, the respondents were provided with a flexible and relaxed atmosphere to vent their emotions and ideas in ways they preferred without being interrupted, guided or directed. Particular attention will be given to observing the facial and body language of the respondents along with the general features of the particular locality.

22. The Final Consultative Workshop was held on 24 October 2001 (the program schedule is given in Appendix 4). The Final Consultative Workshop aimed (i) to inform the participants about the major findings and lessons of the empirical surveys and fieldwork; (ii) to secure participants’ inputs and responses to the above findings and their policy implications for 5 Upazila (subdistrict), previously known as Thana, is an important tier in the local government system of Bangladesh. The current local government structure consists of District, Upazila, Union, and Village councils.

6

6

determining ADB's forest sector policy and investment priorities; and (iii) to invite opinions and suggestions regarding possible ways and means to improve the performance of Bangladesh forest sector in general, and the country’s forest policy and institutions in particular. Out of 56 invitees, 49 people attended the Workshop. Most of the participants of the first (Inception) workshop also remained present in the final workshop (a list of the participants is provided in Appendix 5).

23. The major findings, lessons and suggested policy and functional recommendations of the Study were presented in the Final Workshop. To complement the verbal presentation, relevant poster and photographic displays were also arranged. 24. After careful examination and open discussions, the participants generally agreed to the ‘validity’ and ‘relevance’ of the findings, lessons and policy implications of the Study. Most participants expressed their consent and comments in writing. Some typical responses include:

• “the findings and lessons are very relevant – rather impressive,” • “...although the study covers limited ground, the observations do seem indepth,” • “the lessons are thought-provoking and provides a general overview.…”

II. THE FORESTRY SECTOR IN BANGLADESH A. The State of Forestry and its Role 25. Forestry sector contributes only 3 percent to the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which is insignificant in highlighting the real importance of the sectors. The country’s major source of energy and rural house and furniture construction materials are still the out-product of forest department. Forests also play the vital role of protecting the watersheds, irrigation structure, coastal areas, and above all, the environment itself.

26. The forests on state lands have been subjected to organized illicit commercial logging, unplanned and abrupt conversion to agriculture and other nonforestry uses, fire, grazing and other anthropogenic influences. Northwest Bangladesh has only about 2 percent tree cover. In 1980s, the rate of forest destruction was 8,000 hectares per annum and the annual deforestation rate is estimated to be 3.3 percent. Consequently, per capita forest land has declined from 0.035 ha in 1969 to 0.02 ha in 1990 (BBS 1999).

27. The impact and manifestation of such alarming rate of deforestation are multifaceted. Deforestation causes decrease in water-holding capacity, increased soil erosion, and loss of habitat and biodiversity. The cost of these impacts on the economy was estimated to be 1 percent of GDP in 1990 (BBS 1999). Decrease in timber and other forest products incur direct economic loss. People living in the rural and hilly areas who depend on forest for subsistence are affected. Many of the plants and animals that once inhabited have either quietly vanished or have been on their way to extinction. During the last century, such animals as rhinos, bisons and gaur have slowly disappeared; so did a number of bird species including the famous pink-headed wood ducks, which were only available in Bangladesh and Assam. A considerable number of different species of snakes and reptiles have been lost. The number of elephants in the northeast and southeastern forests of Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) has been drastically reduced over the last three decades. Leopards, bears, deer and other animals, which were found in abundance in the plain land Sal forests, have disappeared with the denudation of the forest trees (Gain 1998).

7

7

28. The Forest Department (FD), as an integral part of the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MOEF formed in 1989), administers the country’s forest resources and manages the public forest lands. The department operates with the policies, procedures and methodologies which reflect the previous situation under which the country’s land-to-population ratio justified a custodial forestry approach (keeping people out of the forest). Slow pace of institutional reform and bureaucratic reorientation, shortage of technical and skilled staff, poor enforcement of policies and programs, and weak environment monitoring are considered to be the major constraints of this department. However, the government in its determination to expand and conserve natural forests has lately recognized the need for developing adequate policy and planning framework, including appropriate institutional reforms to promote people’s involvement in the forest management and conservation.

29. The ever-increasing population of Bangladesh is exerting pressure on existing forests for more food, fuelwood, timber, fodder and other forest products and is resulting in the over-exploitation of government-managed forest resources. The current population is about 126 million and is estimated to reach 177.3 million by 2025 and 210.8 million by 2050 (Davidson 2000). About 70 percent of the plain land Sal forests are encroached (ADB 1993). Other forest lands are also degraded, and as a result, their productivity is unacceptably low. ODA (1985) estimates that the productivity of mangrove forest has declined by 25 percent over a period of 25 years. Similarly, the yield of hill forests has declined at the same rate. Present productivity of forests has declined to a range of 1.5-2.5 m3 per hectare per annum from 7-8 m3 20 years ago (ADB 1993).

30. The recuperative capacity of the natural growth of plants has failed to keep pace with the increasing level of demand. In 1984, the estimated per capita consumption of fuelwood and timber was only 0.08 m3 and 0.008 m3, respectively (FAO 1986). It was perhaps the lowest level of consumption in the world. Even if the consumption level would remain the same, the projected supply would be able to satisfy only 26 percent of fuelwood and 41 percent of timber requirement in the year 1995, and 20 percent of the projected demand of fuelwood and 33 percent of timber respectively of the year 2000 (Davidson 1984). The rate of forest resources depletion is much faster than that of the contemporary attempts in afforestation and the rehabilitation of denuded resource base. This dismal forestry situation of the country is further exacerbated by the uneven spatial distribution of the existing government forest areas. Almost 48 percent of the government forests are located in the eastern region of the country along the international frontiers (hill forests). Another 23 percent is on the southwestern corner along the Bay of Bengal (mangrove forests). The vast flat countryside where almost the whole population live has only 0.12 million ha of plain land Sal forests. Out of the 64 Districts of the country, 28 Districts have no public forest at all (Anon. 1990). While major portions of the natural hill forests are inaccessible and, hence, either underutilized or unutilized, the accessible forests have been overutilized or denuded and in parts encroached. Furthermore, there is very little scope to expand forest areas horizontally.

31. In view of the above problems, limitations and challenges of the Bangladesh forestry sector, community-based participatory afforestation practices, commonly coined as Social Forestry6 (SF), have been increasingly felt to be the most feasible strategy for the long-term 6 In Bangladesh, in common with neighboring South Asian countries, SF is used rather flexibly as an umbrella term for public, private, and communal initiatives for ensuring “active participation by the rural people in planning, implementation and benefit-sharing of tree growing schemes” (Task Force 1987). SF is viewed here within the broader framework of rural development. It includes afforestation programs in marginal and degraded state and communal forest lands; village woodlots; farm forestry; strip

8

8

sustainability of the forests (e.g., Millat-e-Mustafa et al. 2000, Khan 1998). Experts suggest that there is significant scope for vertical expansion of forests through multiple forestry practices. It is estimated that some 1.51 million ha (or 10.4 percent of the total land area) of marginal and fallow land can potentially be made available and brought under forestry and environmental improvement projects through participatory forestry programs facilitated by the government and NGOs. Such programs may also make a judicious use of the disadvantaged sections of country’s human resources including 48 percent women and nearly 10 million educated unemployed youth. B. State Policy and Change in Managing Resources

1. The Extent and Management of Forest Resources

32. Two parallel systems of production forestry exist in Bangladesh: government forests managed by the Forest Department (FD) and privately-owned homegardens. Of the country's total land area, only about 1.46 million ha are designated as government forest land that covers both natural and plantation forests. About 0.72 million ha of land are designated as unclassified state forests under the control of the Ministry of Land. Homegardens constitute 0.27 million ha and are scattered all over the country. The public forest land, unclassed state forests and homegardens together make up about 17 percent (2.46 million ha) of the potential tree-growing area of the country – the lowest figure of any South Asian country (Ahmed 1999). Recent studies further estimate that the actual forest cover is approximately 1 million ha or only 6 percent of the total land area (Chowdhury 1999).

33. On the basis of geographical location, climate, topography, and management principles, the forests of Bangladesh can broadly be classified into: Hill forests, Unclassed state forests, Plain land Sal forests, Mangrove forests, Coastal forests and Homegardens (Table 2).

Table 2: Spatial Distribution and Stock of Forest Resources

Forest type Area million ha

(% of total land+) Growing stock million m3

(stocking m3/ha++) Hill forests

0.67 (4.65)

28.32 (42.3)

Unclassed state forests 0.72 (5.00) Negligible (denuded) Plain land Sal forests 0.12 (0.83) 1.13 (0.94) Mangrove forests 0.57 (4.0) 13.19 (23.1) Coastal plantations 0.11 (0.76) 5.05 (45.9) Homegardens 0.27 (1.87) 54.68 (202.5) Total Forests 2.46 (17.11)

Note: + rounding prevents figures from adding up exactly. ++ refers to wood volume, not total biomass.

34. Hill forests: The hill forests of Bangladesh are located in the mountainous tracts of the greater Chittagong, Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHTs) and Sylhet districts. This forest area covers about 0.67 million ha of land, which is 27 percent of the total forest land of Bangladesh. The forests consist of a mixture of many tropical evergreen and tropical deciduous species (over 400

plantations alongside railways, highways and embankments; ‘community plantations' on public or communal lands with joint management and benefit-sharing arrangements between the government and local communities; homestead forestry (homegardens); and varied other manifestations of agroforestry.

9

9

tree species) occurring in association with each other and with bamboo. Garjan is the dominant species along with tall canopy of other woody species such as Chapalish, Civit, Champa, Telsur, Gamar, Dhakijam, Teak, and Toon. The upper stratum reaches about 45-60 meters height. Bamboo, cane and evergreen herbs and shrubs occur as undergrowth in these forests. The low-yielding heterogeneous forests are reforested artificially with high yielding indigenous and exotic species. About 75 percent of the growing stock of these forests is located in natural forests and 25 percent in plantations (Ali 1994).

35. Although these forests are categorized in public documents as ‘closed multistoried high forests,’ large areas have recently been degraded owing mainly to such reasons as illegal commercial logging (especially on steep slope), organized encroachment and conversion of forest lands for agriculture and homestead purposes, and attack of Gamar and Teak by Loranthus (pest). In several parts of CHT, soil erosion is also on the increase, which in turn contributes to the problem of silting in the Kaptai Lake. Present productivity of the forests has declined to a range of 1.5-2.5 m3 per hectare per annum from 7-8 m3 20 years ago (FMP 1992). The forests supply around 40 percent of the commercial timber production (Chowdhury 1999).

36. Unclassed State Forests (USF): These forests, concentrated in CHT, covers about 0.72 million ha of land, which is about 29 percent of the total forest land of Bangladesh. The land is controlled by the Ministry of Land, while FD manages the forestry activities therein. Garjan, Chapalish, Koroi and Chandal are some of the commercially important timber species found in these forests (Huda and Roy 1999).

37. USF lands have lately been subjected to heavy commercial exploitation in connivance with and collaboration of unscrupulous staff of the concerned public agencies including forest, land revenue, and police departments. Besides sharing the same problems as those of the hill forests, the forest management system here suffers from a serious lack of interagency coordination (especially between the forest and land revenue departments). There has been a decline in the resource base of these forests of 17 percent over the last 25 years (Bhuiyan 1994). 38. Plain land Sal forests: The plain land Sal (Shorea robusta) forest covers about 0.12 million ha of land, which is about 5 percent of the total forest area of the country. The forests are located mostly in patches in the greater districts of Dhaka, Mymensingh, Comilla, Tangail, Rajshahi, Rangpur, and Dinajpur. The main species is Sal. The canopy is 10-25 meters in height. This is a coppice, deciduous specie; but coppice shoots generally lack vigor because of the age of the stumps and maltreatment due to repeated, and too frequent cutting. Koroi, Haldu, Bazna, Kumbi, Sheora, Hargaza, Bohera, Amloki also occur in these forests.

39. This is the only forest type available to the greater majority population of the country. However owing to such factors as over exploitation, conversion of forest lands into agriculture, fire and grazing, the productivity of the forests has reduced to an alarmingly low level. Most parts of the Sal forests are now shrub lands with only 25 percent tree cover (Davidson 2000). The Sal forest of Tangail is one of the most hard-hit areas: declining from 8,060 ha in 1970 to 403 ha in 1990 (USAID 1997). Most of the remaining Sal forests are located in the highlands of the Madhupur Tract. The northwestern part of the country is practically devoid of any major stock of forests.

10

10

40. Mangrove forests: Bangladesh has the largest single tract of mangrove forests in the world. The forests are found in the south and southwestern delta zones. The forest area covers about 0.57 million ha of land, which accounts for nearly 23 percent of the total forest land of Bangladesh. This is an important natural resource, comprising 60 percent of the commercially productive forests, including plantations, which provides timber, pulpwood, fuelwood, fish, thatching materials, honey, bees, wax and shells (Tabassum and Andaleeb 1998). It houses unique flora and fauna, and acts as a natural barrier against cyclones and tidal surges. The height of this forest is moderate, varying from 5-15 meters. Sundri and Gewa are the dominant species. The former makes good quality timber, while the latter provides raw material for a newsprint mill and some smaller enterprises including match factories. Other notable species include Keora, Goran and Pasur. Golpata and ferns form the undergrowth. Between 0.5 million and 0.6 million people directly depend on the Sunderbans for their livelihood.

41. The Sundarbans forests support numerous and diverse animals, including the famous Royal Bengal tigers, birds, amphibians, and reptiles of commercial and conservation importance. The fauna includes 120 commercially-important fish species, 270 species of birds (including 95 types of waterfowl), 50 species of reptiles, and 42 species of mammals like tigers, rhesus monkeys, spotted deer, and wild boars.

42. The Sundarbans, categorized as ‘Reserved Forest’, has been managed as a productive forest since the late 18th century. The forests are managed, on principle, on a ‘sustained yield basis with a 20-years cutting cycle’. Nevertheless, the forests are in a state of decline due to a combination of causes, some of which are man-made including, unsustainable forestry management (Chowdhury 1999). After the construction of the Farakka Barrage in the Indian state of West Bengal (Bangla), the freshwater flow through the Sundarbans has been reduced causing increase in salinity in the locality. The yields from these forests have reduced due to drastic changes in biotic and edaphic factors. The other major threats to the Sundarbans ecosystem include shrimp farming, indiscriminate felling, unplanned polder construction and water development projects, and diseases especially the ‘top dying of Sundri trees’. The forests depleted in growing stock 35 percent over 25 years to 1985 (Chaffey et al. 1985).

43. There are remnants of some 9,000 ha of forests in the greater Chittagong districts known as Chakaria Sundarbans. According to the Department of Environment, these forests have been almost completely destroyed in the last 12 years – shrimp culture having devoured most of the forest land there (Huda and Roy 1999).

44. Coastal plantations: These forests are found in the coastal areas of Bangladesh. The forest covers about 0.11 million ha of land, which is nearly 4.5 percent of the total forest land of Bangladesh. Governmental coastal plantations were initiated in 1961 with a view to providing protection against natural calamities. Subsequently, since 1966 afforestation activities in the coastal areas have been intensified for (i) stabilization of coastal land, (ii) acceleration of accretion and (stabilization of the same for agriculture) and (iii) meeting the demands for fuelwood and industrial raw materials. The main species are Keora, Baen and Golpata. Shrimp culture, salt manufacturing, grazing, fishing, erosion and stem-borer infection are the major problems in these forests (Siddiqi 2001).

45. Homegardens: Homegardens are well-established traditional land-use systems in Bangladesh. These are a particularly appropriate form of agroforestry, being operational units for subsistence in which different crops including perennial plants are grown in mixture with livestock and/or fish (Millat-e-Mustafa 1996). Homegardens cover about 0.27 million ha of land, which is nearly 11 percent of the total forest land of Bangladesh.

11

11

46. A wide variety of trees, shrubs and vegetables are grown in the Bangladesh homegardens. Millat-e-Mustafa et al. (1996) recorded 92 perennial species in the set of 80 homegardens surveyed in four physiographic regions (20 from each region) of Bangladesh. The common trees and shrubs are Coconut, Betel nut, Mango, Jackfruit, Litchi, Guava, Lemon, Jujube, Papaya, Banana, Koroi, Raintree, Mahogany, Neem, Kadam, and Bamboo.

47. In a typical Bangladeshi homegarden, the vertical stratification of vegetation has long been recognized as one of its characteristic features, though the variation of height within any one stratum has led to some arguments as to the distinctness of the various strata. Millat-e-Mustafa (1998) provides a useful general summary of strata (these strata are dynamic and there is constant recruitment from one stratum to another):

<1 m Vegetables, spices, tubers, roots, pineapple 1-3 m Food plants e.g., lemon, banana, papaya, guava 3-5 m Saplings of fruit/timber trees all growing taller 5-7 m Fruit/timber trees, some growing taller 7-9 m A few fruit/timber trees >9 m Timber trees, bamboo

48. From the physical and socioeconomic points of view, homegardens are more reliable than crop fields for growing trees and vegetables and are important sources of income for the farmers of Bangladesh (Millat-e-Mustafa et al. 2000). It is observed that farmers tend to sell cropland to fight against pauperization, but retain their homegardens unless absolutely unavoidable. Even functionally landless farmers have their own homegardens, where they grow the essential commodities for subsistence (Abedin and Quddus 1990). Davidson (1984) observed that over half of the fruits, vegetables and spices grown in the homegardens are sold to meet family expenses. In Bangladesh farmers spent only 4.8-12.2 percent of their total labor in homegarden management; but 26-47 percent of the total family expenses are met from selling homegarden products. During the last 40 years, the relative importance has shifted from the traditional forestry (in the government-managed forests) to homegardens in such a way that today about 55 percent of requirement of timber, fuelwood and bamboo are met from the homegarden sources (Millat-e-Mustafa et. al. 1996).

49. An estimate shows that homegardens have a growth rate of 5 percent while the rate of removal stands at 10 percent per annum. However, the productivity in homestead forests is 7-8 times higher than in government-owned forests (Huda and Roy 1999). C. Institutional Reform

1. Forest Policies from a Historical Perspective 50. The historical development and evolution of the public forest policies and practices in the Indian subcontinent (including Bangladesh) manifest two interrelated trends: (i) state-sponsored organized commercialization of forestry; and (ii) progressive alienation of forest-based communities from forest use and management (for details, see Guha 1989, Gadgil 1989, Khan 1998). The very first steps towards regular conservancy of forests in India were prompted by commercial motives. In 1800, for example, a commission was appointed by the government to enquire into the availability of teak in Malabar forests for commercial exploitation (Padhi 1982:37, FRI 1961:72-3). In 1806, while wondering about "the question of regular supplies of timber to the Navy", the post of first Conservator of Forests in India was created; and "his work was to arrange the exploitation of forests" (Dwivedi 1980:12).

12

12

51. In 1894, British India's first forest policy was formulated. It "gave preference to agriculture over forestry" and proposed that "demand for cultivable land can be, to some extent, met by clearing forest areas" (Hussain 1992:18). Understandably, it gave renewed impetus to the process of ‘land-clearing' that had long been active in Bengal, causing considerable damage to forested tracts. It also made it clear that, "Royalty for the Government must be collected for various facilities enjoyed by people" (cited in Rahman 1993:24; also see, Wadud 1989:5). These facilities included limited ‘concessions’ for pasture and fuelwood collection. Rahman argued that "the main aim… was to collect revenue and to satisfy the local population by granting so-called rights and concessions" (1993:24).

52. The independence of India and the formation of Pakistan in 1947, brought about little change in the nature of forest use and management. The Pakistani period (1947-1971) was a continuation and outcome of the colonial rule, and exhibited similar characteristics. Revenue-orientation of forest policies, isolation of government officers from people, emphasis on maximum economic return from forests, state patronage of forest-based industries, maximum exploitation, and the expansion of state proprietorship over forests were the main features of forestry during this period.

53. The Pakistan period witnessed the formation of two forest policies. Though apparently devised to cater to the need of a newly independent nation, the Forest Policy 1955 depicted all characteristic manifestations of the colonial forest administration, including the expansion of state territories; ‘scientific’ extraction of timbers; fortification of the bureaucracy by increased training and manpower; and managing all forests through rigid departmental plans (e.g., see, Hussain 1992:18). In 1962, a second policy was launched (The Forest Policy 1962), which stated: The management of forests to be intensified to make it a commercial concern,

utilization of forest produce was to be improved … regeneration speeded up to keep pace with increased harvesting, irrigated plantations primarily to produce industrial wood to be included … and timber harvesting in Chittagong and Sundarbans was to be accelerated (emphasis added).

The local rights and demands remained ignored as before. 54. Bangladesh became a sovereign state in 1971 following a civil war. The first forest policy in the independent Bangladesh was announced in 1979. This was "a two-page manifesto-type statement" with obscure and "generalized directions", "mostly focusing on the forest department" (Anon. undated: 5 and 18). Its suggestions included "horizontal expansion of the forest area" under the government, which was to be "carefully preserved and scientifically managed" by a (centralized) "cadre of forest officers"; "setting up new forest-based industries”; "optimum extraction forest produce"; and protection of forests from the (so-called) "encroachers" (GOB 1979). Rural forestry and local people received no major attention, except in the form of a vague call for a "mass motivational drive for tree planting". In fact, the policy "expressed the views of the traditional foresters, overlooking the overall development strategy" (Roy 1987:45); and was hardly adequate for addressing the current needs and crises of the forestry sector (Task Force 1991:219, Anon. undated: 18). Until recently, Bangladesh forestry showed little change from the traditional colonial-industrial approach to forestry. It has been argued that ‘sustained yield' is the main ‘obligation’ of the public forest management of Bangladesh (Khan 1980, Zabala 1990). Under the umbrella of ‘sustained yield', the objectives of forest management (for different categories of forests) are as follows: for the Hill Forests the "mainstay" of forest management is to "convert irregular forests by valuable and fast-growing species", and "to derive maximum economic benefit under the principles of sustained yield." For Inland Sal Forests the objectives are "to bring the forest under scientific

13

13

management" and "to create recreational facilities in these forests for town dwellers" (Zabala 1990:16-17). There has nearly been a complete lack of any significant provision for rural people's involvement in forestry in pursuing the so-called ‘sustained yield' principle. 2. The Current Policy 55. The current National Forest Policy 1994 marks a major departure from the manifestly commercial considerations of the earlier policies. A careful examination of the policy can reveal the following major features:

• It has a commitment to sustainable development (‘meeting the basic needs of the

present and future generations’). • Here forestry is seen within the broader framework of integrated rural

development and poverty alleviation (‘by creating employment opportunities, strengthening the rural and national economy, the scope for poverty alleviation and forest-based rural development sectors will be extended’; ‘encouraging labor intensive forest-based cottage industries’).

• It shows a commitment to contribute to the improvement of the global and regional environmental concerns such as ‘global warming, desertification, and control of trade and commerce of wild animals’.

• As distinct from the historic dependence on state coercive forces, it seeks ‘participation of local people’ in forest protection especially in curbing ‘illegal occupation of forest lands, illegal tree felling and hunting of wild animal’.

• It also pledges governmental support and encouragement for all forms of public and private afforestation programs, especially in the rural homesteads and institutional premises.

56. Despite the above positive features, however, the policy still has a number of limitations:

• Although it vaguely commits to ‘extend the scope of poverty alleviation and

forest-based rural development,’ it does not say anything about the how it can actually be achieved, given the unfavorable features of Bangladesh society such as the skewed pattern of resource distribution, residual degree of collectivism and rigidly hierarchical social stratification (for some intensive treatment of the rural Bangladesh society and polity, see e.g., White 1992, Wood 1994, Zaman 1984, Zaman 1979).

• The (well-known) social variables (e.g., land ownership, patronage, social stratification), which impact on forestry, have not been addressed in the policy.

• Except such rhetorical calls for ‘participation of local people in forest protection’, or ‘increased participation of women in the homestead and farm-based forestry’, the policy hardly offers any avenue for the involvement of the forest-based and relatively marginalized section of rural communities, in the day-to-day management and operation of forestry programs.

• The role of the civil society and third-sector organizations (e.g., NGOs, CBOs, interest groups) in forestry development and the nature of functional relationship between these organizations and the governmental agencies have not been made clear in the policy.

• The policy promises to ‘strengthen the forest department’, but remains silent about the crucial institutional reforms and capacity-building issues concerning the government agencies.

14

14

• It does not propose any specially tailored and targeted forestry interventions for the most vulnerable sections of rural communities (e.g., destitute women, children, and landless poor).

57. In sum, although the policy broadly addresses the issue of ‘poverty reduction through income generation’, the treatment remains incomplete and superficial. Many of the key structural issues, such as institutional reforms, land tenure, distributive equity, which regulate the role of forestry in ensuring poverty reduction and pro-poor growth, have not been responded to. Within this policy framework, the scope of any meaningful public participation and consultation in the design and implementation of forestry programs remains limited. As compared to the earlier policies, however, the 1994 Policy represents an initial move in the right direction, considering its (albeit partial) commitment to some of the issues which are considered vital for a people-oriented forest policy, such as sustainable development, poverty alleviation, local people’s participation in forest protection, and governmental support for forestry development by any quarter. 3. Bangladesh and ADB Policy on Forestry: A Comparative Perspective 58. The Bangladesh Forest Policy 1994 and ADB’s Policy on Forestry 1995 have a number of common principles and intent, for example, the following:

• protection of forests for the welfare of present and future generations; • conservation of biodiversity, endangered species and ecosystems; • cooperation with international and regional initiatives in forest management for

sustainable development; • meeting increased demand for forestry products by greater production and

sustainable harvesting; • recognition of the vital role of forests in the environment especially maintaining

biodiversity, reducing pollution, and mitigating global warming; • recognition of the multisectoral nature of forestry operations; and • protection and rehabilitation of degraded forest lands.

59. ADB policy’s treatment of the principle of ‘public participation’ is more intensive than that of the Bangladesh policy. ADB policy suggests avenues of participation and consultation of stakeholders from a wider cross-section of society in policy formulation, management and implementation. It also highlights some of the key issues, which influence the performance of forestry sector, such as institutional reform and strengthening of the forestry agencies, rationalizing user rights to publicly-owned forest areas, and establishing proper land-use policies.

60. Both these policies show limitations in (i) explaining the actual and prospective role of forestry in the achievement of social development goals (e.g., poverty reduction); (ii) adequately understanding the root (structural) causes which underlie the major forestry problems; (iii) offering guidance for prioritization of forestry interventions; and (iv) realistically assessing the institutional environment for forestry development. 4. Recent Institutional and Legal Reform Measures 61. The major institutional (and associated attitudinal) shortcomings and limitations of the public forestry organizations in the Indian subcontinent in general and Bangladesh in particular

15

15

have been well-identified by a number of probing studies (e.g., Gadgil 1983, Guha 1989, Shepherd 1992, Poffenberger 1990, Khan 1998). Such well-known maladies include: the elitist and custodian-like values and paramilitary service structures; a bureaucratic and revenue orientation to forest management; undermining of traditional rights, indigenous knowledge and resource-use practices; widespread isolation from local communities; and corruption and connivance with local external commercial operators. These conflicting priorities and the historical antagonism between local communities and governments have been at odds with the values and goals of SF.

62. Historically, the above characteristic features and limitations have their roots in the colonial rule with predominant commercial considerations (see the earlier section on ‘A Probe into the Forest Policies from a Historical Perspective’). The growth of public forestry organizations in this part of the world, as Poffenberger (1990:19) suggests, may be seen within the broader "process of bureaucratization of societies throughout the region". The formation of forestry organizations helped governments to regulate forest use to their vested interests. The forest departments' role historically remained as ‘revenue collectors' for central governments, and ‘protectors of forests' from local people, who in the eyes of the governments were the "notional thieves" (Shepherd 1992, Gadgil 1989, Guha 1989, Khan 1998).

63. In this historical context, it is indeed difficult to introduce reform in the forestry organizations. Prompted mainly by a number of international aid agencies, notably ADB, the Bangladesh Government has initiated a limited number of legal and institutional reform measures in the last few years. The primary goal of these measures has been to develop an institutional and resource management structure, which is appropriate and conducive to support community-focused SF activities throughout the country reflecting the intent and spirit of the National Forest Policy and perspective plans. The major reform measures include:

• Enactment of the Forest Amendment Act 2000 which specifically established SF

as a function of the FD in accordance with the National Forest Policy 1994; • Drafting of the Social Forestry Rules in line with the basic spirit of the current

forestry policy and act, elaborating such functional issues as the role of NGOs, mode and mechanisms of public participation;

• Systematic stakeholder consultation (mainly in the form of regional workshops and meetings held in Rajshahi, Dhaka, Chittagong and Bandarban) regarding the Social Forestry Rules;

• Creation of a separate Social Forestry Wing in FD; • Creation of 1,443 new positions in the ‘revenue head (budget)’ (Ref. MOEF letter

# 22/98(3)/596, dt.22.11.99); • Reorganization (and ministerial approval) of the institutional structure

(‘organogram’) of FD, leading to a total of 8,681staff consisting of 259 Class 1, 12 Class 2, 2,351 Class 3 and 6,059 Class 4 positions (the detailed manpower status of FD is shown in Appendix 6; Ref. MOEF letter # 22/98(6)296, dt. 24.6.01);

• Besides the mainstream forestry regulations and rules, some other policies and legislation have been developed, which too, provide for the expansion of community-based afforestation, such as The New Agricultural Extension Policy.

64. The reform measures have so far been done on a limited scale and piecemeal basis. These measures do not seem to represent (and arise out of) a well-coordinated and articulated conceptual and institutional framework. The functional and logical links between these reform

16

16

efforts are not easily discernable. The drive for reform largely comes from external sources (especially international aid agencies), rather than from within the government or immediate indigenous quarters. The pace of implementation of some of the measures (e.g., structural reorganization) is clearly slow. In many cases, inadequate interministerial coordination remains a serious hindrance to smooth implementation of the reform. It was also observed during the fieldwork that subnational offices were often only partially (and vaguely) aware about the intent and spirit of the central decisions and policies concerning the reform, and the field staffs were hardly consulted prior to initiating these measures.

III. CASE STUDIES A. Objective 65. The fieldwork through the four case studies is a process to validate ADB’s forestry sector projects. The exercise is aimed at exploring the role of forestry in poverty reduction in line with ADB’s overarching goal. The focus is to find out if the forestry projects have made a difference in people’s lives as reflected in their social development, in the area of good governance and in the pro-poor distribution of project benefits The stakeholder consultation and empirical fieldwork thus aim to offer a better and practical understanding of the impacts and operation of those selected forestry projects. They are to offer lessons in future project design and effective implementation. The results are the implications to be considered in the revision of ADB’s strategic framework for the forestry sector. B. Case 1: The Upland Settlement Project (USP) 1. Project History and Profile 66. The Upland Settlement Project (USP), a community-focused land management and agroforestry project, is located in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) region of Bangladesh. The project attempts to ‘rehabilitate and develop’ some impoverished ethnic farmers through the promotion of an agroforestry ‘model’. These farmers have hitherto been engaged in jum (shifting cultivation). In recent years, shifting cultivation has largely been failing to support the farmers’ livelihood for such reasons as the rapid population growth, scant and degraded (soil and forest) resource base, short rotational cycle of production, and the changing demands and lifestyle. A number of ‘rehabilitation’ schemes have been tried and tested in CHT with a view to encourage the jumias (shifting cultivators) to a permanent mode of livelihood, ameliorate their living standard, and also to compensate for the loss they suffered through dislocations and displacements (Khan and Khisa [2000] provides a brief overview of the major settlement and rehabilitation schemes, prior to USP). 67. In line with the previous attempts in resettlement of the ethnic communities in CHT, USP was originally conceived in 1979 under the purview of the government’s premier agency charged with the development of CHT, known as the Chittagong Hill Tracts Development Board (CHTDB). The project became fully operational in 1985 and it ‘resettled’ some 2,000 ethnic families in a number of purposively-developed agroforestry plots. As a sequel to the first phase of the USP, the current (second) phase started in 1994, involving 1,000 landless and marginal jhumia families who have been resettled in 20 purposely-developed ‘project villages’ in the districts of Khagrachari and Bandarban. Each village accommodates 50 households (HH). The families represent four major ethnic communities in CHT, namely, the Marma (431), the Tripura

17

17

(382), the Tanchangya (151) and the Chakma (36). The stated goals of the project include the following:

(i) organized settlement of ethnic shifting cultivators in the upland areas of

Khagrachari and Bandarban districts in CHT; (ii) development of the marginal and degraded upland areas (which currently remains fallow, underutilized or unsustainably exploited) through

integrated and intensive agroforestry activities, including rubber plantations; (ii) promotion of long-term socioeconomic uplifting and empowerment of the targeted

families; (iv) enhancement of local community participation in the development activities; (v) securing, widening, and sustaining a source of livelihood for the participating

ethnic communities; and (vi) improvement of the local environment, especially in the forms of reducing the

rate of soil erosion and deforestation, and increasing the tree coverage in the area.

68. Six villages, namely Wasu 1 and 2, Bailyachari 1 and 2 and Taimatai 1 and 2, have been covered during the fieldwork.

69. The agroforestry model, which USP attempts to promote and disseminate, is known as the Contour Hedgerow Intercropping Agroforestry Technology (CHIAT) (for a fuller description of CHT and the context of development of CHIAT in the region, see respectively Khan and Khisa 2000 and Khisa 1994). CHIAT has been widely promoted in many parts of Asia to minimize erosion, restore soil fertility and reduce poverty (Partap and Watson 1994). Along the same vein, there has been great enthusiasm for CHIAT in Bangladesh, and USP has a mandate to popularize CHIAT and associated technologies in the locality.

70. Each participating jhumia (shifting cultivator) family has been allotted a total of 2.12 ha of land, out of which 0.5 ha is intended for homestead and agroforestry activities, and 1.6 ha for raising rubber (intercropped with banana) plantation. The following table depicts the common land use pattern in the study area.

Table 3: Land Use in the Agroforestry Plots

Slope category (%)

Up to 5% 5-15% 15-30% 30-60% Above 60% Level to gently sloping

Sloping Moderate steep Steep Very steep

Upland rice Vegetable Ginger Turmeric Banana Pineapple Lemon Guava Papaya Custard apple Areca nut

Upland rice Vegetable Ginger Turmeric Banana Pineapple Lemon Guava Papaya Custard apple Areca nut

Upland rice Banana Litchis Jackfruit Pineapple Mango Amra Bel Areca nut

Upland rice Banana Litchis Jackfruit Pineapple Bamboo

Upland rice Banana Forest species (especially Gmelina arborea, Tectona grandis, Acacia spp., Cassia spp., Leucaena spp.) Bamboo

18

18

71. Rubber is planted in a ‘block’ of 81 ha, managed by a ‘project village’, generally consisting of 50 jhumia families (i.e., 1.6 ha x 50 = 81 ha). The rubber ‘blocks’ are adjacent to the villages. A total area under rubber plantation is 1,619 ha. Rubber is planted in contour terraces; banana (or occasionally, pineapple) is planted in the interrows with a view to maximize land utilization, reduce weed growth, and generate additional income.

72. Farmers have also received the necessary assistance and support in order to facilitate the process of a comfortable settlement. The major support and services included financial grants, water supply, schooling, health care, communication, and marketing infrastructure. 2. Summary of Lessons a. Social Development 73. About one-third of the respondent farmers have received practical training on agroforestry and related technologies. The impact of training seems insignificant. Many farmers view training as an opportunity to earn some extra money and to socialize.

74. The provision of health, nutrition, and sanitary facilities has led to better health care for the participating families. The primary schools provided by USP, has also contributed to raise the general level of literacy among the farmers’ children.

75. The project has contributed to the increased status and recognition of the farmers by providing them with the ownership of the land and by augmenting their income level. Collective activities seem to have intensified as an effect of the project. The project farmers have emerged as a ‘power group’ in the local government elections and, therefore, have received increased attention from the local political leadership.

76. The majority of farmers (84 percent) reported to have cherished a sense of recognition and esteem by their peers and villagers (outside the project territory), which is manifested by such incidents as

• more visits by relatives, • invitation to socioreligious events, • marriage connections to well-off families, and • wider access to public offices and other formal quarters.

77. Collective activities seem to have intensified as an effect of the project. A total of 20 ‘village committees’ have been formed to carry out the farmers’ day-to-day affairs. It has been observed during the course of the fieldwork that the project farmers have emerged as a ‘power group’ in the local government elections and, therefore, have received increased attention from the local political leadership. Of late, 15 farmers have been elected Members in the Unions (an important tier of the local government system at the subnational level).

78. Patron-client relations between farmers and the local elite are manifested in such occasions as accessing political power; securing loan and assistance from informal money lenders, and accessing the formal sectors.

79. Patronage relations and influences are manifest in the study area. Some examples include:

19

19

• Some farmers maintain regular contact with matobbar or karbari (local elite/leaders) to access and exploit political power.

• Farmers are selected for inclusion in the project by a specialized committee, consisting of representatives from the local government offices and indigenous rural institutions (e.g., the ‘tribal headman’). For example, Krishna Mahan, a farmer in Byllacari was brought to the project by a local elite for whom he used to work before: “[I] worked in his [the patron’s] grocery shop...He [referred me] to some of the ‘big people’ in the project, and [accordingly] I came here and got this land...I do not know much about any committee or any meeting;… if there is a problem, I go to him.”

• Informal loans and assistance from mohajons (local money lenders) require collateral in the form of a ‘social reference’ from the local elite.

80. Women play a most active role in the management of household and agroforestry activities, although their contribution is not readily (and justly) recognized. Female participation in the formal/institutional sectors is limited due to such reasons as reduced mobility, lack of appropriate information and education, and insufficient control over relevant resources. Women also have insignificant control over the resources (and the benefits accruing thereof). In the absence of an effective gender policy, the overall working environment for the female staff is not very conducive. The level of female participation in the project management is insignificant. The project has, however, contributed significantly towards increasing the social status of women both at the family and organizational levels.

81. The limited income which they earn by participating in the project activities seems to instill a sense of self-esteem among the women. They also reported that they currently enjoy relatively more social status as a result of participation in the project. To the respondents, the manifestations of ‘increased social status’ are:

• “we can now visit the government offices”; • “our husbands ask for our opinion in important family affairs” ; • “the [project] office has opened a big file in my name”; • “nowadays more of our rich relatives visit our homes” ; • “big [high ranking] officials talk to us”; and • “...have some money at home most of the month” .

b. Good Governance 82. In the study area, only 35 percent of farmers have adopted CHIAT. Farmers’ participation in the project is limited to working in the agroforestry and rubber plantations. Their involvement in the monitoring and evaluation of the project is minimal. In the planning and management meetings a group of comparatively well-off farmers tend to speak out, while the majority plays a rather passive role.

83. Farmers have received direct and indirect benefits arising out of such provisions as financial grants, wages for working in plantations, infrastructure and community services and distribution of free seedlings and other planting materials. These physical targets have mostly been achieved. Farmers’ contribution to the primary investment and recurrent cost of the project is negligible, except for homestead site development.

20

20

84. Despite repeated attempts by USP authorities, formal title to the land has not still been secured due to bureaucratic red tape, lack of interagency coordination, and procedural complication. Some 1,000 applications for land settlement remain unresolved in the local land administration offices. Insecurity of land tenure has resulted in farmers’ reduced morale and interest in the project activities, as ventilated in the following comments:

• “Tell me, do you build your own house in someone else’s land…?” • “…Once the trees [we have planted] mature, the government shall take them

away [claiming that] they own the land.” 85. Tenure insecurity, coupled with limited sources of off-farm income, has caused some families (e.g., 11 from Toymatai 1 and 2 and eight from Byllachari 1 and 2 to leave the project in the recent times. About 9 percent of families do not physically reside in their allotted plots and work outside the project area, while 43 percent of the respondents candidly said that they would leave the place, if they can get a better alternative.

86. The project activities suffer from inadequate and delayed flow of funds. The community and participatory focus of the project are sometimes at odds with the traditional working style and orientation of the field staff. The extension and research activities are mostly carried out on a piecemeal, superficial and uncoordinated basis. Many farmers consider the project support and services to be inadequate.

87. The project does not seem to have considered and taken adequate remedial steps to help farmers face the deep psychological strain associated with the process of transformation from their nomadic mode of life (pivoting around shifting cultivation) to a relatively permanent mode of livelihood in the project. Some of their comments:

“...life here [in the project villages] is dry [like] the soil without much tosh [i.e., fluid]” “...[a] fox has its own hole to live...Can he live in [a] rabbit’s hole?” “...the god [of] jum is inside me; how can I leave him?...you leave a god, the god leaves you too.”

88. A number of other problems concerning governance and technical design of the project, have contributed to the poor rate of adoption of the prescribed agroforestry model, including ineffective demonstration, lack of public consultation in the choice of species and sites and lack of administrative coordination.

c. Pro-poor Growth 89. As compared to their earlier predicament, farmers’ income has increased after joining the project. The project also shows some positive impact on expansion of greenery and soil conservation. It has little influence on the working dynamics of the principal forces of deforestation in the locality. The farmers seem to be aware and conscious about the nature and causes of resource depletion in the locality.

90. Farmers inform that illicit logging in connivance with forest, police, and other law enforcing departments, is the principal cause of deforestation in the locality. A number of farmers used to work for the loggers prior to joining USP. Although they have mostly given up the practice, during the lean periods some are still forced to enter forests to cut trees for loggers. Many farmers report that they witnessed abundance of natural resources in the locality

21

21

in their childhood. The current rate of resource depletion is a matter of concern for them and they seem to be quite aware of the reasons:

“There were so much paddy in the jum, we [used to] get exhausted [in trying] to carry the paddy as shoulder load; we left some paddy in the fields for the birds, pigs [and other wild animals]. The banks of chara [rivulets] were full of shils [stones]. We could get bamboo and small trees at close quarters of the hamlet ... We used to go out to the forest across the river or just walk alongside the river bank, after having the ‘morning rice’, and by the time the sun was over the head properly, we had enough bamboo and logs to take us through a week or 10 days...

“They have eaten the forests—the daroga [police] have eaten; the tila babu [forester] has eaten, the sodor [merchants] who brings the truck from towns [to carry the logs], have eaten. Trees are all gone. Stones are also gone ... Do you know why the water is dirty in the stream? [Because] there are not many stones in the river.

“Do you know, why there is less paddy in the jum nowadays? … [Do you] see those electricity lines [pointing to the pylons]? They suck all the fluid away from the soil … [Besides, there are] hardly any birds in the fields; no birds, no droppings; how can the soil enliven? … Now you can only survive for six months with the rice grown in jum [“How do you survive rest of the year?”—was my question] … If you are a human being, you have to survive! we [thus] live until the last breath.”

3. Conclusions 91. Community-focused land management through agroforestry, despite the limitations, remains a viable strategy for poverty reduction. Besides the physical targets, the social and participatory goals need to be highlighted and addressed for a more objective and meaningful assessment of forestry project(s)’ performance and contribution. This calls for systematic social and ethnographic analysis and inputs to the project design and evaluation.

92. Local farmers are generally aware of the life and living conditions which surround them, including the nature and forces of resource degradation and exploitation. These knowledge, perceptions, and views need to be tapped and consulted during planning and implementation of the community-based projects.

93. Alongside the direct benefits (e.g., income), farmers also receive considerable indirect benefits (e.g., social credibility) from community forestry. These indirect benefits need to be identified, recognized, and evaluated.

94. There may be policy directives to secure farmers’ participation and input to the evaluation and monitoring phases of project(s). The present state of nominal contribution to project resources and recurrent costs need to be expanded to create a greater stake of the framers in the project.

95. Rather than viewing gender as a ‘compartment’ or ‘segregated part’ of a forestry project, a more holistic and comprehensive approach is necessary. A gender and development policy is imperative, which would, inter alia, facilitate the process of (i) recognizing female contribution

22

22

and roles; (ii) accessing to primary resources and selected formal sectors (e.g., banks, hospitals, markets); and (iii) ensuring equity and justice in workload and benefit distribution. 96. Ambiguous benefit-sharing arrangements and failure to provide the promised benefits reduce morale and interest on the part of farmers. Formal title to land and written contracts concerning distribution of the project’s benefits can reassure the farmers. However, these arrangements, which have intersectoral incursions, typically involve a number of (poorly coordinated) government agencies. Thus the mechanism and arrangements of benefits distribution need to be address at the central policy level, preferably in the early days of project operation.

97. Practically-oriented and problem-solving research is increasingly needed to inform the concerned quarters about exploring ways of improving forestry as a means of development.

98. The day-to-day problems and limitations associated with the technical design of the projects may be tackled by regular and systematic consultation with farmers. While discussing the problems faced by USP, for example, the farmers have suggested a number of remedial steps which seem sound, economic, and practical. Such recommended measures include:

• Refining CHIAT by establishing natural vegetative strips on contours; • Extending and dispersing the agroforestry demonstration sites and extension

activities to the major concentrations of farmers; • Involving the mass media (especially the local radio) to inform and disseminate

the project technologies and activities; • Ensuring market and necessary market information to enable farmers to make

informed decisions, and engaging the departments of agricultural extension and forest in this regard;

• While selecting the species and sites, farmers’ preference has to be given highest priority; and

• Provision of small-scale institutional credit to enable the farmers to pursue a wide range of local income-generating enterprises.

99. As regards the problem associated with transformation of jum, some farmers advise that rather than attempting to put an abrupt ban on jum, it needs to be extinguished slowly and gradually. Limited jum may be allowed alongside CHIAT to help the farmers compare the relative performance of both the systems. They also suggest that the particularly harsh pieces of land, where project activities especially CHIAT are located, have little prospect of success and may initially be avoided so that the potential failure may not cause a negative impact on the farmers’ morale. The technical design of the project needs to be periodically revised, taking on board the farmers’ views and felt needs.

100. In order to increase the effectiveness of the concerned training and extension services, decision and action need to be taken at the central governmental level to ensure functional coordination of relevant agencies. At the project level, there may be policy provisions for inclusion of representatives of all groups and classes of farmers in the training and extension programs, and for monitoring and revising the content and efficacy of the programs, drawing on the farmers’ responses. Wherever possible, the emphasis should be on door-to-door extension, on-farm demonstration, and follow-up of the training in the field.

23

23

101. Farmers should be encouraged to explore and experiment with diverse and alternative sources of livelihood. Farmers’ dependence on project grants and charity needs to be gradually and systematically reduced. C. Cases 2 and 3: The Betagi and Pomora Social Forestry Projects7 1. Project History and Profile 102. The Betagi and Pomora Social Forestry (SF) projects are located respectively in Betagi and Pomora Mouzas (revenue-villages) in Rangunia Thana, about 25 km northeast of Chittagong City. The area falls within the jurisdiction of Rangunia Range of the Chittagong Forest Division. The Pomora Forest Extension Center has been especially assigned by the Forest Department (FD) to supervise the activities of the Betagi and Pomora projects. The total area under the Betagi project is 190 ha of Khas land (state land under the Ministry of Land). The Pomora project constitutes 276 ha of protected forest land (under purview of FD) and 24 ha Khas land.

103. The Betagi and Pomora projects were launched in 1979 and 1980 respectively. The historical background and general description of the projects are also widely covered by Rahman (1992), Alim (1988), and Quddus et al. (1992).

104. Before 1950, this area was densely forested. Since the 1950s, there had been a prolific growth of commercial logging by an alliance among the local elite, urban timber traders, and a section of government and local government officials. By the early 1970s, the once dense forests of the locality were reduced to, at best, patches of “scattered bushes” (Rahman 1992) and at worst, completely barren, wide, open lands (Alim 1988). The deforestation had profound ecological consequences as well. It caused massive soil erosion and degradation both in forest and agricultural lands, and contributed to the reduction of agricultural production in the locality (Bhuiyan 1982).

105. Against this backdrop, some renowned intellectuals, senior government officials, and local philanthropists envisaged a community-based forestry program for the region with an aim to “rehabilitate the denuded hills with productive trees and the landless with subsistence economy” (Ahmed and Azad 1987). Some landless families were selected from the adjoining villages and were rehabilitated in the SF projects. Each family (farming household) was allotted 4 acres (1.62 ha) of land on annual renewal basis. In 1987, they were accorded permanent ownership of land.

106. Currently, 82 and 152 households are participating in Betagi and Pomora respectively. The projects are managed at two corresponding levels. At the Thana level, there is a Thana Selection Committee, consisting of representatives from government departments and local government offices. The committee performs coordinating and advisory roles, including the selection of farmers, periodic monitoring of performance, and discussion of problems concerning the projects. At the village level, day-to-day activities of the projects are run by two farmers’ cooperatives called the Bhumiheen Samities (the landless farmers’ associations). The samities arrange meeting to discuss farmers’ problems, resolve conflicts among their members, and liaise with the Thana Committee and other concerned agencies. The samity leaders are elected by the farmers and have to work under the general guidance of the Thana committee.

7 The analysis presented in this section partially draws on a few of the author’s earlier studies on these projects, notably Khan 1998a and 1998b.

24

24

2. Summary of Lessons a. Social Development 107. About one-third of the farmers in Betagi and Pomora received training on basic reading-writing skills and agroforestry activities during the initial years of the project. In the absence of periodic back-up and monitoring, however, the impact of training has been limited. Farmers' literacy rate has increased. A few NGOs operate in the study area with the aim of increasing the general level of awareness regarding health, sanitation, literacy, and family planning among the farmers. In Pomora and Betagi respectively, according to samity chairmen, approximately 17 percent and 21 percent use contraceptives (mainly condoms). Scarcity of pure drinking water remains a major problem; the majority of families depend on hill fountain or ush as the principal source of drinking water. Only about 10 percent families use pit-latrines. Farmers demonstrate reasonably elaborate knowledge on homegardens, horticultural species, and their uses.

108. Patronage relations are deeply ingrained in the social fabric of the study areas. They have profound implications for forestry resource-use in general, and the achievements of SF in particular. In this regard, four observations can be made: (i) SF intervention has brought about little change in the nature, patterns, and implications of the patronage network. The SF farmers are still under the heavy influence of the patrons; and they have to perform within limits set by the patronage network. SF has done little to free the farmers from manipulation by the network; (ii) Patronage relations have partially benefited the better-off SF farmers in terms of increased status and increased opportunities for additional income. The patrons have extracted a variety of benefits (in the form of unpaid labor, servile work and political support) from an unequal exchange; (iii) The patronage relations restrict the growth of cooperation and collaborative initiatives in the study areas, thereby frustrating one of the major goals of SF. The factional politics, intergroup conflicts and divisions among the farmers, which are fuelled by the patronage dominance, disrupt group solidarity and reduce the chance of interfarmer cooperation. Farmers actively engage in factional politics, modelled on the broad pattern of power politics in the villages; (iv) The patronage network enables the patrons to consolidate their power and position, and serves as leverage to manipulate the SF project (and the participating farmers). These relations also provide the patrons with an avenue to appropriate a substantial share of the benefits from SF and to exclude the more deprived.

109. Some key factors foster and sustain patron-client relations in the study areas: (i) Most farmers still depend on the patrons for work as agricultural laborers and sharecroppers in the patrons' fields and for assistance in handling litigation; (ii) Patrons control the limited employment opportunities including agriculture, timber, and other businesses. Farmers compete for limited employment provided by the patrons to supplement their income; (iii) Corruption, procedural formalities, and bureaucratic harassment limit farmers’ access to the public services and extension agencies for forestry, agriculture and livestock which are supposed to empower them. In the absence of this type of support, farmers turn to patrons for help; (iv) Farmers also need political and physical protection from the local elite and their mastans, and from natural calamities and harassment by petty government officials.

110. SF has contributed to increased status and social recognition of farmers. Farmers can exploit this social credibility to carve out a few (indirect) benefits such as establishing marital connections with affluent families; commanding respect from fellow villagers; securing loans from informal money lenders; and accessing public offices. These benefits are, however, hardly distributed equitably. Besides exploiting the farmers as a support base and as contract laborers, the patrons also capture some of the benefits especially designed for the SF projects.

25

25

Box 2: The ‘Bubble Up’ of Benefits

Rajjak Ali, a farmer from the Pomora SF project, received some good quality seedlings (of Tectona grandis and Eucalyptus camaldulensis) and poultry birds, free of charge, from the government extension and research agencies. However, rather than use these resources, he gave them to his patron (a local sawmill owner). The trees and livestock can still be seen on the patron’s homestead. Rajjak explains why: “Last year I was moving from door to door to get some money [loan] for marrying my daughter off ... I even went to the bank for a loan; they asked me to get two referees and collateral ... I am a poor man—who is going to take responsibility for me? ... Poor people are always alone. Then I went to see Mr. Fazal [the patron]. I [used to] work for his [saw]mill before ...; my wife also sometimes gives a hand in his household chores. He gave me some money [as] loan ... I shall have to bring timber for his [saw] mill from the forest for 20 days until he says that ‘the loan is over and you do not owe me [any more]’ ... I gave the trees and chicken to him. He gave me money ...; I am a poor man; I cannot offer much ... [Besides] these are bideshi [foreign, alien] chicken; they eat special ‘powder’ food [which is] very expensive; these birds are foolish too—the foxes can easily grab them in these hills...” 111. There are clear evidences of status differentiation among farmers. The SF farmers are by no means a uniform community. Some farmers also claim superior social status based on their lineage or family heritage and their linkage with powerful patrons.

112. Land tenure is a complex issue for SF. Although tenure security is a major motivating force for farmers, providing permanent title to land alone has little impact on farm productivity, or on the growth of collective effort among SF farmers. Farmers need institutional assurance and support (especially from the government) to fully utilize the potential rights and benefits associated with such ownership. Farmers, who have received permanent land ownership (Betagi) and those who are struggling for ownership (Pomora), are suspicious of the government’s goodwill, and anticipate future conflict both with the government and local elite. Moreover, the rewards from SF are not encouraging enough to confine farmers only to SF activities. Therefore, land security needs to be backed up by technological and logistic support from the government and other concerned agencies, so as to make SF activities economically more viable than other off-farm alternatives.

113. Women in general have not been able to reap the benefit of long-term tenure. The “social justification” of private or individualistic land allotment to SF farmers, at the cost of excluding other equally deserving sections of local people, is also questionable. The government’s role in the study-areas is one of unfinished nature. It has allocated land to SF projects, but has not provided the necessary policy directive and field level support regarding the varied problems and complications associated with such allotments.

114. As regards the growth of cooperation and collective organizations, it is observed that the Betagi-Pomora samities were very effective during the initial years of the projects, and cooperative management had the following clear manifestations: (i) farmers acted collectively to ensure logistic support and services from the government; (ii) their collective effort helped them in tackling elite opposition; and (iii) farmers also performed collectively in facing natural hazards and problems in the area. Today there has been a drastic decline of collectivism and cooperative spirit among farmers. The following reasons can largely explain the erosion of cooperation: (i) The collective institutions and governmental support have become ineffective and limited. The catalytic support of government agencies has waned with the passage of time, primarily due to the absence of central vigilance (from higher authorities); (ii) With the amelioration of economic position and living standard, farmers are tending to split up and move towards individualistic pursuits; and (iii) The

26

26

factional politics and conflicts among farmers have been intensified in recent years, under the spell of the broad pattern of patronage factions.

115. Occasionally, experimental forms of collective organizations emerge in response to farmers’ dissatisfaction with mainstream organizations. Selected farmers in Pomora, for example, have formed the Sanchay (savings) Committee as an alternative to the samity. The Sanchay Committee encourages its members to develop a collective fund through regular savings, which would support varied welfare activities for farmers.

116. In some parts of the project area, farmers report serious insecurity of and threat to life and properties. It is said that the local patrons and other influential elite want to drive farmers away from the plots (which were under their de-facto control prior to the initiation of project) and resettle ‘their persons of their own choice and preference’.

117. Women’s work (labor input) is basically of two broad categories: ‘household chores’ and ‘agroforestry activities’. Women on an average work for 15-16 hours. The major constraints faced by women in the study areas are: (i) a nonrecognition of their work and its economic worth; (ii) women's access to resources (such as land, livestock, material properties) are unequal and limited; (iii) women are generally illiterate and have virtually no access to technology and inputs (supplied by the government or other external agencies); (iv) women's involvement in outside employment are not encouraged in the countryside, primarily due to customary gender division of labor and social restrictions; (v) women do not have their own organization or cooperative forum to foster and articulate their views, demands, and interests which are crucial for empowering them.

118. Although women's activities are mostly confined around homestead, they have developed some informal market and social connections by participating in the projects. The various links (such as the links developed through informal market transactions, share-tending and kinship) are their "social capital" and represent crucial locus of female power. Women consider tree planting as an auxiliary source of income and social status. Whatever meagre cash income women may generate through their informal transaction and production, it adds to family's income and is spent for family's welfare.

119. SF intervention has brought little qualitative change in the general pattern of women's life and status. However, at a more minor level, SF has brought some subtle changes: (i) it has eased the task of fuel-fodder collection. Majority of women can, at least partially, acquire fuel and fodder from their own (SF) plots, and thereby, can (partially) avoid traveling to public forests and village (common) lands; (ii) it has also facilitated the task of livestock rearing; women can tend animals in their own lands; and (iii) SF has provided some opportunities for cash income for women (for example, share-tending livestock), and thereby, has contributed to increased economic status of their families.

120. However, rehabilitation on hilly plots (through SF) has brought about some disadvantages as well: (i) life in a hill is much harder and the additional manual work needed in a hill-life fall mainly on women; and (ii) living in hills is generally looked down upon and often ridiculed by (plain land) villagers. b. Good Governance 121. The Betagi and Pomora projects were originally conceived, planned, and administered,

to a large extent by the government, notably, FD.

27

27

122. Initially, although under strict supervision of FD, farmers (to some degree) participated in the management of the projects through their samities. Presently, with the decline in catalytic supervision and collective spirit, farmers have become individualistic, and collective participation in the project cycle has eroded. Thus, from a state of strict bureaucratic control, Betagi-Pomora projects have moved to complete individualistic practice.

123. Farmers are driven largely by personal interests now. They show little interest in the projects or samity affairs. Farmers' participation in samity is confined to occasional presence in meetings, limited discussion on general forums, and irregular attendance in voting sessions.

124. There is no systematic effort in monitoring and evaluation of projects’ performance. Institutional form of accountability (to farmers) is not practised.

125. Farmers have benefited, albeit in varying degrees, from the projects mainly in the forms of income, employment, access to land, agroforestry training and services, and social status and recognition.

126. Pomora farmers have not received formal ownership of land and they use public land on annually renewable lease-contracts provided by FD. The contract document imposes a plethora of terms and conditions, with visibly demoralizing impact on farmers. Farmers generally share a feeling of uncertainty and grievance over insecurity of land tenure. Although the Betagi farmers have received formal ownership of land, the institutional assurance and extension support, which are necessary to fully utilize the potential rights and benefits associated with such ownership, have not been secured.

Box 3: Government’s Assurance: Tenure Insecurity and Farmers’ Responses: The Case of a Pomora Farmer

Mahbubur Rahman was allotted a plot in 1981. He has worked hard to develop the site through agroforestry. His diligence paid back: within six years of joining the project, he was able to make a good living and to save some money. However, the feeling of insecurity of land tenure was constantly worrying him. Recently, he has set up a small tailoring shop in a nearby bazaar and left the plot by ‘selling’ it to a local person in connivance with the samity leaders. Here is his comment: “I spent over 18 years at my plot, still I didn’t know if I was the owner. The government gave me a piece of paper [which says] they can throw me out at any time. How is this my land, if someone else can chuck me out? They said [that] they would give us [the formal land title] deed if we could show good work; isn’t 18 years enough to see [if I have done a] good work...? I used to work at a tailoring shop [before joining the project] and I know the work well. Now I have this tailoring shop. I told the [samity] leaders that I wanted to leave the plot. They brought a man whom they said they knew. We came to a [verbal] agreement; he gave me Tk8,000 and I gave him the land ... Many [of the fellow] farmers are doing the same. The very first thing the government should do is to give [formal] ownership of land... Why should [a farmer] invest and work in a land which does not belong to him?” 127. Many farmers have expressed their dissatisfaction about the role and performance of samity as a collective organization for such reasons as domination by the powerful members, irregular meetings, little chance of discussing their own problems, and negligence towards them.

128. The leadership of samity has also become controversial. The leaders have their own client groups among farmers and are engaged in factional politics. Voting for leadership has become irregular. Samity meetings are largely dominated by the leaders and rich farmers.

28

28

129. Interdepartmental coordination and communication within concerned public offices remain a major constraint on SF, causing frustration, confusion, and harassment to farmers. A ‘cold war’ between FD and the land revenue department over the authority and ownership of SF lands is clearly visible. The extension service and support from FD are practically absent now. c. Pro-poor Growth 130. There has been a clear amelioration of farmers' quality and standard of living after joining the projects. From a state of dire poverty, they have reached a point where they can spend on nutritious food, clothing, and medicine, which were well beyond their means prior to the projects.

131. However, over the last few years, some degree of stagnancy has crept into the project, and the initial enthusiasm has been gradually eroding. In 1994, farmers' average annual income at Betagi and Pomora is calculated to be Tk49,990 and Tk32,898 respectively. The income trend virtually shows no major increase since then. Drawing on data gathered from 15 farmers from Betagi and 15 farmers from Pomora, the average annual income is calculated to be Tk53,200 and Tk34,280 respectively.

132. In connection with the income trends, it is observed that (i) farmers are gradually turning to off-farm activities for quick cash returns, and (ii) ‘long-term forest cropping’ (of quality timber species) has been negligible. A number of reasons can explain these trends: (i) farmers do not find farm plantation and forestry activities economically rewarding enough to confine themselves solely to these activities; (ii) farmers feel insecure to plant long-rotation forest trees because these are particularly targeted by the (illegal) commercial loggers for plundering; (iii) in most cases, land tenure insecurity and ambiguous customary rights over trees have reduced farmers' interest in farm activities; (iv) with the declining logistic and institutional support from the government, the farm production technology has deteriorated, yielding low economic return; (v) with improved living standard, farmers' expenditure and demands have also correspondingly increased. Consequently, farmers are pushed to work beyond the farm to respond to their ever-growing demands of life; (vi) farmers are beset with some chronic problems in their farms, including water scarcity; damage by pests and wild animals; land tenure insecurity; danger of plundering of trees; lack of governmental support, and disputed land.

133. There has been substantial improvement in terms of expansion of greenery and reduction in soil erosion in the locality after the launch of the project. The locality was subjected to rampant illicit logging and became almost completely barren prior to the projects.

134. Organized commercial logging is the chief contributor to deforestation and environmental degradation in the locality. The projects have little influence on the operation and dynamics of the logging network.

135. During the initial years, farmers used to guard their plots by establishing a tahal (patrol) party. Currently with the decline in farmers’ collective spirit, this cooperative vigilance system has been weakened. Some relatively remote and inaccessible parts of the project area are being subjected to loggers’ attack and plundering.

3. Conclusions 136. The role and performance of social forestry are largely conditioned by deep-rooted social structures and relations such as patronage and status hierarchy. A vigilant and probing eye on

29

29

this social setting of forestry projects is particularly important. Being aware of these social relations and structures will be essential to help planners design more realistic social forestry interventions.

137. Farmers' great dependence on the patrons is mainly attributable to two factors: (i) their economic vulnerability due mainly to limited scope for income generation; and (ii) their residual degree of collective activity and cooperation. Carefully devised policies and actions, with reference to the particular context and realities, are needed to empower farmers in facing these factors. Such actions may include government and nongovernment support in promoting income-generating activities and collective action for farmers. Most farmers cannot access the formal sectors of financing institutions, mainly because the farmers cannot meet the collateral requirements and cope with the corrupt and complicated procedural formalities associated with sanctioning formal loans. With a policy directive from the central government, the services of these institutions could be made available for the farmers (initially on an experimental basis). While discussing the factors, which sustain patron-client relations, it was noted that limited opportunities for income and employment force farmers to depend on the patrons. Micro-credit-based income generation may reduce this dependency considerably.

138. The growth and consolidation of collective activities can help to empower the farmers. This has currently been undermined by the patronage system and the competition amongst farmers for scarce resources. However, increased supervision and vigilance by project authorities would help nurture at least some collective activities, such as (farmers') regular group meetings, rallies, open discussions, joint training programs and participation in voluntary (community) work in the project area. Additionally, income-generating activities can lessen the competition for scarce resources.

139. Clearly-defined land tenure status would give greater social recognition and power to farmers. Insecurity of land tenure makes farmers more vulnerable to patronage influence. The government therefore needs to make a concerted effort to remove all uncertainty and ambiguity regarding land ownership. This can be done, for example, by arranging a clear demarcation of the plots following a fresh land survey, instructing the local land administration and police offices to listen to the farmers’ views and problems, requesting the local judiciary for rapid disposal of the land-related litigation and lawsuits, and arranging dialogue and discussions between the farmers and local elite concerning disputed land. Farmers need institutional assurance and support (especially from the government) to fully utilize the potential rights and benefits associated with such ownership.

140. Technological and logistic support from the government and other concerned agencies is needed to make SF activities economically more viable than other off-farm alternatives.

141. The issue of ‘social justification’ of private or individualistic land allotment to SF farmers, at the cost of excluding other equally deserving sections of local people needs to be carefully assessed at the central policy level.

142. Land tenure security also calls for substantial corresponding changes in other related structures, for example, more education, increased access to cash income and other productive means, and increased power in organizational decisions. 143. The localized collective pursuits and institutions, which (experimentally) grow out of farmers’ initiative and need, may be carefully observed and analyzed. These institutions may provide valuable lessons in terms of understanding and identifying conducive factors of

30

30

cooperation, comparative advantages and disadvantages of varied forms of collective organizations.

144. The central government’s (macro policy) decisions need to be followed and backed up by cooperation and support of local level offices (at the micro level). This can be achieved by establishing regular and relatively direct communication and monitoring between local and central offices. In the case of Betagi, for example, government’s directive of providing farmers with land titles has not been adequately secured by local bureaucracy.

145. The present public extension services, especially for agriculture, forestry, community health and education, are clearly inadequate and inefficient. Most households remain beyond the ‘service coverage area’ of the extension services. Besides, bribery and bureaucratic formalities restrict farmers’ access to these services. Close monitoring and vigilance from the superior (line) authorities, as the common experience suggests, can improve the quality of extension-service delivery considerably. Such services, coupled with vocational training in income-generating enterprises, are vital for better performance of the project and empowerment of farmers. With increased support from public extension services and improved financial status, farmers will be in a better position to resist patronage influences.

146. At certain times, such as during local government elections, farmers are especially vulnerable to exploitation by patrons. It may be a good idea to involve specialized external agencies, such as the human rights and electoral monitoring agencies, to monitor the situation in the field at these times.

147. Farmers largely depend on patrons for accessing and lobbying the various local government offices. On some occasions, during the fieldwork, it was observed that the vigilance of higher line authorities and the interest and intervention of the local political representative – the Member of Parliament – can make these offices relatively more responsive to farmers’ needs and problems. However, unless a regular system of central and integrated monitoring can be devised, services of local offices are most likely to remain limited, preferential, and temporary.

148. Forestry projects need to focus more closely on and develop a better understanding of the dynamics of women‘s involvement and contribution to such projects. The (marginal) benefits which women receive by participating in the projects, e.g., developing social connections, informal market, social status, relatively easier access to fuel and fodder, etc., may be further explored and expanded.

149. The indigenous and localized knowledge of forestry, especially relating to the management of homegardens and judicious use of particular species and sites, should be formally recognized, researched, and tapped. These forms of knowledge and information may provide valuable input to planning and implementation phases of forestry projects.

150. The role and prospects of indigenous and/or experimental forms of collective organizations, which grow out of local initiative and demand (e.g., the Sanchay Committee in Pomora), may be examined, studied and supported manly on two grounds: (i) such institutions are likely to enjoy wide social recognition and credibility; and (ii) are typically more adaptive to particular local conditions and contexts. 151. Occasionally experimental forms of collective organizations emerge in response to farmers’ dissatisfaction with mainstream organizations. Selected farmers in Pomora, for

31

31

example, have formed the Sanchay (Savings) Committee as an alternative to the samity, which these farmers view as “a seat of corrupt and incompetent leaders.” The Sanchay Committee encourages its members to develop a collective fund through regular savings, which would support varied welfare activities for farmers. The protagonists of Sanchay Committee also believe that “once you have money and strength, the government can no longer ignore you”. D. Case 4: The Upazila (Thana) Afforestation and Nursery Development Project

(UANDP)

1. Project History and Profile

152. The project, launched in 1989, was based on the design of the predecessor Community Forestry Project, and the second ADB-financed project in the Bangladesh forestry sector. It primarily aimed to: (i) increase the production of biomass fuel, and (ii) enhance the institutional capacity of FD to implement a self-sustaining nationwide social forestry program. The project covered 61 out of 64 Districts, i.e., 85 percent of the total land area of Bangladesh.

153. The major components of the project included: (i) establishment of (a) woodlots on 16,000 ha of degraded public forest land; (b) agroforestry plantations on 3,200 ha of degraded public forest land; (c) 17,750 km of strip plantations along major and feeder roads, railways, rivers, and canal and coastal embankments; and (d) 800 ha of block plantations on vacant Bangladesh Water Development Board land; (ii) provision of 70 million seedlings for schools, mosques, government offices, nongovernment organizations, and other parties interested in tree planting; (iii) rehabilitation and upgrading of 40 existing forestry extension nurseries and training centers for training and seedling production; (iv) establishment of 346 Upazila nurseries; and (v) organization and implementation of campaigns for increasing public awareness of the values of tree planting and implementation of simple research trials.

154. FD was the (project) ‘executing agency’. The functional activities were managed by a four-tier institutional setup consisting of the National Coordination Committee, District Coordination Committee, Upazila Coordination Committee and Union Coordination Committee. A cooperative of the participating farmers, known as samity, which is still operational in many parts of the study area, played a role in articulating the farmers’ voice in the day-to-day management of the project.

155. The Greater Rajshahi Region, including the districts of Rajshahi, Naogaon, and Natore (partly comprising the Barind tract) represented one of the major and significant concentrations of the project activities. During the fieldwork the following operational areas have been visited: Arani, Gorermat, Huzrapur, Godagari, Mohanpur, Charghat, Sutihat of Rajshahi district, Manda, North Chack Rahmastpur, Patnitala, Biharinagar of Naogaon, and Durgapur, Rajlalpur and Sarishapur of Natore (Putia).

156. The project officially completed on 31 December 1995. However, the government continued to build on and expand the major activities of UANDP through such follow-up programs as the Expanded Social Forestry Project. Moreover, in a number of places, trees grown during the UANDP have not yet been harvested as scheduled, and some of the field-level institutions (e.g., the participants’ cooperative or samity) continue to exist till today. For these reasons, it has been observed during the fieldwork that many farmers consider this project to be still operational for practical purposes.

32

32

2. Summary of Lessons a. Social Development 157. FD provided training on nursery development and agroforestry to the participating farmers, which most farmers still find useful. The relative success of the training program, as revealed from the interviews of farmers, was attributable to such reasons as: (i) regular follow-up by extension agents; (ii) practical demonstration; and (iii) extensive motivational campaigns.

158. Collective activities were intensified with the establishment of farmers’ cooperatives called the samity. The samity contributed to the empowerment of farmers to some extent. Farmers became a ‘power group’ in the local politics and were approached by political leaders especially during the local government elections. The samity also played a major role in local arbitration and conflict resolution.

159. Patronage and associated dependency structures were clearly active in the locality. A good number of farmers used to work for the local elite (notably, large landowners and local government leaders) as sharecroppers and shepherds prior to joining the forestry project. The patronage influence however continued unabated well into the project. In some cases, the project authorities were compelled, for practical reasons, to include these elite, popularly known as matobbars, as participants to avoid elite opposition. Matobbars were very instrumental in the participant selection process of the project.

160. The involvement in the project brought about social status and recognition for farmers.

Box 4: Applying Learning to Practice Jahangir Alam (Gorermath, Godagari, Rajshahi) received training on nursery raising and agroforestry, and started a small nursery at his homestead premises in 1993. Now he has seven nurseries. Some 40 persons work in his nurseries and he earns a net profit of about Tk60,000 per annum. Alam seems to relish his success and social recognition: “I am [popularly] known as the ‘nursery man’ around here; just ask anyone [about my whereabouts] – he will show you my place...I also employ people and can help kith and kin...I also distribute some [free] seedlings to mosques and madrasah [religious seminaries]...[Sometimes] people hire me to advise on [establishing] nurseries and [how to] run them. I also maintain a small shop [in the local market to deal] in seedlings.” 161. In a few places, there were reports of insecurity, conflicts and litigation regarding land ownership and tenure. These land-related complications threatened the expansion of community forestry activities in the area and caused great suffering to victims. 162. Some 33 percent, 30 percent, 28 percent, and 30 percent of the total participants in the Upazilas of Manda, Mahanpur, Patnitala, and Biharinagar respectively were women. In many areas, women are still commonly seen working in strip (as well as homestead) plantations. Unlike in many other parts of the country, the payment rate of waged labor was equal for both sexes in the project area. 163. Most respondent women were aware of their rights and shares in project benefits. Although they tended to speak less, a considerable number of women participated in the samity meetings, especially when the meetings were arranged near their respective homestead premises. By participating in the project and playing a major role in performing the agroforestry

33

33

activities, a good number of women reported that they enjoyed a stronger voice in selected household decisions.

Box 5: Gender, Empowerment, and Forestry Sayera and Mahmuda (of Biharinagar, Manda) are neighbors and reside just adjacent to the roadside (‘strip’) plantation of FD, which was established in 1992. Sayera and Mahmuda are in their 30s, and mothers of two and four children respectively. Their husbands work in the local market as waged laborers. Before the initiation of the project, as they remember, “The roadsides were barren; some grasses were grown and ‘big’ people used to leave their goats and cows to graze.” Involvement in the samity has given them some voice in what happens around them. Sayera, for example, has managed to send their children to the local primary school, despite the opposition of her husband: “My husband wanted the boys to go to the market with him to help him out in his job...I said, ‘If they start going to market, they would also end up becoming a [waged] laborer [like their father]...I want to send them to school.’ At first, the matobbar also supported [my husband]. There are five [female] members in this samity. We discussed [amongst us] and four [of us] decided to send the children to school. We told the men about our decision. [Eventually] the matobbar [agreed and] said to my husband, ‘Let the boys go’ “. On another occasion, the matobbar and his followers proposed to sell the tree leaves and twigs to [nonparticipant] villagers, but the ladies declined: “We said, ‘We have been collecting [the twigs] for the last four years; Why should we change [the practice] now?’ Then they talked, we talked [back]; ultimately [they] agreed.” These ladies are also quite conscious about their increased status and recognition: “Many ‘big’ [high ranking] sahibs from the town come and talk to us; they come from Dhaka by plane and come here with large vehicles...The government has given us ‘papers’ [certificates of accomplishment/appreciation], do you like to see...? Many women from [the nearby] villages come [to us] to learn about nursery and plantation [development]...” b. Good Governance 164. The major decisions concerning the selection of species, participants, and sites were made by government agencies. There was no institutional or practical arrangement to involve farmers in the monitoring and evaluation of the project.

Box 6: Involvement in Decisions Abdur Rashid (of Chack Rahmat) and Nazir Ahmed (of Godagari) have been participating in the project right from its inception. They received training from FD and are considered to be among the ‘best farmers’. They show sound knowledge of plantation, nursery raising, seed collection, and mother-tree orchard development. During intimate interviews, they note that FD’s selection of species was at odds with their preference and the local site condition: “These Shisham [Dalbergia sissoo] trees do not have many branches or twigs [for lopping] from time to time…; the twigs does not burn well either. [Besides] it takes very long time [for them to mature]. How can we survive without money [that long]? [The government] officials told us to plant Shisham; we did not say anything; we were poor farmers [then]. Babla [Acacia nilotica] or Akashmoni [Acacia auriculiformis] would have been the best [choice for here]. We want to plant tree and get money [out of it] as soon as possible...My eldest son is pressing me for some money to set up a grocery shop; I get Tk4,000 from my nursery; that kind of return we expect [from plantations]. We have been waiting for almost 10 years now to get the benefits [from these trees].” 165. Although there has been a decline in its rigor of operation and members’ interest, the samity continues to act a major forum for (i) articulating and expressing farmers’ views and (ii) interacting with the government. This decline is attributable to such factors as (i) inadequate meetings and opportunities of interaction; (ii) ambiguity over benefit-sharing; (iii) dominance by relatively powerful members, and (iv) lack of periodic assessment of the samity’s performance.

34

34

166. In a limited number of cases, farmers were suspicious of the government’s goodwill and feared that they would not receive the promised share of benefits from plantations. The feeling of insecurity and distrust is particularly strong in areas, where (i) there had been conflicts between FD and local people over ownership of land right from the beginning of the project, and (ii) there were delays in harvesting the matured trees.

167. The extension and motivational activities by the government and nongovernment agencies achieved considerable success.

168. As compared to the early years of the project’s operation, FD’s involvement and interest in samity meetings and affairs have declined in the recent times. The (bureaucratic) procedural delay (at the central level) in securing the permission to harvest trees and distribute the promised benefits to farmers has put the local FD staff in an embarrassing and uncertain position in facing samity and farmers.

169. There has often been a serious lack of interdepartmental coordination and functional cooperation among the concerned public agencies. But the farmers did not express any major dissatisfaction with the samity leadership. c. Pro-poor Growth 170. The ‘nursery development’ component of the project performed particularly well in terms of income generation; the average annual income was about Tk63,000. Some relatively large farmers additionally earned up to Tk40,000 per annum by providing seedlings, technical assistance, and other contractual services to interested NGOs and public agencies.

171. The project participants currently maintain a better standard of living as compared to the nonparticipating villagers.

172. Farmers’ level of concern and awareness about forestry and environmental conservation is high. Most parts of the project area look visibly green. Farmers and villagers report that there has been a considerable increase in forest resources in the locality.

173. The survival rate of most categories of plantation was reported to be satisfactory. The samity was fairly effective in protecting the plantations against biotic interference.

174. The incidences of organized illicit logging, as an agent of deforestation, were relatively fewer as compared to other parts of the country. 3. Conclusions 175. A system of reward and recognition of good performance of the concerned extension staff of the government and nongovernment agencies may be devised at the subnational level.

176. Forestry training policies and programs need to be backed up by (i) regular follow-up by extension agents, (ii) practical demonstration, and (iii) extensive motivational campaigns.

177. Decision-making powers concerning the day-to-day functional matters of the project need to be decentralized. The decision to harvest matured or diseased or damaged trees should be delegated to the Union or Upazila Committee.

35

35

178. For increased public trust and credibility, it is important for local FD offices to distribute the (promised) benefits and implement targeted programs as per the agreed schedule. If it becomes impossible or difficult for them to keep up to the schedule, it may be a good strategy to explain their stand and the situation to participating farmers, rather than avoiding or concealing the facts or limitations.

179. From intimate interviews, it becomes evident that a good number of foresters view community forestry as a tool for ‘recovering government land from encroachers’, and they clearly wish to expand and pursue this tool as far as possible. Through this project, for example, FD has regained some 220 ha of (encroached) land from Dhamurhat Upazila alone. This issue has a moral and strategic dimension, which needs to be further debated and discussed at the policy level.

IV. IMPLICATIONS FOR ADB’S STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK FOR FORESTRY SECTOR 180. The implications for ADB’s strategic framework for the forestry sector will need to draw on important lessons taken from the performance of other ADB-assisted forestry projects in Bangladesh not covered by the BCCS. The key issues of those projects point to weak design and misdirected objectives. There has been an over-emphasis on the achievement of physical and quantifiable targets than social goals. Thus physical targets have fared better than the social goals.

181. Furthermore, there has been inadequate consultation with stakeholders and insufficient research into Bangladesh’s social stratification (e.g., the patron-client network) which impacts on the farmers’ ability to participate in SF. Research in these areas will help the process of formulation and performance appraisal of projects. Farmers’ insecurity over land tenure also needs to be addressed through policy and institutional reform.

182. The present and potential role of forestry in poverty reduction has neither been made sufficiently clear, nor been explored in depth. Some of the recent projects (e.g., FMP) have started to recognize the significance of implications of poverty and other social issues for participatory forest management; however the focus has been on the impact of these issues on forest, rather than the reverse.

183. A revision in ADB’s strategic framework for the forestry sector will have to take into account six important issues that were elicited from stakeholders/participants during the BCCS. A few basic questions were designed to guide these discussions and to get their input into ADB’s policy revision process. The guiding queries and responses are summarized below.

184. Forests for whom? Stakeholders considered forests as primarily for the people living within and around the forested tracts. Forests also concern the other ‘real stakeholders’, including the concerned government agencies and civil society organizations, as ‘they have stakes in forest, forest products and forest management’.

185. Forestry for what? In identifying the purposes of forest and forest management, the stakeholders recognized that forest is a multiple-resource system and therefore forest management must have multiple focus and orientations’, such as for poverty reduction (in meeting demands for food, fodder, and wood) and for economic development by way of generating employment in forest industries, in tourism, in environment sustainability and in education and in research.

36

36

186. What is the preferred approach to sound forest management? The participants argued that ‘the right or ideal approach to sustainable forest management’ is through wide consultation with a cross-section of local people to allow them to participate in decision making and implementation. Yet they felt there must be local NGOs that can help them monitor and evaluate forestry projects. Beyond consultations, another important approach needed is to put in place a mechanism at the community level to solve land tenure conflicts. Participants felt there has to be policy and institutional reforms to address this complex issue.

187. Other issues they wanted emphasized were:

• Capacity building of concerned government agencies (e.g., Forest Department),

facilitating NGOs and concerned members of the community; • Awareness-raising and training; • Acknowledgement of customary land rights, particularly in hill-forest areas where

indigenous people live; and • Regional cooperation in forest management (‘forest is not an isolated resource;

there are up- and downstream linkages and incursions which call for regional-level cooperation and coordination in developing a concerted action plan for forest management’).

188. At a more technical level, the participants suggested the following for sustainable forest management:

• Selective felling instead of clear felling; • Encouraging natural regeneration; • Avoiding, wherever possible, mono-culture and commercial plantation of single

species in forest land; • Promotion of nontimber forest products (NTFP); and • Landscape planning and zoning.

189. What are the major challenges to sustainable forest management? The participants recognized the major challenges to include population pressure, illicit logging leading to denudation, and lack of empowerment at the grassroots level. The situation has been exacerbated by an ineffective land use tenure policy. These problems have led to an awareness of the insufficient attempts in capacity building of concerned agencies.

190. Other priorities they identified were:

• Widening gap between supply and demand of forestry products; • Declining public and private investment in forestry sector; • Poor public services at the grassroots level; • Poor interministerial, interagency/organizational coordination; • Problems in institutionalization of Social Forestry; • Difficulty in establishing a participatory and integrated forest management

paradigm, given the socioeconomic context of developing countries; • Insufficient attempts in documenting and exploiting indigenous knowledge; • Inadequate private sector involvement; and • Inadequate social assessment and research.

37

37

191. What can forestry do for poverty reduction? The participants felt that one major goal of forestry development in developing countries should be to face the challenge of widespread poverty. Therefore they wanted to see more alternative programs for livelihood, help in marketing the forest products and improving utilization of forest resources, and introducing alternative bioenergy sources. Another important suggestion was the integration of women into forestry resources.

192. Other specific means suggested were:

• Increased public participation in afforestation program; • Increased emphasis on village and homestead forestry program; • Development of market (and forest product processing) information and

channels; • Local-level infrastructure development for human resource development; • Promotion of private- and community-based nurseries as income-generating

enterprises; • Introduction of environmental management planning at the local (subnational)

level; • A strong degree of central political commitment and awareness building; and • Bringing degraded public lands (e.g., Unclassified State Forests in Chittagong

Hill Tracts) into the fold of afforestation through peoples’ participation. 193. What role can ADB play in forestry development in developing countries like Bangladesh? There were interesting debate and discussions on the present and potential role of ADB in the country’s forestry development. Drawing on Bangladesh’s experience, the participants agreed ADB should continue playing its supporting role through social forestry and plantation development. But ADB must play also a role in capacity building and institutional reform in concerned agencies like the Forest Department and NGOs.

194. To improve ADB’s portfolio performance and impact of its investments, the participants suggested that ADB reorient its investment policy according to the absorption/utilization capacity of the implementing agency like the FD; make the loan conditions more flexible; strengthen private-sector initiatives including local community organizations; hold more consultations with stakeholders from project development to implementation; and orient stakeholders on ADB’s procedures, sector goals and performance.

195. Other areas they suggested that ADB could improve in portfolio performance and investment impact were:

• Make its relevant intentions and strategies public, preferably by using the national

media and press, before launching/supporting any forestry project; • Emphasize on primary and secondary processing of wood and nonwood products

and promotion of service providers; • Invest in degraded and other denuded public land through participatory forestry; • Increase sector investment, especially in homestead forestry and local enterprise

development; • Continue initiatives in policy and institutional reform; • Promote Joint Forest Management (JFM) philosophy and practice;

38

38

• Promote protected area development/management (including wildlife, parks and watershed management);

• Invest more in training, action research and participatory design of forestry programs; and

• Improve monitoring and evaluation. 196. These issues encapsulated their ideas and vision for better forestry practices in general and ADB’s role in particular.

39

39

APPENDIXES

Number

Title

Page

1

Outline of the Major Activities of the Bangladesh Country Case Study

40

2 Profile of the Bangladesh Country Case Study Team Members 42

3 Program Schedule of the Inception Workshop 43

4 Program Schedule of the Final Consultative Workshop 44

5 Participants of the Inception and Final Consultative Workshops (by Categories of Stakeholders)

45

6 Status of Human Resources of the Forest Department 48

7 Summary of the Community Forestry Project’s Achievements (by Component)

51

8 Summary of the Upazila Afforestation and Nursery Development Project’s Achievements

52

9 Institutions and Persons Interviewed (Personal Communication) 53

40

40

Appendix 1, page 1

Appendix 1: Outline of the Major Activities of the Bangladesh Country Case Study

Activities

Timeframe

Remarks

Attending the planning workshop at ADB HQ

5-9 July 2001 The National Coordinator was briefed on the assignment by the Mission Leader

Initial planning and consideration 15 July Initial review of literature on ADB assistance to Bangladesh forestry

1 July

Preliminary stakeholder analysis 22 June The stakeholder analysis and framework were kept flexible to accommodate new ideas and interests.

Meeting bureaucracy and making the contacts

20 June Communication continued throughout the course of the Study.

Search for and recruitment of Research Assistants (RAs)

24 June

Search for and recruitment of Workshop Facilitators (WFs)

28 June

Initial briefing to RAs and WFs 23 June Close contact with RAs and WFs maintained throughout the course of the Study.

Research methodology: discussion, formulation, and revision

1 August Improved and amended on the basis of comments and suggestions from stakeholders.

Preparation of Briefing and Background Paper for participants of Inception Workshop

30 June

Initial interviews and group discussion with selected project participants/farmers (who are unable to attend the Inception Workshop)

5-15 July

Preparation and distribution of Research Methodological Report

18 July

Inception Workshop 22 July Revision of and discussion on Research Methodological Report (Revised)

30 July The report was revised on the basis of suggestions of Inception Workshop participants

Inception Report 5 August Distributed to interested stakeholders Empirical surveys and fieldwork 10 August-

9 September

Analyze fieldwork and draft analysis report

10 September

Fieldwork follow-up (begins) 15 September

41

41

Appendix 1, page 2

Activities

Timeframe

Remarks

Preparation for Final Workshop (begins) 5

September Preparatory work includes invitation, logistic arrangement, etc., informal contact with invitees

Summary of policy implications draft 22 September Final Consultative Workshop 24 October Consultation with Mission Leader 24-25

October

Compilation and preparation of Final Report

28 October-17 November

Regular contact with selected stakeholders maintained during the drafting of the Final Report

Submission of the (Draft) Final Report

18 November

42

42

Appendix 2, page 1

Appendix 2: Profile of the Bangladesh Country Case Study Team Members

Dr. Niaz Ahmed Khan, BSS Hons., MSS Public Administration (Chittagong), DPM (Dhaka), DipVCO (Swansea), CertISV (Lampeter), Ph.D Development Studies (Wales) National Coordinator, and Forest and Natural Resources Economics and Management Specialist Dr. M. Millat-e-Mustafa, BSc Hons. Forestry (Chittagong), Ph.D Agroforestry (Wales) Facilitator Mr. Nafis Ahmed Khan, BSc (Chittagong), MBA (Preston) Facilitator Mr. Mokhlesur Rahman, Facilitator Mr. A.F.M. Saleh, BSS Hons., MSS Sociology (Chittagong) Research Assistant Mr. Mosabber A. Siddiqui, BSc Hons., MSc Forestry (Chittagong) Research Assistant Mr. A.H. Raihan Sarker, BSc Hons. Forestry (Chittagong) Research Assistant Mr. U.C. Mong, BSS Hons., MSS Sociology (Chittagong) Research Assistant

43

43

Appendix 3, page 1

Appendix 3: Program Schedule of the Inception Workshop

Date: 22 July 2001 Venue: Women’s Voluntary Association (WVA) Auditorium, House: 20, Road: 16 (new) 27 (old), Dhanmondi R/A, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Time Event

0900-0930: Registration of the participants and guests

0930-1030: Opening program: 1. Opening address 2. Workshop objectives and expectations 3. Introduction to the Regional Study on Forest

Policy and Institutional Reforms 4. Introducing the participants

1030-1100: Tea break 1100-1145: Presentation on the Proposed Policy Framework for

Forestry Sector

1145-1300: Group (groups A and B) discussion and open forum 1300-1400: Lunch break 1400-1430: Summary of comments and responses from group discussions 1430-1515: Presentation on Fieldwork Methodology and Implementation Strategy for

the Bangladesh Country Case Study 1515-1535: Tea break 1535-1615: Group (group A and B) discussion and open forum 1615-1640: Summary of comments and responses from group discussions 1640-1700: Synthesis and closing remarks

44

44

Appendix 4, page 1

Appendix 4: Program Schedule of the Final Consultative Workshop Date: 24 October 2001 Venue: Conference Room, Level 4, Local Government Engineering Department Building, Agargaon, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Time

Event

Responsibility

0900-0930 Registration of the participants

and guests Bangladesh Country Case Study (RETA 5900) Secretariat

0930-0940 Welcome address Secretary or representative, Ministry of Environment and Forests

0940-1005 (a) Activity outline of the Bangladesh Country Study (b) Workshop objectives and schedule of programs

Dr. M. Millat-e-Mustafa, Facilitator, Bangladesh Country Case Study, ADB

1005-1015 Introducing the participants Participants 1015-1105 Presentation One: Summary of

fieldwork and empirical findings of the Bangladesh Country Case Study

Dr. Niaz A. Khan, Forest and Natural Resource Management Specialist, and Bangladesh Country Case Study Coordinator, ADB

1105-1135 Tea break 1135-1220 Open discussion on Presentation

One Participants (led by Professor Ainun Nishat, Country Representative, IUCN, Dhaka)

1220-1300 Display of (fieldwork) photographs and associated commentary

Mr. Nafis Khan, Facilitator, Bangladesh Country Case Study, ADB

1300-1400 Lunch break and prayer time 1400-1445 Presentation Two: The current

forest policy and major trends in forestry development in Bangladesh

Dr. Niaz A. Khan and Dr. M. Millat-e-Mustafa

1445-1500 Tea break 1500-1545 Open discussion on Presentation

Two Participants (led by Mr. Farid Uddin Ahmed, Director, Village Farm and Forestry Program, Intercooperation/SDC, Rajshahi)

1545-1615 (a) Update on the progress of RETA 5900 implementation (b) Remarks on main issues of the Case Study

Mr. Javed H. Mir, Mission Leader and Forestry Specialist, Agriculture and Social Sectors Department (West), ADB

1615-1625 Synthesis and summary Dr. Niaz A. Khan 1625-1635 Vote of thanks and closing

remarks

ADB (BRM) or FSP Representative

45

45

Appendix 5, page 1

Appendix 5: Participants of the Inception and Final Consultative Workshops (by Categories of Stakeholders)

Forest Industrial and Commercial Users and Dealers 1. Dr. Abdul Hai Majumder General Manager (P & D), Bangladesh Forest Industries Development Corporation, Dhaka

2. Mr. Shah Newaz* Former Forestry Officer, Karnaphuli Paper Mills, Chittagong

3. Mr. Reaz Ahmed Siddiqui* Timber Merchant and Furniture Dealer, Chittagong

The Government: Ministry of Environment and Forest; Forest Department,

Department of Environment, Department of Agricultural Extension, Chittagong Hill Tracts Development Board

4. Mr. Mahfuzul Islam Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Dhaka

5. Mr. M. Nuruzzaman Chief Conservator of Forest Department, Bangladesh

6. Mr. Anwar Faruque* Conservator of Forest and Project Director, Forestry Sector Project, Forest Department, Dhaka

7. Mr. A.Z.M. Shamsul Huda Conservator of Forest and Project Director, Sudarbans Biodiversity Conservation Project, Forest Department, Khulna

8. Mr. Iklil Mondal* Conservator of Forest and Project Director, Coastal Greenbelt Project, Forest Department, Dhaka

9. Mr. Jens Lauring Knudsen Senior Sector Advisor, Agriculture Sector Program Support, Department of Agricultural Extension and Country Representative, PEM Consult, Dhaka

10. Mr. M. Reazuddin Director, Khulna Divisional Office Department of Environment, Khulna

11. Mr. Sunil K. Bose* Deputy Secretary (Environment) Ministry of Environment and Forest, Dhaka

12. Mr. M. Omar Ali Deputy Chief Planning, Ministry of Environment And Forests, Dhaka

13. Mr. A.K.M. Shamsuddin Conservator of Forest, Social Forestry Circle, Forest Department, Dhaka

14. Mr. Altaf Hussain Khan CF, Coastal Circle, Forest Directorate

15. Mr. A.B.M. Zawaer Hossain Project Director, Forest Resources Management Project, Forest Directorate, Dhaka

16. Dr. Dil Afroz Haque Deputy Secretary (Development), Ministry of Environment And Forests, Dhaka

17. Mr. S.K. Khisa* Project Manager, Upland Settlement Project Chittagong Hill Tracts Development Board, Khagrachari

18. Mr. Munjurul Hannan Khan Sr. Assistant Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forest; and Coordinator, National Conservation Strategy Implementation Project, Dhaka

19. Ms. Subarna Chakma Field Superintendent, Upland Settlement Project Chittagong Hill Tracts Development Board, Khagrachari

46

46

Appendix 5, page 2

Civil Society Organizations: Large- and Small-scale NGOs/CBOs

20. Mr. Iqbal Mahmood Fattah* Coordinator, Social Forestry Program PROSHIKA, Dhaka

21. Mr. Rakibul Bari Khan Program Officer (Social Forestry) BRAC, Dhaka

22. Mr. Amin Ahmed Khan* Manager, POTHIKRIT, Chunati, Chittagong

23. Mr. Mahbubul Islam Khan* Coordinator, LIFE-NOPEST 2 CARE Bangladesh, Dhaka

24. Mr. Ramprashad Majumder Regional Sector Specialist (Forestry), BRAC, Dhaka

International Aid Agencies (Donors) and International

Voluntary Organizations

25. Professor Ainun Nishat* Country Representative, IUCN, Dhaka

26. Dr. Wajed Ali Shah* Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist, Food and Agriculture Organization Representation in Bangladesh, Dhaka

27. Mr. M. Emran* Senior Advisor to Resident Representative, JICA, Dhaka

28. Dr. Mrinal K. Chowdhury Project Implementation Officer, Bangladesh Resident Mission, Asian Development Bank, Dhaka

29. Mr. H.K. Ryu Project Implementation Officer, Bangladesh Resident Mission, Asian Development Bank, Dhaka

30. Mr. Javed Hussain Mir* Forestry Specialist and Mission Leader RETA 5900, Asian Development Bank, Manila

31. Mr. Dewan A.H. Alamgir Development Program Specialist, EGAD USAID, Dhaka

32. Dr. Tajul Islam* Senior Agriculturist, World Bank Country Office, Dhaka

33. Dr. Ram A. Sharma* Forestry Team Leader, TECSULT (FSP), Dhaka

34. Mr. Farid Uddin Ahmed* Director, Village Farm and Forestry Project (VFFP), Intercooperation, Rajshahi

35. Dr. Jahangir Hossain* Program Officer, SDC Sustainable Land Use Program, Swiss Organization for Development and Cooperation/ Intercooperation, Dhaka

36. Dr. Subash Dasgupta National Professional Officer, Food and Agriculture Organization Representation in Bangladesh, Dhaka

37. Mr. S. Palit Social Forestry Specialist, ADB Forestry Sector Project, Dhaka

38. Mr. Neil Parker Chief Program Adviser, Swiss Organization for Development and Cooperation/Intercooperation, Dhaka

39. Mr. M. Anwarul Islam Environmental Adviser, The Royal Netherlands Embassy, Dhaka

40. Ms. Begum Nurun Naheo Program Officer, Food and Agriculture Organization Representation in Bangladesh, Dhaka

47

47

Appendix 5, page 3

Civil Society Organizations: Advocacy, Policy Dialogue, Indigenous Interests,

Media and Pressure Groups

41. Raja Devasish Roy Chakma Chief and Barrister Chakma Rajbari, Rangamati

42. Dr. Atiq Rahman Chairperson, Coalition of Environmental NGOs; and Director, Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies, Dhaka

43. Mr. Sukanta Sen* Director, Bangladesh Resource Centre for Indigenous Knowledge, Dhaka

44. Dr. Sadeka Halim* Environmental activist, teacher, indigenous interest advocate, Dhaka

45. Mr. Philip Gain Society for Environment and Human Development, Dhaka

46. Mr. D.L. Mallick Research Fellow (Sociologist) Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies, Dhaka

47. Mr. M. Kamruzzaman Researcher, Society for Environment and Human Development, Dhaka

Forestry Research, Training, and Educational Institutions

48. Mr. Golam Quddus Chowdhury* Director, Bangladesh Forest Academy, Chittagong

49. Dr. M. Abdus Salam Associate Professor, Jahangirnagar University, Dhaka

50. Dr. M.K. Alam Divisional Officer, Forest Botany Division, Bangladesh Forest Research Institute, Chittagong

51. Dr. Borhan Uddin Khan Assistant Professor, Department of Law, University of Dhaka, Dhaka

52. Dr. M. Millat-e-Mustafa* Associate Professor, Institute of Forestry, University of Chittagong, Chittagong

53. Mr. A.Z.M. Manzoor Rashid* Lecturer, Department of Forestry, Shahjalal University of Science and Technology, Sylhet

Independent Forestry Researchers, Consultants, and Freelance Activists

54. Mr. Junaid Kabir Choudhury Forestry Consultant, Dhaka

55. Mr. M. Haroon Rashid* Divisional Officer (Retd) BFRI and NTFP Researcher, Chittagong

56. Dr. Ansarul Karim Environmental Conservation Management Consultants Ltd., Dhaka

57. Dr. Mir M. Hasan* Environmental Columnist, Forestry Researcher, Former Director BFRI, Dhaka

58. Mr. M. Shabbir Ali Former tea gardener and Bangladesh Tea Board Official (Currently Assistant Manager Admin and HR, Karnafuli Fertilizer Company), Chittagong

59. Mr. Afzalur Rahman Forest Economist, Former Divisional Officer BFRI, Chittagong

* Persons who attended both workshops.

48

48

Appendix 6, page 1

Appendix 6: Status of Human Resources of the Forest Department

Serial No.

Position

Existing

Temporary

Abolished

Total

1 Chief Conservator of Forest 1 1 2 Deputy Chief Conservator of Forest 3 1 4 3 Conservator of Forest 8 3 11 4 Assistant Chief Conservator of

Forest 5 5

5 Deputy Conservator of Forest / D. F. O

43 20 63

6 Computer Programmer 1 1 7 Assistant Computer Programmer 3 3 8 Medical Officer 1 1 0 9 Curator 1 1 10 Law Officer 1 1 11 Budget Officer 1 1 12 Senior Research Officer 1 1 13 Research Officer/Botanist 5 4 9 14 Accounts Officer 1 1 15 Administrative Officer 2 2 16 Subdivisional Forest Officer 7 7 17 Assistant Conservator of Forest 66 64 130 18 Mass Communication Officer 1 1 19 Librarian 2 2 20 Chief Instructor 1 1 21 Senior Instructor 4 4 22 Instructor 12 12 23 Physical/Physical Training

Instructor 4 4

24 Diploma Engineer 4 4 25 Computer Operator 10 10 26 Data Operator 15 15 27 Compounder 1 1 0 28 Demonstrator 4 4 29 Mechanical Supervisor/Mechanic 6 1 5 30 Head Assistant 46 46 31 Accountant 33 33 32 Storekeeper 1 1 33 Upper Division Assistant 51 51 34 Office Assistant 264 37 227 35 Cashier 33 33 36 Stenographer 12 12 37 Steno-typist 37 37

49

49

Appendix 6, page 2

Serial No.

Position

Existing

Temporary

Abolished

Total

38

Library Assistant

4

4

39 Forest Ranger/Field Investigator 315 88 403 40 Deputy Ranger 413 41 454 41 Forester 724 405 1,129 42 Cash Sarker (Cashier) 33 1 32 43 Dispatch Rider 35 35 44 M.L.S.S., Peon, etc. 449 103 346 45 Wildlife Warden 2 02 46 Forest Guard/Junior Scout/

Security Guard 2,045 53 2,098

47 Night Guard 63 63 48 Sweeper (Jharudar) 59 59 49 Boatman 1,118 1,118 50 Foreman 3 3 51 Sweeper 17 17 52 Radio Operator 17 17 53 Surreng (Steamer/Launch In-

charge) 23 2 21

54 Sukani ( Steamer/Launch Pilot) 12 12 55 Engine Driver 37 37 56 Tandol (Mechanics) 9 9 57 Dak Kashab (Mailman/Runner) 6 6 58 Engine Room Kashab

(Steamer/Launch Staff) 2 2

59 Greaser/ Fire Greaser 13 13 60 Tandol Strocer (Steamer/Launch

Staff) 2 2

61 Electric Strocer (Steamer/Launch Staff)

2 2

62 Oil Man 5 5 63 Laskor/Khalashi (Steamer/

Launch Staff) 48 48

64 Turner 2 2 65 Generator-cum-Electrician 1 1 66 Electric Generator Driver 2 2 67 Welder 1 1 68 Carpenter 3 3 69 Cook 6 6 70 Driver 85 20 105 71 Speed Chowkidar (Keeper) 50 50 72 Blacksmith 2 2 73 Helper 3 3

50

50

Appendix 6, page 3

Serial No.

Position

Existing

Temporary

Abolished

Total

74

Tractor Helper

2

2

75 Head Mali 927 682 1,609 76 Watcher/Patrol Guard 100 100 77 Banglo Chowkidar (Cottage

Keeper) 63 1 62

78 Draftsman 5 5 79 Surveyor/Overseer 3 3 80 Record Supplier 3 3 81 Water Carrier 2 2 82 Electrician 2 2 83 DMO 8 8 84 Pump Operator 11 11 85 Banglo (Cottage) Attendant 8 8 86 Laboratory Bearer 2 2 87 Mahut (Elephant Caretaker) 1 1 88 Lift Operator 1 1 89 Grass Cutter 1 1 90 Water Carrier Helper 4 4 91 Fitter 1 1 92 Track Helper 1 1 TOTAL 7,385 1,443 147 8,681

Class l – 259 Class ll – 12 Class lll – 2,351 Class lV – 6,059 Source: Ministry of Environment and Forest

51

51

Appendix 7, page 1

Appendix 7: Summary of the Community Forestry Project’s Achievements (by Component)

Component

Unit

Number

%

Appraisal Actual Achievement

Homestead Woodlots and Community Forestry Centers (CFGCs)

Village supported (no.) 4,650 4,060 87 Seedlings planted (million) 10.9 3.4 31 Newly-constructed CF (no.) 19 19 100 Rehabilitated CFGCs (no.) 21 100

Strip Plantation Highways (km) 800 (500 miles) 810 (506 miles) 101 Railways (km) 400 (250 miles) 408 (255 miles) 102 Canal embankment (km) 400 (250 miles) 408 (255 miles) 102 Union council road (km) 3,200 (2,000 miles) 2,587 (1,617 miles) 81

Fuelwood Plantation (ha) 4,850 (12,000 acres) 4,898 (12,083 acres) 101 Agroforestry Plantation (ha) 121 (300 acres) 121 (300 acres) 100 Institutional Support

Construction of buildings

(no.) 272 236 87

Rajshahi school (no.) 1 1 100 Fuelwood conservation/research

n/a (deleted from the project)

Consultants Institutions (man-month) 36 36 100 Monitoring and evaluation

(man-month) 36 34 94

Training (man-month) 12 46 383 Agroforestry (man-month) 36 30 83

Training Local (persons) 15,776 22,158 140 Overseas (persons) 65 22 34

Source: Ministry of Environment and Forest

52

52

Appendix 8, page 1

Appendix 8: Summary of the Upazila Afforestation and Nursery Development Project’s Achievements

Component Target Achievements

Appraised Revised Actual % of Revised Feb 1989 Jun 1995 Target Woodlot Plantation (ha)

16,000

20,225

19,415

96

Agroforestry Plantation (ha) 3,200 4,200 5,110 122 Strip Plantation (km) 17,750 17,272 17,809 103 Block Plantation 800 1,282 1,342 105 Seeding Distribution (million) 70 88 99 113 FENTCs* 40 40 46 115 Upazila Nurseries 346 346 345 100 Training FD Staffs and Rural

Communities (‘000) 76 76 91 120 Consulting Services

International (person-month) 72 84 84 100 Domestic (person-month) 12 16 16 100

* Forestry, Extension, and Nursery Training Centers Source: Ministry of Environment and Forest

53

53

Appendix 9, page 1

Appendix 9: Institutions and Persons Interviewed (Personal Communication) (The following list is not comprehensive. Some persons wanted to remain anonymous, while others preferred to be identified by designation only. Besides, persons who are not directly affiliated with any institution (for example, retired bureaucrats, freelance consultants) are not listed. However, the invaluable support of the institutions and persons, both listed and unlisted, are gratefully acknowledged).

Social Forestry Division, Rajshahi Mr. Abu Naser Khan Divisional Forest Officer Mr. Boktear Noor Siddiqui Assistant Conservator of Forests Mr. Kamruzzaman Assistant Conservator of Forests Mr. Enaetulla Chowdhury Assistant Conservator of Forests Bihanagor Strip Plantation Site (UANDP), Naogaon Mr. Abu Bakker Samity President Mr. Shahjahan Ali Participant Mr. Zillur Rahman Participant Mr. Osman Gani Participant Mrs. Sayera Begum Participant Mrs. Marjina Participant Mrs. Noor Banu Participant Mrs. Tahrina Begum Participant Chwak Rahamatpur (North) Woodlot Plantation Site (UANDP), Naogaon Mr. Hamed Ali Participant Mr. Noruzzaman Participant Mr. Hakibul Islam Participant Mr. Nagir Uddin Participant Mr. Noor Mohammed Participant Chwak Rahamatpur (North) Agroforestry Plantation Site (UANDP), Naogaon Mr. Khorshed Ali Participant Mr. Shaidur Rahaman Participant Mr. Jahangir Alam Nursery Entrepreneur Mr. Hakibul Islam Participant Mr. Mizanur Rahaman Participant Adani Strip Plantation Site (UANDP), Rajshahi Mr. Joynal Abedin Participant Mr. Suraj Uddin Participant Mr. Imam Ali Participant Mr. Isab Ali Participant Mr. Akkas Ali Participant

54

54

Appendix 9, page 2 Upland Settlement Project (USP), Khagrachari Mr. S. K. Khisa Project Manager Mr. Dayal Kumar Chakma Estate Manager Ms. Subarna Chakma Field Superintendent USP Bailyachari and Taimatai Villages, Khagrachari Mr. Suresh Barun Tripura Group Leader Mr. Madan Mohan Tripura Participant Mrs. Salima Tripura Participant Mrs. Pushpa Rani Tripura Participant Mr. Kunju Mohan Tripura Participant Mr. Amrita Tripura Participant Betagi Social Forestry Project, Chittagong Mr. Sirajul Hoq Participant Mr. Fazle Hoq Participant Mr. Hosen Ahmed Participant Mr. Abul Kalam Participant Mr. Abu Taher Participant Mr. Sharif Ali Participant Mr. Azizul Hoq Participant Mr. Nur Mohammed Participant Mr. Ayub Ali Participant Mr. Ali Ahmed Participant Mrs. Rahima Begum Participant Mrs. Shamim Akter Participant Mrs. Fatema Begum Participant Mrs. Rasheda Begum Participant Mrs. Raazia Begum Participant Mrs.Taslima Begum Participant Pomora Social Forestry Project, Chittagong Mr. Fazle Aziz Participant Mr. Jasim Uddin Participant Mr. Abul Kasem Participant Mr. Nurul Islam Participant Mr. Anil Kanti Barua Participant Mr. Milon Kanti Barua Participant Mr. Pradip Barua Participant Mr. Samsul Huda Participant Mr. Kabir Ahmed Participant Mr. Nurul Amin Participant Mr. Ananda Mohan Barua Participant Mrs. Nur Nahar Participant Mrs. Sahin Akter Participant Mrs. Rokea Katun Participant Mrs. Kulsuma Begum Participant Mrs. Tahera Begum Participant

55

55

Appendix 9, page 3

Village Farm and Forest Project (VFFP), SDC/Intercooperation, Rajshahi Mr. Farid Uddin Ahmed Project Director Mr. Syed Mahmudul Huq Manager Regional Program Mr. Abdus Salam Project Coordinator Mr. Raffiqual Alam Officer VFFP Nursery and Homestead Sites, Putiya and Sharishabari, Rajshahi Mr. Khalilur Rahman President, Nursery Malik Samity (owners’

cooperative) Mrs. Ambia Khatun Secretary, Nursery Malik Samity Mr. Abdur Rashid Buyer Mrs. Hasina Begum Participant Mr. Rahamat Ali Participant Mr. Saiful Alam Participant Muraichara Khasi Punji (ethnic village), Kulaura, Moulavibazar Mr. Robert Villager/School Teacher Anonymous Khasi Minister’s Representative Proshika, HQ, Dhaka Mr. Iqbal Mohammed Fattah Coordinator, Social Forestry Program (SFP) Mr. Rafiqul Hassan Associate Coordinator, SFP Mr. Mominul Haque Associate Coordinator, SFP Mr. Nizam Uddin Ahmed Associate Coordinator, SFP Mrs. Israt Jahan Associate Coordinator, SFP Proshika Strip Plantation Site, Hugrapur, Rajshahi Mr. Nazrul Islam Participant Mr. Harun-ur Rashid Participant Mr. Mannan Participant Mrs. Ismat Begum Participant Pothikrit, Chunati, Chittagong Mr. Amin Ahmed Khan Manager and General Secretary Mr. M. Shafiq Assistant General Secretary Mr. Aman Ullah Member, Executive Committee Mr. Sheikh Ahmed Participant Mrs. Usha Rani Participant Mrs. Anjana Rani Roy Participant Mrs. Sharashati Bala Participant Mr. M. Rashed Participant University of Rajshahi, Rajshahi Dr. Nurul Amin Professor of Botany Dr. A.T.M. Obaidullah Professor of Public Administration

56

56

Appendix 9, page 4

Institute of Policy Studies, Dhaka Dr. M.A. Sattar Director (Agriculture, Environment, NR) Bangladesh Tea Board, HQ, Chittagong Mr. M. Masud Joint Secretary/Member Finance Divisonal HQ and Maulavibazar Range, Sylhet Forest Division Mr. A. Al Mamun Chowdhury Divisional Forest Officer Mr. Moinuddin Khan Assistant Conservator of Forests Mr. Zillur Rahman Assistant Conservator of Forests Mr. Sarwar Assistant Conservator of Forests Mr. Masud Assistant Conservator of Forests Mr. Krishna Chandra Das Forest Ranger Mr. Mostafizur Rahaman Forester Mr. Hannan Ali Forester Mr. Mohaddis Ali Forester Mr. Abdul Gaffer Forester Lauwachara Beat, Sylhet Forest Division Mr. Golam Rabbani Forester/Beat Officer Mr. M. Abdul Quddus Forester/Assistant Beat Officer Kalachara Beat, Sylhet Forest Division Mr. Mahabub ul-Alam Forester/Beat Officer Mr. M. Riajul Haq Forest Guard Rajkandi Range, Sylhet Forest Division Mr. M. Abdus Shalek Pradan Forest Ranger/Range Officer Mr. Tofazzel Hossen Dewan Deputy Ranger/Assistant Officer Muraichara Beat, Sylhet Forest Division Mr. M. Abdur Rashid Mia Deputy Ranger/Beat Officer Mr. Shah Alam Khan Forest Guard Bangladesh Forest Research Institute, Chittagong Dr. A.F.M. Akhtaruzzaman Director Dr. M.K. Alam Divisional Officer (Botany) Dr. K.N. Islam Divisional Officer (Silviculture) Forest School, Chittagong Mr. Delwar Hossain Acting Chief Instructor Bangladesh Forest Academy, Chittagong Mr. Golam Q. Chowdhury Director Mrs. Neela Dutta Professor/Deputy Conservator of Forest

57

57

Appendix 9, page 5

Institute of Forestry, Chittagong University, Chittagong Prof. M.R. Ahmed Director Dr. M. Millat-e-Mustafa Associate Professor Forest Department HQ, Dhaka Mr. M. Nuruzzaman Chief Conservator of Forest Mr. Anwar Faroque Project Director, Forestry Sector Project (FSP) Mr. M.A. Mualeb Conservator of Forests, Administration and Finance Mr. M.I. Mondal Project Director, Coastal Greenbelt Project Mr. A.Z.M. Shamsul Huda Project Director, Sundarban Biodiversity Project Mr. Anwar Hossain Deputy Conservator of Forest, FSP Mr. S. Mizanur Rahman Assistant Chief Conservator of Forest Bangladesh Unnayan Parishad, Dhaka Ms. Fatema Zohra Senior Fellow Department of Agricultural Extension HQ, Dhaka Mr. Jens L. Knudsen Senior Sector Advisor, Agriculture Sector Program

Support

Socio-consult Limited, Dhaka Mr. John Marandy Director Mr. Alamgir Chowdhury Director Society for Environment and Human Development, Dhaka Mr. P. Gain Secretary Mr. S. Morol Officer/Researcher Ministry of Environment and Forest, Dhaka Mr. Sunil K. Bose Deputy Secretary Dr. Dil Afroze Huq Deputy Secretary Mr. Munjurul H. Khan Senior Assistant Secretary University of Dhaka, Dhaka Prof. M. Asaduzzaman Dean of Social Sciences Prof. M.A. Tareq Professor of Public Administration Dr. Sadeka Halim Associate Professor of Sociology Dr. Borhan Uddin Khan Assistant Professor of Law Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council, Dhaka Dr. S.G. Hussain Principal Scientific Officer JICA, Bangladesh Office, Dhaka Mr. Emran Senior Advisor to Resident Representative Intercooperation/SDC, Dhaka Mr. Neil Parker Chief Program Advisor Dr. Jahangir Hussain Program Officer

58

58

Appendix 9, page 6

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Representation in Bangladesh Dr. Subash Dasgupta National Professional Officer International Union for Conservation of Nature, Country Office, Dhaka Prof. Ainun Nishat Country Representative Mr. S.P. Barua Assistant Program Officer World Bank Country Office, Dhaka Dr. Tajul Islam Senior Agriculturist Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies, Dhaka Dr. A. Atiq Rahman Director Mr. D.L. Mallick Research Fellow (Sociologist) Chittagong Forest Circle, Chittagong Mr. M. Mosarraf Hossain Conservator of Forest Chittagong Forest North Division, Chittagong Mr. A.H. Patwary Divisional Forest Officer Chittagong Forest South Division, Chittagong Mr. M. Akbar Hossain Divisional Forest Officer Bangladesh Centre for Indigenous Knowledge, Dhaka Mr. Sukanta Sen Director Dr. Mambubul Alam Research Coordinator Actionaid, Southern Region, Chittagong Mr. S.M. Monjur Rashid Associate Program Coordinator United States Agency for International Development, Dhaka Mr. Dewan A.H. Alamgir Development Program Specialist CARE-Bangladesh, Dhaka Mr. Mahbubul Islam Khan Project Coordinator, LIFE/NOPEST The Daily Inqilab, Dhaka Mr. Masumur Rahman Khalili Senior Reporter The Daily Prothom Alo, Dhaka Mr. Shaheen Raja Staff Reporter Asian Development Bank, Bangladesh Resident Mission, Dhaka Mr. K.H. Ryu Project Implementation Officer Dr. Mrinal K. Chowdhury Project Implementation Officer Mr. Enamul Aziz Head, Administration

59

59

Appendix 9, page 7

Asian Development Bank, Manila Mr. T. Sibuchi Manager AWFN Mr. Javed H. Mir Mission Leader RETA 5900/Forestry Specialist Mr. Henry Tucker Project Officer Mr. Cornie Huizenga Consultant Mr. N. Bestari Evaluation Specialist Ms. J. Vermudo RETA 5900 Coordinator Bandarban Forest Division, Bandarban Mr. Haradhan Banik Divisional Forest Officer Shahjalal University of Science and Technology, Sylhet Mr. Jamil A. Chowdhury Registrar Dr. M.A. Quddus Head, Dept. of Political Studies and Public Affairs Dr. Narayan Saha Head, Dept. of Forestry Mr. Aktar Hossain Lecturer in Forestry Mr. A.Z.M. Manzoor Rashid Lecturer in Forestry Centre for Resources and Development Research, Chittagong Prof. A.N.M. Munir Ahmad Chairman Dr. Tofail Ahmed Director Bangladesh Public Service Commission, Dhaka Prof. M.M. Khan Member Centre for Natural Resources Studies, Dhaka Mr. M.M. Rahman Executive Director Resource Management and Infrastructure Development Consultants, Dhaka Dr. M.M. Hassan Managing Director Office of Chakma Circle Chief, Dhaka Barrister Devasish Roy Chakma Chief/Raja Micro Industries Development Assistance and Services, Dhaka Mr. M. Alauddin Assistant General Manager Bangladesh Academy for Rural Development, Comilla Mrs. S.A. Begum Director Palli Karma Sahayak Foundation, Dhaka Mr. M.F. Kader Deputy General Manager Mr. G. Touhid Assistant General Manager Ministry of Communication, Roads and Highways Division, Dhaka Mr. Mamunur R. Khalili Senior Assistant Secretary and PS to Secretary

60

60

REFERENCES Abedin, M.Z., and M.A. Quddus. 1990. Household Fuel Situation, Homegardens and Agroforestry Practice at Six Agro-ecologically Different Locations of Bangladesh. In Homestead Plantation and Agroforestry in Bangladesh. Edited by M.Z. Abedin, C.K. Lai, and M.O. Ali. Joydebpur: Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute. Ahmed, A.U., and A.K. Azad. 1987. Social Forestry in Bangladesh: A Case Study of Betagi and Pomora Experiments. Chittagong: University of Chittagong. Ahmed, B. 1989. Sociological Aspects of the Study Villages. In Six Villages of Bangladesh: Benchmark Situation of Six Villages in Different Agro-ecological Zones of Bangladesh. Edited by M.G. Sattar. Bangladesh Academy for Rural Development. Ahmed, F.U. 1999. Summary of the Social Forestry Programs of the Bangladesh Forest Department. The Bangladesh Agroforestry Newsletter 9:1-2.

Ali, M.O. 1994. Trees and Environment. In Environment and Development in Bangladesh, Vol. 2. Edited by A.A. Rahman, S. Huq, R. Haider, and E.G. Jansen. Dhaka: University Press Limited. Alim, A. 1988. Forestry with The People and for The People. Chittagong: Institute of Forestry. Anonymous. Undated. Forest Policy of Bangladesh: Seeking For New Directions. B.Sc. (Honours) Review Paper 179. Chittagong: Institute of Forestry. Asian Development Bank (ADB). 1999. Fighting Poverty in Asia and the Pacific: The Poverty Reduction Strategy of the Asian Development Bank. Manila: ADB. Asian Development Bank (ADB). 2001. Handbook for Poverty and Social Analysis (Draft). SOCD/SPRR. Manila: ADB. Asian Development Bank (ADB). 1993. Forestry Master Plan, Main Plan 1993-2012. Vol.1. Dhaka: Ministry of Environment and Forest. Asian Development Bank (ADB). 1999. RETA 5900: Regional Study on Forest Policy and Institutional Reforms: Briefing Note (Draft). Manila: ADB. Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS). 1999. Statistical Year Book of Bangladesh. Dhaka: Ministry of Planning.

Bhuiyan, A.A. 1994. Forest Land Agroforestry: The North Bengal Experience. BARC–Winrock International Agroforestry and Participatory Forestry Research and Training Support Program, Dhaka. Chaffey, D.R., F.R. Miller, and J.H. Sandom. 1985. Bangladesh: Main Report. Forest Inventory Project. London: Overseas Development Administration. Chowdhury, J.A. 1993. Final Report of the Resource Survey Consultant. Dhaka: Thana Afforestation and Nursery Development Project, Forest Department.

61

61

Chowdhury, Q.I. 1999. Bangladesh: Country Overview. In Bangladesh State of Environment Report 1999. Edited by Q.I. Chowdhury. Dhaka: Forum of Environmental Journalists of Bangladesh. Davidson, J. 2000. Social Forestry in Bangladesh and Social Forestry Research at the Bangladesh Forest Research Institute. Consultancy Report. Chittagong: ARMP, Bangladesh Forest Research Institute. Davidson, J. 1984. Research in the Forest Management Branch of Bangladesh Forest Research Institute. Field Document No. 4. Vol.1. FAO/UNDP/BGD/79/017. Dayal, R., C. Wijk, and N. Mukherjee. Undated. Methodology for Participatory Assessments with Community, Institutions and Policy Makers. Paper presented at Water and Sanitation Program, Washington, DC. Dwivedi, A.P. 1980. Forestry in India. Dehra Dun: Jugal Kishore and Company. Food and Agriculture Organization. 1986. Community Forestry Hand Book. ADB Community Forestry Project. Dhaka: FAO/UNDP/BGD/81/028. Forest Research Institute. 1961. 100 Years of Indian Forestry 1861-1961. Vol.1. Dehra Dun: FRI. Forest Resources Management Project. 1992. Forest Resources Management Project. Dhaka: Ministry of Environment and Forest. Ministry of Environment and Forest. 1992. Forestry Master Plan. Dhaka: UNDP/FAO/BGD/88/025. Fortmann, L. 1987. Tenure and Social Forestry: Research Issues and Methods. In Trees and Tenure in Bangladesh. Edited by S. Huq. Proceedings of a discussion meeting held 10 December at the Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies, Dhaka. Fraser, A.I. 2000. Analysis and Review of ADB’s Portfolio and 1995 Policy on Forestry. Manila: Asian Development Bank. Gadgil, M. 1989. Deforestation: Problems and Prospects. Foundation Day Lecture, Society for Promotion of Wastelands Development, New Delhi, 12 May. Gain, P. ed. 1998. The Last Forests of Bangladesh. Dhaka: Society for Environment and Human Development. Guha, R. 1989. The Unquiet Woods: Ecological Change and Peasant Resistance in Himalaya. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Huda, N., and M.K. Roy. 1999. State of the Forests. In Bangladesh State of Environment Report. Edited by Q. I. Chowdhury. Dhaka: Forum of Environmental Journalists of Bangladesh. Hussain, M.M. 1992. Study on National Forest Policy in Bangladesh. Mimeo. Forest Department, Dhaka.

62

62

Khan, N.A. 1998. A Political Economy of Forest Resource Use: Case Studies of Social Forestry in Bangladesh. England: Ashgate Publishing Company. Khan, N.A. 1998a. Land Tenurial Dynamics and Participatory Forest Management in Bangladesh. Public Administration and Development 18: 335-347. ______. 1998b. Interview of the Sahibs: Bureaucratic Constraints on Community Forestry in Bangladesh. In Journal of World Forest Resource Management 9: 73-93. Khan, N.A., and Khisa. 2000. Sustainable Land Management with Rubber-based Agroforestry: A Bangladeshi Example of Upland Community Development. Sustainable Development 8(1): 1-10. Khan, S.A. 1980. Revised Working Plan for The Forest of Chittagong Division (for the years 1978-79 to 1987-88). Vol. 1. Chittagong: Forest Working Plan Division. Locke, C. 1995. Planning for the Participation of Vulnerable Groups in Communal Management of Forest Resources: The Case of Western Ghats Forestry Project. Ph.D thesis, CDS, University of Wales, Swansea. Millat-e-Mustafa, M., J.B. Hall, and Z. Teklehaimanot. 2000. Indigenous Management Techniques of Bangladesh Homegardens. In International Tree Crop Journal 10(3): 215-228.

Millat-e-Mustafa, M. 1996. The Ecology and Management of Traditional Homestead Agroforestry in Bangladesh. Ph.D. thesis, University of Wales, Bangor, U.K. Millat-e-Mustafa, M. 1997. Gender Roles in Homegarden Management in Bangladesh. Chittagong University Studies 21(2): 71-78.

Millat-e-Mustafa, M. 1998. Overview of Research in Homegarden System. In Applied Ethnobotany in Natural Resource Management: Traditional Homegardens. Edited by A. Rastogi, A. Godbole, and P. Shengii. Kathmandu: International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development.

Millat-e-Mustafa, M., J.B. Hall, and Z. Teklehaimanot. 1996. Structure and Floristics of Bangladesh Homegardens. In Agroforestry Systems 33: 263-280. Overseas Development Administration (ODA). 1985. Forest Inventory of Sundarbans: Main Report. Dhaka: Ministry of Environment and Forests. Overseas Development Administration (ODA). 1995. A Guide to Social Analysis for Projects in Developing Countries. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Service. Padhi, G.S. 1982. Forestry in India: A Critical Study. Dehra Dun: International Book Distributors. Poffenberger, M. 1990. Forest Management Partnerships: Regenerating India’s Forests. New Delhi: Ford Foundation. Quddus, A.H.G., S.M.I. Ali, A.M.A. Bhuiyan, and M. Hossain 1992. Greening The Hills: The Betagi-Pomora Agroforestry Experience. Dhaka: Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council, and Winrock International.

63

63

Rahman, A. 1992. Participatory Approach to Forest Resource Management in Bangladesh: Some Major Initiatives and Lessons Learned. Paper prepared for International Seminar on Forest Administration and Management, Michigan School of Natural Resources, Michigan, September. Rahman, L.M. 1993. History of Forest Conservation in Indo-Bangladesh. Aranya: A Forestry Periodical 2(2): 21-24. Rao, Y.S. 1989. Forestry Research in the Asia-Pacific Region: A Review of Recent Developments. Paper prepared for the Expert Consultation for the Asia Pacific Network on Forestry Research, Bangkok, 22-25 August. Roy, D., and S. Halim. 2000. Forestry Rules of 2000. Paper presented at the Workshop on the Forest Amendment Act 2000 and Social Forestry organized by SEHD and associate organizations, Dhaka, 2-3 November. Roy, M.K. 1987. Forest Sector Planning and Development in Bangladesh. Master of Forestry dissertation, Department of Forestry, Australian National University, Canberra. Shepherd, G. 1990. Forestry, Social Forestry, Fuelwood and The Environment: A Tour of The Horizon. Social Forestry Network Paper 11(a), Overseas Development Institute, London. Shepherd, G. ed. 1992. Forest Policies, Forest Politics. Agricultural Occasional Paper 13, Overseas Development Institute, London. Siddiqi, N.A. 2001. Mangrove Forestry in Bangladesh. Chittagong: Institute of Forestry and Environmental Sciences, University of Chittagong. Tabassum, S., and S. Andaleeb. 1998. A Review of the Forestry Sector and Forest Resources of Bangladesh: Suggestions for Evaluation. Dhaka: ADB Bangladesh Resident Mission. Task Force. 1987. Participatory Forestry in Bangladesh: Concepts, Experiences, and Recommendations. A Task Force Report to the Ministry of Agriculture, Dhaka. Task Force. 1991. Report of the Task Forces on Bangladesh Development Strategies for the 1990s Environment Policy. Dhaka: University Press Limited. United States Agency for International Development (USAID). 1997. World Resources 1996-97. In collaboration with WRI/UNEP/UNDP/World Bank. Wadud, A.A.N.M. 1989. Need For Change in Forest Act. B.Sc. (Honours) Review Paper 111. Institute of Forestry, Chittagong. White, S. 1992. Arguing with the Crocodile: Gender and Class in Bangladesh. London and New Jersey: Zed Books Limited, and Dhaka: University Press Limited. Wood, G.D. 1994. Bangladesh: Whose Ideas, Whose Interests? Dhaka: University Press Limited. Zabala, N.Q. 1990a. Principles of Silviculture. UNDP/FAO/85/011. Field Document 7. Chittagong: Institute of Forestry.

64

64

______. 1990b. Agroforestry. UNDP/FAO/85/011. Field Document 1. Chittagong: Institute of Forestry. Zaman, M.Q. 1977. Social Conflict and Political Process in Rural Bangladesh: A Case Study. M.Phil. dissertation, Institute of Bangladesh Studies, Rajshahi University, Rajshahi. Zaman, W.A. 1984. Public Participation in Development and Health Programs: Lessons from Rural Bangladesh. Lanham and New York: University Press of America.