Edited by
Jefferson Fox
Bryan R. Bushley
Sugato Dutt
Shimona A. Quazi
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and
Protected Area Management in
Bangladesh
Edited by
Jefferson Fox
Bryan R. Bushley
Sugato Dutt
Shimona A. Quazi
East-West Center
and
Nishorgo Program of the
Bangladesh Forest Department
2007
Table of Contents
Introduction: Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in
Bangladesh
Jefferson Fox
1
Paper 1.
Improving Forest Dependent Livelihoods through NTFPs and
Home Gardens: A Case Study from Satchari National Park
Mohammad Belal Uddin and Sharif Ahmed Mukul
13
Paper 2.
Assessing the Role of Non-Timber Forest Products in the
Livelihoods of Communities Living Inside and Outside of
Lawachara National Park
Sayeed Mahmud Riadh
36
Paper 3.
Non-Timber Forest Products and Co-Management: A Case Study
of Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary
Md. Rahimullah Miah
50
Paper 4.
Collection and Management of Selected Medicinal Plants in
Rema-Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary
Mohammad Zashim Uddin and Snigdha Roy
66
Paper 5.
Local Perceptions of Natural Resource Conservation in Chunati
Wildlife Sanctuary
Muhammad Ala Uddin and Abu Shadat Ahmed Foisal
84
Paper 6.
Linking Fuelwood Collection and Community Livelihoods in
Satchari National Park
Rafiqa Sultana
110
Paper 7.
Perceptions of Tourism by Indigenous Communities Living In and
Adjoining Lawachara National Park
Md. Modinul Ahsan
131
Paper 8.
Comparing the Impacts of Local People and Rohingya Refugees on
Teknaf Game Reserve
Mohammed Salim Uddin and Mohammed Abu Sayed Arfin Khan
149
Glossary
176
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Area Management in Bangladesh
Introduction:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and
Protected Areas in Bangladesh
Jefferson Fox
Senior Fellow, East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii
Introduction
Protected areas such as national parks and reserves form the front line in the
campaign to conserve biodiversity. Worldwide protected areas cover more than
12% of the planet's surface (Chape et al. 2003). In Bangladesh, one of the world's
most populated nations, protected areas cover only 1.67% of the total land area.
Overall, Bangladesh ranks 129 out of 155 countries in terms of the percentage of its
national territory under some form of protected area status (World Resources
Institute 2006).
Simply declaring an area to be a 'national park' or 'protected area' has not worked
in Bangladesh or elsewhere to stop the steady loss of biodiversity for a number of
reasons. Among others, these include the fact that timber- or fuelwood-based
commercial operations located in and around these areas perceive them to be a
direct threat to their economic well-being, while neighboring low-income
households perceive a threat to their livelihoods from reduced access to forest
biomass in different forms. In addition, a number of non-local groups such as
timber companies, international development banks, the military, and tourism
agencies often have valuable economic and political interests at stake in these areas
(Brechin et al 2002). Scholars such as Dove (1993) suggest that if local people
develop an economically valuable forest resource, elite economic and political
interests will assume control of it. These scholars suggests that the problem for
forest peoples is not that they are poor but that they are politically weak; they
inhabit a resource which is coveted by groups that are more powerful than they
are.
Based on the belief that human activities are incompatible with ecosystem
conservation, managers of national parks and other protected areas across the
1
Introduction: Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
globe often prioritize keeping local people out. Many national agencies charged
with managing protected areas lack the human and financial capacities, the
knowledge of conservation, motivation, and commitment, and the resources
necessary for supervising the vast protected areas under their rule, particularly if
they have alienated local communities or local commercial interests with a stake in
resource extraction from those areas. Mounting pressures on protected areas from
growing populations, persistent poverty, and the penetration of the market
economy all compound the pointlessness of trying to manage protected areas by
isolating them from human activities.
In the 1980s and 90s conservation organizations responded to these threats to
biodiversity by pioneering new approaches to protected area management that
promised to build support among local constituents by sharing the social and
economic benefits derived from these areas. Brechin et al. (2002) refers to these as
'people-oriented' conservation programs. These programs include communitybased conservation, such as integrated conservation and development projects
(ICDPs), community based natural resource management (CBNRM), comanagement, community-managed or indigenous reserves, and community
conservation areas (CCAs). Co-management or collaborative management involves
two or more social actors negotiating, defining and guaranteeing amongst
themselves a fair share of the management functions, entitlements and
responsibilities for a given territory, area or set of natural resources. The comanagement approach has been a fundamental recommendation of the past two
World Parks Congresses, and is actively advocated by the IUCN. The goals of these
initiatives include compensating local people for lack of access to protected areas
and providing alternative income sources that allows people to benefit
economically from conservation while refraining from environmentally destructive
practices.
While a number of successful community oriented approaches to conservation can
be cited such as the Il Ngwesi Community Conservation Area in northern Kenya
(Oates 1999) and Kakadu National Park in northern Australia (Perdan 2004), critics
of community-oriented approaches to conservation have started to question or
even reject these approaches. Despite significant investments in hundreds of
relatively expensive projects, almost entirely carried out or financed by
conservation organizations and international development agencies, there are few
unambiguously successful cases where local people's needs and aspirations have
been reconciled effectively with protected areas management (Wells and McShane
2
2004). Demonstrating constructive ways of involving local stakeholders in the
conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in and around protected areas
remains one of the most important challenges and priorities for nature
conservation.
Many past efforts to incorporate local people into the management of protected
areas proceeded on the basis of simple and incorrect assumptions about the nature
of the dependence of poor local people on natural resources systems. Experience
has shown that site-specific biodiversity conservation is rarely compatible with
unfettered development, income generation, or livelihood interests. In practice,
there will be winners and losers. Better techniques are needed to identify and
understand the goals and interest of the local people living in and around protected
areas.
In 2004, the Bangladesh Forest Department launched the "Nishorgo Program for
Protected Forest Area Management". At field level, the Nishorgo Program was to
test and refine a model for collaborative management of five protected areas in the
country, including Lawachara National Park, Satchari National Park, RemaKalenga Wildlife Sanctuary, Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary, and Teknaf Game
Reserve. At these five pilot co-management sites, the Forest Department has been
working to develop a collaborative management platform by which key local
stakeholders are to have a greater voice in management decision-making while also
perceiving a greater benefit from the protected areas and their surrounding
landscapes. The Nishorgo Program receives assistance from USAID in the form of
the Nishorgo Support Project.
In 2006 the East-West Center, the Nishorgo Support Project, and the Bangladesh
Forest Department provided eight research fellowships to students, lecturers, and
professors in various Bangladeshi universities, and to Assistant Conservators of
Forests in the Forest Department, to conduct six months of field research in the five
pilot sites. Through these small research grants we sought to explore the impacts
and implications of protected areas on the livelihoods of people living in and
around the chosen protected areas. Among others, the types of questions we were
interested in exploring included: What benefits (products) do rural people derive
from protected areas and what services do they provide in return? What are the
market dynamics and market chains of these products? Who benefits from these
products and in what ways? Who are the key stakeholders? What is the impact of
protected areas on women, the rural poor, and ethnic minorities? What is the
potential for alternative products such as ecotourism to be developed in these
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
3
Introduction: Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
areas? What are the points of contention between key stakeholders over existing or
potential resource use patterns? Are local institutions capable of supporting
innovation and experimentation in resource management systems? How do
farmers respond to risk and uncertainty? How do they respond to new
technologies and innovations?
The Role of Non-Timber Forest Products
Numerous studies have attempted to document how traditional communities
living in and nearby protected areas use forest resources. Understanding the
resource-use patterns of such communities provides a basis for seeking the
participation of such communities in forest conservation. Hegde and Enters (2000)
addressed the importance of forests in the household economies of eight
indigenous communities located near a Wildlife Sanctuary in Southern India. They
found that villagers living within or near the sanctuary collected more non-timber
forest products (NTFPs) than villagers living far from the sanctuary and depended
on NTFPs for a greater portion of their income. All income groups used NTFPs for
subsistence although, with the exception of the low income group, the contribution
of NTFPs to household subsistence was not high. The collection of NTFPs was
more important in villages that had legal access to the sanctuary (where collection
of forest products was allowed) and had access to markets. Where there were no
restrictions on forest use, higher income groups used the resources more heavily
than lower income groups and would suffer more from any restriction on forest
use. People's reliance on forests declined with increased levels of both education
and opportunities in non-forestry vocations.
Among our case studies, Belal Uddin and Sharif Mukul found that NTFPs and
homegardens play important roles in improving the livelihoods of people living in
around Satchari National Park. The authors found that wealthier households are
less dependent on NTFPs then poorer households and suggest that enriching
homegardens and buffer zones with commercially important NTFPs may pay off
through reduced pressures on the national park. Likewise, Rahimullah Miah (this
volume) examined the role of NTFPs and homegardens in Chunati Wildlife
Sanctuary. He found that people living in four villages within and nearby the
sanctuary received a significant portion of their livelihood from the sanctuary. He
suggests that the cultivation and domestication of NTFPs in the interface landscape
of protected areas can play an important role in the co-management of those areas.
4
C.M. Caron (1995) examined household food procurement strategies in a Sri
Lankan village located adjacent to the Sinharaja Man and the Biosphere Reserve.
Caron found that after the reserve prohibited villagers from conducting swidden
agriculture that the community adjusted by switching from growing their food
needs in their swidden fields, to a variety of alternative practices including
collecting NTFPs illegally from the forest and tapping kitul palms (which is legal
with a permit from the reserve) for a type of sugar known as jaggery. Within their
homegardens villagers planted cash crops of tea and rubber and began protecting
all kitul palm trees and saplings for tapping in the future. The study suggests that
establishment of the forest reserve shifted the supply of basic needs from the forest
to the market. While this reduced the overall pressure on the reserve, it also
intensified the pressure on specific resources such as the kitul palm.
In this volume, Zashim Uddin and Snigdha Roy focused on the collection of two
medicinal plants, menda (Litsea glutinosa) and bohera (Terminalia bellerica) in RemaKalenga Wildlife Sanctuary for sale in the medical plant markets. They found that
local residents knew little about the cultivation of these species and that they
currently manage them as open-access resources with whomever wishing to collect
them doing so freely, if illegally. The authors suggest that unless the cultivation
and management of these species is promoted by sanctuary personnel that they
will become increasingly rare, if not extinct, in the sanctuary.
Udaya Nagothu (2001) studied fuelwood and fodder collection in the Sariska Tiger
Reserve in Rajasthan, India. He found that the extraction of fuelwood and fodder
resources by the local community did not cause deforestation in the reserve as the
major portion of fuelwood and fodder came from dry wood and grasses. He also
found that local people initiated strategies such as changing the composition of
their livestock herds, regulating grazing patterns, producing fodder on private
farms, and restricting the use of resource from temple lands in order to reduce
pressures on the reserve. Nagothu concluded that main stream resource
management agencies such as the Forest Department often ignore local modes of
resource exploitation resulting in conflicts between local people and conservation
agencies.
Rafiqa Sultana (this volume) examined fuelwood collection in Satchari National
Park. Contrary to Nagothu's conclusions that fuelwood collection in the Tiger
reserve does not cause deforestation, Sultana found that local households are
collecting close to two tons of fuelwood daily from the 243 hectare park; a figure
that she suggests is not sustainable.
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
5
Introduction: Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
Ecotourism
Many managers of protected areas view ecotourism as an effective method for
promoting the conservation of endangered species and habitats in developing
countries. By creating economic incentives for impoverished villagers or their
communities, ecotourism is thought to encourage local guardianship of biological
resources. Bookbinder et al (1998) assessed the impact of ecotourism on the income
of villagers living near Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal. They found that
despite a visitation rate exceeding 60,000 tourists, most from industrial nations, that
the economic impact of ecotourism on household income was minimal and limited
to villages close to the park's main entrance. They concluded that ecotourism is not
a panacea for long-term biodiversity conservation.
In another study in Sariska Tiger Reserve Nagothu (2003) examined local people's
attitudes towards conservation and wildlife tourism. In this study he found that
villagers were aware that a well-conserved protected area could result in greater
benefits from tourism. Nagothu suggests a positive correlation between the benefits
people obtained from tourism and their support for the existence of the protected
area. Some of the main problems the study identified included unequal distribution
of the benefits from tourism, and a lack of local people's involvement in tourism
and development activities.
In this volume, Modinul Ahsan examined the perceptions of tourism by people
living in three indigenous communities located in and around Lawachara National
Park. Modinul found that people living in two of the three communities received
relatively minimal benefits from the park, while people in the third community,
located within the park and most affected by tourists, have not entered the tourism
economy and as a result have received no benefits at all. He suggests that local
institutions, both formal and informal, should be more involved in helping local
people to gain benefits from tourism.
Towards a More Comprehensive Understanding
of Human Needs and Biodiversity
Salafsky and Wollenberg (2000) developed a conceptual framework for assessing
the impact of various activities implemented to support rural livelihoods on
biodiversity conservation. This framework attempted to rank how dependence on
diverse livelihood activities such as collecting NTFPs or timber harvesting affected:
6
1) maintaining species at the site; 2) maintaining habitats at the site; 3) percentage
of the site on which the livelihood activity depends; 4) period and frequency of
biodiversity use on which the livelihood depends, and 5) dependence of the
livelihood activity on associated conservation values. Salafsky and Wollenberg
tested the framework and the scales they developed by evaluating 39 project sites
in the Biodiversity Conservation Network. Their results suggest that because most
NTFP harvesting businesses depend on only one or two species, there is likely to be
strong pressure to increase the management of the system to promote these species,
ranging from forest enrichment to domestication in agroforestry systems. These
management approaches may maintain the population of the focal species, but may
have no impact or even a negative impact on overall habitat conservation.
Among our case studies, Sayeed Riadh found that cultivating betel leaf in the park
provided an important source of cash income for local communities. While betel
leaf cultivation may improve the livelihoods of park residents, implications of
cultivating betel leaf trees in the park are less sanguine for park habitat.
Of the various product harvesting projects they evaluated, Salafsky and
Wollenberg (2000) found that the projects with the highest linkage to conservation
are timber production and wildlife management both for harvesting and tourism
purposes. Timber is highly ranked because it uses a number of species and has a
strong habitat linkage. Animal harvesting and viewing of animals in ecotourism are
highly ranked because animals are at a higher trophic level and thus depend on the
surrounding habitat for their survival. Salafsky and Wollenberg also showed that
unless local stakeholders recognized the link between their livelihood activities and
biodiversity conservation that it will not matter in terms of influencing their
actions. If local people do not perceive this link, they may not take action to stop
direct or indirect threats to the protected areas. Linkages between livelihood
activities and conservation, however, are only among many factors influencing
conservation success.
Among our case studies, Ala Uddin and Abu Shadat Foisal examined local
perceptions of wildlife in Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary. They found that local people
are knowledgeable about wildlife, are interested in their sustainable management,
and are aware of the links between their activities and wildlife conservation. But
the failure of local forest department officials to solicit local participation in the
management of the sanctuary severely impacted the livelihoods of both local
people as well as wild animals.
Salim Uddin and Abu Sayed Arfin Khan (this volume) analyzed the impact of
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
7
Introduction: Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
Muslim refugees forced to flee their homes in Myanmar on the Teknaf Game
Reserve, which is located on the Bangladesh/Myanmar border. This is an example
of increasingly common problem as people are forced to flee from wars, civil
conflicts, and natural disasters. The authors found that the refugees are far more
dependent on the game reserve to meet their livelihood needs than are local people
that live in and near the reserve.
Overview of Papers in this Volume
Belal Uddin and Sharif Mukul question the roles NTFP collecting and home
gardening play in the livelihoods of local residents and forest conservation in and
around Satchari National Park. Their paper suggest that 27% of households in the
park receive at least some cash income from NTFPs, and that for 18% of households
processing and selling NTFPs forms their primary occupation. The authors found
that wealthier households rely less on forest products from the park, while poorer
households are heavily dependent on the park to meet their subsistence needs.
Belal and Mukul conclude that park managers should seek to enrich home gardens
and the park's buffer zone with commercially important NTFPs.
Sayeed Riadh examines and compares the role of NTFPs in the livelihoods of
communities living both within and outside of Lawachara National Park. His paper
suggests that local people meet their fuelwood demands from the forest either by
collecting it themselves or purchasing it from the market. Betel leaf cultivation in
the park provides the only source of cash for the Khasia communities that reside
within the park. With the exception of a few wealthy households living outside of
the park, all households collect bamboo, cane, wild vegetables and medicinal plants
for domestic consumption.
Strategies to foster development based on the gathering, processing, sorting,
collection period, and diversification of non-timber forest products (NTFPs)
implicitly target households as principal beneficiaries. Rahimullah Miah studied
four villages located in or near Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary that derive a significant
portion of their livelihoods from NTFPs. He concludes that both research on the
cultivation and domestication of NTFPs and co-management practices are needed
to allow forest villagers to continue to live in the sanctuary in a sustainable manner.
Large portions of the world's population depend on medicinal plants to meet the
primary health care needs. Zashim Uddin and Snigdha Roy explore linkages
between two medicinal plants, menda (Litsea glutinosa) and bohera (Terminalia
bellerica), and the livelihoods of local people living in the vicinity of Rema-Kalenga
8
Wildlife Sanctuary. Uddin and Roy found that while many people are involved in
the illegal collection and sale of both species, that the income gained from these
activities forms an important component of local livelihoods. They recommend that
local people should be consulted and involved in the design and implementation of
plans to cultivate and manage these species.
Resource managers and academics are increasingly aware of the importance of
recognizing local perceptions, knowledge and participation in defining
management strategies and actions for the conservation of natural resources. Ala
Uddin and Abu Shadat Ahmed Foisal evaluate local peoples' perceptions and
attitudes toward wildlife in Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary. They argue that because
Forest Department officials failed to solicit local participation in the design and
management of the sanctuary, management policies have severely impacted the
livelihoods of both local peoples and wild animals. Despite their problems with
park officials, however, local people remain interested in playing an active role in
protecting the environment so that wild animals can make a come-back.
Rafiqa Sultana examines linkages between fuelwood collection and community
livelihoods in Satchari National Park. She found that three distinct groups collect
fuelwood: villagers living in the park, villagers living outside of the park, and tea
estate laborers. Overall, approximately two tons of fuelwood are extracted from the
park by these communities daily. All villagers (those living in and outside of the
park and tea estate laborers) meet 100% of their energy needs from the park. While
tea estate laborers do not collect wood for purposes other than energy,
approximately 39% of households in the interior village and 100% of collectors
from villages outside the park depend on the park for earning cash income.
Fuelwood collection accounts for 62% and 100% of the cash income earned by
villagers living in and outside of the park, respectively.
The Bangladesh Forest Policy recognizes ecotourism as a forestry activity that
should be promoted. Modinul Ahsan looks at the perceptions of tourism and the
benefits received from tourism by three communities living in and adjacent to
Lawachara National Park. He found that two out of the three villages studied
received benefits from tourism activities such as the sale of handmade clothes, ecotour guide services and cultural shows. On the other hand, the community residing
within the park both received the fewest benefits from tourism and encountered
the most problems with tourists disturbing their village. He suggests that not all
communities benefit from tourism.
Finally, Salim Uddin and Abu Sayed Arfin Khan compare the dependency,
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
9
Introduction: Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
livelihood activities, and impacts of Rohingya refugees from Myanmar with
activities of local people on Teknaf Game Reserve. Their paper suggests that 57% of
all households, including 100% Rohingya refugees, are totally dependent on the
reserve for their livelihoods. The authors assessed four livelihood activitiesfuelwood collection, sungrass collection, illicit felling, and brickfields-as having a
major impact on the game reserve and posing a high risk to its future. While
Rohingya refugees are comparatively more dependent on the forest than local
people, both local people and refugees desperately need alternative income
generation activities. The authors suggest that both groups want to collaborate with
national and international organizations to resolve the refugee situation in a timely
and congenial manner and to repatriate Rohingya refugees to their country.
Conclusions
Bangladesh is among the most poor and densely populated nations on the face of
the globe. The difficulties forest department officials face in promoting the
conservation of flora and fauna are among the most severe found anywhere. This
joint project of the East-West Center, Nishorgo Support Project, and Bangladesh
Forest Department encouraged university students, teachers, and forest
department officials to conduct field research on the impacts and implications of
protected areas on the livelihoods of people living in and around the chosen
protected areas. The papers in this volume are the results of this initiative. These
papers point to several important conclusions about linkages between rural
communities and conservation in protected area management. They also set a
baseline of information from which the NSP will work to improve the
implementation effectiveness of protected area conservation through comanagement with local stakeholder participation.
First, they suggest the difficulties and constraints that have occurred in Bangladesh
in linking rural livelihoods and conservation. Promoting the management and
even domestication of NTFPs may give local communities incentives for protecting
these species, but this may have little or no impact on overall habitat conservation.
Likewise, eco-tourism may encourage local guardianship of biological resources,
but the benefits local people receive may be minimal and/or unequally distributed
among participating communities. Second, they provide valuable lessons (or
recommendations) in how to improve the linkage between rural livelihoods and
conservation. For example, these papers suggest that no one strategy will work
everywhere and indeed, probably no one strategy can work on its own at any given
10
site. It may be possible to link tourism enterprise, for example, in only one part of a
protected area, and use other approaches in other parts of the park. To make
conservation happen, park and resource managers need to be able to understand
the specific local conditions at their project site, both at the start of the project, and
as they change over time. They need to develop the appropriate mix of strategies
that include incentives and other strategies such as education and awareness. In
addition, they need to monitor the results of their interventions, analyze the data,
and use it to make appropriate responses in a process of adaptive management.
Third, these case studies illustrate the importance of developing constructive ways
of involving local stakeholders in conservation and sustainable resource use
practices based on the goals, interests, and understanding of the people living in
and around the protected areas. Theses case studies confirm that protected areas
cannot be managed successfully on the basis of simple and incorrect assumptions
about how local people use natural resources. The authors of these case studies
unanimously argue for incorporating local people and their knowledge into park
management decisions through some type of co-management system. These
authors suggest that establishing a process to constructively work with people is
perhaps the most important step that can be taken on the road to sustainable
protected area management. The process by which decisions are made about
resource management may be more important that any product or plan protected
area managers can produce.
Brechin et al. (2002) argue that much of the debate on biodiversity protection has
relied on a false dichotomy between rural livelihoods and biodiversity
conservation. In contrast they suggest that establishing a legitimate process to
constructively work with people is the most feasible and morally just way to
achieve long-term nature protection. They suggest that since conservation is a
human organization process, the goal of biodiversity protection depends on the
strength and commitment of social actors. They posit that successful biodiversity
conservation will ultimately be based the adoption of three broad principles that
local people must have the right to: 1) participate at all levels of the policymaking
process as equal partners; 2) self-representation and autonomy, and 3) political,
economic, and cultural self-determination.
References
Bookbinder, M., E. Dinerstein, A. Rijal, H. Cauley, and A. Rajouria. 1998.
Ecotourism's support of biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology 12
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
11
Introduction: Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
(6): 1399-1404.
Brechin, S., P. Wilshusen, C. Fortwangler, and P. West. 2002. Beyond the square
wheel: Toward a more comprehensive understanding of biodiversity
conservation as social and political process. Society and Natural Resources
15: 41-64.
Caron, C.M. 1995. The role of nontimber tree products in household food
procurement strategies: Profile of a Sri Lankan village. Agroforestry
Systems 32: 99-117.
Chape, S., S. Blyth, L. Fish, and M. Spalding (eds.). 2003. 2003 United Nations List
of Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland Switzerland and UNEP-WCMC,
Cambridge, UK.
Dove, M. 1993. A revisionist view of tropical deforestation and development.
Environmental Conservation 20 (1): 17-26.
Hedge, R. and T. Enters. 2000. Forest products and household economy: A case
study from Mudumalai Wildlife Sanctuary, Southern India. Environmental
Conservation 27 (3): 250-259.
Nagothu, U.S. 2001. Fuelwood and fodder extraction and deforestation:
Mainstream views in India discussed on the basis of data from the semiarid region of Rajasthan. Geoforum 32: 319-332.
Oates, J. 1999. Myth and Reality in the Rain Forest: How Conservation Strategies
are Failing in West Africa. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Perdan, S. 2004. Social and ethical dimensions of sustainable development: Mining
in Kakadu National Park. In A. Azapagic, S. Perdan, and R. Clift (eds.).
Sustainable Development in Practice: Case Studies for Engineers and
Scientists. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
Salafsky, N. and E. Wollenberg. 2000. Linking livelihoods and conservation: A
conceptual framework and scale for assessing the integration of human
needs and biodiversity. World Development 28 (8): 1421-1438.
Sekhar, N. U. 2003. Local people's attitudes towards conservation and wildlife
tourism around Sariska Tiger Reserve, India. Environmental Management
69: 339-347.
Wells, M., and T. McShane. 2004. Integrating protected area management with local
needs and aspirations. Ambio. 33 (8): 513-519.
World Resources Institute. 2006. EarthTrends: The Environmental Information
Portal. Available at http://earthtrends.wri.org. Washington DC: World
Resources Institute.
12
Improving Forest Dependent
Livelihoods Through NTFPs and
Home Gardens: A Case Study
from Satchari National Park
Mohammad Belal Uddin
Sharif Ahmed Mukul
Department of Forestry, Shahjalal University of Science and Technology, Sylhet, Bangladesh
Abstract
Non-timber forest product and home gardens play crucial roles in the livelihoods of people
living in most tropical countries. They also play important roles in forest conservation. This
paper explores the roles NTFPs and home gardens play in improving the livelihoods of
forest dependent people and forest conservation in and around a newly declared protected
area, Satchari National Park. We conducted an intensive field survey from mid-February to
late June, 2006. Study results suggest that 27% of households in the Satchari area receive at
least some cash income from NTFPs. Moreover collection, processing and selling of NTFPs
constitutes the primary occupation of 18% of these households. We also found that
wealthier households with rich homegarden compositions rely less on nearby forests, than
poorer households who are mostly dependent on forests to meet their subsistence needs.
Based on these results and discussions with various stakeholders in the study area, we
suggest that it would be useful to enrich home gardens and buffer zones with commercially
important NTFPs. We conclude that a co-management approach should be introduced to
reduce local dependency on Satchari National Park.
Introduction
Millions of people throughout the world make extensive use of biological products
from the wild (Koziell and Saunders 2001 and Lawes et al. 2004). These items,
commonly termed non-timber forest products (NTFPs), are harvested for both
subsistence and commercial use, either regularly, or as a fallback during times of
need. They add to peoples' livelihood security, especially for forest-dependent
people (Posey 1999, Cocks and Wiersum 2003). NTFPs also create new
opportunities for entrepreneurial development. The collection and processing of
13
Improving Forest Dependent
Livelihoods Through NTFPs and Home Gardens: A Case Study from Satchari National Park
NTFPs provides major employment opportunities to the poorest rural population
of nearly 300,000 (Basit 1995), and contributes about Tk 1.3 billion annually to
Bangladesh's national economy (GOB 1993).
The contributions of non-timber forest products have a positive impact on rural
livelihoods. The fact that their use is less ecologically destructive than timber
harvesting has encouraged the belief that more intensive management of forests for
such products could contribute to both development and conservation objectives,
and have thus led to initiatives to expand commercial use of NTFPs (Arnold and
Ruiz Perez 2001). It is also widely believed that poor rural communities may be less
inclined to engage in illegal logging if they are able to derive more material benefits
from maintaining forests for various alternative goods and services (Oldfield 1988).
Moreover, in many cases, development of non-timber forest resources has assisted
stakeholders in obtaining opportunities to merge forest conservation with
economic development at the community and national levels (CBD 2003).
Home gardens have a long tradition in many tropical countries. They consist of an
assemblage of plants and may include trees, shrubs, vines, and herbaceous plants,
growing in or adjacent to a homestead or home compound (Nair 1993). Home
gardens represent a well-established traditional land-use system in Bangladesh and
about eighty percent of the population lives in villages having small home gardens
(Zashimuddin 2004). Such gardens play an important role in the livelihoods of
rural poor, and in the rural economy of the country (Chowdhury and Mahat 1993).
Moreover, trees and tree products from home gardens play an important role in
household food security, as it is a sustainable source of food, fruits and vegetables.
Home gardens also play a significant role in forest conservation by providing for
subsistence needs of local populations, which they may otherwise have derived
from the forest.
Protected areas should help to conserve biodiversity. However, in developing
countries like Bangladesh, the declaration of a site as a protected area is often done
without thinking about rural communities abutting forests who are traditionally
dependent on their resources for subsistence and food security (Sharma et al. 2005).
Thus conflicts occur between protected area managers and local forest dependent
peoples who maintain their livelihoods with forest resources, particularly nontimber forest products. Our study focuses on the contribution of NTFPs and home
gardens in improving rural livelihoods and forest conservation in and around the
newly declared Satchari National Park.
14
Background
Satchari National Park (SNP) is the newest among the seventeen protected areas of
Bangladesh. The word "Satchari" comes from "seven streams" (locally called 'chara')
and refers to the streams that flow through the forest. The park is located in
Chunarughat Upazilla of Habigonj District and is situated nearly 130 km northeast
of Dhaka, and about 60 km southwest of Srimongol. The area of the park is about
243 ha and is comprised of forests of Raghunandan Hills Reserve Forests within the
Satchari Range. The Raghunandan Hill Reserve borders the park on its
northwestern side, while India lies to the south of the park (Fig. 1). Tea estates,
coffee and rubber plantations, and rice fields abut other adjacent areas of the park.
The park originally supported a vegetation cover of mixed tropical evergreen
forests. However, almost all of the original forest cover has been removed or
substantially altered and turned into a secondary forest (Mollah et al. 2004). Now
only 200 ha of natural forest remains, which has a higher potential for eco-tourism
than the remaining secondary forest. Some areas of the park are subjected to flash
floods. Soil texture of the park area is generally sandy loam to silty clay and soils
are more acidic than in adjoining ecological zones. The topography is undulating
with slopes and hillocks, locally called tila, ranging from 10 to 50 meters in
elevation. A number of small, sandy-bedded streams drain the forest, all of which
dry out in the winter dry season after November. The total annual average rainfall
is 4162 mm. July is the wettest month, having an average of about 1250 mm of rain,
while December is the driest, with no rainfall. May and October, the hottest
months, have an average maximum temperature of around 32oC, while January is
the coldest month, when the minimum temperature drops to about 12oC. The
relative humidity is about 74% during December while it is over 90% during JulyAugust (Choudhury et al. 2004).
The park is very rich in flora (about 241 species) and fauna. From various
secondary sources we found that a total of 6 species of amphibians, 18 species of
reptiles, 220 species of birds and 24 species of mammals (including 6 species of
primates) have been recorded from this forest (Mollah et al. 2004). Moreover, it is
one of the last habitats in Bangladesh for hoolock gibbons (Bunopithecus hoolock)
and the rare Hooded Pitta (Pitta sordida). But in recent years, the biodiversity of the
park has become highly degraded. Already a number of animals and tree species
have become locally extinct, while many more are on the verge of disappearing.
Overall, a large number of species are variously threatened due to habitat
destruction, illegal poaching and over-exploitation.
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
15
Improving Forest Dependent
Livelihoods Through NTFPs and Home Gardens: A Case Study from Satchari National Park
A total of 19 villages with varying degrees of interaction with SNP have been
identified. Of them, one village (Tiprapara) is located inside the park and the rest
are located from 5 to 8 km away. Table 1 lists the degree of dependency the various
villages have on the park. Local people have traditionally collected various
resources from SNP and other adjacent reserved forests. Many households,
particularly poor households from the identified villages, rely either entirely or
partially on the park for collecting fuelwood, timber, and bamboo.
Figure 1. Map of Satchari National Park (Source: Nishorgo Support Project 2007)
16
Little is known about the availability and collection of NTFPs in Satchari National
Park. According to Mollah et al. (2004) people extract about 12 different types of
NTFPs from the park and adjacent forests. Fuelwood is extracted on a large scale;
bamboo and building materials are extracted on a medium scale, and other
resources are extracted on a minor or negligible scale. Extraction of resources from
the forest is seasonally dependent. Villagers extract forest resources primarily for
meeting household needs, as well as for earning additional income to support or
supplement their livelihoods.
An average household owns approximately 0.10 ha, though the amount of land
owned varies with the household's economic condition. Within the homesteads
people usually have home gardens and plant various timber species, horticultural
species and seasonal vegetables to meet their own needs and sometimes to sell for
additional cash income.
Table 1: Degree of Dependency on Satchari National Park Found in Various
Villages
Degree of dependency
Name of the Villages
Major
Tiprapara
Medium to major
Gazipur, Ratanpur
Medium
Kalishiri, Ghanoshyampur, Doulatkhabad, Deorgach
Minor to medium
Baghbari, Teliapara, Goachnagar, Ektiarpur, Marulla, Nayani Bongaon
Minor
Shanjanpur, Rasulpur, Promnandapur, Bhaguru, Enatbad, Holholia
Source: Mollah et al. (2004); Names of case study villages are in italics.
Study Objectives and Methodology
The aim of our study was to illustrate the role and importance of NTFPs to local
people's subsistence and income and to find out the potential of NTFPs as well as
home gardening in forest conservation and poverty alleviation among the people
living in and around Satchari National Park.
Our study was based on a literature review and primary data collection. We
reviewed reports from existing studies done by the government and various
national and international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) concerning
Satchari National Park and protected area management. We randomly selected one
village from each of the first four forest dependency categories as identified by
Mollah et al. (2004 - Table 1) including the only village inside the park - Tiprapara.
We did not select any villages with only minor dependency on the park. As key
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
17
Improving Forest Dependent
Livelihoods Through NTFPs and Home Gardens: A Case Study from Satchari National Park
informants, we chose the residents of the villages who had a broad and in-depth
knowledge about their village and its various households. We conducted focus
group discussions (FGD) to construct community maps and community profiles.
During field visits we walked transects in order to observe and verify the
information we recorded during the community mapping exercises.
We conducted intensive household surveys in our four sample villages - Tiprapara,
Ratanpur, Deorgach and Goachnagar - from mid-February to late June, 2006. We
classified households within each village into three forest dependency strata or
classes: "totally or most dependent", "moderately dependent", and "less
dependent". To calculate a household's level of forest dependency we considered
the contribution of forest to the household's annual cash income - i.e., the direct
cash derived from selling of forest products, and the cash value of products they
consume from forest, which they may have otherwise purchased from the market.
We also considered local peoples' perceptions regarding their dependency on
forest.
In Tiprapara, we took a 100% sample, as villagers are highly dependent on the park
for their subsistence. In Ratanpur, Deorgach, and Goachnagar we took a 10%
sample of households from each of the forest dependency classes using a stratified
random sampling approach. We used a semi-structured questionnaire to collect
data on each household, their relationship with the forest, resources exploited from
the forest, quantity and frequency of exploitation of resources, traditional patterns
of resource utilization, major threats and causes of forest destruction and each
household's perception of conservation and park management, their home garden
composition and its role in households food security and livelihoods. Samples of
unknown or difficult to identify species were collected and verified by botanists.
We also gathered additional data on the market potential of different locally
available NTFPs, and their probable contribution to a household's socio-economic
enrichment. Furthermore, on each topic the respondents were free to express their
own views.
Results
Community livelihoods in and around Satchari National Park
Demographically, the sample households in our study area fall into four categories:
forest villagers, local poor people from villages outside the forest, tea estate
laborers, and auctioneers (moholdars). In our sample villages there are about 818
households with an average family size of around six members (Table 2). Among
18
818 households we interviewed about 96 households having 597 members (49%
female). The primary occupation in our study area is agriculture (37%), mainly
paddy cultivation, followed by NTFP extraction (19%), timber poaching (18%), day
labor (15%), small business (5%), service in government agencies or NGOs (4%),
and overseas employment (2%) (Fig. 2). The scenario is different in Tiprapara; here
there are no agricultural lands as in other villages, and so the main income
generating activities observed are day labor (38.5%) followed by extraction of
NTFPs (mainly fuelwood, 32%). Forest patrolling is the main service conducted by
residents of Tripura. Moreover, day laborers also collect fuelwood on their days off.
During the time of our household survey we have categorized the households into
three different income classes i.e., extremely poor (monthly income below Tk.
2,000); medium to poor (income is below Tk. 7,500 but above Tk. 2,000 /month)
and rich (monthly income is Tk. 7,500 or higher) by asking them two basic
question, i.e., what is their monthly expenditure and monthly savings (if any).
Based on this categorization, approximately 37% of the households in our sample
villages fall into extremely poor group followed by medium to poor (32%) and rich
(31%). Beside this, the literacy rate in the villages is about 54%, among which
children who read at the primary level comprise the largest group (61 %).
Table 2: Information of Selected Villages Having Interests in Satchari National
Park
Name of
village
Approximate
No. of HHs
Location
Union
Level of
dependence
Forest practices
Tiprapara
(Forest
village)
18
Inside
Satchari
NP
Paikpara
Ratanpur
156
Outside
Satchari
NP
Sahajanpur Medium
to major
Mainly involved with illegal
tree felling, and majority of
HHs collects fuelwood
Deorgach
316
Outside
Satchari
NP, east
Deorgach
Mainly collect fuelwood,
some involved with illegal
tree felling
Goach
Nagar
328
Outside
Satchari
NP, west
Sahajanpur Minor
Medium
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
Major
Medium
Collect fuelwood, house
building materials, fruits and
other NTFPs, cultivate lemon
and others
Same as above
19
Improving Forest Dependent
Livelihoods Through NTFPs and Home Gardens: A Case Study from Satchari National Park
Figure 2: Households Involved in Various Livelihood Activities in and Around
Satchari NP
Dependency of Households on Forest
The local inhabitants have traditionally used Satchari National Park and adjacent
forest area for centuries. Our study suggests that, about 13% of households of our
sampled villages are totally dependent on the forest for their livelihoods, while the
others are moderately or less dependent (Fig. 3). In Satchari National Park many
poor households are entirely or partially dependent on the forest for collection of
fuelwood, timber, and bamboo. All of households in Tiprapara depend on the
forest for their fuelwood. They also cultivate lemons in a confined area of the
Percentage of HHs
national park.
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Most Dependent
Moderately Dependent
Less Dependent
Tiprapara
Ratanpur
Deorgach
Goach Nagar
Name of sample Village
Figure 3. Forest Dependency of the villages by household
20
NTFP Diversity and Households Dependency on NTFP Collection
In the Satchari area about 27% of the sampled households gets at least some of their
cash income from the extraction and sale of NTFPs and NTFP-based products.
These contribute, on average, 19% of household cash income. However this figure
varies from village to village, household to household and season to season, and
usually ranges from Tk. 2,500 to Tk. 15,000 annually and from Tk. 40 to Tk. 120
daily. Our study reveals that the sale of NTFPs is the primary occupation for 18% of
households in the sampled villages, and that 76% of these households are poor to
extremely poor. Income from NTFPs supplies households with extra cash on
occasion, and provides security in emergencies. A local person from Deorgach
Village said:
When we have no work to do or when there's a crisis of money in our family we go to the forest and
collect some NTFPs for sale and thus these forest products secures our livelihoods. Furthermore,
during other times it provides us with some extra cash income, which ultimately improves our
living standards (Deorgach village, personal communication, March 2006).
During the household surveys, interviewees named a total of 14 NTFPs that they
extract from the forest (Table 3). However, only a few of these NTFPs make a
significant contribution to their household income. In our study area, four NTFPs fuelwood, menda bark (used for herbal medicine and mosquito coils), taragota (used
for its aromatic properties) and kumbi leaves (used to wrap tobacco) - account for
more than 90% of NTFP-based income. However, the importance and collection of
these NTFPs in our four sample villages was not uniform. We observed that,
people's dependency on nearby forest for various NTFPs varies with their socioeconomic condition as well as from their distance from the nearby forest. Fuelwood
is the most harvested NTFPs of all. All the households of Tiprapara (100%) collect
fuelwood from the national park, compared with 60% of households from
Ratanpur, 55% of households in Deorgach and 56% of those in Goachnagar. Fig. 4
presents a comparison of household involvement in different NTFPs collection in
the area of Satchari NP.
Among the NTFPs, medicinal plants possess a great diversity in Satchari. Although
people mostly depend on modern medicines, some households (25%) use
medicinal plants for treating various common ailments. We observed a total of 39
species in our study area that have some sort of medicinal properties and are
collected by local users for commercial purpose (63%) or for their own
consumption (37%) (Appendix 1).
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
21
Improving Forest Dependent
Livelihoods Through NTFPs and Home Gardens: A Case Study from Satchari National Park
Table 3: Different NTFPs Exploited from Satchari NP and Adjacent Forest by
Local HHs
Products/ Service
Origin
Amount of collection
(based on peoples perception)
Fuelwood
All woody species
High
Bamboo
Bambusa vulgaris Schard.
Medium
Melocanna baccifera Roxb.
Artocarpus heterophyllus Lamk.
Fruits
Low
Artocarpus chaplasha Roxb.
Artocarpus lakoocha Roxb.
Citrus limon L.
Syzygium spp.
Menda bark
Litsea monopetala (Roxb.) Pers.
Medium
Taragota
Ammomum aromaticum Roxb.
Medium
Sun grass
Imperata cylindrical L.
Medium
Forage and fodder
Various species
Low
Herbal remedy
Different medicinal plants
Low
Rattan
Calamus guruba Ham.
Low
Daemonorops jenkensianus Mart.
Broomsticks
Thysanolaena maxima Roxb.
Medium
Kumbi leaf
Careya arborea Roxb.
Medium
Sand
Sylhet sand
Medium
Honey
Apis florae
Very low
Apis dorsata
Bushmeat
Very low
Gallus gallus
Sus scrofa
Tiprapara
Ratanpur
Deorgach
Goachnagar
Fuelwood
Bamboo
Fruit
Menda bark
Taragota
Sungrass
Forage and fodder
Herbal remedy
Broomsticks
Tendu leaf
Figure 4: Percentage of Households Involved in Different NTFP Collection
Activities
22
Box 1: Income from NTFPs (Some Examples from Satchari)
1. Menda
In our study area we found four menda-based small-scale processing factories
that use menda bark as a material to make mosquito repellent. All of the
factories are located in Deorgach. Approximately fifty to sixty laborers work in
these factories and the majority of them are women (53%) followed by
children (27%) and men (20%). The average wage rate for men is Tk 100*/day,
for women is Tk 50/day and for children is Tk 40/day. Work in these factories
is entirely seasonal; the factories only operate when there is enough menda
bark from the adjacent forests. People from other areas are generally involved
with the collection of menda bark from the national park, as well as from
adjacent reserve forests, and they sell the bark to local factories at the rate of
Tk 25 per kg. The quantity of menda trees in the forest has decreased
alarmingly due to illegal logging and unsustainable collection of bark. A
menda factory owner in Deorgach said, "The raw material for our factory seems
to be declining day-by-day as the species is decreasing from the forest.
Already one factory has moved from this area and others face various crises,
since menda factories require high capital investments and an adequate
supply of raw materials. Moreover, we have no loans or support to keep our
factories running" (Deorgach village, May 2006, personal communication).
2. Taragota (Wild cardamom)
Taragota is a common species in our study area, which is used as an alternative
for cardamom as well as for manufacturing Unani preparations (a type of
herbal medicine). About 32% of people in our sample villages collect taragota,
both for their own use and for sale in the market. Usually people collect
taragota during the onset of the monsoon. We also found that a person can sell
dried taragota in the local market for Tk 60/kg, while fresh taragota sells for
Tk 18/kg.
3. Kumbi pata (Tendu leaves)
In Satchari National Park a number of local people collect kumbi or tendu
leaves (Careya arborea), which are used to wrap tobacco to produce a kind of
cigarette known locally as biri. We found that people usually collect tendu
leaves twice a week and supply it to the nearby Teliapara market, which yields
about Tk 500 per week. Biri manufacture is a well organized and flourishing
small-scale industry in India (Nair 1993), and if properly managed it can also
create some employment opportunities in the areas surrounding Satchari NP.
* 70 Tk = 1US$
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
23
Improving Forest Dependent
Livelihoods Through NTFPs and Home Gardens: A Case Study from Satchari National Park
People's Perceptions of the Impact of NTFP Collection on Forest Conservation
Our study shows that the extraction of resources from the forest is seasonally
dependent. Most of the fuelwood is collected during the dry season due to easy
access and mobility inside the forest. Bamboo extraction also takes place mainly in
the drier months to meet local needs for house construction at that time of year. The
following quote from some local informants highlights the perceived role of NTFP
collection in forest conservation (Ratanpur village, personal communication,
February 2006):
"We have collected NTFPs from Satchari since prehistoric times, but it doesn't damage the forest
ecosystem as illegal felling does. Moreover we collect NTFPs seasonally, so it has enough time to
recover."
In addition, one villager from Tiprapara said, "NTFP collection keeps the forest safe
from sudden fire and also destroys harmful organisms. It also accelerates the
growth of seedlings and saplings by reducing the competition for nutrition"
(personal communication, June 2006). People's perceptions regarding different
NTFPs collected from Satchari National Park Forest and their impacts on the Park's
ecosystem are summarized in Table 4.
Table 4: Perceptions of Amounts, Impacts and Risks of Collection of Various
NTFPs
Item
Amount collected
Impacts on the park
Future risks
Fuelwood
High
Loss of habitat and forest
biodiversity.
High risk
Building materials
Medium to high
Reduce abundance of small
trees, loss of habitat, and loss of
wildlife.
Medium to
high risk
Fruits
Medium
Causes low -level damage to
forest regeneration low
Low risk
Vegetables
Less
No apparent impact.
Low risk
Medicine
Medium to less
Negligible.
Medium risk
Box 2: Reasons for Unsustainable Resource Extraction in Satchari National Park
Poverty and unemployment: Poverty and unemployment are common
problems in and around SNP. About 37% of the population in our study area is
extremely poor and most people have no steady income or occupation. 63% of
our respondents cite poverty as the main threat to the forest destruction and
24
unsustainable resource extraction, and 42% of them think unemployment is the
major source of unsustainable exploitation of resources from the protected area.
Forest Department corruption and other limitations: Local people in our
study area maintain a poor perception/image of Forest Department staff. In
our study area, about 71% of respondents blame Forest Department staff for
unsustainable collection of resources in the national park and adjacent forests.
Moreover FD staff enforces its power only against the rural poor who
traditionally harvest forest resources for their subsistence but overlook their
duty in case of local elites and politically influential persons who are
sometimes involved in illegal poaching and resource collection from the forest.
Furthermore, the department suffers from inadequate and unskilled
personnel, modern equipment, and poor infrastructure and facilities.
Lack of awareness: About 44% of the population of our study area is
illiterate and few people have a clear understanding of protected areas or
sustainable resource exploitation.
Poor socio-economic conditions in adjoining tea estates: Eight tea estates
surround Satchari National Park and are part of the attraction of the park for
eco-tourists. Laborers on the tea estates earn very low or subsistence wages,
and unemployment is very high among tea estate families. Most tea laborers
collect their daily fuelwood and housing materials from the nearby national
park and reserve forest.
Sawmills and brickfields: There are 18 sawmills in the Satchari area that
produce timber products. According to local people they are one of the main
causes of forest destruction in Satchari. Local people illegally collect timber
poles from the park and sell them to the sawmills at lower than market prices.
In addition, fifteen nearby timber merchants supply timber products from the
park and reserve forests to different areas of the country, including Dhaka. We
also found several brickfields in close proximity to the national park, which
use fuelwood for firing their kilns. Local poor people often extract fuelwood
illegally from the national park to supply to the brickfields.
Status of Home gardens in and Around Satchari National Park
Home gardens can provide families with important protection against food
insecurity. From our household surveys we found that the home gardens in
our study area (except Tiprapara village) are rich in diverse species. Families
in the Satchari area have always cultivated a variety of timber, fruits and
edible plants in their home gardens. They fulfill a traditional subsistence role
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
25
Improving Forest Dependent
Livelihoods Through NTFPs and Home Gardens: A Case Study from Satchari National Park
in our sampled villages. Now, with the declaration of the protected area, these
gardens are expected to play a more important role in food security.
A total of 39 species were found in the home gardens of our study area (Table 5)
but none of these species were ubiquitous. We recorded 10 timber species, 9 fruit
species, 5 species that produce timber and fruit, 12 vegetable crops, and 3
multipurpose species and medicinal plants from the home gardens. Around 70% of
the species in our study area are edible. It also seems that most villagers prefer to
grow fruit and timber rather than vegetables in their home gardens. For timber
production people usually prefer fast growing species. The livelihood benefits of
home gardens go well beyond simply meeting subsistence needs. In many cases,
the sale of products produced in home gardens significantly improves the
household's financial status.
Table 5. Composition of a Typical Home Garden in the Study Area
Common Name
Botanical Name
Abundance
Performance
Timber Species
Acacia
Acacia spp.
C
+++
Chapalish
Artocarpus chaplasha
FC
+
Mahagoni
Swietenia macrophylla
C
+++
Koroi
Albizzia spp.
C
+++
Rain tree
Albizzia saman
FC
++
Chatim
Alstonia scholaris
R
++
Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus camaldulensis
FC
++
Menda
Litsea monopetala
FC
++
Teak
Tectona grandis
FC
++
Chalta
Dillenia indica
R
++
+++
Fruit Species
Lemon
Citrus spp.
C
Papaya
Carica papaya
C
++
Pineapple
Ananas comosus
FC
++
Banana
Musa sapientum
FC
++
Star fruit
Averrhoa carambola
FC
++
Batabi lebu/ Pomelo
Citrus grandis
FC
++
Guava
Psidium guajava
FC
++
Coconut palm
Cocos nucifera
C
++
Betel nut
Areca catechu
C
++
Timber and fruit bearing species
Mango
Mangifera indica
C
++
Jack fruit
Artocarpus heterophyllus
C
+++
Sajna
Moringa oleifera
C
+++
Jaam
Syzygium spp.
FC
++
Neem
Azadirachta indica
C
+++
Radish
Vegetable Crops
Raphnus sativus
C
+++
Bean
Dolichos lablab
C
++
26
Common Name
Botanical Name
Abundance
Performance
Vegetable Crops
Eggplant
Solanum melongena
C
++
Bottle gourd
Lagenaria siceraria
C
++
Lal shak
Amaranthus tricolor
C
+++
Indian spinach
Basella alba
C
++
Lai shak
Brassica rugosa
FC
++
Chillies
Capsicum frutescens
C
++
Cabbage
Brassica oleracea
FC
++
+++
Ladies finger
Abelmoschus esculentus
FC
Tomato
Lycopersicon lypopersicum
FC
++
Pumpkin
Cucurbita maxima
C
++
Others Species with Multipurpose Use
Bamboo
Bambusa spp.
C
+++
Patipata
Schumannianthus dichotoma
FC
+++
Rattans
Calamus spp.
FC
+++
KEY: C = common, FC = fairly common, R = rare; +++ = very good, ++ = good, + = not so good.
In Satchari we found that the average rich household owned approximately 0.18 ha
of land, while medium, poor, and extremely poor households owned less than 0.08
ha. Rich households usually plant different plant species in their home gardens to
meet their subsistence needs. On the other hand, people in poorer households
mostly depend on the forest for their fuelwood and other needs, as they have no
land for home gardens. Study results suggest that home gardens are negatively
correlated with dependency on the forest.
Discussion
Our results paint an interesting picture of the use and role of NTFPs and home
gardens for livelihoods and forest conservation by the communities under study
(Appendix 2 contains photographs of the study site). Non-timber forest products
make a vital contribution to livelihoods for a large proportion of the poor living in,
or close to, the forest in most tropical countries (Arnold and Perez 2001). In the
Satchari area villagers collect a large number of NTFPs-more than 14 products were
identified. Some NTFPs, including the medicinal plants we have looked at in this
study, hold real potential for livelihoods, and as an incentive to conserve forest.
Our study suggests that the sale of NTFPs and NTFP-based products provide an
important source of cash income for villagers in and around Satchari National Park.
The most important point is that NTFPs represent a significant component of their
livelihoods strategies, accounting for 19% of their total annual income. In addition,
about 18% of households receive cash income only from the sale of NTFPs. These
findings are comparable to the results of others studies done in Southeast Asia
(Table 6). We also found that a majority of the people (76%) who benefit from the
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
27
Improving Forest Dependent
Livelihoods Through NTFPs and Home Gardens: A Case Study from Satchari National Park
extraction and sale of NTFPs are poor. If they didn't derive these benefits they
might not have an incentive to manage it as sustainably. This finding agrees with
the observations of Cavendish (2000) in Zimbabwe who also found that NTFPs
benefit mostly the poorest populations.
Home gardens provide livelihood benefits in terms of nutrition and daily
subsistence. The data in our study identified 39 different species in home gardens
in the Satchari area, of which approximately 70% are edible. All of the wealthier
people in our study depend on their home gardens for fuelwood and other needs.
Hence the study suggests that home gardens can play an important role in forest
conservation by shifting the dependency for fuelwood and other forest products
from the forest to home gardens. This finding also agrees with Caron (1995) i.e.,
home gardens could play an important role in forest protection by shifting the
dependency for food and income from the forest onto home gardens.
Table 6: A Comparison of Cash Incomes Obtained from NTFPs in Various Studies
Topics
Our Study
Other Studies
Contribution of NTFPs to
households cash incomes
19%
14% (Mahapatra et al. 2005)
17% (Malhotra et al. 1991)
24% (Ganesan 1993)
21% (Gunatillike et al. 1993)
Households receive at least
some cash income from NTFPs
27%
-
Households receive cash
income only from NTFPs
18%
12% (Mahapatra et al. 2005)
Conclusion and Recommendations
The main conclusion from our study is that NTFPs, NTFP-based products, and
home gardens in and around Satchari National Park play important roles in
improving the livelihoods of forest dependent people and forest conservation.
Understanding the dependency of households on the forests of Satchari National
Park is critical for developing effective management strategies. The data presented
here suggest that the production and sale of NTFPs and NTFP-based products
provide an important source of cash income for villagers in and around Satchari
National Park. This study also found that households in villages with diversified
home gardens are less dependent on the national park for forest products.
Our study suggests some new policy avenues such as enriching forest and buffer
zones with commercially important NTFPs, which may be used for establishing
28
NTFP-based small-scale enterprises. In addition, protected area management
strategies should be coordinated with the overall development of communities that
depend on the protected areas. Management plans should give these people the
right to collect forest resources in a sustainable way, enable them to enrich the park
and buffer areas with different subsistence crops (i.e., NTFPs, fruits, vegetables),
and give them incentives like seeds and seedlings to develop their home gardens.
Managers should take a cautious approach. First, a comprehensive feasibility
analysis of the contribution that NTFPs, NTFP-based small-scale enterprises, and
home gardens can make to forest conservation and livelihoods must be conducted.
This analysis must consider the social, economic and ecological aspects of the
proposed changes. Secondly, a co-management plan that involves local people in
forest management and which ensures equity in decision-making and benefit
sharing must be developed. The plan should specify both short-term and long-term
objectives and goals. Thirdly, institutions must be identified to facilitate the
implementation of the plan and ensure equitable distribution of benefits to local
communities.
References
Arnold, J.E.M. and Pérez, M.R. 2001. Can Non-Timber Forest Products Match
Tropical Forest Conservation and Development Objectives? Ecological
Economics 39(3):437-447.
Basit, M.A. 1995. Non-Wood Forest Products from the Mangrove Forests of
Bangladesh, in Durst, P.B. and Bishop, A. (eds.), Beyond Timber: Social,
Economic and Cultural Dimensions of Non-Wood Forest Products in Asia
and the Pacific. Proceedings of a Regional Expert Consultation Held in
Bangkok, 28 November to 2 December 1994. FAO/RAP: Bangkok.
Caron, C.M. 1995. The Role of Non-Timber Tree Products in Household Food
Procurement Strategies: Profile of a Sri Lankan Village. Agroforestry
Systems 32:99-117.
Cavendish, W. 2000. Empirical Regularities in the Poverty-Environment
Relationship of Rural Households: Evidence from Zimbabwe. World
Development 28(11):1979-2003.
CBD. 2003. Forest Biological Diversity: Integration of Non-Timber Forest Resource
in Forest Inventory and Management. [Online August 17, 2005]
URL:http://www.biodiv.org/doc/meetings/sbstta09/information/sbstta-09-inf-14-en.doc
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
29
Improving Forest Dependent
Livelihoods Through NTFPs and Home Gardens: A Case Study from Satchari National Park
Choudhury, J.K., Biswas, S.R., Islam, S.M., Rahman, O. and Uddin, S.N. 2004.
Biodiversity of Shatchari Reserved Forest, Habiganj. IUCN Bangladesh
Country Office: Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Chowdhury, M.K. and Mahat, T.B.S. 1993. Agroforestry Farming Systems of
Bangladesh, in Chowdhury, M.K. and Mahat, T.B.S. (eds.), Agroforestry
Farming System Linkages in Bangladesh: Research Report Series 2. BARC
Winrock International: Dhaka.
Cocks, M.L. and Wiersum, K.F. 2003. The Significance of Plant Diversity to Rural
Households in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. Forest Trees and
Livelihoods 13:39-58.
Ganesan, B. 1993. Extraction of Non-Timber Forest Products Including Fodder and
Fuelwood in Mudumulai, India. Economic Botany 47:268-274.
GOB (Government of Bangladesh). 1993. Forestry Master Plan: Participatory
Forestry. UNDP/FAO/BGD 88/025. (TA No. 1355-BAN) Asian
Development Bank: Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Gunatilleke, H.M., Senaratne, D.M.A.H. and Abeygunawardena, P. (1993). Role of
Non-Timber Forest Products in the Economy of Peripheral Communities of
Knuckles National Wilderness Area in Sri Lanka: a Farming Systems
Approach. Economic Botany 47(3):275-281.
Koziell, I. and Saunders, J. (eds.) 2001. Living Off Biodiversity: Exploring
Livelihoods and Biodiversity. IIED: London.
Lawes, M., Eeley, H., Shackleton, C.M. and Geach B.S. (eds). 2004. Indigenous
Forests and Woodlands in South Africa: Policy, People and Practice.
University of KwaZulu-Natal Press: Pietermaritzburg.
Mahapatra, A.K., Albers, H.J. and Robinson, E.J.Z. 2005. The Impact of NTFP Sales
on Rural Households' Cash Income in India's Dry Deciduous Forest.
Environmental Management 35(3): 258-265.
Malhotra, K.C., Dutta, M., Vasulu, T.S., Yadav, G., and Adhikari, M. 1991. Role of
NTFP in Village Economy: a Household Survey in Jamboni Range,
Midnapore District, West Bengal. Indian Institute of Bio-social Research
and Development (IIBRAD): Calcutta, India.
Marsh, R. 1998. Building on Traditional Gardening to Improve Household Food
Security. Food, Nutrition and Agriculture Paper No. 22.
Food and
Agriculture Organization: Rome.
Mollah, A.R., Kundu, D.K. and Rahman, M.M. 2004. Site-Level Field Appraisal for
Protected Area Co-Management: Satchari Reserve Forest. Nature
Conservation Management (NACOM), Bangladesh.
30
Nair, K.S.S. 1993. Conservation, Development and Utilization of India's
Non-Timber Forest Wealth: The Prospects and Priorities in Status and
potential of Non-Timber Products in the Sustainable Development of
Tropical Forests. International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO): Japan.
Nair, P.K.R. 1993. An Introduction to Agroforestry. Kluwer Academic Publishers:
Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
NSP. 2006. Site Information Brochure: Satchari National Park. Nishorgo Support
Project: Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Oldfield, S. 1988. Rare Tropical Timbers. IUCN Tropical Forest Programme
Publications. IUCN: Gland, Switzerland.
Posey, D.A. 1999. Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity. UNEP: Nairobi,
Kenya.
Ruiz Pérez, M., Almeida, M., Dewi, S., Costa, E., Pantoja, M., Puntodewo, A.
Postigo, A., and Andrade, A. 2005. Conservation and Development in
Amazonian Extractive Reserves: The Case of Alto Juruá. Ambio
34(3):218-223.
Sharma, R., DeCosse, P, Roy, M. Khan, M. and Mazumder, A. 2005.
Co-Management of Protected Areas in South Asia with Special Reference to
Bangladesh. Nishorgo Support Project: Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Zashimuddin, M. 2004. Community Forestry for Poverty Reduction in Bangladesh,
in Forests for Poverty Reduction: Can Community Forestry Make Money?
FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific: Bangkok.
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
31
Improving Forest Dependent
Livelihoods Through NTFPs and Home Gardens: A Case Study from Satchari National Park
Botanical Name
Local Name
Parts used
Traditional use
Habit
Occurrence
Remarks
Appendix 1: Medicinal Plant Diversity and their Traditional Use in SNP
Acanthaceae
Adhatoda vasica
Nees
Basak
Fresh green
leaves
Cough, cold
ailments and
asthma
Sh
C
W
Apocynaceae
Alstonia scholaris
(Linn.) R. Br.
Chatim
Leaf
Fever
Tr
R
D
Aslepiadaceae
Calotropis
gigantea (L.)
Akanda
Leaf, latex
Gout pain, cut
and wounds
Sh
C
W
Bromeliaceae
Ananas sativus
(Lindley)
Schultes f.
Anaras
Fruit
Jaundice
Sh
FC
D
Caricaceae
Carica papaya L.
Pepe
Fruit
Stomach trouble
Sh
C
D
Combretaceae
Terminalia arjuna
W&A
Arjun
Bark
Heart disease,
cough
Tr
R
W
Combretaceae
Terminalia
belerica Roxb.
Bohera
Fruit
Constipation,
stomach trouble,
eye disease
Tr
FC
W
Combretaceae
Terminalia
chebula Retz
Horitaki
Fruit
Constipation,
fever, heart
disease, cough,
urinary problems
Tr
FC
W
Compositeae
Chromolaena
odorata (L.) King
& H.E. Robins
Assam lata
Green
leaves
Anti-hemorrhoid
Cl
C
W
Compositeae
Eupatorium
odoratum L.
Assam pata
/ Uzaru
Green
leaves
Anti-hemorrhoid
Sh
C
W
Convolvulaceae
Ipomoea fistulosa
Roxb.
Donkalos
Whole
plant
Cold ailments
Sh
C
W
Cucurbitaceae
Coccinia cordifolia
Linn.
Telkucha
pata
Green
leaves
Cold ailments
Cl
FC
W
Dilleniaceae
Dillenia indica
Lmn.
Chalta
Fruit
Hair falls
Tr
FC
D
Euphorbiaceae
Phyllanthus
emblica Linn.
Amoloki
Fruit
Dysentery, skin
diseases, hair
falls, digestive
problem
Tr
FC
D
Euphorbiaceae
Trewia nudiflora
Chagalledi
Leaf
Fever
Tr
R
W
Gramineae
Cynodon dactylon
(L.) Pers.
Durba grass
Tender
leaves
Tooth ache, cut
and wounds
H
C
W
Hydrocotylaceae
Centella asiatica
(Linn.) Urban
Thankuni
Whole
plant
Dysentery,
diarrhea, gastric
H
C
W
Labiatae
Ocimum sanctum
Linn.
Tulsi
Fresh green
leaves
Cough, cold
ailments, cut
and wounds
H
FC
D
Family
32
Lauraceae
Litsea monopetala
(Roxb.) Pers.
Menda
Fresh green
leaf and
bark
Amoebic
dysentery,
diarrhea,
constipation
Tr
C
W
Leguminosae
Cassia fistula Linn.
Sonalu
Fruit, bark
Constipation
Tr
R
W
Meliaceae
Azadirachta indica
A. Juss.
Neem
Fresh green
leaf and
seed
Skin diseases,
chicken pox,
fever, dysentery,
diabetes
Tr
FC
D
Meliaceae
Melia azedarach
Linn.
Bokain
Green
leaves
Scabies,
insecticidal use
Tr
FC
D
Mimosoideae
Mimosa pudica
Linn.
Lazzabati
Roots
Not-specified
H
C
W
Moringaceae
Moringa oleifera
Lamk.
Sajna
Bark
Cold ailments
Tr
C
D
Orchidaceae
Cymbidium
aloifolium (L.) Sw.
Kuntus pata Leaves,
seeds
Ear ache, cut
injury
H
C
W
Piperaceae
Piper betel Linn.
Paan
Fresh green
leaves
Indigestion
Cl
C
D
Poaceae
Cymbopogon
citratus
(DC.) Stapf
Lemon
grass
Leaves
Not-specified
H
FC
W
Polygonaceae
Polygonum
hydropiper L.
Biskatali
Green
leaves
Insect bites,
anti-venomous
H
C
W
Rutaceae
Glycosmis
pentaphylla (Retz).
Fatikgila
Leaf
Fever
Sh
C
W
Rutaceae
Aegle marmelos
(Linn.) Correa
Bel
Fruit
Weakness,
colitis, diarrhea
Tr
FC
D
Rutaceae
Citrus acida (Linn.)
Jambura
Fruit
Jaundice
Tr
C
D
Rutaceae
Citrus limon
(Linn.) Burm. f.
Lebu
Fruit, Leaf
Digestive
trouble
Sh
FC
D
Sterculiaceae
Abroma augusta
(L.) Lf.
Ulatkambal
Bark, root
Dysmenorrhea
Sh
R
W
Theaceae
Camellia sinensis
Chaa
Tender
leaves
Heart disease,
cold ailments,
refresher
Sh
C
Cu
Verbenaceae
Vitex negundo
Linn.
Nimunda
Green
leaves
Tooth ache,
insecticidal use
H
C
W
Zingiberaceae
Curcuma longa
Linn.
Holud
Rhizome
Skin ailments
Sh
FC
Cu
Zingiberaceae
Zingiber otficinale
Roscoe
Ada
Rhizome
Cough, cold
ailments
Sh
FC
Cu
Zingiberaceae
Ammomum
aromaticum Roxb.
Taragota
Seed
Used as spices
and for
manufacturing
Unani medicine
Sh
C
W
Horin paya
Whole plant Diarrhoea,
dysentery
Sh
C
W
KEY:
Cl-climber, H-herb, Sh-shrub, Tr-tree, C-common, FC-fairly common, R-rare
Cu-cultivated, D-domesticated, W-wild
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
33
Improving Forest Dependent
Livelihoods Through NTFPs and Home Gardens: A Case Study from Satchari National Park
Appendix 2: Photos from Study Sites
Plate 1: NTFPs gathered for sale.
Plate 2: A local person returns from the forest with fuelwood.
34
Appendix 2: Photos from Study Sites (Continued)
Plate 3: Saw mills located near the forest represent a serious threat.
Plate 4: An ethnic Tripura woman weaving their traditional cloth.
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
35
Assessing the Role of Non-Timber
Forest Products in the Livelihoods
of Communities Living Inside and
Outside of Lawachara National Park
Sayeed Mahmud Riadh
Assistant Conservator of Forests, Forest Department, Bangladesh
Abstract
Protected area managers find linking the livelihoods of local populations living near natural
resources to the conservation of those resources to be the biggest challenge for effective comanagement of protected areas. Many scholars and mangers believed that non-timber forest
products (NTFPs) can play important roles in this regard, by contributing to people's
livelihoods without placing major stress on forest resources. This paper examines and
compares the roles of NTFPs in the livelihoods of communities living both within and
outside the forest boundaries of Lawachara National Park. The study illustrates that local
people meet their fuelwood demands from the forest either by collecting it themselves, or by
purchasing it from the market. The Khasia communities in the interior village depend
highly on the park, as their only source of cash is betel leaf cultivation on forest lands. All
households - except a few wealthy homes in the village located outside the park - collect
bamboo, cane, wild vegetables and medicinal plants for their domestic consumption. For
Khasia households in the interior village (rich, medium-income and poor), the hunting of
wild animals and birds is a part of their traditional culture. .
Introduction
Biological products from wild areas are commonly termed non-timber forest
products or NTFPs (Shackleton and Shackleton, 2004). There is no unique
definition of NTFPs; however, for the purpose of this paper NTFPs are identified as
all plants and animal products of forests, except timber. Here NTFPs do not include
economic and environmental services. (Ambrose-Oji, 2003).
Non-timber forest products have long been considered of minor or secondary
importance in local economies and livelihoods. It is only from the 1980s onward
36
that there has been a surge of interest in the ways in which NTFPs are used by
people living in and around forests. The contribution of NTFPs to the livelihoods
and welfare of forest-dependent people has become increasingly recognized
(Arnold and Perez 2001, Gram 2001, Belcher 2005). NTFPs play a role in the
household economy of not only the poor, but also the rich (Nguyen 2006).
The collecting and processing of NTFPs provide major employment opportunities
to the poorest rural populations worldwide. In Bangladesh, this amounts to a
contribution of about Tk 1.3 billion annually to the economy (GOB 1993), and
employment for nearly 300,000 people (Basit 1995). In India, NTFPs contribute from
10% to 40% of income for 50 million indigenous households (Shiva 1993, cited in
Sekar et al., 1996); about 200 to 300 million villagers depend on NTFPs to varying
degrees (Shiva 1995b); and 1.6 million person-years of employment are generated
in the NTFP sector (Gupta 1994). In Indonesia, the rattan industry alone provides
jobs for 200,000 people (Haury and Saragih 1995). In Vietnam, more than 320,000
people are involved in NTFP production (Tien 1994). These figures are impressive
and, given the number of forest-dependent people involved, the implication is that
forest management policies should properly address the dependence of local
people on forests for their livelihood needs.
This paper attempts to compare the role of NTFPs in the livelihoods of
communities living inside and outside of the boundaries of Lawachara National
Park in Sylhet, Bangladesh. The paper seeks to give policy makers a better idea of
the roles NTFPs can play in local livelihoods, so that they can design better policies
for community based natural resource management (CBNRM).
Background
The study was conducted at Lawachara National Park (LNP), which forms part of the
West Bhanugach Reserved Forest located in the division of Sylhet in northeastern
Bangladesh (Fig. 1). Currently the park covers an area of 1,250 ha, and there is a plan
to extend this area further to include 281 additional ha of the Reserve Forest. The
topography is undulating, with slopes and hillocks (locally called tila) that range
from 10 to 50 m in elevation. These tilas are scattered and interspersed with
numerous streams that flow through the forest. The forest types of Lawachara are a
combination of planted exotic species and mixed forest with a deciduous canopy and
an evergreen understory (Ahsan 2000). The forest originally supported an indigenous
vegetation cover of mixed tropical evergreen forest (Alam 1998). Approximately 167
plant species and 276 animal species are found within the park (NACOM 2004).
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
37
Assessing the Role of Non-Timber Forest Products in
the Livelihoods of Communities Living Inside and Outside of Lawachara National Park
There are 14 villages in and around Lawachara National Park. Two are located
within the park and the rest lie in the area surrounding the park (CNRS 2000). The
settlement history dates back to the early 1940s, when people employed by the
Forest Department to carry out logging and plantation operations in the forest were
settled in the area. The largest interior village, Magurchara Punji, was established
around 1950 and presently consists of 40 households inhabited by people from the
Khasia ethnic community. The other interior village, Lawachara Punji, was
established in the 1940s and currently consists of 23 households who are also from
the Khasia community (FSP 2000; Chemonics 2000).
The remaining 12 villages are located along the northeastern boundary, inhabited
by ethnic Bengali migrants and a few families from the Tripura ethnic community.
The Bengali migrants came mainly from the districts of Noakhali, Comilla and also
from neighboring India. The major influx of these people occurred about 50 years
ago, and they converted the low-lying forest areas to paddy cultivation. The settlers
in these outside villages are almost all Muslims, whereas Khasias are primarily
Christians and Hindus. The total settler population is reported to be between 4,000
and 4,500 people (CNRS 2000).
The Forest Department allotted 1.2 ha of land to each registered villager living in
the interior villages. The main income of the Khasia communities comes from betel
leaf plantations. They also collect fuelwood to supplement their family income.
Seventy percent of these people depend on the cultivation of lemons and
pineapples on hill slopes, and the remaining 30% are day laborers. Khasia women
mainly sort betel leaves while Tripura women weave cloth, conduct household
work, and sometimes work in the lemon and pineapple orchards (CNRS 2000).
Subsistence and small-scale woodcutters and NTFP harvesters have used
Lawachara intensively for many years. The households of the interior villages are
completely dependent on forest resources for their entire fuelwood and house
building material demands (FSP 2000, CNRS 2000). In addition to their subsistence
needs they also collect fuelwood to supplement their income, but they primarily
depend on the betel vines they grow in the forest (FSP 2000).
In addition to resident villagers, the park is also widely used by people from
adjacent villages, residents of neighboring tea estates, and some poor people from
urban areas. Subsistence harvesting of fuelwood appears to be the most common
and widespread use of the park. Bamboo is also widely harvested within the park
and its proposed extension area, presumably for both subsistence and small-scale
38
commercial use (FSP 2000). Local people collect 23 species of fruits, which are also
eaten by non-human primates in the forest. Some people collect these fruits for
home consumption as well as for sale. They also collect vines and climbers for
making baskets and other household materials (CNRS 2000), as well as medicinal
plants (FSP 2000, CNRS 2000, Chemonics 2000). No qualitative or quantitative
information about medicinal plant collection is available at present. A small
number of people also extract tree bark for medicinal uses from a number of trees
and sell it to local agents. The presence of some NGOs, like BRAC, ASA, RUSA and
Heed-Bangladesh in the area has been mentioned by CNRS (2000). These NGOs,
however, concentrate primarily on micro-credit for the very poor, such as programs
to support poor Khasia families during lean periods between betel leaf harvests.
Some also provide micro-credit to these families for bamboo and cane weaving.
Methodology
I selected two villages in Lawachara National Park and its surrounding area, with
the aim of investigating and comparing the role of NTFPs in the livelihoods of
communities of two variously located villages: Magurchara Punji, within
Lawachara National Park; and Baligaon which is adjacent to the park. These
villages were chosen because they are both easily accessible and heavily depend on
forest resources from the park. I began by constructing community maps. I then
prepared a community profile through focus group discussions with villagers in
each village. Finally I prepared household profiles by conducting household
surveys. I visited the two villages once before the surveys were conducted, to
inform villagers about the purpose of the research.
Based on the community profile and secondary sources that summarized
households according to their monthly incomes, housing, and homestead and
agricultural land holdings, I classified the households in each village as rich,
middle and poor income. I randomly selected households and conducted surveys
from February to May 2006, interviewing family members using a semi-structured
questionnaire. In Magurchara Punji, I identified three income classes and surveyed
one rich household, three middle-income households, and six poor households
(24% of all households were sampled). In Baligaon, I surveyed three rich
households, ten middle-income households, and eight poor households (7% overall
sampling intensity) (Table 1). The questionnaire was in English. It was translated
into the local language and administered orally by a hired interpreter. The
questionnaire dealt with the respondents' background, household assets, and their
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
39
Assessing the Role of Non-Timber Forest Products in
the Livelihoods of Communities Living Inside and Outside of Lawachara National Park
dependency on NTFPs. I collected information on household composition, age,
education, land and livestock holdings, sources of family income, NTFPs, and
monthly income.
Figure 1: Map of Lawachara National Park. (Source: Nishorgo Support Project, 2007)
40
Results
Households with monthly income more than Tk 8,000 and with paka (brick or
concrete buildings) or semi-paka housing (with corrugated iron roof) were
classified as rich. Households with monthly incomes from Tk 5,000 to Tk 8,000,
with semi-paka housing were classified as middle-income. Households with
monthly incomes less than Tk 5,000 and kacha housing (constructed with bamboo
and roof with straw or corrugated iron) were classified as poor.
Table1: Demographic Description of Respondents
Magurchara Punji
Baligaon
Rich
Middle
Poor
Rich
Middle
Poor
1
3
6
3
10
8
No. of people per household
7
5.33
5.67
8.33
7
6.5
Age of respondents (years)
45
31
30
46
38
43
Male (%)
00
33
67
100
60
63
Female (%)
100
67
33
00
40
38
Illiterate (%)
-
-
17
-
10
63
Can only sign (%)
-
33
67
-
40
13
Primary school (%)
-
33
1
-
30
25
100
33
17
100
20
No. of households sampled
Secondary school (%)
Betel leaf cultivation is the main NTFP-based activity in Lawachara National Park.
It has a high cash-earning potential and is the main source of cash income for the
Khasia communities who live in the park. All members of the Khasia community
are engaged in betel leaf cultivation. The average monthly income from betel leaf
cultivation for all households (rich, middle, and poor) is Tk 4,900. The average
monthly income of rich households is Tk 9,000 a month, while the average monthly
incomes of the poor and middle-income groups are Tk 1,833 and Tk 4,333,
respectively. The sole rich household in Magurchara Punji has other additional
sources of cash income (which were undisclosed). The middle and poor segments
of the Khasia community do not have any other cash income sources, but they
supplement their incomes by collecting fuelwood and wild vegetables for domestic
consumption (Table 2).
Table 2: Average income of households sampled (in Taka)
Village
Rich
Middle
Poor
Interior village: Magurchara
9,000
4,333
1,833
Exterior village: Baligaon
12,500
5,727
3,143
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
41
Assessing the Role of Non-Timber Forest Products in
the Livelihoods of Communities Living Inside and Outside of Lawachara National Park
In Baligaon, the village bordering the park, according to our classification about
70% of the population belonged to the rich and middle-income classes. The
middle class and rich people earn their livelihoods mostly from business,
agriculture, and services. The average income for middle-income and rich
households is Tk 5, 727 and Tk 12, 500 per month respectively (Table 2). In the
case of the poor households, 86% of the cash income is from wage labor,
amounting to approximately Tk 3,000 per month. In all cases, the incomes are
substantially higher than those of the communities living inside the park.
Patterns of NTFP Collection
Villagers from Magurchara Punji and Baligaon can identify thirteen categories of
NTFPs, as shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3. The NTFPs available at Lawachara National
Park are bamboo, cane, fuelwood, betel leaves, mushrooms, grasses, wild
vegetables such as bamboo shoots, taro, banana, thankuni (Centella asiatica); wild
fruits like chapalish (Artocarpus chaplasha), kau (Garcinia cowa), jackfruit, cane
fruits, banana, dewa (Artocarpus lacucha); different kinds of medicinal plants;
honey; birds such as horikol (orange-breasted green pigeon) and jungle fowl;
animals, fish and shellfish including shrimp.
The households from the interior village of Magurchara Punji collect non-timber
forest products in eleven of the thirteen categories (Fig.2). All of the households in
the interior village collect bamboo, cane and fuelwood. In addition, ninety percent
of households collect wild vegetables and mushrooms for their subsistence
consumption. An average of 33% poor and middle-income households hunt wild
birds such as orange-breasted green pigeon (Treron bicincta) and jungle fowl, and
all rich households of the interior village hunt for animals like wild boar.
Approximately 67% of middle-income households and 33% of poor households
collect wild fruit from within the national park, while 50% fish there (Fig. 2).
Patterns of NTFP collection are very different in the exterior village. Households
in Baligaon collect only five categories of NTFPs (Fig. 3), and rich households do
not collect any NTFPs from the forests. Furthermore, none of the middle-income
households, and only 38% of poor households, collect wild vegetables. No
families in Baligaon collect mushrooms (Figure 3). Among poor households in
Baligaon, approximately 50% collect bamboo, and about 38% collect both cane and
wild vegetables for their own consumption. In addition, 40% of middle-income
households and 25% of poor households collect medicinal plants. All the
households collect fuelwood except the rich.
42
Figure 2: Percentage of Households that Consume Various NTFPs in Magurchara Punji
Figure 3: Percentage of Households that Consume Various NTFPs in Baligaon
Patterns of Fuelwood and Medicinal Plant Use
In Lawachara National Park, people depend most heavily on forests for fuelwood
as their main source of domestic energy. Households from both the interior and
exterior villages meet their fuelwood demand from Lawachara NP. In the interior
village, Magurchara, all the households (rich, middle-income and poor) collect
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
43
Assessing the Role of Non-Timber Forest Products in
the Livelihoods of Communities Living Inside and Outside of Lawachara National Park
fuelwood from the forest for their own consumption. I asked respondents to
calculate the cash value of the fuelwood consumed on a monthly basis.
Accordingly, the monthly average cash values of fuelwood reportedly used by
rich, middle-income and poor households are Tk 800, Tk 338, and Tk 314,
respectively (Table 3).
In the exterior village of Baligaon, rich households do not collect fuelwood from
the forest, but they buy it from the neighboring market and pay an average of Tk
767 per month. Middle-income and poor households collect fuelwood both from
the forest and from their homesteads for subsistence consumption, and the
average values are Tk 410 and Tk 263 per month respectively (Table 3).
Table 3: Value of NTFPs Consumed per Month per Household (Taka per month)
Magurchara Punji
Rich
Middle
Baligaon
Poor
Rich
Middle
b
Poor
263b
Fuelwood
800
338
314
767a
410
Medicinal plants
50
50
17
83c
36
26
417
167
133
00
83
134
1,267
555
464
850
529
423
Other NTFPs
Total
NOTES: a=collected from homestead/market, b=collected from homestead/forest, c=collected from homestead only
In Magurchara Punji all rich households use medicinal plants, consuming an
average value of Tk 600 per year, whereas only 67% of households from both the
middle-income and poor groups use medicinal plants. The middle-income and
poor households consume medicinal plants at an average value of Tk 600 and Tk
200 per household per year respectively .
In Baligaon, 67% of rich households collect medicinal plants from their
homesteads. These plants have an average value of Tk 1,000 per household per
year. Approximately 40% of households from the middle-income group and 25%
of the poor households use medicinal plants, with an average value of Tk 435 and
Tk 316 per year, respectively. Except for rich households in Baligaon, all
households collect their medicinal plants from the forest.
Discussion
In this study, different income groups in the interior and exterior villages showed
considerable differences in their patterns of collection of NTFPs. This study shows
that households in the village inside the park collect more NTFPs than households
in the exterior village, both in terms of number of NTFP types gathered and the
44
cash value of the products collected. The households of both villages are heavily
dependent on the forest to meet their demand for fuelwood, bamboo and cane. The
Forest Department allocated 1.2 ha of land from the forest for betel leaf cultivation
to each household in Magurchara Punji. Therefore, regardless of income class,
Magurchara residents are heavily dependent on the forest for betel leaf production,
their main source of income. Despite the fact that all households in Magurchara
Punji have the same amount of land, their incomes vary because of site factors and
input supports. Site factors include variables such as land fertility, slopes, and
aspect. Input support factors include variables such as labor, fertilizer and
irrigation. Household heads or sometimes their spouse and children contribute
labor. Rich households usually hire labor and can afford chemical fertilizers and
irrigation during droughts. Poor households cannot afford these inputs, so most of
the poor households in Magurchara Punji collect bamboo, cane, wild vegetables,
mushrooms, wild animals, birds, wild fruits and fish from the forest for their
subsistence consumption.
In Baligaon the rich households do not collect fuelwood from the forest; they buy it
from the neighboring market. As the rich and middle-income households have
large land holdings, and earn their living mainly from business enterprises, they do
not depend on NTFPs to sustain their livelihoods. In contrast, most of the poor
households have no agricultural land and wage labor is their main income source.
They only collect bamboo, cane and wild vegetables for their subsistence
consumption from the forests.
Analysis of income composition revealed that in terms of contribution to income,
betel leaf cultivation is important for Magurchara Punji, whereas wage labor is
important for the poor households of Baligaon. The study also showed that all
income groups collect fuelwood and medicinal plants from the forest for domestic
consumption, except for rich households in Baligaon. In general, the contribution to
total household economies from fuelwood was higher than that from medicinal
plants. Therefore, we conclude that the forest plays a more important role in the
supply of household energy than for medicine.
In both villages, the contribution of medicinal plants to the livelihood of poor
households is not as high as expected. It is clear that comparatively richer
households use more medicinal plants. I hypothesize that due to lack of
information regarding the identification and use of medicinal plants, poor
households lag behind richer households in using these plants. In addition, an
NGO operates a hospital on the outskirts of Lawachara National Park, in the
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
45
Assessing the Role of Non-Timber Forest Products in
the Livelihoods of Communities Living Inside and Outside of Lawachara National Park
proximity of both villages, where people can get medical services at nominal cost.
The richer households usually do not go to such NGO operated hospitals as a
matter of social prestige, since they do not wish to be perceived as needy.
The study also reveals that in Magurchara Punji the rich household is more
involved than poor and middle-income households in collecting wild birds and
animals for domestic consumption. This is because hunting is a traditional practice
for the Khasia community, and richer Khasia households also have links with local
elites and law enforcement agencies which allow them to continue this tradition.
As Magurchara Punji is a Khasia community, all households are members of the
Khasia Welfare Society (KSA). Through this common platform, Khasia
communities can negotiate with government agencies, particularly the Forest
Department and other local patronage groups, regarding their community
interests.
Conversely, villagers from Baligaon do not have a tradition of hunting wild birds
and animals. There is no common platform for discussion in Baligaon, as poor
households are not involved with many social and political institutions. Among the
rich and middle groups, 67% and 40% of heads of households respectively are
involved with political parties or the union parishad.
This means that in the
exterior village richer people are more involved with outside political parties in
order to maintain their power relations.
Conclusion and Recommendations
Non-timber forest products form an extremely heterogeneous group of materials.
Typical NTFPs include various foods, fodder, fuel, medicines, and many other
collectibles-literally every product derived from a forest besides timber (Wickens
1991:4). The variety can be staggering. Different people collect them for different
reasons. Some products are consumed locally without any further processing and
play no role in the marketplace. Some NTFPs have been domesticated by local
communities for centuries, some are both cultivated and collected from the forest,
and others still come exclusively from natural forests (Enters 1997).
Understanding the role of NTFPs in the livelihoods of people living inside and
outside the forest is critically important for developing management strategies for
protected areas. This study found that households in an exterior village with higher
average incomes do not collect any NTFPs from the forest in Lawachara National
Park. However, this does not mean that they do not rely on forest resources; they
46
could be buying them from those who do collect locally or even from a more
distant regional market.
Study results also suggest that the main source of cash incomes for all households
in an interior village comes from betel leaf cultivation in the forest; suggesting that
they are highly dependent on the forest to sustain their livelihoods, especially
because many do not have their own land to cultivate betel leaf.
Another important finding is that all households from both interior and exterior
villages meet their fuelwood demands from the forest (rich households of the
exterior village purchase their wood from local markets but it still comes from the
forest). This means the dependency on forest for fuelwood is high in both interior
and exterior forest villages. In order to meet the high fuelwood demand of people
living both in and outside of forests, fast-growing tree plantations could be
cultivated in the buffer zone area.
Policy design should ensure the participation of local users in the governance and
management of buffer zone plantations. Local forestry personnel suggested that
betel leaf cultivation is not good for biodiversity conservation. As betel leaf
cultivation is the only cash income source for most of the Khasia households living
in the forest, the boundaries around the betel vines should be clearly demarcated
and self-governance of Khasia communities should be ensured in betel vine zones.
Local people, both indigenous and Bengali, should be involved in the management
of buffer zone bamboo groves and cane plantations through co-management
programs. Households in both interior and exterior villages can benefit from
horticultural and medicinal species cultivated in the national park. Development of
human capacity can be another way to reduce pressures on natural resources and
to ensure sustainable livelihoods. Co-management polices for protected areas
should consider these possibilities. These findings suggest that an understanding of
the role of NTFPs in the livelihoods of local communities should be incorporated
into the formulation of co-management policies for all protected areas.
References
Ahsan, M.F. 2000. Socio-Ecology of the Hoolock Gibbon (Hylobates hoolock) in Two
Forests of Bangladesh. Field Research: 284-299.
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
47
Assessing the Role of Non-Timber Forest Products in
the Livelihoods of Communities Living Inside and Outside of Lawachara National Park
Alam, M.K. 1998. Documentation of Ethnobiological Information, in Banik, R.L.,
Alam, M. K., Peil, S. and Rastogi, A. (eds). Applied Ethnobotany.
Bangladesh Forest Research Institute (BFRI): Chittagong: 28-29.
Ambrose-Oji, B. (2003). The Contribution of NTFPs to the Livelihoods of the 'Forest
Poor': Evidence from the Tropical Forest Zone of South-West Cameroon.
International Forestry Review 5(2): 106-117.
Arnold, J.E. and Pérez, M.R. 2001. Analysis: Can Non-Timber Forest Products
Match Tropical Forest Conservation and Development Objectives?
Ecological Economics 39(3): 437-447.
Basit, M.A., 1995. Non-Wood Forest Products from the Mangrove Forests of
Bangladesh, in P.B. Durst and A. Bishop (eds.), Beyond Timber: Social,
Economic and Cultural Dimensions of Non-Wood Forest Products in Asia
and the Pacific. Proceedings of a Regional Expert Consultation held in
Bangkok, Thailand, 28 November to 2 December 1994. FAO/RAP,
Bangkok. pp. 193-200.
Belcher, B.M. 2005. Forest Product Markets, Forest and Poverty Reduction.
International Forestry Review 7(2): 82-89.
Chemonics. 2000. Biodiversity Sustainable Forestry IQC (BIOFOR) Strengthening
the Arannyk Foundation. Site Selection Inventory and Monitoring Report.
USAID-Bangladesh: Dhaka.
CNRS. 2000. Lawasera, Tropical Forest of Bangladesh. Rapid Rural Appraisal
(RRA) Findings. Center for Natural Resources Studies: Dhaka.
Enters, T. 1997. Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study. FAO Working Paper
Series No. 25. Forestry Policy and Planning Division, Rome; Regional Office
for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok.
FSP (Forestry Sector Project). 2000. First Five Year Management Plan for Lawachara
National Park: Volume 1 - Management Plan; and Volume 2 - Background
and Support Material. Prepared for Forest Department, Ministry of
Environment and Forest of Bangladesh, by TECSULT International Ltd.
GOB (Government of Bangladesh). 1993. Forestry Master Plan: Participatory
Forestry. Asian Development Bank (TA No. 1355-BAN) UNDP/FAO/BGD
88/025. Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Gram, S. 2001. Analysis: Economic Valuation of Special Forest Products: an
Assessment of Methodological Shortcomings. Ecological Economics 36(1):
109-117.
Gupta, B.N. 1994. India, in Durst, P.B., Ulrich, W. and Kashio, M. (eds), Non-Wood
Forest Products in Asia. RAPA Publication 1994/28. RAP/FAO, Bangkok: 19-48.
48
Haury, D. and Saragih, B. 1995. Processing and Marketing Rattan: Promotion of
Sustainable Forest Management Systems in East Kalimantan (SFMP),
Samarinda. Unpublished.
NACOM (Nature Conservation Management). 2004. Site-Level Appraisal for
Protected Area Co-Management: Lawachara National Park. Prepared for
International Resources Group, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Nguyen, T. Q. 2006. Forest Devolution in Dak Lak, Vietnam: Improving Forest
Management or Livelihoods of the Poor?, in Mahanty, S. et al. (eds),
Hanging in the Balance: Equity in Community-Based Natural Resource
Management in Asia, 200-222. Regional Community Forestry Training
Center for Asia and the Pacific (RECOFTC), Bangkok; East-West Center,
Honolulu.
Sekar, C., Vinaya Rai, R.S. and Ramasany, C. 1996. Role of Minor Forest Products in
the Tribal Economy of India: A Case Study. Journal of Tropical Forest
Science 8(3): 280-288.
Shackleton, C. and Shackleton, S. 2004. The Importance of Non-Timber Forest
Products in Rural Livelihood Security and as Safety Nets: A Review of
Evidence from South Africa. South African Journal of Science 100: 658-664.
Shiva, M.P. 1993. As cited in Sekar, C., R.S. Vinaya Rai and C. Ramasany, 1996. Role
of Minor Forest Products in Tribal Economy of India: A Case Study. Journal
of Tropical Forest Science 8(3): 280-288.
Shiva, M.P., 1995a. The Centre of Minor Forest Products' Role in Supporting NWFP
Development, In Durst, P.B. and Bishop, A. (eds), Beyond Timber: Social,
Economic and Cultural Dimensions of Non-Wood Forest Products in Asia
and the Pacific. Proceedings of a Regional Expert Consultation held in
Bangkok, 28 November to 2 December 1994. FAO/RAP, Bangkok: 333-334.
Shiva, M.P. 1995b. Collection, Utilization and Marketing of Medicinal Plants from
Forests of India, in Durst, P.B. and Bishop, A. (eds), Beyond Timber: Social,
Economic and Cultural Dimensions of Non-Wood Forest Products in Asia
and the Pacific. Proceedings of a Regional Expert Consultation held in
Bangkok, 28 November to 2 December 1994. FAO/RAP, Bangkok: 271-281.
Tien, L.V. 1994. Vietnam. In Durst, P.B., Ulrich, W. and Kashio, M. (eds.), NonWood Forest Products in Asia. RAPA Publication 1994/28. RAP/FAO,
Bangkok: 151-161.
Wickens, G. 1991. Management Issues for Development of Non-Timber Forest
Products. Unasylva: International Journal of Forestry and Forest Industries
42(165): 3-8.
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
49
Non-Timber Forest Products and
Co-Management: A Case Study of
Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary
Md. Rahimullah Miah
Institute of Forestry and Environmental Sciences, University of Chittagong, Bangladesh
Abstract
Strategies to foster development based on the gathering, processing, sorting, collection
period, and diversification of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) implicitly target
households as principal beneficiaries. This paper suggests that the cultivation and
domestication of NTFPs can play important roles in the co-management of protected areas.
Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary (CWS) is a co-managed site where local communities are
dispersed throughout the forest. This study focuses on four villages in CWS that derive a
significant portion of their livelihoods from NTFPs collected in the sanctuary. It concludes
that both research on the cultivation and domestication of NTFPs and co-management
practices are needed to allow forest villagers to continue to live in CWS in a sustainable
manner.
Introduction
Millions of people throughout the world make extensive use of biological products
from the wild (Koziell and Saunders 2001, Lawes et al. 2004). These items,
commonly termed non-timber forest products or NTFPs, are harvested for both
subsistence and commercial use, either regularly or as a fallback during times of
need. NTFPs are biological products and services, derived mainly from forests,
deserts, grasslands, agroforests or farm forests, as well as marginal lands. They
may be used to make different products for domestic use, or marketed through
middlemen. They add to peoples' livelihood security, especially for rural dwellers,
and may also have substantial cultural significance and value (Posey 1999; Cocks
and Wiersum 2003).
Non-timber forest products include plants used for food, beverages, fodder, fuel,
50
Non-Timber Forest Products and Co-Management:
A Case Study of Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary
medicine, fibers and biochemicals; animals, birds and fish used for food, fur and
feathers; and other animal products such as honey, lac and silk (Wickens 1994).
Shiva (1995a) has called non-timber forest products "potential pillars of sustainable
forestry." They are now recognized as more important than timber, and are
regarded as a more viable commercial option in forest management (Peters et al
1989; Anderson 1990; Anon. 1990; Chakravarthi 1990; Godoy and Bawa 1993; Blay
1996). Today's interest in NTFPs is based on the argument that in order to conserve
the world's tropical forest we have to find new products and develop market
systems for NTFPs, so that the forests will become too valuable to destroy (Byron
and Ruiz-Perez 1996).
In developing countries, 80% of people use forest products for food and personal
care (Anon, 2000). Rijsoort (2000) suggests that farmers cultivate NTFPs on their
homesteads as a strategy for reducing the pressure on natural forest resources.
Research reveals that NTFP cultivation can also have concrete ecological benefits.
For example, it can encourage natural regeneration and mimic natural forest
ecosystems in plantations and afforestation sites (Campbell, 1995). Rijsoort (2000)
further suggests that food security means having access to sufficient food for a
healthy and productive life in the right quantity and at the right time. NTFPs and
trees contribute to household food security and family nutrition through a variety
of mechanisms. Food NTFPs are often used as "snack foods" while working on the
land or tending cattle, and they have a buffer function in times of scarcity. In a
study from southwest Bengal, Malhotra et al. (1993) recorded 189 different NTFPs
used by local people, of which 113 are derived from plant species and 76 from
animal species. Of these 27 are used commercially, 39 are consumed as food, and 47
are used for medicinal purposes for both livestock and humans. In a study from
South Africa, Shackleton and Shackleton (2004) found that NTFPs were used
commonly by more than 85% of households as a source of mats, brooms, brushes,
utensils, and edible fruits.
The sustainable production and conservation of forest products is influenced by a
number of factors, largely socioeconomic and institutional in nature. Non-timber
forest products are used for cultural, subsistence, recreational, and commercial
purposes, and offer a wide range of opportunities for cultural maintenance and
revival, support of forest biodiversity, as well as rural community economic
development and stability (Cocksedge 2006). NTFP-based activities are often
perceived as transitional, giving way to other enterprises and products as the
economy improves (FAO 1995a). However, availability of NTFPs is not the only
51
factor that determines their collection; different social and economic status is also
an important contributing factor in determining what is collected and by whom.
On the whole, tribal communities depend most on NTFPs for their livelihoods.
Local communities also use NTFPs, but there are some significant differences
between the two groups. For instance, only tribal groups eat fern leaves
(dhekishak) and bamboo shoots as vegetables (Malhotra et al 1993). It is therefore
important to acknowledge that NTFP collection and commercialization can make a
positive contribution to the livelihoods of the poor, and can be incorporated into
socio-economic development programs involving forest management.
Men and women also have differing roles in collecting NTFPs. In southwest
Bengal, Malhotra et al. (1993) found that women constitute the major gatherers of
forest products - particularly fuelwood and fodder and other items for domestic
consumption, while a few elderly men usually collect medicinal plants. Some men
gather dry leaves and fodder. Most women also take their children to the forest to
collect tubers, brushwood and dry leaves. Studies show that NTFP-based activities
can provide women with a greater sense of self-confidence and improved status
within the household and the community (Marshall et al. 2006a).
As human populations increase, a natural extension of the process of collecting
NTFPs and wood from a common resource is to move on to the domestication of
these species, and for agricultural agencies to encourage on-farm cultivation,
especially where forest-based collection by rural harvesters is perceived as an
ecological threat. Previous field surveys have shown that three factors in particular
may influence small-scale farmers' decisions about domesticating trees to produce
marketable products: (1) market opportunities and constraints, (2) the properties of
a given species relative to farmer needs, and (3) the role trees play in risk
management (Miah, unpublished data).
Background
Study Objectives
This study focuses on four villages in Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary (CWS),
Chittagong Division, Bangladesh. A total of 170 families inhabit these four villages.
Household level data were collected to examine the various sources of income and
the relative importance of income from NTFPs. The main goal of the study is to
provide a detailed profile of the NTFPs collected in the four villages. The collected
information is expected to contribute to general knowledge of the current forest use
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
52
Non-Timber Forest Products and Co-Management:
A Case Study of Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary
practices and villager dependence on NTFPs. It will deepen the understanding of
the economic and social value they provide to different sections of the community.
The primary research objectives are as follows: (a) to identify the main NTFPs and
aspects of NTFP extraction, processing and sorting of NTFPs originating from
woody plants, herbs and shrubs; (b) to describe the division of labor in NTFP
collection with regard to gender; (c) to identify the maximum collection period of
NTFPs and latest month of collection; and (d) to assess the contribution of NTFPs to
household income and the overall degree of household dependence on them.
Study Site
o
o
The Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary is located at 21 40' N and 92 07' E, about 70 km
south of the city of Chittagong, on the west side of the Chittagong- Cox's Bazaar
highway (Fig. 1). It was originally a part of Chittagong Forest Division and is now
under the jurisdiction of Chittagong South Forest Division. The total area of the
Wildlife Sanctuary, according to the government gazette notification, is about 7,764
hectares (Nishorgo Support Project 2005).
Typically, the rural households of Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary use several different
non-timber forest products to meet their everyday needs. The villages cover 56.1
hectares of cultivable land (0.33 hectares per household), and depend solely on
rain-fed agriculture. The local people cultivate paddy, wheat, peppers, turmeric,
mustard and other vegetables. They also collect bamboo, cane, fuelwood, grass,
fruits, ferns, mushrooms, medicinal plants, dry leaves, wild animals, and honey
periodically from the forest of CWS. Different collectors - men, women and
children - are involved in seasonal or regular collection. Harvesting of NTFPs is
usually suspended during the monsoon when people are fully engaged in farmbased agricultural activities.
53
Figure 1: Map of Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary (Source: Nishorgo Support Project 2007)
Methods
The study sites were situated in Chunati Beat and Harbang Beat, located 70 km and
78 km from Chittagong city, respectively. Beats are administrative units used by
the forest administration. I selected four paras or small villages located in the two
beats. Goyalmara village is located in Harbang Beat, while Nalbania, Teenghoria
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
54
Non-Timber Forest Products and Co-Management:
A Case Study of Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary
and Bonopukur villages are in Chunati Beat. Field data were collected between
February and June 2006 and analysis was conducted during July and August 2006.
Data were gathered from a total of 24 households selected randomly from the four
villages (14% overall sampling intensity). I conducted six household interviews in
each village, but because population sizes vary over the villages, this method
meant that some villages were more thoroughly sampled than others. There were
10 households in Teenghoria, 40 households in Nalbania, 50 in Bonopukur, and 70
in Goyalmara, which yielded sampling intensities of 60%, 15%, 12% and 9%,
respectively.
I surveyed households on the basis of their agrarian holdings (small, medium and
large), and also interviewed representative groups of seniors, women, and youth. I
collected socioeconomic information from each sampled household (member)
regarding family size, age, sex, literacy level, and secondary occupations, land
holdings, primary off-farm income, total annual earnings, and collection (amounts
and timings) and availability of NTFPs.
In addition, I conducted separate interviews with forest staff involved at the field
level (forest guards and foresters), executive staff members (Range Forest Officers
and Sub-Divisional Forest Officers), managerial officials (Assistant Conservator of
Forest and Divisional Forest Officer at Chunati and Harbang beat office), and a
local NGO official. This was done in order to learn about institutional perceptions
and problems at the administrative level. Upon completion of the research, I
conducted a feedback meeting in order to share the research findings with the
villagers and to obtain their suggestions and comments.
Finally, vegetation surveys were carried out in 48 plots (two for each household) in
order to determine the abundance of NTFP species collected in the study area. Plots
measured 20m by 20m each. In each plot, I noted the number of species, number of
individuals, parts used, collecting season, uses and economic value for each NTFP.
Results and Discussion
Socioeconomic Data
I surveyed all age groups, but the majority of respondents were in the lowest age
classes, (20-29) and (30-39) (Fig. 2). They constitute the main work force in the
villages. The oldest respondent lived in Bonopukur village and was 68 years old.
The largest portion (33%) of household heads interviewed were educated to the
10th grade level, 29% to the 5th grade, and 25% had secondary and higher
55
secondary education, or HSC. Only 12.5% respondents had completed education
above the HSC level.
In terms of primary household occupation, most respondents were farmers (33%)
while approximately 28% were engaged in small businesses, 21% were day
laborers, and (17%) were service holders (Fig. 3). Most houses were tin sheds (54%),
while a few people lived in cement homes (4%). Housing is often used as an
indicator of household wealth and as such could be linked to livelihood
dependency on natural resources and subsistence (Fig. 4).
Figure 2: Age classes of surveyed villages
Figure 3: Occupation of Respondents in the Study Sites
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
56
Non-Timber Forest Products and Co-Management:
A Case Study of Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary
Figure 4: Housing Types of Respondents
Land holding size can influence socioeconomic conditions and people's ability to
practice sustainable forest management. The Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (2005)
officially denotes poor people as having up to 1 acre of land, lower middle class
owning 1 to 2.49 acres of land, middle class own 2.5 to 4.99 acres of land, upper
middle class own 5 to 7.49 acres of land, rich (upper class) owning 7.5 acre or more
of land in rural areas. I classified households into 3 groups for interviews on the
basis of land holdings (Figure 5). In this study, most respondents (50%) owned less
than 1 acre of land, while only a few people in Nalbania and Bonopukur own more
then 2 acres of land.
Figure 5: Size of Household Landholdings
57
Use of NTFPs
The respondents use various NTFPs in their daily lives, which they pick from their
household gardens and the surrounding forest lands. These products (and the
percentage of households that use them) include deadwood for fuel (83%), herbs
(75%), fruits (58%), dry leaves (54%), building poles (33%), vegetables (25%),
mushrooms (17%), and honey (8%) (Figure 6).
About 40% of NTFPs collected by the villagers were used for medicinal purposes,
including the leaves from 24 different plant species. Villagers used over 29% of all
species for food (Figure 7). They also used leaves of various species (35%) for
assorted purposes, and fruits of various plants (16%). The most commonly collected
NTFPs are listed in Table 1. Households in all the villages I studied, except
Teenghoria, also collect mushrooms from the forest.
Figure 6: Percentage of Households Collecting Different Types of NTFPs
Figure 7: Use of NTFP Species
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
58
Non-Timber Forest Products and Co-Management:
A Case Study of Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary
Table 1: Common NTFP Species Collected at the Study Site
Bengali name
Paniyala
Kanthal
Borta
Bael
Lutki
Jonglikola
Jongliboroi
Tentul
Kalojam
Bon Kochu
Thankuni
Chhoi
Dhenkishaak
Bamboo
Cane
Jonglilebu
Bon alu
Tokma
Kolmishak
Totola
Odal
Lali
Chilauni
Fuljharu
Bonpata
Nayantara
Arjun
Lemon grass
Sungrass
Latin name
Calophyllum inophyllum
Artocarpus heterophyllus
Artocarpus lakoocha
Aegle marmelos
Melastoma melabothricum
Musa sapientum
Zizyphus rugosa
Tamarindus indica
Syzygium cuminii
Diplazium esculentum
Centella asiatica
Piper chaba
Colocasia esculenta (Linn.) Schott
Melocanna baccifera and Bambusa tulda
Calamus viminalis and Calamus tenuis
Citrus aurantifolia
Dioscorea bulbifera
Hyptis suaveolens
Ipomoea aquatica
Oroxylum indica
Sterculia villosa
Amoora wallichi
Schima wallichi
Thysanolena latifolia
Paederia foetida
Vinca rosea Linn.
Terminalia arjuna Linn.
Cymbopogon citrarus DC. Stapf.
Imperata arundinaria
All the selected NTFP species were cultivated in the home gardens (Fig. 8). These
included bamboo (41% of individuals planted in the sample plots), cane (10%), mat
palms or patipata (26%), fruit species (6%), medicinal plants (6%), betel leaves or
paanpata (3%), and areca nuts or superi (8%). Poorer people used small timber and
thatch for household construction and roofing, respectively; leaf litter and leaves,
medicinal herbs; as well as edible roots and tubers, mushrooms, flowers and fruits
as substitutes for staple foods, especially during lean seasons. Women in particular
are quite dependent on NTFPs for self-support and income. Of the household
members that collect NTFPs, 62% were women, compared with the approximately
17% that were children and 21% that were men. Thus, nearly three times more
women than men are involved in NTFP collection.
59
Figure 8: Different NTFPs Cultivated in Study Areas
The total annual income for a household was calculated as: the sum of annual
agricultural farm income, income from other on farm sources including NTFPs and
animal products, earnings from primary and secondary occupations i.e. off-farm
wage income, and income from NTFP gathered from the forests.
The average income per year from NTFP sales varied from village to village.
Average income level from NTFPs sales ranged from Tk 2,700 to Tk 7,425 per year,
and the daily average incomes from NTFPs varied from Tk 20 to Tk 50 per day,
during the collection season of 3 to 7 months. Villagers collecting NTFPs from the
forests sell directly to markets. These sales differ from family to family on the basis
of the products collected, family needs, and other factors. Villagers collected NTFP
year-round except for 2 to 3 months; actual timing of collection would vary
according to monsoon and winter seasons, but collection time is mostly from
November to May each year (Table 2).
Non-timber forest products are a significant contribution to the income and welfare
of study households. Respondents suggested that local NTFP collection helps them
meet important household needs and sources of income such as leaves and
medicinal herbs, food for livestock, fruits, fuelwood and honey; while also
supporting the production of secondary goods like processed or prepared food
(animal and vegetable), baskets and other crafts. Table 2 also shows that NTFP
collection makes a significant contribution to household income.
Relative Contribution of NTFPs to Annual Family Income
From the household survey, I learned that agriculture, NTFP collection, secondary
occupations and others (remittances, wage labor, livestock, and small businesses)
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
60
Non-Timber Forest Products and Co-Management:
A Case Study of Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary
are the main sources of annual family income. About 12% of the annual income of
villagers in Bonopukur comes from the collection and sale of NTFPs, compared
with 7% in Nalbania, 6% in Goyalmara, and 4% in Teenghoria (Table 3).
Table 2: Distribution of Income from Sale of NTFPs in Some Forest Villages of CWS
Village
Months per year
that NTFPs are
collected
(Maximum)
Goyalmara
3-6
Average range of
income per
family per day
(Tk)from NTFP
sales
15-30
Teenghoria
2-4
17.5-35
2100
Nalbania
5-7
18.75-26.25
3937
Bonopukur
5-6
41.25-49.50
7425
Average
yearly
income (Tk)
from NTFP
sales
2700
Major types of NTFPs collected
Fruits, vegetables, dry leaves,
mushrooms, herbs, shrubs,
fuelwood, honey, building poles
Fruits, vegetables, dry leaves,
herbs, shrubs, fuelwood, building
poles
Fruits, vegetables, dry leaves,
mushrooms, herbs, shrubs,
fuelwood, honey, building poles
Fruits, vegetables, dry leaves,
mushroom, herbs, shrubs,
fuelwood, building poles
Table 3: Relative Contribution of NTFPs to Annual Income of Sampled Families of CWS
Villages
Relative contribution on annual income
Number
of family
members
Mean
family
income (Tk)
per year
Agriculture
%
NTFPs
%
Other
occupation %
Others
%
Goyalmara
31
59460
37
6
45
13
Teenghoria
27
76188
42
4
39
15
Nalbania
40
53208
39
7
41
13
Bonopukur
28
64768
48
12
32
8
Dynamics of NTFP Collection at Various Levels
The amount of NTFPs collected is somewhat dependent on demand in the market
created by external agents (i.e. secondary traders) in Amirabad, Lohagara, and
Chittagong. Secondary traders place their orders on various NTFPs to primary
traders who operate within Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary. For these orders, they
usually advance a lump sum to the primary traders. Next, on the basis of orders of
various items, primary traders involve local people of their regions for collection of
various NTFPs. Local villagers who actually collect the NTFPs get a minimum price
for their goods. Usually primary traders sell NTFPs to secondary traders with
minimum profits from the price given to village collectors. The secondary traders
sell the NTFPs at a price three to four times higher than that of primary traders.
Collection of NTFPs increases during the lean season, and the primary traders often
61
give advance payments during festival and crisis periods to collectors. Some
collectors reported that they have little knowledge about channels of NTFP
markets. However, some primary traders in Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary have tried
to sell their goods directly to exporters at Amirabad and Chittagong, but failed due
to the huge minimum cash requirements for transactions, delays in payments, and
reduction of market value of NTFPs by agents. Secondary traders, on the other
hand, typically do not face these problems as they are based in the cities and
already have well-established connections and agreements with the exporters.
People's Perceptions About NTFP Collection
In general, the people surveyed believed that NTFP collection will increase with
time in CWS if they are managed sustainably. This requires monitoring operations
and alternative income generating sources for villagers living in and around CWS.
Forest villagers believed that NTFPs provide an important source of income for
sustaining their daily needs. Villagers report that their agricultural yields are under
continuous threat from elephants, wild boars, monkeys and illegal fellers. Villagers
felt that NTFP collection has decreased in some areas of the Sanctuary, due to
dwindling resources in forests, and the resulting increased protection, and
reduction in demand from secondary traders.
Conclusion
NTFP use and cultivation under co-management practices have been implemented
in forests that were traditionally open to local communities as common pool
natural resources for their livelihoods. Changes in biophysical or socioeconomic
conditions have often been stated as the leading cause of forest management failure
(Chauvin 1976, Dawkins and Philip 1998).
Livelihood costs of households could be significantly higher if the forests were
guarded-either by the local community or by government foresters. Local
communities have a built-in capacity to control harvesting as well as effectively
monitor illegal felling through local arrangements, so overall livelihood costs will
be lower under community management for the same level of control. Moreover,
co-management approaches are particularly suitable for CWS because local
communities are dispersed throughout the sanctuary. These people practice
cultivation and depend on forests for their livelihood needs. An underlying
assumption is that communities will conserve and protect forest resources if they
receive tangible benefits from sustainable utilization of forests (RECOFTC, 1995).
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
62
Non-Timber Forest Products and Co-Management:
A Case Study of Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary
On the other hand, proper understanding of the levels of social relations in
community-based resource management has important welfare implications,
especially for the livelihood security of poorer households, as they should not be
made worse off from institutional changes in resource management. Though this
study could not compare the transaction costs of resource management under
different property regimes (state, co-management, community and private
management), further research on comparison of transaction costs associated with
different forms of property regimes may help to develop a more generalized theory
of transaction costs and their significance in managing the local commons. While
this assumption still needs to be tested, currently local people appear to have
limited rights to forests, despite the recognized importance of NTFPs for income
generation and food security (Lynch 1995). There is a pressing need to facilitate
specific interventions that enable forest resources to play a greater role in
livelihoods through improved local forest governance. Forests can only contribute
to poverty reduction when poor people have secure long-term rights to their
resources, coupled with the capability to defend them against more powerful
actors. The potential contribution of forests to poverty reduction is the subject of
some debate. Overcoming these barriers is crucial in achieving progress toward
sustainable forest management and making forest resources work optimally
toward alleviating poverty, leveraging local and national socioeconomic
development, and avoiding the long-term degradation of important forest-based
goods and services specially NTFPs.
References
Anon. 2000. Information for Agricultural Development in ACP Countries No. 89:
Singapore.
Anderson, A.B. 1990. Extraction and Forest Management by Rural Inhabitants in
the Amazon Estuary, in Anderson, A.B. (ed), Alternatives to Deforestation:
Steps Towards Sustainable Use of the Amazon Rain Forest. Columbia
University Press: New York.
Blay Jr., D. 1996. The Use and Management of Non-Timber Forest Products in
Ghana, in Shiva, M.P. and Mathur, R.B. (eds), Management of Minor Forest
Produce for Sustainability. Oxford and IBH, New Delhi.
Byron, R.N. and Ruiz-Pérez, M. 1996. What Future for the Tropical Moist Forests 25
Years Hence? Commonwealth Forestry Review 75(2):124-129.
Cambell, J.Y. 1995. Forest Management Planning for Multiple Objectives: NTFPs in
63
JFM, in Shiva, M.P. and Mathur, R.B. (eds), Management of Minor Forest Produce
for Sustainability. Oxford and IBH: New Delhi.
Chakravarthi, R. 1990. Tribal and Minor Forest Produce: Some Policy Issues.
Journal of Tropical Forestry 6(4).
Cocks, M.L. and Wiersum, K.F. 2003. The Significance of Plant Diversity to Rural
Households in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. Forests, Trees
and Livelihoods 13:39-58.
Cocksedge, W. (ed). 2006. Incorporating Non-Timber Forest Products into
Sustainable Forest Management: an Overview for Forest Managers. Royal
Roads University: Victoria, Canada.
Dawkins, H.C., and Philip, M.S. 1998. Tropical Moist Forest Silviculture and
Management: a History of Success and Failure. CAB International:
Wallingford, UK.
Falconer, J. 1990. The major Significance of "Minor" forest products: the local use
and value of forests in the West african humid forest zone. community
forestry note no. 6. fao, rome.
Godoy, R. and Bawa, K.S. 1993. The Economic Value and Sustainable Harvest of
Plants and Animals from the Tropical Rain Forest: Assumptions,
Hypothesis and Methods. Economic Botany 47:215-219.
Koziell, I. and Saunders, J. (eds). 2001. Living off Biodiversity: Exploring
Livelihoods and Biodiversity. IIED: London.
Lawes, M., Eeley, H., Shackleton, C.M. and Geach B.S. (eds). 2004. Indigenous
Forests and Woodlands in South Africa: Policy, People and Practice.
University of KwaZulu-Natal Press: Pietermaritzburg.
Lynch, O.J., 1995. Involving Local People in the Management and Harvesting on
Non-Wood Forest Products, in Durst, P.B. and Bishop, A. (eds.), Beyond
Timber: Social, Economic and Cultural Dimensions of Non-Wood Forest
Products in Asia and the Pacific. Proceedings of a Regional Expert
Consultation Held in Bangkok, 28 November to 2 December 1994.
FAO/RAP: Bangkok.
Malhotra, K.C., Deb, D., Dutta, M., Vasulu, T.S., Yadav, G., and Adhikari, M. 1993.
Role of Non-Timber Forest Produce in Village Economies in South West
Bengal, India. Rural Development Forestry Network, Indian Institute of
Bio-social Research and Development (IIBRAD): Calcutta, India.
Marshall, E., Schreckenberg, K. and Newton, A.C. (eds). 2006. Commercialization of
Non-Timber Forest Products: Factors Influencing Success. Lessons Learned
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
64
Non-Timber Forest Products and Co-Management:
A Case Study of Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary
from Mexico and Bolivia and Policy Implications for Decision-Makers. UNEP
World Conservation Monitoring Centre: Cambridge, UK.
Peters, C., Gentry, A. and Mendelssohn, R.O. 1989. Valuation of an Amazonian
Rain Forest. Nature 339:655-656.
Posey, D.A. 1999. Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity. UNEP: Nairobi,
Kenya.
RECOFTC. 1995. Market Systems Analysis: Non-Timber Tree and Forest Products.
Regional Community Forestry Training Center (RECOFTC): Bangkok.
Rijsoort, J.V. 2000. Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs): Their Role in Sustainable
Forest Management in the Tropics. National Reference Centre for Nature
Management (EC-LNV), International Agricultural Centre (IAC):
Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Shackleton, C. and Shackleton, S. 2004. The Importance of Non-Timber Forest
Products in Rural Livelihood Security and as Safety Nets: a Review of
Evidence from South Africa. South African Journal of Science 100: 658.
Shiva, M.P. 1995a. The Centre of Minor Forest Products' Role in Supporting NWFP
Development, in Durst, P.B. and Bishop, A. (eds.), Beyond Timber: Social,
Economic and Cultural Dimensions of Non-Wood Forest Products in Asia
and the Pacific. Proceedings of a Regional Expert Consultation Held in
Bangkok, 28 November to 2 December 1994. FAO/RAP: Bangkok.
Shiva, M.P. 1995b. Collection, Utilization and Marketing of Medicinal Plants from
Forests of India, in Durst, P.B. and Bishop, A. (eds.), Beyond Timber: Social,
Economic and Cultural Dimensions of Non-Wood Forest Products in Asia
and the Pacific. Proceedings of a Regional Expert Consultation Held in
Bangkok, 28 November to 2 December 1994. FAO/RAP: Bangkok.
Wickens, G.E. 1994. Sustainable Management for Non-Wood Forest Products in the
Tropics and Subtropics, in Readings in Sustainable Forest Management.
FAO Forestry Paper 122. FAO: Rome.
65
Collection and Management of
Selected Medicinal Plants in
Rema-Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary
Mohammad Zashim Uddin
Snigdha Roy
Department of Botany, University of Dhaka, Bangladesh
Abstract
This paper explores linkages between two selected medicinal plants, menda (Litsea
glutinosa) and bohera (Terminalia bellerica), and the livelihoods of local people living in
the vicinity of the Rema-Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary. We conducted four field trips to the
study area and collected data from collectors and middlemen between February and June
2006. We interviewed a total of 67 people using semi-structured questionnaires (local
people, members of local indigenous communities, and middlemen). We recorded their
collection techniques, plant parts used, collection rates, market prices, market demands,
monthly supplies, buyers, market chains, and management practices of medicinal plants.
Study results suggest that many people are involved in the illegal collection and sale of both
species. The demand for these species is high because of heavy use for both commercial and
subsistence purposes. We conclude that there is a positive link between these two medicinal
plants and local livelihoods. Therefore, co-management plans for Rema-Kalenga Wildlife
Sanctuary should be developed with the participation of local residents to incorporate the
cultivation and management of the target species. This would promote both improved
livelihoods for local people, and better conservation and management of the wildlife
sanctuary.
Introduction
Medicinal plants are gaining popularity in many areas of the world. Currently,
eighty percent of the world's population depends on herbal medicine for meeting
their primary health care demands (WHO, IUCN and WWF 1993). Scholars have
proposed various reasons for this popularity, including affordability, accessibility,
availability, expense, few side effects, simplicity, safety, and changing needs and
beliefs. Although modern medicine has played an important role in human health
66
Collection and Management of Selected Medicinal Plants in
Rema-Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary
care, including dramatic declines in mortality and increases in life expectancy, it
can have many drawbacks including high costs, adverse side effects and difficulties
with availability, especially for rural populations. On the other hand, herbal
medicines have entered the mainstream global economy. The annual worldwide
growth rate for herbal medicines in 1991-1992 was between 5 and 15 percent. In
2001, the world market for traditional medicines (including herbal products and
raw materials) reached US$ 43 billion, as reported by the Secretariat of the
Convention on Biological Diversity (UNEP 2001). Furthermore, traditional
medicines and complementary or alternative medicines are now playing
increasingly important roles in health care and health sector reform globally (UNEP
2001).
Active compounds from medicinal plants are used in most traditional medicines
and can play an important role in advancing sustainable rural livelihoods through
their conservation, cultivation, propagation, marketing and commercialization
(Laird et al. 2004). In Bangladesh, studies investigating the sustainability of the
commercial trade in medicinal plants are at an initial stage. To date, studies on
medicinal plants have mainly focused on listing medicinal plants, their uses,
chemical compositions, and modes of treatment (Khan and Huq 1975, Hassan and
Khan 1986, Mia and Huq 1988, Khan and Mia 1989, Khan 1991, Alam 1992, Hassan
and Huq 1993, Yusuf et al. 1994, Chowdhury et al. 1996, Alam et al. 1996, Hassan
and Khan 1996, Ghani 1998, Uddin et al. 2001, Khan et al. 2002, Uddin et al. 2004,
and Uddin et al. 2006). None of these studies have provided practical information
about the collection and management of medicinal plants in relation to local
livelihoods. In order to address this issue, this paper explores the linkages between
two medicinal species - menda (Litsea glutinosa) and bohera (Terminalia bellerica) and the livelihoods of local people in Rema-Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary,
Bangladesh.
Background
Rema-Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary (RKWS) is located approximately 130 km eastnortheast of Dhaka and 80 km south-southeast of Sylhet in Chunarughat Thana, a
sub-district of Habiganj District, Sylhet. The sanctuary is bounded by Tripura State
(India) to the south and east, and Kalenga Forest Range to the north and west.
Geographically, the area lies between 24°06'-24°14'N latitude and 91°34'-91°41'E
longitude (Fig. 1). The area falls under the Sylhet Hills zones (IUCN 2002), and the
administrative area is known as the Rema-Kalenga Forest Range. The sanctuary is
67
located in the Tarap Hill Reserve Forest, which was established under a declaration
of the Forest Act of 1927. In 1982, the government designated 1,095 hectares of the
Reserve Forest as the Rema-Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary. In 1996 the sanctuary area
was further expanded by 1,995 hectares via another declaration. RKWS is a habitat
and species management area as defined by Green (1990), and it is managed mainly
for conservation. Rema-Kalenga is remote and inaccessible to visitors, particularly
during the monsoon, due to lack of proper roads.
RKWS is part of the Tarap Hill system, which is a part of the southern hills of
greater Sylhet district. It extends approximately 48 km from east to west. The
sanctuary encompasses several hills of different elevations and low-lying valleys,
with the highest peak at about 67m above sea level (Rizvi 1970). A series of ridges
run in different directions, and valleys known locally as longa fill with water
during monsoon, but dry up during the winter season. The main channels include
the Karangi Chhara, Lokhmia Chhara and Rema Chhara, with tributaries crisscrossing the sanctuary and constituting the major drainage system in the area. All
three channels flow westward into the Khuai River.
Soils of the sanctuary vary from clay loam on level ground to sandy loam on hilly
ground. The clay and sandy loams are exceedingly fertile and show low pH. In
some cases, soil texture consists of yellowish-red sandy clay mixed with granules of
magniferous iron ore (Ahmad 1970). The area enjoys a moist tropical climate
characterized by a period of high rainfall from April to September, and five months
of a relatively dry period from November to March (Rizvi 1970).
The vegetation of the sanctuary is described as tropical evergreen and semi
evergreen forest (Sarker and Haq 1985, Mountfort and Poore 1968 and Uddin 2002)
dominated by chapalish (Artocarpus chaplasha), gorjon (Dipterocarpus turbinatus),
bonak (Schima wallichii), hargoja (Dillenia pentagyna) and kakra (Aporusa dioica), and
characterized by many giant climbers (Uddin 2002). The undergrowth is mostly
dominated by members of the Acanthaceae, Rubiaceae, Asteraceae, Poaceae,
Cyperaceae, Zingiberaceae and Araceae families. Many orchids, ferns, epiphytes
and parasites are also found in the forest. Uddin (2002) has inventoried 606 plant
species in the Sanctuary, among which 82 have been identified as medicinal plants
that play important roles in local livelihoods.
There are eight small indigenous groups (ethnicities) living inside and outside the
sanctuary: The Tripura (or Deb-Barma), Santal, Urang, Kharia, Kurmi, Goala,
Munda, and Bunargi. Among these, Tripura make up approximately 90% of the
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
68
Collection and Management of Selected Medicinal Plants in
Rema-Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary
Figure 1: Map Showing the Study Area (Source: Nishorgo Support Project, 2007)
total human population found in the Sanctuary. Their languages and cultural
traditions are unique, and they depend mostly on wild plants for their food and
primary health care. One important Tripura group resides in a valley named
Debrabari, located in the middle of the sanctuary. They cultivate vegetables and
fruit crops on the hill slopes.
Three blocks of plantations - sal (Shorea robusta), shegun (Tectona grandis, or teak)
69
and lohakat (Xylia kerii) are located along the western edge of the sanctuary. There
is a road on the western side that separates the sanctuary from the Kalenga Range
and extends southwards to the Rema Beat Office. A watchtower was constructed
near the Kalenga Beat Office by the Forest Department in 1995, to serve eco-tourists
who wish to observe wildlife in nature. An artificial lake and a fruit orchard were
also established near the tower to attract primates, jackals, wild boar, porcupine,
squirrel and deer.
Methodology
We selected two important medicinal plants to focus on for the present study on
the basis of their apparent significance to the study site:
Litsea glutinosa (Lour.) C.B. Rob. Bangla name: Menda. English name: Indian
laurel. Family: Lauraceae. General uses: Juice of the leaves and bark used in
treatment of diarrhea, dysentery and also jaundice. Energy tonic produced from
bark extract (Ghani 1998).
Terminalia bellerica (Roxb.) Bangla name: Bohera. English name: Belliric
myrobalon. Family: Combretaceae. General uses: The fruits possess antibacterial
properties. Employed in the treatment of edema, piles and diarrhea. Also used for
myopia, corneal opacity, pterygium, and immature cataracts; as well as various
chronic and acute infections. The fruits also possess myocardial repressive
properties (Ghani 1998).
We conducted a total of four field trips to Rema-Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary and
collected data using semi-structured questionnaires between February and June
2006. We were assisted by Forest Department personnel, local people, and some
Nishorgo Support Project staff members in the field. We attempted to collect data
at the main forest entry point (Kalenga Range Office), but after spending one day at
the gate without meeting any collectors, we learned that the Forest Department had
imposed a total ban on the collection of non-timber forest products (NTFPs),
including menda and bohera, since 2005.
Accordingly, we changed our data collection strategy. We learned from local
villagers that collectors use different paths to enter the forest illegally for collection.
We visited five such paths on the edge of the Sanctuary to locate plant collectors.
These paths were at Kalenga, Karangichhara, Chonbari, Debrabari and
Krishnachhara. We met collectors at the entry points to these paths and
interviewed them. We wanted to know their collection techniques, collection rates,
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
70
Collection and Management of Selected Medicinal Plants in
Rema-Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary
seasons, parts used, market prices, and perception about management techniques
for the two study species. We also collected demographic data on the collectors
including their age, main occupation, level of education and gender.
In addition, the collectors helped us to identify four markets where we could
interview middlemen: Chunarughat, Shaeshtagonj, South Daorgach and Mirashi.
However, we were only able to locate and interview middlemen at South
Daorgach. Accordingly, we collected data on the number of collectors that came to
each middleman per day, the amount of raw material purchased per day, the
purchase price, the selling price, monthly supply, market demand, the buyers, and
market chains. We also recorded the age, primary occupation, education and
gender of the middlemen.
We conducted four separate group discussions in the sanctuary area. One group
discussion was with Forest Department personnel, and the other three discussions
were with local people and collectors. We also conducted one group discussion
outside the sanctuary with the middlemen at South Daorgach village. During
group discussions, we focused mainly on the threats to medicinal plants and
considerations for co-management of these two medicinal plants in relation to
livelihoods. Finally, we tried to find links between medicinal plants and the
livelihoods of local people in Rema-Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary.
Results and Discussion
We interviewed a total of 67 people, 64 of whom were primary collectors in RemaKalenga Wildlife Sanctuary. The remaining three were middlemen working outside
the reserve. Ten of the 64 primary collectors provided demographic data but
refused to give us any data about their menda and bohera collection practices. The
average age of the collectors was 37 years. Most collectors had completed primary
education but some (5 collectors) were completely illiterate. Professionally, they
were mainly small farmers, day laborers and small traders. Income from these
professions is insufficient to support family expenditures year-round, so they
partially depend on the collection and sale of menda and bohera to supplement
their cash income. All collectors we interviewed were male; no female collectors
were interviewed because we did not encounter any female collectors during data
collection. Both indigenous communities (Tripura) and Bengalis were involved in
the collection and processing of menda and bohera. Table 1 summarizes the
demographic data we collected.
71
Table 1: Demographics of Local People Interviewed in Rema-Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary
Total people
interviewed
Mean
age
Education
Occupation
Ethnicity
Gender
Collectors
54
37
No education (5)
Primary (33)
Under SSC* (16)
Small farmer (49)
Day labor (3)
Small trader (2)
Deb-Barma (9)
Bengali (45)
All male
Middlemen
3
48
Under SSC* (2)
SSC* (1)
Small trader
Bengali (3)
All male
NOTE: SSC = Secondary School Certificate
The collectors are from villages near Rema-Kalenga including Chonbari, Laturgao,
Chanpara, Simailla Bosti, Huglia Tilapara, Huglia Tilagao, Nishindapur, Taltola
Shibir, Adarshagram, Dakhin Tila, Hatimaragram, Kalenga, Kalishiri, Bularjum,
South Daorgash, Amrul Bazar, Jamburachhara and Mongoliabari. In general,
collectors live one to four kilometers from the forest. Members of ethnic
communities who are involved in collection live both within and outside the
Wildlife Sanctuary; all are forest villagers who have agreements with the Forest
Department that allows them to live in and near the Sanctuary.
Collectors partially depend on the Sanctuary for their subsistence. In the interviews
they informed us that before 2005 they could enter the forest easily to collect menda
and bohera, with permission from the Range Office. This is because the Range
Office issued passes for medicinal plant and other NTFP collection on a daily or
monthly basis. According to the interviewees, the amount of menda and bohera
collected has decreased drastically over the last five years. In 2005, the Forest
Department imposed a total ban on all NTFP collection from the forest. Therefore,
current collection of medicinal plants (mainly menda and bohera) is carried out
illegally, without permission from the forest Range Office.
Collectors
We surveyed collectors in the Sanctuary, and the data are presented in the Table 2.
We found that an average of 3 people collect from the forest every day. Bohera
collection is seasonal, carried out mostly from September to November. During
the harvesting season, collectors harvest approximately 2 kg of menda and 10.5 kg
of bohera per person per day. Collectors recalled that five years ago they were
able to harvest 10 kg and 30 kg per person per day, respectively, from the same
forest. When asked to explain the differences between the two time periods, they
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
72
Collection and Management of Selected Medicinal Plants in
Rema-Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary
informed us that menda and bohera are now very rare and difficult to locate in the
forest, due to over-exploitation, high market demand and unsustainable collection
practices.
The average selling prices of menda bark and bohera fruits are Taka (Tk) 22 per kg
and Tk 4 per kg, respectively (Table 2). On average, local people, including both
ethnic Bengalis and indigenous people, earned Tk 44 per kg from menda bark
collection and Tk 42 per kg from bohera collection. This is five times less than the
amount they earned five years ago.
Table 2: Current and Previous Collection Rates and Market Price for Menda and Bohera
Average
number of
collectors
per day
Amount
collected
kg/person/day
Amount
collected
5 years ago
kg/person/day
Current
market price
Tk/kg
Average
daily income
Tk/person/day
Menda
3
2.0
10
22
44
Bohera
(Seasonal)
10.5
30
4
42
Collectors gather menda bark for the market and use the leaves for domestic
purposes. To collect menda bark, collectors girdle the trees, irrespective of size
and age, killing the trees. The extract from young leaves of menda can be used for
various ailments, so local people also collect leaves. Collectors gather menda bark
all year round, although there is some preference for the dry season as the forest is
hazardous during monsoon.
Collectors sell the mature fruit of bohera in the market. They collect ripe fruits
from the trees and sometimes they also collect fallen fruits off the ground.
Collecting the fruit may affect the regeneration potential. Sometimes collectors
also collect stems and branches of this tree for firewood. This may affect both fruit
production and regeneration.
Middlemen
We interviewed three middlemen (Table 3) in South Daorgach village, located
near Satchari National Park in Sylhet. This village is the focal point of the raw
medicinal plant parts business in the area. The middlemen purchase menda and
bohera, which originate not only in Rema-Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary, but also
from other sources including Satchari National Park, Lawachara National Park,
homestead gardens, and even from India. Collectors cannot bypass the
middlemen to sell their raw materials directly to consumers. We found that, on
73
average, three collectors sell menda to the middlemen each day. The middlemen
buy an average of 24 kg per day of menda and 27.5 kg per day of bohera.
Middlemen purchase menda and bohera at an average price of Tk 25 per kg and
Tk 4 per kg, respectively. They then sell the menda and bohera to owners of
factories that produce herbal medicines, mosquito coils and incense sticks at an
average price of Tk. 35 per kg and Tk. 10 per kg, respectively. Market demand for
both NTFPs in raw form is currently very high. The middlemen supplied an
average of only 0.725 ton per month to consumers (Table 3). Their monthly
income from menda is about Tk. 7,250. Local collectors cannot meet the high
demand for menda from protected areas, homestead gardens and neighboring
countries. While this kind of business in raw medicinal plants is illegal, to our
knowledge the government lacks policies for monitoring and prohibiting the sale
and purchase of these products.
Table 3: Rate of Exploitation of Menda and Bohera and Market Demands.
(Data Obtained from Middlemen)
NTFP
Species
Average number of
collectors per day
Menda
3
24.15
25
Bohera
Seasonal
(Mainly Sept.-Nov.)
27.5
4
Average
Purchase
Selling
amount
price
price per kg
per day (kg)
per
(middleman)
kg (Tk)
(Tk)
Current
market
demand
(tons)
Average
monthly
supply
(tons)
35
Very High
0.725
10
Very high
Seasonal
supply
Market Demand and Market Chain
Currently, the crude supply from the forests of both menda and bohera is very
low while the demand is high. The gap between supply and demand contributes
to illicit activities in the supply market. In order to increase the amount of
product, middlemen adulterate pure menda bark with sawdust. In this way they
cheat both buyers and end-consumers at the same time. To meet the high market
demand, the middlemen also purchase medicinal plants collected from other
protected areas as well as from India through various smuggling channels.
The main buyers of the medicinal parts of menda and bohera are the factory
owners of traditional medicines (e.g., Ayurveda, Unani) - namely Hamdard,
Shadhana Oushudhalaya, and Shakti Oushudhalaya - and factory owners of
mosquito coils and incense sticks - including Lalmai Chemical, Mortein, Eagle,
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
74
Collection and Management of Selected Medicinal Plants in
Rema-Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary
Elephant King, ACI Pharmaceuticals, and Globe. These factories are located
mainly in Dhaka, Chittagong, and Comilla. Local people collect raw menda and
bohera parts from the forest and transport the material to middlemen on foot, or
occasionally using horses. The middlemen also purchase these materials from
other sources and store them at their homes. The middlemen also have crushing
machines to grind the materials prior to bagging. It is at this stage that sawdust is
often added to the powdered plant material. Finally, they sell these materials to
owners of traditional medicines and mosquito coil factories.
Local Perceptions of Management
We discussed management practices of menda and bohera with local people,
collectors and middlemen. Most people informed us that they had no
understanding before about management policies. They have no opportunity to
manage medicinal plants in the protected area, since it is patrolled by the Forest
Department. They would like menda and bohera to be managed in a sustainable
manner in the Rema-Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary. They recognize the high market
value and demand for these two species. Local collectors indicated that they have
never planted any saplings or seeds of either species. Most respondents, however,
had positive attitudes toward co-management systems with equitable benefit
sharing practices, and expressed a desire to work with the Forest Department. A
few collectors stated that they had started to collect the seeds of menda or bohera
from the forest and plant them in their home gardens. Collectors do not gather
seedlings of these medicinal plants because the seedling survival rate is very low.
Both species are very rare in the forest now.
Threats to Menda and Bohera
We conducted five focus group discussions with NTFP collectors, foresters, and
middlemen. We focused mainly on threats to medicinal plants and comanagement aspects of the two selected medicinal plants. Respondents pointed
out a number of threats to menda and bohera in the forest: Middlemen suggested
that the increasing demand for these species in the local market is one of the major
threats. Currently herbal medicine has a growing market in Bangladesh, with
many factories already established in different parts of the country. These
factories need raw plant parts to manufacture herbal medicine. In addition,
menda bark is used not only in herbal medicines but also in the manufacture of
mosquito coils and incense sticks. Owners of these factories import a major
portion of their raw materials from abroad and, according to the middlemen, only
75
a small portion of the factory demand for menda and bohera is met from local
forests. Nevertheless, this demand is enough for local people to harvest these
plants from the forest and to note that the resource is being severely depleted. As
a result, menda and bohera are vulnerable to disappearing in the forest.
Although the Forest Department does not allow the harvest of menda and bohera
from RKWS, collectors continue to remove these plants illegally. In group
discussions, forest personnel informed us that The Forest Act of 1927 was
designed for the management of forests and forest products including medicinal
plants, but illegal collection of plants is difficult to stop for various reasons. These
include pressure from influential people and lack of personal security for foresters
wishing to enforce the law, as well as poor socioeconomic conditions and the lack
of alternate livelihoods opportunities for local populations. These conditions
encourage people to exploit menda and bohera. They also encourage middlemen
to establish purchasing centers near forest areas. Whenever we visited middlemen
they were uneasy about giving any information about medicinal plants, as they
are wary of people trying to collect information, especially foresters.
Many participants in the focus group discussion suggested that population
pressure and poverty are both threats to medicinal plants in the forest. According
to these people, human population density threatens resources in the Wildlife
Sanctuary. They also suggest that, because the number of people living below the
poverty line is so high, many people cannot cover their daily expenses from
agriculture, day labor or trade. For this reason, the poor seek alternate sources of
income by going to the forest and collecting medicinal plants to sell for extra
money.
The above-mentioned factors all represent major threats to the long-term viability
of menda and bohera. Focus group discussions further revealed that a number of
smaller threats also affect medicinal plants, including fire, timber-oriented
forestry practices, failure to utilize local knowledge, and bureaucratic processes.
Although fires sometimes occur naturally, manmade fires are a common
phenomenon in the dry season, when huge amounts of leaf litter gather on the
forest floor. Farmers sometimes intentionally start fires to clear out the
underbrush for logging, and to facilitate loggers' free movement in the forest.
Sometimes farmers intentionally start fires to promote sprouting of Imperata
cylindrica (sun grass) in particular areas. These fires burn seeds, seedlings,
propagules and bark, and interfere with regeneration dynamics of the NTFPs.
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
76
Collection and Management of Selected Medicinal Plants in
Rema-Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary
According to local foresters, timber-based forest management is another threat to
medicinal plants. The Forest Department manages its forests for valuable timber
species and other plants are treated as weeds in the forest. When managing forests
for timber, foresters eradicate all such "weed" species annually. Because neither
menda nor bohera produces timber, they are not managed under the current
official forestry practices.
Both foresters and forest villagers claimed that a lack of awareness of local
knowledge in the forestry planning process also threatens medicinal plants. Local
villagers and field-based foresters have knowledge of specific habitats, ecology,
keystone species, medicinal plants and other NTFPs. Government officials
responsible for the formulation of forest management plans often fail to
incorporate the local knowledge of these people in their plans. Top-down
hierarchical bureaucracies, such as the Forest Department, lack mechanisms for
incorporating local knowledge in planning and implementation efforts to protect
locally important plants. This makes it more difficult for these plants to survive in
nature reserves managed in this way.
At this point, menda and bohera are open-access resources. Whoever wishes to
collect these plants can do so easily, if they can find any. Nobody manages these
species in the forest, and the Forest Department treats these plants as "D-class
timber" trees, having low timber value. The effective management of these two
important medicinal trees will require the Forest Department to reformulate its
policy so that the co-management approach currently being implemented also
specifically addresses the conservation of these plants.
Co-Management: An Alternative Approach
The co-management approach for natural resource management is recognized in
many areas of the world (Ostrom 1990, Bromley 1992, Narayan 1995, Connor et al.
1996, Mahanty 1999, UNDP 1999, Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2000, Keen and Lal
2002). In our group discussion, most participants agreed that co-management of
menda and bohera could reduce current threats and pressures on these plants.
When properly implemented, co-management creates opportunities for local
people to meet their basic needs without eroding protected areas. In this case,
both the Forest Department and local NGOs can play vital roles by involving
stakeholders, (resource users, forest villagers and ethnic communities) in sharing
the responsibility of protecting these NTFPs. A Co-Management Committee can
be formed that would engage local people in decision-making processes affecting
77
their living environments and their well-being. The Forest Department can give
collectors technical support for capacity building, NGOs can train collectors on the
proper management of medicinal plants, and donors can provide collectors with
microcredit schemes to establish medicinal plant nurseries. Buffer-zone
plantations of medicinal plant saplings can also be established, and sustainable
harvesting methods for mature plants can then be developed for these sites. Crude
medicinal plant material can be sold in the local market under the supervision of
the Forest Department. Finally, benefits from the sale of these products can be
distributed equitably among local shareholders (collectors) and the Forest
Department by the Co-Management Committee. The Nishorgo Support Project
(NSP) has already begun activities including group formation with local people
and programs to support motivation, capacity building micro-credit, nursery
establishment, and awareness building.
Recommendations
To reduce threats to menda and bohera, we propose the following
recommendations for the management of these medicinal plants in RKWS:
1. Menda and bohera cultivation and collection should be incorporated into
protected area planning policy. The Forest Department should incorporate
enrichment plantations of these species in the forest in their management plans.
These two species are in high demand in the local market for various purposes.
Like timber, menda and bohera can contribute a substantial amount of cash to the
local economy. Every year, international manufacturers of herbal medicine import
large amounts of raw menda and bohera from India. This fact shows the potential
for earning a significant amount from the sale of these NTFPs on the global market.
2. Management plans should be based on local knowledge. Field foresters should
be able to contribute their knowledge to the formulation of protected-area
management plans. This kind of local knowledge helps to identify dominant plants,
timber plants, medicinal plants, firewood species, and NTFPs, as well as
identifying stakeholders, resource users, sources of livelihood, and conflicts
between collectors and the Forest Department. Such planning will promote the
sustainable use of menda and bohera in the forest, among other species.
3. Efforts should be made to document local knowledge about medicinal plants.
Local people pass knowledge about plants and their habitats from one generation
to the next. Currently, these people are losing their knowledge due to the influence
of the modern culture that surrounds them. Many young people are not willing to
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
78
Collection and Management of Selected Medicinal Plants in
Rema-Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary
learn about traditional plant knowledge, since they are trying to migrate to urban
areas for education and jobs. Thus local knowledge is rapidly being eroded.
Surveys on local knowledge on medicinal and culturally important plants are
essential. Proper recording and documentation of this knowledge can help to
manage menda and bohera in the forest.
4. Collection of medicinal plants from the forests should be regulated. Wise
management requires that collectors seek permission for harvesting plant products
in the wild from appropriate authorities. Regulators may check harvesting
techniques, availability, and public interest in medicinal plants. Under current
conditions, Forest Department personnel have little control over the collection of
menda and bohera. A certain section of the local people benefit from these plants,
by running illegal medicinal plant businesses under the noses of the administrators.
As a result, high-value plants like menda and bohera are being degraded through
unsustainable harvesting.
5. Cultivate and propagate menda and bohera. These species should be
propagated and cultivated to meet the growing demand for herbal medicines.
Cultivation is better than collecting raw materials from the forest, since there is
little material remaining there at present. In this case, local people can be trained in
the propagation and cultivation of these plants. The Forest Department should
offer land and micro-credit loans to local people as incentives to cultivate these
species. Those who already own land should also be given incentives to cultivate
menda and bohera in their fields and homestead gardens.
Conclusions
In this study we have sought to describe links between medicinal plants and the
livelihoods of local people in Rema-Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary. We found a
positive link between the two target medicinal plants and the livelihoods of local
people. They earn a small amount of cash income from collecting and marketing
menda and bohera from the forests, which subsidizes their daily expenditure. Local
collectors are not totally dependent on medicinal plant collection. They collect other
NTFPs including firewood, bamboo, cane, yams, aroids, orchids, ginger, honey,
wild fruits and vegetables, thatching materials, climbers, leaves, and wildlife. Thus,
although they are typically classified as small farmers or day laborers or small
traders, they are engaged in diverse (and sometimes unsanctioned) livelihood
strategies. They live in villages near the forest and supplement their subsistence by
collecting products such as menda and bohera without permission from the Forest
79
Department. They sell these products to local middlemen to earn extra cash for
their livelihood. The middlemen, in turn, depend on the medicinal plant trade for
their own livelihood. They purchase medicinal plants from primary collectors who
collect from protected areas and supply at least 50 different species of medicinal
plant to various factory owners.
In summary, menda and bohera are two of the most important medicinal plants in
the Rema-Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary. These species are used not only in herbal
medicines but also for other purposes. Current market demand is high for both
species. Our results suggest that local people, members of indigenous (ethnic)
communities, and middlemen are involved in the illegal collection and sale of these
species. In this way the poor earn cash income to supplement their subsistence.
Group discussions suggested linkages between medicinal plants and local
livelihoods. We conclude from this study that a positive link exists between the
management, use and threats to selected medicinal plants (menda and bohera) and
the livelihoods of local people in Rema-Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary. Consequently,
the management and harvesting of these plants should be incorporated into
protected-area management policy.
References
Ahmad, N. 1970. Working Plan for the Forests of the Sylhet Division for the Period
1963-64 to 1982-83. Working Plan Division 2, Chittagong, E.P., East Pakistan
Government Press: Dhaka.
Alam, M.K. 1992. Medical Ethnobotany of the Marma Tribe of Bangladesh.
Economic Botany 46(3): 330-330.
Alam, M.K., Chowdhury, J. and Hassan, M.A. 1996. Some Folk Formularies from
Bangladesh. Journal of Life Sciences 8(1): 49-63.
Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Farvar, M.T., Nguinguiri, J.C. and Ndangang, V.A. 2000.
Co-management of Natural Resources: Organizing, Negotiating and
Learning-by-Doing. The World Conservation Union (IUCN): Gland,
Switzerland.
Bromley, D. (ed). 1992. The Commons, Property and Common Property Regimes.
in Making the Commons Work: Theory, Practice, and Policy. Institute of
Contemporary Studies, San Francisco.
Chowdhury, J. Alam, M.K. and Hassan, M.A. 1996. Some Folk Formularies against
Dysentery and Diarrhea in Bangladesh. Journal of Economic and
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
80
Collection and Management of Selected Medicinal Plants in
Rema-Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary
Taxonomic Botany, Additional Series 12. Scientific Publishers: Jodhpur, India: 2023.
Connor, R., Houlbrook, R. and Tarihao, F. 1996. Local Conservation Area
Ownership and Traditional Management, in Wallace, H. (ed), Developing
Alternatives: Community Development Strategies and Environmental
Issues in the Pacific, Victoria University, Melbourne.
Ghani, A. 1998. Medicinal Plants of Bangladesh: Chemical Constituents and Uses.
Asiatic Society of Bangladesh: Dhaka: 460.
IUCN, 1990. IUCN Directory of South Asian Protected Areas. The World
Conservation Union (IUCN), Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: 2430.
Hassan, M.A. and Khan, M.S. 1986. Ethnobotanical Record of Bangladesh - 1: Plants
Used for Healing Fractured Bones. Journal of the Asiatic Society of
Bangladesh (Science) 12(1&2): 33-39.
Hassan, M.A. and Khan, M.A. 1996. Ethnobotanical Record of Bangladesh - 2:
Plants Used for Healing Cuts and Wounds. Bangladesh Journal of Plant
Taxonomy, 3(2): 49-52.
Hassan, M.A. and Huq, A.M. 1993. Amader Bonoushudi Shampad. Hassan Book
House: Dhaka, Bangladesh.
IUCN. 2002. Bioecological Zones of Bangladesh. IUCN-Bangladesh: Dhaka.
Keen, M. and Lal, P. 2002. Creating Supportive Frameworks for Community Based
Resource Management. Development Bulletin 58: 46-51.
Khan, M.S. 1991. National Conservation Strategy of Bangladesh - Towards
Sustainable Development: Genetic Resources in Bangladesh. Bangladesh
Agricultural Research Council, IUCN: Dhaka: 162-172.
Khan, M.S. and Huq, A.M. 1975. Medicinal Plants of Bangladesh: A Preliminary
List Giving Action and Uses. Bangladesh National Herbarium, Bangladesh
Agriculture Research Council: Dhaka.
Khan, M.S. and Mia, M.M.K. 1989. Bangladesh Plants Known to be Effective in
Diarrhea Diseases. ICDDR, Bangladesh: Dhaka. In press.
Khan, M.S., Hassan, M.A. and Uddin, M.Z. 2002. Ethnobotanical Survey in RemaKalenga Wildlife Sanctuary (Habiganj). Bangladesh Journal of Plant
Taxonomy 9(1): 51-60.
Laird, S.A, Lisinge, E.E., Nkuikeu, R. and Lindsey, D. 2004. Promoting Sustainable
Livelihoods Through Commercialization of NTFPs: the Case of Cameroon
Medicinal Plants in Trade. WWF: Yaounde, Cameroon.
81
Mahanty, S. 1999. Stakeholder Organizations in the Biodiversity Conservation
Network. Unpublished Paper Prepared for the Biodiversity Conservation
Network, Washington DC.
Mia M.M.K. and Huq, A.M. 1988. A Preliminary Ethnobotanical Survey in the
Jointipur, Tamabil and Jafflong area, Sylhet. Bangladesh National
Herbarium Bulletin 3: 1-10.
Mountfort, G. and Poor, D. 1968. Report on the Second World Wildlife Fund
Expedition to Pakistan. Unpublished report.
Narayan, D. 1995. Designing Community Based Development. Environmental
Department, The World Bank: Washington DC.
Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions of
Collective Action. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Rizvi, S.N.H. 1970. East Pakistan District Gazetteers for Sylhet. Government of East
Pakistan Services and General Administration Department, Dhaka: 5-6.
Sarker, S.U. and Haq, A.K.M.F. 1985. Country Report on National Parks, Wildlife
Sanctuaries and Game Reserves of Bangladesh. Prepared for the 25th
Working-Session of IUCN's Commission on National Parks and Protected
Areas. Corbett National Park, India, 4-8 February 1985.
Uddin, M.Z., Khan, M.S. and Hassan, M.A. 2001. Ethnomedical Plants Records of
Kalenga Forest Range (Habiganj), Bangladesh for Malaria, Jaundice,
Diarrhea and Dysentery. Bangladesh Journal of Plant Taxonomy, 8(1): 101104.
Uddin, S.N., Uddin, M.Z., Hassan, M.A. and Rahman, M.M. 2004. Preliminary
Ethno-Medical Plant Survey in Khagrachari District, Bangladesh.
Bangladesh Journal of Plant Taxonomy 11(2): 39-48.
Uddin, M.Z., Hassan, M.A. and Sultana, M. 2006. Ethnobotanical Survey of
Medicinal Plants in Phulbari Upazila of Dinazpur District, Bangladesh.
Bangladesh Journal of Plant Taxonomy 13(1): 63-68.
Uddin, M.Z. 2002. Exploration, Documentation and Germplasm Collection of Plant
Genetic Resources of Rema-Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary (Habiganj) in
Bangladesh. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Dhaka.
UNEP. 2001. Convention on Biological Diversity (text and annexes). United Nations
Environment Programme, Report UNEP/CBD/94/1.
UNDP. 1999. Pacific Human Development Report 1999: Creating Opportunities.
United Nations Development Programme: Suva.
WHO, IUCN and WWF. 1993. Guidelines on the Conservation of Medicinal Plants.
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
82
Collection and Management of Selected Medicinal Plants in
Rema-Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary
World Conservation Union (IUCN): Gland, Switzerland.
Yusuf, M., Chowdhury, J.U., Wahab, M.A. and Begum, J. 1994. Medicinal Plants of
Bangladesh. Bangladesh Council of Scientific and Industrial Research:
Dhaka, Bangladesh.
83
Local Perceptions of
Natural Resource Conservation in
Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary
Muhammad Ala Uddin
Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Chittagong, Bangladesh
Abu Shadat Ahmed Foisal
M.Phil student, Department of Anthropology, University of Chittagong, Chittagong, Bangladesh.
Abstract
Resource managers and academics are increasingly aware of the importance of recognizing
local perceptions, knowledge and participation in defining management strategies and
actions for the conservation of natural resources. Despite the close historical symbiotic
relationship between humans and forests, Forest Department officials planning for and
managing Bangladesh's Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary have failed to solicit local
participation. Consequently, because of their ignorance of the relationships between local
people and their environment, Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary officials have severely impacted
the livelihoods of both local peoples as well as wild animals. Today local people remain
interested in playing an active role in protecting the environment so that wild animals can
make a come-back. This study examines local peoples' perceptions and attitudes toward the
wildlife sanctuary and conceptualizes their understanding of livelihood needs, deforestation,
and resource degradation. Using anthropological research methods, such as in-depth
interviews and group interviews, we investigated local peoples' perceptions toward the
Wildlife Sanctuary. We found that, despite the interest local people have in the program,
they have been ignored in the process of establishing the Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary.
Having no other income generating sources, people are very dependent on forest resources.
Furthermore, Forest Department staff members are not well-equipped to prevent illicit
felling, and some are even involved in destructive practices. Emphasizing the views of the
local people, we argue that, joint management is needed to make the endeavor a success. An
awareness of the political economy of the wildlife sanctuary should help us better
understand local perceptions of resource degradation and how best to solicit local
participation in the sustainable management of the sanctuary.
84
Local Perceptions of Natural Resource Conservation
in Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary
Introduction
Local perception refers to local peoples' attitudes and understandings that reflect
their habitual way of life, as well as their shared expectations. All societies possess
a substantial body of beliefs, knowledge and practices built around their everyday
life experiences and their surrounding environment. This local knowledge is
handed down from one generation to the next, but individual men and women in
each generation adapt and add to this body of knowledge in a constant adjustment
to changing socioeconomic circumstances and environmental conditions. People
who live in or near forests have a deep understanding of natural resource
management (Michael 1996, Sekhar 2003). The ecological importance of such local
knowledge has been widely acknowledged (Kumar 2002, Logan 2002). It has made
significant contributions to the maintenance of many of the earth's most fragile
ecosystems, through habitual, sustainable resource use practices and culture-based
respect for nature.
From time immemorial, traditional communities have maintained a close and
unique connection with the land and environment they live in (Anderson 1993,
Ahamed 2004, Michael 1996, Choudhury 2003). This research suggests that local
people have established distinct systems of knowledge, innovation and practices
relating to the uses and management of natural resources in order to maintain the
biological diversity of their environment in terms of animal diversity. Local
knowledge and peoples' participation is fundamental for sustainable natural
resource conservation. Therefore, it is now a major challenge of our time that we
pay proper attention to protection of the rights of local peoples and their
knowledge about the environment, while also outlining a scientific conservation
policy for maintaining biological diversity.
In recent years, collaborative approaches commonly known as "co-management"
have become a significant strategy in many conservation and development related
programs worldwide (Davis 1998). In this framework, both government program
officials and local people play important roles in successful development
initiatives. Many experts have recognized that peoples' participation is key to
ecologically sustainable development and wildlife conservation (Grimwood 1969,
Choudhury 2003). Bangladesh has already lost many wildlife species during the
last few years. Consequently, it is imperative that local resource users provide
knowledge of traditional practices in designing or implementing innovative natural
resource management approaches.
85
The present research documents the beliefs and perceptions concerning wildlife
management among communities that have long been resident in forests. These
people have developed their own culture, history, way of life, and identities
grounded in the natural resources they have traditionally used. They have
developed patterns of resource use and resource management that reflect their
intimate knowledge of the local geography and ecosystems, and that contribute to
the conservation of biodiversity. The purpose of this study is to document and
disseminate local knowledge, perceptions and traditions to inform policy making.
This study attempts to answer a few specific questions in order to understand the
dynamic relationships between local people's understanding and natural resource
management in Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary:
How do local people perceive the political economy of people's livelihoods in
the protected areas of Bangladesh?
How do local people perceive the political economy of deforestation and
degradation?
What is the range of local peoples' traditional understanding and knowledge
about wildlife conservation?
We investigated local perceptions in two villages in Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary in
order to examine the potential of local knowledge to inform sustainable natural
resource management plans and practices.
Background
A protected area is "an area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the
protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and naturally associated
cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective means" (IUCN
1994:3). The total amount of land under protected area status in Bangladesh is
about 243,677 ha, which accounts for 16% of the total area managed by the Forest
Department and almost 2% of the total area of Bangladesh. The protected areas of
Bangladesh include eight national parks, seven wildlife sanctuaries, one game
reserve, and five other conservation sites. The Bangladesh Wildlife (Preservation)
Order, 1974 Amendment defines a wildlife sanctuary as "an area closed to hunting,
shooting or trapping of wild animals and declared as such under Article 23 by the
government as undisturbed breeding ground primarily for the protection of
wildlife inclusive of all natural resources such as vegetation soil and water"
(paragraph (p) of Article 2).
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
86
Local Perceptions of Natural Resource Conservation
in Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary
The Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary was established in 1986 and is located at 21º40'
north longitude and 92º07' east longitude. The sanctuary is about 70 kilometers
south of Chittagong on the west side of the Chittagong-Cox's Bazaar highway. The
sanctuary area is comprised of four main geological formations: Pleistocene,
Pliocene, Mio-Pliocene and Miocene. The soils on the alluvial plains and valleys in
Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary are mainly silt loam to silt clay loam, moderately to
strongly structured, and with neutral to medium acidity in the subsoil. Locally,
sandy loams on ridges and silty clay in basins occupy small areas with high acidity
(Soil Survey 1971-73). The sanctuary area is generally hilly to mountainous with
shallow to deep gullies and gentle to steep slopes. The average elevation is 30 to 90
meters above sea level. The area is traversed by numerous creeks, which are clear
with gravelly or stony beds. They provide good drainage and supply clean water to
both wild animals and people, as well as for irrigation. The creeks also serve as
habitat to a good number of amphibians. The banks of the rivers and creeks and the
cultivated tracts are severely eroded, especially during the rainy season. Sheet
erosion and rill erosion are most prevalent (Mollah, Rahman and Rahman 2004).
Box 1 summarizes some geographical and socio-economic features of the sanctuary.
Figure 1 is a map of the sanctuary and Figure 2 shows the specific study areas.
Box 1: Geographical and demographic features of Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary
Forest Type: Tropical evergreen and semi-evergreen
Number of Villages: 15
Total population: 21,428 (Statistical Book 1991)
Male population: 11,062
Female population: 10,366
Number of household: 3,492
(Source: BBS, 1996)
The study was conducted at two village sites. The settlement of Villager Para of
Aziznagar Beat in Lohagarah is situated mostly inside the buffer zone of Chunati
Wildlife Sanctuary, although some households are situated outside the buffer zone.
The settlement of Jumm Para of Puichhari Beat in Banskhali is situated totally
inside the buffer zone. Both sites are developing towards the core zone of the
sanctuary. We selected these sites because they are representative of protected
areas in Bangladesh in terms of wild animals; and because they show distinctively
different trends in terms of forest use, forest dependency and wildlife management.
These samples may not be representative of all protected areas in Bangladesh, but
87
they may represent the Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary. The people of both sites
migrated there from nearby areas and established settlements at these sites in 1953.
Most people in the study areas were settled there by the official arrangements of
the Forest Department and both they and their villages are officially called
"villager".
Methodology
Due to time, spatial and other constraints, it was impossible to cover all of the
fifteen villages surrounding the sanctuary. First, we selected five prospective
villages for the study from among the fifteen villages identified through our
physical visit and Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA). Consequently, we purposively
selected two villages from them to understand basic issues related to natural
resource management. To get a general picture of the selected villages we prepared
two community profiles emphasizing several key topics: natural resources,
livelihoods, community structures, institutions, and community history. We
collected primary data and consulted secondary sources. We used anthropological
research tools such as in-depth interviews, focus group discussions (FGD), and key
informant techniques. A semi-structured questionnaire comprised of questions on
socio-economic and ethno-ecological variables was also conducted to elicit both
qualitative and quantitative data from local people. To gather information on local
peoples' perceptions and practices towards wildlife management, we used informal
conversations, and brief interviews with people from the selected sample, keeping
in mind the following four key issues: awareness, knowledge, attitudes and
practices. To determine the impact of the sanctuary on wildlife, we talked with
local people concerning the status of animal resources in the forest (before and after
the creation of the sanctuary). Topics for the semi-structured interviews are listed
in Appendix 1; the process we followed in organizing the community profile is
listed in Appendix 2.
Between February and July 2006, we collected data on attributes of the local
people's connections with the forest, trends of changes in forest conditions, and
local peoples' perceptions of changes in forest conditions during the last few years.
We collected information to characterize institutional arrangements through
community profiles, interviews, group discussions, and field observation. Our
research focused principally on qualitative techniques to understand the people's
livelihoods, forest dependency and status of wildlife in the sanctuary. We also used
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
88
Local Perceptions of Natural Resource Conservation
in Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary
qualitative techniques to analyze historical use and the level of past forest
degradation, user perceptions of changes in forest conditions, ranking of forest
destruction, and the foresters' appraisal of forest conditions. Local institutions
governing the forests, particularly those relating to the maintenance, monitoring
and harvest of products were evaluated qualitatively on the basis of the existence
of rules, effectiveness of enforcement, and level of compliance.
There are 350 households in the two study areas: 215 in Villager Para, and 135 in
Jumm Para (Table 1). We used a purposive sampling procedure to select sample
households based on local demographic statistics. We chose senior members of the
community to be our main source of information. We first made a list of
individuals (generally head of the household) ranging in age from 60 to 70 years
old and then randomly chose a 10% sample from this group, including both men
and women. We also sampled a few household heads (0.6 %) below 60 years of age
to get some sense of how they differed from older people.
We conducted 13 in-depth interviews from Villager Para and 12 from Jumm Para,
and selected one key informant from each of the two study sites. Key informants
were local residents with sufficient knowledge of forest conservation and wildlife
management who were also interested in the project. We conducted brief
interviews on the socio-economic issues with 100 households (50 from each beat
office area) (Table 2). From this survey we conceptualized their social and economic
status, occupation, and forest dependency.
Table 1: Population of the Study Areas
Study Area
Beat Office
Households
Population
Villager Para
Aziznagar
215
1200
650/550
153
Jumm Para
Puichhari
135
800
425/375
116
89
Age over 60
Gender
(male/female)
Figure 1: Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary (Source: Nishorgo Support Project 2007)
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
90
Local Perceptions of Natural Resource Conservation
in Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary
Figure 2 : Study Areas of the Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary
(Source: Nishorgo Support Project 2007)
91
Table 2: Sample Populations and Interviews Conducted
Study Area
In-depth Interview
Villager Para
Jumm Para
Focus Group
Discussion
Key
Informants
Brief
Interviews
Total
13 (8 male, 5 female)
02
01
50
66
12 (9 male, 3 female)
02
01
50
65
Results and Discussion
Efforts to document and perpetuate local knowledge are of immense importance,
especially where natural resources are declining, as in Bangladesh. In this section
we examine local people's traditional lifestyle and their perceptions related to the
forest, forest resources and wildlife. We then discuss the forest dependency of both
humans and wild animals. We also consider the status of wild animals in the forest
and examine local peoples' views on the causes behind the animals' disappearance,
as well as their suggestions for the protection and reintroduction of animals. Finally
we discuss the rationale for including local communities, and their attitudes and
understanding towards wildlife, in the development of management plans for
Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary.
Political economy of people's livelihoods
In the early 1950s, 70 families from nearby Aziznagar and Puichhari Beat Office
were officially invited by the Forest Department to resettle in the area presently
occupied by Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary. The Forest Department had insufficient
guards to protect the deep forest and therefore wanted a few people to live there to
help them protect the forest and to assist Forest Department officers in their daily
jobs. Due to poverty and unemployment, people came in order to meet their
subsistence needs from the forest and its land. The Forest Department provided
settlers with nearly 1 hectare of land per household for agricultural activities to
facilitate permanent residence and gain assistance to forest officials in policing and
patrolling. Households are defined here as units whose members cook and take
food from the same pot. Here land refers to forest land that is converted to
agricultural land.
Settlers coexisted with wild animals and their families grew rapidly. Presently most
of the respondents of the study do not depend on forest for their livelihoods as they
did until about 10 years ago. From information obtained from local informants in
Villager Para (Fig. 3) we see that a decade ago at least 40% of people were
dependent on the land they had received from the Forest Department as well as
forest resources; 50% were dependent only on forest resources (they did not receive
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
92
Local Perceptions of Natural Resource Conservation
in Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary
any land from the Forest Department-other than their house plot). As the human
population grew, the forest gradually lost its resources. Today because of the
growing population and its needs, people can no longer rely only on the forests,
and are forced to engage in outside activities to earn cash incomes. Today the
livelihoods of most people in Villager Para are based on agroforestry because the
forest can not fully meet their livelihood requirements. "This apparently dead
wasteland cannot provide animals with food, how could it provide us with our
demands?" a local resident told us (personal communication, March 2006).
In Jumm Para, approximately 55% of the population was dependent on forest
resources a decade ago (Figure 3). Jumm Para is comparatively isolated and people
have no other sources of income other than the forest. Poor access to transportation
adds to the sense of isolation and limits the ability to seek jobs elsewhere. That is
why forest dependency in Jumm Para is considerably higher today than in the welllocated Villager Para. Figure 3 shows the dependency of villagers in the villages 10
years ago and today. Table 3 summarizes livelihood data we collected from
Villager Para and Jumm Para.
Figure 3: Forest Dependency of Households in Villager Para and Jumm Para
People of Chunati cannot think of an existence without the forest. They survive
because of the existence of the forests, which provides food, fuel, fodder, medicine,
shelter and housing materials, along with other products, to a variety of people.
Bamboo, fuelwood and sungrass are possibly the most important forest resources
for the local people and are used for both house construction and agriculture. Next
to bamboo, sungrass is the most important material for house construction. Most
people meet their livelihoods from the forest on a daily basis. Non-timber forest
products (NTFPs) are extremely important as food supplements in the form of
93
edible fruits, roots, tubers, leaves, etc. Edible wild fruits, seeds and leaves regularly
provide food during the lean season and during emergency periods. They depend
to a large extent on wild resources of plants and animal origin for many purposes.
Since modern medical facilities are not available locally, many people in Chunati including local patients, herbalists, and other interested people - collect and use
medicinal plants from the nearby forest. Agricultural laborers and others that
cannot find work collect products such as firewood, poles, and bamboo from the
forest for the markets. Although most use of forest products is at a subsistence
level, there are good opportunities to rapidly accelerate into commercialization
with a closer integration with the market in future years. Forest degradation caused
by factors such as unauthorized cutting and indiscriminate felling is known to have
resulted in a decrease in the number of wildlife species found in Chunati.
Table 3: Well-Being Analysis of Villager Para and Jumm Para
(Based on Group Interviews and Brief Discussions)
Village
Rich
Middle class
Poor
Villager Para (215 Households, Total Population = 1200)
5 HH (3%)
30 HH (14%)
180 HH (83%)
Agricultural
Land
2 - 4 hectares
0.2 - 0.5 hectares
None
Number of
Cattle
5-8
2-6
None
Opportunity to seek alternative
income sources due to
nearby highway.
Jumm Para (135 Households, Total Population = 800)
5 HH (3%)
5 HH (3%)
115 HH (85%)
Agricultural
Land
1.5 - 3 hectares
0.50 - 1.5 hectares
None
Number of
Cattle
5 - 10
2-5
None
Cannot move easily to seek
alternative income sources
due to lack of transportation.
Villager Para and Jumm Para
Income source
Business
Small business
None
Political
influence
Control local power,
relationship of patronclient with Beat officer
Patron-client relationship
with the rich
None
Allotment of
forest land
Priority
Diminutive
None
Involvement in
Social Forestry
Program
Priority
Diminutive
None
Timber business
Yes
None
None
Lean Period &
Migration
None
2 months
(temporary migration rate low)
5 to 6 months
(high temporary migration)
Depended on
forests for:
Timber business and
fuelwood for brickfield.
Subsistence, domestic needs and
fuel wood to supply brickfield.
Own livelihood.
Labor
------------
Share cropping
Sell their labor for agriculture,
brickfield, etc.
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
94
Local Perceptions of Natural Resource Conservation
in Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary
Political economy of deforestation and degradation
From the beginning of settlement in the Chunati area (1953), the villagers realized
the value of forest resources. They lived in the forest without destroying any trees;
collecting fuelwood for their own use and to sell in the nearby markets, or to the
owners of brickfields. Informants told us that in the past (and even today) they
could collect for their subsistence needs without using choppers and spades. The
villagers were satisfied with their life. But pressure of outsiders, including the
Forest Department staff and other people, hinder the pleasant life of the forest
dwellers and the wild animals of the forest. Beginning in the 1980s, outside people
began to harm wild animals in two ways: they destroyed the trees and plants (the
animals' source of food); and they hunted animals like deer, snakes, and other
species. Local people claimed that they previously lived in a harmonious
relationship with the wild animals that was free of conflict. They expressed a
satisfaction with such a relationship that valued the environment and
acknowledged the need to limit its exploitation especially for personal profit. This
changed with increasing external market influence and the gradual expansion of
agricultural lands into the forests. Habitat degradation and forest fragmentation
contributed to increased conflict by cutting off migratory routes and decreasing the
availability of food and shelter for wildlife. There was a sense of regret for changed
circumstances. Specifically locals are concerned that "animals have no place to hide
if people drive them away" (Villager, personal communication, May 2006). They
also acknowledged the absolute sense of dependence of wild animals on the
forested habitat for shelter and foraging, and admitted that increased exploitation
of forests interfered with this dependence. Appendix 3 summarizes plant and
animal species occurring in Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary before 1986 and today.
Unlike humans, animals are absolutely dependent on the forest for their
livelihoods. They cannot seek 'outside employment' or plant crops. They depend on
the forest for their food, shelter, and foraging. Local people described the
dependency of major animals in the forest as reported in Box 2. From these
descriptions of animals' food and location it is easily understandable that wild
animals are extremely dependent on forests for their survival.
95
Box 2: Short Picture of Animals and Their Life
Elephant (Hati)
Food: Elephants spend about 12-15 hours a day eating. Elephants are
vegetarians. They eat grass, shrubs, leaves, roots, bark, branches, fruit, and
water plants. They especially like to eat bamboo, berries, coconuts, corn, dates,
and sugar cane. To find food elephants must roam large areas.
Habitat: Forest and where adequate quantities of food and water are available.
Lifespan: Elephants can live 50 to 60 years.
Monkey (Banor)
Food: Generally monkeys eat fruits, leaves, flowers, insects, eggs, and small
reptiles.
Habitat: Most monkeys live in forest areas.
Lifespan: Monkeys can live up to 45 years.
Deer (Horin)
Food: Deer eat grass, leaves, bark, twigs, shoots, wild fruits and other plants.
They also eat moss and lichens including mushrooms and other types of fungi.
Habitat: They prefer wooded and forested areas and hillsides near cultivated
areas. In Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary almost all species of deer were available.
Over time, all are declining including the sambar, the special wildlife of this
sanctuary, which are the main victims of hunting.
Economic hardship and environmental changes have created added pressure on
the remaining common resources leading to a vicious cycle of poverty and
environmental degradation. Where wood or fuel wood is scarce, impoverished
local people have been known to uproot stumps and roots, further disrupting the
soil and accelerating soil erosion. Unemployed local rural people are particularly
dependent upon forest resources. They occupy remote locations, with virtually no
education, health care facilities or alternative income opportunities. Even though
the forests have now become degraded, with few resources, local people lacking
any other job opportunities may still fell the remaining trees. They may also have
indirect involvement in illicit felling. Thus, the creation of alternative employment
opportunities may evade a crisis by generating much needed income.
With regard to the felling of trees, respondents suggested that the major
perpetrators were illegal loggers followed by Forest Department officials. Figure 4
demonstrates how local people perceive the role of various actors in forest
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
96
Local Perceptions of Natural Resource Conservation
in Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary
degradation and thereby its negative impact on wildlife habitat.
Illegal Loggers 40%
Forest
Department
Staff
20%
General
People
10%
Political
Leaders
18%
Local
Elite
12%
Figure 4: Villagers' Perceptions of Who is Responsible for Forest Degradation
General people: Local people of the study area are directly responsible for some
forest destruction. Due to poverty and lack of other income sources, they depend
on forests to meet their subsistence needs. Usually they go to the forest to collect
bushes, undergrowth, etc, but sometimes they are also involved in illicit felling.
Local elite: Local elites also extract forest resources. Sometime they buy trees for
their own purposes from the Forest Department, but they usually fell much more
than they buy. Forest officers are reluctant to prevent or report such crimes.
Political leaders: Local political leaders are often involved in illegal felling. They cut
trees to use at home and to market to nearby sawmills and brickfields. Local
leaders who have good connections with central politicians can clear the forest,
because local forest officers are loyal to the central administration and will not
disturb these leaders.
Forest Department staff: People suggest that some officials of the Forest Department
have direct and indirect involvement with illicit felling. Locals said that the Mia
Shab (Beat Officer) seems to be the owner of the forest; access to forests and forest
97
resources depends on his will.
Logging from unknown quarters: Illicit logging has a major impact on the status of the
forests. Armed groups from nearby areas like Banskhali enter the forest at night
and cut trees prodigiously. Local people and the Forest Department officials remain
passive. Local people say they do not have any weapons so they cannot prevent
them. The Forest Department guards actually indulge these intruders.
Conflict and Misunderstanding
According to our informants there is conflict and misunderstanding between local
people and officials of the Forest Department over the wildlife sanctuary. Local
people were not involved in planning for the sanctuary and hence did not
understand the plans at all. They thought that once the wildlife sanctuary was
created, people would have to leave their residences. Wild animals would be set
free for foraging. Some people of the Forest Department also thought that they
would lose the option to sell and use forest trees. As a result immediately before
and after the declaration of the wildlife sanctuary local people and some Forest
Department officials cleared the forest as much as possible. Local people said that
forest officers came to the villages near which trees were indiscriminately felled,
blamed local people for the logging, and filed cases against them without any
investigation. Sometimes they also imposed punitive fines on local residents.
The lack of consultation with local people has also led to inappropriate
administrative decisions. For instance, major portions of Banskhali, Jumm Para,
and Puichhari beats (under Jaldi Range Office) are administratively under Chakoria
Upazila of Cox's Bazar District, but some parts are under Banskhali Upazila of
Chittagong District. In this particular site, most people involved in activities under
the Nishorgo Support Project, such as the nursery, come from the plains of
Banskhali and are not accepted by the hill forest people of Chakoria. The hill people
want to be part of all programs that affect their lives and their resources. They
claimed that political influences play a role in depriving them of their rights. Local
people complain that there has been virtually no dialogue between wildlife
authorities and local people. Some local forest officer also state that all decisions
and activities are strongly dominated by the central Forest Department. As a result,
many officials do not appreciate the cultural and economic significance or
conservation values of traditional resource practices.
Nishorgo Support Project is working with the Forest Department to protect and
conserve the natural resources of the protected area.
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
98
Local Perceptions of Natural Resource Conservation
in Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary
Threats to the Wildlife Sanctuary
Local people of the study area identified the following threats to wildlife:
Water-body related threats: Local elite and political leaders control the main stream
that runs through the protected area. They have dammed the stream to preserve
water for their own needs and to sell water in the dry season for irrigation. As a
result the sub-streams of the protected area that surround the Chunati Wildlife
Sanctuary have become dry. Local people suggest that, because of this, Chunati
Wildlife Sanctuary has suffered changes in wildlife habitat. Local elite also control
the small marshes in the lowlands for fish. For want of drinking water animals
come down from the hills onto the plains and enter into conflict with local
households and their agricultural assets. Local people suggest that if the main
stream of the forest was not damned then the forest would have remained wet and
humid and animals could obtain water even in the dry season. On the other hand,
during the rainy season, the lowlands and plains around Chunati Wildlife
Sanctuary become flooded because of heavy rainfall, causing miserable conditions
for wild animals.
Settlement-related threats: As the human population is constantly increasing in
number, the limited forestland is unable to meet their needs for agricultural land
and other demands. To meet their demands, local people sometimes clear the
forests for their residents and agriculture. In addition, their settlements have
destroyed the animals' migratory routes and wild animals consequently appear less
frequently in the plains.
Miscellaneous threats: According to the local people, the development of roads and
highways in and beside the sanctuary has made life more difficult for wild animals,
by fragmenting intact habitat. Likewise increased human access into the forests has
increased human-wildlife conflict. Furthermore, indiscriminate collection of
medicinal plants, wood and bamboos; random hunting, shooting and trapping; and
natural calamities such as droughts, earthquakes and floods have also taken their
toll. Ultimately, the failure to implement the existing law, and the dishonesty and
indifference of the forest officials, repeatedly came up in the discussion. People
suggested that if these problems were not resolved then the efforts to protect the
natural resources of the forest as well as wildlife conservation would be in vain.
The lack of traditional management systems and the lack of people's genuine
involvement in the project were also seen in a negative light.
99
Indigenous Understanding of Wildlife Conservation
In Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary local people once traveled between places in groups
because they feared wild animals. This is no longer true today because wild
animals are scarce and never seen during the day. Local people use traditional tools
for collecting trees, fuelwood, bark and other NTFPs without the use of choppers or
axes. Local people cut trees during the dry months of January and February. This is
scientifically sound, because during the dry season tree growth is comparatively
slower than during the wet season. This means there is less starch content in the
wood making the wood less susceptible to insect attack. Locals know much about
how animals live in the forest-where they usually go for foraging, what foods they
eat, and under which trees they prefer to take rest. They also understand the
problems the animals face finding water in the dry season.
Local people claim they usually do not cut trees that are useful to wildlife. They
mainly collect bushes, underbrush, and dying trees. They argue that outsiders
cause deforestation by only looking at the economic value of forest resources. But
as good neighbors of the wild animals they want the animals to be alive. They also
asserted that they know which trees grow rapidly and which grow slowly. In case
of emergency they cut trees that bear little food for wild animals. Local people want
forest trees not commercial garden trees such as mangium, akashmoni, eucalyptus,
and melaloca that are not good for either the forest or wild animals. They
acknowledge that fast growing trees are useful, but they are not good for the longterm sustainability of the forest. Local people try to sustain an environment
friendly to both humans and wild animals by neither felling trees nor killing
animals. Furthermore, they usually do not clear-cut all trees because they realize
their environmental importance. However, outsiders with commercial interests in
the forest such as fishing boat owners, shop owners, and brickfield owners often
clear-cut trees to meet their economic needs.
Local Wildlife Folklore
Local people of the study area have beliefs and myths that create esteem for wild
animals and keep them from killing these animals. Local people usually do not go
into the forest on Friday and Saturday. Friday is a holy day and people want to
refrain from committing any sins such as tree cutting. Saturday is perceived as a
bad day. If people go to the forest on Saturday, it is believed that they might
encounter great troubles.
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
100
Local Perceptions of Natural Resource Conservation
in Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary
Local people also believe that, once upon a time, elephants and monkeys were
human. They became animals by the curse of a religious spiritualist (Hazrat Luhd).
They also believe that the oriole (locally called 'yellow bird') was once a woman.
Her father turned her into a bird to save her from her stepmother's evil motives.
The rufous treepie (locally called, Harichacha bird) was once a housewife. She
became a bird when her husband cursed her to satisfy his mother. Because most
local people believe that once most animals were human, they do not kill them or
even scold them. People believe that elephant can understand what they say. They
call elephants Mamu (maternal uncle). They also believe that elephants visit the
mazhars (shrine) once a year.
Villagers also believe that it is not possible for extinct animals to reappear, but if
proper measures are taken threatened animals can increase in numbers. Local
people made the following suggestions for enhancing wildlife populations:
Afforestation: Afforestation is the process of planting trees on land formerly
used for purposes other than forestry. Reforestation, on the other hand is the
restocking of existing woodlands that have been depleted. Local people say if
they are given power and authority to protect afforested sites and the right to a
share of the benefits they will be responsible for such ecosystem regeneration
efforts.
Alternative income generating sources: Because local people have no other
sources of income, they engage in indiscriminate extraction that causes
resource degradation by direct and indirect causes. Usually they collect
sungrass, bamboo and fuelwood from the forest. If they were provided with
alternative sources of generating income they would no longer be as
dependent on forest resources.
Transportation: Although some people think that modern transport may lead
to deforestation, the local people have different views. As most of the residents
are located in hilly areas, it is not easy to travel to town for purposes such as
education, medicine, or other activities. People feel that if transportation were
more developed, they would no longer be solely dependent on the forest.
Re-settlement of humans: Most protected areas are subject to high levels of
resource use by human populations. Space required by wild animals is
occupied by human settlements in the buffer zone and even core zones. Local
people and authorities must develop an understanding so that this urgent
101
problem can be solved.
Summarizing the local peoples' views we may mention the following steps to be
taken to save the forest from further degradation:
Plant various kind of local plants in the protected area instead of foreign species;
Ensure space for shelter and grazing for wild animals;
Protect water bodies and streams for both wild animals and plants;
Stop corruption of beat and range officers;
Ensure the punishment of illegal loggers;
Establish administrative controls over brickfield industries;
Create awareness among all peoples concerning wildlife; and
Encourage local people to talk to outside organizations.
Locals also emphasized the following measures:
Peoples' participation;
Political will and support;
Traditional knowledge;
Adequate scientific research capacities to support objectives;
Engagement of the scientific community;
Public education and awareness at all levels;
Economic incentive measures;
Benefit-sharing;
Knowledge and practice of ecosystem-based approaches to wildlife
management; and
Creation of appropriate institutional structures.
Local Participation and Sustainable Development
All people are aware of the importance of trees for the environment, but some are
more interested in the short-term economic advantages of marketing natural
resources than in long-term sustainability. As long as loggers are well equipped
with arms, local people and Forest Department officials cannot prevent them from
clearing forests. Timber smugglers often become violent if they try to stop them
from felling trees illegally. Some poor local people are also involved with such
heinous acts. If alternative income generating sources can be created for the
unemployed, they will no longer be dependent on logging. Education is also
important. If people are properly educated, they can find jobs to reduce their forest
dependency. Locals must be empowered with proper authority. Their participation
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
102
Local Perceptions of Natural Resource Conservation
in Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary
will make the program a success. Training programs and visiting successful
projects may also inspire them. Local people are aware that the Nishorgo Support
Project has initiated such programs. They also emphasized that strengthening the
implementation of existing laws would help stop resource degradation. The first
and last word of local people is this: if wild animals do not get any space to hide,
they will definitely disappear. To encourage wild animals to increase their
populations there is no alternative but to bring back forest resources.
Local people say that they were not informed about the sanctuary. Forest
Department staff members were also not informed. Local people also thought that
wild animals would be set free in the forest and that people would not be allowed
in the sanctuary, so they would have no place to live. But the actual situation is
different. People are living in the forest as they were before. Staff members from
the central Forest Department controlled and organized the planning and
implementation of the wildlife sanctuary on their own, ignoring local staff
members and local people. Forest Department officials thought they would lose the
chance to earn income by selling trees. Therefore, they tried to sell as many trees as
possible.
Although in the beginning most locals were against the wildlife sanctuary, after
understanding the goals of the sanctuary they now want to be a part of the
program. They want power, authority and a share of the benefits from this
program, so that they can take care of the forest, prevent illegal felling, and benefit
economically. Local peoples' knowledge and experience was not taken into account
during the process of planning. Now, to mitigate the gap between central Forest
Department officials and local people, local participation must be emphasized.
Without their active participation, the wildlife sanctuary cannot succeed.
Conclusions
Protected areas play a vital role in sustainable development through protection and
maintenance of biological diversity, as well as natural and associated cultural
resources. As such, protected areas cannot be viewed as islands of conservation
separated from the socio-economic and political context within which they are
located. It is critical to recognize the importance of people in conservation and to
ensure that local people are involved in management and planning activities. Local
people should be integrally involved in every stage of protected area establishment
and management through consultation. Therefore, local people, sanctuary officials,
103
and Forest Department staff members should work together to achieve the goals of
the project. In many countries, plans to protect natural resources have failed to
address the needs and knowledge of local forest-dependent communities.
In this paper, we have discussed key aspects of local people's attitudes and
understanding, and examined the potential of local participation for sustainable
natural resource management. We argue that sustainable conservation of natural
resources requires the participation of local people and the recognition of their
knowledge. Natural resource management is increasingly the subject of social and
political conflict between groups claming an interest in specific resources. Many
studies show that the optimal formula for sustainable natural resource
conservation is joint control and management by government, NGOs, and local
people (see Shiva 1998 and Adnan 1992). Therefore participatory conservation must
not only focus on mutual understanding between outsiders and local people, but
also on the political economy of different socio-economic groups within the local
context.
References
Ala Uddin, M. and Rahman, M.A. 2005. Dynamics of Illicit Felling in Government
Forest of Bangladesh: A Case Study of Sylhet Forest Division. The
Chittagong University Journal of Social Sciences 22.
Ahamed, F.U. 2004. Ethnicity and Environment: Tribal Culture and the State in
Bangladesh. Unpublished PhD thesis, University College London: UK.
Ahmed, Zahir. 2000. The Conceptualization of 'Indigenous Knowledge. Grassroots
Voice 3(3): 17-27.
Arcadis E. 1999. Sundarbans Biodiversity Conservation Project. Technical Proposal
to Asian Development Bank and Government of Bangladesh. Arnhem, The
Netherlands.
Adugna, G. 1996. The Dynamics of Knowledge Systems vs. Sustainable
Development: A Sequel to the Debate. Indigenous Knowledge and
Development Monitor 4(2).
Brandon, K., Redford, K.H. and Sanderson, S.E. (eds). 1998. Parks in Peril: People,
Politics and Protected Areas. Island Press, Washington DC.
Barber, C.V., Miller K.R. and Boness, M. (eds). 2004. Securing Protected Areas in the
Face of Global Change, Issues and Strategies. IUCN.
Brechin, S., Wilshusen, P. and Fortwangler, C. (eds). 2003. Contested Nature:
Promoting International Biodiversity with Social Justice in the Twenty-first
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
104
Local Perceptions of Natural Resource Conservation
in Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary
Century. State University of NY Press: Albany.
Butler, R.W. and Boyd, S.W. (eds). 2000. Tourism and National Parks: Issues and
Implications. John Wiley & Sons: New York.
Banik, R.L., Alam, M.K., Pei S.J. and Rastogi, A. (eds). 1998. Applied Ethnobotany.
Proceedings of the Subregional Training workshop on Applied
Ethnobotany (December, 1997). Bangladesh Forest Research Institute
(BFRI), Chittagong, Bangladesh.
Chambers, R. 1983. Rural Development: Putting the Last First. Longman: London.
Choudhury, A.F.H. 2000. Indigenous Knowledge Systems: A Development
Paradigm in Anthropology, in Of Popular Wisdom, N. Ahmed Khan (ed).
Bangladesh Resource Center for Indigenous Knowledge (BARCIK) and
Integrated Action Research and Development (IARD), Dhaka: 23-33.
Chatty, D. and Colchester, M. 2002. Conservation and Mobile Indigenous Peoples:
Displacement, Forced settlement and Sustainable Development. Berghahan
Books, New York.
Geertz, Clifford 1993. Local Knowledge. Fontana Press, New York.
Henkemans, A.B. 2001. Tranquilidad and Hardship in the Forest: Livelihoods and
Perceptions of Camba Forest Dwellers in the Northern Bolivian Amazon.
Phd thesis, Utrecht University.
Sillitoe, Paul 2000. Indigenous Knowledge Development in Bangladesh. The
University Press Ltd: Dhaka.
Husain, Z. 1974. An Introduction to the Wildlife of Bangladesh. Book Promotion
Press: Dhaka.
Ghimire, K.B. and Pimbert, M.P. (eds). 2000. Social Change and Conservation.
Earthscan Publications Ltd: London.
Kumar, S. 2002. Does Participation in Common Pool Resource Management Help
the Poor? A Social Cost-Benefit Analysis of Joint Forest Management in
Jharkhand, India. World Development 30 (5): 763-782.
Logan, B. I. and Moseley, W.G. 2002. The Political Ecology of Poverty Alleviation in
Zimbabwe's Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous
Resources (CAMPFIRE). Geoforum 33: 1-14.
Messer, N. and Townsley, P. 2003. Local Institutions and Livelihoods: Guidelines
for Analysis. FAO: Rome.
Mollah, A.R., Rahman, M.M. & Rahman, M.S. 2004. Site-Level Field Appraisal for
Protected Area Co-Management: Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary. International
Resources Group (IRG): Dhaka.
105
Pitt, D.C. 1976. Development From Below: Anthropologists and Development
Situations. Mouton Press: The Hague.
Roy, R.D., Mohsin, A., Guhathakurata, M., Tripura, P. and Gain, P. 2002. The
Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHTs): Life and Nature at Risk. Society for
Environment and Human Development: Dhaka.
Scherl, L., Wilson, A., Wild, R., Blockhus, J., Franks, P., McNeely, J.A. and McShane,
T.O. 2004. Can Protected Areas Contribute to Poverty Reduction?
Opportunities and Limitations. IUCN: Gland, Switzerland.
Saberwal, V., Mahesh R. and Kothari, A. 2000. People, Parks and Wildlife: Towards
Coexistence. Orient Longman: New Delhi.
Soil Survey 1971-73. Directorate of Soil Survey, Bangladesh.
Sekhar, N.U. 2003. Local Peoples Attitudes Towards Conservation and Wildlife
Tourism around Sariska Tiger Reserve, India. Journal of Environmental
Management 69: 339-347.
Stevens, S. (ed). 1997. Conservation Through Cultural Survival: Indigenous Peoples
and Protected Areas. Island Press: Washington DC.
Appendix 1: Topics Covered in Semi-Structured Interviews with Sampled
Individuals
1. Wildlife living in the sanctuary
2. Diet, shelter, and habitat ranges of animals
3. Human-animal bonding and associations
4. Reappeared animals and animal which already have disappeared
5. Causes behind the disappearing, reappearing, etc. of animals
6. Measures that should be taken to improve the situation
7. Use and protection of wildlife
8. Oral history, myths, and stories about the animals
9. Locals' occupations and livelihoods
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
106
Local Perceptions of Natural Resource Conservation
in Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary
Appendix 2: Process for Organizing Community Profiles
1.
Consult with the community leaders. Discuss purpose of the study.
2.
Discuss with key informants. Identify social and economic groups.
3.
Prepare a community map to establish a general picture of the
community and to identify and locate key resources, social and economic
groups, and institutions.
4.
Conduct a transect walk to validate information from community mapping;
observe resource use, social and economic groups, and institutions.
5.
Conduct semi-structured interviews; focus group interviews; key informant
interviews.
Appendix 3: Species Occurring in Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary Before 1986
and Today
Resources
Bangla
English
Name
Name
Latin (Scientific) Name
Available
Before Today
1986
Pipul
Fig
Ficus sp.
3
5
Garjan
Garjan
Dipterocarpus turbinatus
3
3
Jarul
Rose of India
Lagerstroemia speciosa
3
Shegun
Teak
Tectona grandis
3
3
Ashoth
Fig
Ficus religiosa
3
5
Ficus bengalensis
3
5
Bot gach
Shimul Tula
Silk cotton
Bombax ceiba
3
5
Tetul
Tamarind
Tamarindus indica
3
5
Jam
Indian black
berry
Syzygium
3
5
Gut-gutia
Bursera serrata Wall.
3
5
Timber &
Goda
Stereospermum personatum
3
5
Non-
Loha
Xylia dolabriformis Benth
3
5
Gamary
Gmelina arborea
3
5
Shill koroi
Albizia procera Benth
3
5
Chapalish
Artocarpus chapalasha
3
5
Arjun
Terminalia arjuna
3
5
Hartaki
Terminalia chebula
3
5
Kaw foll
Garcinia cowa
3
3
Phyllanthus embelica L.
3
5
Mangifera sylvatica
3
5
Lotkon
Bauccarea ramiflora
3
5
Botta
Artocarpus lacucha
3
5
Vadi
Lannea coromandelica
3
5
Bell
Aegle marmelos
3
5
Boilum
Anisoptera scaphula Roxb.
3
5
Bohera
Terminalia bellerica
3
5
Eleagnus
3
5
timber
Iron wood
Amloki
Pahari Aam
Jolpai
107
Wild mango
Indian olive
Timber &
Nontimber
Kodom
Anthocephalus cadamba
3
5
Harfata Gula
Strebelus asper
3
5
Bansh (pia,
muli, pati etc)
Bamboo
Bambusa spp
3
3
Bet
Cane
Calamus spp
3
5
Kola
Banana
Musa spp
3
5
Amomum spp
3
3
Imperata cylindrica
3
3
Tara
Mammals
Son/ghash
Sun grass
Nana prokar
oushodi gachhgachhra
Medicinal
creepers &
plants
Hati
Elephant
Elephus maximus
3
3
Banor
Monkey
Macaca mulattta
3
3
Shrigal
Fox
Vulpes bengalensis
3
3
Kat-birali
Squirrel
Calloscirus erythracus
3
5
Beji
Mongoose
Herpostis edwardic
3
3
Shojaru
Porcupine
Hystrix hodgsonii
3
3
Khorgosh
Hare/Rabbit
Caprimulgus hispidus
3
3
Sambar
Sambar deer
Cervus unicolor
3
5
Maya horin
Barking deer
Muntiacus muntjac
3
3
Bon biral
Jungle cat
Felis chaus
3
3
Udh biral
Otter,
Lutra lutra
3
3
Bonno shukor
Wild boar
Sus scrofa
3
3
Khatash
Small Indian
civet
Viverricula indica
3
5
Bag-dash
5
Viverra zivetha
3
3
Goyal
Gayal bison
Bos frontalis
3
5
Bon Goru
Gaur/Indian
bison
Bos gaurus
3
5
Honuman
Langur
Presbytis entellus
3
5
Ram Kukur
Wild dog
Cuon alpinus
3
5
3
3
3
Khud-khudh
Shukor
Kala Volluk
Birds
Black bear
Selenarcious thibetanus
3
5
Lozzaboti Banor Slow loris
Nycticebus coucang
3
5
Bonno Chagol
Serow
Capricornis sumatraensis
3
5
Pipilika-Vok
Ant-eater
3
3
Badur
Bat
Pteropus giganteus
3
3
Chita Bagh
Leopard
(before 1986)
Panthera pardus
3
5
Felis viverrina
3
Mecho Bag
Fishing cat
Bor-Bag
Tiger
(before 1970),
Panthera tigris
3
5
Hutum Pecha
Eagle Owl
Bubo bubo
3
5
Vutum Pecha
Brown Fish Owl
Bubo zeylonensis
3
5
Lokkhi Pecha
Barn Owl
Tyto alba
3
3
Tuta
Red-Breasted
Parakeet
Psittacula alexandari
3
5
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
3
108
Local Perceptions of Natural Resource Conservation
in Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary
Birds
Bon-Morogh
Jungle fowl
Gallus gallus
3
5
Dhonesh
Hornbill
Aceros nipalensis
3
5
3
5
Rishala
Shokun
Vulture
Gyps bengalensis
3
5
Chil
Kite
Milvus migrans
3
3
Eagle
Eagle
Aquila rapax
3
5
Hargila
Greater Adjutant
Leptoptilos dudius
3
5
Bok
Egret/Heron
Egretta alba
3
3
Mayna
Mynah
Gracula religiosa
3
3
Bhath-Shalik
Mynah
Acridotheres tristis
3
3
3
Jora Shalik
Jungle Mynah
Acridotheres fuscus
3
Tiya
Roseringed
Parakeet
Psittacula krameri
3
5
Tila Gugu
Spotted Dove
Streptopelia chinensis
3
3
Horial
Orange Breasted
Pigeon
Treronbicinccta
3
5
Jalali Kobutor
Blue Rock Pigeon Columba livia
3
5
3
Bulbuli
Bulbul
Pycnonotus cafer
3
Babui
Baya
Ploceus philippinus
3
3
Hari-Cha-Cha
Rufous Tree-pie
Dendrocitta vagabunda
3
3
Moyur
Peacock/
Common Pea
Fowl
Pavo cristatus
3
5
Manik Jor
White Necked
Stork
Ciconia episcopus
3
5
Tuntuni
Tailor Bird
Orthtomus sutorius
3
3
Kat-Tukra
Woodpecker
Picoides nanus
3
3
Modon-tek
Lesser Adjutant
Leptoptilos javincus
3
5
Kokil
Cuckoo
Cuculus fugax
3
5
Arborophila atrogularis
3
5
Alcedo atthis
3
5
3
3
3
5
Titir
Hill Partridge
Machh-ranga
Kingfisher
Holudh-pakhi
Oriole
Chitor
Reptiles
Kachhim
Terrapins
Morenia ecallata
3
5
Koschop
Turtles
Testudi elongata
3
3
Rokto-chosha
Girgiti
Calatesh versicolor
3
3
Totteng/Tothtok Gecko
Gekko gecko
3
3
Gui-Shap
Monitor lizard
Varanus bengalensis
3
5
Ajogor
Python
Python molurus
3
5
Gokhra
Cobra
Naja naja
3
5
Daraish/
Daraj-shap
Tar snake
Coluber mucosus
3
3
Dora Shap
Water snake
Amphiesma stolata
3
3
Vipera rusellii
3
5
Chondro bora
109
3
Linking Fuelwood Collection and
Community Livelihoods in
Satchari National Park
Rafiqa Sultana
Assistant Conservator of Forests, Nishorgo Support Project, Forest Department, Bangladesh.
Abstract
This study discusses linkages between fuelwood collection and community livelihoods in
Satchari National Park, Bangladesh, and suggests implications for park management. The
park, with a total area of 243 hectares, forms part of the Satchari Reserve Forest and is also
bordered by tea estates. One tribal community lives inside the park and 21 to 22 villages are
located outside the reserve forest within a radius of 5 to 8 km. In this study, carried out
between February and June, 2006, I found that fuelwood collection is carried out by three
distinct groups: villagers living inside the park, villagers living outside of the park, and tea
estate laborers. Fuelwood is the only available source of domestic energy available in
Satchari and approximately two tons of fuelwood are extracted from the park by these
communities daily. All collectors are fully dependent on fuelwood for their household
consumption. While tea estate laborers collect fuelwood only for their energy needs,
approximately 39% of households in the interior village and 100% of collectors from the
villages outside the park are dependent on fuelwood for earning cash income. Villagers
living in the park earn 62% of their total household income from fuelwood, whereas this
activity accounts for 100% of household income for villagers living outside the park.
Introduction
There is often a strong link between protected areas and the livelihoods of local
communities. Many rural populations living near to protected reserves depend on
them for land, and other environmental resources and services to meet their
livelihoods (Salafsky and Wollenberg 2000). However, this dependence often
contributes to a state of continuous conflict between local communities who carry
out subsistence extraction, and administrators trying to restrict the level of
110
Linking Fuelwood Collection and Community Livelihoods
in Satchari National Park
extraction. As such, subsistence extractors in protected areas often face greater
regulation, policing and fines (Nagothu 2001). A similar pattern of dependency by
local communities on natural resources and conflict between local communities
and government institutions exists in Bangladesh.
Bangladesh has a total of 17 protected areas (Officer in charge at Wildlife Circle,
FD, personal communication 2006), all of which are under tremendous pressure
from various sources, including people living within and around them. Most of
these people are fully dependent on the protected areas as a source of timber,
fuelwood, wildlife and other forest produces vital to their livelihoods. These
constant human pressures have caused major degradation and fragmentation of the
natural forest. The FAO (2000) reported that fuelwood is the main forest product in
Bangladesh, generating 61% of total round wood in Bangladesh. Similarly, the 1993
Forestry Master Plan of Bangladesh states that government-owned forest lands
provide 57% of the timber, fuelwood and bamboo in the country. Homesteads and
village woodlots cover only one-seventh the area of forests but produce 43% of
these commodities. In Bangladesh, wood is the main source of fuel, used by 44% of
households. Other fuels include straw (39% of households), gas (8% of households),
crop residues (4% of households), electricity (0.7% of households), and kerosene
(0.6% of households) (BBS 2004). Fuelwood utilization varies from region to region,
and is highest in Cox's Bazaar District (90% of households use fuelwood) followed
by Hobiganj District (60% of households). There are protected areas located in each
of these districts.
It is estimated that forest cover in Bangladesh has fallen by more then 50% since
1970 (Forest Department 2005). If this trend continues, a serious ecological tragedy
will occur, damaging the livelihoods of people in and around the forest who have
historically relied on them. To better protect and manage forest resources (natural
forests, protected areas, and plantations), and to accommodate the needs of local
people through participatory arrangements, Bangladesh adopted a new National
Forest Policy in October 1994. Among other objectives the National Forest Policy
emphasizes people-oriented programs to manage the environment, preserve
existing values, conserve plants and animals, and maximize benefits to local people
(FAO 2000).
Satchari National Park (SNP), located in Hobigonj District in northern Bangladesh,
and previously part of Satchari Reserve Forest (SRF), was recently declared a
protected area. Although by law no one is allowed to collect any materials,
111
especially timber or fuelwood, from national parks, all kinds of illegal activities
occur. Prior to the designation of Satchari as a national park, several studies were
conducted on Satchari Reserve Forest (SRF). In a survey of secondary data,
NACOM (2003) found that the fuelwood demands of local people living in Satchari
might be a key element responsible for degradation of the reserve forests. Since the
gazette notification of the park, it has now become important to re-assess the
present situation of fuelwood collection activities by the local communities from
the park. Also, as SNP is under a program by which the Forest Department seeks to
conserve biodiversity through the active involvement of local communities, it is
necessary to explore the role that fuelwood collection plays in the livelihoods of
local communities in this area.
Nishorgo Support Project (NSP), a project of the Forest Department funded by
USAID, has initiated co-management in protected areas with the participation of
local people. Satchari National Park is one of the five protected areas in which NSP
has begun its work. This study was conducted between February and June 2006
under the auspices of the Nishorgo Support Project, in order to explore linkages
between fuelwood collection and livelihoods of local communities living in and
around the park. The paper explores the driving factors behind fuelwood collection
by local communities. No studies currently provide data on the socio-economic
aspects of fuelwood extraction at the local level in Satchari National Park. There is
also an urgent need to identify and quantify the economic benefits that local people
derive from SNP. Nagothu (2001) stated that "empirical investigations of local
resource use and management strategies can often provide more valid information
and data, when compared to the superficial reports that guide the mainstream
views on deforestation". Another aim of this paper is to better inform policymaking by increasing understanding of livelihoods issues in the management of
Satchari National Park.
Background
Satchari National Park is situated in Paikpara Union, Chunarughat Upazila,
Habigonj District, Sylhet Division. It is part of Raghunandan Hill Reserved Forest,
and falls under the jurisdiction of Satchari Forest Beat, Satchari Forest Range,
Sylhet Forest Division. Satchari means 'seven streams', referring to streams that
flow through the forest and form important catchments areas. The semi-evergreen
forests of Satchari form part of a transition zone between the Indian subcontinent
and the Indo-China ecological region (Sharma 2006).
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
112
Linking Fuelwood Collection and Community Livelihoods
in Satchari National Park
The park is located between longitude 91º25' to 91º30', latitude 24º5' to 24º10'. The
climate is generally warm and humid, but is cool and pleasant during the winter.
Average daily temperatures vary from 27º C in February to 36º C in June. Average
daily humidity varies from 74% in March to 89% in July. The average annual
rainfall is approximately 4,000 mm, with maximum rainfall between June and
September from the southwest monsoon. The forest area is undulating with slopes
and hillocks, locally called tila, ranging from 10-15 m. The forest type is mixed
evergreen, with several species of timber, bamboo, grasses, fruit and fodder
species. There is also a high diversity of animal species, particularly avifauna,
relative to the size of the site (Sharma 2006). Bamboo, sungrass, murta or maranta
(Clinogyne sp., used for weaving mats) and sand are among the major NTFPs
collected from this forest (IUCN 2004). Wildlife diversity in the Satchari Forest
consists of 197 species, out of which 149 species are birds, 24 species are mammals,
18 species are reptiles and 6 species are amphibians (Feeroz 2003). NACOM (2003)
noted a higher number of bird species, listing 189. Due to its rich diversity of
avifaunal species, Satchari is also known as a birdwatching paradise (Thompson,
P.M. and D.L. Johnson 2003).
The park is a part of the Raghunandan Hill Reserved Forest, which was reserved in
1914 with an area of 6,205 hectares as per the Forest Act of 1878 and Assam Forest
Manual of 1898. Before reservation, many trees were cleared through the practice of
jhum (shifting cultivation), after which secondary forest regenerated from the
cleared fields. At that time the main objective of the Forest Department was
production forestry, and almost the entire area of natural semi-evergreen forest
was converted to plantations of long-rotation species like teak, mahogany, garjan
(Dipterocarpus turbinatus), sal (Shorea robusta), chapalish (Artocarpus chapalasha), and
jaam (Syzygium jambolanum); and short rotation species like Dalbergia sissoo, Acacia
mangium, and eucalyptus. In the 1980s, some areas were also converted to oil palm
plantations. The Raghunandan Hill Reserved Forest consists of two administrative
ranges, namely the Raghunandan Range and the Satchari Range. The Satchari
Range covers an area of 1,760 hectares. In 2005, approximately 243 of these hectares
(600 acres) were declared as Satchari National Park. The vegetation in the park
comprises a patch of 120 hectares of natural forest, a short rotation plantation of
eucalyptus and acacia, and an oil palm plantation (Chowdhury 2004).
The Satchari Range portion of the reserve forest is surrounded by a number of tea
estates, villages, towns and cultivated fields (Fig. 1). Nine tea estates are located
close to the Satchari Range portion of the reserve forest, three of which surround
113
the Satchari National Park. Two tea estates (Satchari Tea Gardens and Chaklapunji
Tea Gardens) form the western and eastern boundaries of the park. The reserve
forest surrounds the park on its northern and southern sides. On the north side, an
old highway demarcates the park from the reserve forest area. A single forest
village, Tiprapara, is located inside the park. Surrounding settlements are located
between three and eight km away from the Satchari Range portion of the reserve
(five to eight km from the national park). People from 21 to 22 surrounding
villages, and the tea estate laborers, depend on the forest resources from both the
reserve forest and the park for fuelwood, poles for construction, and non-timber
forest products (NACOM 2003).
Tiprapara, the only village inside Satchari National Park, is inhabited by 23
households who are migrants or descendents of migrants from the Tripura
community who came to the area in the 1950s from the neighboring country of
India. The Forest Department of East Pakistan established Tiprapara as a forest
village to provide laborers for planting, managing, and protecting forest
plantations after the natural forests were cleared. These tribal people used to
practice jhum in the forests but this was banned in the early 1980s.
Figure 1: Map of Satchari National Park and Surroundings
(Source: Nishorgo Support Project, 2007)
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
114
Linking Fuelwood Collection and Community Livelihoods
in Satchari National Park
Methods
A methodology consisting of both field observations and interviews was important
for studying the linkages between the protected area and livelihoods of local
communities. After a pilot survey in Satchari National Park in January, 2006, I
collected detailed data between February and June of 2006. I began by organizing
four focus group discussions in Tiprapara, at the Nishorgo Support Project's office
at Satchari and at local markets in the villages of Teliapara and Madhobpur. Then,
based on these discussions, I selected eight key informants as people with high
levels of knowledge and involvement with the community, and I later interviewed
them separately. Through the key informant interviews I was able to investigate the
historical background of the area, to understand its present situation and the local
community in general, and to gather basic facts about fuelwood collection. The key
informants included formal leaders, local elites, and local officials.
Before starting household surveys in Tiprapara, I prepared a community map of
the village through group discussions with villagers, in order to identify the
settlement patterns of the village. Detailed investigations were then carried out at
the household level to gain an understanding of villagers' socio-economic status,
family size, occupation, education, income sources, and dependency on fuelwood. I
also collected notes on the socioeconomic conditions of the villagers, amounts and
uses of fuelwood collected, and the role of gender in fuelwood collection. I defined
a household as a unit whose members cook and eat from the same pot.
In addition, I carried out entry point surveys to get an estimate of the amount of
fuelwood collected by people living in communities outside the park and by tea
garden laborers. Because it was not possible to conduct household surveys in all 22
villages surrounding the reserve at this time, I decided that a traditional entry point
survey would be more efficient. A few studies have used a technique called
'footpath survey' to estimate the amount of fuelwood collected from a forest by
observing the amount of fuelwood carried along forest paths by headloads, bicycle
loads, or cart loads (Appasamy 1993; Ganesan 1993). Shankar et al. (1996) stated
that footpath surveys could be applied to small areas where the boundaries of a
forest are well defined and entry paths are limited and accurately known. Such is
the case in Satchari National Park. Entry points are few and well known due to the
park's small size.
To select the entry points to be used, I conducted an initial assessment by walking
along most of the boundary of the park. There are at least six traditional entry
115
points used by those entering the park on foot (Figure 2). Five of these points are on
the main road on the northern boundary, and the sixth point is located on the west
side adjacent to Satchari Tea Garden. There are two points on the main road located
in front of the Forest Department offices which are not used by local fuelwood
collectors, so I selected three of the other entry points instead. These are preferred
by the fuelwood collectors due to the proximity of the road and ease of transport. I
also selected the fourth entry point, despite its comparatively greater distance from
the main road (1.7 km), in order to observe the involvement of tea laborers in
fuelwood collection. People carrying headloads of firewood were easily observable
coming out of forests from these roadside points.
At each entry point, I made observations and interviewed fuelwood collectors
entering and leaving the national park. I gathered information on the number of
headloads or bundles collected, the gender and ages of collectors, occupation and
uses of fuelwood by interviewing collectors at each point in the morning (9 a.m. to
11 a.m.) and observed each point in the evening (4 p.m. to 6 p.m.).
Finally, based on the discussion with key informants and fuelwood collectors, I
selected two markets in the Satchari area, namely Teliapara and Madhobpur, to
estimate fuelwood flows, including the weight and price of each head load. I held
discussions with two trader groups at each of the two markets. To estimate the
weight of wood in the headloads, I weighed differently sized bundles in the
market, using the weighing scale from a fuelwood trader's shop.
Constraints on my methods included language barriers with the local tribal
peoples, their reluctance to be interviewed, and my uncertainty as to the reliability
of some informants. Another possible source of error is that the number of
headloads or bundles stocked inside the park beyond the entry points could not be
ascertained. In addition, the amount of fuelwood collected from Satchari National
Park could not be distinguished from the amount collected from the reserve forest,
as there is no physical demarcation between the park and the reserve forest.
However, since the part of the reserved forest that borders on the national park is a
teak monoculture with no undergrowth other than shrubs, as well as being farther
away, it is less likely to be a fuelwood collection area.
Data Analysis and Results
I followed a comparatively simple procedure and used demographic data to
analyze: a) the socio-economic condition of fuelwood collectors; b) the amount of
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
116
Linking Fuelwood Collection and Community Livelihoods
in Satchari National Park
fuelwood collected and patterns of collection; and c) the contribution of fuelwood
to the livelihoods of villagers.
Figure 2: Location of Survey Points and Study in Satchari National Park
(Source: Nishorgo Support Project, 2006)
117
Socioeconomic Condition of Fuelwood Collectors
Tiprapara is located on a tila, or small hillock, with houses located near the top of
the tila and fruit orchards near the bottom. Each villager owns a small portion of
the land surrounding the settlement; this is used to plant small patches of lemon,
banana, jackfruit and other fruit trees. There are a total of 23 households and 115
people (36 males, 36 females, and 43 children under the age of 15) in Tiprapara.
There is one tube well for the entire village. Family sizes range from two to nine
members. Eighty percent of the children attend primary, secondary or high
school; the village has one non-government primary school. Out of 23 households,
92% are kacha (made of bamboo), 4% are paka (made of brick) and 4% are half-paka
(brick walled, with either a tin or bamboo roof). Twenty-two households are maleheaded and one household is female-headed. Approximately 87% of households
raise their own animals, such as cows, goats and chickens. Only 13% of
households have furniture other than a bed, table, chair or stool. Villagers have no
local medical facilities. The primary income generating activities include lemon
cultivation, fuelwood collection, day labor, business, government service and
forest patrolling with Forest Department field staff. Eight households depend on
lemon cultivation, five on day labor, four on fuelwood collection, three on forest
patrolling, two on business, and the remaining household depends on
government service for their primary occupation (Figure 3). All households have
secondary sources of income. The average daily income overall is Taka (Tk) 100
(about $1.40 USD), and the income range is from Tk 50 (about $0.70 USD) to Tk
300 (about $4.20 USD). Of the 23 households, nine households earn Tk 50 to Tk 75
per day, eleven households earn between Tk 85 to Tk 125 per day, two households
earn Tk 150 to Tk 200 per day, and only one household earns Tk 200 to Tk 300 per
day.
To estimate the socioeconomic conditions of fuelwood collectors from outside
villages and tea garden laborers, I interviewed 20 fuelwood collectors using a
short semi-structured questionnaire on issues related to fuelwood collection and
demographics. I found that all households are primarily dependent on fuelwood
collection, supplemented by a secondary source of income from day labor. Their
daily earnings averaged Tk 70 (about $1 USD) and ranged between Tk 30 and Tk
100.
Estimates of Amounts and Patterns of Fuelwood Collection
Most collectors are adults, both male and female. Children's involvement in
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
118
Linking Fuelwood Collection and Community Livelihoods
in Satchari National Park
fuelwood collection is negligible. In Tiprapara females make up 55% of the
collectors, males 33% and children only 12%. Other than collecting fuelwood,
females have no alternative source of work that can increase domestic income.
Children are engaged in school activities. Fuelwood collectors from the
surrounding villages are 75% male, 20% female and only 5% children. One reason
for the higher percentage of male collectors may be the distance from the park,
since women may not be able to leave their household responsibilities to travel
greater distances. In the case of tea-garden laborers, all collectors are female.
These women come to collect tea leaves from the part of the garden closest to the
park, and gather fuelwood from the park at the same time.
Figure 3: Primary Occupation of Households at Tiprapara Village
I followed two techniques to estimate the amount of fuelwood collected daily
from Satchari National Park. In the household survey in Tiprapara, I gathered
information on the number of bundles of fuelwood collected per day by each
household. The women in Tiprapara collect fuelwood by using a conical bamboo
basket called a khara, while men collect wood in bundles called boza. Men may
carry two bozas on their shoulders using a bamboo stick, which is called a bhar.
The kharas collected by Tripura women could not be weighed as they are for
domestic use and not sold in the market; however I estimated their weight
visually to be between 10 and 20 kg. The bozas and bhars collected and sold by
119
Tripura men are sold in the local market, so I was able to weigh them there using
the scales at the traders' shops.
In Tiprapara, 50 people (46%) from the 21 households surveyed are involved in
fuelwood collection. The same 50 people do not go to the forest all at one time, but
31 people from Tiprapara collect fuelwood from the forest each day on average.
Furthermore each person collects, on average, 27.1 kg of fuelwood per day, or a
total of 840 kg per day for the whole village. The average weight of each bundle is
35 kg. Tiprapara as a whole takes an average of 24 bundles of fuelwood per day
from SNP (Table 1). Each household's average collection is 40 kg per day.
Each household spends an average of four hours each day collecting fuelwood.
Collectors go to the forest once or twice a day, about three days a week. I found
that collection times are typically in the morning (9 a.m. to 12 p.m.), afternoon (1
p.m. to 3 p.m.) or evening (4 p.m. to 6 p.m.). On average, ten males (32% of total
collectors), seventeen females (56% of total collectors) and four children (12% of
total collectors) collect fuelwood each day. The ages of collectors range from 30 to
75 years for males, from 18 to 60 years for females, and from 10 to 15 years for
children.
Table 1. Information on Fuelwood Collected by Tiprapara Villagers and Households
Primary
Occupation of
the Collectors
Total No.
Average No.
Average No.
Average No. of
of
of Households
of Persons
Fuelwood
Households
Collecting
Collecting
Bundles
Fuelwood
Fuelwood Daily Collected Daily
Average
Mass of
Fuelwood
Collected
Daily
(kilograms)
Lemon cultivation
8
7
9
6
210
Day labor
5
5
6
5
175
Fuelwood collection
4
4
8
8
280
Forest patrolling
3
3
4
3
105
Business
2
1
2
1
35
Government service
1
1
2
1
35
TOTAL
23
21
31
24
840
In the entry point survey, I estimated the number of headloads or bundles leaving
from each of four selected entry points daily. Collectors were either local villagers,
members of communities located outside the park, or people from the
surrounding tea estates. I found that males collected fuelwood using headloads or
pairs of bundles (bhar), while females collect wood using headloads or bundles
(boza). All of the collectors used medium to large-sized machetes or sickles
(locally called da) to cut down the fuelwood. Most people collect green saplings
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
120
Linking Fuelwood Collection and Community Livelihoods
in Satchari National Park
and green branches, though some dead wood and dry branches are also collected.
By weighing the different sizes of bundles separately at the fuelwood market, I
found that the weight of a typical large bundle is about 50 to 60 kg, medium
bundles weigh about 35 to 45 kg, and small bundles weigh about 10 to 20 kg.
On average, I observed a total of 20 collectors from outside the park leaving entry
points 1, 2 and 3 each day. Of these, typically 15 were male (75%), 4 were female
(20%), and one was a child (5%). They collected an average of 59.5 kg of fuelwood
per person per day. The average weight of each bundle was 35 kg, and on average
34 bundles was carried out per day, for a total of about 1,190 kg per day. All
collectors from outside the park were ethnic Bengalis (rather than Tripura) and so
were readily identified; they entered the forest between 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. and left
between 3 a.m. to 6 p.m. These collectors only kept drinking water with them and
would spend six to seven hours inside the forest. They would leave the park in the
evening with headloads or bundles, deposit their headloads at the entry point,
and then wait for a vehicle to take them to the market. Collectors take either local
buses or small trucks called trolleys; sometimes only part of a group will go to the
market while the rest wait with the bundles.
The fourth entry point borders a tea estate. All fuelwood collectors at this point
were female tea laborers. An average of 9 collectors leave the site with one head
load or bundle per collector per day, weighing about 10 kg each, for a total daily
amount of about 90 kg per day. Tea laborers carry smaller loads of fuelwood
because they carry them together with their tea leaves. All collectors using this
entry point entered the forest between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. to collect fuelwood and
spent one to two hours before or after collecting tea. Collectors at Point 4 collected
fuelwood four days a week on average.
For the four entry points together, a total of 29 collectors leaving the site per day
with an average of 43 headloads or bundles, which gives a total average of 1,280
kg of fuelwood leaving the park daily through the four points surveyed, after
accounting for the three size categories of bundles (Table 2).
To estimate the total amount of fuelwood collected per day by all collectors, I
added the estimated average daily weight of fuelwood collected by Tiprapara
villagers to the total weight of fuelwood leaving the park from the four entry
points each day. Including Tiprapara villagers, the average number of fuelwood
collectors in the national park is 60 collectors per day. The total amount of
fuelwood collected from the park is approximately 2,120 kg, or just over 2 metric
121
tons per day, by all collectors from inside and outside the national park. Of this
amount, 40% (840 kg) was collected by villagers from the interior village, about
56% (1190 kg) was collected by villagers living outside the park, and the
remaining 4% (90 kg) was collected by the tea garden laborers (Table 2).
Table 2: Information on Daily Fuelwood (FW) Extraction by Villagers Surrounding SNP
Fuelwood Head loads
collectors and bundles
per day
collected
per day
Average amount
of fuelwood
collected
per day (kg)
Cooking
Selling
Average daily
income from
sale of fuelwood
(Tk )
Entry point 1
8
14*
490
98
392
588
Entry point 2
7
13*
455
91
364
546
Entry point 3
5
7*
245
49
196
294
Total (A)
20
34
1190
238
952
1428
Entry point 4
9
9**
90
90
-
-
Total (B)
9
9
90
90
-
-
Total (A+B)
29
43
1280
328
952
1428
Location of
Entry Point
Average use of FW
by collectors (kg)
NOTES: * Average weight = 35kg, ** Average weight = 10 kg
Impact of Fuelwood on Livelihoods
To estimate the impact of fuelwood on livelihoods inside and outside of the park,
I interviewed villagers to find out what amount of fuelwood is used for cooking
and what amount is sold each day. To calculate daily incomes from fuelwood, I
surveyed fuelwood traders at two markets to collect information on the prices of
differently sized bundles of fuelwood. I found the average price of a large bundle
(50 to 60 kg) is Tk 75 (just over $1 USD), a medium bundle (35 to 45 kg) is Tk 52
and small bundle (10 to 20 kg) is Tk 30. I determined the average price of one
bundle (35 kg) to be Tk 52.
Out of the 23 households in Tiprapara, I found that only two households do not
collect fuelwood at present, not even for cooking. Instead, they use branches from
their lemon trees and sometimes they buy fuelwood from other households.
Twenty-one households (91% of homes) collect an average of 840 kg of fuelwood
daily (Table 1). Of this, 465 kg (55%) are used as fuelwood for cooking, and nine
households sell the remaining 375 kg (45%) at the market to meet their livelihood
demands. Each of the nine households daily earns an average of 62 Tk (less than
$1 USD) from the sale of fuelwood. This constitutes about 62% of their total
income. They sell the fuelwood to the nearest markets and to other households in
the village. Mohalders (local fuelwood traders) sometimes come to Tiprapara to
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
122
Linking Fuelwood Collection and Community Livelihoods
in Satchari National Park
collect fuelwood, and occasionally the villagers sell fuelwood to local roadside
restaurants. The remaining 38% of their daily earnings (about Tk 38) is from other
sources such as lemons, daily labor, and forest patrolling.
At entry points 1, 2 and 3, I found that, on average, collectors use about 20% (238
kg total) of the fuelwood they collect for cooking and sell the remaining 80% (952
kg total) at the market. At entry point 4 (adjacent to the tea garden) women teagarden laborers collect about one small bundle (about 10 kg) of fuelwood from the
Park per day. These women told me that they do not get sufficient fuelwood from
the tea garden, so they collect it from the park to use for cooking. Most of them
collect dead wood and dry branches, but some collect live branches from green
trees. Data from my survey suggests that, at the four entry points, about 29 people
collect an average of 1,280 kg fuelwood per day, of which they use about 328 kg
for cooking and sell 952 kg to the market. However, out of the 29 people, 9 people
(tea garden laborers) do not sell any of their collected wood, while 20 people
(from three entry points) earned an average of 1,428 Tk per day or 71 Tk (about 1
USD) per day per person - 100% of their cash income (Table 3).
Table 3: Daily Collection of Fuelwood (FW) for Household Consumption and Market Sale
Type
of
community
Average Average weight
No.
of FW
of persons
collected
collecting
per day
FW
(kg, % of total)
Use of FW by
weight
(kg) as a % of
total FW collected
Domestic
Sale
Average daily household
income from
FW and other sources
(Tk and as a % of
total income)
Fuelwood
Others
Tiprapara village
31
840 (40%)
840 (40%) 375 (45%)
62 (62%)
38 (38%)
Surrounding
Villagers*
20
1,190 (56%)
238 (20%) 952 (80%)
71 (100%)
-
Tea garden
9
90 (4%)
90 (100%)
-
-
35**
Subtotals for
4 entry points
29
1280
328
952
70
35
Grand total
for all collections
60
2120
793
1327
35
36.5
NOTES: *excludes tea gardens, ** tea garden laborers receive subsidies for their living costs.
Discussion
The average daily income of each household in Tiprapara is Tk 100 (about $1.4
USD), and ranges between Tk 50 to Tk 75 per day to Tk 300 or higher When
villagers are classified by economic status, my results suggest t hat 39% are
123
extremely poor (earning Tk 50 to Tk 75 per day), 48% are poor (earning Tk 76 to Tk
100 per day), 9% are middle class (earning Tk 101 to Tk 175 per day), and 4% are
rich (earning Tk 200 to Tk 300 a day). This is slightly different from the
classifications used by NACOM (2003), which reported that in Tiprapara 12% of
households are extremely poor, 65% are poor, 2% are middle class, and only 1% are
rich, as defined by the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers of Bangladesh (ERD
2002).
The villagers are dissatisfied with the situation, and some even said that relocation
out of the park is preferable to the level of poverty that they live with presently.
They claimed that since the banning of jhum or shifting cultivation in the 1980s,
their livelihoods have deteriorated as they cannot grow enough food, nor have they
received any land for settled agriculture as compensation. In addition, there are no
medical or educational facilities in their vicinity. The ban on jhum cultivation in the
interest of biodiversity conservation means that the villagers have no fixed income
generating activities. They claim primary occupations such as lemon cultivation
(35%), day labor (22%), fuelwood collection (17%), forest patrolling (13%), business
(9%), and government service (4%), but on top of this, 39% of all households also
supplement their incomes with fuelwood collection. For example, the households
who grow lemons do not have sufficient land for large orchards, which would
sustain them year-round. For this reason they collect fuelwood three or four days a
week, or work as day laborers or forest patrollers.
Thirteen percent of households named forest patrolling with Forest Department
staff members as their primary income source. Forest patrolling is not an official
function of the Forest Department at this stage, so members of village patrols
cannot claim to be employed by the Forest Department. In the settlement period of
the 1950s, the forest villagers were required to patrol the forest under the terms of
their agreement with the Forest Department. In exchange for this service, they were
given land within the forest where they could practice jhum cultivation. Local
Forest Department staff members claim that villagers are not interested in forest
patrolling even though they were originally brought in for this purpose. However
villagers argue that they no longer have a fixed source of income and cannot afford
to take part in patrolling under the current situation. The villagers claim that if the
state wants them to help protect the forest, then it should also take steps to provide
them with alternative sources of income.
Before Satchari was declared a national park, villagers from Tiprapara were
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
124
Linking Fuelwood Collection and Community Livelihoods
in Satchari National Park
allowed to collect dead or dry wood as fuelwood from the reserve forest. However,
local Forest Department staff members allege that local communities girdled live
trees, felled them, dried them and claimed them as dead wood for collection. Forest
Department staff members maintain that local households are primarily
responsible for forest degradation in Satchari. After the national park was notified
and Nishorgo Support Project (NSP) began its co-management program in the
Satchari area, the villagers of Tiprapara were no longer allowed to collect dead
wood, so they began to face even greater obstacles from local Forest Department
staff in continuing their livelihood activities.
Fuelwood collection is very common in the national park. My results suggest that
on average 60 people (representing 50 households) collect 2,120 kg (over 2 metric
tons) of fuelwood in the park daily. Each collector gathers an average of 35.3 kg per
person per day. Some of this wood may also come from the part of the reserve
forest that is adjacent to the southern boundary of the national park, as there is no
physical demarcation. These results differ slightly from studies by Chemonics
(2002) and NACOM (2003). Chemonics (2002) found that about 150 to 200 people
entered the reserve forest every day to collect fuelwood, with an average load of
about 40 kg per person per day, representing about 6 tons of fuelwood per day.
NACOM (2003) identified three major stakeholder groups, including fuelwood
collectors, as playing major roles in forest degradation. They reported that about
100 to 150 people from the surrounding tea estates and nearby villages enter the
reserve forest daily for fuelwood collection. On average, males carry about 2
maunds (1 maund = 37.5 kg) and females carry about 1 maund per day.
When we compare results from these three studies, it appears that about one-third
of all collectors enter the national park or reserve forest on a daily basis. Fuelwood
collectors may prefer the national park as it contains a greater percentage of natural
forest, and it is nearer to the road and nearby villages. The local Forest Department
has only eleven staff members (including the official in charge) to supervise the
entire reserve forest area of 1,760 hectares. This is an insufficient number of people
to patrol the park and reserve forest. However, Forest Department staff members
also said that after the area was declared a national park fuelwood collection
activities have decreased, even if they have not ceased completely. Salafsky &
Wollenberg (2000) suggest that in the case of protected areas, local people often
continue to use resources in the core reserve even if prohibitions are posted or
otherwise made public.
125
My results indicate that most people who collect fuelwood are mostly or partially
dependent on fuelwood for their livelihood. In Tiprapara, 13% of households are
entirely dependent on fuelwood for their daily livelihoods, 26% use it to
supplement their household incomes; and 91% are dependent on fuelwood for
domestic consumption. Collectors from surrounding villages (excluding tea-garden
laborers) earn all of their cash income from fuelwood collection, although they
sometimes supplement their household incomes from other sources, and all of
them are dependent on fuelwood for their domestic energy. Tea-estate laborers
collect fuelwood from the park to supply their domestic fuel needs. It appears that
fuelwood is the major source of energy for household consumption as well as
market sale for the local community.
I observed that collectors were usually the same people on each survey day and
predominantly came from Gawsnagar, Teliapara, Bagbari and Ratanpur villages,
which fall under the neighboring Madhobpur Upazila (sub-district) and the
neighboring Satchari Tea Estate. Collected fuelwood is transported by trolley and
bus to local markets at Teliapara and Madhobpur, and then sold to fuelwood
traders. The largest proportion of fuelwood went to Madhobpur market, even
though Teliapara market is nearer to the park. Fuelwood traders in Teliapara
informed me that they bought most of their fuelwood from teagarden laborers who
were selling illegally felled shade trees from the tea garden, and that only a small
portion came from villagers living near Satchari forest. On the other hand,
fuelwood traders in Madhobpur informed me that they purchased most of their
fuelwood from villagers living near Satchari forest. The traders claimed they could
tell the wood that comes from Satchari because it consists of acacia and teak.
Traders stated that today the fuelwood supply is less than the demand: these two
wholesale markets supply fuelwood to local tea stalls, restaurants and households.
Conclusions and Policy Implications
Satchari National Park is the only patch of natural forest remaining in all of the
surrounding reserve forest. It is important to protect this patch by completely
restricting entry to all unauthorized people as defined by the protected area
statutes. Local communities, however, are exploiting forest to meet their daily
living needs. Several conflicts divide local people and Forest Department staff
members, many of which stem from these livelihoods issues. For example, to
conserve biodiversity in Satchari Forest, the state has prohibited jhum or shifting
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
126
Linking Fuelwood Collection and Community Livelihoods
in Satchari National Park
cultivation but has not initiated any livelihoods programs for the communities
since jhum cultivation was prohibited.
Legally, protected areas like Satchari National Park have strictly defined borders
that unauthorized people may not cross. A common approach to protecting
biodiversity has been to create parks and protected areas that exclude livelihood
activities. It seems that a key feature of many protected area strategies is that local
livelihoods are assumed to conflict with conservation (Salafsky and Wollenberg
2000). However, managers of protected areas must consider the basic needs and
status of people living in and around the area. Sustainable management of any
protected area requires the involvement of communities in identifying and
implementing alternative livelihood activities. Machlis (1993) states that, "the
management of protected areas is necessarily the management of people," and that
the social sciences have an essential role to play in protected areas management.
The state has recently recognized the importance of involving local communities
directly in protected area management. As a result, the Forest Department has
started this work through the co-management program of the Nishorgo Support
Project.
This study was carried out to examine the present situation of fuelwood collection,
the roles played by men and women, and the impacts of fuelwood on livelihoods of
local communities in and around Satchari National Park. The study found that
villagers who live both within the park and around the park, as well as tea-estate
laborers, collect fuelwood in the park even though they are not legally allowed to
do so. Furthermore, because most fuelwood collectors are poor and unemployed,
they must exploit forests to meet their daily livelihood needs. Collectors suggested
that if they were provided with alternative sources of income they would not come
to the forest. However, they currently have no alternatives. The Nishorgo Support
Project has begun to support the development of alternative income generating
activities within the Satchari area, but these are insufficient to meet the needs of
Tiprapara villagers, who are fully dependent on fuelwood for their livelihoods.
Some of the surrounding villages are also involved in income generating activities
supported by a local NGO, but these are also insufficient to meet their livelihood
demands.
Women from Tiprapara and tea estate laborers collect wood for household
consumption, and women from surrounding villages collect for both household
consumption as well as market sale. Women's involvement in fuelwood collection
127
is 55%, 20% and 100% in Tiprapara, surrounding villages, and the nearby tea estate,
respectively. Therefore, I suggest that conservation-oriented alternative income
generation activities that provide for both interior and surrounding villages should
include females according to the varying levels of female involvement in resource
extraction. These alternatives should provide sufficient income to meet the needs of
local people, and should match their interests. If villagers receive sufficient benefits
from alternative conservation-oriented activities, they will no longer have
incentives to practice livelihood activities that damage the forest. Laborers from the
two tea estates around the park should also be included under Nishorgo Support
Project activities. Currently the project does not work with the tea estate laborers.
Collectors are currently taking about 2 tons of fuelwood daily from the park to the
market by trolley (small truck) or bus, right in front of the local Forest Office. This
rate of extraction is clearly not sustainable as the national park area is only 243
hectares in size. Therefore, fuelwood collection is a major factor in habitat
degradation with strong implications for the wildlife of the protected area.
Conservation of protected areas requires that government officials work to meet
the needs of local livelihoods, since a clear linkage exists between the conservation
of protected area and the livelihoods of local communities. This study shows that
all of the collectors are entirely dependent on the fuelwood for their household
fuel. In the interests of the protected area, the first measure should be to introduce
alternative sources of fuel energy for household consumption.
The state maintains legal control over the reserve forest, including the national
park, but the Forest Department does not have the administrative capacity to
prevent exploitation of the reserve forest or the protected area. The entire Forest
Department staff consists of one range officer, two foresters and six forest guards
assigned to oversee the 1,760 hectares of forest - the entire reserve forest, including
the national park. This study also found that, in the areas surveyed alone, an
average of 60 people enter the national park daily, seeking to meet their basic needs
of fuelwood, bamboo and building materials with products gathered in the forest.
It is suggested that adequate staff should be designated separately for
administration of the national park. The park should also be physically demarcated
from the reserve forest, as well as from the tea estate boundary.
I would also like to propose that villagers from Tiprapara be relocated outside the
national park boundary as per their own suggestion. Because it is only one
community, relocation should not present such a large problem. In the future, if the
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
128
Linking Fuelwood Collection and Community Livelihoods
in Satchari National Park
population of this village continues to increase, they will occupy a larger area and it
will be more difficult to relocate them. This is not the only solution, however. The
large number of fuelwood collectors from outside the park suggests that relocating
Tiprapara will not halt degradation from fuelwood collection. Therefore, other
measures must be implemented. In addition, further research should be conducted
to assess the potential for a successful co-management program in the park under
the Nishorgo Support Project.
Wood production from the forest areas is continuously declining, and most of it is
consumed within the country. A large quantity is imported to satisfy domestic
consumption. The continual change in species and reduction of the average age of
forests is adversely affecting the sustainability of existing forest ecosystems. The
country annually requires about 9.4 million cubic meters of fuelwood against a
supply of about 6.18 million cubic meters (FAO 2000). The Forest Department
reported that production of timber and fuelwood from forest areas has fallen by
more than 50% since the felling ban in 1988-89. If this trend continues then the
country's natural forests will be in great danger.
References
Appasamy, P.P. 1993. Role of Non-Timber Forest Products in Subsistence Economy:
the Case of a Joint Forestry Project in India. Economic Botany 47(3): 258267.
Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. 2004. A Statistical Yearbook of Bangladesh,
People's Republic of Bangladesh.
Caron, C.M. 1995. The Role of Non-Timber Tree Products in Household Food
Procurement Strategies: Profile of a Sri Lankan Village. Agroforestry
Systems 32(2): 99-117.
Chemonics (Chemonics International). 2002. Biodiversity Sustainable Forestry IQC
(BIOFOR) Strengthening The Arannyk Foundation. Site Selection Inventory
and Monitoring Report. USAID-Bangladesh, Dhaka.
Chowdhury, R.M. 2004. Status of Data Bases at RIMS with Special Reference to Five
Nishorgo Pilot Protected Areas. Project Document, Submitted by Assistant
Conservator of Forests (ACF) RIMS-GIS Unit, Forest Department, Ban
Bhaban, Mohakhali, Dhaka to Nishorgo Support Project, Bangladesh.
ERD. 2002. A National Strategy for Economic Growth, Poverty Reduction and
Social Development. Economic Relations Division (ERD), Ministry of
Finance, Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh.
129
FAO. 2000. Forest Resources Assessment of Bangladesh, Country Report. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
Feeroz, M.M. 2003. Wildlife Diversity in Satchari Forest of North-Eastern region of
Bangladesh. Bangladesh Journal of Life Science 15(1): 61-76.
Forest Department. 2005. Project Proforma of Nishorgo Support Project.
Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh.
ADB. 1993. Environment and Land Use in the Forestry Master Plan. TA Report NO.
1355-BAN, UNDP/FAO BGD/88/025. Asian Development Bank, Dhaka,
Bangladesh.
Ganesan, B. 1993. Extraction of Non-Timber Forest Products Including Fodder and
Fuelwood in Mudumulai, India. Economic Botany 47(3): 268-274.
Machlis, G.E. 1993. Social Science and Protected Area Management: The Principles
of Partnership. The George Wright Forum 1(10): 9-20.
NACOM. 2003. Secondary Data Collection for Pilot Protected Area: Satchari
Reserve Forest. Nature Conservation Management (NACOM), Nishorgo
Support Project, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Bangladesh.
Nagothu, U.S. 2001. Fuelwood and Fodder Extraction and Deforestation:
Mainstream Views in India Discussed on the Basis of Data from the SemiArid Region of Rajasthan. Geoforum 32 (3): 319-332.
Nishorgo Support Project. 2006. Site Information Brochure: Satchari National Park.
Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Nishorgo Support Project. 2005. Nishorgo Project Proforma. Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Salafsky, N. & Wollenberg, E. 2000. Linking Livelihoods and Conservation: A
Conceptual Framework and Scale for Assessing the Integration of Human
Needs and Biodiversity. World Development 28(8): 1421-1438.
Shankar, U., Hegde, R. and Bawa, K. S. 1998. Extraction of Non-Timber Forest
Products in the Forests of Biligiri Rangan Hills, India. Fuelwood Pressure
and Management Options. Economic Botany 52(3) pp. 320-336.
Sharma, R. 2006. Management Plan for Satchari National Park. Nishorgo Support
Project, Forest Department, Government of the People's Republic of
Bangladesh.
Thompson, P.M. and Johnson, D.L. 2003. Further Notable Bird Records from
Bangladesh. Forktail 19: 85-102.
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
130
Perceptions of Tourism by Indigenous
Communities Living In and
Adjoining Lawachara National Park
Md. Modinul Ahsan
Assistant Conservator of Forests, Wildlife Management and Nature Conservation Division,
Sylhet, Bangladesh
Abstract
This paper discusses the overall perceptions of tourism and the benefits received by three
communities living in and adjacent to Lawachara National Park. The study was conducted
in villages populated by three different ethnic groups during February to May 2006. Two
out of the three villages received benefits from tourism activities. These activities included
the sale of handmade clothes, eco-tour guide services and cultural shows. On the other hand,
the community receiving the fewest benefits from tourism, the Khasia, encountered the most
problems caused by tourists coming to the park. The study revealed that the local ethnic
communities have a general understanding of tourism, but not all of them benefit from
tourism activities. The existing institutions (formal and informal) should be more actively
involved in order to give more benefits to the local people, particularly those who are
negatively affected by it.
Introduction
The World Tourism Organization defines tourism as moving from one's usual place
of residence for less than one year and more than 24 hours for reasons that are not
related to in come earning activities (Kumar 1995). Tourism is an increasingly
essential element of economic, social and cultural development and it has become
one of the largest global economic activities (Western 1993). Today both developed
and developing countries realize economic and social benefits from tourism and
constantly strive to gain a larger share of its benefits (Sultana 2001).
Sekhar (2003) states that, until recently, tourism had not been viewed as a potential
income generating activity by the governments of South Asia. Bangladesh, a South
Asian nation, is a land of rivers, wetlands known as haors, hills, forests,
131
Perceptions of Tourism by Indigenous Communities Living In and
Adjoining Lawachara National Park
mangroves, sandy beaches, and the diversified cultures of the Bengali people and
its numerous indigenous communities. The 1994 Bangladesh Forest Policy placed
great emphasis on eco-tourism. The policy states that eco-tourism is recognized as a
forestry activity that should be promoted within the carrying capacity of nature.
Every year the numbers of tourists increases, although this sector has not yet
flourished. The total number of foreign tourists in Bangladesh was a little more
than 244,000 in 2003, which marked a positive change of 18% from the previous
year (Hassan 2006). National parks have played significant roles as tourist
attractions in many countries since their establishment (Butler and Boyd 2000).
Protected areas with their landscapes, flora and fauna as well as their cultural
elements form attractions for tourists (Ceballos-Lascurain 1993). Tourism, however,
is highly dependent upon natural capital (e.g. wildlife, scenery) and culture (Roe
and Khanya 2001). Wildlife tourism in South Asia is not very old when compared
to many African countries, where wildlife based tourism is more active and has
been promoted by the governments for a number of years (Sekhar 2003).
One of the most common uses of protected areas is tourism. Wildlife tourists have
recognized the protected areas of the developing countries as a source of
generating benefits for local people and as a source of income (Walpole and
Goodwin 2001). As Lindberg (1993: p.101) states, benefits from protected areas are
generated for at least three reasons:
First, it is equitable insofar as conservation of the area designated for eco-tourism may reduce or
eliminate traditional resource use. Second, the eco-tourists as consumers may support the
importance of tourism benefiting local residents (Eagles et al.1992). Third, when residents
receive benefits they are more likely to support tourism and conservation, even to the point of
protecting the site against poaching or encroachment.
Lindberg et al. (1996) found that tourism related benefits were an important basis
for positive attitudes towards adjacent natural areas (Wunder 1996; 1998).
Conversely, if residents bear the costs without receiving benefits, they may turn
against tourism and conservation, and may intentionally and unintentionally
damage the site.
People live both inside and outside of Lawachara National Park. Members of
Khasia, Manipuri and Tripura indigenous groups live inside the core area of the
park as well as outside but adjacent to the park. No study has been done on
tourism in the protected areas of Bangladesh. The purpose of this study is to
understand the perceptions of tourism by indigenous communities and to
document the benefits they receive from tourism.
132
Background
The study was conducted at Lawachara National Park (24°30'-24°32'N and 91°37' 91°39'E) (Fig. 1). The park was founded in 1996 with a total forest area of 1,250 ha. It
forms part of West Bhanugach Reserved Forests, which is under the area of Sylhet
Forest Division. It is one of 17 protected areas in Bangladesh. Lawachara National
Park (LNP) lies between the Dholoi River on the east and the Manu River on the
north. A number of sandy bedded streams and nallahs (channels) pass through the
park, forming a riparian ecosystem. Located in a high rainfall area with evergreen
and semi-evergreen forests, LNP is a mega biodiversity region with many floral
species. Hoolock Gibbon and Capped Langur are keystone species located in the
park (Nishorgo 2006). The park also serves as the home of several indigenous
communities. Members of the Khasia, Manipuri, and Tripura indigenous groups
reside within and around the forests. These communities depend on the forest
resources for their livelihood opportunities (Nishorgo 2006).
Lawachara National Park is situated in Kamalganj Sub-district, Moulvibazar
District. It is nearly 160 km northeast of Dhaka, approximately 60 km southwest of
Sylhet, and about 8 km northwest of Sreemangal. The park is very well connected
by rail, air, and road transportation systems. Visitor surveys recently showed that
the park received 3,874 visitors during a 45-day period. The survey was conducted
during two periods. From March 24 to April 05, 2006 there were 1,504 visitors, and
from May 17 to June 15, 2006 there were 2,370 visitors (Pasha 2006, telephone
interview). It should be noted that the survey was done during the off-tourist
season.
Lodging facilities are the heart of any protected area. A well-maintained lodging
facility with quality food can attract many tourists. Studies in Latin America and
Thailand show that additional revenues can be earned by developing infrastructure
and services to nearby tourism attractions (Boo 1990; Dixon and Sherman 1990).
These might include lodges, restaurants or snack bars, souvenir shops, visitor
centers, cultural performances, etc. (Lindberg and Huber 1993). Lawachara
National Park offers tourists both attended and unattended services. Attended
services include local eco-tour guides. And on the other hand unattended services
include signage, nature trails, information brochures, leaflets, and guidebooks.
Currently authorities are taking steps to build a visitor interpretation center and a
souvenir shop in Lawachara. The park has no lodging facility exclusively for the
tourists, but the nearby town of Sreemangal offers a good number of lodging
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
133
Perceptions of Tourism by Indigenous Communities Living In and
Adjoining Lawachara National Park
facilities. Other facilities like transportation are also available in Sreemangal.
Lawachara National Park has 26 villages in and around it, and approximately 4,000
households reside in those villages (Mollah and Kunda, 2004). Two indigenous
punjis (villages) composed of Khasia people, are located inside the core area of the
park. Lawachara Punji named after Lawachara stream has 23 households. The
other village, Magurchara Punji, consists of 40 households. Both of the villages are
on hillocks. Forest Department personnel settled people in these villages in the
1950s to assist with forestry related activities.
The Forest Department gave each household 3 acres of forestland. Most people
cultivate betel leaves for their livelihood. The Khasia are a matrilineal society and
most people
Figure 1: Map Showing the Study Area (Source: Nishorgo Support Project, 2007)
134
have converted to Christianity from Hinduism. The second indigenous group, the
Tripura, have lived in Daluchara (under village Dalubari) for many years.
Daluchara is in Sreemangal sub-district and consists of 72 Tripura households. The
Tripura mainly cultivate pineapples and lemons on their own land. They are
patrilineal and Hindu. The third indigenous group, the Manipuri, have been living
in North Baligaon, Kamalganj sub-district, for many years. There are 68 Manipuri
households in North Baligaon. They mainly cultivate paddy on their own land. The
Manipuri are Hindu by religion and Bishnupriya by caste.
Lawachara National Park has many entry points. During my visits I did not
observe anyone exerting any control over tourists and an entry fee was not
required. The Forest Department has not yet prepared a separate management plan
for tourism nor have forest workers received any training on managing tourists.
Moreover, either the department has been allocated a very limited budget for
tourism or it has not been allocated to the concerned authority. Forest officials
recently prepared a draft management plan for the park, still under consideration,
that fails to define a tourism zone.
In order to use a Forest Department bungalow in the core area of the park, visitors
have to get permission from the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) whose office is in
Sylhet. Tour operators, however, bring visitors into the park without informing the
local forest officials. Local people, who have been trained to serve as eco-tour
guides to the forest and its landscape, are frequently deceived by this use.
Methods
I did my fieldwork between February and May 2006. My data collection methods
included key informant interviews, community mapping, transect walks,
household interviews, and review of official documents and published literature. I
used a semi-structured questionnaire as the basis of my household data collection. I
interviewed 39 family heads from a total of 163 households. The overall sampling
intensity was 24%.
I followed simple random sampling for Khasia (10 from 23 households); systematic
sampling for Manipuri (14 from 68 households). I interviewed the first household
and then I took every 5th number household for interview. I did purposive
sampling in Tripura village (15 from 72 households) because all the randomly
selected respondents were working in the field at that time and I had to interview
whoever was present. From household survey I collected demographic data related
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
135
Perceptions of Tourism by Indigenous Communities Living In and
Adjoining Lawachara National Park
to gender, occupation, education, etc. These questions were followed by others
related to dependency on forest resources, perceptions of tourism, information on
handicrafts, benefits from tourism, problems caused by tourism, housing pattern
and toilet conditions, and willingness to be involved in home stays. Some of the
questions were closed-ended and respondents were asked to answer with either
YES or NO. I used MS Excel to analyze the collected data.
Results and Discussion
The study reveals that 88% of sample households are engaged in earning a
livelihood, while 12% of households are unemployed. The most common sources of
earning a livelihood are agriculture (78%), daily labor (5%) and small business
(5%). Most of the unemployed respondents were retired from either agriculture or
teaching. The study also found that 90% of the Khasia, 80% of the Tripura, and 64%
of the Manipuri are farmers. Approximately 35% of the Manipuri are unemployed,
whereas the Khasia and Tripura communities do not have any significant
unemployment.
The Khasia mainly produce betel leaf. It is their traditional profession. The Tripura
are dependent on cultivating lemons and pineapples. Survey results reveal that
80% of the Tripura community depends on this form of agriculture. Approximately
64% of the households in the Manipuri community are engaged in agriculture and
paddy for their livelihoods. All three communities are more or less dependent on
nearby forest resources. Among respondents 58% of Manipuri, 10% of Khasia and
7% of Tripura households said that they are highly dependent on forest resources
for fuelwood. Normally, these people do not directly collect fuelwood from the
park, but rather purchase it from illicit fellers.
Members of these indigenous communities do not have much formal education.
The survey results reveal that 73% of the Tripura respondents have education up to
the primary level. On the other hand, among Manipuri respondents, 71% have
education up to high school level (Table 1).
Table 1: Education Level in the Three Communities
Education Level
No formal education
Primary Level (class I - class V)
High school Level (class VI - SSC)
College level /HSC
Graduate
Khasia
40%
20%
30%
10%
Note: SSC = Secondary School Certificate; HSC = Higher School Certificate.
136
Tripura
73%
27%
-
Manipuri
8%
7%
71%
7%
7%
The people live in their own houses in the villages; they are not tenants. The type of
the houses they live in are of three categories, namely kacha, semi-pucca and pucca
(see glossary for definition of these terms). Approximately 70% of Khasia, 79% of
Tripura and 50% of Manipuri live in kacha houses. Similarly, most people do not
use hygienic toilets, as 73% of Manipuri, 60% of Khasia and 36% of Tripura use
kacha toilets (Figure 2).
People from these three villages usually dispose of their garbage in an open area, a
pit, or in a nearby stream. The study depicted that 80% of Khasia households
dispose of their kitchen garbage in a pit, and 73% of Manipuri and 67% of Tripura
households dispose of their garbage in open areas and nearby streams,
respectively.
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Housing
type
Toilet type
Housing
type
Toilet
Housing Toilet Type
type
(Khasia)
(Tipra)
(Manipuri)
Lawachara Punji
Daluchara
North Baligaon
Kacha
Semi pucca
Pucca
Figure 2: Housing and Toilet Types
Formal and Informal Institutions
Formal and informal institutions play a vital role in the life of people of a
community. Local institutions include a wide diversity of organizational forms for
resource management. These institutions have rules and a common
understanding of problems and their resolution in a particular community.
Sometimes they are formally established, with electoral procedures for selecting
officials, specified dues for members, and rules that also outline the rights and
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
137
Perceptions of Tourism by Indigenous Communities Living In and
Adjoining Lawachara National Park
define duties of the members. Sometimes institutions are not formally constituted
but can regulate the use of resources over long periods of time (Ostrom 1997).
The community profile of the three villages revealed that numerous formal and
informal institutions exist. These institutions may be able to play a significant role
in the development of tourism and eco-tourism in LNP. In the following section, I
describe these institutions. The Greater Sylhet Indigenous People's Forum (GSIPF)
support members of any indigenous group in the Greater Sylhet District. The
forum seeks to support education, health, and legal rights, agriculture, and
cultural preservation. It is a legal entity registered as a joint stock company. The
forum has a constitution and consists of two bodies, namely a general committee
(101 members), and an executive committee (21 members). Member can be a
member of any indigenous community in Greater Sylhet Region. The general
committee normally sits once a year. The executive committee sits two or three
times in a year. The general members select the members of the executive
committee. The committee has linkages with other NGOs. There is a provision of
subscription fees for both executive and general members.
The Khasia community recognizes an informal institution known as the Darber
Committee. The village head (myntry) chairs the Darber Committee and has
control over social, traditional and religious issues. The Darber Committee seeks
to work on social issues, maintain relationship with the Forest Department,
develop village infrastructure, and supervise religious and traditional festivals.
The head of each household is a member of the committee. The myntry calls for a
meeting whenever he feels one is required. Each household is supposed to
subscribe (contribute) to the committee's fund. Villagers select the myntry and the
ruling myntry is the son of previous myntry. There is no fixed period of service
for the myntry - he can remain myntry as long as he wants. The Khasia
community is also supported by the Khasia Welfare Trust (KWS), a formal
institution for Khasia living in Greater Sylhet District. This institution seeks to
perform cultural shows, develop and conserve Khasia handicrafts, work for the
educational development of the community, and provide legal support for
Khasias. The Trust was established in 1996. It consists of three bodies: a general
council, an executive council, and an advisory council. The trust has a constitution
and has been registered as a joint stock company. Each household of every Khasia
village in Greater Sylhet District subscribes to the committee. Some people have
alleged that the Trust is not working properly because leaders of the Khasia
communities lack initiatives. Moreover the trust suffers from a lack of funds, lack
138
of democratic practices, and irregular subscription fees. The trust has linkages
with other organizations. The myntry of Lawachara Punji is a member of KWS by
the virtue of his post.
The Tripura community in Daluchara has a formal committee, which does not
have a name. The headman of the village, the chowdhury, leads the committee. He
is vested with the responsibility of resolving social, traditional, and other related
problems in the community. The committee seeks to determine social policy and
rules, to look after religious taboos and traditional festivals, to organize social
functions like marriages and funerals, to rectify values, norms and taboos in
meetings if any deviation occur; and to resolve problems that arise in the
community. Committee members are notified when meeting are scheduled. All of
the households in the community pay a mandatory subscription fee. When
someone dies, the collected money pays for the funeral and the grieving family is
given a donation from the fund. Normally the chowdhury or another reliable
person is entrusted with the money. Women normally do not participate in
meetings. Unresolved issues can be raised in either the Greater Sylhet Indigenous
People's Forum (GSIPF) or in the Adibashi Forum (Another formal institution of
indigenous communities in the country).
Tripura Juba Sangstha (TJS) or Tripura Youth Organization is a formal institution
in Daluchara village established in 2000. This institution consists of 20 general
members, all of whom must be males over 18 years old. TJS has prepared a
constitution but is not yet recognized as a legal entity. TJS seeks to conserve the
Tripura culture, organize Tripura cultural shows, develop and conserve Tripura
handicrafts, and work for the educational development of the community. The TJS
does not a have a fixed meeting time; whenever it is necessary the committee sits
for it. The members pay a nominal subscription fee each month. The institution is
not sustaining and is currently not functional.
The Manipuri community has an informal committee known as the Singloop. The
executive body of this informal (and invisible) committee consists of 12 to 15
members. The Singloop seeks to control and develop customary rules; determine
social policies and rules; look after the religious taboos and traditional festivals,
organize social functions like marriages and funerals; and rectify values, norms,
and taboos in meetings, if any deviation takes place.
The Adibashi Manipuri Cultural Development Organization (AMCDO) was
established in the year 1996. This institution consists of 35 general members, of
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
139
Perceptions of Tourism by Indigenous Communities Living In and
Adjoining Lawachara National Park
whom 20 are male and 15 are female. The Executive Committee consists of 7
members, of whom 4 are male and 3 are female. The AMCDO seeks to conserve
Manipuri culture, organize people for cultural shows, develop and conserve
Manipuri handicrafts, support Manipuri weaver families, work for the
educational development of the community, and support the community in legal
issues. The AMCDO is not currently recognized as a legal entity but efforts to
make it one are now underway. The AMCDO sits once a month and minutes of
the meeting are recorded. Meetings are announced both verbally and in writing.
Members pay an entry fee to join AMCDP and a monthly subscription fee.
The Indigenous Manipuri Welfare Trust (IMWT) is a visible institution that seeks
to assist the unemployed, support sports and games, advance education, and
promote the health of Manipuri people. The Trust consists of 25 members and has
an Executive Committee of 7 members. The Trust does not have any subscription
fees nor is it recognized as a legal entity, but efforts are underway.
The Nishorgo Support Project (a project of Forest Department) promoted the
establishment of the Co-Management Council for Lawachara National Park. The
Council has 58 members. An executive committee called the Co-Management
Committee and consisting of 19 members, assists the council. This Council is a
formal institution and is recognized as a legal entity. Representation from
Daluchara (Tripura) and North Baligaon (Manipuri) has been ensured. But no
representative has yet been ensured from Lawachara Punji; rather a representative
from another Khasia village (Magurchara Punji) has been ensured. The Council
seeks to work with local stakeholders to manage the park collaboratively with the
assistance of the Forest Department.
Tourism in Lawachara National Park
Tourists usually come to Lawachara National Park to see forests, wildlife, natural
beauty and for picnicking. They also see the surrounding tea gardens and visit
indigenous communities. Native and foreign tourists have visited the people of
the three surveyed villages for many years but no data are available on how many
tourists visit these villages every year.
Tourists to these villages usually come to see various aspects of people's daily life
- their homes, clothing, betel leaf cultivation, betel leaf sorting, pineapple and
lemon gardens, weaving, and handicrafts. I asked the respondents about their
general perceptions of tourism and requested them to explain to me their ideas or
concepts regarding tourism and their feelings about it. I did not direct discussions
140
towards "good" or "bad" perceptions of tourism, but rather I wanted to get their
overall impressions.
The survey result reveals that almost all of the respondents (97%) have ideas
about tourism and that they feel good about the tourists and tourism. In both the
Tripura and Manipuri villages, all respondents (100%) said that they have
perceptions of tourism. In the Khasia community only 93% of respondents
reported that they have perceptions of tourism.
Though almost all of the respondents (97%) from these indigenous communities
have perceptions of tourism, not all of them are receiving benefits from it. The
data reveals that only 19% of households surveyed in the three indigenous
communities receive benefits from tourism (Table 2).
Table 2: Benefitis received from tourism in three communities
Responses
Benefits
No Benefits
Khasia
Tripura
Manipuri
Total
-
13%
43%
19%
100%
87%
57%
81%
The study also reveals that among households, who received benefits from
tourism, 12% were from performing cultural shows, 7% were from weaving, and
2% were from eco-tourism guiding services (Table 3).
Table 3: Percentage of Each Community Who Benefit from Tourism-Related Activities
Items
Khasia
Tripura
Manipuri
Total
Weaving
-
7%
14%
7%
Eco-tour guide service
-
7%
-
2%
Cultural Show performance
-
-
36%
12%
The Manipuri community received benefits from their cultural show
performances and from selling their handicrafts. They produce cloth on their
handlooms, not in power loom. Almost all of the households of Manipuri have
this inherited practice, but not all of them sell their woven cloth to tourists.
Normally they weave their cloth for their own use; they do not usually weave for
commercial purposes. The survey shows that 51% of the weavers of Manipuri sell
their products. If a visitor indicates an interest to buy a piece of clothing, and if
they have additional piece of that product available, then they sell. The Manipuri
usually weave clothes for women. The name of their woven clothes are mathaa
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
141
Perceptions of Tourism by Indigenous Communities Living In and
Adjoining Lawachara National Park
(bed sheet), lango (skirt for women). The mathaa includes nayanamuna (bed sheet)
and lashingfi (bed sheet made by cotton), chaakchabi (good quality lango), inapi
(scarf). During discussion with the respondents, they informed me that problems
include shortages of raw materials, insufficient capital, lack of linkages to markets,
and a lack of show rooms. The Manipuri received Tk 19,200 by selling homemade
woven clothing to the visitors, both domestic as well as foreigners (Table 4).
Table 4: Monetary Benefits from Tourism Earned by the Communities
(December 2005 to May 2006 - Amounts in Bangladeshi Taka)
Activity
Khasia
Tripura
Manipuri
Total
Eco-tour guide
-
11,100
-
11,100
Weaving
-
1,000
19,200
20,200
Cultural Shows
-
-
3,000
3,000
Total
-
12,100
22,200
34,300
The Manipuri are well known throughout the country and outside as well for
their lively dancing. The Manipuri community performs shows in their village
and also goes outside if they are invited. "We have been performing our cultural
show since 2004" (Sinha 2006, personal communication). The Adibashi Manipuri
Cultural Development Organization (AMCDO) based in the village organizes the
village's cultural performances.
The Tripura weave clothes only for women. They had their benefits from selling
hand-woven fabrics (Tk 1,000) and one eco-tour guide trained by Forest
Department earned Tk 11,100 within a 6-month period (Table 4). Most weaving is
done for domestic uses, not for commercial purposes. The main goods they weave
include rikotoo (long scarf), renai (skirt), risha (a small piece of cloth used by
women) and kaithamri (three piece suit of clothing for women). The Tripura weave
their clothes in a handloom, which is made from locally available materials like
bamboo and timber. The weavers face problems such as lack of investment funds,
shortages of raw materials, lack of credit support, and lack of market linkages.
The Khasia community did not receive any benefit from tourism during the study
period. The Khasia have handicrafts, which they use in their daily activities. They
make such things as khoh (baskets), chot (small baskets), and khara saboon (soap
cases). These products are not sold. The Khasia in Lawachara Punji do not have
any weaver families. This is consistent with Patam's (2005) claim that the Khasia
of Bangladesh do not weave. The traditional dress of Khasia women includes a
142
diakorcha (top) and diakiangh (skirt), which they purchase from the market. Though
the Khasia did not receive any benefit from tourism, they are rather happy and
feel good and proud that tourists are coming to their village. Furthermore, they
are ready to receive tourists.
I asked interviewees about their willingness to be involved in home stay
programs. Among respondents, 93% answered that they are ready to receive
tourists in their homes if they are given the chance to do so.
Among Khasia community members, 80% of respondents showed interest in
home stays. They felt, however, that they couldn't let tourists stay in their homes
and have food together until there is a unanimous decision of the Darber
Committee. Moreover, they do not have any training on catering, or good water
and sanitation facilities. In Khasia Punji only 40% of the households have pucca
toilets, but the maintenance is not good enough for the tourists. If these things are
taken care of, and if security is provided, then home stays could become a good
source of income for the Khasia. Khasia Punji is suitable for home stays since it is
within the forest and one has to walk through the forest to reach it. Moreover the
traditional home of Khasia attracts tourists. I spoke with several visitors from
England during one of my household interviews. They told me that they "would
love to stay at [that] house for one night" (March 2006, personal communication).
A female member of Khasia Punji stated that her community would allow visitors,
especially foreigners, to stay at their traditional homes if they were paid, and if
their Darber Committee permitted it (Pothmi, S. personal communication, 2006).
All of the respondents (100%) from the Tripura community expressed that they
would love to host home stays. One owner, who still has a traditional Tripura
house in Daluchara, reported that foreigners sometimes requested to stay in his
home, but this depended on the committee's decision. If people received some
training in taking care of guests, and if some infrastructure facilities such as
sanitation facilities, roads, and security were improved, these communities could
benefit greatly from home stays and tourism in their villages. All of the
respondents from Manipuri village also reported that they favor home stays. Their
village is outside but adjacent to Lawachara National Park and lacks a good road.
They do not have any training in catering, tourism, or other forms of taking care
of guests.
I asked the respondents about the problems they faced from tourism activities.
Most respondents (90%) told me that they have not faced any problems caused by
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
143
Perceptions of Tourism by Indigenous Communities Living In and
Adjoining Lawachara National Park
tourists' activities so far. In Manipuri and Tripura all of the respondents (100%)
said that they have not seen any problems caused by tourism or tourists activities.
Among the Khasia interviewed, 30% of them stated that they face problems with
parties of picnickers that come from different areas of Bangladesh. Problems they
face include people picking plants and plant parts, noisy conversations, and
people entering unauthorized into the bathing pool of Khasia women. "We really
feel disturbed when we see members of picnic parties picking our flowers and
fruits, and talking aloud" (Phila Pothmi, personal communication 2006).
Recommendations
Based on the study I make the following recommendations for park management.
Management plan:
A separate management plan should be prepared and
tourism zone should be clearly identified.
Build capacity: The forest officials and the members of co-management council
members should be trained in tourism management.
Involve institutions: The formal and informal institution should be involved in
elaborating effective ways to give more benefits to the people.
Linkage with other tour operators: Locally-trained eco-tourism guides should be
linked with other tour operators throughout the country in order to enhance
their business opportunities.
Build eco-friendly infrastructure: Eco-lodges should be built at the entry point
of the park and should incorporate environmentally friendly design and
practices.
Support weavers: The weaver families of the indigenous communities should be
provided with micro-credit services for purchasing raw materials and updating
looms.
Link with market: Market linkage for the handicrafts should be established for
the weaver families. In this regard a show room can be established in a suitable
place.
Conclusion
Tourism in Lawachara National Park is a very new development. In order to
develop this sector further, separate management plan and an action plan for
144
tourism should be developed. Numerous people come to Lawachara National Park
every year to see forests, wild life, and natural beauty, and to visit the surrounding
attractions. The park has a good potentiality for tourism and eco-tourism even
though it does not offer any lodging facilities. Tourists are also eager to visit the
villages of the indigenous people that inhabit or live nearby the park-the Khasia,
Tripura and Manipuri. These communities have lived in or near the park for a long
time
Most of the respondents in my survey have perceptions of tourism. Most
households, however, do not currently receive any benefits from tourism. To the
extent that they receive benefits, these benefits come from cultural show
performances, selling of homemade clothing and providing eco-tour guide services.
The Manipuri receive the greatest amount of monetary benefits from their cultural
shows and homemade weaving. The Tripura receive benefits from selling fabric
and from providing eco-tour guide services. Ironically, the Khasia, who are the
only people who actually live inside the park, did not receive any benefits at all.
Among all the indigenous groups, the Manipuri derived the most benefits from
selling handicrafts.
A home stay program offers good hope of being successful in all three villages
since most of the people interviewed were positively inclined towards receiving
home-stays. Members of indigenous communities feel good and proud when they
see visitors coming to visit them and to learn about their culture and livelihoods.
The Manipuri and Tripura respondents had not been affected by problems caused
by tourists. The Khasia, the community that lives in the forests, however, did report
problems of people picking their plants, talking loudly, and inappropriately
entering a bathing place reserved for Khasia women.
The formal institution, Adibashi Manipuri Cultural Development Organization,
played a positive role in the Manipuri community. On the other hand the formal
and informal institutions of the Khasia and Tripura communities do not seem to
have played any meaningful role in developing incomes from tourisms for their
communities. Since local institution can lead to a better management of natural
resources (Udaya Sekhar 2000), these institutions should be involved in the tourism
sector. The involvement of both indigenous and Bengali communities in the
tourism is currently insignificant. In order to enhance livelihood benefits, their
involvement in this sector should be ensured. This will also provide future
dividends in biodiversity conservation.
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
145
Perceptions of Tourism by Indigenous Communities Living In and
Adjoining Lawachara National Park
References
Bangladesh Forest Department. 2006. Bangladesh's Protected Areas: A Visitor's
Guide.
Nishorgo Support Project, Ministry of Environment & Forests,
Government of Bangladesh: Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Boo, E. 1990. Ecotourism: Potentiality and Pitfalls. World Wild Life Fund:
Washington, D.C.
Brandon, K. and Wells, M. 1992. Planning for People and Parks: Design Dilemmas.
World Development 20(4):557-570.
Brandon, K. 1997. Policy and Practical Considerations in Land Use Strategies for
Biodiversity Conservation. In Last Stand: Protected Areas and the Defense of
Tropical Biodiversity. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Butler, W.R. and Boyd, W.S. 2000. Tourism and National Parks: a Long but Uneasy
Relationship, in Butler, W.R. and Boyd, W.S. (eds.), Tourism and National
Parks: Issues and Implications. John Wiley and Sons Ltd: UK.
Ceballos-Lascurain, H. 1993. Ecotourism as a Worldwide Phenomenon in Lindberg,
K. and Hawkins, D.E. (eds.), Ecotourism: A Guide for Planners and
Managers Volume 1. Natraj Publishers, Dehradun, India.
Dixon, J. and Sherman, P. 1990. Economics of Protected Areas: a New Look at
Benefits and Costs. Island Press: Washington, D.C.
Fletcher, S.A. 1990. Parks, Protected Areas and Local Populations: New International
Issues and Imperatives. Landscape and Urban Planning 19:197-201.
Hassan, F. 2006. Tourism in SAARC Countries. The Daily Star 5(695). [Accessed
online July 2006] URL:
http://www.thedailystar.net/2006/05/14/d605141502108.htm.
Healy, R. 1994. Tourist merchandise as a means of generating local benefits from eco
tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 2(3):137-151.
IUCN. 2005. Benefits Beyond Boundaries. Proceedings of the 5th IUCN World Parks
Congress, 8-17 September 2003. Durban: South Africa. [Online August 2006]
URL: http://www.iucn.org/bookstore/booksonline.htm.
Kellert, S.R. 1985. Social and Perceptual Factors in Endangered Species Management.
Journal of Wildlife Management 49(2): 528-675.
Kumer, R.B. 1995. Coastal Tourism and Environment. S.B. Nangia, APH Publishing
Corporation: New Delhi, India.
Lewis, C. 1996. Managing Conflicts in Protected Areas. IUCN: Gland, Switzerland
and Cambridge, UK.
Lindberg, K. and Huber Jr., R.M. 1993. Economic Issues in Ecotourism Management
146
in Lindberg, K. and Hawkins, D.E. (eds.), Ecotourism: A Guide for Planners and
Managers Vol 1. Natraj Publishers: Dehradun, India.
Lindberg, K. 1993. Economic Aspects of Ecotourism, in Lindberg, K. and Hawkins,
D.E. (eds.), Ecotourism: A Guide for Planners and Managers Vol. 2. Natraj
Publishers: Dehradun, India.
Mehta, J.N. and Kellert, S.R. 1998. Local Attitudes Toward Community-Based
Conservation Policy and Programmes in Nepal: a Case Study in the MakaluBarun Conservation Area. Environmental Conservation 25(4):320-321.
Mollah, A.R. and Kunda, D.K. 2004. Site Level Appraisal for Protected Area
Co-Management: Lawachara National Park. Prepared for International
Resources Group (IRG). Nature Conservation Management (NACOM):
Bangladesh. [Online July 2006] URL:
http://www.nishorgo.org/files_pdf/site%20level%20lawachara.pdf.
Nepal, K.S. 2000. Tourism, National Parks and Local Communities, in Butler, W.R.
and Boyd, W.S. (eds.), Tourism and National Parks: Issues and Implications.
John Wiley and Sons Ltd: UK.
Nishorgo. 2006. Management Plans for Lawachara National Park (Draft) Vol.1 & 2.
Nishorgo Support Project: Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Panwar, H.S. 1996. Ecodevelopment: an Integrated Approach to Sustainable
Development for People and Protected Areas in India. Proceedings of the
SAARC Workshop on Wildlife Management, Dehradun, India, November
1996.
Ostrom, E. 1997. Local Institutions for Resource Management, in Borrini-Feyerabend,
G. (ed), Beyond Fences: Seeking Social Sustainability in Conservation Vol. 2.
Social Policy Group, International Union for Conservation of Nature and
Natural Resources (IUCN): Gland, Switzerland. [Online August 2006] URL:
http://www.iucn.org/themes/spg/Files/beyond_fences/beyond_fences.ht
ml.
Pasha, K.P. 2006. Telephone interview. 21 June, 2006.
Patam, R. 2005. The Khasi People: History, Heritage and Culture (in Bengali). Barsha
Private Limited: Nilkhet, Dhaka.
Pothmi, P. 2006. Personal communication. 13 April, 2006.
Pothmi, S. 2006. Personal communication. 27 April, 2006.
Roe, D. and Khanya, P.U. 2001. Pro-Poor Tourism: Harnessing the World's Largest
Industry
for
the
World's
Poor.
[Online
August
2006]
URL:
http://www.iied.org/pubs/pdf/full/11007IIED.pdf
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
147
Perceptions of Tourism by Indigenous Communities Living In and
Adjoining Lawachara National Park
Sinha, A.M. 2006. Personal communication. 10 May, 2006.
Sultana, I.Z. 2001. Tourism Industries in Bangladesh and World Tourism Day 2001.
The Bangladesh Observer Weekend Magazine, Dhaka. September 28.
Sekhar, N.U. 2000. Fuelwood and Fodder Extraction and Deforestation: Mainstream
Views in India Discussed on the Basis of Data from the Semi-Arid Region of
Rajasthan. Geoforum 32:319-332.
Sekhar, N.U. 2003. Local People's Attitude Towards Conservation Around Sariska
Tiger Reserve, India. Journal Of Environmental Management 69:340.
Walpole, J.M. and Goodwin, J.H. 2001. Local Attitudes Towards Conservation and
Tourism around Komodo National Park, Indonesia. Environmental
Conservation 28(2):160-166.
Wunder, S. 1998. Forest Conservation through Ecotourism Incomes? A Case Study
from the Ecuadorian Amazon Region. CIFOR special paper, CIFOR: Bogor,
Indonesia.
Western, D. 1993. Defining Ecotourism, in Lindberg, K. and Hawkins, D.E. (eds.),
Ecotourism: a Guide for Planners and Managers Vol 1. Natraj Publishers:
Dehradun, India.
148
Comparing the Impacts of Local
People and Rohingya Refugees on
Teknaf Game Reserve
Mohammed Salim Uddin
Mohammed Abu Sayed Arfin Khan
Department of Forestry, Shah Jalal University of Science and Technology, Sylhet, Bangladesh.
Abstract
This paper compares the dependency, livelihood activities, and impacts of local people with
those of Rohingya refugees on Teknaf Game Reserve (TGR). An exploratory survey was
conducted in two villages, inhabited by both local people and Rohingya refugees, during
February to June 2006. We collected primary information through community profiles and
household interviews using a semi-structured questionnaire focusing on socio-demographic,
livelihood activities and overall impacts on TGR. A total of 106 households out of 686 were
interviewed, within which 70 households were local people and 36 households were
Rohingya refugees. Data analyses show that overall, 57% of households, including all
Rohingya refugees are totally dependent on forest for their livelihoods. We explored 21
livelihood activities in which both local people and Rohingya refugees were engaged. Four of
these activities namely fuelwood collection, sungrass collection, illicit felling, and brickfields
have major impacts on the game reserve and pose a high risk to it, while five have medium
impacts. Results indicate that Rohingya refugees are comparatively more dependent on the
forest than local people. Both local people and Rohingya refugees desperately need
alternative income generation activities; and both groups want to collaborate with national
and international organizations to resolve the refugee situation in a timely and congenial
manner and to repatriate Rohingya refugees to their country. We found one case where local
people who were given opportunities in participatory forestry programs successfully
produce rich and productive forest gardens. To restore the game reserve, the co-management
system at TGR should incorporate suitable policies that will involve more landless local
people in joint forest management.
Introduction
People all over the world depend on forests for their livelihoods. Refugees and the
149
Comparing the Impacts of Local People and Rohingya Refugees
on Teknaf Game Reserve
rural poor are no exception. When people are forced to live in crowded and
possibly unfamiliar situations - not of their own making or choice - they often are
left with no option but to depend directly on natural resources for their livelihood
activities. These activities place forests under threat. If we do not restrict such
activities or find alternative solutions, low-level resource gathering activities can
quickly turn into wide-scale, often irrevocable, forest degradation.
Protected areas are increasingly subject to human occupation by refugees of wars,
civil conflicts, and natural disasters. In Rwanda for example, approximately 50% of
the civilian population was displaced during a civil war into camps within the
eastern regions of the Republic of Congo. Of these, approximately 860,000 refugees
were concentrated in the vicinity of Virunga National Park, with another 332,000
encamped in Kahuzi-Biega National Park (Prunier 1995). Migrations of refugees
and local inhabitants into protected areas have several impacts: greatly increased
rates of elephant poaching and habitat encroachment; widespread environmental
degradation and habitat destruction; forest degradation by fuelwood overharvesting (Fell and Bader 1997, Formoli 1995, Hart and Hall 1996, Hall et al. 1997,
Said et al. 1995). Over the past several years, the wildlife populations of reserves
(e.g. Garamba National Park, Kahuzi-Biega National Park, Okapi Wildlife Reserve)
have been severely depleted as the result of poaching by refugees (Plumptre et al.
2000).
The United Nations Environmental Program formally recognizes that a broad
range of environmental disasters can also generate refugees (Westing 1992). Such
refugees are the victims of long-term mismanagement of nature by humans,
including soil erosion; global warming; toxic contamination of air, water, soil and
the food chain; deforestation and desertification (Kreimer and Munashinghe 1991,
Gadgil and Guha 1995, Leiderman 1995).
We define "refugees" as persons who are forced to live outside the country of their
nationality or native region (within country) because of war, civil conflicts, or
environmental disasters (Goodwin-Gill, 1983). The term "livelihood" refers to
peoples' way of living and working, as well as the conditions under which they
live, produce and reproduce. Livelihood is a complex concept and is constantly
being discussed and reformulated. However, a commonly used definition that
finds favor with policy makers is: "A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets
(including both materials and social resources) and activities required for a means
of living" (Carney 1998). The livelihoods of millions of people living in rural areas
150
depend on accessing forest products and services. These actions can have positive
or negative impacts on forests and their conservation. For this reason it is important
to understand forest dwellers' livelihoods, their perceived needs, and their
development strategies.
We conducted our study in Ledha and Kerontoly, two villages within the Teknaf
Game Reserve in southern Bangladesh. We explored the various livelihood
activities of local peoples and Rohingya refugees and compared their overall
impacts on the game reserve. Rohingyas are Arakanese Muslims who were forced
to migrate from Myanmar to Bangladesh in 1991 by the Myanmar army (Mollah et
al. 2004). Local Bengali people and Rohingya refugees inhabit both our study
villages. They use forests for various purposes such as subsistence, livestock
rearing, fuelwood collection and as a source of goods to sell in the market. These
communities place various and different pressures on forests for maintaining their
livelihoods, depending on the nature of the forest area and the economic resources
available to them. Their impacts on the game reserve consequently vary according
to their resource-use patterns. This study seeks to improve our understanding of
the situation and to provide insights that would be useful to the Forest Department
and relevant non-government organizations (NGOs) in their efforts to support
forest dependent people and reduce pressures on Teknaf Game Reserve.
Background
The Teknaf Game Reserve (TGR) is located within the Teknaf peninsula in the
southeastern part of Bangladesh, bordered on the east by the Naf River and on the
west by the Bay of Bengal (Fig. 1). The northern end of the reserve lies 48 km south
of Cox's Bazar District headquarters. The reserve measures roughly 28 km north to
o
o
south and 3 to 5 km east to west, and lies between 20 52' - 21 09' N latitude and
o
o
92 08' - 92 18' E longitude (Rosario 1997). The current reserve is part of the former
Teknaf Reserve Forest, and was formally established through a gazette notification
in 1983 under the Wildlife Act of 1973. It covers a comparatively large area of
11,615 ha (Mollah et al. 2004). The reserve was established purposely to preserve a
habitat for a large diversity of wildlife (Bari and Dutta 2004).
The Teknaf Game Reserve lies in the hilly range that forms the backbone of the
narrow Teknaf peninsula, located in the far southeastern corner of the country,
adjacent to Myanmar. It encompasses three representative geological series - Surma
Series, Tipam Series and Dupi Tila Series (Choudhury 1969). Soils are
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
151
Comparing the Impacts of Local People and Rohingya Refugees
on Teknaf Game Reserve
primarily clay loam on level grounds and from sandy loam to coarse sand on hilly
land. The climate of the game reserve may be classified into three seasons: spring
(March to April), monsoon (May to October) and winter (November to February).
Rainfall is frequent and heavy during the monsoon season (May to October)
ranging between 130 mm to 940 mm. Temperature associated with the three
o
o
climatic seasons ranges from 15 C (average minimum) to 32 C (average maximum).
Humidity ranges from 27% (average minimum) to 99% (average maximum)
(Bangladesh Meteorological Department 2004).
Cox's Bazaar South Forest Division manages the Teknaf Game Reserve, which
consists of three forest ranges namely Teknaf, Whykong and Shilkhali. These are
divided into 11 forest beats. Approximately 40 Forest Department staff members
are responsible for the area. This includes an Assistant Conservator of Forest
(ACF), a range officer, and two forest department laborers based at the Teknaf
Range Office. The reserve is managed with routine silvicultural management
practices - i.e., clear felling followed by artificial regeneration of valuable species on
long rotation (40 years) and short rotation (18 years) and very short rotation (6
years). Bamboo appears either as pure stands or as understory and is managed
under the culm selection system with a felling cycle of 3 to 4 years.
Teknaf Game Reserve consists of 115 settlements or villages, locally called paras
within 5 Unions of Teknaf Thana, namely, Baharchara, Hnilla, Sabrang, Teknaf and
Whykong (Mollah et al. 2004). Teknaf and Ukhia are the most important thanas
(smallest administrative unit) of the reserve, consisting of 274,071 people.
Approximately 52% of the population is male and 48% female. By age group, the
population break-down is 19% children (5-9 yrs), 12% youth (10-17 yrs), and 69%
adults (18 + yrs). The large adult population provides a viable source of labor for
the game reserve's development projects. The percentage of literacy is 17% and the
level of education is also low. Only about 9% of the population have attended
school through the primary level; while 3% have completed secondary education
and less than 2% have received a higher secondary education. Most people living
on the Teknaf peninsula are poor to very poor. Nearly 70% of the households have
a total income in the range of Tk 15,000-45,000 per year, which is equivalent to
about USD 288-865 per household, or USD 50-150 per capita (Bari and Dutta 2004).
There are 14 major Rohingya villages inside the reserve; among these villages
Ledha and Kerontoly are most important. Ledha is located in Mosuni Forest Beat in
Teknaf Range within the reserve, and is comprised of 597 households or about
4,000 people. Kerontoly is in Teknaf Sadar Beat, and is comprised of 89 households
152
or about 800 people. The local (meaning Bengali) people of these two villages have
been living there since time immemorial. Rohingyas migrated from Rakhine State
in Myanmar to Bangladesh in the early sixties (Mollah et al. 2004). By 1993 about
233,000 Rohingyas had been resettled in Myanmar and some 30,000 remained in
Cox's Bazar, most of them in Teknaf (Bari and Dutta 2004). At present, about 22,000
refugees were reported waiting at Kutupalong and Nayapara camps in Cox's Bazar
district for repatriation. There are two camps (Nayapara refugee camps 1 and 2)
located inside the reserve, which support a population of 12,617 Rohingyas (Ashad
29th May 2006). Large populations of Rohingyas also live outside the camp in the
south and southeastern parts of the country. Representatives of non-governmental
organizations place the figure at anything between 100,000 to 350,000 people (Sajjad
2003). They are not recognized as refugees and are seen by the UNHCR and the
government of Bangladesh as illegal immigrants (Sajjad 2003).
The largest Rohingya exoduses from Burma occurred in 1972 and 1991-1992 when
large numbers fled to Bangladesh. Experts believe that many among this non-camp
population returned to Bangladesh after being repatriated to Burma. The Rohingya
who came to Bangladesh after the large exodus of the early 1990s have been denied
entry to the camps and are not recognized as refugees by the government. These
Rohingya refugees have settled in various villages and have encroached on
forestlands. Most local people consider the Rohingyas to be a burden because they
share in every aspect of their livelihood activities and job markets. A villager of
Ledha said, "without any barrier Rohingyas have entered our country, move freely
and do what they want" (Ashad, personal communication, 2006). Local people do
not tolerate them and do not employ them if there is any alternative. So there are
many unwanted conflicts between local and Rohingya people. Mollah et al. (2004)
reported a number of Rohingya settlements, mostly located in Jahajpura,
Shamlapur and Teknaf. Rohingyas are perceived to be totally dependent on forest
areas for their livelihood.
NGOs including those specializing in microcredit finance have direct links with
people living in Ledha and Kerontoly. The major NGOs and banks that operate in
these localities include Bangladesh Rural advancement Committee (BRAC), Society
for Health Extension and Development (SHED), Coastal Association for Social
Transformation (COAST), Association for Social Advancement (ASA) and Grameen
Bank. NGO activities concentrate on education, health, micro-credit for women,
and alternative income generating activities. NGO banks provide micro-credit to
local people to promote their livelihood activities, including agricultural activities,
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
153
Comparing the Impacts of Local People and Rohingya Refugees
on Teknaf Game Reserve
small business, poultry, livestock etc. Credit services are mainly targeted toward
women. In the study site community-based organizations (CBOs) such as local
clubs were found in Uttar Ledha. NGO activities are insufficient to support the
livelihoods of the people. Micro-credit activities have not been very successful
because there is a lack of willingness among group members to return credit on
time. It should be noted that micro-credit is not an income generating activity in
itself, but a means for promoting of other income generating activities, based on
agricultural production, NTFPs, value-added products, etc. We also found a lack of
coordination and motivation by the NGOs working in the locality. More alternative
income generating activities are essential for better support of the villagers in and
around the study site.
Figure 1: Map of the Study Area (Source: Nishorgo Support Project 2007)
154
Methodology
We conducted our exploratory survey during February to June 2006. Out of 14
villages inside the Game Reserve inhabited by both local and Rohingya refugees,
we purposely selected two villages -- Ledha and Kerontoly. We initially selected
only Ledha because we believed there were many Rohingya refugees. We later
learned that Rohingyas represented only about 18% of the population in Ledha and
hence we also selected Kerontoly where Rohingyas represent about 88% of the
population. We began our study by preparing community profiles to learn details
of the two communities. We then collected primary information from key
informants, drew community maps, conducted transect walks, and engaged in
focus group interviews. We conducted five focus group discussions to learn about
the livelihoods and social conditions of both Rohingya refugees and local people.
Out of 686 households within the two villages, we selected 106 households for
interviews. We used a semi-structured questionnaire in our household interviews
that focused mainly on livelihood activities, age, income, education, dependency on
the forest, collection of forest products, land holding patterns and impacts on
forests, etc. A brief outline of our households' selection method is given in Table 1.
Table 1: Location of the Villages and Numbers of Households (HHs) Sampled.
Village
Location
Ledha
Inside game reserve
Local HHs = 487
Rohingya = 110
Number of Households
Sampled
Local HHs = 59
Rohingya = 23
Kerontoly
Inside game reserve
Local HHs = 11
Rohingya= 78
Local HHs = 11
Rohingya = 13
-
686
106
Total:
Total HHs Present
Results and Discussion
Our research revealed that the total number of households in our study site was
686. Local people and Rohingya refugees live in both villages. The status of
households for these two villages is given in Table 2. Family sizes were
comparatively big, from two to fourteen people, since most of the families were
combined (brothers, sisters and their families living in one household). Average
household size of local people and Rohingya refugees was eight and six people,
respectively. We found the literacy rate to be 21%. One reason is that parents do not
send their children to school during working hours. Parents keep children home to
work and help provide for the household's livelihoods. Among people who have
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
155
Comparing the Impacts of Local People and Rohingya Refugees
on Teknaf Game Reserve
some schooling, the highest percentage is primary level (17%) followed by
secondary (3.5%) and higher secondary (0.5%) (Fig. 2).
Table 2: Local vs. Rohingya Refugee Household Number and Average Size
Average household size
Community
Household
Local people
498
Rohingya refugees
188
8
Percentage
6
70
88 79
23
Illiterate
Local peopl e
11 17
Primary
Rohi ngya ref ugees
6 1 3.5
1 0 0.5
Secondary
Higher
Secondary
Overal l educ ati on rate
Figure 2: Household Education Status
Local people and Rohingyas depend on forests for their livelihoods. On the basis of
the community profiles and household interviews, we classified villagers according
to their degree of forest dependency: totally dependent, moderately dependent, less
dependent. We found 57% of the people to be totally dependent, 37% to be
moderately dependent, and 6% to be less dependent (Fig. 3). Comparing local
people and Rohingyas, Figure 3 suggests that 41% of local people and 100% of
Rohingya refugees are totally dependent on forest resources. Of the remaining local
people, 50% are moderately dependent and 9% are less dependent. All of the
households living within and on the margins of the game reserve depend on the
forest directly or indirectly for fuel wood, house building materials, fruits,
vegetables, bamboo, cane, medicinal plants, fodder, and other products. We found
that they depend on forests for many daily household needs and that they also rely
on forest products as a source of additional income.
156
Percentage
100
41
57
50
37
9
0
Totally
Moderately
dependent
dependent
Local people
0
6
Less dependent
Rohingya refugees
Overall
Figure 3: Comparative Dependency Study
It was revealed that 100% of Rohingya refugees and 60% of the local people are
landless. Most of the local people and Rohingya refugees live in areas that are
officially part of the game reserve. Some local people have even encroached on
preserve land and then leased it to newly arrived Rohingya refugees.
Approximately 25% of local people have their own agricultural land. Among local
people who farm, the average household has 0.22 ha of land that they own legally,
and 0.45 ha of encroached land. Among Rohingya refugees who farm, the average
household has only 0.09 ha of encroached land (refugees arriving between 1960 and
1970 were able to encroach land), and 0.06 ha of encroached land that they lease
from local people (Table 3). Among people that farm, we found that 55% of local
people and 17% of Rohingya refugees grow one crop per year.
Table 3: Land Holding Pattern among the Households (Hectares Per Household).
Community
Local
Rohingyas
Self-Owned
Encroached
Rent
0.22
0.45
-
-
0.09
0.06
People in our study sites make their homes from tin, mud, bamboo, sun grasses,
and other products. We classified housing into five patterns (Table 4). Most homes
of both local people and Rohingyas were made of sun grass and bamboo, 32% and
40% respectively. In our study we found that local people and Rohingya refugees
preferred (5-10 years ago) to make their homes with sungrass and bamboo. But in
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
157
Comparing the Impacts of Local People and Rohingya Refugees
on Teknaf Game Reserve
recent times local people and Rohingya refugees preferred category no.2 and
category no. 3 respectively.
Table 4: Housing Pattern Among the Households
No
Category
Local people
Rohingya refugees
1
Tin shed + mud
21%
8%
2
Tin shed + bamboo
26%
15%
3
Sun grass + mud
16%
33%
4
Sun grass + bamboo
32%
40%
5
Other
5%
4%
Total
100%
100%
Most of the households in our study site are poor to very poor. We divided
households into three categories - poor, middle and rich - according to their
income. We then asked respondents about their income from different activities,
and calculated the monthly income of each household. We came up with categories
for poor households (monthly income range Tk 1,500-4,000), middle households
(Tk 4,001-8,000) and rich households (Tk 8,000+). We found that overall 88% of
people in the study villages were poor, including 100% of Rohingyas and 84% of
local people. Furthermore, approximately 14% and 2% of local households were
classified as middle and rich, respectively (Fig. 4). Furthermore, household
Percentage
interviews indicated that for most people, monthly expenditures exceeded income.
84%
100%
88%
14%
Poor
Local people
10%
2%
Middle
Rohingya refugees
Figure 4: Economic Status of Households
158
0
0
2%
Rich
Overall
Comparative Study of Livelihood Activities of Local People and Rohingya
Refugees
Forest-related activities are an integral part of villager's livelihood activities and
strategies. Both local and Rohingyas are engaged in various livelihoods activities
such as fuelwood collection and extraction of NTFPs. During our study most of
the older local people said that previously they were totally dependent on forest
for their subsistence income, but they now depend on the forest, river and sea
when they have no work. Rohingya refugees, however, depended solely on the
forest for their livelihoods. A seasonal calendar of different livelihood activities in
the study is given in Appendix 1.
Both local people and Rohingya refugees engage in diversified livelihood
activities in our study area, but there are differences in their livelihood patterns.
We found local people and Rohingya refugees engage in 19 and 17 livelihood
activities respectively. Overall we found that 52% of households are engaged in
fuelwood collection, 34% in sun grass collection, and 18% in illicit felling. These
activities as well as brickfield operations have major impacts on the game reserve
and we classify these as having high risk. We further found that 17% of
households collect bamboo and extract cane, 14% collect building materials, 9%
graze livestock and collect fodder, and 5% cultivate betel leaves and conduct other
agro farming activities on forest lands. We ranked these activities as having
medium risk. We considered collecting medicinal plants as well as various types
of green and dry leaves, extracting fruits and vegetables, hunting, and honey
collecting as having low risk (Table 5).
We found that 87% of Rohingya refugees and 35% of local people collect
fuelwood. We also found that Rohingya households are more active than local
people in collecting sun grass (47%), providing day labor (45%), collecting fruits
and vegetables (25%), extracting bamboo and cane (22%), catching shrimp fry
(20%), and collecting medicinal plants and house building materials (17%). Local
households are more engaged in agro-farming (55%), salt production (46%) (from
September to March each year), fishing and small businesses (25%), illicit felling
(20%), and cattle grazing (15%). We found that Rohingya refugees are not engaged
in cattle grazing, betel leaf cultivation, or salt production. A schematic diagram of
livelihood activities and their environmental impacts is provided in Fig. 5.
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
159
Comparing the Impacts of Local People and Rohingya Refugees
on Teknaf Game Reserve
Table 5: Comparison of Livelihood Activities of Local and Rohingya Households
Local
People
(%)
Rohingya
Refugees
(%)
Overall
Households
(%)
Level
Of
risk
Fuelwood collection
35
87
52
+++
02
Sun grass collection
27
47
34
+++
03
Illicit felling
20
15
18
+++
04
Brickfield owner
05
Grazing and fodder collection
15
-
9
++
06
Bamboo and cane extraction
15
22
17
++
07
House building materials collection
13
17
14
++
08
Betel leaf cultivation
8
-
5
++
09
Medicinal plant collection
6
17
9
+
10
Green and dry leaves collection
4
13
7
+
11
Fruits and vegetables
12
25
16
+
12
Hunting
2
12
5
+
3
+
No.
Livelihood Activity
01
3 in Ledha (8 in Teknaf GR)
13
Honey collection
2
5
14
Agro
Own land
25
-
farming
Encroached land
30
17
41
+++
++
15
Rickshaw pulling
-
8
3
-
16
Grocer
10
5
7
-
17
Fishing
25
16
23
-
18
Shrimp fry catching
17
20
18
-
19
Small business
25
13
22
-
20
Day labor
23
45
30
-
46
-
30
-
21
Salt production
1
Note: "+++" =High, "++" = Medium, "+" = Less, "-" = No risk
1
Mid September to March each year a large number of local people are engaged in salt production.
During this period local people do not go to the game reserve and the pressure on the forest declines.
Box 1: Livelihood Activities with High Impact on Teknaf Game Reserve)
Fuelwood collection
Fuelwood collection is a major and very visible activity in the game reserve.
Fuelwood collection provides primary and secondary occupation for many
households. Fuelwood is collected for household consumption and also for
commercial purposes. The mean fuelwood consumption is 6 kg/family/day.
Overall, 52% of households collect fuel wood from Teknaf Game Reserve; the
others meet their demands from buying and from collecting in their home
gardens. Fuelwood collectors usually work individually but sometimes they
160
go in groups. Local people claim that sometimes fuelwood collectors pay Tk. 5
to Tk. 10 as levy to Forest Department staff members to enter the forest. Each
household made 2 to 10 trips per week to the game reserve to collect
fuelwood, and the trips lasts from 2 to 6 hours; they collect one headload or
approximately 23 kg per trip. Our observations suggest that 45% of the
fuelwood collected from the game reserve is green wood and the rest is dry.
Only 12% of the dry wood is naturally dried; collectors leave the felled trees
on the forest floor, and then carry the wood out when it is dry. Fuelwood is
collected all year round, but major extraction occurs during the dry season.
The collectors of both communities include children and adults, both male and
female (see plate 1 and 2). Most collectors supplement their income by selling
fuelwood. In our household interviews, people suggested that children,
women, and men sold bundles of fuelwood weighing approximately 10-15 kg,
20-25 kg, and 30-35 kg respectively. The average price of fuelwood is Tk. 2 per
kg. No rules or regulations govern collectors and fuelwood collection remains
unrestricted. Fuelwood extraction from the reserve is for both household
consumption and sale in the market. Household interviews suggest that
overall 42% of the households sell fuelwood in the local market. We confirmed
this by field observations and visits to local market. Middlemen transport
large quantities of fuelwood to other areas (see plate 3); local brickfields burn
substantial quantities; and local tea stalls and restaurants also burn fuelwood.
In most cases middlemen buy fuelwood from the local market and carry it to
the market for sale.
Sungrass collection
Both local poor people and Rohingyas collect sun grass as a building material
for commercial purposes and for household consumption. Overall 34% of
households collect sun grass during the months of March to June, with the
highest percentage collected in May. Poor people, especially young men and
women, are the main collectors of sun grass.
Illicit felling
Widespread illicit felling was carried out in the past at Teknaf Game Reserve
and continues to date. Many people living inside and outside of the game
reserve, including a number of Rohingya refugees as well as members of
armed gangs, are directly involved in the illegal extraction of timber from the
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
161
Comparing the Impacts of Local People and Rohingya Refugees
on Teknaf Game Reserve
forest. Overall 18% of the households we interviewed are directly employed in
illegal felling as day laborers (see plate 4). This activity provides cash income
of Tk. 100-300 per day per person. Some trees are also felled for building
homes. Most of the time this activity is carried out during the rainy season,
government holidays, or at night. However, in some cases influential tree
fellers dare to cut trees during the daytime in the dry season. Both legal and
illegal timber is sold in the local market.
Brickfields
Eight brickfields are located in and around the Teknaf Game Reserve; of these
three are located in Ledha (see plate 5). Each brickfield consumes a huge
amount of fuelwood every day during the seven to eight months that they
operate annually. The operation of such brickfields violates the Forest Act.
These brickfields purchase fuelwood from the local market. Sometimes
Rohingya refugees and people from poor local households are hired as day
laborers to collect fuelwood for these brickfields.
Box 2: Livelihood Activities with Moderate Impact on Teknaf Game Reserve
Livestock grazing and fodder collection
About 15% of local people graze their livestock in the game reserve. Grazing
cattle, buffalo, goats and sheep kills seedlings and prevents natural
regeneration in the game reserve. Local villagers, especially young boys,
collect grasses and fodder for their livestock from the forest during the dry
season. Rohingya refugees do not graze livestock or collect fodder.
Bamboo and cane extraction
Overall 17% of households collect bamboo and cane to supplement their
income. In addition to their use as raw materials in home construction,
bamboo and cane support many cottage industries in and around the game
reserve. The natural regeneration of bamboo and cane has become limited and
their future viability is threatened due to over-exploitation.
House building materials
Overall 14% of households collect house-building materials from the forest to
162
use as fencing, poles, and posts. They also collect sand and stone illegally from
the game reserve in the dry season, to be sold for use in commercial road and
building construction.
Agro-farming on encroached land
Sixty percent of local peoples and 100% of Rohingya are landless. As reported
in Table 3, an average local household farms approximately 0.45 ha of
encroached land and a refugee household farms approximately 0.15 ha of
encroached land.
Betel leaf cultivation
Betel leaf cultivation is the newest form of land encroachment in the reserve.
This activity provides the only source of cash income for 5% of the households
we interviewed; other households cultivate betel leaves to supplement their
income. Betel leaf cultivators cut small trees and bamboo, especially molibansh
(Melocanna baccifera), and other young plants to erect fences that provide shade
and support for betel vines to grow on. Farmers burn the undergrowth for
preparation of the betel vine beds. After the vines are grown they burn and
fence the covered areas to protect them from weeds.
Plate 1: Sungrass and fuelwood collection by Rohingya women and children in
Ledha.
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
163
Comparing the Impacts of Local People and Rohingya Refugees
on Teknaf Game Reserve
Box 3: Livelihood Activities Which Have Low Impact on Teknaf Game Reserve
Medicinal plants collection
We identified a total of 34 plant species belonging to 28 families (Appendix 2)
including herbs, shrubs, trees and climbers as medicinal plants.
Approximately 6% of local peoples and 17% of Rohingya refugees use
medicinal plants for curing ailments. Local traditional healers (known as
boiddah, kabiraj or hakim) collect these plants.
Green and dry leaves collection
Overall 7% of households collect dry and green leaves from the game reserve.
They collect dry leaves mainly for consumption as biomass fuel. Green leaves
are used for packing various goods, transporting fish and giving shade to
houses. Sometimes Rohingya households sell dry and green leaves in the local
market at the rate of Tk. 8-12 per sack.
Fruits and vegetables collection
Local people and Rohingyas, especially women and children, collect wild
fruits and vegetables (Appendix 3) from the forest. A few people sell these
products to their neighbors or in markets for additional income. About 16% of
the households are involved in this activity.
Hunting
Hunting was a common practice in the game reserve in the recent past. Now,
however, hunting occurs on a very limited scale. A few wildlife species from
the game reserve are hunted by about 5% of the households (Appendix 3).
Honey extraction
Overall, 3% of households collect honey from the forest. Honey is used as food
and medicine, and is collected for commercial and domestic consumption.
Sometimes honey collectors damage young plants at the time of extraction.
Honey collectors also carry fire to ward off bees, which can cause forest fires.
Evidence of Forest Destruction
The Teknaf range had almost 100% forest cover in 1980. By 1990 it had dropped to
55%. Current data shows only 8% of natural forest remaining in the reserve
(Nishorgo 2006). In contrast, the Whykong Range still has 65% natural forest cover.
164
Livelihood activities
Fuelwood
Sungrass
Illicit felling
Brickfield
Livestock grazing and fodder
Bamboo and cane extraction
House building materials
Agro-farming on encroached land
Betel leaf cultivation
High
Moderate
Medicinal plants
Green and dry leaves
Fruits and vegetables
Honey extraction
Less
Households
Impact
Encroachment
Deforestation
Decreasing NTFPs
Environmental pollution
Deficiency of soil nutrients
Loss of flora and faunal diversity
Failure of plantation program
Destruction of wildlife habitat
Income
Figure 5: Schematic diagram of livelihood activities and impacts
Previously, the game reserve supported the highest biodiversity in the country
290 plant species, 55 species of mammals, 286 species of birds, 56 species of
reptiles, 13 species of amphibians, and 8 of the 10 primates living in the country
(Nishorgo 2006). In our study, we asked villagers about extinct and threatened
floral species in the reserve. According to these villagers, threatened floral species
include baitta garjan (Dipterocarpus scaber), jam (Syzygium spp.), telia garjan
(Dipterocarpus turbinatus), shimul (Salmalia malabarica), dhuila garjan (Dipterocarpus
alatus), bandarhola (Duabhanga sonneratiodes), bailum (Anisoptera glabra), batna
(Quercus spp.), shil koroi (Albizia procera), champa (Michelia champaca), koroi
(Albizia lebbeck), kadam (Anthocephalus chinensis), chakua koroi (Albizia
odoratissima), gamar (Gmelina arborea), chapalish (Artocarpus chaplasha), jarul
(Lagerstoemia speciosa), telsure (Hopea odorata), bahera (Terminalia beleric), chandul
(Tetrameles nudiflora), harina (Vitex glabrata), pitraj (Ammora wallici), goda (V.
pinnata), and toon (Cedrela toona).
The main objective of game reserve management is to conserve wildlife, but due
to human interferences this has become difficult. One villager noted, "Once Teknaf
Game Reserve was famous for Asian elephants (Elephas maximus), but now Asian
elephants are few in number" (Ashad, personal communication 2006). From the
study, we found that local people and Rohingya households are well aware of the
decline in wildlife populations in the area. They reported that a large number of
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
165
Comparing the Impacts of Local People and Rohingya Refugees
on Teknaf Game Reserve
wildlife could be seen in the recent past, but that many species are now gone.
According to villagers, the following species have now disappeared: python
(Python molurus), wild pig (Sus scrofa), monitor lizard (Varanus bengalensis), rhesus
monkey (Macaca mulatta), kingfisher (Alcedo atthis), squirrel (Calloscirus erythracus),
little egret (Egretta alba), sambar deer (Muntiacus muntjak), hornbill (Anthracoceros
albirostris), rabbit (Caprimulgus hispidus), dove (Streptopelia chinensis), common
langur (Presbytis entellus), black drongo (Dicrurus adsimilis), jungle cat (Felis chaus),
magpie robin (Copsychus saularis), fox (Vulpes bengalensis), woodpecker
(Blythopicus pyrrhotis), porcupine (Hystrix hodgsonil), jungle fowl (Gallus gallus),
cobra (Naja naja), lapwing (Vanellus vanellus), common mongoose (Herpestis
edwardsi), myna (Acridotheres tristis), and mud turtle (Trionyz nigricans).
From our study, we found that 100% of the Rohingya refugees and 60% of the
local people are landless and are forced to encroach upon land in the game reserve
(see plate 6). On average, local people and Rohingya refugees' encroach on 0.45ha
and 0.15 ha of the reserve per household, respectively. We also found that 7% of
local people engage in betel-leaf cultivation on encroached forest land.
Many of the households we surveyed collect NTFPs in the reserve. They collect
primarily bamboo, cane, medicinal plants, honey, sun grass, fruits, vegetables,
fodder and various house-building materials. These NTFPs are decreasing at an
alarming rate in the game reserve due to unsustainable collection rates and
practices. Through the study, we found that, a few years ago, all kinds of NTFPs
were available within a short distance from most households, but now people
have to collect these products at a longer distance, inside the reserve.
Box 4: Minor Forms of Forest Destruction
The forest floor should be rich in humus and mineral nutrients when complete
cycling of nutrients occurs. However, women and children from both local
and refugee families collect litter from the forest floor, preventing this natural
process from occurring. Removal of litter has no immediate effect upon site
quality, but in the long run it lowers the quality of the site and ultimately leads
to a decrease in soil nutrients and tree growth.
Both local people and Rohingya refugees cultivate root crops such turmeric
and ginger in the forest. In addition, they sometimes burn whole areas after
collecting sun grass. These activities cause serious soil erosion during the rainy
season, which removes topsoil and further degrades the site (see plate 7).
166
Hope for the Future
In 2001, the Forest Department started a participatory forestry program in
Kerontoly village where department staff members and local people jointly
planted 15 ha of land with cane and bamboo. In 2004 and 2005 Forest Department
staff members again involved local people in a participatory tree plantation
program covering 10 ha, where every participating household was allocated 1 ha.
We found 36 households in the two villages that managed their allocated
plantations very well; the plantations were undisturbed and growing well.
Participants manage and protect their plantations by working as a team. Outside
of the participatory plantations and some other patches near the range office, we
saw no other examples of successful plantations during our research. Therefore,
involving local people in game reserve management can have significant positive
results.
Recommendations
Based on our research and findings, we can make the following recommendations
for enhancing management of wildlife reserves such as Teknaf:
Poor and forest dependent people need to be identified and diverted from forest
degradation. Their livelihood activities need to be monitored through close
interaction, capacity building, community mobilization and motivation. Existing
NGOs should be involved in awareness creation and community mobilization.
Forest Department and the local people should jointly manage the forest
resources under agreement. Accordingly, co-management models need to be
developed with suitable policies to involve local people in joint forest
management. People are interested in participatory forestry programs.
The unregistered Rohingya refugees should be repatriated to their home land
through a bilateral agreement jointly with international organizations. The
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) should be allowed
immediate and complete access to newly arrived refugees who are staying in
villages in the game reserve. Without UNHCR access, refugees will not be able
to have their protection needs assessed and will not be able to receive
humanitarian assistance.
Encroachment is a major problem in the game reserve. Forestlands are being
encroached upon by influential people, and it is impossible to regain all of the
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
167
Comparing the Impacts of Local People and Rohingya Refugees
on Teknaf Game Reserve
encroached land from local elites. The Forest Department should introduce
community forestry on this land. Encroachers accept community forestry,
because community forestry promotes sustainability, and utilization of land
through combining agricultural and forest crops.
Illegally established brickfields near the forest remain the main threat to the
viability of forests and wildlife populations. Legal actions need to be taken
against the owners to remove brickfields from the game reserve.
Illicit felling is another major problem. Armed criminals often enter the forests in
groups and commit illegal felling. In such cases, field patrols are difficult
without the assistance of the military or police force. This creates problems for
effective and rapid action against the illicit fellers. Administrative
decentralization of the Forest Department may help to resolve this problem.
Alternative income generation activities are needed, such as the cultivation of
bamboo, cane, and murtha plantations; participatory agro-forestry activities in
the buffer zone; development of small scale enterprises such as nurseries, the
cultivation, collection and processing of medicinal plants, beekeeping and
honey processing, fishing, poultry farming, dairy farming and goat farming.
Teknaf is famous for tourism in Bangladesh, due to its natural beauty. The
reserve has immense scope to develop eco-tourism in the long series of hills
along the Naf River. Eco-tourism can be a development tool for the region that
could not only provide benefits for nature conservation, but also pave the way
for revenue generation and the creation of more job opportunities.
Conclusion
This article summarizes a comparative study of the diversified livelihood activities
of both local people and Rohingya refugees, which have impacts on the Teknaf
Game Reserve (Appendix 4 provides photographs of the study site). These impacts
are affected by seasonal fluctuations in climate, by the availability of natural
resources, and by various environmental, socio-economic and political shocks and
stresses. Though the Rohingya refugees are involved in various destructive
activities, they have no other clear options for income generating activities. Local
people do not support the Rohingya, as they are perceived as an unwanted burden.
Both local people and Rohingya refugees desperately need alternative income
generating activities. Both groups want to collaborate with national and
168
international organizations to resolve the refugee situation in a timely and
congenial manner, and to repatriate Rohingya refugees to their country. By
dividing the game reserve into various management units, local people can become
involved in co-management systems. Our research suggests that local people who
have been given an opportunity to be involved in participatory forest plantations
have managed their plantation well and have produced rich and productive forest
gardens. Our study of two villages is a small sample of livelihood activities and
their impacts on the game reserve. There is a great need to study the other villages
both within and outside the reserve in order to explore their impacts, because
livelihoods and impacts vary from village to village. We highly recommend further
research to better understand the actual situation, and to highlight new forms of comanagement that may help to save Teknaf Game Reserve.
References
Ashad. 2006. Personal communication. 29 May, 2006.
Bangladesh Meteorological Department. 2004. Climate Division, Teknaf Station:
Bangladesh.
Bari, A. and Dutta, U. 2004. Co-management of Tropical Forest Resources in
Bangladesh Secondary Data Collection for Pilot Protected Area: Teknaf
Game Reserve. USAID-Bangladesh and Ministry of Environment and
Forest: Bangladesh.
Carney, D. 1998. Implementing the Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Approach, in
Carney, D. (ed.), Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: What Contribution Can We
Make. Papers presented at the Department of International Development's
Natural Resources Advisers' Conference. DFID: London.
Chowdhury, M.U. 1969. Working Plan of Cox's Bazaar Division 1968-69 to 1977-78.
Forest Department: Government of East Pakistan.
Fell, D. and Bader, H. 1997. Remote Satellite Spectral Analysis in Bosnia and
Herzegovina. Agroborealis 29:15-16.
Formoli, T.A. 1995. The Impacts of the Afghan-Soviet War on Afghanistan's
Environment. Environmental Conservation 22:6-69.
Gadgil, M. and Guha, R. 1995. Ecology and Equity: The Use and Abuse of Nature in
Contemporary India. Routledge: London.
Goodwin-Gill, G.S. 1983. The Refugee in International Law. Clarendon Press:
Oxford.
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
169
Comparing the Impacts of Local People and Rohingya Refugees
on Teknaf Game Reserve
Hall, J.S., Ingwabini, B., Williamson, E.A., Ilambu, O., Sikubwabo, C. and White,
L.J.T. 1997. A Survey of Elephants in the Kahuzi-Biega National Park
Lowland Sector and Adjacent Forest in Eastern Zaire. African Journal of
Ecology 35:213-223.
Hart, J.A. and Hall, J.S. 1996. Status of Eastern Zaire's Forest Parks and Reserves.
Conservation Biology 10:316-324.
Kreimer, A. and Munasinghe, M. (eds.). 1991. Managing Natural Disasters and the
Environment. World Bank: Washington, D.C.
Leiderman, S.M. 1995. Environmental Refugees, in Encyclopedia of the Future.
Macmillan: New York.
Mollah, A.R, Rahman, M.M., and Rahman, M.S. 2004. Site-Level Field Appraisal for
Protected Area Co-management: Teknaf Game Reserve (Draft). Nature
Conservation Management (NACOM): Bangladesh.
Nishorgo.
2006. Site Information Brochure: Teknaf Game Reserve. Nishorgo
Support Project: Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Plumptre, A.J., Hart, T., Vedder, A., and Robinson, J. 2000. Support for Congolese
Conservationists. Science 288 (5466): 617.
Prunier, G. 1995. The Rwanda Crisis: History of a Genocide 1959-1994. Fountain
Press: Kampala, Uganda.
Rosario, E.A. 1997. The Conservation Management Plan of the Protected Areas
Other than those in the Sundarban Forests in Bangladesh. GOB/WB Forest
Resource Management Project: Bangladesh.
Said, M.Y., Chunge, R.N., Craig, G.C., Thouless, C.R., Barnes, R.F.W., and Dublin,
H.T. 1995. African Elephant Database. Occasional Paper 11. Species
Survival Commission, World Conservation Union: Gland, Switzerland.
Sajjad, T. 2003. SRI On-Site Action Alert: Rohingya Refugees of Burma and
UNHCR's Repatriation Program. Asia Researcher, Survivors' Rights
International: Annapolis, Maryland.
Westing, A.H. 1992. Environmental Refugees: a Growing Category of Displaced
Sons. Environmental Conservation 19: 201-207.
170
Appendix 1 : Schematic diagram of livelihood activities and impacts
Livelihoods
Bai
Jai
Ash
Sra
Bha
Asw
Kat
Agr
Pau
Mag
Fal
Cho
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
General livelihoods
Agro farming
Salt production
Betel leaf
cultivation
Brick field
Y
Y
Rickshaw pulling
Day labor
Y
Y
Y
Y
Grocer
Y
Y
Fishing
Y
Y
Shrimp fry catching
Y
Small business
Y
Y
Livestock grazing
and fodder collection
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Illicit felling
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Hunting
House building
materials collection
Sun grass collection
Y
Y
Fuel wood collection
Y
Y
Medicinal plants
collection
Y
Y
Bamboo and cane
extraction
Honey collection
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Green and dry
leaves collection
Fruits and
vegetables collection
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Notes: Bai = Baisak (April 14-May 14), Jai = Jaistha (May 15-June 14), Ash = Ashar (June 15-July 15),
Sra = Sraban (July 16-Aug 15), Bha = Bhadra(Aug 16-Sept15), Asw = Ashwin (Sept 16-October15),
Kar = Kartik(Oct 16-Nov14), Agr = Agrahayan (Nov 15-Dec14), Pau = Paush (Dec15-Jan113),
Mag = Magh(Jan 14-Feb12), Fal = Falgun (Feb13-Mar 14), Cho = Choitra (Mar15-Apr13)
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
171
Comparing the Impacts of Local People and Rohingya Refugees
on Teknaf Game Reserve
Appendix 2: Medicinal Plants in the Teknaf Game Reserve and Their Use
Local
Name
Botanical Name
Family
Parts used
Traditional use
Anti-hemorrhoid
Assam pata
Mikania cordata
Rob.
Compositae
Green
leaves
Assam lata
Eupatorium
odoratum L.
Compositae
Green leaves Anti-hemorrhoid, narcotic,
Flowers
influenza, fever, cough
and diabetes
Cl
Arjun
Terminalia
arjuna Bedd.
Combretaceae
Bark
Heart disease, dysentery,
diarrhea, piles,
bone fracture and cough
Tr
Ada
Zingiber
officinale Roxc.
Zingiberaceae
Rhizome
Cough, cold, constipation,
diarrhea, vomiting, tonsil,
Teeth ache and ailments
H
Amoloki
Phyllanthus
emblica L.
Euphorbiaceae
Fruit
Dysentery, cough, cold, vomiting,
jaundice, dyspepsia, skin diseases,
hair falls, digestive problem
Tr
Anaras
Ananas sativus L.
Bromeliaceae
Fruit
Jaundice
H
Akanda
Calotropis
calycinum
Aslepiadaceae
Leaf, latex
Gout pain, Constipation,
cough, worms, asthma,
fever, urinal problem
H
Bohera
Terminalia
bellerica Roxb.
Combretaceae
Fruit, bark
Constipation, anemia, hepatitis, cough,
stomach trouble, dysentery, rheumatism,
astringent and eye disease
Tr
Bel
Aegle marmelos
L.
Rutaceae
Fruit
Weakness, colitis,
diarrhoea
Tr
Bakul
Mimusops elengi
L.
Sapotaceae
Fruit, bark
Chronic dysentery,
astringent, tonic and fever
Tr
Basak
Adhatoda vasica
Nees.
Acanthaceae
Fresh green
leaves
Cough, cold ailments,
malaria, asthma, bleeding
of piles and phthisis
Tr
Banana
Musa sapientum
L.
Musaceae
Root, fruits
Dysentery,Diarrhea and
stomach trouble
H
Chatim
Alstonia scholaris
Br.
Apocynaceae
Leaf, bark
Fever, astringent, tonic,
anthelmintic, febrifuge
and antiperiodic
H
Durba grass
Cynodon
dactylon L.
Gramineae
Tender
leaves
Tooth ache, cut and
wounds
H
Donkalos
Leucas aspera
Spreng
Labiatae
Whole plant
Cold ailments, snake bite,
chronic, skin disease
and rheumatism
H
Gila lata
Derris trifoliata
Lour.
Papilionaceae
Whole body
Not specified
Cl
Harzora
Vitex
quadrangularis
Wall.
Vitaceae
Whole plant
Bone fracture
h
Horitaki
Terminalia
chebula Retz.
Combretaceae
Fruit
Dysentery, headache, painful menstruation,
jaundice, constipation, fever, heart disease,
cough, urinary problems
Tr
172
Sh
Holud
Curcuma longa L.
Zingiberaceae
Rhizome
Skin ailments
H
Jambura
Citrus acida L.
Rutaceae
Fruit
Jaundice
Sh
Keora
Sonneratia apetala
Buch.Ham.
Sonneratiaceae
Leaves, bark Fever, stomach problem
Tr
Lebu
Citrus limon (L)
Burm. f.
Rutaceae
Fruit, Leaf
Sh
Mendi
Lawsonia inermis
L.
Lythraceae
Leaves, bark, Skin disease, jaundice,
seed and
spleen disease, headache,
flower
hair falling and rheumatism
Sh
Narikel
Cocos nucifera L.
Arecaceae
Tender fruit
Refresher and hair falls
Pa
Neem
Azadirachta
indica A. Juss.
Meliaceae
Leaves,
seed, bark
Skin diseases, chicken pox,
antiseptic, eczema, ulcer,
fever, dysentery, diabetes
Tr
Nishinda
Vitex negundo L.
Verbenaceae
Leaves
Skin disease, rheumatism,
cough, intestinal worms
and headache
H
Papeya
Carica papaya
Linn.
Caricaceae
Fruit, latex
and seed
Stomach trouble, asthma
and skin disease
Sh
Paan
Piper betle Linn.
Piperaceae
Green
leaves, roots
Constipation, sex stimulant,
digestive, ear disease, diarrhoea,
fever and stomachache
Cl
Shegon
Tectona grandis
L.f.
Verbenaceae
Roots,
flowers,
fruits
Hair growth,
urinary problems
Tr
Sajna
Moringa oleifera
Lamk.
Moringaceae
Bark, leaves, Paralysis, intermittent fever,
epilepsy, hysteria, rheumatism,
roots
articular pains, cold ailments,
affection of liver and spleen
Tr
Shimul
Bombax ceiba L.
Bombacaceae
Bark, roots
Diarrhoea, dysentery,
cough, leucorrhoea
and fever
Tr
Supari
Areca catechu L.
Palmae
Fruit, leaves
Ulcer, rheumatism,
sex stimulant, constipation,
digestive, teeth disease
Tr
Thankuni
Centella asiatica
L.
Hydrocotylaceae
Whole plant
Dysentery, brain tonic,
cardiac tonic and diarrhoea,
gastric
H
Ulatkambal
Abroma augusta
L.
Sterculiaceae
Bark, root
Dysmenorrhea
H
Digestive, fever, appetizer,
cough and bronchitis
Note: Tr-Tree, H- Herbs, Sh- Shrubs, and Cl-Climbers.
Appendix 3: List of Vegetables, Fruit and Wildlife Collected from Teknaf Game Reserve
Vegetables
Fruits
Wildlife (hunted)
Bamboo shoots, arum, dekhishak, haichhashak, tarashak, maminnashak,
terishak, etc.
Lata mangoes, litchi, olive, banana, cowgola, chapalish, kanthat, dewa,
bakumgola, chalta, amloky, hartoki, bohera, etc.
Mammals: deer, elephant, black deer, monkey, tiger, wild dog, wildfowl, wild
boar, goyal, wild cow, etc. snakes (reptiles): python, daras, kalantor, kachupaitta, ain hap, dudraj, cobra, monitor lizard, etc. Birds: dove, parrot, myna,
cuckoo, heron, kingfisher, nightjar, vulture, wild fowl, hornbill, peacock etc.
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
173
Comparing the Impacts of Local People and Rohingya Refugees
on Teknaf Game Reserve
Appendix 4: Photographs
Plate 2: A local fuelwood collector.
Plate 3: Fuelwood, sungrass transportation.
Plate 4: A local illicit feller coming from the game reserve.
174
Plate 5: A typical brickfield inside the game reserve in Ledha.
Plate 6: A forestland encroached by Rohingya refugees
Plate 7: Degraded forestland in Teknaf Game Reserve
Making Conservation Work:
Linking Rural Livelihoods and Protected Areas in Bangladesh
175
Bangladesh is among the poorest and most densely populated nations in the
world. The difficulties that Bangladesh Forest Department officials face in
promoting the conservation of flora and fauna are among the most severe found
anywhere. The papers included in this book point to several important conclusions about linkages between rural communities and conservation in protected
area management. First, they suggest that strategies to link rural livelihoods and
conservation are not a universal panacea for conservation problems. Promoting
the management and even domestication of non-timber forest products may give
local communities incentives for protecting these species, but this may have little
or no impact on overall habitat conservation. Second, the papers suggest that no
one strategy will work everywhere and indeed, probably no one strategy can work
on its own at any given site.
Generally, the case studies illustrate the importance of developing constructive
ways of involving local stakeholders in conservation and sustainable resource use
practices based on the goals, interests, and understanding of the people living in
and around the protected areas. The studies confirm that protected areas cannot
be managed successfully on the basis of simple and incorrect assumptions about
how local people use natural resources. Rather, the authors of the case studies
unanimously argue for incorporating local people and their knowledge into park
management decisions through some type of co-management system.
This joint applied research project of the East-West Center and the Nishorgo
Program of the Bangladesh Forest Department encouraged students, lecturers,
professors, and Forest Department officials to conduct field research on the
impacts and implications of protected areas on the livelihoods of people living in
and around protected areas. The papers in this volume are the results of this
initiative. The applied research process was led by Dr. Jefferson Fox of the EastWest Center of Honolulu, Hawaii, in collaboration with the Nishorgo Program of
the Bangladesh Forest Department. Researchers were selected based on a
competitive grant award process. The research effort was coordinated by the
Nishorgo Support Project, a Project of the Forest Department, with financing
from the Government of Bangladesh and USAID. The Nishorgo Support Project
receives technical assistance from IRG of Washington DC/USA and its partner
NGOs, CODEC, RDRS, NACOM and IUCN/Bangladesh.
ISBN 984 - 300 - 001197 - 0