On Sustainable Development of Social Forestry In
-
Upload
faisal-azmee -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of On Sustainable Development of Social Forestry In
-
8/3/2019 On Sustainable Development of Social Forestry In
1/19
ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIAL FORESTRY IN
BANGLADESH: EXPERIENCES FROM SAL (SHOREA ROBUSTA)
FORESTS
MD. ABDUS SALAM1** and TOSHIKUNI NOGUCHI2*1Department of Statistics, Jahngirnagar University, Savar, Dhaka, Bangladesh;
2Laboratory of Forest Economics, Department of Forest Science, Faculty of Agriculture,
Shinshu University, Minimiminowa, Nagano-ken 399-4598, Japan
*author for correspondence, e-mail: [email protected]; fax: +81-0265-77-1525;
tel.: +81-0265-77-1525**present address: Department of Forest Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Shinshu University,
Minimiminowa, Nagano-ken 399-4598, Japan
(Received 29 July 2003; accepted 13 February 2004)
Abstract. Sustainability in forestry is a complex amalgam of trade-offs among its various dimensions
and there is no easy route to achieve sustainable development. It is important that policy process and
implementation strategy of these policies should be based on sound information about these trade-offs.
There is a growing consensus amongst key forest decision-makers in Bangladesh that traditional for-
estry is needed to make the transition to more sustainable forestry, which is likely to involve local peo-
ple in forest management. As a result, the government has initiated a social forestry program from
1981 with the assistance of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) loan and the United Nations Develop-
ment Program (UNDP) grant and operated mainly in Sal forest areas. The most important objective of
this program is to protect, manage, and develop forests in a sustainable way by involving local commu-
nities. Although several studies have focused on the management issues of social forestry, none of these
studies has evaluated the indicators of sustainable social forestry. The purpose of this study is to evalu-
ate the criteria of sustainable development of social forestry in Bangladesh. The study is based on pri-
mary cross-sectional data collected using the multistage stratified sampling technique. In total, 581
social forestry farmers were selected randomly and interviewed using a pre-tested questionnaire. The
study evaluated some important components of sustainable development and identified the following
conditions of social forestry in Bangladesh:
(i) almost all the components of sustainable development of social forestry, although not at the
aspiration level, were at good condition;
(ii) participants were interested and committed to work with Forest Department in developing social
forestry;(iii) they had been utilizing both hard and soft technology in practicing social forestry, although there
exists ample scope of development;
(iv) income of participants after involving in social forestry had increased, although not at satisfactory
level; and(v) process of producing social and material goods had been under progress.
However, there exist plenty of scopes for sustainable social forestry development through improving
the sustainable development components more carefully.
* Readers should send their comments on this paper to: [email protected] within 3 months of
publication of this issue.
Environment, Development and Sustainability (2005) 7: 209227 Springer 2005
DOI 10.1007/s10668-005-7313-3
-
8/3/2019 On Sustainable Development of Social Forestry In
2/19
Key words: economic and agricultural infrastructure, hard and soft technology, indicators, Salforests, social and material benefits, social forestry, sustainable development, zamidari system.
1. Introduction
1.1. THEH E CO N C E P T O FO N C E P T O F SU S T A I N A B L EU S T A I N A B L E DE V E L O P M E N TE V E L O P M E N T
Rapid depletion and degradation of natural resources, particularly in
developing countries, has given rise to the concept of sustainable develop-
ment. Sustainability was one of the key words used at the united nations
conference on environment and development (UNCED), or Earth Summit,held in Rio de Janiero in June 1992. But the term sustainability was not
defined either at Rio, or on any other occasion by any institution. Indeed
the term has been used at various time with varied associations and Ekins
(1993) comments, it has become a metafix that will unite every-
body Given birth through a political process by Braundland Commis-
sion in its report (Brundtland, 1987) Our Common Future sustainable
development still lacks commonly accepted framework or technical defini-
tion. Pezzy (1992) has cited over 50 definitions of sustainability ranging
from vague notions to concrete steps. Indeed all existing discussions on
sustainable development has basically only the well-being of human pop-
ulations in mind, the other species being protected not for their own sake,
but only insofar as they are important factors in supporting human life
and well-being (Casimir and Rao, 1998). The powerful concept of sustain-
ability is that it addresses the issues of our responsibility to future genera-
tions and the reconciliation between economic development and
environmental quality. Thus, sustainable development is primarily about
our responsibilities to future generations and taking into account how our
actions affect the livelihood of our future generations.
Sustainable forest management is generally viewed as a logical extension
of Brundtlands definition of sustainable development to apply to forest
management (Ferguson, 1996). Thus, the ultimate objective of sustainable
forest management is to meet the forest-related needs and aspirations of
the current generation without compromising the ability of the future gen-erations to meet their own. To achieve this objective, it is necessary to
maintain, or even enhance the forest values to the society or likely to be so
in future. According to Brundtland (1987) Humanity has the ability to
make development sustainable. In practice, sustainable development faces
some limitations including present state of technology and social organiza-
tion on environmental resources and the ability of the biosphere to absorb
the effects of human activities. But technology and social organization can
be both managed and improved to make way for a new era of economic
210 MD. ABDUS SALAM and T. NOGUCHI
-
8/3/2019 On Sustainable Development of Social Forestry In
3/19
growth and sustainable development. Both internal sustainability process
that builds local technical capacity and management skills and ensures
continuing socio-economic improvement and environmentally sustainable
program of land and natural resources use to ensure long-term viability
must be included in the design of any development effort.
1.2. DE V E L O P M E N T O FE V E L O P M E N T O F SO C I A LO C I A L FO R E S T R Y I NO R E S T R Y I N BA N G L A D E S HA N G L A D E S H
There is a growing consensus amongst key forest decision-makers in
Bangladesh that traditional forestry is needed to make the transition to a
more sustainable forestry, and this is likely to involve an iterative process of
continuous improvement. The government has attached the highest priority
to social forestry, and it has become the dominant strategy in the countrys
forestry sector (Task Force Report, 1987; FMP, 1992; GOB, 1992). Thus,
during the Rio Earth Summit (UNCED) in 1992, Bangladesh joined the rest
of the world in adopting Agenda 21, a program of action for sustainable
development, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and
the Statement of Principles for Sustainable Development of Forests, etc.
Social forestry activities began in Bangladesh in 1980 with the initiation
of a forestry extension program under a Forest Department project. The
first formal participatory forestry program was initiated in the north-wes-
tern districts of Bangladesh in 1981/1982 under the Community forestry
program with the assistance of the asian development bank (ADB) loanand the united nations Development Program (UNDP) grant. After the
completion of this project in 1987, the Forest Department initiated
another ADB assisted project as a part of the Thana Afforestaion and
Nursery Development Project in 19881994 as a follow up on the previ-
ous project and operated in all over the Sal forests1. Agroforestry2 and
woodlot3 models have been applied in this project where 11.2 ha of
encroached Sal forest land was allotted to each participant based on an
annual renewable basis. The project proposed to establish 16 188 ha of
woodlot and 3 238ha of agroforestry plantations and a total of 16 840 ha
of woodlot and 3 061 ha of agroforestry plantations were realized during
the period (Chowdhury, 1994).
The specific objectives of the social forestry program are:
(i) to protect, mange and develop forests in a sustainable way by invol-
ving local communities;
(ii) to increase forest resources in order to improve the local environment;
(iii) to contribute to alleviating rural poverty through involving local poor
and weaker sections of the society in forest management through
income generating activities; and
(iv) to strengthen the institutional capacity of the Forest Department.
211ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIAL FORESTRY
-
8/3/2019 On Sustainable Development of Social Forestry In
4/19
After completion of this project, a Forestry Sector Project for the year
19971998 to 20032004 has been initiated. This project proposed to
establish 20 786 ha of woodlot and 11 905 ha of agroforestry planta-
tions on degraded Sal forests and also on areas where trees of the pre-
vious project had already been harvested (second rotation). The
objectives of this project are:
(i) to increase overall tree resource bases of the country;
(ii) to arrest depletion of forest resources,
(iii) to enhance conservation of forests in selected protected areas; and
(iv) to attain sustainable management of forest resources through local
community participation.
All these objectives are binged on extending the capacity of both state and
civil society stakeholders to manage forests in a sustainable manner.
Through participating in this project, stakeholders will be able to enhance
capacity to conserve forest ecological functions, to increase value-genera-
tion in terms of goods and services and to attain sustainable (rural) devel-
opment.
1.3. THEH E RE S E A R C HE S E A R C H PR O B L E M A N DR O B L E M A N D OB J E C T I V E SB J E C T I V E S
Much of the literature on social forestry in Bangladesh evaluate the man-
agement criteria of social forest in the country (Bhuiyan, 1994; ADB, 2000,
2001; Islam, 2000). Although sustainable development is the prime goal ofsocial forestry in Bangladesh, no study has examined the sustainable devel-
opment criteria of the sector. Thus, this study aims at analyzing the indica-
tors of sustainable social forestry in Bangladesh. Five indicators are viewedas essential components of sustainable management of social forest in Ban-
gladesh and these are:
(i) farmers needs;
(ii) using soft and hard technology;
(iii) forest resources produced;
(iv) sectoral linkages and synergies; and
(v) societal and material benefits.
2. Study area
Sal forests in Bangladesh can be divided into two parts: Central and
Northern. Central Sal forests are located in Dhaka, Gazipur, Tangail, My-mensingh and Jamalpur districts and Northern Sal forests are distributed
in small patches in Dinajpur, Rangpur and Rajshahi districts. The study
was conducted in the central Sal forests (Map 1). Sal forests are tropical
moist deciduous type of forests. These forests are normally present in most
212 MD. ABDUS SALAM and T. NOGUCHI
-
8/3/2019 On Sustainable Development of Social Forestry In
5/19
of the lowlands and floodplains. Sal forests have been dramatically reducedin area and now exist only in a number of widely scattered and degraded
patches. The forests consist of patches of Sal (Shorea robusta) coppice
occasionally with other tree species. Sal forests areas have experienced
maximum encroachment and most of the of the root stock of remnant Sal
forests have lost coppicing power suggesting use of plantation for re-affor-
esting such areas. The total area of central Sal forests is 90 996 ha (FMP,
1992) and 20 382 ha of these lands were distribute among 18 940 partici-
pants for social forestry program (Forest Department, 2001).
For many years up to 1950, Sal forests were under the control of Zamind-
ers (Land Lords) who were not interested in protecting forests (Salam and
Noguchi, 1998). They emphasized the forests economic benefits and tried tomaximize their revenue at the cost of over exploitation of the forests. In
1950 the government instituted the East Bengal State Acquisition and Ten-
ancy Act (EBSATA), which abolished the Zamindari system, and forests
came under the control of the Forest Department. After gaining control of
Sal forests, the Forest Department adopted many working plans. All the
plans failed to protect forests from the hostile actions of the local people.
Recognizing their weakness as a forest manager, the Forest Department
started social forestry program involving local people in these forests areas
from 1987.
Map1. Map of Bangladesh showing study area.
213ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIAL FORESTRY
-
8/3/2019 On Sustainable Development of Social Forestry In
6/19
3. Methods and materials
3.1. DA T AA T A CO L L E C T I O NO L L E C T I O N
The study is based on primary cross-sectional data collected using the mul-
tistage stratified sampling method. There are three forest divisions in central
Sal forests: Dhaka, Tangail, and Mymensingh. Each forest division is
divided into a number of administrative blocks known as beat. There are 22
beats in Dhaka forest division, 31 beats in Tangail forest division, and 22beats in Mymensingh forest division. At first, four beats, one from each for-
est division were selected randomly. From each selected beat, 150 house-
holds of farmers were selected randomly, yielding 600 households in total.At the time of the survey, 19 of the selected farmers migrated temporarily
from the study areas and did not return during the survey period; they were
therefore discarded from the study. Thus, the sample consisted of 581 farm-
ers. The research used interview and field observation methods. The sample
unit was the household of the selected farmer who is the respondent.
Interviews were conducted during AugustNovember 2001 by a research
team using a pre-tested questionnaire. Questions were asked on the follow-
ing topics: household characteristics, participation in forestry program, sat-
isfaction in participating in the social forestry program, involvement in
decision-making process, knowledge about social forestry, satisfaction with
the strategy of social forestry and opinion on sustainable management of
social forests. The language used during the survey was Bengali.
3.2. SU S T A I N A B L EU S T A I N A B L E DE V E L O P M E N TE V E L O P M E N T MO D E LO D E L AD A P T E DD A P T E D F R O MF R O M FA U L K N E RA U L K N E R
A N DA N D AL B E R T S O NL B E R T S O N MO D E LO D E L
Figure 1 presents a model for sustainable social forestry. It is an adapta-
tion of Faulkner and Albertson (1986) model. The figure clearly indicates
that it is the participating farmers who are responsible for the most basic
ideas and initiatives for getting started social forestry. As participants gain
experience from active participation in all stages, they develop capacity to
incorporate and adapt relevant methods and technologies for sustainable
social forestry. With innovative expertise in hand, social forestry agents arethen in a better position to repeat the cycle of development process to
ensure a sustainable production and consumption of social forest goods
and services. The most important component for the sustainable develop-
ment of social forestry is how the participants show their interest and utter
commitment to work with the activating agents (Forest Department or
NGOs). This concurrence is the basis for establishing the ongoing and
continuing relationships between local participants and activating agents.
Beyond this basic accord, it is essential that the responsibilities of local
214 MD. ABDUS SALAM and T. NOGUCHI
-
8/3/2019 On Sustainable Development of Social Forestry In
7/19
participants and activating agencies should be clearly specified in manage-
ment, economic and organizational arenas. Experience has shown that
where this principle is ignored, severe strains will eventually appear and
conflicts between local participants and activating agents can inhibit or
stop process (Burbidge, 1988; Singh and Singh, 1992; Skutsch, 2000). Suchagreements are best made at the very beginning of the project.
Data were collected on the five key components of the social forestry
cycle depicted in Figure 1.
3.3. DA T AA T A AN A L Y S I SN A L Y S I S
Data were analysed mainly to evaluate the status of the components of
sustainable social forestry development depicted in Figure 1. The statistical
package SPSS for Windows, Release 10 was used in analysing the collected
data.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. FA R M E R S A N D T H E I R N E E D SA R M E R S A N D T H E I R N E E D S
Analysing the data gathered from the field, it can be said that participants
showed their interest in participating in social forestry. The results indicate
that about 99% of the farmers were interested in participating in social for-
Forest Department or NGOs activators institutionalize or
transfer appropriate strategies
Participated
farmers
with their
needs
Soft and
hard
technology
Forestresources of
their
allotted
plots
Economic,agricultural,
and industrial
infrastructure
Social and
material
goods
To
Who use
To conserve & manage
To create and expand
To produce
For the benefit of
Figure1. Development cycle of social forestry adopted from Faulkner and Albertson (1986).
215ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIAL FORESTRY
-
8/3/2019 On Sustainable Development of Social Forestry In
8/19
estry program in future (Table I). About 82% of the participants thought
that the adopted strategy of social forestry was effective for forest develop-
ment. Among the participants who disagreed with the strategy of social
forestry (about 18%), about half of them were not satisfied with the species
of trees4 planted in their plots, about 36% were against plantation by
recovering encroached land5, and about 32% believed that soil fertility of
their nearby crop lands degraded because of planting exotic species in the
social forestry plots. About 76% of the participants were satisfied with
working together with the activating agents and they committed to work
with them in future also. The reluctance of participants to commit to work
with the activating agents can be explained as due to participants had been
given no importance of the intervention, or by idea that they had not been
consulted sufficiently, or due to the existence of conflicts with the staff of
the activating agents. The reluctance of local people towards social forestry
may also be from the grievance of original inhabitants of forest areas who
claim that social forestry has been practised on their own lands. On the
basis of these results it can be safely said that the first and most important
component of sustainable development of social forestry in Bangladesh iswithin the tract of development cycle.
4.2. US I N GS I N G SO F TO F T A N DA N D HA R DA R D TE C H N O L O G YE C H N O L O G Y
Utilization of both hard and soft technology is a key element of sustain-
able development process (Faulkner and Albertson, 1986; Albertson and
Faulkner, 1990). Appropriate hard technology is the scientific techniques,
physical structures and tools that enable to meet the needs of the social
forestry requirements and utilize the materials at hand or those readily and
TABLE I. Concurrence of participants with the strategy of social forestry.
Percent
Whether participants are interested to participate in social forestry in future
Interested 98.7
Not interested 1.3
Whether participants are accorded with the strategy of social forestry
Accorded 81.6
Not accorded 18.4
Reasons for disagreement*
Selection of tree species 48.5
Plantation was done on recovered land 36.1
Degradation of soil fertility 31.9
Gap between formulated policy and practise 16.5
Whether participants are satisfied with working with Forest Department
Satisfied 76.4
Not satisfied 23.6
*Total percentage is greater than 100 because of multiple response.
216 MD. ABDUS SALAM and T. NOGUCHI
-
8/3/2019 On Sustainable Development of Social Forestry In
9/19
inexpensively available. This technology can be built, operated and main-
tained by local people with very limited outside assistance. At the center of
any effective development effort is the technique to make the resources
available for programs that are custom-designed, built, operated, and
maintained by local people. There are two groups of viewers in this
respect. One, those who believe that all the necessary technologies should
be shared with and handed over to farmers and also should be taught them
how to use these technologies in the field. There are others who believe all
that is needed is for local people to mobilize themselves and they will be
able to access any needed technology. In todays world of rapidly expand-
ing technical information in all fields of knowledge, the following principles
are useful guides for technological use towards sustainable development ofsocial forestry.
(i) The technology must meet needs/problems identified by the concerned
community.
(ii) Introduction of any hard technology (forestry, agriculture, environ-
ment, etc.) must be preceded by the use of soft technology process to
mobilize, motivate and organize community awareness (Faulkner and
Albertson, 1986).
(iii) In introduction of technological innovations, local knowledge and
concerns must be considered and incorporated into their design and
use (Freeman and Lwdermilk, 1991).
(iv) The best technology must be put into simplified and customized com-municable packages (Roskelley, 1975).
From the results of the field investigation, it appears that hard technol-
ogy is available in the local areas and participants utilize this technology
for social forestry development. This technology is locally innovated with-
out getting any assistance from scientific experts. Activating agents did not
provide any hard technology to the local participants.
Appropriate soft technology includes skills, knowledge and procedures for
making, using and doing useful social forestry with optimums determined
on a community specific basis by the local people. The local people often
possess inadequate technical skills and capacities to implement social forest
management. In order to determine the level of utilization of soft technology
in social forestry in Bangladesh, information was gathered on the type of
knowledge, training and other institutional assistance provided to the partic-
ipants. The soft technology must meet needs/problems identified by the con-
cerned participants. The local peoples needs of soft technology identified
are presented in Table II. The information in the table indicates that the
most important need of participants is the knowledge on how to select tree
species (about 80%). In the social forestry, all the species planted were exotic
species4 and people have very limited knowledge on management techniques
of these species. About 73% of the participants believed that they needed to
217ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIAL FORESTRY
-
8/3/2019 On Sustainable Development of Social Forestry In
10/19
acquire more knowledge on management techniques of social forestry. The
next important component on which participants needed to acquire skills
was seedling techniques of planted species (about 70%). Participants wereasked whether they received any knowledge from the activating agents on
any aspects of social forestry. The answers reveal that about 56% of partici-
pants received training on social forestry activities from the activating agents
(Table II). Among the participants who received training, about 68%
received knowledge on seedling techniques, about 56% received knowledge
on management techniques of social forestry and about 14% learned about
pruning techniques. But the impact of training seems insignificant as most of
the participants demanded training on the same issues on which they already
received training. It indicates that periodic back-up and monitoring by the
activating agents are absent in the study areas. It can be safely stated that
utilization of soft technology in social forestry in Bangladesh is below theexpected extent. This deficiency in transferring soft technology to partici-
pants seriously undermined the intended purpose of the program and jeopar-
dized the realization of sustained benefits. The intended partnership between
the Forest Department and the participants did not develop, which may hin-
der the development of sustainable social forestry.
In order to make social forestry sustainable, participants should have
access to needed soft and hard technology and they should utilize these
technologies by themselves. The participants were asked whether they
would be able to practise social forestry using their own skills, knowledge
TABLE II. Procurement of appropriate soft technology.
Soft technology Percent
Type of knowledge needed *
Selection of tree species 79.9
Identification of suitability of land 58.6
Seedling techniques 69.7
Management techniques 73.4
Marketing system 43.7
Others 12.7
Whether received training
Received 56.4
Did not receive 43.6
Area of training
How to plant seedlings 68.1
Take care of planted trees 55.5
Pruning technique 18.4
How to protect forest 13.5
How to make nursery 3.4
Ability to practise social forestry using acquired technology
Able to practise 71.8
Unable to practise 28.2
*Total percentage is more than 100 because of multiple response.
218 MD. ABDUS SALAM and T. NOGUCHI
-
8/3/2019 On Sustainable Development of Social Forestry In
11/19
and funds if land would be allotted to them. About 28% of the participants
replied that they would not be able to practise social forestry by their
acquired hard and soft technology. This indicates that although a good
number of participants acquired skills and knowledge for practicing social
forestry, a sizeable number of them did not possess adequate technologies
for practicing social forestry using their own capabilities.
An important drawback of transferring and utilizing soft technology of
social forestry is the lack of involvement of participants in decision-making
process. Social forestry was conceptualized as the creation of sustained
forest resources for the people by the people with Government; Social For-
estry program implementation implies full involvement of the people
(SIDA, 1984). However, most social forestry projects failed to achieve thedesired level of local participation (NWDB, 19851989).
In order to ensure effective participation, the goals and objectives of
social forestry must be realistic, clearly stated, and jointly understood and
agreed upon by all involved and affected parties. Table III represents the
knowledge of the participants about the goals and objectives of social for-
estry. About 37% of the participants did not know about the objectives of
social forestry. Knowledge of farmers about the whole process of social
forestry can contribute to active participation of the participants. Among
the participants who did not know the objectives of social forestry, they
claimed they could contribute more to social forestry if they knew and
understood the objectives of social forestry.
Table III also shows that about 85% of the farmers did not participate
in any stage of the decision-making process on social forestry. The partici-
pants who mentioned that they participated in decision-making process
meant attendance of local meetings organized by the Forest Department
officials. There was no scope to incorporate their opinion in social forestry
policies. Thus, in real sense, there was no effective participation in
TABLE III. Farmers knowledge on social forestry and their participation in decision-making process.
Percent
Whether farmers know goals and objectives of social forestry
Know 62.8Do not know 37.2
Scope of contribution
Could contribute more 61.9
Could contribute same 38.1
Whether farmers participated in decision-making
Participated 15.5
Did not participate 84.5
Whether participation is important
Important 94.0
Unimportant 6.0
219ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIAL FORESTRY
-
8/3/2019 On Sustainable Development of Social Forestry In
12/19
decision-making process. About 94% of the participants believed that their
participation in decision-making process was important for sustainable
development of social forestry. Thus, the non-participation of the local
people in the decision-making process has made it difficult to transfer
appropriate technologies to participants for facilitating the sustainable
development of social forestry.
In Bangladesh, decision-making process is Up-to-Down system where
decision is made by upper level decision-makers and is handed to local
stakeholders. Even the local Forest Department officials cannot participate
in the decision-making process. Local stakeholders and local Forest
Department officials have much more practical knowledge about the effec-
tive strategies of social forest management than those who think it theoret-ically. It is important that local knowledge about social forestry systems is
integrated with scientific theory in order to ensure the development of
improved practises (Balaikie and Brookfield, 1987; Brundtland, 1987;
McGoodwin, 1990; Meadows et al., 1992; Nair, 1998; Agrawal and Gib-
son, 2001; Davis and Wagner, 2003). There are a number of supportive
developments which suggest that exercises of systematic, periodic documen-
tation of local peoples knowledge and perceptions of forest management
and integration of these knowledge and perception in forest management
policy may contribute significantly to sustainable forest management (Gad-
gil, 2000).
4.3. FO R E S TO R E S T RE S O U R C E SE S O U R C E S PR O D U C E DR O D U C E D
It is recognized that participants are potential partners of the government
in social forest management. Thus, long-term sustainability and replication
of social forest depend on higher and assured returns from social forests.
The rotation period of social forestry is for 10 years. Thus, the Forest
Department prescribed only short-term plantations. Social forests produce
poles for building houses, small saw logs, and fuelwood. Table IV repre-
sents the amount of forest products produced at the time of final felling of
TABLE IV. Statistics on forest products at the time of final felling of social forestry plots during
20022003 (calculation was based on 63 woodlot and 66 agroforestry plots).
Item of production Type of forest Minimum Mean Maximum
Number of poles Woodlot 111 513 1554
Agroforestry 10 220 653
Small saw logs (in cft) Woodlot 44.12 766.97 2796.35
Agroforestry 1.41 174.80 605.62
Fuelwood (in cft) Woodlot 143.0 1249.46 1975.50
Agroforestry 58.60 353.83 1640.53
Source: Auction schedules of the Forest Department, the Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh.
220 MD. ABDUS SALAM and T. NOGUCHI
-
8/3/2019 On Sustainable Development of Social Forestry In
13/19
social forest plots. It is seen from the table that number of poles harvested
ranged from a low of 111 to a high of 1554 per woodlot plot and from a
low of 10 to a high of 653 per agroforestry plot. The average number of
poles produced per woodlot plot was 513 and per agroforestry plot was
220. Regarding the production of small saw logs, it ranged from a mini-
mum of 44.12 cubic feet (cft) to a maximum of 2796.35 cft per woodlot plot
and from a minimum of 1.41 cft to a maximum of 605.62 cft per agrofor-
estry plot. The average amount of small saw logs produced per woodlot
plot was 766.97 cft and per agroforestry plot was 174.80 cft. Fuelwood pro-
duction per plot was from a low of 143 cft to a high of 1975.5cft per
woodlot plot and from a low of 58.60 cft to a high of 1640.53 cft per agro-
forestry plot. The average fuelwood production was 1249.46 cft per wood-lot forestry and 353.83 cft per agroforestry plot. The minimum forest
production is really a disappointing amount. The maximum amount of for-
est production indicates that efficiently managed social forestry can con-
tribute greatly to alleviate poverty of the targeted people; an important
component of sustainable rural development. Thus, effectively managed
social forestry has the capacity to contribute to sustainable social forest
development.
4.4. DE V E L O P M E N T O FE V E L O P M E N T O F EC O N O M I CC O N O M I C, AG R I C U L T U R A L A N DG R I C U L T U R A L A N D IN D U S T R I A LN D U S T R I A L
IN F R A S T R U C T U R EN F R A S T R U C T U R E
Economic incentives have to be perceived and anticipated by the partici-
pants if their long term commitment to social forestry is to be secured.
Participants expect to produce small timber for farm construction, fuel-
wood for home use, fodder for draft animals or for livestock that serve as
source of animal protein in the farmers diet; and agricultural crops from
the intercrops or from alley cropping. These various products are consid-
ered as direct economic benefits of farmers. Moreover, increased output
from forests requires increased labour inputs through expansion of gainful
employment and therefore leads to greater incomes. Surplus output that
requires marketing is viewed as an important breakthrough in movement
from subsistence economy to market-oriented economy. All these phenom-ena that could be activated by social forestry indicate a possibility of a sig-
nificant improvement of economic, agricultural and industrial
infrastructure. In the social forestry program in Bangladesh, participants
are encouraged to cultivate intermediate cash crops or alley crops in agro-
forestry plots and leguminous taungya crops for the first two years in woo-
dlot forestry plots provided that afforestation/tree plantation program in
woodlot is not adversely affected by intermediate crops. Participants are
given full rights over intermediate agricultural products both from agrofor-
estry and woodlot forestry. Moreover, participants are given full rights
221ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIAL FORESTRY
-
8/3/2019 On Sustainable Development of Social Forestry In
14/19
over first tree harvest products from first thinning in the fifth year. How-
ever, as shown in Table V, the tree harvest products from the second thin-
ning in the seventh year and final harvest in the tenth year are shared
between the participants and the Forest Department.
Farmers have received direct and indirect benefits arising out of such
provisions in the form of wages for working in planting and weeding,
infrastructure and community services, pruning and thinning of trees and
some other means. As compared to the time before participation in social
forestry, farmers income has increased after joining the social forestry pro-
gram (Figure 2); total average income per month has increased from Tk.
1431 before participation in social forestry to Tk. 2540 at the time of the
survey; an increase of about 77.5%. Considering the sector wise incrementof monthly income, income from forest product has increased from about
Tk. 31 to Tk. 100 (an increase of 222.5%), income from forest labour has
increased from Tk. 201 to Tk. 335 (an increase of 66.7%), income from
agricultural labour has increased from Tk. 151 to Tk. 249 (an increase of
64.9%) and income from agriculture has increased from Tk. 759 to Tk. 935
TABLE V. Share of second and final harvesting products between the parties.
Type of forestry Party Percent of share
Agroforestry Beneficiary (participants) 45
Forest department 45
Tree farming fund 10
Woodlot Beneficiary (participants) 40
Forest department 50
Tree farming fund 10
Source: Forest Department (1997).
965
249
335
372
260
100
2540
759
151
201
182
37
31
1431
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Agriculture
Agriculture labor
Forest labor
Business
Service
Forest product
Total
Before participation
After Participation
Figure2. Distribution of average monthly income (in Taka, 1 US$ % 58 Taka) of participants bysectors before and after participation in social forestry.
222 MD. ABDUS SALAM and T. NOGUCHI
-
8/3/2019 On Sustainable Development of Social Forestry In
15/19
(an increase of 23.2%). Results of sector wise increase in incomes indicate
that increase in incomes from forestry sectors were higher compared to
other sectors. Because of the development of economic and agricultural
infrastructure, industrial and commercial infrastructure also developed
simultaneously in the respective local areas. Consequently, social forestry
induced positive impacts on the livelihoods of the participants as well as
the local people. As can be seen from Figure 2, average monthly income
from business has increased from Tk. 182 to Tk. 372; an increase of
104.4% and income from service also has increased from Tk. 37 to Tk. 280
(an increase of 656.8%). These results clearly indicate that participants
have expanded economic and agricultural infrastructures.
In order to make the social forestry sustainable, a strategy to generateTree Farming Fund (TFF) at the local level was formulated (Forest
Department, 1997). Under this strategy, 10% of the total benefits from sec-
ond thinning and final felling of trees is collected by the concerned Divi-
sional Forest Officer (DFO). The fund is utilized for replanting, running
credit program for local level economic activities, including setting up nurs-
eries at the local level and to meet other related financial needs of the com-
munity and for developing social forestry in future without outside
assistance. At the time of the survey, about 6% of the participants pro-
vided 10% of total benefits from the final harvest of trees to TFF (Table
VI). Participants who were contributing to tree growing fund were asked
whether they were satisfied with proving money to the fund and about
88% of the contributors were satisfied with the tree growing fund. The will-
ingness of farmers to contribute to TFR is clearly a commitment of farm-
ers to participate in future forestry program.
4.4. DE V E L O P M E N T O FE V E L O P M E N T O F SO C I A L A N DO C I A L A N D MA T E R I A L SA T E R I A L S BE N E F I T SE N E F I T S
As a consequence of augmented economic benefits, participants status and
recognition has increased significantly. They have emerged as a power
group in most social activities like national and local elections because of
their experience in group work. Practical training and regular meeting with
the Forest Department officials has enhanced their capacity of work at the
TABLE VI. Generation of local tree farming fund.
Percent
Whether contributed to tree farming fund
Contributed 6.3
Did not contribute 93.7
Whether farmers are satisfied with contributing to TFF
Satisfied 87.9
Did not satisfy 12.1
223ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIAL FORESTRY
-
8/3/2019 On Sustainable Development of Social Forestry In
16/19
organizational level. Relations between local people and Forest Depart-
ment officials have improved because they are no longer opponents but
partners of forest management.
Regarding the material benefits, farmers could gain from the social foreststhrough cultivation of agricultural products as intermediate products, fuel-
wood through pruning and thinning of trees both for household uses and
for marketing. As can be seen from Table VII, about 32% of farmers gained
agricultural products through cultivating forest lands at the initial periods
of planting, about 77% of the farmers collected fuelwood from their forest
plots through pruning and thinning. About 42% of the farmers consumed
all the material goods for household uses and about 58% of the farmers
could sell a portion of the material goods after household consumption.
Where material goods gained from social forests, the tendency for the fam-
ily to illegally collect fuelwood or other material goods from nearby reserve
forests declined. Availability of material goods from social forests helps tolower pressure on the nearby reserve forest resources (Godoy et al., 1998).
5. Conclusion
The term sustainable development is a useful concept in stimulating the
conservators, users and policy-makers of forests to improve the existing
forestry systems management. However, sustainability is a complex amal-
gam trade-offs among its various dimensions and there is no easy route to
achieve it. It is important that the policy process on sustainability be based
on sound information about these trade-offs and the selection of objectives
should reflect these trade-offs. Social forestry program in Bangladesh,albeit some drawbacks, has been based on the concept of sustainable devel-
opment. Almost all the conditions of sustainable social forestry in Bangla-
desh are satisfied to an acceptable extent. Participants are interested and
committed to work with the Forest Department in developing social
forestry with some exceptions in some areas of Mymensingh and Tangail
Forest Divisions. Although there exist ample scopes of development, bothhard and soft technologies have been used in social forestry. The income
of farmers has increased because they participated in social forestry. The
TABLE VII. Material benefits from social forestry.
Material benefits Percent
Sector of material benefits
Cultivation of agricultural products 31.5
Fuelwood from pruning and thinning 76.5
How farmers use material goods
Household use only 42.3
Sell a portion after household use 57.7
224 MD. ABDUS SALAM and T. NOGUCHI
-
8/3/2019 On Sustainable Development of Social Forestry In
17/19
process of producing social and material benefits has improved. Utilization
of hard technology should be enhanced by providing technical support for
adopting and maintaining it. The utilization of soft technology should be
enhanced through increasing the skills and knowledge of participants
through intensive training, periodic back-up and continuous monitoring
after training. Indigenous knowledge and awareness should be incorpo-
rated in the policy of social forestry. The local stakeholders should be
actively involved in the decision-making process. The social forestry pro-
gram in Bangladesh has a big potentiality for catalyzing the sustainable
development of the rural economy and thereby helps to improve the
national economy in the long term. It is therefore important that the For-
est Department, other related government and non-government organiza-tions and the relevant stakeholders should take appropriate steps to make
the social forestry program sustainable.
Notes
1 Sal (Shorea robusta) forests are Tropical Moist Deciduous type of forest. This forest is located mostly
in the lowlands and floodplains in the greater districts of Dhaka, Tangail, Mymensingh, Comilla, Rang-
pur, Dianjpur and Rajshahi. The main species is Sal. Other species include Terminalia bellerica, Albizzia
procera, Lagerstroemia spp., Ficus species etc.2 Agroforestry is a garden of multispecies, where there is a tight integration between wood trees and
agricultural crops.3 Gardens of woodlot plantations are gardens of exclusively wood trees of multispecies.4
The prescribed tree species for agroforestry plantation are Acacia auriculiformis, Acacia Mangium, Al-bizia procera, Albizia falcataria, Albizia lebbek, Teriminalia aurjuna, etc. The prescribed tree species
composition for woodlot plantations are Acacia auriculiformis, Acacia Mangium, Eucalyptus camaldul-
ensis, Albizia procera, Albizia falcataria, Albizia lebbek, Swientonia teriminalia aurjuna, etc.5 Sal forests exist in the plain lands which are suitable for agriculture. People have been encroached
some degraded Sal forests lands for practicing agriculture and demand these land as their own. Forest
Department has been practicing social forestry by recovering these encroached lands.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the Japan society for the promotion of sci-
ence (JSPS) Postdoctoral Fellowship for Foreign Researchers Program,
awarded to first author. The comments of two reviewers greatly improved
this paper.
References
ADB: 2000, Project performance audit report on the Upazila Afforesstation and Nursery Development
Project (Loan 956-BAN[SF]) in Bangladesh, Asian Development Bank, PPA: BAN, Dhaka, Bangla-
desh, pp. 147
ADB: 2001, Regional study on forest policy and institutional reforms: Final Report of the Bangladesh
case study, Asian Development Bank, Dhaka, Bangladesh, pp. 164.
225ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIAL FORESTRY
-
8/3/2019 On Sustainable Development of Social Forestry In
18/19
Agarwal, A. and Gibson, C.C. (eds.): 2001, Communities and Environment: Ethnicity, Gender, and the
State in Community-based Conservation, New Brunswick, NJ, Rutgers University Press.
Albertson, M. and Faulkner, A.O.: 1990, International aid What is missing?, Paper presented at
International Conference on Water and Wastewater in Barcelona, Spain, April, 1990.
Bhuiyan, A.K.: 1994, Policy and strategy for the development of Sal forest area with peoples partici-
pationits constraints and remedial measures, in Proceedings of the National Workshop on Agrofores-
try Afor the Degraded Sal Forest, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council, Dhaka, Bangladesh,
pp. 2643.
Blaikie, P.M. and Brookfield, H.C.: 1987, Common property resources and degradadtion worldwide,
in P.M. Blaikie and H.C. Brookrfield, (eds.), Land Degradation and Society, London, Metheum, pp.
186196.
Brundtland, G.: 1987, Our Common Future: The World Commission on Environment and Development,
Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1398.
Burbidge, J. (ed.): 1988, Approaches that Work in Rural Development: Emerging Trends , Participatory
Methods and Local Initiatives, Institute of Cultural Affairs International, Brussels, K.G. Saur, Mun-
chen, New York, London, Paris.
Casimir, M.J. and Rao, A.: 1998, Sustainable herd management and the tragedy of no mans land: An
analysis of West Himalayan pastures using remote sensing techniques, Human Ecology 26(1), 113
134.
Chowdhury, R.A.: 1994, History and importance of Sal forests and current management status in Pro-
ceedings of the National Workshop on Agroforestry for the Degraded Sal Forests, organized by
NAWG and BARC, Dhaka, Bangladesh, pp. 925.
Davis, A. and Wagner, J.R.: 2003, Who knows? On the importance of identifying Experts when
researching local ecological knowledge, Human Ecology 31(3), 463489.
Ekins, P.: 1993, Limits to growth and sustainable development: grappling with ecological realities,
Ecological Economics 8, 269288.
Faulkner, A.O. and Albertson, M.: 1986, Tandem use of hard and soft technology: An evolving model
for third world village development, International Journal of Applied Engineering Education 2(2), 97
114.
Ferguson, I.S.: 1996, Sustainable Forest Management, Melbourne, Australia, Oxford University Press.
FMP: 1992, Bangladesh participatory forestry, Forestry Master Plan, Asian Development Bank, (TA
1355-BAN UNDP/FAO BGD/088/025), Dhaka, Bangladesh, pp. 180.
Forest Department: 1997, Project Proforma PP: Forestry Sector Project 199798 to 20032004, For-est Department, Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh, pp. 1147.
Forest Department: 2001, Manual of training course of forest guards, NGOs field workers, partici-
pants, and local elites, Local Training Program, Forestry Sector Project (1997/982003/04), Forest
Department, Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh, pp. 162.
Freeman, D. and Lowdermilk, M.K.: 1991, Middle level farmer organizations as links between farms
and central irrigation systems in putting people first: Sociological variables in rural development,
2 edn. M.C. Michel (ed.), Published for the World Bank, Oxford University Press, New York.
Gadgil, M.: 2000, Peoples biodiversity registers: Lessons learnt, Environment, Development and Sus-
tainability 2, 323332.
GOB: 1992, A new pledge for a greener Bangladesh, Ministry of Information, Government of the
Peoples Republic of Bangladesh, pp. 154.
Godoy, R., Franks, J.R., and Claudio, M.A.: 1998, Adoption of modern agricultural technologies bylowland indigenous groups in Bolivia: The role of households, villages, ethnicity, and markets,
Human Ecology 26(3), 351369.
Isalm, M.S.: 2000, Participatory Assessment of Agroforestry in the Sal Forests of Two Villages, Mymen-
singh Forest Division, Bangladesh, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Rural
Development Studies, MADRAT Program, Sweden.
McGoodwin, J.R.: 1990, Crisis in the Worlds Fisheries: People, Problems and Policies, Palo Alto, CA,
Stanford University Press.
Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L. and Randers, J.: 1992, Beyond the Limits: Confronting Global Col-
lapse, Envisioning a Sustainable Future, Chelsea Green, Mills, VT.
Nair, P.K.R.: 1998, Directions in tropical agroforestry research: past, present, and future, Agroforestry
Systems 38, 223245.
226 MD. ABDUS SALAM and T. NOGUCHI
-
8/3/2019 On Sustainable Development of Social Forestry In
19/19
NWDB: 19851989, Developing Indias Wastelands, New Delhi, National Wastelands Development
Board, Government of India.
Pezzy, J.: 1992, Sustainable development concepts: An economic analysis, World Bank Environmental
Paper No. 2, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Roskelley, R.W.: 1975, The farmer scholar program: Documentation, Utah State University Printing
Services, Logan, Utah.
Salam, M.A. and Noguchi, T.: 1998, Depletion of Madhupur Sal Forests A case study in Bangla-
desh, Journal of Forest Economics 44(3), 16.
SIDA: 1984, The Bihar Social Forestry Project for Chotanagpur and Santhal Parganas: Appraised Pro-
ject Document, New Delhi, India, Swedish International Development Agency.
Singh, N.M. and Singh, K.K.: 1992, Forest protection by communities in Orissa A new green revolu-
tion, Forest, Trees, and People Newsletter 19, 1620.
Skutsch, M.M.: 2000, Conflict management and participation in community forestry, Agrofortesry
System 48, 189206.
Task Force Report: 1987, Participatory forestry in Bangladesh: Concepts, experiences and recommen-
dations, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh, pp. 175.
227ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIAL FORESTRY