Participatory Forest Management and Livelihoods of Ethnic People: Empirical Analysis from Bangladesh

PARTICIPATORY FOREST MANAGEMENT AND LIVELIHOODS OF ETHNIC PEOPLE: EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS FROM BANGLADESH

No part of this digital document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means. The publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this digital document, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained herein. This digital document is sold with the clear understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, medical or any other professional services.

PARTICIPATORY FOREST MANAGEMENT AND LIVELIHOODS OF ETHNIC PEOPLE: EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS FROM BANGLADESH

TAPAN KUMAR NATH

Nova Science Publishers, Inc. New York

Copyright © 2009 by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic, magnetic, tape, mechanical photocopying, recording or otherwise without the written permission of the Publisher. For permission to use material from this book please contact us: Telephone 631-231-7269; Fax 631-231-8175 Web Site: http://www.novapublishers.com NOTICE TO THE READER The Publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this book, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained in this book. The Publisher shall not be liable for any special, consequential, or exemplary damages resulting, in whole or in part, from the readers’ use of, or reliance upon, this material. Independent verification should be sought for any data, advice or recommendations contained in this book. In addition, no responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from any methods, products, instructions, ideas or otherwise contained in this publication. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information with regard to the subject matter covered herein. It is sold with the clear understanding that the Publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or any other professional services. If legal or any other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent person should be sought. FROM A DECLARATION OF PARTICIPANTS JOINTLY ADOPTED BY A COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND A COMMITTEE OF PUBLISHERS. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA Nath, Tapan Kumar. Participatory forest management and livelihoods of ethnic people : empirical analysis from Bangladesh / Tapan Kumar Nath. p. cm. Includes index. ISBN 978-1-61728-559-2 (E-Book) 1. Forest management--Bangladesh--Citizen participation. 2. Forest management--Economic aspects--Bangladesh. I. Title. SD235.B35N38 2009 333.75095492--dc22 2008047772

Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc.  New York

CONTENTS Preface

vii

Chapter 1

Context and Significance of the Book

1

Chapter 2

Participatory Forest Management in Bangladesh and Description of the Research Sites

9

Chapter 3

Livelihood Analysis, Research Framework and Objectives

23

Chapter 4

Agroforestry in the Chittagong Hill Tracts Region

41

Chapter 5

Participatory Forestry Program in the Chittagong Hill Tracts Region

59

Chapter 6

Shifting Cultivation in the Chittagong Hill Tracts Region

105

Chapter 7

Small-Scale Betel Leaf Agroforestry in Sylhet Region

125

Chapter 8

Linkages between Livelihoods of Forest Villagers and Forest Conservation in Sylhet Region

143

Conclusion

165

Chapter 9 Index

181

PREFACE “This book makes a significant academic contribution because the study enriches the theories of social capital, governance and participatory forestry by making use of the evidence of empirical data collected in the field-work in Bangladesh. It also provides great policy implications in the field of rural development.” - Professor Makoto Inoue “This is a timely and important book addressing a vital topic for the planet’s future, namely how to maintain both tropical biodiversity and the cultures of the peoples living in and around them. It draws on experiences from Bangladesh of shifting cultivation, and shows how careful analysis of people’s livelihoods combined with participatory forest management programs can make a difference. A clear and cogent account, and essential reading for a wide variety of disciplines.” - Professor Jules Pretty

Chapter 1 - This chapter describes the relationship between participatory forestry (PF) and sustainable rural livelihood and its application in Bangladeshi context. In order to do so, at first, the issues that set off the concept of PF as a government forest management scheme, especially in developing countries, is highlighted and its view point is extended to Bangladesh forestry practices. It has been observed that despite the governmental emphasis and popular support, systemic academic research on the role of PF on the livelihoods of the participant farmers has remained remarkably limited. Chapter 2 - This chapter first describes the situation of forests and the emergence of participatory forest management in Bangladesh. Then the research sites are described and research problems are identified. Bangladesh forests have experienced deforestation and degradation since the British colonial period which continued during the Pakistan era and was inherited by the independent Bangladesh. Of the total forest land (17%), a large part of the area has no tree cover and the situation is worsening despite an attempt to preserve it. Since the early 1980’s, forestry in Bangladesh has witnessed a rapid succession of participatory forestry programs in an attempt to redress public alienation and to allow for wider participation of people in forest use and management. Two recent participatory forestry projects, namely,- the Upland Settlement Project (USP) in the CHT and Khasia forest village, in the Sylhet forest division, have been selected for studying the effects of participatory forest management on livelihoods of the ethnic communities. The research sites are described and

viii

Tapan Kumar Nath

past studies that have been conducted in these study sites were reviewed and research problems were identified for the study. Chapter 3 - This chapter first briefly reviews livelihood literature. It has been found that sustainable livelihoods’ (SL) framework is being widely used as a tool to improve our understanding of livelihoods, particularly the livelihoods of the poor. It presents the main factors that effect people’s livelihoods, and typical relationships among them. However, the SL framework discusses very little about market, production technology and governance issues. In light of review, I formulate a research framework and then set four interrelated research objectives based on research problems identified in the first chapter and the research framework. At the end, I discuss the method of study in short. Chapter 4 - This chapter explores the effects of small-scale agroforestry on upland community development in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh. More specifically, the study clarifies the merits and demerits of different agroforestry systems as perceived by planters, their impacts on the rural economy and the environment, farmer’s attitudes towards the adoption of agroforestry and impacts of various government policies. Field data was collected by administering questions to a randomly selected group of 90 planters in the Upland Settlement Project (USP), as well as project staff. The results indicated that the agroforestry interventions have in fact increased planters’ income through employment and the selling of farm products, as well as by improving the ecological conditions of these areas through reduction of soil erosion, increasing tree coverage and maintaining soil fertility. The adoption of different agroforestry systems was governed mainly by the planters’ interest in following these techniques, their ability to cultivate the land in the prescribed manner, and the market demand for their products. The major obstacles that prevented increased agroforestry improvements included lack of confidence in new land use systems, inappropriate project design (e.g. top-down innovation approach) and policy issues regarding land tenure. Recommendations are being proposed to strengthen social capital in local organizations to enhance the livelihoods of the upland communities. Chapter 5 - The Upland Settlement Project (USP) is a recent intervention that aimed to settle landless shifting cultivators through a participatory forestry program and other social development activities. By taking two contrasting sample villages (one relatively successful and the other relatively unsuccessful) as case study sites, this chapter investigated the present conditions of the USP in terms of progress towards achieving targeted objectives and its impacts on planter’s livelihoods. Both qualitative and quantitative approaches were used. Findings indicate that although customary forestry practices could not support planters’ livelihoods all year, joining the USP had improved their livelihoods by building several livelihood capitals including human, physical, natural, financial and social capital. Many planters have given up customary forestry practices completely and diversified their livelihood strategies to make a living. Due to budget allocation disparities, differences in raising awareness about project benefits, and inconsistencies in monitoring motivation, project outcomes varied depending on the divergence of livelihoods capital between the villages. Several local-level governance and policy issues were identified that underlay inadequate settlement project achievements. Suggestions are made for effective participation by planters that would heighten the sense of ownership, enhance collective management, and ensure long-term program sustainability. Chapter 6 - Despite the trend of dwindling productivity, ethnic people of the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) still practice shifting cultivation as a dominant hill farming system to

Preface

ix

support their livelihoods. Drawing on an empirical study in Khagrachari district of the CHT, this chapter examined how far the production from present shifting cultivation supports the ethnic people’s livelihoods and what alternative livelihoods strategies they have adopted for subsistence by using data on input/output and income/expenditures, and analyzing current government policies. The findings showed that productivity declined markedly, yields were almost equal to input values, and farmers experienced food shortages for at least two to six months in a year. To make a living, farmers have adopted new occupations such as wage labor, animal husbandry, cultivation of annual monocrops, and extraction and selling of forest products. Policy analysis indicates that previous policies were unable to reduce shifting cultivation intensity or improve ethnic people’s livelihoods or the region’s forest resources. Reorientation of government policies, easy access to institutional support, and the active participation of local people in development projects are of the utmost importance in order to find alternative land uses for sustainable hill farming, to improve the farmer’s living standards, and to conserve forests and protect watersheds. Chapter 7 - The Khasia ethnic community of Bangladesh has been a population of forest villagers in the northeastern hill forests of Bangladesh since the early 1950’s, practicing a betel leaf-based agroforestry system on land granted by the Forest Department. This chapter explores indigenous management of agroforestry and the sustainability attributes of betel leaf production in the agroforestry system. The data and information of the study have been drawn from randomly selected three forest villages of Sylhet forest division. Villagers were classified into three categories based on their mean monthly income. Eight households were selected at random from each category in each village for household interview. Officials of the Forest Department were interviewed to explore the impacts of the farming system on forest conservation. Findings indicate that the lives of the Khasia people are centered on the hills and hill resources. Their economy is forest based, using simple, traditional technology. Their principal occupation and source of livelihoods is betel leaf agroforestry. The presence of several positive attributes of sustainability such as composition of agroforestry, disease control, soil fertility management, profitability, socio-cultural acceptability and institutional support indicate that betel leaf production within the agroforestry system seems stable under prevailing traditional management system. Income from the sale of betel leaf is the principal livelihoods means and villager’s reciprocal contributions help to conserve forest resources. Chapter 8 - Even though many forest villagers have been living on forest department (FD) land and serving the department in the northeastern hill forests region of Bangladesh since the early 1950’s, their livelihood has not been fully explored yet. Taking a sample forest village of the Sylhet forest division, as a case study, this chapter deeply examines the livelihoods of villagers (Khasia ethnic people) and their contribution to forest conservation. Findings of the study indicate that the villagers are well-endowed with all the capitals of a sustainable livelihoods framework, though human capital in terms of education is not satisfactory. Strong social capital, stable natural capital, and a productive market-oriented agroforestry system facilitates the generation of financial and physical capital that make the livelihoods of Khasia people sustainable. At the same time, their reciprocal contributions in terms of forest protection and plantation development support forest conservation. However, some institutional issues such as land tenure and regular agreement renewal problems need to be resolved for the sake of their livelihoods and forest conservation. Lessons learned from the

x

Tapan Kumar Nath

study can be utilized in formulating future participatory forest management schemes in the country. Chapter 9 - This chapter conducts comparative analysis between the USP and the forest villagers, answers the research problems and recommends some policy implications. Comparative analysis indicates that Khasia forest villagers are in better position in terms of livelihoods and forest conservation than that of the USP planters. It could explore differential answers to the research problems in two study sites. The USP has been able to limit the jhum, improve livelihoods of planters through building of several livelihood capitals and is able to reduce land degradation through introduction of small-scale rubber plantations and promotion of homestead agroforestry. Even though having some institutional and governance problems, in contrast, the livelihoods of Khasia people has improved remarkably after joining as forest villagers in Sylhet forest division. Khasia people conserve and protect the state forests as their own asset because these forests support their livelihoods sustainably. This book has academic merits in terms of creation of new ideas and supporting the existing theories by case studies. Recommendations are made for sustainability of the USP activities and better livelihoods of the Khasia forest villagers and integrated regional development.

Chapter 1

CONTEXT AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BOOK ABSTRACT This chapter describes the relationship between participatory forestry (PF) and sustainable rural livelihood and its application in Bangladeshi context. In order to do so, at first, the issues that set off the concept of PF as a government forest management scheme, especially in developing countries, is highlighted and its view point is extended to Bangladesh forestry practices. It has been observed that despite the governmental emphasis and popular support, systemic academic research on the role of PF on the livelihoods of the participant farmers has remained remarkably limited.

INTRODUCTION Forests are considered an important safety net for rural poor to meet their emergency needs, such as during food crop failure and economic hardship. Rural, and to some extent urban, households make extensive use of forest resources to meet their daily livelihood needs (Shackleton et al., 2007). Resource extraction from forests is an important source of income for them, without which their ability to satisfy basic needs would be jeopardized (LopezFeldman et al. 2007). Forests can provide both direct and indirect livelihood benefits including products, services and capabilities (Thoms, 2008:1453). The land and the forest resources are the determinants for the quality of rural livelihoods, which possesses ethical, economic and environmental value to the rural poor providing food security (Gurung et al. 2004; Vedeld et al. 2007). Over time, conversion of forest land for agriculture, together with the effects of economic and political changes have often greatly reduced the availability of forest resources for use by local people (Arnold, 2001). Expropriation of forests by governments as forest reserves or some other form of state property led to progressive degradation of the remaining forests (Arnold, 2001; Roy, 2002). The expansion of forest reservation thwarts local people’s access to local forest use and management. Restricted access to remaining forests due to lack of land tenure and intensified state control leads to the poverty of forest dependent people (Fisher and Hirsch, 2008:75). Exclusion of local people,- from state forest management, under conditions where dependency of the people on forest resources is high due to poverty and high population density, is not an appropriate policy because it does not automatically ensure

2

Tapan Kumar Nath

protection from forest degradation or the avoidance of greater environmental problems (Gunawan et al., 2004: 31). To pursue conservation agendas by restricting access to forest resources relegate the rural poor to levels of livelihoods deprivation that entail health problems, loss of life, distress migration, social disaffection and conflicts (Mamo et al., 2007: 926). Many influential organizations in global conservation continue with the apparently deep-rooted assumptions that in tropical countries local people seldom hold significant conservation values, that conservation must be imposed, and that strict protection works best (Vermeulen and Douglas, 2007: 436). State authority claims that reservation ensures their sustainable use for environmental and economic benefits. The potential value of forests as a source of rent to governments helps to explain the reasons for breaking down existing use and management systems, and the bias towards forest management systems designed to meet industrial rather than local requirements (Arnold, 2001). Even though the state authorities looked to receive great deals of revenue through reservation, it was observed that,- in many developing countries,- that the state could not manage the forest effectively. All too often, these measures have been ineffective in protecting the rate of forest loss and degradation (Wiggins et al., 2004: 1940). Despite rigid management systems and well-trained forest cadres with scientific knowledge of silvicultural management, the centralized bureaucratic system failed to prevent deforestation (Rasul, 2007: 153). Authoritarian approaches to imposing conservation may claim some success in the tropics but are becoming increasingly indefensible (Vermeulen and Douglas, 2007: 438).The authorities could not protect the forests because of continuous illegal logging, and large tracts of forest areas have been encroached. The colonial attitudes of forest officers which make them isolated, custodial approach of forest management, shortage of manpower to monitor the huge amount of forest areas, increasing demand of forest products that were met unlawfully and socio-political pressure on forests have negatively affected the forest conditions. State authorities, who claim control over forest management, fail to adequately protect forest resources and they rarely deliver the benefits of forest use to local forest dependent communities (Both ENDS, 2000). Centralized, top-down decision making has become increasingly inadequate for responding to local natural resource issues and needs (Lurie and Hibbard, 2008: 438). Faulty design, inefficient implementation, and corrupt organizations have played an equally important role in the poor outcomes associated with state-centered policies (Agrawal and Gibson, 1999: 632). Combined with local intransigence and lack of livelihood alternatives, this mix of factors has turned most enforced conservation projects into spectacular failures (ibid.: 632). Wholesale failure of state-led forest management forced the government to change its policy and strategies towards people-oriented forestry practices (Hong, 2005). The failure of state-led resource management had demonstrated that there was a need for new ways to involve people living in and adjoining the forests in their management (Castren, 2005: 90). Reversing of tropical forest degradation is possible through involvement of local people when forestry programs address livelihood needs and environmental concerns (Blay et al., 2008: 503-4). Local people can be part of a solution, rather than of the problem, if they are given the opportunity (Vermeulen and Douglas, 2007: 434). Local communities have an interest in forest conservation despite the pressing need to extract from the forest (Guthiga et al., 2008: 704). Governments are no longer viewed as the sole or even primary stewards of forest resources (Walters, 2004: 178). Subsequently, governments had acknowledged that the centralized management of forests had failed in its primary purpose of conserving the

Context and Significance of the Book

3

essential productive and protective values of forest resources which led to recognition that deforestation and degradation in the forest condition could only be halted if action was taken with active involvement of local community, and if local needs for fuel wood, grazing and other things are considered (Arnold, 2001; Kubsa and Tadesse, 2003). The poor conservation outcomes that followed decades of intrusive resource management strategies and planned development have forced policy makers and scholars to reconsiders the role of community in resource use and conservation (Agrawal and Gibson, 1999: 630). Concern over these overlapping issues (e.g., forest conservation and basic needs of local people) meant that developing world governments, international donor agencies and foresters could no longer ignore the relationships between forests and people. A series of studies and meetings held during the 1970’s culminated in The Eighth World Forestry Congress in 1978, which took as its theme “Forest and People” (van Gelder and O’Keefe, 1995). The turning point came in the mid 1970’s. By the end of the decade community forestry, social forestry, participatory forestry or trees for the people, were the buzzwords on everyone’s lips. Community-based natural resource management that entails local, place-based projects, policies and goals of advancing healthy environments and human communities had emerged as an alternative to conventional, top-down approaches to public management (Lurie and Hibbard, 2008: 430). The role of community-based plantation development in forest rehabilitation and poverty alleviation is now a pressing issue (Blay et al., 2008: 503). The community-based forestry movement, which involves an attempt by people living in or near forests to gain control of, or at least increased access to- forests and forest resources, involves discourses which assert the ability of local communities to manage environments sustainably (Fisher and Hirsch, 2008: 76). Participatory forestry (PF) has emerged during the last decade as an effective approach to be used by local communities in taking part in decision-making to ensure the sustainable management and use of forest resources that are important to their livelihoods (Potters et al., 2003). Based on the idea of Warner (2003), PF can be defined as participation of stakeholders in forestry decisions, from policy formulation to field level execution and back with a full role in decision-making. It is regarded as an umbrella concept covering all of the different types of forestry activities that involve local stakeholders, especially villagers, in different degrees of decision-making authority (Potters et al., 2003). Participatory forest management (PFM) can be considered a non-market communitybased institution for forest management and protection- and sustainable human development (Prasad and Kant, 2003). Since the late 1970’s many PFM systems have been practiced in the tropics because professional foresters noticed that they could not manage the forests sustainably under the principle of conventional and industrial forestry (Inoue, 2000a) where the local people were considered to be obstacles or constraints to forest management (Inoue, 2003b). A PFM system is considered to be an indispensable policy concept in achieving sustainable forest management (Inoue, 2000a), and currently, PF is viewed as a potential and increasing feature of forest policy and practice in most of the developing countries (Brown, 1999). Increasingly, policies and programs are crafted with the intent of enlisting local people as partners in forest land management (Walters, 2004: 178). The involvement of local communities, local government, and other stakeholders (including private sectors, NGOs and international agencies) in forest management is accepted as an ongoing trend (Warner, 2003). In particular, the role of forest-based communities has received increased interest from researchers and policy-makers, and in developing countries, - forestry professionals have

4

Tapan Kumar Nath

focused their attention increasingly on the interaction between communities and forests (Castren, 2005: 87).

CONTEXT OF THE STUDY Like many other developing countries, there has been an unprecedented enthusiasm for PF in Bangladesh since the 1980’s and the government has attached highest priority to it as a means of social development (Khan, 2001). There is a growing consensus amongst key forest decision-makers that traditional forestry is needed to make the transition to a more sustainable forestry (Salam and Noguchi, 2005), which leads to the development of PF in Bangladesh. Participatory forestry in Bangladesh ensures active participation by the rural people in planning, implementing, and benefit sharing of tree growing programs (Task Force, 1987). It includes afforestation programs in marginal and degraded state and communal forest lands and varied other manifestations of agroforestry (Khan, 2001; Khan et al., 2003). The primary objective of PF, - in most of the developing countries, - is to reduce the poverty of local communities through livelihood support and empowerment. It helps to secure livelihoods through better access to forest resources (Fisher and Hirsch, 2008:75). Forests contribute directly to reducing extreme poverty and hunger and ensure environmental sustainability, two of the Millennium Development Goals (FAO, 2005). In the past, the impacts of PF on poverty reduction were assessed in terms of income or food security. The current approach, however, attempts to go beyond the previous criteria and include multidimensional characteristics and causes, and that is of sustainable livelihoods (Warner, 2003: 24). The sustainable livelihoods (SL) framework (illustrated in Chapter Three) is being widely used by researchers to investigate the livelihoods of rural people. The SL approach places people at the center of development initiatives (Warner, 2003: 24). Even though PF is now considered as a part of government and donor orthodoxy in forestry investment, it is not clear yet what the impacts of such interventions would be on the livelihood of participants and on the conservation of forest resources (Bandyopadhyay and Shyamsundar, 2004). Drawing on the report of Das (2000), Adhikari and others mention that most of the studies on PF projects in South Asia concentrate on biophysical and institutional aspects rather than the effects on villager’s livelihoods (Adhikari et al. 2007). Khan et al. (2003) mentioned that despite the governmental emphasis and popular support, systemic academic research on the role of PF on the livelihoods of the participant farmers has remained remarkably limited in Bangladesh. This study was designed to investigate the livelihoods of participant farmers, who were involved with two PF projects namely, Upland Settlement Project (USP) in the Chittagong Hill Tracts and forest villagers in Sylhet forest division of Bangladesh. Both USP and forest villagers were considered as PF because planters and forest villagers had some sorts of participation in terms of project beneficiaries, involvement in project implementation activities as labor, and some of them attended project meetings. However, they did not contribute to decision-making processes or project planning.

Context and Significance of the Book

5

1-3. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BOOK Being a developing country with a large and dense population, Bangladesh is constrained with many problems, poverty being the most prominent. Poverty status in the country varies locally and regionally based on access to resources and services. Even though natural resources such as forests are mostly available in the country’s hilly areas, access to this resource by forest dependent people, mainly of the ethnic communities, is very limited. Apart from this, services such as institutional supports, access to markets, healthcare facilities, etc. that are considered essential for livelihood are, forthrightly speaking, lacking in these areas. Moreover, inappropriate government policies, construction of development infrastructures without considering the needs of the local people, privatization of communal land and other regional and national socio-political pressures negatively affect the standard of living in ethnic communities. Constrained with these enormous problems, the local people have no alternatives, but exert pressure on forest resources with passive, though sometimes active, support from influential people who are mostly involved with illegal logging resulting in the degradation of natural resources. In order to improve the condition of forest resources and to improve the livelihoods of local communities, several participatory development interventions have been conducted with varying degrees of success] in the hilly areas of Bangladesh. The USP and participatory forestry in the Sylhet forest division were examples of such a kind of interventions. The outcomes of these programs in terms of livelihoods improvement and forest conservation have not fully been investigated yet, however. The earlier studies that have been conducted so far were very shallow in the sense that they explored the livelihoods outcomes in view of income generation, employment opportunities, social status, extent of participation in project activities and profitability of the production technologies, and suggested some policy issues to improve the livelihoods of the participant farmers. These research projects did not provide data on the formation of different livelihoods capital – human, physical, natural, financial and social capital - that are considered as the building blocks of sustainable livelihoods. The previous studies did not shed any light on whether the project was successful in achieving the desired goals, what the levels of adoption of forest production technologies by the participants were, which factors drove the farmers to adopt or not to adopt the technologies or what the enabling environments that affect the formation of livelihood capitals were. People’s strategies and the diversification of livelihoods by utilizing the available capitals are also of great importance in maintaining the sustainability of their livelihoods, which were not studied in the past. This study anticipates exploring all the shortfalls of previous studies through SL approach. Along with others, this study sheds light on the approach of social capital formation and how it effects resource management and livelihoods outcomes, because it is considered the principal factor maintaining the sustainability of interventions, as well as the vehicle of livelihoods support. It is hoped that the study will be able to find out the factors which make the interventions successful and sustainable or unsuccessful and non-sustainable. The lessons that will be learned can be of useful for academics, policy makers, and politicians for conducting future research in livelihoods analysis, formulating policies for replicating, or implementing new interventions. The outcomes of this study will also be helpful for the participant farmers. This study will

6

Tapan Kumar Nath

draw an outline on how to operationalize their resources such as social capital for better management of natural resource base to achieve sustainable livelihoods.

1-4. STRUCTURE OF THE BOOK The book consists of nine chapters (Figure 1.1) including this chapter.

Chapter One (Context and Significance)

Chapter Two (PF in Bangladesh)

Chapter Three (Research Framework and Objectives)

CHT region

Sylhet region Chapter Seven (Farming systems)

Chapter Four (Agroforestry)

Chapter Five (Participatory forestry) Chapter Eight (Forest villagers) Chapter Six (Shifting cultivation)

Chapter Nine (Conclusion) Figure 1.1. Diagrammatic presentation of the structure of the book

Context and Significance of the Book

7

Chapter One Describes the emergence of the concept of participatory forestry, its role on rural livelihoods, and the context and significance of the study.

Chapter Two Shows salient features of Bangladesh forest management and emergence of PF in the country. Research sites and rationale for selection of case study sites are described. It reviews previous studies in the study areas and then identifies the research problems for investigation.

Chapter Three Presents research framework to carry out the entire study keeping in mind the research problems identified in chapter two. In order to develop the conceptual research framework, it extensively reviews sustainable livelihoods framework. In light of conceptual framework and objectives of the two studied PF programs, this chapter then sets objectives of this study. Finally, it briefly highlights the methods deployed to carry out the study.

Chapter Four Describes the land uses in the USP by drawing data from 15 project villages. It analyzes different land uses, their advantages and disadvantages, planters’ attitude towards adoption of different land use technologies, policy issues and the relative contribution of different land uses to their income. Although planters adopted new technologies still many of them practice the traditional farming system- jhum which provides for them the principal-food grain- rice.

Chapter Five Elucidates an in-depth analysis of the livelihoods of the USP planters by sampling two contrasting project villages. Besides focusing on livelihood capitals, this chapter explores the factors that influence the success and failure of the USP in achieving proposed objectives and recommends a number of policy implications for betterment of future development interventions. Findings in chapters three and four revealed that planters still practice jhum even in project lands and hence a comprehensive study was conducted on jhum.

Chapter Six Discusses current situation of jhum in the CHT. It examines the sustainability of jhum, livelihoods of jhumias and relevant policy issues. Findings indicate that present conditions of

8

Tapan Kumar Nath

jhum were unsustainable and could not feed jhumias round the year. In the face of declining jhum yield, they adopted new livelihoods strategies including selling of labor, animal husbandry and extraction of forest products. In order for better livelihoods and forest conservation, it is suggested here for collective management of jhum, promotion of suitable agroforestry systems and development of community-based tourism activities in the CHT with appropriate policy and institutional supports.

Chapter Seven Presents the basic socio-economy of the Khasia people, their farming systems and sustainability, farm income and contribution of farming systems to forest conservation. The indigenous farming system- [betel leaf based agri-silvicultural type of agroforestry system] that utilizes local available resources as inputs provides them the main source of their livelihoods. By evaluating several criteria and indicators, the agroforestry system seems sustainable and it helps to conserve forests.

Chapter Eight Deeply analyzes the livelihoods of the Khasia forest villagers and the role they play in forest conservation and development. Qualitative analysis of this chapter identifies several local governance and institutional issues that need proper attention for better livelihoods of forest villagers and conservation of regions’ forest resources.

Chapter Nine Final chapter of the book, draws a comprehensive discussion, and concludes by answering the research problems stated in chapter one. It performs two comparisons- major findings of the CHT region (chapter 4 & 5) and jhum (chapter 6), and the participatory forestry in the CHT region and forest villagers in Sylhet forest division. Comparative features indicate that USP, - could not achieve objectives fully, but has been able to reduce extent of jhum, provide employment opportunities to planters and improve forest conditions in the region. Forest villagers (i.e., Khasia community), in contrast, are in good position in terms of livelihoods outcomes and forest conservation. So, it seems that the joining of ethnic people in participatory forestry programs improve their livelihoods in varying degrees, and their reciprocal contributions help to expand conservation of forest resources in the regions. Finally, it suggests an integrated multi-disciplinary approach of regional development.

Chapter 2

PARTICIPATORY FOREST MANAGEMENT IN BANGLADESH AND DESCRIPTION OF THE RESEARCH SITES ABSTRACT This chapter first describes the situation of forests and the emergence of participatory forest management in Bangladesh. Then the research sites are described and research problems are identified. Bangladesh forests have experienced deforestation and degradation since the British colonial period which continued during the Pakistan era and was inherited by the independent Bangladesh. Of the total forest land (17%), a large part of the area has no tree cover and the situation is worsening despite an attempt to preserve it. Since the early 1980’s, forestry in Bangladesh has witnessed a rapid succession of participatory forestry programs in an attempt to redress public alienation and to allow for wider participation of people in forest use and management. Two recent participatory forestry projects, namely,- the Upland Settlement Project (USP) in the CHT and Khasia forest village, in the Sylhet forest division, have been selected for studying the effects of participatory forest management on livelihoods of the ethnic communities. The research sites are described and past studies that have been conducted in these study sites were reviewed and research problems were identified for the study.

2-1. FORESTS AND PARTICIPATORY FOREST MANAGEMENT IN BANGLADESH Of the total area of Bangladesh (14.75 M ha), forest land accounts for nearly 17%; that includes classified and unclassified state forest land, homestead forests and tea and rubber plantations (BBS, 2006). Geographically the forests of Bangladesh consist of hill forests, mangrove forests and inland Sal (Shorea robusta Gaertn) forests that represent tropical wet evergreen, tropical semi-evergreen and tropical moist deciduous forests types. Of the total forest land, a large part of the area has no tree cover (FMP, 1992). Another report shows that actual forest coverage is only 6% of the total forest area and the situation is worsening despite an attempt to preserve it (Hossain, 1998: 23). The forestry situation of the country is further exacerbated by the eccentric spatial distribution of the existing forest areas (Millat-e-Mustafa,

10

Tapan Kumar Nath

2002: 115). The distribution of forests in Bangladesh shows that 28 districts out of 64 have virtually no designated government forest (Muhammed et al., 2005: 375). Currently, per capita forestland in the country is around 0.018 ha, which is one of the lowest in the world (Ifthekhar, 2006). Bangladesh forests have experienced deforestation and degradation ever since the British colonial period, which continued into the Pakistan era and was inherited by the independent Bangladesh. In many South and Southeast Asian countries, the command and control approach to forest management is an upshot of colonial rule which manages forests from a commercial viewpoint, ignoring the needs of the local communities. Unfortunately, the colonial legacy of forest policies and management lingered even after independence, with a resulting loss in overall forest cover (Balloni and Inoue, 2007: 414). For the colonial foresters, extracting timber as fast as possible was the single goal of forest management and the interdependence between forests and local people was largely ignored (van Gelder and O’Keefe, 1995: 8). Over a 20 year period ending in 1980, the forests cover of Bangladesh declined by 2.1% annually (FMP, 1992). High population pressure and associated landhungry agriculture, scarcity of dwelling places and unplanned urbanization has led to notable degradation and poor stocking of the forests (Safa, 2004: 224). A huge amount of forest land has been encroached upon and put to other land uses like agriculture, habitation and industries (Muhammed et al., 2005: 375). If the forests continue to be depleted at the current rate, the area of forests will be less than 1 M ha by 2050 (Ifthekhar, 2006). As is occurring in many tropical countries, forests in Bangladesh are deteriorating at an alarming rate due to various socio-economic threats, biotic pressure and competing land uses (Muhammed et al., 2008). The major weakness of forest management in Bangladesh has been the inability to secure the participation of villagers and the community at large, which has led to large scale encroachment and pilferage and this can only be stopped by getting public participation (FMP, 1992: 50). The national forest resources and the authority, the Forest Department (FD) over them have been centralized under government, superseding traditional rights and communal authority (Millat-e-Mustafa, 2002: 114). In response to forest degradation, increasing emphasis has been placed, over the last two decades, on social forestry, which provides a new dimension of small-scale, participatory forest management, leveraging local understanding and knowledge for the utilization, protection and maintenance of forest ecosystems (Muhammed et al., 2008). Since the early 1980’s, forestry in Bangladesh has witnessed a rapid succession of PF programs in an attempt to redress public alienation and to allow for wider participation of people in forest use and management (Millat-e-Mustafa, 2002). The FD adopted a more participatory approach in protecting the natural forest and afforesting the degraded and encroached forest land with a benefit sharing mechanism (Forest Department, 2008). Conceptually, PF is a form of forestry management system where a selected group of people participate in the forestry production system (Alim, 1988: 15). The PF in Bangladesh is an umbrella term that covers several forms of forest management approaches including social forestry and community forestry. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) funded community forestry project implemented in 1981 – 1987 paved the foundation of PF in Bangladesh (Forest Department, 2008). A list of major PF projects in Bangladesh is shown in Table 2.1. The components under PF include woodlot or block plantations, agroforestry, strip plantations along road sides and canal banks, afforestation, establishment of nurseries, and the raising and distribution of seedlings. Most of the PF projects have made commendable

Participatory Forest Management in Bangladesh …

11

progress in achieving their physical goals: such as plantations establishment, seedling distribution and associated infrastructure building (Khan, 2001: 4). Table 2.2 portrays current physical achievements of PF in Bangladesh. Table 2.1. Major PF programs in Bangladesh Types of PF Community forestry project Upazila afforestation and nursery development project Coastal green belt project Forest resources management project Forestry sector project Sundarban biodiversity conservation project

Duration 1981 - 1988 1989 - 1996

Funding ADB funded ADB funded

1995 – 2002 1992 - 2001

ADB funded International Development Agencies grant and World Food Program assistance ADB funded Unknown

1998 - 2004 1999 - 2006

Source: Forest Department (2008)

Table 2.2. Physical achievement of PF projects during 1981 – 2003 in Bangladesh Components Woodlot/Block plantations Agroforestry plantations Strip plantations Rehabilitation of shifting cultivators Village afforestation Institutional planting & seedling distribution/sale Establishment of nursery and training center Establishment of plantation center No. of persons trained Source: Forest Department (2008)

Achievement 32,640 ha 8,778 ha 86,338 km 6,321 families 7,282 villages 168 M 98 no. 345 no. 1,77,261

There have been many reports on performance of the PF in Bangladesh. Van Gelder and O’Keefe (1995: 10-11) reported: “The Bangladesh community forestry project was set up in the early 1980’s, to provide fuelwood in north-west region of the country, an area which has one of the world’s most acute rural energy crises. Woodlots were to be established in village communal lands, along road and canal sides and on government-owned land. Millions of seedlings were planted, but no attention was paid to their care. Survival rates of seedlings were less than five percent.” With the evolution of PF, rural subsistence and marginal farmers have become so called ‘stakeholders,’ but their participation in policy formulation through implementation is somewhat limited. This means that people’s actual needs and aspirations are not properly

12

Tapan Kumar Nath

reflected in the policy and plan (Muhammed et al., 2005: 377). Khan (2001: 4) mentioned that there has been limited success in meeting the social targets of public participation and equitable benefit distribution. Regarding people’s participation in PF, Van Gelder and O’Keefe (1995: 11) observed: “In many cases, the planning model has remained top-down and community participation is confined to government experts informing people of their plans. Even where local people are involved, it is typically the economically and politically dominant men who control proceedings. Calls for people participation remain rhetoric contained in development agency reports and conference papers.” In general, attempts to manage participatory forests on a long-term basis without accommodating the multiple interests of the participants in the decision-making and implementation process have failed (Salam et al., 2005). There are also reports that show the positive impacts of PF in terms of forest conservation and livelihood enhancement of the participants. Salam and Noguchi (2005) claim that in some exceptions, the PF programs become successful in terms of farmers’ participation, forest development and conservation, and income generation of beneficiaries. Safa (2004) observed that participation in PF increased household income, employment opportunities and financial and non-land assets. Returns from benefit sharing after final harvesting of trees have been able to improve the living standard and social position of participants (Muhammed et al., 2005). Forest department reports that during 1999 – 2006, 68,372 participants received nearly 1044 M Tk (1 US$= Tk. 68 as of 2008) as their shares are per agreed participatory benefit sharing agreement (Forest Department, 2008). In order to boost and maintain the sustainability of PF activities in the country, the government has taken up several measures. The current national forest policy that was formulated in 1994 emphasized the importance of increasing the country’s forest coverage by 20% by 2015, by involving local people in plantation development programs with appropriate benefit sharing. The forest act of 1927 was amended in 2000 to support and encourage PF and the tree farming fund (TFF) has been developed using 10% of the money from the final harvest of participatory forests to reduce the dependency on government and donor fund (Forest Department, 2008).

2-2. RESEARCH SITES Ethnic Communities of Bangladesh Ethnic communities refer to those people whose linguistic and /or cultural background is different from the linguistic and cultural background of the mainstream population of Bangladesh (Khaleque, 1998). Sometimes they are also called a tribe, or tribal group, or adivasi. The number of ethnic communities in Bangladesh has been variously estimated by several authors (e. g., Bessaignet 1958; Bertocci 1984; Khan 1998; Maloney 1984), and most recently by Khaleque (1998) at 27. These ethnic people are distributed sparsely in different districts of the country, however, mostly in the hill districts (Rangamati, Bandarban,

Participatory Forest Management in Bangladesh …

13

Khagrachari, Sylhet, and Cox’s Bazar) of Bangladesh. Traditionally, the ethnic groups have been concentrated in the north and northeastern borders, the forest areas of the north-central region and the entire areas of the Chittagong Hill Tracts. The ethnic communities living in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) are one of SinoTibetan descent belonging to the Mongolian group and share physical characteristics with the people of north-east India, Myanmar and Thailand (Haque, 2000). The ethnic communities living in the CHT are made up of approximately 13 ethnic groups (Hoque, 1992). They are divided into three principal groups: Chakma, Marma and Tripura. The ethnic communities can be crudely divided into two broad categories: (a) Khyoungtha meaning "Children of the river," and (b) Toungtha meaning "Children of hills". The Chakmas and Marmas are the main ethnic communities of the Thyoungtha group, mostly living along riverbanks. The Tripuras, Murongs, Pankhus, Lushais and Kukis make up the Toungtha group, largely living in the hills (Chowdhury et al., 1979). The greater Sylhet district along the northeastern border of Bangladesh is the traditional area of Khasia, Manipuri, Pathor and Tripura communities. Scattered settlements of ethnic communities are found in other parts of the country. Among the ethnic groups in the Sylhet district, the main occupation of the Khasia ethnic community is betel leaf based agroforestry, though earlier they practiced jhum (shifting cultivation). The Manipuri are artisans. People of Pathor collect and sell fuel wood from neighboring forests. The ethnic people who live in the plain lands have long been engaged in settled wet rice cultivation, although they have other secondary occupations like trading, crafts, weaving and so on. As per the census of 1991, the ethnic population of Bangladesh is 1.2 million, which constitutes 1.13 percent of the country’s total population. However, the number could be more than the figure mentioned on census report. Among the ethnic groups, there are Christians, Hindus, Buddhist, and names of some ethnic people which are similar to Hindu names.

Background Information of Research Sites A good and well-conceived background about research sites will communicate to the reader the purpose and setting of the case study (Yin, 2003). The CHT and Sylhet division of Bangladesh are considered as the living ground of forest-dependent ethnic communities.

The Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT), its Administration and Organizations The Chittagong Hill Tracts is a geographically isolated south-eastern region of Bangladesh which comprises three hill districts: Rangamati, Khagrachari and Bandarban (Figure 2.1), and is located between 21o25' and 23o45' north latitude and between 91o45' and 92o50' east longitude. It constitutes 10 percent of the total land area of country (Ahsan and Chakma, 1989). The area borders the Indian State of Tripura to the north, Mizoram and Lushai hills to the east and Myanmar to the south, and has an internal border with the Chittagong district to the west. The general features of the CHT during the late 18th and early 19th century was a mass of hills, rivers and cliffs covered with dense bamboo breaks, tall trees and creepers. The hills are steep and difficult to ascend. The highest hills are Keokradong (1230 m) and Pyramid hill (920 m) lying to the east. The hill ranges run from the south in a north-westerly direction. The

14

Tapan Kumar Nath

relief ranges from 305-610 m above mean sea level in the north and 460-580 m in the south. The valleys were covered with thick forests interspersed with small watercourses and swamps of all sizes and descriptions (Hutchinson, 1906). The natural vegetation throughout most of the CHT is considered to be mixed tropical evergreen and deciduous forest occurring in association with each other and with bamboo. Out of 2.24 million ha of national forest land, the CHT covers more than 45 percent of total country’s forest land. However, due to relentless exploitation by the colonial government, current indiscriminate illegal logging and deforestation, the original forest has lost its immaculateness. Most of the forested areas become treeless and much of the lands become either denuded or encroached. Moreover, prevailing unsustainable land uses, for example jhum, are of great concern as they cause land and forest degradation in the region. The FD has plantation programs that started in the 1870’s, but due to improper management, most of the plantations failed after few years of plantation. The CHT has multiple administrative systems. The region is divided into three districts each controlled by a Deputy Commissioner (DC). The Union Parishad is the lowest tier in the local government and above it is the Upazila Parishad. These are elected bodies. Earlier, there were three Local Government Councils in three hill districts, which were renamed as the Hill District Councils after the signing of Peace Accord on December 2, 1997. These councils are headed by three nominated Chairmen from the local community (Haque, 2001). The other administrative system is indigenous to the region. According to it, the region is divided into three circles roughly matching the boundaries of the administrative districts: the Chakma circle, the Bohmong circle and the Mong circle. The head of each circle is called Chief or Raja. Each circle is divided into a number of mouza (a defined area for revenue collection) and each mouza into a number of villages. Each Mouza is headed by a headman and each village is under a karbari. A headman collects tax from household heads in the village for the circle chief and receives a percentage for this yearly tribute. The headmen and karbari are responsible for settling petty cases in the villages (Rafi, 2001a: 5). The Chittagong Hill Tracts Development Board (CHTDB), a premier government organization, was established in 1975-76 and undertakes the sector wise Annual Development Plan (ADP) for the overall development of the CHT (Rafi, 2001b: 28). Other independent government organizations carry out their activities as per their plan. Several non-government organizations (NGOs), mostly local, operate their activities including education, credit, sanitations, water supply, livestock husbandry, plantations and other income generation functions.

The Economy, Jhum and Land Tenure in the CHT For centuries, the lifestyle of the CHT people was oriented in forest-based activities as the region was fully covered with forests. The topography and climate make it imperative that the people fall back upon agriculture for their livelihood (Ahmed, 2002: 23). Two types of agriculture are visible in the CHT: plough cultivation in valleys and jhum in the hilly areas. Plough cultivation is usually associated with cash crops while jhum (shifting cultivation) is subsistence farming (Ahmed, 2002: 25). More than 80 percent of the CHT land is suitable for forests and only two percent of the land is suitable for rice cultivation (Haque, 2002: 187).

Participatory Forest Management in Bangladesh …

15

Government development programs in the CHT, for example, establishment of industries that were intended for the socio-economic development of local people, in most cases, excluded hill people, not only from positions of authority and policy-making, but even as beneficiaries of new employment (van Schendel et al., 2001: 213). Ultimately then, in the CHT, it was a case of ‘development for the people,’ without the people (van Schendel et al., 2001: 213). Industries such as paper mills, plywood and match industries employed workers mainly from plain lands instead of from CHT region (Haque, 2002: 189). It seems that the CHT people have very limited livelihoods sources. Limited sources of livelihoods have accelerated the process of the denudation of forests, degradation of overall environment and the extinction of numerous species of flora and fauna (Manju, 2001: 123). It is considered that more than 90 percent of ethnic people of the CHT depend on jhum for maintaining their livelihoods. Earlier, they had practiced jhum on Unclassed State Forests (USF)1 land which covers more than 700, 000 ha, but due to over jhumming these lands became unsuitable and they are now practicing jhum in reserved forests areas (FMP, 1992). Diversified crops in a jhum guaranteed a harvest for nearly the whole year (Haque, 2002: 186), even surplus production were not harvested and remained in the fields. However, these scenarios are no longer seen in the region. Due to population influx, local population growth and lack of suitable land, farmers intensified their jhum and caused reduction in crop yield due to soil fertility loss and weeds infestation. In absence of any soil improvement and conservation management, the fertile top soil of the hill slopes washed away, resulting in the appearance of barren, nutrient deficient and unproductive land masses in the CHT (Rahman, 2004). Integration with plains land people has caused cultural changes that have broken down the traditional collective management of jhum and market demand created by increased population instigated farmers to produce commercial cash crops, which had impact on crop diversity. Migrant plains land people are not familiar with jhum practice, the intensive and more destructive farming system used to produce tuber crops such as potato, aroids, ginger, turmeric, etc. along hill slopes that cause huge soil erosion (Rahman, 2004). By the 1970’s and 1980’s, the fallow period had dropped to two to three years in many places. In fields, which were taken into production after too short a fallow period, weeds would proliferate and make cultivation impossible (van Schendel et al., 2001). Jhum exerts pressure on the natural environment but has been sustainable for many centuries (van Schendel et al., 2001). By improving upon the jhum, the people as well as the environment of the hills could be saved. Use of suitable natural soil regeneration methods, planting of leguminous plants on harvested field and terracing the slopes can improve soil conditions and help to maintain productivity (Haque, 2002: 186). A comprehensive discussion on jhum in the CHT is illustrated in chapter five. However, issues of land tenure are of utmost important for the improvement the jhum. Land tenure and land use are issues of central importance because all the issues related to conflict may revolve around the control of land and the use of land (Ahmed, 2002: 27). For the jhum cultivators, the land is a common property, belonging to the community, kinship

1

USF are one of the legal forest types of the Bangladesh hill forests owned by the government but not constituted into reserved or protected forests and are under the administrative control of their respective district commissioners.

16

Tapan Kumar Nath

groups and even members of the spirit world, with individual families exercising the right to use the land (Ahmed, 2002: 28).

Settlement Programs in the CHT Declined jhum yield and lack of other sources of living created many problems to the hill people. The main problems of this region are socio-economic and they can be listed as acute poverty, superstitious beliefs and practices, poor health, sanitation and nutrition (Ghafur et al., 1987). To mitigate these problems and resettle the displaced shifting cultivators (jhumias), the government has undertaken a number of settlement programs to rehabilitate the internally displaced people and the jhumias for developing permanent and sustainable farming systems in the CHT. The first settlement program in the CHT was started in 1957, with an aim to rehabilitate the people affected by the construction of Kaptai Dam on the river Karnafully for hydroelectric power generation. This rehabilitation scheme resettled about 15,074 displaced families during 1957-66 in the upward three northern valleys (ADB, 1978, 1979). The second settlement program was the supplementary rehabilitation scheme implemented during 196675 to resettle 3,799 families (ADB, 1978, 1979). The third scheme was the horticulture based CHT development program implemented during 1968-79 to resettle 3,799 families. The fourth one was also the horticulture based Joutha Khamar (collective farming) scheme implemented by the district administration, with the funding from CHTDB, which resettled 1,540 families during 1976-83. Most of these programs failed to live up to the stated goals and expectations. The lack of success of the previous projects were partly due to the lack of experience and expertise on the part of the officials, partly due to the appropriation of the funds by corrupt officials and partly due to the lack of experience of the farmers themselves who were not used to planting and tending fruit trees on a commercial scale (Roy, 1998). Farmers and officials claimed that the locations of many of the farms were chosen with security considerations in mind (the armed conflict was then continuing in the CHT) without due regard to such factors as soil conditions, access to drinking water facilities and marketing mechanisms (AITPN, 2000). As far as the horticultural projects were concerned, the growers were initially successful, but due to bad communication, marketing problems, and the lack of credit and storage facilities the projects have been in decline since the 1970’s, but only since the late 1980’s has there been a slight slowing of this decline (Roy, 1998; 2002).

The Upland Settlement Project Based on the lessons learned from the previous projects, the government of Bangladesh planned to launch a multisectoral development program in the CHT region. The government requested ADB to assist in mobilizing resources for the development of CHT region. The ADB appraisal mission in May 1979 conceived the Chittagong Hill Tracts Multisectoral Development Project [CHTDP (M)] with eleven components including the USP. The USP has been implemented in two phases by the CHTDB, which conducts most of the development works in three hill districts of the CHT. The Asian Development Bank funded first phase of the USP started in 1985 and ended in 1993 by settling 2,000 ethnic families and

Participatory Forest Management in Bangladesh …

17

establishing 1620 ha of homesteads agroforestry and 3240 ha of rubber plantations in 39 project villages in the Khagrachari district. Each family was allotted permanent and inheritable rights to 2.5 ha of the government’s degraded forest land in the first phase of the project: 0.1 ha for homestead, 0.8 ha for agroforestry development, and 1.6 ha for rubber plantation. Considering the success of the first phase, the second phase of the USP was formulated with the following objectives (Anon, 2001): • • •

Settlement of landless and marginal ethnic farmers/jhumias in suitable areas in Khagrachari and Bandarban districts (Fig. 2.1), Development of suitable upland areas (which are currently unused) for diversified cropping with horticulture, agroforestry and rubber plantation, and Long-term socio-economic development of the target groups

The short-term objective (ibid.) is to improve economic conditions of the landless and marginal ethnic farmers of the area through: i. increased horticultural and rubber production ii. raising farm income and creation of rural employment iii. enhancing local participation in project implementation activities The specific objective of the project was to settle 1,000 landless ethnic farmers in 20 project villages in the Bandarban and Khagrachari districts, 10 villages in each district; each village accommodating 50 families. This phase was financed by the government’s own grant under the Ministry of CHT Affairs. Even though the original project period was 1993-2000, it has been extended to the 2006-2007 fiscal year in order to complete the establishment of rubber processing units and the project funding period ended in June 2007. In this phase, 506 ha of homesteads agroforestry and 1620 ha of rubber plantations have been established. Due to shortage of suitable land, quantity of allotted land was reduced and each family got 2.1 ha of degraded forest land of which 0.5 ha for homestead agroforestry and 1.6 ha for rubber plantation. All planters (participating families) of every project village developed a rubber plantation as a compact block of 81 ha (1.6 ha for each family) adjacent to their village. The rationale for implementing the CHTDP (M) in general and USP in particular, emerged from a soil and land use survey undertaken in 1964 by Forestal Forestry and Engineering International, Canada, which concluded that the CHT region was unable to support its growing population despite lower population density. As such, an alternative strategy for food and ecological security, preserving at the same time the socio-ecological integrity of the ethnic population was necessary and for their social and economic upliftment, a comprehensive package program was developed (Anon, 2001).

Sylhet Forest Division The Sylhet forest division that extends in four districts of Sylhet Division (out of six administrative divisions of Bangladesh) covers an area of about 76,725 ha (nearly four percent of country’s forest land) of which, much of the land is denuded and encroached

18

Tapan Kumar Nath

(FMP, 1992). The reservation of the forests of this division started in 1914 (Anon, 1970). Prior to reservation, jhum used to be practiced extensively in all the forest areas, many of which were common grazing grounds for the entire neighborhood. Reservation put a stop to jhum and grazing was greatly reduced. Though the main objective of reservation was to protect the forests, the condition of the forests did not improve due to illegal removal of forest products and the continuation of jhum. Little untouched forest is now left in what is almost entirely secondary re-growth. The FD started plantation programs in 1922 with the object of restoring the previous forest coverage (Anon, 1970), but little was achieved due to shortage of labor.

Khasia People in Sylhet Forest Division Even though the majority of the people of Sylhet division are agriculturists, many of the local people of Sylhet areas immigrated to the United Kingdom and they and their families are fairly wealthy. Consequently, they were not interested in being paid laborers in the forest. Therefore, the FD introduced the forest village concept. The FD initially registered a few Khasia people as forest villagers in the 1950’s. These people had moved from the nearby Indian border and were granted forest land for their house construction and betel leaf farming. The Khasia people supply their labor when and where needed. They maintain the plantations and protect the forest from pilferage. Under this scheme, the plantation program gained momentum in the period of 1955-1960 with the establishment of some 200 ha per year, and increased in 1975-1980 to some 500 ha per year (Drigo et al., 1988). At present, there are about 62 Khasia punji (village), including registered and non-registered forest villages, under the jurisdiction of the Sylhet forest division. Khasia people usually live on the FD’s land that is mostly clothed in old secondary forest. Each family is allotted about 2.1 ha of forest land by the FD. The allotment is demarcated and granted on a renewal basis for 99 years, with the condition that they provide their labor in developing and managing forest plantations. The agreement for the land allotment is generally renewed every two years for the same area of land originally allotted to each household.

2-3. RATIONALE FOR SELECTING THE RESEARCH SITES Several types of PFM systems - forestry extension, social forestry and community forestry - have been practiced in Bangladesh since the 1970’s. The first ever-formal social forestry program, Betagi social forestry, started in 1979, which rehabilitated 83 landless families in government, owned khas land in Chittagong (Quddus et al., 1992). Based on the success, the program subsequently extended to other parts of the country. These forestry programs mainly involved the landless mainstream people of Bangladesh, Bengalis. Side by side, many development programs have been undertaken for the welfare of the ethnic communities. Along with different components, these programs incorporated plantation components also. Many of these programs, however, have failed to reach the targets, and even the farmers shifted to other suitable areas to seek their living.

Participatory Forest Management in Bangladesh …

19

The most recent forestry programs that involved ethnic communities were the USP in the CHT and participatory forestry as a concept of forest villagers in Sylhet forest division. The USP involves Chakma, Marma, Tripura, and the Tanchangya ethnic communities, while the Khasia ethnic community participates in Sylhet forest division. The USP and Sylhet forest division form the sites of the proposed study (Figure 2.1). The reasons behind the selection of the study areas were that: 1] these projects were related to the livelihoods of the ethnic communities who are the most ignored fraction of our societies and whose livelihood is exclusively dependent on forest resources; 2] the USP was considered a major development program in the CHT and attempts were made to refine and develop suitable agroforestry farming practices for the development of the livelihoods of landless ethnic communities (Khan et al., 2003), but very little was known about the impact of the project on the livelihoods of participant ethnic communities; and 3] In Sylhet forest division, Khasia people have been involved with a forest based farming system. Their farming system is considered sustainable in terms of livelihood support and forest conservation (Nath et al., 2003), nevertheless the underlying conditions that make the system sustainable was not well documented.

Figure 2.1. Map of Bangladesh showing the study sites

20

Tapan Kumar Nath

2-4. RESEARCH PROBLEMS Once the general area for research is chosen, it becomes imperative to clearly and sharply identify a specific problem within the general area (Sufian, 1998). Like other research strategies, case studies start with finding the research problem (Yin, 2003; Leedy and Ormrod, 2005). Reviewing what is already known about the general area is the most effective way to identify a specific research problem. Such a review helps to pinpoint the research gaps, from both theoretical and practical standpoints, that exist in the general area and these gaps, left by the previous researchers, are then translated into specific research problem (Sufian, 1998). There have been several studies targeting the effects of PFM on livelihoods and poverty of the participating farmers. Safa (2004) studied the asset creation and poverty reduction impact of PFM in sal (Shorea robusta) forest areas of Bangladesh. In another study, Safa (2006) examined social forestry programs of NGOs in terms of sustainability, resource utilization and impact on rural livelihood. Quddus et al. (1992) reported social and economic impacts of the Betagi-Pomora social forestry project in the Chittagong district of Bangladesh. They found that economic conditions of the settled families improved significantly and settlers have adopted soil conserving agroforestry practices. Drawing on extensive literature review, Zashimuddin (2004) reported that community forestry (CF) has generated sufficient resources and income to raise the rural poor above subsistence level and CF play a significant role in rural poverty alleviation in Bangladesh. ADB (2005, 2007) reported that project beneficiaries seem to have significantly increased their average annual savings, accumulated assets and saw social status rise since joining in the forestry projects; and tree cover has increased in project areas. However, these ADB reports have not provided data to understand the projects’ impact. Two research projects have investigated the performance (Khan and Khisa, 2000) and poverty reduction impact (Khan et al., 2003) of the USP. The former study mainly reported the physical achievements of the project, land use status in project areas and the state of farmers’ participation in project activities, including the development of agroforestry and rubber plantations. The later study found that farmers’ income levels have been increased along with social recognition and expansion of tree coverage and reduction of soil erosion. These studies in the USP were carried out by focus group discussions, ethnographic observations and unstructured interviews; they had insufficient data (for example on livelihood assets) to fully understand the impact on livelihoods. Although these earlier studies were good enough to furnish some ideas about the achievements of the project, they failed to document the processes, activities, and dimensions of changes that have occurred. On the other hand, in Sylhet forest division, the Khasia people were involved with participatory forestry management for a long time. Their farming system is different from the farming system practiced by other ethnic communities in the country. They have practiced a market oriented agroforestry system in forested (plantation) areas where the main product is betel leaf. However, no remarkable academic research has so far been conducted on their farming system and its contribution on their livelihoods and forest conservation. Alam and Mohiuddin (1995) studied the conservation of tree diversity through betel leaf cultivation in Sylhet. Nath et al. (2003) investigated the socio-economic conditions of Khasia people, farming system and forest conservation. Saha and Azam (2004, 2005) studied the farming

Participatory Forest Management in Bangladesh …

21

practices and their financial analysis. An in-depth study is required to understand the livelihoods of the villagers and their role in sustainable forest management. Based on above limitations of the previous studies following three research problems were identified: i.

To what extent the aforesaid participatory forestry programs improve the livelihood of the landless ethnic people, ii. What are the linkages between livelihood and forest conservation, and iii. What are the comparative outcomes of the livelihood and forest conservation in two study sites?

Chapter 3

LIVELIHOOD ANALYSIS, RESEARCH FRAMEWORK AND OBJECTIVES ABSTRACT This chapter first briefly reviews livelihood literature. It has been found that sustainable livelihoods’ (SL) framework is being widely used as a tool to improve our understanding of livelihoods, particularly the livelihoods of the poor. It presents the main factors that effect people’s livelihoods, and typical relationships among them. However, the SL framework discusses very little about market, production technology and governance issues. In light of review, I formulate a research framework and then set four interrelated research objectives based on research problems identified in the first chapter and the research framework. At the end, I discuss the method of study in short.

3.1. LIVELIHOOD AND SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOOD FRAMEWORK Livelihood is a multifaceted concept, being both what people do and what they accomplish by doing it, referring to outcomes as well as activities (Niehof, 2004: 322). In practice, people are involved in a complex mixture of decisions and activities focused on acquiring, utilizing and managing resources (material and social) and maintaining relationships (institutional and personal among others), and a combination of these activities in the context of uncertainty (vulnerability) and outcomes that are achieved are considered as livelihood (Long, 2004a: 14). It comprises the capabilities, assets and activities required for obtaining a means for living (Warner, 2003; Cramb et al., 2004). A livelihood is the means that a household uses to achieve sustainable well-being (Messer and Townsley, 2003). It is a set of flows of income, from hired employment, self-employment, remittances or from a seasonally and annually variable combination of all these which is sufficient to avoid poverty and increase the well-being of individuals and society as a whole (Ahmed and Lipton, 1997). It is multi-dimensional, not based only on income but also on access to infrastructure and services, resilience to environmental, economic and political shocks, meaningful participation in decision-making processes and inclusion in legal and judicial systems (Vermeulen et al., 2008: 4). At rural traditional rural livelihood systems, livelihoods are entirely rural in nature

24

Tapan Kumar Nath

and hugely dependent on the exploitation and management of natural resources (Msangi, 2008). Livelihoods become sustainable when they can deal with vulnerability, and maintain or enhance capabilities and assets in the present and for the future without undermining the natural resource base (Long, 2004a: 14). Sustainability and vulnerability represent two extremes of a continuum indicating the quality of the livelihood system (Niehof, 2004: 325). Sustainability of livelihood is the ability to cope with and recover from stress and shock, while maintaining or enhancing capabilities and assets (Scoones, 1998). Households with vulnerable livelihood systems have neither enough assets, nor the capabilities to create or access them, and such households have problems in providing for their members’ basic needs, are unable to create surplus, cannot cope with a crisis, and are often chronically in debt (Niehof, 2004: 325). The concept of SL emphasizes livelihood assets, or capitals, as the basis for the sustainable improvement of people’s livelihoods and is seen as a more effective reflection of development than income, as it reflects both the ability to accumulate wealth and the capabilities (or assets) that a household can deploy to secure a living (Reddy et al., 2004). The SL approach to development and poverty reduction tries to consider issues of access to assets, policies, institutions and other factors that govern the well-being of society and promote development that is sustainable not just ecologically but also institutionally, socially and economically, to produce genuinely positive livelihood outcomes (Ashley and Hussein, 2000). It is a way of thinking about the objectives, scope and priorities for development (DFID, 1999). The SL framework (Fig. 2.1) is a tool to improve our understanding of livelihoods, particularly the livelihoods of the poor. It presents the main factors that effect people’s livelihoods, and typical relationships among them. Different components of the framework, such as vulnerability context, livelihood assets, structures and processes, livelihood strategies and livelihood outcomes are illustrated below.

Vulnerability Context A household’s access to adequate livelihood assets can be affected by many factors over which household members themselves may have very little control (Messer and Townsley, 2003). The vulnerability context frames all such factors, which include seasonal changes, trends of changes and shocks. Some of the factors are shown in Box 3.1. The context draws attention to the fact that this complex collection of influences is directly or indirectly responsible for many of the hardships faced by the poorest people in the world (DFID, 1999). This context will influence the ways in which households choose to use the various assets at their disposal (Messer and Townsley, 2003). For example, where the risks of drought or flooding are high, rural farmers even may choose to plant less productive or less valuable crops in favor of crops that are more prone to these types of risk (ibid.).

Livelihood Analysis, Research Framework and Objectives

25

Box 3.1. Vulnerability context of rural livelihoods Trends Population trend Resource trends Economic trends Trends in governance Technological trends

Shocks Human health shocks Natural disasters Economic shocks Conflict Crop/livestock health shocks

Seasonality Changes of price Changes of production Changes in health condition Changes of employment

Source: DFID (1999)

At the individual or group level, it is very difficult to alter vulnerability context. However, it can be achieved through supporting poor people to build up their livelihood assets (DFID, 1999).

Livelihood Assets/ Capitals The SL framework provides new ways to address rural poverty issues beyond the traditional methods of employment generation and target group programs and helps to examine livelihood issues in relation to five capitals (physical, financial, natural, human and social) identified in the framework (DFID, 1999; Messer and Townsley, 2003; Long, 2004a; Reddy et al., 2004). All these capitals are the elements of livelihoods that influence households directly or are potentially controlled by them (Messer and Townsley, 2003). Brief descriptions of all these capitals are given here.

Human Capital People’s health and ability to work, and the knowledge and skills they have acquired over generations of experience and observation, constitute the human capital, which facilitates the pursuit of different livelihood strategies and helps them achieve their livelihood objectives (DFID, 1999; Messer and Townsley, 2003). As well as being intrinsic value, human capital is required in order to make use, and creation, of any of four other types of capitals (DFID, 1999). Physical Capital Physical capital may include tools and equipments, as well as infrastructure such as roads, shelter, sufficient water supply and sanitation, clean affordable energy, health care facilities, access to information, etc. which influence people’s ability to earn an adequate livelihood (DFID, 1999; Messer and Townsley, 2003). A lack of particular types of infrastructure is considered a core dimension of poverty (DFID, 1999). For example, without a good road network, it becomes difficult to sell products to markets especially in remote areas, which discourages farmers from adopting productive technologies. In addition, farmers remain poor due to the practicing of low-level production technologies.

26

Tapan Kumar Nath

Natural

Vulnerability context

Human Social

•

Physical • Trends •

Influence

Shocks

Seasonality

Physical

Financial Livelihood assets

Livelihood outcomes - More income - Increased well-being - Reduced vulnerability - Improved food security - More sustainable use of natural resource base

Transforming structures & process Structures - Levels of government - Private - Laws sector - Policies - Institutions - Incentives Processes

Livelihood Strategies - Natural resource based - Non-natural resource based - Migration

Figure 3.1. Sustainable livelihoods framework (adapted from DFID, 1999).

Natural Capital Natural capital refers to the natural resource stocks (soil, water, forests, land, etc.) from which resource flows and services (air quality, soil erosion control, storm protection, etc.) useful for livelihood are derived (Scoones, 1998; DFID, 1999). For people living in rural areas, natural capital is obviously of key importance for the production of food and income (Messer and Townsley, 2003). Within the SL framework, the relationship between natural capital and vulnerability context is very close; many of the shocks that devastate the livelihood of the poor are themselves natural processes that destroy natural capital (e.g. fires that destroy forests) and seasonality is largely due to changes in the value or productivity of natural capital over time (DFID, 1999). Natural capital has a pivotal role in the livelihoods of rural people: ‘predominantly the poor of the world depend directly on natural resources, through cultivation, herding, collecting or hunting for livelihoods’ (Reddy et al., 2004). Financial Capital Financial capital denotes financial resources such as savings, inflows of money, etc. that people use to achieve their livelihood objectives (DFID, 1999). It is probably the most versatile of the five categories of capitals, since it can be converted with varying degrees of ease into other types of capital (DFID, 1999). The financial capital available to rural households may come from the conversion of their production into cash in order to cover periods when production is less or to invest in other activities, and they may make use of

Livelihood Analysis, Research Framework and Objectives

27

formal and informal credit to supplement their financial resources (Messer and Townsley, 2003). Although financial capital tends to be quite versatile, it cannot alone solve all the problems of poverty; people may not be able to put their financial resources to good use because they lack knowledge, or they are constrained by an inappropriate policy environment (DFID, 1999).

Social Capital The term social capital has emerged as a framework for understanding and analyzing the relationships among different stakeholders involved in community development in the recent years. It has also been gaining as a concept for analyzing the socio-economic problems of developing countries (Quibria, 2003). The concept has come to the forefront as a crucial ingredient in achieving equitable and sustainable development (Abom, 2004: 342). It has its roots in a number of theories, including those of social support and social networks, as well as community participation and governance (Grant, 2001). However, there is no universally accepted definition of the term “social capital.” Despite its current popularity, the term has become over-generalized, covering too many different aspects, making it ambiguous and confusing, and a clearer definition and categorization of it is necessary (Durlauf, 2002; Abom, 2004, Lehtonen, 2004). Putnam et al. (1993) and Putnam (1995), for example, illustrated social capital as the features of social organizations that facilitate co-ordination and co-operation for mutual benefit of the members and society as a whole. These features mainly include networks, reciprocity, norms and trust (Coleman, 1990; Uphoff and Wijayaratna, 2000; Carroll, 2001; Grootaert and van Bastelaer, 2001; Putnam, 2001; Bowles and Gintis, 2002) that encourage collective actions to achieve sustainable livelihoods (Carney, 1998; Pretty and Ward, 2001; Woolcock, 2001). Collective action is well recognized as an important component of rural development and local-level natural resource management (McCarthy et al., 2004). Social capital is increasingly seen as a useful conceptual tool for understanding the role of relations and networks in social and economic development (Cote, 2001). It is embedded in norms and institutions, which include public and legal entities, and allow agents and institutions to be more effective in achieving common objectives. Norms and networks enable people to act collectively (Woolcock and Narayan, 2000). The capacity to leverage resources, ideas and information from formal institutions beyond the community is a key function of linking social capital (Woolcock, 2001). It can also be formed as bonding and bridging capital (Narayan, 1999). Bonding capital refers to social cohesion within the group structures and ties together people of similar demographic characteristics like family members, close friends, colleagues, etc. (Putnam, 2000; Narayan, 2002). Bridging capital creates links between different communities/groups, for example, the patronage relations of social elites and poor. This capital formation is very important in the analysis of community development initiatives, because these will effect whether a community can act as a cohesive unit (bonding capital), or whether it can access groups with more power or resources than itself (bridging capital). Social capital can also be structural and cognitive based on compositions of groups (Krishna and Shrader, 2000). Structural capital refers to the networks, linkages and practices within the communities which make people engage in mutually beneficial collective action by lowering transaction costs as well as accumulating social learning (Uphoff and Wijayaratna,

28

Tapan Kumar Nath

2000). The structure and the role of key people in networks determine the access to more and better resources (Burt, 2000). It is built through horizontal organizations, for example, farmers associations, and is characterized by collective actions, transparent decision-making processes, responsive leaders and mutual responsibility (Krishna and Shrader, 2000). In contrast, cognitive social capital indicates to the values, beliefs, attitudes, social norms and behavior that exist within communities, such as social trust, and social norms, solidarity and reciprocity, and predispose people to cooperate (Krishna and Shrader, 2000; Uphoff and Wijayaratna, 2000).

Relationships Among Five Livelihoods Capital The five capitals are complementary to one another (Reddy et al., 2004). The capitals that are the building blocks of SL are closely interrelated. For example, the social networks (social capital) facilitate innovation, development of knowledge and the sharing of knowledge which makes up human capital. With better skills and knowledge, people can manage their resources (natural capital) very effectively to produce cash (financial capital) and other resources like tools, manure, etc. (physical capital) for household’s utilization. The improved human skills also facilitate the maintenance of shared infrastructure like roads, trails, etc. (physical capital) for benefits of society. The asset pentagon can provide a useful starting point for household livelihood analysis, as it encourages investigators to take into the account all the different kinds of assets and resources that are likely to play a role in household livelihood (Messer and Townsley, 2003). The shape of the pentagon can be used to show schematically the variation in people’s access to assets; the idea is that the center point of the pentagon, where the lines meet, represents zero access to assets while the outer perimeter represents maximum access to assets and based on this different shaped pentagons can be drawn (DFID, 1999).

Transforming Structures and Processes Transforming structures and processes within the livelihood framework are the institutions, policies and legislation that shaped livelihood (DFID, 1999). They influence the access to different capitals, livelihood strategies, decision-making bodies and sources of influence, the terms of exchange to different types of capitals, and returns to any given livelihood strategies (ibid.). Structures in the framework are the institutions and organizations that set and implement policy and legislation, deliver services, and perform all manner of other functions that affect livelihood (DFID, 1999). As institutions and organizations influence policy for positive livelihood outcomes, it is necessary to know what they are.

Institutions and Their Importance in Livelihoods Outcomes There is no universal meaning of institution, and it is usually subject to multiple interpretations by different actors (Scoones, 1998). It can be defined as relatively stable sets of rules (formal and informal) that prescribe and proscribe particular courses of action (Bartley et al., 2008: 163). Following Giddens (1979), Scoones (1998) defines institutions as regularized practices (or patterns of behavior) structured by the rules and norms of society,

Livelihood Analysis, Research Framework and Objectives

29

which have persistent and widespread use. Policy analysts define institutions as the rules, norms and values that shape our behavior (DFID, 2001). Institutions are systems of rules that apply to future behavior of the actors, prescribe their scope and mode of action, and impose incisive restrictions on what actors will be permitted to do (Offe, 2003). They are thought to shape human behavior in relation to resource use, and help to regularize irrational or unpredictable behavior of individuals (Cleaver, 2000). Institutions are the structures and practices, which influence who has access to and control over what resources, and arbitrate contested resource claims, and mediate the relationships between different social actors, and different components of local ecologies (Leach et al., 1999). They are viewed not as rules themselves, but as regularized patterns of behavior that emerge from underlying structures or sets of ‘rules’ in use; rules are constantly made and remade through people’s practices, and regularized practices, performed over time, and eventually constitute institutions (Leach et al., 1999). Institutions are all structures of power, often fluid and dynamic and change with changing ideas and balances of power (Watson, 2003). Thus, institutions encompass sets of enduring ideas, conventional knowledge, rules and practices, as well as organizations and decision-making groups; these can be considered as indigenous institutions (Watson, 2003). The study will choose the concept of indigenous institutions for investigating institutional roles on livelihood. The reason is that these indigenous institutions are now viewed, by development theorists and practitioners, as having qualities that make them valuable for achieving development goals (Watson, 2003: 288). Development projects are looking to strengthen these institutions where they exist, and to explore the possibility of replicating indigenous institutions in other situations in order to achieve development objectives (ibid.). Institutions may be of both formal and informal. Formal institutions may be thought of as rules that require exogenous enforcement by a third-party organization (Leach et al., 1999: 238).The rule of law is an example, usually upheld by the state through such organizational means as law courts, prisons, etc. Informal institutions, however, may be endogenously enforced; they are upheld by mutual agreement among the social actors involved, or by relations of power and authority between them (Leach et al., 1999: 238). Box 3.2 provides some examples of formal and informal institutions at international, national and local levels. Institutions influence the livelihood in many ways. Understanding institutional processes allows the identification of restrictions and opportunities, and mediates access to capitals for sustainable livelihood (Scoones, 1998). Institutions influence a person’s social capital, which determines her or his access to other assets, how much that person is able to gain from them, and also reduces risk and vulnerability (DFID, 2001). Institutions can minimize forms of heterogeneity that are likely to pose problems for the collective management of natural resources thus helps to achieve positive livelihood outcomes (Poteete and Ostrom, 2004). They may influence both the choices that households make about using their assets, and the types and amount of assets that they [households] are able to access (Messer and Townsley, 2003). Diverse institutions, both informal and formal, and often acting in combination, shape the ways in which differentiated actors access, use and derive well-being from the natural resources and services (Leach et al., 1999).

30

Tapan Kumar Nath Box 3.2. Types of institutions located at different levels

Levels

Formal institutions

Informal institutions

International

International trade role that impose trade barriers Property rights, labor laws Movement restriction on agricultural produce

Political affinities which influence levels of co-operation Patron-client relationships Rules for share-cropping

National Local

Source: DFID (2001)

Organizations In contrast to institution, an organization is a legally constituted entity, which has an identifiable membership, some goals to achieve to benefit the members, a representative governing body and rules of decision-making (ISNAR, 1994). It is a formal structure with recognized and accepted roles, responsibilities and decision-making processes (North, 1990; Uphoff, 1992). These definitions and the concept of institutions seem over-lapping to some extent. Both have some rules for decision-making, which will facilitate access to and utilization of different capitals for livelihood. The terms are often used interchangeably, but distinction can be made as shown in Box 3.3. Structures are important because they make processes function. An absence of appropriate structures, especially in remote areas, can be a major constraint to development and as a result services go undelivered, markets do not function and people’s overall vulnerability and poverty increases in these areas (DFID, 1999). Box 3.3. Difference between institutions and organizations • •

•

Institutions generally establish what sort of behavior in “normal” in society is “normative”. Organizations establish a common purpose for the people that make them up and their roles in achieving that purpose – they are more “structured”. Organizations and institutions may overlap – a given organization may or may not be an institution, and a given institution may or may not be an organization. For example, marriage is an institution that is not an organization while a particular family is an organization (with roles) but not an institution (with longevity and legitimacy) (Uphoff, 1992). Both institutions and organizations often, but not always, express “collective goals” that are broadly accepted by all their members.

Source: Messer and Townsley (2003)

The processes, in the context of SL framework, refer to change in policies, institutions and organizations that determine the way in which structures and individuals operate and interact (DFID, 1999; 2001a). Policies, usually decided upon at different levels, will affect how households are able to take decisions or make use of the livelihood assets at their disposal (Messer and Townsley, 2003). The various ways in which policies are interpreted and implemented affect livelihood; for example, a new policy that aims to protect wildlife, may effect local people’s traditional rights to continue customary practices associated with

Livelihood Analysis, Research Framework and Objectives

31

access (Long, 2004a). Policy formulation process, however, is very important; groups of people, who are not consulted or are not represented during policy formulation, are more likely to be adversely affected by the newly formulated policies (Messer and Townsley, 2003). Policies are particularly important for people concerned with improving household livelihoods because policies can be changed (ibid.). Policy reforms and interventions interact in quite complex ways in effecting incentives for the sustainable management of natural resources, and well-chosen combinations of policy interventions (Kuyvenhoven, 2004) can enhance the efficiency and sustainability of management systems.

Livelihood Strategies and Outcomes Taking the livelihood assets at their disposal, the vulnerability context in which they operate, and the policies, institutions and processes around them, households tend to develop the most appropriate livelihood strategies (Messer and Townsley, 2003). In general terms, the livelihoods of people in the communal areas are primarily based on combining strategies and resources relating to livestock production, crop-based agriculture, natural resource utilization and the search for and exploitation of income opportunities (Long, 2004b). Despite the vulnerability and uncertainty, people have adapted and refined their strategies over time in order to cope with adversity by combining, in different ways, a complex network of strategies, resources and activities available that construct their livelihoods and ensures that they minimize risks and achieve a degree of household food and income security (Long, 2004b). Livelihood diversification is central to this (ibid.). Diversification is generally recognized as an important strategy for decreasing livelihood vulnerability (Niehof, 2004). Rural livelihood diversification is defined as the process by which rural households construct an increasingly diverse portfolio of activities and assets in order to survive and to improve their standard of living (Ellis, 2000). The growing extent and importance of rural livelihood diversification out of farming is increasingly recognized (Dorward, 2001). The opportunities to enhance livelihood security and for on and off-farm diversification are limited (Long, 2004b). It has been observed that many of the off-farm activities are dependent directly or indirectly on agriculture, and the poor often lack access to higher return from off-farm activities through the lack of financial, social and human capital (Dorward, 2001). Policies that ignore agricultural growth and that support higher return from off-farm enterprises without addressing the factors constraining the access of the poor to these opportunities may then end up helping the better off more than the poor (Dorward, 2001; Dorward et al., 2003). Rural livelihood diversification is multi-faceted and encompasses diversification of agricultural production, creation of off-farm employment opportunities in the agricultural sector, development of income generating activities in the non-farm sector such as processing of agricultural products, and other rural industries and services which play a crucial role in sustaining rural population, in servicing growing and modern agriculture, and in supplying local consumer goods and services (Kuyvenhoven, 2004). Household members combine their knowledge, skills and capabilities with different resources at their disposal to create activities that enable them to achieve the best possible livelihood for the household as a whole (Messer and Townsley, 2003). These livelihood strategies may lead to more or less satisfactory livelihood outcomes in terms of more income, increased well-being, more sustainable use of natural resource base, improved food security and reduced vulnerability. People from

32

Tapan Kumar Nath

satisfactory livelihood outcomes, in turn, invest on livelihood assets to sustain their livelihood.

Critics on SL Framework The SL framework, devised at the DFID (Department for International Development) in the 1990’s, has been widely used for investigating rural livelihood. The framework discusses elaborately the vulnerability context, assets endowment, structures and processes, and livelihood strategies. However, very little attention has been paid to market, technology and governance issues. The SL approach says little explicitly about markets (Dorward, 2001). Fundamentally, demand for outputs (goods and services) supplied by the livelihoods of the poor is often largely ignored, despite the large number of development interventions that have encouraged production of goods that have flooded limited markets and been unsaleable at worthwhile prices (ibid.). The poor often themselves identify problems with markets as critical to their livelihoods and improved market access is considered as a critical driver of sustained and broad-based poverty-reducing development (Dorward et al., 2003). Markets influence livelihood strategies and outcomes by establishing the cost of acquiring assets or of substituting one asset for another and by creating employment opportunities (Carney, 2002). Actors, particularly with little power or financial and social capital face high costs in accessing information and property rights enforcement, and this in turn hinders access to markets, market development and hence economic and technological development (Dorward et al., 2003). Easy access to markets and market information increases producers’ independence from intermediaries (Castren, 2005). Economic decisions are critically effected by the structure and functioning of markets; how well markets function depends on many factors related to trust, information, contract enforcement, application of the rule of law, freedom of movement of goods and people and market structure, i.e. the number of traders operating in markets and their relative size (Carney, 2002). Fundamentally, poverty reduction interventions should aim to improve access by the poor to more productive and less vulnerable asset portfolios, to a greater range of economic opportunities and services and to rights, and with regard to market, interventions should aim to improve the poor’s access to secure markets at better prices (Dorward, 2001). Forest markets have a significant role in reducing poverty, and forestry policies that explicitly empower poorer rural producers to participate effectively in more open forest markets could reduce their vulnerability, while building their natural, social, human, financial and physical assets (Scherr et al., 2004). Market access influences the price that producers of poles, fuelwood and other woodlot products receive (Jagger and Marty Luckert, 2008: 141). Technology and governance, which play important role in economic and social development, are also largely ignored in the classical sustainable livelihoods framework.

3.2. RESEARCH FRAMEWORK When a researchable problem can be specifically identified, then this specificity of the problem would naturally lead to statements of research objectives, definitions of key variables and their measurements (Sufian, 1998). A research framework helps to identify and correlate

Livelihood Analysis, Research Framework and Objectives

33

the objectives to be assessed or measured. Such a framework of this study is shown in Figure 3.2. This framework can be set forth in terms of following referential concepts: rural livelihoods, participatory forestry, enabling environment, local conditions, formation of livelihood assets, and local forest use and management. All of these variables contribute to improve the livelihood of the ethnic people and conservation of forest resources. Rural population living in the forest areas is large, very poor and growing steadily (Scherr et al., 2004). It has been estimated that nearly 240 million of the world’s population live in forest areas and maintain their livelihood by depending, directly or indirectly, on forest resources (World Bank, 2003). About two-thirds of rural people in developing countries live in forested marginal upland areas (Scherr et al., 2004; Fisher and Hirsch, 2008). These people are diverse indigenous communities (Cairns and Garrity, 1999; Patriquin, et al., 2008) who practice different forms of farming systems (Levasseur and Olivier, 2000; Devendra and Thomas, 2002; Alhamidi et al., 2003; Belsky and Siebert, 2003; Emch, 2003; Seidenberg et al., 2003; Abizaid and Coomes, 2004; Clermont-Dauphin et al., 2005; Rasul, 2007; Fisher and Hirsch, 2008; Mertz et al., 2008,) that could no longer support their living in a sustainable way and livelihood of these forests-dependent people has become threaten. To support the livelihood of forest dependent people and to improve the forest conditions, the governments of developing countries introduced people-centered forest –based development interventions. Interventions can aim to strengthen different capital assets depending on the need of local communities, including food security, drinking water supply, savings and credit, and so on (Reddy et al., 2004). After a long experimentation by trial and error method, different forms of participatory forestry, as adaptive forest management1, are being practiced in many developing countries such as community forestry in Nepal ( Malla, 2000; Varughese and Ostrom, 2001; Maskey et al., 2003; Timsina, 2003; Adhikari et al., 2004), community forestry and joint forest management in India (Sundar, 2000; Agarwal, 2001; Prassad and Kant, 2003; Bandyopadhyay and Shyamsundar, 2004; Gupte, 2004), village forestry in Laos (Inoue, 2003b; Kitamura, 2003), community-based forest management in the Philippines (Pulhin and Pulhin, 2003), and community and participatory forestry in African countries (Potters et al., 2003; Gardner, 2003; Wily, 2003). Participatory forestry policies are formulated mainly in view of poverty reduction and environmental conservation. These policies have created an environment conducive to effective peoples’ participation in decision-making processes, at least to some extent, regarding forest management and benefits sharing. Through empowerment and capacity 1

In order to improve the management of natural resources under great uncertainty regarding future conditions, relationships among components, user response to management, management objectives, etc., we have to learn through experimentation to produce useful critical information about the resource being managed which helps to reduce uncertainty and provides a broader base of knowledge and experience that helps us to manage more effectively in the face of continued uncertainty and ever-changing conditions, and this process of learning by doing is regarded as adaptive management (Johnson, 1999). More specifically, adaptive management can be understood as a process of improving management outcomes by accommodating explicit learning plans into management actions (Nyberg, 1999; Ojha and Bhattarai, 2003). Adaptive management is the idea of treating management policies as experiments, learning from them, and using them as a basis for changes and adjustments (Duncan, 2001). It considers systems thinking, recognizes uncertainty as an opportunity to test and learn, systematically tests different options through experimental element with on-going management actions at the actual operational setting, supported by and working with different stakeholders, and recognize failure or success as a source of learning, explore alternative actions and make explicit forecasts about their outcomes (Nyberg, 1999, Salafsky et al., 2001; Ojha and Bhattarai, 2003; Olsson et al., 2004).

34

Tapan Kumar Nath

building, PF strategies assist people to manage the forest as their own interests to enhance their livelihoods. Participatory forestry can provide the pathway both for livelihood support and for sustainable forest management (Warner, 2000, 2003). A livelihood comprises capabilities, assets and activities required for a means of living (DFID, 1999). The assets that are building blocks of livelihoods are not only natural (forest, land, water, etc.), physical (tools, livestock, machinery, etc.) and financial capitals (income savings, etc.), but also social (networks, connectedness, trust, etc.) and human capital (skills, education, etc.) (Warner, 2003). The decentralized policies provide some sort of rights both on forest products and on land that are the natural capital base of their livelihoods. Proper utilizations of natural capitals lead to outgoing financial capital and it creates a common fund. The fund that has been created through the trading of participatory forest products in rural markets has immense value to invest in social and economic development, and also in the sustainable management of forests (Decleire, 2003, Hamissou, 2003). Due to involvement in PF, managerial and silvicultural skills (i.e., human capitals) of the farmers enhanced, and were then utilized for better land use and production that ensures increased income and savings (Kaboyo, 2003). Local conditions: Natural resources, subsistence economy and political situations

Enabling environment: Policy, local institutions, local governance, market, land tenure and technology

Development intervention: Participatory forestry as an adaptive forest management strategy

Customary forestry practices: Local forest use and management

Formation of livelihood capitals/assets: social, human, natural, physical and financial

Livelihood of the rural people Figure 3.2. A research framework for investigating the effects of participatory forest management on rural livelihoods.

Livelihood Analysis, Research Framework and Objectives

35

Besides creating the natural capitals (e.g., land, forests), the main contribution of participatory forestry is to build social capital in the form of user groups which empower the farmers to participate in decision-making processes (Prassad and Kant, 2003; Sarrazin, 2003, Thoms, 2008). Social capital can be built by improving the confidence and capacity of communities to pursue other opportunities such as employment opportunities, income generation and food security (Sarrazin, 2003). It is considered a critical factor for the sustainability of the development interventions, and the failures of earlier community-based development programs rest with the factor that very little attention was given to understanding how social capital arises to deal with different issues, and how it is sustained (Meinzen-Dick et al., 2004). The generation of consensus (i.e., social capital) and the resolution of conflict within a community not only allow that community to manage forests, but also are often the catalyst for a whole range of other initiatives that effect their livelihoods (Gardner, 2003). People, equipped with better skills, having increased income, social recognition and strong collective thinking, invest their time and efforts for common socioeconomic development activities including construction of roads, schools and community centers, which are considered necessary physical capitals for growth of developed society. Collective actions, emphasizing some specific goals, enable the user groups to create other capitals such as human capital, physical capital and financial capitals to sustain their livelihood. The livelihood contributions of forests are often more stable when forests are managed collectively (Thoms, 2008: 1453). Even more broadly, PF can be considered as a positive contribution to the process of democratization, as it brings together government personnel, traditional authorities and community members in ways that were not previously common and that encourage the growth of respect for each other which helps to establish a basis for collaboration and cooperation on a broad range of livelihoods issues (Gardner, 2003). Even though there are many shortfalls of PF such as limited access to poor and disadvantaged groups, elite dominance in decision-making processes and land tenure conflicts, it is well documented that livelihoods of forest-dependent people have improved to a greater extent and deterioration of forest resources has been halted to a larger extent throughout. Participatory forestry, however, can only be a catalyst to improve the livelihood of rural people when there is a suitable ground of enabling environment. For local communities to be able to improve forest conditions through better management and protection, a conducive and enabling environment is required (Castren, 2005; Sjoholm and Luono, 2003). The enabling environment may include policy, institutions, local level governance, technology and market. Sustainable and pro-poor development of less favored areas (LFAs)2 requires a policy environment (Kuyvenhoven, 2004). Policies that support secure access to resources and services are indeed central to sustainable livelihoods (Warner, 2003). For participatory forestry to endure, a policy and legal framework is needed which provides secure access to resources and services, and transfers authority, decision-making and benefits to the local level (Mansur and Cuco, 2003). Policy reform and interventions, however, cannot alone mitigate the problem of resource management and livelihood outcomes unless there are appropriate institutions. The sustainable and pro-poor development 2

LFAs are characterized as marginal lands and include major share of world’s dry lands and highlands having limited agricultural potential and limited access to markets and infrastructure (Ruben and Pender, 2004).

36

Tapan Kumar Nath

of marginal areas requires supporting institutions and governance arrangements, which sought participatory development with local stakeholders, including the poor (Kuyvenhoven, 2004). Participatory forestry requires favorable institutional arrangements that support a communitybased resource management approach at different levels (Kubsa and Tadesse, 2003). With appropriate rule enforcement, institutions can create a better natural resource base from which communities derive their better livelihood outcomes (Gibson et al., 2005). Successful participatory forestry also requires adopting the best possible forest technologies which are responsive to farmers’ cash and subsistence needs, best suited to their available resources (e.g., time, labor and capital) and adjustable to changes in weather or markets (Tamale et al., 1995). It is recommended widely to introduce appropriate agroforestry technologies for upland development (Leavasseur and Oliver, 2000; Fischer and Vasseur, 2002; Neupane et al., 2002) which can combine short-term and long-term benefits for the local communities, and meet the triple bottom line of economic, social and ecological needs in today’s world (Garrity, 2004). Effect of policy measure on the adoption of new, more sustainable technologies depends greatly on the functioning of local factor and product markets (Kuyvenhoven, 2004). Neither participatory forestry nor large-scale logging will contribute to poverty reduction until the producers have no access to forest markets. Forest markets can contribute to employment and cash income streams for the rural poor, and function as capital assets for user groups, enabling them to utilize underutilized resources and leverage other types of capital (Scherr et al., 2004). Another factor that influences the people’s interest to participate in development interventions effectively is the land tenure. Land is a fundamental livelihood asset, a key input in the rural economy, the primary means of generating a livelihood, and a major vehicle for investing and accumulating wealth and transferring it between generations (Bonfiglioli, 2004: 58). Incentives to invest in land or measures to protect and manage natural resources are directly proportional to the sense of land security (ibid.). Securing land tenure rights is often seen as a means of furthering sustainable natural resource management by increasing the incentive to invest in long-term soil improvement (Jakobsen, 2007: 318) The enabling environment should be compatible with the prevailing local conditions. In cases of forestry circumstances, these local conditions may include the state of natural resources, (mainly of forests,) the socio-economy of the local people and political statuses that are related with forest resource management. States of forests resources and the subsistence economy of the local people influence the policy as well as the choice of technology which favors the improvement of local livelihood and conservation and extension of forests in the region. However, for the proper implementation of the development interventions, along with other enabling environment, a strong political will of the local leaders is very important. These leaders, through their effective leadership, can motivate local people for effective participation in the programs and can also influence the higher bodies for successful execution of the programs. Even though greater efforts are taken by governments to decentralize the natural resource management systems for better and sustainable outcomes, it can be observed that local people still practice their customary forestry practices. Due to policy constraints, lack of market and marketing facilities, land tenure insecurity, and many other socio-political problems, farmers practice traditional management of natural resources even within the territory of development projects (Fischer and Vasseur, 2002; Ward et al., 2004). Traditional management knowledge may be holistic in outlook and adaptive by nature, gathered over generations by observers

Livelihood Analysis, Research Framework and Objectives

37

whose lives depended on this information and its use (Berkes et al., 2000). Traditional or local management can be considered as a cumulative body of knowledge, practice, and belief, evolving by adaptive processes and handed down through generations by cultural transmission, about the relationship of living beings with one another and with their environment (Berkes et al., 2000; Berkes and Folke, 2002). Integration of indigenous technologies with scientific inputs enhances farmer’s interests in using new forestry technology as the means to rehabilitation of degraded forests (Blay et al., 2008: 513). Local management of natural resources, governed by traditional rules and regulations, help local communities to maintain their livelihood and conserve their resource base. As in many other countries, minority ethnic communities dominate hilly areas of Bangladesh. Their socio-economy is natural resource based and maintains livelihood through a symbiotic relationship with forest resources. For centuries, they live in the hills, harmonizing with their surrounding resources, and they practice traditional farming systems, principally shifting cultivation, for subsistence. However, due to population pressure, government policies, infrastructure development and many other socio-political constraints, the subsistence farming system could not support the livelihood of the ethnic communities. They adopted some other sorts of income-generating activities such as extraction and selling of forest products, soil exhausting farming with cash crops (e.g. ginger, turmeric, aroids, etc.), daily wage labor, etc. to sustain their living. These activities, nevertheless, poorly effected the natural resources, which can be observed in the form of forest and land degradation, soil erosion, etc. In order to support their livelihoods, and to improve ecological conditions of the effected areas, several government sponsored PF projects were executed earlier ( ADB, 1978, 1979, 2001), but these could not achieve targeted goals mainly due to improper planning, lack of proper institutional supports, and above all land tenure insecurity (AITPN, 2000; Roy, 2002; Rasul and Thapa, 2004a). Even though productivity has reduced markedly, ethnic people continue shifting cultivation, even inside the development project, to ensure their survival (Khisa, 2002; Rasul and Thapa, 2003).

3.3. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY The research framework highlighted four main issues such as participatory forestry intervention, customary forestry practices, the enabling factors and the livelihoods of the participants. These issues naturally show the light for setting objectives for investigation and to find the answers of the research problems. Hence, considering the research problems, objectives of two studied participatory forestry programs and components of research framework, the following objectives were set for the study: a.

To clarify the present state of livelihoods of participants in two studied participatory forestry program sites; b. To ascertain the enabling factors that influence the success and failure of the programs in terms of livelihoods outcomes and forest conservation; c. To identify and explain the factors that influence the practice and sustainability of customary forestry practices- shifting cultivation- in the study areas; and

38

Tapan Kumar Nath d. To have a cross-case analysis to explore the differences, and their reasons, in livelihoods outcomes and forest conservation strategies in two study sites.

These objectives and the research problems were interrelated (Figure 3.3). The first and second research problems that were related with livelihoods of the participants and its linkages with forest conservation are directly linked with objectives ‘a’ through ‘c’ because these objectives specify about livelihoods status, factors that influence the livelihoods as well as customary forestry practices that many participants still practice for their living. Objective ‘d’, which explores the comparative outcomes of livelihoods and forest conservation through a cross-case analysis, is firmly related with third research problem.

3.4. METHODS OF STUDY The case study is a research strategy that investigates a particular contemporary event, in depth, within its real-life context whose results relies on multiple sources of evidence, with data needed to coverage in a triangulating fashion (Yin, 2003; Leedy and Ormrod, 2005). Collection of evidence is a challenging task for case study. Researchers used different methods for field data collection. In the late 1980’s and the 1990’s, the approach of “learning with the people” had emerged (Chambers, 1997) which is known as participatory rural appraisal (PRA). In this approach, outsiders such as development specialists and academics are expected to function as facilitators or catalysts to assist the process of empowerment of the people and this can be applied simply as a tool to collect information and data for academic research (Inoue, 2003a). Participatory research approaches are currently being promoted internationally by academics, policy makers and research funding agencies for investigating agricultural sustainability that aims to foment positive change in the lives of participants (Bruges and Smith, 2008: 13). For collection of field data and information, I followed the PRA approach, and different tools of PRA and case study methods such as survey of official documents and archival records, semi-structured and structured interviews, key-informants interview, focus group discussion, vector scoring, flow diagrams, seasonal diagramming, personal observation, village walk and informal talk with villagers and officials, etc. have been deployed (Conway, 1986; Chambers, 1994; Mukherjee, 1995, 1998; Inoue, 2003a; Yin, 2003; Leedy and Ormrod, 2005 Both qualitative information and quantitative data were collected. Pre-tested questionnaires containing both structured questions and checklists for semi-structured interviews were used. Cross-checking and validation of data and information generated through participatory methods were done the following ways: • • •

Validation was pursued by approaching different local groups and individuals either separately or together; Different participatory methods used, in combination, was utilized to test and verify data, and Participant checking was also used to test data with the same set of people who generate original information.

Livelihood Analysis, Research Framework and Objectives

39

However, detail methods of study used for individual study site are elaborated in each chapter. Research Problem ‘i’

Research Problem ‘ii’

Research Problem ‘iii’

Objective ‘a’

Objectives ‘b’ & ‘c’

Objective ‘d’

Figure 3.3. Flow diagram showing the relationship between research problems and objectives of the book.

Chapter 4

AGROFORESTRY IN THE CHITTAGONG HILL TRACTS REGION ABSTRACT This chapter explores the effects of small-scale agroforestry on upland community development in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh. More specifically, the study clarifies the merits and demerits of different agroforestry systems as perceived by planters, their impacts on the rural economy and the environment, farmer’s attitudes towards the adoption of agroforestry and impacts of various government policies. Field data was collected by administering questions to a randomly selected group of 90 planters in the Upland Settlement Project (USP), as well as project staff. The results indicated that the agroforestry interventions have in fact increased planters’ income through employment and the selling of farm products, as well as by improving the ecological conditions of these areas through reduction of soil erosion, increasing tree coverage and maintaining soil fertility. The adoption of different agroforestry systems was governed mainly by the planters’ interest in following these techniques, their ability to cultivate the land in the prescribed manner, and the market demand for their products. The major obstacles that prevented increased agroforestry improvements included lack of confidence in new land use systems, inappropriate project design (e.g. top-down innovation approach) and policy issues regarding land tenure. Recommendations are being proposed to strengthen social capital in local organizations to enhance the livelihoods of the upland communities.

4.1. INTRODUCTION The ethnic people of the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT), Bangladesh have practiced a traditional farming system of shifting cultivation (jhum) - for decades. More than 90 percent of the total population depends on jhum for their livelihood. Jhum involves preparing the soil by clearing and burning the surface vegetation before planting mixed crops of rice, millet, sesame, maize, vegetable, cotton, etc. The mixed nature of cropping ensures a steady supply of food all year round. At the end of each cycle, the land is left to regenerate itself for six to seven years while the jhumias, who practice jhum, move from one location to another. For

42

Tapan Kumar Nath

centuries, jhum was an effective way of farming. There was no serious deterioration of soil and the plots lay fallow for at least seven years (Haque, 2000). Regardless of opinions on the merits or demerits of shifting cultivation as a land-use practice, there is strong consensus that both a human and environmental tragedy is unfolding in the uplands of Southeast Asia. The preconditions that underpinned the sustainability of ‘traditional’ forms of shifting cultivation are now disappearing because of dramatically increasing population densities arising from both endogenous growth and in-migration by large numbers of lowlanders, lost access to large tracts of land that have been declared as protected areas and other competing land uses (Cairns and Garrity, 1999). In the face of increasing land-use pressures, farmers can no longer afford the luxury of long fallow periods that allow recovery of the secondary forest and rejuvenation of exhausted soil fertility. The resulting trends of shortening fallows, lengthening the cropping periods, and rapidly degrading environments are endemic throughout Southeast Asia’s mountain areas. Crop yields are declining, labor required to control weed growth is increasing, and household food security is threatened. As in other parts of the tropics, pressure in the CHT was increased when the central government declared large areas as being reserved forest areas and a jhum tax was imposed. The land was then put under further stress as people from the plains started pouring into the area. To cope with the pressure of increased population and the scarcity of suitable land the fallow period in the jhum cycle had to be reduced to a three to four-year cycle. This has caused huge ecological deterioration. The land could no longer regenerate itself within this limited fallow period. A century ago, the CHT were self sufficient in food but this is no longer the case. The one most important event that shook up the lives of the tribal people in recent years was the construction of the Kaptai Hydroelectric project in 1963. The project submerged 648 km2 of prime agricultural land, which constituted 40 percent of the total arable land in the CHT. Some 100,000 ethnic families, mostly Chakma sedentary rice farmers were up-rooted by the project (Haque, 2000). Due to cross-cultural contacts, the basic economic structure and functions of the jhumias have now changed. During recent times, new occupations have been adopted, such as monoculture of annual crops, homestead agriculture and agroforestry practices in the hill slopes, small trades and wage labor (Khisa, 1998). Single cropping of aroids, turmeric and ginger in hill slopes without proper soil and water conservation measures has also created further soil erosion problems in this region (Khisa, 2002). Land degradation along with the lack of appropriate farming technologies, weak community organizations, inadequate credit facilities and extension services, natural calamities, small land -holdings and land tenure insecurity are leading to a sharp decline in the productivity of uplands in the CHT and ultimately the farming system is becoming fragile (Khisa and Farid, 1996). More than 80 percent of the population of this region now depends on stagnant and/or declining farming practices. The decline of productivity of these existing farming practices is now a major concern. Because some people have recognized the need for modifying the traditional farming practices and the value of conserving soil resources for economic growth and poverty reduction, some alternative farming technologies (e.g., sloping agricultural land technology, fruit gardening, rubber cultivation, etc.) have been introduced in the CHT (Khan et al,. 2002a). However, these projects could not achieve their desired goals and objectives for many reasons. Considering the lessons learned from these projects, the government recently adopted an integrated program named the Upland Settlement Project (USP) in the Chittagong

Agroforestry in the Chittagong Hill Tracts Region

43

Hill Tracts. The USP is considered a major development program in CHT because it focused on the rehabilitation of landless and marginal jhumias through improved agroforestry practices (Khan et al. 2003). This paper highlights the land use changes on these project sites through the implementation of project activities. Specifically, this research paper draws attention to the response of the farmers (known as planters in the project village) toward the adoption of new land uses i.e., agroforestry systems. The chapter begins with a brief overview of agroforestry concept, adoption and sustainability issues of agroforestry, context of agroforestry for upland development and then elaborates the methods used in data collection. Study findings in terms of benefits and drawbacks of different agroforestry systems, income from agroforestry products, ecological attributes of the agroforestry and relevant policy issues are elaborated in the results section. In the discussion section, planters’ adoption of agroforestry systems and the significance of social capital are examined. Concluding comments follow.

4.2. AGROFORESTRY: A GENERAL OVERVIEW Literally, agroforestry means a land use system where both agricultural crops and forest trees can grow in combination. It is an age-old land usage system that farmers have practiced from generation to generation. It is a collective name for low-input land use systems involving trees combined with agricultural crops or animals, or both, on the same unit of land management which ensures an almost steady supply of multiple outputs while protecting the resource base (van Gelder and O’Keefe, 1995; Hildreth, 2008). Though it is a longstanding traditional form of land use, efforts to define it in a scientific manner began in the mid 1970’s (MacDicken and Vergara, 1990). Bene et al. (1977) explained agroforestry as a sustainable land management system that combines agricultural crops and trees and/or animals simultaneously or sequentially and applies management practices that are compatible with socio-culture of the local populations. Nair (1984), based on his extensive field experience, illustrated the term as a land use, which involves deliberate retention, introduction, or mixture of trees or other perennials in crop/animal production units to benefits the overall ecological and economic interactions. It focuses on the role of trees on farms and in agricultural landscapes to meet the triple bottom line of economic, social and ecological needs in today’s world (Garrity, 2004). Agroforestry as a sustainable agricultural system is being widely promoted all over the world, especially in developing countries. Some agroforestry technologies provide wood for timber, poles for construction and fuelwood; hence, they are an integral part of the household subsistence needs (Thangata and Alavalapati, 2003). Research and development projects have demonstrated that agroforestry increases household incomes, generates environmental benefits, and is particularly well suited to poor and female farmers (Franzel et al., 2001, 2004). Agroforestry enhanced nutrient uptake by tree and crop roots from varying soil depths, can improve soil fertility, increases crop yield and is considered as a sustainable agricultural production and land management system in the tropics (Young, 1997; Nair et al., 1999; Nair and Graetz, 2004). At the same time, it can make a significant contribution to conserving biodiversity in a wide range of settings such as in complex agroforests, swidden succession, etc. (McNeely, 2004). In these regions, particularly in upland areas where population

44

Tapan Kumar Nath

increases rapidly and in a steady way, and where land became exhausted due to increasing population pressure, deforestation and intensification of traditional cultivation, agroforestry is considered as a candidate for alternative land uses that might bring social, economic and ecological improvement of the upland societies. Development and diffusion of appropriate farming technologies for upland development is a great challenge, because uplands are characterized be fragile environments, farmers who are poor with little capital for investment, remote location of village from markets and very poor communication networks. The process of developing and disseminating agroforestry as a viable alternative for farmers under various ecological and socio-economic conditions has become challenging constraint to promote agroforestry (Neupane et al., 2002). Moreover, following Raintree (1983), they explained that any viable agroforestry technology would not have impacts on rural livelihoods and on environment unless a significant proportion of farmers adopt it.

4.2.1. Adoption and Scaling up of Agroforestry Based on the principles of diffusion of innovation (Rogers, 1983), agroforestry adoption can be considered as a rational process where farmers first become aware about a new agroforestry technology, then grow attitudes (positive or negative) in their minds towards agroforestry and finally decide whether to adopt or reject the technology. In comparison to agriculture, adoption of agroforestry is more complex because it requires careful mixture of both annual and perennial crops as well as other components combined with soil and water conservation measures (Rafiq et al., 2000). The multi-component and multi-product nature of agroforestry may limit adoption due to complex management requirements and the long period of testing and modification that is required compared to short-term agricultural technologies (Mercer, 2004). Agroforestry adoption is a complicated process that may be influenced by a number of factors such as socio-economic characteristics of farmers, access to, and level of resources, provision of extension, infrastructure and market, and other institutional factors (Neupane et al., 2002). Male-headed households with more schooling experience planted more trees and adopt agroforestry more easily than female-headed households and those have lower level of education, (Bannister and Nair, 2003; Gockowski and Ndoumbe, 2004). Neupane et al. (2002) however, have observed that female education has a positive impact on adoption of agroforestry because women, in most cases, stay at home and look after homesteads while educated men are engaged in jobs away from their house. Institutional supports like secure land tenure, productive resource base, access to markets and availability of credit and extension supports motivated some of shifting cultivators in Bangladesh to practice environmentally and economically suitable land uses such as agroforestry and fruit gardening (Rasul et al., 2004). The level of technology adoption also varies based on ethnicity, extension input and household food self-sufficiency (Floyd et al., 2003). Enhanced extension input and contact with farmers has direct positive effects on agroforestry adoption (Doss and Morris, 2001; Floyd et al., 2003; Thangata and Alavalapati, 2003) while food sufficiency is inversely related with technology adoption (Floyd et al., 2003). Household circumstances such as age, labor, education, etc. and external forces such as markets, policies and weather appears to be one of the risk-limiting advantages of some agroforestry systems and may be an

Agroforestry in the Chittagong Hill Tracts Region

45

important factor in differential adoption rates (Thangata and Alavalapati, 2003; Mercer, 2004). Adoption rate, however, of any new technology, increases as the advancement of technology steps forward. A few households adopt initially, then a few more and so on, but seldom if ever do all households in a community or region adopts any technology, even over long periods of time (Mercer, 2004). Preferences, resources, market incentives, biophysical factors, and uncertainty are the five factor clusters influencing the adoption of technologies such as agroforestry (Pattanayak et al. 2003). Diversification of crops and economic turnover is another key issue in the adoption of new technology. In Sri Lanka, for example, farmers adopted intercropping in rubber plantation when many varieties of intercrops were introduced and when they perceived the system were financially profitable (Rajasekharan and Veeraputhran, 2002). Diversification is necessary for stability of revenue streams, equity of opportunities within households and communities, and to maintain ecological processes (Russell and Franzel, 2004). Acceptance and adoption of agroforestry interventions, however, depends largely on whether farmers participate and whether their knowledge is incorporated during its development stage. Thangata and Alavalapati (2003) reported that besides the socioeconomic situations of the farmers, biophysical performance of the technology and supportive mechanisms such as free seeds or seedlings, the adoption of agroforestry depends on farmers’ participation. On-farm demonstration, with active participation of local farmers, of technology development has a positive effect on the adaptability of new land uses. Winterbottom and Hazelwood (1987) also mentioned that farmers’ acceptability of agroforestry happened when their indigenous knowledge is incorporated and recognized, rather than when completely outside practices are replicated. Increased agroforestry adoption also depends on supportive policy environment. Fischer and Vasseur (2002), for example, reported that complicated tree harvesting and permit policies discouraged farmers from adopting agroforestry systems in Panama. Beside adoption, the scaling up of appropriate agroforestry technologies is also a great challenge, because upland is composed of diverse ethnic communities with little access to education and they have strong social cohesiveness. Diffusion of information through farmers’ interaction with extension agencies can positively influence the adoption and dissemination of new land use technologies (Smit and Smithers, 1992; Besley and Case, 1993). Community-based organizations are increasingly considered a sustainable way to scale up the benefits of agricultural research and development from a few farmers in isolated pilot project areas to spread more widely across geographical and socio-economic gradients, and to do so quickly (Noordin et al., 2001). The benefits of community-based approaches to scale up agroforestry and other biological options to improve soil fertility among resource-poor smallholders are that the link between farmers, government extension, and other service providers is strengthened, information flow and awareness of the options available is rapid among farmers, and farmers’ participation and innovation is enhanced (Noordin et al., 2001). Landcare, a movement of farmer-led organizations in the Philippines, enabled communities to share knowledge and experience about sustainable and profitable agriculture on sloping upland while conserving the natural resources, and enhanced the adoption and scaling up of complex agroforestry systems (Mercado et al., 2001). The farmer-led on-farm testing and dissemination approach in Nagaland, India showed that traditional shifting cultivators adopted and disseminated agroforestry rapidly, and the

46

Tapan Kumar Nath

high rate of scaling up was believed to be due to an effective property rights system, access to a large-to-growing timber market, a continual process of internal monitoring and evaluation, provision of low-cost seeds and seedlings, and a participatory project strategy with interventions based on flexibility and community empowerment (Faminow et al., 2001). Franzel et al. (2004) observed that adoption and scaling up of agroforestry technology is positively correlated with farmer-researchers’ interactions and local institutional capacity building. Though social, economic, ecological and institutional factors govern the acceptability of agroforestry by farmers, their [farmers] long-term interest on the investment for agroforestry virtually depends largely on the sustainability of agroforestry systems and the question - how can the sustainability be maintained?

4.2.2. Sustainability Issues in Agroforestry Sustainability is one of the most widely debated topics in all land-use related discussion (Nair, 1993). The sustainability of hill and mountain farming systems has become an issue for serious global concern as increased population intensifies the pressures on land and forest resources to meet their daily needs (Friedrich, 1994). For successful adoption and scaling up of agroforestry that improve the long-term well-being of farmers, emphasis must be given to the goal of sustainability (MacDicken, 1990). The sustainability attributes of agroforestry are based mainly on soil productivity and other biophysical advantages such as erosion control, addition of organic matter, improvement of physical properties, N2-fixation, improved nutrient cycling and reclamation of degraded lands (Nair, 1993). At present there is no quantitative measure of sustainability and until such criteria and indices for assessment are fully developed and widely accepted, we will have to contend with qualitative statements about the sustainability of agroforestry as is the case with other land-use systems (Nair, 1993). Analysts of sustainable agriculture argue that sustainable agricultural production by resource-poor farmers today and by their children tomorrow, can be achieved only if issues of land tenure and distribution, birth control, social security, economic development, and natural resource exploitation are addressed (Nair, 1993). In most developing countries, sustainable agriculture is only possible if population pressure on natural resources is reduced. Unless there is commitment to reducing population growth, at both government and community level, then any strategies implemented to alleviate poverty and increase production will only be short-term and unsustainable, leading ultimately to further degradation of resources by pressure of agriculture and increasing livestock numbers (FAO, 1993). Sustainable agricultural practices should not have a negative impact on the environment, should rely predominantly on nutrient cycling and green manure for the maintenance of soil fertility, and should promote system diversity for pest and disease control (Nair, 1993). Scholars used several qualitative indicators of sustainability in agricultural and farming practices. Brunig et al. (1975), for instance, mentioned several general management requirements for sustainable agricultural production: 1] maintenance of vegetative cover to reduce soil erosion; 2] management of nutrient cycle so that nutrient losses are balanced with nutrients additions; and 3] maintenance of biotic diversity in species composition, age distribution, and so on to hold the pest and disease attack below economic threshold level. At

Agroforestry in the Chittagong Hill Tracts Region

47

the farming system level, sustainability could be indicated by: [1] if soil fertility had been maintained or had increased; [2] if, for major crops, yields had remained stable or had increased and; [3] if farm populations had not over-proportionally increased (Friedrich, 1994). Nath et al (2002) mentioned that maintaining a normal set of age-classes is important for sustainable agroforestry production. Ethnic people of northeastern Bangladesh practice a sustainable agroforestry system through the maintenance of different age-gradations in their agroforests, balancing nutrients by using green manure, and regulating the population living on the government forest land (Nath et al., 2003). In agroforestry, there is ample scope for combining long-term sustainability benefits with short- and medium-term productivity gains in appropriately designed systems such as contour hedgerows of multipurpose trees that provide erosion control along with yields of valued products (Raintree, 1990). Even though, the lack of definite quantitative parameters to express sustainability is no indication of whether or not a system is sustainable; indeed, the value of agroforestry in terms of sustainability has almost been universally accepted (Nair, 1993).

4.3. CONTEXT OF AGROFORESTRY FOR UPLAND DEVELOPMENT Much of the land in Southeast Asian countries is dominated by mountainous topography, and populated by diverse cultural minority communities. Expansive forests and sparse populations allowed these communities to practice variations of shifting cultivation, which enabled them to coexist in relative harmony with their environment (Cairns and Garrity, 1999). This cultivation system occupies a distinct place in the indigenous economy and constitutes a vital part of the livelihood and socio-economic setup of the majority of the highland population. Shifting cultivation could be said to have evolved as a response to special physiographic characteristics of the land, and the economy and socio-cultural traditions of the cultivators practicing it (Gupta, 2000). In Belize, the milpa type of slash-andburn agricultural system evolved in response to local conditions, which is characterized by mountainous topography dominated by Mayan ethnic people (Emch, 2003). Two major ecological reasons are considered for the use of shifting cultivation- poor fertility of fragile soils under tropical conditions, with a tendency to decline further without modern soil conservation and irrigation measures, and the low capacity of soil to retain plant nutrients (Gupta, 2000). Traditional shifting cultivation remains sustainable as long as there is a balance, within a given area, between the population growth and the availability of land and there is a wide fallow period (Jakobsen et al., 2007; Abizaid and Coomes, 2004; Palm et al., 1996). If the fallow period is shortened under population pressures and there becomes shortage of suitable land, productivity of the system declines following the decrease in soil fertility and land degradation. In the hill tracts (particularly in CHT) of Bangladesh, a rapid rise in population, endemic and in-migration of plains people, the construction of development infrastructures (e.g., hydroelectric project), and government policies on expansion of reserve and protected forests has made the jhum vulnerable. An alternative farming system is required in the region in order to create sustainable land-use systems, improve farmer’s living standards, reduce deforestation and protect the watershed.

48

Tapan Kumar Nath

Agroforestry with the intentional integration of tree growing into the farming system is a potential alternative (Kusters et al., 2008; Garrity, 1999a; Levasseur and Olivier, 2000), and efforts to promote the adoption of agroforestry to reduce shifting cultivation have been increasing (Fischer and Vasseur, 2002). It is a viable tool for upland management. Agroforestry frees up time, allowing villagers to take non-farm jobs which leads to an increase in income (Hildreth, 2008). Higher returns per unit of agroforestry may help to maintain the agroforests (Kusters et al., 2008). It can increase and sustain crop productivity in the uplands and improve environmental conservation. As a land use system, agroforestry has been increasingly regarded as an effective and low-cost method for minimizing the processes of degradation associated with land cultivation and for the retention of the ecosystems (Vergara and Nicomedes, 1987). Moreover, diversification of crops is expected to create opportunities for achieving a steady and sometimes higher rural income through more efficient use of resources and the exploitation of comparative advantages. Farmer- evolved agroforestry often resembles natural secondary forest systems in structure and ecology (Garrity, 1999b). Agroforestry systems can combine short-term and long-term benefits for the farm households with the aim of watershed protection and sustainability in the use of resources. Smallholder agroforestry may be a part of the strategy to reduce poverty and protect watersheds in the CHT.

4.4. MATERIALS AND METHODS Selection of Sample Villages and Households For this study, initially, the names of all project villages and planters in both districts (Khagrachari and Bandarban) were collected from the office records of the CHTDB located in Khagrachari. Fifteen (15) project villages, eight (8) from Khagrachari and seven (7) from the Bandarban district were selected at random. Ninety planters, six from each project village, were then selected from above for the final interview and field data collection.

Data Collection Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used for the collection of information and data. Tools of PRA and case study methods such as key-informant interview, household interview, group discussion, personal observation and farm visits were used. Two planters were interviewed as a key-informant in each village. The interview dealt with project history, its impact, their opinions about agroforestry systems, village committee, etc. A semistructured questionnaire containing checklists was used to facilitate the interview. For the household interview, the head of each sampled household was interviewed. Although the head of the family was specifically targeted for the purpose of the interview, other adult family members also participated in the discussion during the interview. An openended questionnaire was used for each household. The questions were about the uses of granted land for different agroforestry systems, their advantages and disadvantages, input and output of different agroforestry systems, marketing of products, etc.

Agroforestry in the Chittagong Hill Tracts Region

49

In each village, a group discussion with the planters (3-4 planters attended) was conducted using a semi-structured questionnaire, which focused on farming systems, their positive and negatives aspects, problems related to farming and products marketing, future of the agroforestry, etc. Officials of the CHTDB who directed the project operation were also asked to share their views about agroforestry systems implemented in the project sites, and their perception about the adoption of agroforestry by the project planters.

4.5. RESULTS Agroforestry Systems The project authority (CHTDB) then initiated a number of agroforestry systems, including homestead agroforestry, contour hedgerow inter-cropping agroforestry technology (CHIAT) and rubber based intercropping systems. CHIAT1 is a modified form of SALT2 (sloping agricultural land technology). The participant planters were encouraged and supposed to follow these systems to develop agroforestry on their respective lands. However, even though all participants outwardly accepted the concepts of homestead and rubber-based agroforestry, they nonetheless stayed away from CHIAT, because of the difficulty in carving out the contours and hedges. In its stead, 86 percent of the planters continued to practice their traditional form of jhum, and 14 percent continued with plough-land agriculture on CHIAT areas as was practiced in valleys where irrigation was possible. Among these agroforestry systems, planters were interested in homestead agroforestry. In homesteading, they mostly planted horticultural species and across all the sampled households 21 were recorded. The most commonly planted species were Artocarpus heterophyllus, Citrus reticulate, Litchi chinensis, Ananas sativa, Musa paradiasiaca, Psidium guajava and Mangifera indica. Besides fruit trees, the planters also planted other trees that have both fuelwood and timber value. The tree species most often planted were Gmelina arborea, Tectona grandis, Albizia spp., Swietenia macrophylla and Acacia spp. Rubber-based agroforestry was equally well accepted by planters. Within the rubber plantation, planters planted banana and pineapple as intercrops. In jhum, planters cultivate mainly cereal crops, mostly for household consumption. Surplus production was sold in the markets. The planters followed mix cropping in jhum across all of the sampled farms; 15 species were recorded. In contrast, plough land was utilized for rain feed rice cultivation and winter crops (vegetables, pulses, etc.).

1

CHIAT follows the principles of SALT in making hedgerows and bands (alleys), but the major modification was in the composition of species in hedges. Along with exotics, native fruit and timber trees were introduced in CHIAT. 2 Originated in early 70’s in the Philippines, the SALT helps to develop the uplands by increased crop productivity through soil conservation and increased soil fertility. In SALT, crops are grown in 4- 5 m bands between hedgerows. Hedgerows, in a double row planting, are formed by planting nitrogen fixing trees and shrubs abundantly. When hedgerow species become 1.5- 2 m tall, they are pruned at a height of 40 cm and used as mulches (Tacio, 1991).

50

Tapan Kumar Nath

Benefits and Drawbacks The agroforestry systems that planters adopted in the study areas had both advantages and drawbacks (Table 4.1). For example, homestead agroforestry, though it was new to the jhumias, provided them the most benefits in comparison to other agroforestry systems. Planters mentioned nine benefits from homestead agroforestry, including sustainable productivity, multiple productions, market demand of the products and long run income, along with strong policy and institutional support. Besides these benefits, planters faced several problems which include inadequacy of planting materials, shortage of land, land tenure insecurity, marketing of products, and above all, that it was a new land use with difficult- to- follow cropping patterns required to avoid shading effects on the undergrowth. Table 4.1. Relative benefits and drawbacks of different agroforestry systems as perceived by farmers Agroforestry systems Homestead agroforestry

Rubber-based agroforestry Jhum

Plough land cultivation

Advantages

Disadvantages

- Sustainable production system - Multiple cropping system - Environmentally friendly - More long run benefit - Maximum utilization of site possible - Market demand of the products - Supportive government policy - Institutional support - Conservation of biodiversity - Labor intensive - Employment opportunity - Institutional and policy support - Multiple production system - Pest control - Culturally adaptable - Simple management - Low cost technology - Indigenous practice - Immediate benefit - Possibility of refinement - Labor intensive - Productivity high - Government support - Land tenure

- Lack of planting materials. - Small plot of land - Insecurity of land ownership - Marketing of the products - New technology

- Less number of crops - Natural calamites - Insecure land tenure - Soil erosion - Low production - Biodiversity loss - Weeds - Land tenure

- Wild animals - High input - Weeds

Source: Field survey in October- November 2002

Rubber-based agroforestry was beneficial in terms of employment opportunities and wage income sources. Members from almost all planters were involved with rubber cultivation either as daily labor or as permanent positions at the rubber processing units. Planters were allowed to raise intercrops, mainly of banana and pineapple in rubber

Agroforestry in the Chittagong Hill Tracts Region

51

plantations. Planters were also eligible to retain a share from rubber production. National level policy for upland development through rubber farming and institutional support in terms of resource mobilization and skills development were other incentives for a rubber-based agroforestry system. However, planters experienced some problems with this system, such as mono cropping (in the first phase of project), trees damaged by natural calamities (e.g., seasonal storms, cyclones, etc.), and tree stems that are soft in nature, and insecure land ownership. Jhum was the principal farming system in the hills. Albeit the jhumias had settled down under the USP with the hope that they would practice improved agroforestry system (e.g., CHIAT), still they were practicing jhum on land allotted by USP authority. Planters argued that CHIAT was complicated, because it required finding contour points, preparing hedges with exotic species, etc. The hedges occupied too much of the productive land and making contour hedges was very labor-intensive. On other hand, jhum was a simple, very low cost agroforestry system, which was culturally acceptable, a multiple production system that provided immediate benefits to the planters. Mix cropping naturally prevented the incidence of pests and has possibilities for improvement. Nevertheless, jhum was easy and cost effective, though planters faced some quandaries with it. The main quandary was soil erosion, which caused a loss of soil nutrients and a decline in productivity. From many years, government had tried to settle jhumias into a permanent farming practices, such as plough land agriculture. However, due to shortage of available land suitable for this type of farming, the government did not succeed. As in other forms of agroforestry systems, the plough land agriculture had both positive and negative characteristics for the planters. The main benefits were high productivity, favorable government incentives and the generation of employment. However, this type of agriculture required higher investments in terms of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and weeding. Land tenure was also uncertain, as was crop loss because of wild animals.

Products, Markets and Income A number of products were produced in the agroforestry and jhum plots besides rubber plots and plough land agriculture (Table 4.2). Products from jhum and plough land agriculture were seasonal; but both homestead and rubber-based agroforestry provided the most regular (year-round) production. Jhum and plough land agriculture produced mainly agricultural items such as rice, ginger, turmeric, vegetables, etc. On the contrary, homestead and rubber planting supplied horticultural products such as pineapple, banana, mango, jackfruits, etc. During field data collection, planters were asked about markets and the marketing of their products. All sampled households mentioned that, after filling the needs of their own family consumption, they sell their surplus products in nearby markets, held twice a week, about 2-3 km from the villages. When they have a small quantity of products to sell, planters carry them as shoulder loads; in the case of larger amounts, however, they either hire local vehicles (where the road network is good) or employ labor to carry the load. In the marketing of products, planters face problems such as distance to market locations, poor road net works and the frequency of market days. In the CHT region, local markets are held twice a week, but on the same day. For this reason, planters would not have a choice to sell their products in different markets in order to

52

Tapan Kumar Nath

shop for higher market values. Sometimes, they therefore sell their products very cheaply. Otherwise these products might become damaged (in case of perishable products) or involve additional costs to take them to home. Planters sell products directly to the consumers, mostly the local residents. During bulk production periods, however, they sell to retailers who buy goods from many producers and then sell all these products to the wholesale shops. The wholesalers then supply these goods to different national markets. Sometimes, intermediaries position themselves between the producers and consumers and/or retailers. These intermediaries purchase products from the producers and sell to the final consumers or to the retailers. Table 4.2. Marketable products and income from different agroforestry systems (AF) Variables

Homestead AF

Marketable products

Mainly horticultural products such as pineapple, orange, jackfruit, mango, etc., and ginger, turmeric and other agricultural products

Market value (Tk.)* Total costs (Tk.)** Net income (Tk.)

10000 – 15000

Rubberbased AF Banana and pineapple

Jhum

Plough land

Rice, til, beans, ginger, chili, pumpkin, turmeric, cucumber, cotton, pulses, yam, jinga, corn, maize, etc.

Rice and winter vegetables

1000 – 2000

2000 – 3000

4000 – 6000

1500 – 2000

Negligible

800 – 1200

2000 – 2500

8500 – 13000

1000 – 2000

1200 – 1800

2000 – 3500

Note: * Market value was derived as per planters’ responses while we asked them about the market ** Total costs include the cost of fertilizers, labor and planting materials. The figures were derived as per planters’ response during field survey in October-November, 2002.

Planters usually sell their products on a basket load basis, not by weight. As such, they do not keep records of the quantity produced. However, they could recall how much was sold in the markets. As per their opinions, the market value of products from homestead agroforestry was the highest in comparison to products from other agroforestry systems (Table 4.2). Planters get year-round production from homestead agroforestry. Besides providing staple foods, mainly rice, jhum and plough land agriculture also provided a considerable portion of each household’s income. Planters practicing plough land agriculture, however, had comparatively higher income than those practicing jhum, because of higher productivity. Though income from rubber planting was comparatively lower, it created employment opportunities for the project planters. Members from almost all households in fact had been employed at different levels of the rubber industries. On an average, each planter had an annual income of Tk. 16,500 (1US$ = Tk. 58.90 in 2002) from the sale of different products produced and sold from different agroforestry systems. However, income from the share of rubber production is not included in this figure. This income can be compared with their

Agroforestry in the Chittagong Hill Tracts Region

53

earlier income. Before participation into the USP, their approximate mean annual income was Tk. 6000 (Khan et al., 2003). Planters also mentioned that those who have good relations with project authorities and who have a strong link with village leader have the opportunities to obtain more jobs than others do. This created an unequal job opportunity in the project areas. Nonetheless, besides employment, planters also received a 60 percent share from the sale of final rubber products. Hence, planters believed that the intervention of the USP had generally improved their socioeconomic status through the introduction of market-oriented agroforestry and creating employment opportunities in the rubber-based agroforestry.

Ecological Attributes of the USP Besides improving the livelihood of the planters, another goal of the USP was to improve the ecological conditions of the degraded upland. The ecological impact on these lands was evaluated according to the opinion of the planters and staff as well as through observations by the interviewers during field visits. Planters mentioned that due to the intervention of homestead and rubber-based agroforestry, soil erosion had been reduced largely. Soil fertility could be maintained and in some instances improved through the addition of plants organic matter and by planting indigenous nitrogen-fixing plant species such as Albizia spp. Regarding adverse impacts of jhum, planters now realized that it caused soil degradation, because fallow periods were too short. They now felt interested in introducing agroforestry onto jhum land, seeing the success of homestead and rubber-based agroforestry. Planters planted diversified annual and perennial crops on homesteads, which helped to conserve plant diversity. Manual weeding in the rubber plantation also helped to keep the areas free from the side effects of herbicide applications. Project staff also added that the USP had improved the ecological conditions of the upland through reduction of soil erosion, and the planting of diverse species, but found that they could not keep planters away from practicing jhum. Jhum is still an issue in land deterioration in the CHT. Khan et al. (2003) observed that soil conserving agroforestry practices, a hedgerow barrier system and mixed cropping of rubber-banana in the USP contributed to a more efficient use of land that helped to reduce soil erosion. The field crew observed that the project villages were greener than the surrounding areas. A tract of rubber plantation mixed in with homestead forests made the villages aesthetically more pleasant. The project built cross dams at suitable sites in order to store water for household uses. The planters’ dependency on adjacent forests for fuel wood has been reduced largely and these areas have once again become the habitat of many species of birds.

Policy Issues The main objective of the USP was to rehabilitate the hitherto jhumias through improved agroforestry systems. The prescribed agroforestry systems were CHIAT, homestead and rubber-based agroforestry. As mentioned, the first type was a modified form of SALT, which had been tested, demonstrated and evaluated in terms of suitability and productivity in the CHT since 1993. On-farm demonstrations of the CHIAT were found promising for the upland

54

Tapan Kumar Nath

of CHT. To replicate the prototype, the USP authority trained many planters in the project villages in methods of locating contour lines, in the establishment and maintenance of hedgerows, the propagation of hedgerow species, etc. The end-results of the training were discouraging, however, because planters did not apply their knowledge on their allotted lands. Planters were then asked why they had attended the training but had not put into practice the CHIAT. They mentioned that they enjoyed the financial incentives, the free accommodation and food during training, and that it was an opportunity to meet friends and visit town areas. (Demonstration plots were located far away from villages). Nonetheless, they learned, many new things, but it was very difficult to memorize all items. In response to the applicability of the teachings, planters mentioned that it was difficult to find and locate contour lines, and that the establishment and maintenance of contour hedgerows was time consuming and very laborious. The species (e.g., Flemingia congesta, Desmodium rensonii, etc.) used in hedgerow were not economical and were not native to them, imported as they were from the Philippines. Planters responded that with intensive management in the demonstration sites, CHIAT appeared attractive, but that they were not confident they would to get the same performance on their own farms. They mentioned that they could not experiment with CHIAT because their own need for food was produced on very small plots of land and that the unproductive hedgerows (no real monetary outcome) covered too much of their productive land, which could be better utilized in jhum. Planters pointed out that the USP authority had wanted them to introduce CHIAT, but that they had not been involved with CHIAT before implementing the project. They were not familiar with contouring, as well as the construction and management of the hedgerows. Another important issue for non-adoption of the CHIAT was land tenure. Though the project authority had provided them with inheritable land rights, planters still did not receive any formal land title from the government settlement office. As per local country rules only a formal land title can assure them permanent land rights. Planters felt that they were only living temporarily on USP allotted land, and that the government could take the land back at any time. Planters justifiably asked why they should set up permanent structures when their holdings were only temporary. Lojka et al. (2008) observe that secure land tenure is required if smallholders are to adopt new farming technology. Similar observations related to the policy issues that effect the farmer’s adoption of production technologies were also reported in earlier studies in the CHT (Khan et al., 2002b; 2003). They concluded that complicacy in operational project plan and inappropriate policy issues have discouraged the planters from practicing settled farming systems in the CHT region.

4.6. DISCUSSION The ethnic communities of the CHT are directly and indirectly dependent upon the natural resources of the region for their livelihoods. The traditional land use system, which has supported the livelihoods of these upland people for many generations was and still is the jhum. A majority of these indigenous people still practice it. Though it was once a sustainable farming system, nowadays jhum can no longer support them. Population pressures, shortage of land caused by forest reservations, development of infrastructures, socio-political

Agroforestry in the Chittagong Hill Tracts Region

55

situations, etc. have compelled the jhumias to reduce their fallow period from seven to two or three years, as compared to the longer period required by the soil to rejuvenate itself. This is making jhum unsustainable and is causing environmental deterioration. In order to reduce dependency on jhum and to develop the upland in a sustainable manner, a number of farming practices have been tried with varying degrees of success and failure. The recent initiative of the USP is one such development program, which proposes to improve the livelihoods of these upland communities. It is considered a major development in the CHT and attempts to refine and develop suitable agroforestry systems for landless ethnic communities (Khan et al., 2003). However, adoption of agroforestry systems differs considerably among the planters. In the following sections, we have discussed, in a descriptive way, why planters have accepted different agroforestry systems in different ways, and what should be done to encourage planters to adopt these agroforestry systems fully.

Adaptability of Agroforestry Systems The project authority tried to introduce a number of agroforestry practices in the project villages. Among these practices, the planters showed the most interest in homestead and rubber-based agroforestry systems. With regards to homestead agroforestry, planters experimented with a variety of plant species including agricultural crops, horticulture and timber. Their choice of species was determined by their household needs and market opportunities. For example, turmeric, ginger, etc., which are important ingredients for curry preparation can grow under partial shade in home gardens. These products also have good market demand. Fruit trees, however, dominated the choice of homestead initiatives. Planters reported that their fruit and vegetables provided the dietary requirements of their own families and that there was a good market for these products in the region as well. During the survey, it was noted that a large number of buyers from plain land districts visited the markets of CHT to purchase agricultural and horticultural products. It should also be mentioned, therefore, that produce from the CHT provide food for a large portion of the population in the surrounding plains year round. Besides fruit trees and vegetables, planters also planted several species of timber, depending upon their market value. The more common kinds were Tectona grandis and Gmelina arborea, the topmost commercial timber species of Bangladesh. These choices of development in homestead agroforestry are consistent with the findings of many other scholars like Levassuer and Olivier (2000), as well as Fischer and Vasseur (2002), who reported that home gardens created an opportunity to plant fruit trees as well as timber species to fill household needs and provide a surplus for sale in markets of the region. Planting trees on land that is marginal for other crops is considered environmentally beneficial and encourage mixed cropping and multi-purpose land management (Vermeulen et al., 2008: 10). This experience of homestead agroforestry system provides us certain policy evaluations specific to CHT. Firstly, PF programs in Bangladesh and in the CHT during the last few decades were mainly focused on monoculture of a few species. These programs often failed to address the needs of poor people while benefiting the more powerful and more vocal ones in the community. Secondly, because of bureaucratic red tape, planters were not able to harvest their products at the proper time. The situation then became worse when terrorists

56

Tapan Kumar Nath

vandalized the trees. As a result, many planters were discouraged from adopting these programs. Rubber-based agroforestry, on the other hand, was well accepted by planters. They mentioned that this farming system allowed them to grow intercrops between the rows of rubber trees. These crops provided a source of household income and food for family members. Rubber cultivation is a labor-intensive activity, which created extra employment opportunities for the planters. Besides employment and cash crops, planters also received 60 percent of the returns from the sale of rubber products. These earnings were estimated at more than Tk. 34,500 per year per family (Khisa, 1995). However, a recent visit (in 2007) and discussion with planters revealed that they received only Tk. 4662/yr after incurring rubber processing and maintenance costs. The lower share of revenue was due to, as planters commented and I observed, lower density of productive rubber trees in rubber plantations. Nevertheless, planters as well as officials of different development agencies in the CHT feel that rubber plantations among small land-holders is a practical approach for this region because the CHT have a vast area of suitable land for rubber. It has been estimated that about 2,400,000 ha of medium sloping unproductive uplands are available for cash crops like rubber, coffee and other agroforestry crops (Forestal and Engineering International Limited, 1966), but only 12,000 ha of this land is being used (Khisa and Hossain, 2002). On the other hand, market research indicates that the estimated demand for natural rubber is about 2,500 tons per year with an annual increase of 10 percent (Nandy, 1990). In spite of this increasing demand, the country still hardly produces seven percent of this requirement and imports the rest (Nandy, 1990). Though planters accepted homestead and rubber-based agroforestry systems enthusiastically, they did not welcome CHIAT. Project staff pointed out that some planters did adopt CHIAT (not sampled in this study) but that the majority still practiced jhum. Project authorities conducted many training and on-site demonstration programs, trying to orient the planters about CHIAT, but the adoption rate was very low. Garrity (1999a) observed that, although there are many reports of increased crop yield from this type of farming system in Asian countries, adoption of these systems by the local farmers is very low because they reduce the yield of annuals under the shade of the perennials and the requirements of extra labor for pruning and maintenance of hedgerows is too high. Planters in the study areas also claimed that they were not familiar with CHIAT and that they were reluctant to place their faith in this agroforestry system because of many failures in earlier projects. They felt that the CHIAT was very complicated and laborious-intensive, needing contour line identification, hedgerow preparation and maintenance, etc. They also worried that there might be insecurity in their food supply (mainly rice) during the early stage of CHIAT. The main incentive to retain jhum is to produce food for subsistence. A transformation of jhum areas into agroforestry and horticultural types of plantations may in many cases leave only small plots available for food grains, and they too may only last for the first few years until the trees overshadow other plants. Although the added income from the transformation would enable most households to purchase food, their own food security may still be an issue (Knudsen and Khan, 2002). Unless smallholders are capable of accepting the lower profitability in the first years, or there is some government assistance, or some kind of incentives, they are less likely to adopt the new system (Lojka et al., 2008: 38). Nonetheless, planters argued that if provisions could be made for natural strips instead of hedgerows, or if they could develop commercial plants on hedgerows, the CHIAT would be an attractive land use system.

Agroforestry in the Chittagong Hill Tracts Region

57

In support of the above response, Fujisaka et al. (1994) and Garrity (1993) observed that the farmers’ ideas of farming systems based on natural vegetative strips (NVS) instead of on tree hedgerows could be sustainable with many desirable qualities. These qualities would include locally available input, require less maintenance, offer little competition to the adjacent associated annual crops, be very efficient in minimizing soil loss and would not show a tendency to cause greater weed problems for associated crops. In NVS, native grasses are used to prepare the strips. A major key advantage of these natural strips is simplicity in installation. Once contour lines are laid out, there is no further need for materials or labor. The vegetative strips do not need to conform as closely to the contour; they act as filter strips rather than boundaries (Garrity, 1999a). Contour strips were also found to result in a gradually increasing yield, due to reduced degradation in the soil resource base. However, the important things that might be considered, during intervention of any technology, are the motivation and rigorous training, effective participation of farmers and inclusion of their knowledge and opinions in technology development. Development, dissemination and adoption of new production technologies in marginal areas, nonetheless, depend much on social capital (Isham, 2000; Wu and Pretty, 2004).

Significance of Social Capital Drawing on the idea of Krishna and Shrader (2000), Carroll (2001), and Pretty and Ward (2001) we defined, here, the social capital as the structure of social organizations that encourages collective actions through networks and connectedness to achieve the sustainable livelihoods. Recently in Asia, much attention has been given to the role of local organizations in forest management and the management of other common natural resources by believing that if farmers can organize themselves into local organizations, the development and diffusion of information can take place more rapidly (Isham, 2000). Local organizations in the form of village committees do exist in each project village of the study areas, which conducted the day-to-day affairs of planters. The activities of village committees were limited to social conflict resolution and meetings with local development agencies. Sometimes a few influential people who had strong connections with local elites dominated the committee and made decisions based upon their own interests. However, these village committees could still play a key role in solving many problems of the planters. For example, improvements in CHIAT and its diffusion could be made by strengthening the committee’s motivation through farm-level demonstrations and training of committee members who will ultimately act as promoters. Promoters are farmers who have been trained by project staff to teach and provide guidance to other farmers (Chew, 1989 cited in Fischer and Vasseur, 2002). Planters in the study areas often faced problems with the marketing of products and formal land title. Regarding market days, the local administration could take the initiative to arrange for different market days. However, when there is a need to sell products in distant markets, the committee could engage in cooperative marketing as was done in Uttar Pradesh of India where the villagers were organized into associations to process and market animal hides (Carroll, 1996). Land tenure issues were a discouraging point in the adoption of new agroforestry systems. Though agreements with project authorities ensured permanent heritable land rights, planters were not given a formal land title from the government land

58

Tapan Kumar Nath

settlement office. This issue prevented them from investing in expensive and laborious farming systems. There is no easy solution to this problem. The central government, local administrative agencies and CHTDB could jointly take action to reach a reasonable solution of land tenure. Nevertheless, the village committee could also play an important role in this regard by maintaining strong horizontal and vertical links between local organizations, government and other organizations of the area. Regular contacts and repeated lobbying may help to achieve the desired objectives. Therefore, it is apparent that social organizations can play a significant role in the improvement of appropriate agroforestry systems, and in resolving various policy issues such as land tenure. The success of an organization, however, critically depends upon its formation and acceptability by the community. The organization should be representative, transparent in decision-making processes and responsive to the needs of the community welfare.

4.7. CONCLUSION The study suggests that this upland settlement project did contribute very worthily to the socio-economics of the participant planters and at the same time increased the tree cover in the project areas. Though it contributed to some extent in reducing dependency on jhum, greater adoption of agroforestry systems would depend largely on the mobilization of local resources, specifically strengthening local organizations and supporting policy changes. More investment should be made to form community accepted social organizations, which will be adequately trained to deal with community development activities. Action could be taken to modify the CHIAT model allowing it to adopt natural vegetative strips. The planters’ preferences should be given priority in selecting hedgerow species. Policies on land tenure should be clarified among the planters by making interim agreements with government land settlement departments assuring them that formal land titles will be offered in future. In order to follow up with feasible recommendations on these issues, research on the effect of the project upon the livelihood of the people and their social capital should be carried out as the next step.

Chapter 5

PARTICIPATORY FORESTRY PROGRAM IN THE CHITTAGONG HILL TRACTS REGION ABSTRACT The Upland Settlement Project (USP) is a recent intervention that aimed to settle landless shifting cultivators through a participatory forestry program and other social development activities. By taking two contrasting sample villages (one relatively successful and the other relatively unsuccessful) as case study sites, this chapter investigated the present conditions of the USP in terms of progress towards achieving targeted objectives and its impacts on planter’s livelihoods. Both qualitative and quantitative approaches were used. Findings indicate that although customary forestry practices could not support planters’ livelihoods all year, joining the USP had improved their livelihoods by building several livelihood capitals including human, physical, natural, financial and social capital. Many planters have given up customary forestry practices completely and diversified their livelihood strategies to make a living. Due to budget allocation disparities, differences in raising awareness about project benefits, and inconsistencies in monitoring motivation, project outcomes varied depending on the divergence of livelihoods capital between the villages. Several local-level governance and policy issues were identified that underlay inadequate settlement project achievements. Suggestions are made for effective participation by planters that would heighten the sense of ownership, enhance collective management, and ensure long-term program sustainability.

5.1. INTRODUCTION Since the 1980’s, many state-sponsored as well as donor-funded development projects have been implemented, in almost all developing countries, for the welfare of rural people and the sustainable management of natural resources. Even though political and financial supports for developments do exist, and the best policies are being advocated, such development interventions have a high incidence of failure (Agunga 1992: 3). The failure of these programs in their primary purpose of conserving forest resources steered to involve local community in management, and to acknowledge their needs in order to prevent further forest degradation and deforestation (Arnold, 2001; Castren, 2005: 90; Kubsa and Tadesse,

60

Tapan Kumar Nath

2003). It is argued that in an environment of poverty, natural resources will be exploited to an extinction level if the resources are not managed with surrounding communities and to their benefits (de Beer and Marais, 2005:56). Conservation agencies recognize that broad-based public support is needed for effective conservation (Vermeulen and Douglas, 2007: 438). Development practitioners have long been aware that even if projects have the same level of overall assistance, their results vary considerably from one location to another (Krishna 2004: 292). A number of different reasons, such as leadership quality and program staff effectiveness, can be suggested to explain these observed differences (Garande and Dagg, 2005:420; Pollnac and Pomeroy, 2005:234; Pomeroy et al., 2005:361), and social capital is one other possible explanation that must be considered (Krishna, 2004:292). Social capital is considered to be a pre-requisite for the sustainable management and development of natural resources (Pretty, 2003a:1). Many donor-funded projects have sought to improve their effectiveness and efficiency by sponsoring the formation of social capital in the form of groups to meet their immediate project objectives (Carney, 1996). Groups or organizations provide the entry point for efforts to work with community members (Schneider, 2004). Group formation and collective action have been the focus of much recent attention amongst donors and policy makers (Upton, 2008: 175). For sustainability, rural development projects can be specifically designed to seek the emergence of organizations and enhance their effectiveness (de Janvry, 2003). Farmers’ organizations could engage community members in a common income-generating activity to meet individual as well as social needs and develop procedures to ensure the accountability of their leaders (Bingen and Munyankusi, 2002). It is argued that external factors and intervention might be ineffective in marginal areas unless farmer communication and cooperation relationships are given more attention (Wu et al., 2002: 60). Collaboration amongst groups of resource users contributes further strengthening of social capital, thus initiating a virtuous circle of cooperation, improved livelihoods and enhanced resource management (Upton, 2008: 175). Social capital and the capacity of village leaders have a multiplicative impact in influencing development performance (Krishna, 2004:300). In rural areas, overall development success or failure is often an outcome of what happens in agriculture that contributes significantly to livelihoods by raising income and employment (Addison, 2005). Sustained livelihoods for the poor ensure environmental sustainability, which would judiciously combine their use of natural resources with alternative opportunities for employment and income (Osmani, 2005). However, outcomes of agricultural projects are unsustainable when there has been no attention to institutional development and local participation (Pretty, 2003a: 6). Sustained community participation in development interventions helps in maintaining the resources and the flow of accrued benefits over time (Sinha and Suar, 2005:126). The success or failure of projects in any particular community would be in the hands of the people of that community and, for the projects to be sustainable, all community members must be involved, or at least considered, in the decisionmaking process, and all must be able to share in the benefits (Ikerd, 2001). Investment is needed in participatory processes to bring people together to deliberate on common problems, and to form new groups or associations capable of developing practices of common benefit (Pretty, 2003a: 21). Natural resource management issues are essentially governance issues, because they address issues of collective responsibilities, distribution and conflict management, which all imply power relationships (DFID, 2001). Within the area of natural resource management,

Participatory Forestry Program in the Chittagong Hill Tracts Region

61

governance is essentially a devolutionary process which deals with the transfer of government powers, functions and skills in the area of natural resource management to local authorities such as local groups, organizations that are part of civil society and local populations (Ostrom, 1990; Plumptre and Graham, 1999; Dabire, 2003; Graham et al., 2003a; Andersson, 2004). Good governance lays at the heart of sound environmental management, in particular the public management of natural resources. An important challenge for governance is in ensuring that a supportive environment for sustainable livelihoods is developed at all levels at which decision-making takes place. As a means to enhancing well-being, the focus would be on how governance influences the creation of opportunities where poor people can exploit natural resources for sustainable livelihoods. Improved security and greater participation of the poor are in themselves desirable outcomes of good governance. In this chapter, I focus on a government financed participatory forestry program - Upland Settlement Project (USP) of Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT), Bangladesh that intended to rehabilitate forest degradation in the region and uplift the living of landless ethnic people. Taking two sample project villages as case studies, this research looks at: 1] the present conditions of the USP- and to what extent it achieves targeted objectives; 2] issues of local governance that influence success or failure of the USP, and 3] livelihood situations of the project participants (planters). Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used for analyzing livelihoods situation. The chapter begins with a brief description of the importance of social capital for natural resources management and livelihoods enhancement, local level governance for natural resource and forest management and then elaborates on the methods used in data collection. The impact of the project on reduction of land degradation and on planters’ livelihoods, livelihoods strategies of the planters and governance issue that affected project’s achievements is then examined. Next, observations are made about the problems of the planters. Concluding comments follow.

5.2. SOCIAL CAPITAL FOR NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AND RURAL LIVELIHOODS ENHANCEMENT People, for a long time, utilized their surrounding natural resources to fulfill the needs of livelihoods based on some rules, norms and sanctions of either family or society, which, in most cases, ensure the sustainability of production systems. They engaged in collective actions for the conservation and exploitation of resources. Although constructive resource management rules and norms have been embedded in many cultures and societies, it is very rare to recognize these collective actions in recent agricultural and rural development (Pretty and Ward, 2001). Moreover, policy and practice encourages changing individual behavior rather than the behavior of groups or communities. This trend resulted in the loss of local institutions which provoked natural resource degradation (Pretty and Ward, 2001). Drawing on a number of studies (e.g. Ostrom, 1990; Leach and Mearns, 1996; Cernea, 1991; Uphoff et al., 1998; Krishna, 2002) Pretty (2003a) and, Pretty and Ward (2001) synthesized that government takes the responsibility in managing natural resources at the time of fading of local institutions. The reason, as the state authority perceived, was that local

62

Tapan Kumar Nath

people could not manage natural resources effectively (Arnold, 2001). However, scholars believed and documented that project activities will be sustainable when people are well organized and their knowledge is recognized and integrated into planning and implementation. The knowledge and values of local communities are now being acknowledged as valuable for resource conservation (Pretty and Smith, 2004). It is now strongly needed to develop suitable social organizations, a form of social capital, for natural resource management and protection at local level (Pretty, 2003a). Social organizations through their appropriate approaches such as landcare approach in Australia and in the Philippines which follow information sessions, training, cross-farm visits, farmer-to-farmer information exchange, etc. help to adopt technology for better conservation and production (Cramb and Culasero, 2003; Cramb, 2004). Organizational capacity leads to better land use and natural resource management, and leads to higher overall incomes (McCarthy et al., 2004). However, for long-term improvement of natural resources, along with social capital, human capital (skills, knowledge embodied in individuals) is also a prerequisite (Pretty and Ward, 2001). It is possible to improve protected areas in the shortterm through controlled regulations and direct incentives to the local community, but farmers commonly reverted to old practices when the incentives or regulations are no longer enforced (Pretty et al., 2000; Dobbs and Pretty, 2001; Pretty, 2003b). This is because these types of incentives do not help people to change their attitudes. The social and human capital necessary for effective and sustainable natural resource management require externally driven endowments (Pretty and Ward, 2001) as farmers are lacking in resources or assets. External agencies help to increase knowledge and skills, leadership capacity, and create conditions for the emergence of locally acceptable organizations with appropriate rules and norms fitted for the management of resources. However, most importantly, both farmers and external agencies should be aware that the benefits derived from the collective actions must exceed the costs involved in facilitating social and human capital formation (Grootaert, 1998). In recent years, there has been a remarkable change of state policy across the world regarding forest and other resource management through collective approaches. This leads to the formation of social capital at community level for the management of natural resources. Collective forest management systems, for instance, include social forestry in Bangladesh, joint forest management in India, community forestry in Nepal, community-based forest management in the Philippines, etc. Even though collective approaches of forest management have created favorable environments for resource conservation and better utilization, the approaches have also produced many conflicts among the stakeholders which need resolution to ensure the sustainability of resource management. Natural resource management is in many ways a form of conflict management (Castro and Nielsen, 2003). The conflicts may be internal (within the communities) or external (communities with outsiders) (Pankhurst, 2003) and the ability to manage and resolve conflicts in a peaceful, participatory and equitable manner allows for more secure access to, and better management of natural resources (Castro and Nielsen, 2003). For a permanent resolution of conflicts and sustainability of the resource production systems social capital could play a significant role. It is well-argued, for example, by the scholars (see Hafner et al., 2003; Kazoora, 2003; Pankhurst, 2003; Prins et al., 2003; Suporahardjo and Wodicka, 2003) that a proactive engagement of stakeholders by coalition and capacity building, mediation by elders and social leaders, sanctions, trusts, collaborative

Participatory Forestry Program in the Chittagong Hill Tracts Region

63

planning, vertical relations with upper institutions/ authorities are pre-requisites for a peaceful negotiation over conflicts on natural resources. They also emphasized the shifting of state views on community involvement through informal institutions to give natural resource management conflict resolution better chances of being successful. At the same time, it should be kept in mind that conflict management is not just a matter of resolving a given conflict, but also of creating new and fruitful social and institutional relationships (Prins et al., 2003), which will ensure the sustainable production of the resources. Moreover, to make progress in resolving a conflict, it is necessary to reflect regularly upon the intermediate products of the process and to feed the outcome of this reflection into the planning of new activities and mechanisms of conflict resolution. This will increase the effectiveness of the actions and methods, and build a strong and lasting social coalition to support the outcome of the conflict (Prins et al., 2003). The ideas of social capital and governance of the common, combined with the recent success of local groups, offer routes for constructive and sustainable outcomes for natural resources in many of the world’s ecosystems (Pretty, 2003b). Community arrangements in common resources management regulate the ways in which products are to be shared among members. Through these practices, mutual respect, reciprocity and collectiveness are affirmed, leading to cohesive community clusters and sustainability of common resources (Conway et al., 2000). Therefore, the collective management of forest resources creates an environment for better management and conservation of resources in addition to alleviating the poverty level of participating farmers. Besides forest management, there are instances of collaborative management in other natural resources such as irrigation and water management, wildlife management, watershed conservation, etc. A well-documented example of the role social capital in the form of farmer organization for irrigation management is the work of Uphoff and Wijayaratna (2000). They mentioned that efficiency of water use doubled within two years through the introduction of social infrastructure in a set of heterogeneous and conflictive communities. The social structure created for decision-making, resource mobilization and management, communication, and conflict resolution were farmer organizations, beginning with small, informal groups at field level. They concluded that with appropriate external support, social capital could become a factor of societal production that helps people meet their basic needs and aspirations better, with whatever other resources available. Livelihoods of farmers in marginal remote areas is generally affected by such factors like finance, communication, market information, technology, etc. that incapacitate farmers from generating income and reducing the poverty level. There is growing evidence that social capital can have an impact on development outcomes-growth, equity and poverty alleviation (Grootaert, 1998). Social capital, in the form of information sharing, is of key importance for poverty alleviation. Information sharing, coordination of activities and collective decisionmaking create the environment for economic benefits (Lehtonen, 2004). Group-based lending schemes, where members have better information on each other than banks, are good examples of information sharing. These groups permit the poor to credit access without any collateral. Donor agencies concerned with poverty alleviation can enhance the effectiveness of their strategies by stimulating the formation of social capital as part of these strategies (Grootaert, 1998).

64

Tapan Kumar Nath

A farmer’s networks, a variable of social capital, helps people to access resources such as time, money or knowledge necessary for practicing different livelihood-earning activities and avoiding a poverty trap through economic growth (Mazzucato et al., 2001; Peng, 2004). Scholars reported that local associations and networks have a positive impact on local development and the well-being of households. In India, for instance, it has been shown that social capital enhanced the ability of the poor to allocate resources efficiently and increased their resilience to hazards (Townsend, 1994). Farmers in Sahel make monetary investments more frequently in social networks, rather than direct investment in agriculture and land enhancing measures that give them flexible access to resources necessary for agriculture, and soil and water conservation (Mazzucato et al., 2001). Narayan and Pritchett (1997) reported that village-level social capital makes a significant contribution to the household welfare in rural Tanzania. Social capital lowers the costs of working together, facilitates cooperation and increases people’s confidence in investing in collective activities knowing that others will also do so (Pretty and Smith, 2004). Networks of trust and mutual accountability linking individuals in communities facilitate access to credit which in turns assist in the accumulation of financial capital (Bebbington, 1999). Strong networks among social organizations, other civil societies and government actors prevents other actors from expropriating natural resources (Bebbington, 1996) and through these networks local people, collectively, can influence state policy in ways advantageous to their livelihoods (Fox, 1996; Grootaert, 1998). Strong network between public institutions and organized communities is a powerful tool for development (Evans, 1996). Traditionally, economists have identified natural, physical and human capital as key determinants of economic growth, but other non-economic outcomes of the social interactions are also necessary, those which improve long-run economic efficiency and increase economic output (Cote, 2001). Social interaction is economically beneficial because it generates externalities which reduce problems of opportunism by exchanging behavior of others, problem of market failure by information sharing on technology and markets and facilitates collective actions (Grootaert and van Bastelaer, 2001). Information flow and sharing with better-connected traders helps to find clients, markets, price information and also helps farmers enjoy larger sales, increased benefits and expansion of business (Fafchamps and Minten, 1999; Tiepoh and Reimer, 2004). Information flow through networks diminishes social distance and creates trust among investors (Glaeser et al., 2002), which reduces the costs of securing and providing credit. Trust and reciprocal engagement can reduce transaction costs and enhance flow of information and knowledge with spin-off benefits: stimulated savings, risk-taking and investment (Carroll, 2001; Cote, 2001). By improving the efficiency of economic relations, social capital can help increase people’s income and rates of saving (DFID, 1999). Due to fragile environmental and socio-political situations, the prevailing farming practices in mountainous areas, in most cases, are unable to feed the increasing population. There is a need for development and innovation of production technologies that suit local environments and traditions. In marginal areas where the inflow of external capital such as finance, technology and professional services are extremely limited, farmer’s communication network is essential for technology development and transfer (Wu et al., 2002). Technology adoption by farmers in marginal areas depends largely on social connectedness. For instance, in marginal rural China farmers are likely to adopt new technologies based on their close and

Participatory Forestry Program in the Chittagong Hill Tracts Region

65

personal scrutiny and encouragement of close relatives (Wu and Pretty, 2004). Moreover, besides the relatives, neighborhood mutual-aid and co-operation are also important for technology learning and adoption. Paudel and Thapa (2004) found that social factors, most importantly collective actions, encourage adoption of land use technologies. In conclusion, social capital variables such as networks, connectedness, associations, etc. play a significant role in improving rural livelihoods through permitting access to finance, markets and technology adoption. Social capital, however, has limited value if not combined with other types of capital. One important attribute of social capital is that it can make the other types of capital and their productive combination more efficient (Grootaert, 1998). Social ties, horizontal and vertical social capitals, are now viewed as important assets that have potential for building other forms of capital such as natural, physical, financial and human capitals (Meinzen-Dick et al., 2004).

5.3. GOVERNANCE AND SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Governance is an arrangement which distributes power and authority among different stakeholders, and enables both societies and relevant legitimate institutions, mainly those parts of government structures, to interact with each other in a responsive and accountable way for the interests of the society and to ensure fairness in decision-making, benefit distribution, and a voice for each and every stakeholder. It involves power, relationships among actors, and a rendering of accounts that implies the existence of local representatives who are both legitimate and legally responsible, and also capable of making decisions (Dabire, 2003). The idea of governance helps communities take action in collaboration with government authorities for the interests of citizens. Policy makers in both developed and developing countries have adopted decentralization1 reforms as a strategy to improve public sector performance (Andersson, 2004; Shackleton et al., 2002; Chatterji, 2001) and to achieve developmental goals, provide public services and undertake environmental conservation (Agrawal and Ostrom, 2001; Ribot, 2004). Decentralization can improve fairness in decision-making either through the delegation of administration or devolution of governance from central government to local communities (Ferguson and Chandrasekharan, 2004). Fairness in relation to rural communities is considered as a principal requirement for poverty alleviation and/or sustainable forest management (ibid.).

1

Decentralization is the relocation of administrative functions from higher to lower level organizations in the government hierarchy closer to those who are most affected by the exercise of power (Agrawal and Ribot, 1999; Fisher, 1999, 2000; Agrawal and Ostrom, 2001; Larson, 2004; Bartley et al., 2008). It is considered as a tool that promotes development and increase efficiency, equity and democracy by bringing decision-making closer to local people (Ferguson and Chandrasekharan, 2004; Larson, 2004; Ribot, 2004). Decentralization can takes place in different forms: deconcentration, delegation and devolution (Klugman, 1994 cited in Ferguson and Chandrasekharan, 2004). Deconcentration means the transfer of administrative responsibility for some specified functions to lower levels within the central government bureaucracy. Delegation involves the transfer of managerial responsibility for specified functions to other public organizations outside normal central government control. Devolution is the transfer of governance responsibility for specified functions to local levels that are largely outside the direct control of the central government.

66

Tapan Kumar Nath

Natural resource management policies are presently undergoing change and are being oriented towards the creation of a legal basis for sustainable management (Dabire, 2003). Governments are increasingly devolving governance of natural resources from central administrations to sub-national levels (Bartley et al., 2008: 160). Decentralization and devolution hold promise for improving forest management and moving towards sustainability (Anderson, 2000). Decentralization allows participation of stakeholders in co-management of forest resources, and devolution of forest management responsibilities to local communities facilitates the decision-making processes collectively in a fair, transparent and prompt way, although many forest users committees lack such governance issues. Local communities are pluralistic in nature and their traditional norms, rules and regulations check the overexploitation of the natural resource base to maintain the sustainability of forest production. Decentralization led to an increase in efficiency of resource management by implementing policies and programs that reflect people’s real needs and preferences, and enhances accountability and monitoring of decision-makers (Jutting et al., 2004). The decentralization processes and their accompanying legislative framework will undoubtedly have an important impact as well as profound implications with regard to natural resource management (Chatterji, 2001).

5.3.1. Governance and Local Forest Management: Some Key Issues Even though some degree of decentralization in forest management has taken place, forests of many countries still have been managed under conventional approaches. In the name of decentralizations, a limited array of forest management powers are being transferred to local authorities such as local government, user groups, etc. (Andersson, 2004; Ribot, 2004). Policy makers still give little emphasis in defining the roles and responsibilities of different actors involved and understanding the effects of wider political and international forces (RECOFTC, 2002) which cause further forest degradation and create increased conflicts among stakeholders. The key challenge of forest management, nowadays, is how decisions are made and how stakeholders beyond the forest sector influence forest policies and practices (ibid.). There is no easy solution to meet the challenge. However, it is argued that the “forest governance” approach can be a starting point to tackle the future challenge by providing a framework to craft the structures, mechanisms, and cross linkages among different actors involved and/or effected by forest management (Hobley and Shield, 2000; Brown et al., 2002a; Mayers and Vermeulen, 2002; RCOFTC, 2002). A forest governance approach seeks administrative re-structures of local forest governance and a role for civil society, forest users and other government agencies in determining the direction and nature of how forests are used (RECOFTC, 2002). Good forest governance achieves this by clarifying the relationships, rights, responsibilities and incentives among these key actors (ibid.). Local governments are increasingly important actors in forest management (Larson, 2004) and they are being asked to take over governance responsibilities related to the management of natural resources (Andersson, 2004). Local government can localize national policies, adapting the specific details to local management practices, environmental conditions and social relations, and plays a role in conflict management, development of forest-based industries, providing technical financial, and market information

Participatory Forestry Program in the Chittagong Hill Tracts Region

67

services (Dachang and Edmunds, 2003). Localization can be a powerful influence on the lives of forest users and the starting point for more control of collaborative forest management (ibid.). Collaborative forest management, which involves local government agencies and local communities, are of crucial importance in enhancing local forest governance and the sustainable management of forest resources (Mayers and Vermeulen, 2002). Forests are the sources of tributes of all kinds that make it a highly conflictive arena when it comes to discussion regarding the distribution of powers over resources, as well as a domain that is particularly vulnerable to corruption (Larson, 2004). Good forest governance ensures power balances among actors, builds capacities of stakeholders at all levels, improves cross-sectoral linkages, and creates more transparent, accountable and inclusive decisionmaking processes by setting norms and good codes of practices that reinforce the livelihoods assets of rural communities who use and manage forest resources (Shepherd and Gill, 1999; Mayers and Vermeulen, 2002; RECOFTC, 2002). Forest policies and management strategies of a country are influenced by local, regional and national level socio-political environment. Due to increasing global environmental consciousness, these forest policies and management strategies are also influenced by global environmental agreements. Hence, forest governance occurs at all levels: locally, regionally, nationally and globally. Actors at different levels of governance need to build institutions for communication and cooperation through which they can combine their resources and efforts effectively with one another (Andersson, 2004), because lack of coordination among different levels of governance is one of the utmost deficiencies in most decentralization efforts (Smoke, 2003). Within forest agencies, better mechanisms are needed to coordinate with each other and to meet the demands of new clients, forest agencies will also require fundamental changes in their structure, planning and management systems (RECOFTC, 2002). However, livelihoods of forest-depended rural communities rely mostly on local governance, because most of the forestry operations are held at the local level. Effectiveness of local governance depends on the degree to which local government authorities involve forest user groups in decisionmaking processes and to what extent they are downwardly accountable to the user groups (Blair, 2000; Agrawal and Ostrom, 2001; Larson, 2004; Ribot, 2004). During the 1980’s and onwards most of the developing countries experienced, at least, a somewhat decentralized management of their forests with varying degrees of success and failure. Decentralized policies provided direct benefits to at least some local forest users in the form of improved access to forest product income, access to subsistence products, support for alternative livelihoods, and/or access to outside financial support (Edmunds and Wollenberg, 2003). Even though with some benefits, the forests and forest users of these countries still face many governance related problems (Table 5.1) which require further refinement for the sustainable resource management and to support the livelihoods of rural communities. Forest users, particularly the poorest forest users, have very little say over the decision-making process and local elites and influential outsiders made sure that their needs are served first and forest departments have maintained control over decisions related to forest management (ibid.). In China, though local users have been able to make important management decisions, capture significant benefits and create forests according to their own preferences, the state still controls timber production through taxes and regulations (Dachang and Edmunds, 2003; Edmunds et al., 2003b). In India and Nepal, decisions are now made under the influence of

68

Tapan Kumar Nath

foresters and their allies, (Malla, 2000; Edmunds et al., 2003b; Sarin et al., 2003) and this has meant a loss of livelihoods and increased threats of fines, imprisonment and violence (Edmunds et al., 2003b). Implementation of devolution policies in Nepal, in worst cases, has inflicted added costs to the poor, such as reduced access to forest products and forced allocation of household resources for communal forest management with insecurity over the benefits (Pokharel, 2002; Brown and Durst, 2003). In Bangladesh’s case, farmers’ participation is primarily limited to working in plantation activities and they have very limited access to project design and decision-making processes (Khan et al., 2003). Table 5.1. Some key issues of forest governance in decentralized forest management in some Asian countries Governance issues Participation

Accountability and Transparency

Equity

Explanation

Country

References

Rural poor, especially women and lower casts, have very limited participation in forest management decisions such as species & site selection, benefits sharing, budget formulation, etc. Decision-makers are often social elites.

China, Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Philippines

Local governments are not accountable to villagers in allocation of land for plantations, use of funds, regulation of harvest, etc. Information on market and policy changes is not fairly distributed among the beneficiaries. Equity is absent in gender issues and committee formation. Women and men from lower casts are mostly excluded from village-level committees. Inequalities also prevail on information access and distribution of benefits. Better-off villagers who have good relation with forest officials suck most of the benefits.

China, India, Philippines

Malla, 2000; Brown et al., 2002b; Baumann and Farrington, 2003; Contreras, 2003; Khan et al., 2003; Sarin et al., 2003; Edmunds et al., 2003a; Ferguson and Chandrasekharan, 2004; Larson, 2004; Salam and Noguchi, 2005. Dachang and Edmunds, 2003; Edmunds et al., 2003a; Sarin et al. 2003; Larson, 2004.

China, Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Philippines

Malla, 2000; Baumann and Farrington, 2003; Dachang and Edmunds, 2003; Contreras, 2003; Khan et al., 2003; Sarin et al., 2003

On paper, devolution policies often grant local forest users significant rights to access subsistence products and power to make decisions (Edmunds and Wollenberg, 2003), but to translate these policies into reality and to support the livelihoods of the poorest, a good governance should be practiced at every-level of the decision-making process. Voices of all

Participatory Forestry Program in the Chittagong Hill Tracts Region

69

actors, irrespective of gender, castes, and wealth should be heard, honored and discussed in decision-making processes to reach a consensus. This will enhance effective peoples’ participation and increase interrelationship among actors, which will ultimately influence the formation of social capital. It is argued that governance intervention should encourage the formation of social capital, i.e., the stock of trust and information exchange at the base of civil society (ADB, 1999). Fisher (1999) believes that a major pre-requisite for meaningful decentralization and devolution is to build trust in local management. Although there are problems with local forest governance, there is room for optimism. Scholars still believe in the potential of devolution policies to bring about better forest management, with more democratic decision-making and improved support for local livelihoods (Edmunds et al., 2003b). To create a level playing field for the forest-dependent poor many of the current complex legal, policy and institutional changes may be required (Brown et al., 2002a; Edmunds et al., 2003b). Drawing on Mayers and Bass (1999), Edmunds and others (ibid.) pointed out that simple policies, understandable to all actors, that allow for maximum flexibility in implementation could better accommodate a wide variety of local conditions. Flexibility, here, indicates changes in management priorities, institutional arrangement, division of roles and responsibilities that meet the needs of local livelihoods with changes of local conditions. In Honduras, for example, revision of forest policy and law in consultation with different stakeholders created an opportunity for local people to participate in forest management activities which in turn helped to reduce rural poverty (Lazo, 2001). Pioneering efforts should be made to secure greater transparency and accountability in public administration of forests. In Cameroon, public accountability has been enhanced by publication on the national press of the annual municipal and local forest tax receipts (Brown et al., 2002b), and this has given rural dwellers access, for the first time, to information on incomes of their local councils. However, experience from a number of countries suggests that the forest sector is capable of supporting a broader set of pro-poor growth strategies, with more certain outcomes for social development (Brown et al., 2002a). Rural fuel wood markets in Sahelian, West Africa are intended to benefit poor producers by bringing markets to them, to trap value at the source, rather than expecting them to take or sell fuel wood into town (ibid.). In conclusion, decentralization policies on forest management achieve many positive outcomes like poverty reduction of local forest users, increasing forest cover and capacity development of forest users. To translate devolution policies in reality to the fullest extent, certain local forest governance issues such as effective participation, transparency and accountability, decision-making power, and equity, for example, need to be addressed and greater spaces need to be created for locals to accommodate their voices, interests and knowledge in local forest management.

5.4. METHODOLOGY Development practitioners have long been aware that even if projects have the same level of overall assistance, results vary considerably from one location to another (Krishna, 2004). Recent studies (for example, Nath et al., 2005a) mention that the USP has both successes and

70

Tapan Kumar Nath

failures in achieving project objectives. Some project villages seemed relatively successful in achieving objectives while others failed. Based on the opinions of the project manager and other staff members, discussions with some planters, and reviews of the project’s objectives, I defined relatively successful and relatively unsuccessful project villages as follows: • •

Relatively successful: those villages where the project’s objectives are adequately achieved, and Relatively unsuccessful: those villages with inadequate progress in achieving the project’s objectives

Selection of study villages Due to remote location, lack of accommodation, poor communication services and civil unrest, the project manager advised against conducting a study in Khagrachari district. Therefore, the study was conducted in the second phase of the USP (project period July 1993 – June 2007) in the Bandarban District. It was assumed that • • •

planters would not be able to recall the project history and activities of the project’s first phase that ended in 1993, the project authority applied its first phase experience, 2 and as the second phase is still in progress, planters would be able to provide recent and reliable information.3

To select sample villages, I began by asking the project manager to categorize all 10 project villages into relatively successful and relatively unsuccessful villages based on their attainment of project objectives to date. Based on his experience and discussion with other colleagues, the manager gave me a list categorizing the villages, which I informally discussed with some field-level staff members. I visited some villages and discussed this categorization with some planters. I found similarities in the opinions of the project manager and some staff members, but observations and discussions with planters and one project staff member uncovered differences. For confirmation, I made quick visits to all 10 villages and talked with more planters. Ultimately, I found that my observations jibed with the opinions of the project staff. Where the manager and staff members had divided villages into seven relatively successful and three relatively unsuccessful villages, my findings were that four villages were relatively successful and six villages were relatively unsuccessful. The possible reason for this discrepancy was that the manager would like to affirm that he successfully implemented the USP, even though the field reality was different. From among the four relatively successful (hereafter “successful”) and six relatively unsuccessful (hereafter “unsuccessful”) villages, I selected one project village from each category for in-depth study. The successful village and the unsuccessful village were both within my and manager’s categorizations. A brief description of the study villages is given in Table 5.2.

2

For example, the project authority introduced intercrops in an early stage of the rubber plantation in the USP’s second phase. 3 This approach is consistent with recommendations given by Prokopy (2005).

Participatory Forestry Program in the Chittagong Hill Tracts Region

71

Table 5.2. Typology and features of two study villages of the USP, Bandarban, Bangladesh Feature Topography Land categories: First class Second class Third class Vehicle accessibility Distance to main road Distance to market Distance to district headquarter Distance to nearest medical facilities Electricity Source of lighting Fuel source Drinking water source Major source Minor supply Distance to government schools Total households Sampled households Male respondents (%) Mean age (years) Literacy (%) Primary Secondary

Successful village Hilly with moderate slope

Unsuccessful village Hilly, moderate to steep slope

Limited Limited Fairly available Fairly available Available Available Pitched approach road link to main road 600 m 2.5 km 9 km 8-9 km 22 km 9 km 9 km

8 km

Not available Kerosene Wood

Available to some planters Mostly kerosene Wood

Streams and seepage water Ring and tube well 3-9 km

Communal water supply Streams, ring and tube well 1-9 km

48 24 87 41

38 19 95 47

29 13

26 11

Source: Field survey, May-Sept. 2005 First class land: Plain land used for irrigated rice cultivation. Second class: Somewhat elevated land used for rain feed rice cultivation. Third class: Upland suitable for forestry practices.

Livelihoods Analysis The concept of sustainable livelihood (SL) is widely discussed by scholars (e.g., Carney, 1998; Scoones, 1998; Ellis, 2000; DFID, 2001; Cramb et al., 2004; Reddy et al., 2004; Soini, 2005) in analyzing poverty issues, livelihood strategies and diversification, and the impact of development intervention on the livelihoods of the rural poor. It is increasingly being accepted as providing both a basis for understanding the nature of poverty and for identifying the types of strategies that can reduce poverty in an effective and sustainable manner (Reddy

72

Tapan Kumar Nath

et al., 2004). Further understanding of people’s livelihoods in specific rural area contexts can be facilitated using a SL approach (Long, 2004a). This approach helps to understand the complexity and substance of poor people’s lives, the constraints that they face, and the strategies that they adopt to diversify their livelihoods (Carney, 2002). I follow the SL framework approach formulated at the Department of International Development (DFID) (DFID, 2001) to study the livelihoods of the planters of the USP. The framework is useful in explaining the interrelationships among different livelihoods capital, and utilization of that capital in diversifying livelihoods strategies to attain desired outcomes (e.g., increased income, stable natural resource base, etc.) under the available enabling environment (e.g., policies, institutions, etc.). It provides a more rounded picture of the complexities of living and surviving in poor communities than an understanding based on measures of income, consumption, and employment (Brocklesby and Fisher, 2003:187).

Variables for Measuring Social Capital Though social capital is considered as a development tool in the policy level, obtaining a single measure of social capital is not always possible for some reason (Woolcock and Narayan, 2000). These reasons include the multidimensional definition of social capital, nature, and forms that change over time. Social capital is a general concept and it cannot be captured with just one variable. Many different measures can be and have been posited as indicators of social capital (Paxton, 1999). There is no consensus on the appropriate measurement of social capital (Kramer, 2007). Selection of proxy variables is inspired by the specific manifestations of social capital. I considered social connections, groups and networks, level of trust, social cohesion and inclusion and collective activities as proxies for measuring the state of social capital. These variables are interconnected and are evidenced in the following narrations. Social connectedness in different networks and groups and their nature of relations is a crucial facet of social capital (Pretty and Ward, 2001; Woolcock, 1998). Connectedness in society has great effects on the rural livelihoods and can be improved by the growing frequency of communication and mutual support between households or created by forming groups or cooperatives (DFID, 1999; Putnam, 2001; Wu and Pretty, 2004), which enhance the stock of social capital. Human networks and connectedness increase people’s trust and ability to work together and expand their access to wider institutions such as political and civic bodies (Inoue, 2003a) which help to achieve political and civil advantages for the welfare of the societies. Trust facilitates greater cooperation for services benefiting a group, society or association (Fafchamps and Minten, 1999). Moreover, if a society is predominated by distrust, cooperative development is implausible (Baland and Platteau, 1998). It creates social obligations, builds reciprocal relationships and exchanges among neighbors. Reciprocity increases trust which can be useful in acquiring optimistic environmental consequences (Coleman, 1990; Platteau, 1997). Social capital is self-reinforcing when reciprocity increases connectedness between people which leads to built trust, confidence and the capacity to innovate technologies (Pretty and Ward, 2001). Social connections and reciprocal trusts

Participatory Forestry Program in the Chittagong Hill Tracts Region

73

encourage people to act jointly for the development of the society and improvement of the natural environment.

Variables for Measuring Local Governance International development assistance is increasingly concerned with the questions of governance (Doornbos, 2001; Mamoon, 2001; Brown et al., 2002a, Hout, 2002; Hiremath and Raju, 2004; Van Kersbergen and Van Waarden, 2004), i.e. with the rules under which power is exercised in the management of a country’s resources, and the relationships between the state and its citizens, civil society and the private sector. In such, it is essential to know the principles of governance under which it works. Different organizations have varied characteristics of governance in order to serve their responsibility. Defining the principles of governance, sometimes, is difficult and controversial (Graham et al., 2003a). Development organizations such as the United Nation Development Program (UNDP), Asian Development Bank (ADB), World Bank (WB), International Monetary Fund (IMF), etc. have their own governance agenda for sustainable human development. Reviewing their principles (UNDP, 1997; ADB, 1999; Woods, 2000), following governance issues including equity, accountability, transparency, information flow, responsiveness, and participation were selected for this study. It was assumed that these governance issues would have influence on the success or failure of the project.

Data and Methods I conducted the study in a number of steps. The first step consisted of key informant interviews and a walk through each village. I interviewed eight elderly planters4, four from each village, and three project staff members. Separate checklists (Appendix 1) were used for planters and project staff members to facilitate the discussion. Planters told about their past livelihood strategies, current livelihood situations and customary forestry practices, local organization, participation in project activities, project benefits, forest conditions, and other matters. Project staff members told about site and planter selection, choice of production technologies, project outcomes, status and productivity of rubber plantations, benefit sharing, land tenure, future plans, and more. During village walks I explored the forest conditions of project villages, the general typology of the villages, and other characteristics. In the second step, quantitative data was collected by survey using a checklist and semistructured questionnaire. The questionnaire (Appendix 1) was tested by a preliminary survey before the main survey and six questions were modified. The questions were designed to collect data on five forms of capital (human, physical, natural, financial and social capital) of respondents based on the sustainable livelihood (SL) framework as well as on some variables of governance. Twenty-four households out of 48 from the successful village, and 19 out of 38 from the unsuccessful village were selected randomly and were interviewed over several 4

These informants including respective village leaders were chosen from four parts of the village and it was assumed that they would provide reliable information because they knew all planters.

74

Tapan Kumar Nath

weeks during May to September 2005. Fortunately, no sampled household refused interviews. All selected planters cooperated in the survey. Some planters were revisited on the day following the interview to clarify confusing data. Project staff and village boys always assisted the survey work with transport and provided direction to the sampled planters’ house but they were not present during interview sessions. Depending on availability, both men and women household members were interviewed. One questionnaire was used for each household. Weekly expenditure was sought on food, education, health care, crop production, livestock rearing and social events (religious festivals). In addition, respondents were asked how much they earned in the previous year (2004) from all sources. Even though income and expenditure estimates were inexact, these provided a general picture of the savings. Direct estimation of the household savings proved difficult because planters were reluctant to provide the information. Costs of cropping activities were derived from respondent’s recollection of annual expenditure on planting materials, fertilizer and labor. The monetary values of physical capital (including television sets, cassette players and water pumps) were their estimates of resale values. Likert scales (for example, 1= agree strongly through to 5=disagree strongly) were used for measuring variables of trust and solidarity under social capital. For the assessment of participation, the following five scales (for example, 1= disagree strongly through to 5= agree strongly) were used. In the third step, qualitative information was collected through two group discussions with planters in two selected villages, open-ended conversations with planters of various ages, and personal observation. In the two group discussions, six and eight planters were present and highlighted issues including species composition in homestead agroforestry, merits and demerits of alternative production technologies, socio-economic status before and after joining the project, livelihood diversification strategies, and collective activities. Following Mukherjee (1998), vector scoring5 and seasonal diagramming6 were used to analyze the problems of planters including seasonal problems, their impacts and possible solutions. Information was written during interviews and discussions, cross-checked by reading these in front of respondents and then elaborated upon at night at the guest house where I stayed during field data collection. Semi-structured questionnaires (Appendix 1), with questions for group discussion only, were used to facilitate the group interview and discussions. I talked with planters about their social issues such as social relations, conflicts, leader’s activities, their education and their daily activities. In the fourth step, homestead agroforestry areas of respondents were visited, the species composition identified and the number of trees (including saplings) enumerated. I summarized all quantitative data into averages and percentages, determined standard deviation, and conducted a one-way analysis of variance to explore statistically significant differences among means of different variables between the two villages. To explore differences among planters of each village, I also conducted the one-sample KolmogorovSmirnov test. Indices of meetings and trust were assessed based on the averages of five scales

5 6

Vector scoring is a visual method and involves scoring of items for assessing their relative importance so as to priorities problems. The method helps in decision-support by prioritizing concerned items. In seasonal diagramming, villagers can show by diagrams and charts seasonal variations in different aspects of rural livelihood including availability of food and employments. The chart thus formed could be linked directly to policy measures in terms of problems identified during the exercise.

Participatory Forestry Program in the Chittagong Hill Tracts Region

75

used. SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) version 12 was used for all statistical analyses.

5.5. FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS In this section, first I analyze progress of the project towards achieving its objectives, related governance issues, and planters’ livelihoods.

Achievement of the Project The USP in Bandarban district has been implementing its activities since fiscal year (FY) 1993–1994. Here, I portray its achievements and success or failure during the 12-year project period (until FY 2005–2006) based on the project’s main objectives. However, I do not discuss infrastructure development in the project villages.

Objective 1: Settlement of Landless Ethnic Jhumias I identified three types of planters: • • •

Resident planters: those presently living within the project village (48 and 15 planters in successful and unsuccessful villages, respectively) Absent planters: those who left the project village, but are still officially recognized as planters and living in nearby villages (23 planters in unsuccessful village), and Missing planters: those who left the project village permanently and whose whereabouts are unknown to the authorities (2 and 12 planters in successful and unsuccessful villages, respectively)

Planters claimed that due to lack of employment, cultural problem and child schooling most of them left the project villages after 3-4 years of the project. The successful village is located near the plain areas where planters obtain agricultural jobs round the year in addition to the wage labor they earn in timber-supply to paper-mill jobs and the project activities. In unsuccessful village, there are very limited jobs for the settlers (resident planters) except the original inhabitants (absent planters). The majority of the planters of this village are Marma (absent planters) and they have contrasting social culture with Chakma and Tonchangya groups (resident planters). For example, Marma people used to live closely in one hamlet; do not allow the bringing in of a dead body if s(he) died outside the hamlet; feed mothers (till three months) only vegetables after child birth, and so on. In this village, topography demands that houses are built sparsely. Even though there were no distinct conflicts, to avoid the possible future conflicts absent planters left the project village. Though two Chakma left, six of them, along with three Tonchangya planters, still have been living amiably with thirty-nine Marma in successful village. It was reported that due to regular motivation by the project staff and close contact with plain people, their culture has been changed and they can live harmoniously altogether.

76

Tapan Kumar Nath

This indicates that even though 50 planters were supposed to be living permanently in every project village, many of them had escaped. Thus the USP could not attain its first objective of settling nomadic ethnic people in permanent villages.

Objective 2: Development of Degraded Unused Upland Through Homestead Agroforestry and Rubber Plantations Planters developed homestead agroforestry on their allotted homestead land. The project authority supplied all planting materials and fertilizer initially. Subsequently, planters invested their own resources for its development. Although some planters of successful village were provided training on planting techniques, others did not get any training. There was no policy about species composition and planting design. From the bulk of saplings, planters were asked to choose the species. As a result, planters said that most of the planted saplings died one year after planting. However, as time passed they planted more seedlings and present conditions of agroforestry seem quite good (Plate 5.1). I identified 43 and 26 different plant species in homesteads of successful and unsuccessful sampled planters, respectively, and the mean number of trees per ha were 979 and 711, respectively. Some planters of successful village believe that due to training, growth of their trees is good and survival rate is better. I also observed many young saplings planted in the last two or three years. It means that planters are aware of the importance of homestead agroforestry that not only provide them produce for household consumption but also cash. They have started to sell fruits and trees over the last two or three years.

Plate 5.1. A portion of a homestead agroforestry in the successful USP village. Planters grow variety of plants including vegetables.

Group discussion explored interesting findings about species choice. Planters of successful village ranked kanthal (Artocarpus heterophyllus) as first followed by aam (Mangifera indica), segun (Tectona grandis), gamar (Gmelina arborea) and koroi (Albizia

Participatory Forestry Program in the Chittagong Hill Tracts Region

77

spp.). These are tree species that provide short- (e.g. fruit for sale and own consumption, timber of gamar, etc.) and long-term benefits (e.g. timber). On the other hand, planters of unsuccessful village ranked papaya (Carica papaya) as first followed by banana (Musa spp.), kanthal, aam and lebu (Citrus spp.). They claim that these horticultural species provided them economic gain far quicker than tree species. Moreover, these products have good market demand. Observation reveals that species composition of successful village is influenced by nearby plain land home gardens whereas in unsuccessful village by market demand. Between 1995 and 1999, the project authority raised 81 ha of rubber plantation in one block adjacent to every project village that was intercropped during the first three years with bananas, papayas, and pineapples. The project manager reported that within the 81-ha rubber plantation, every household had a share of 1.6 ha of their total (2.1 ha) land grants. However, I did not notice any demarcations between individual land parcels. The project authority supplied all planting materials, fertilizers, and other necessities; planters only provided wage labor and protected the rubber plantations from cattle. Observations and discussions with project staff and planters revealed that the plantation in the successful village was more than 90 percent tree-stocked (Plate 5.2) and trees were growing satisfactorily7. Latex collection began in 20058. On the contrary, my observation, opinions of planters and project staff reveal that now around 30-40 percent of rubber trees are in very poor conditions (Plate 5.3) in the unsuccessful village’s rubber plantation. After three to four years of planting, a large portion of the rubber plantation of this village was burnt by an accidental fire.

Plate 5.2. A portion of rubber plantation in successful USP village

7

Recent (2007) field visit in Khagrachari district also revealed that rubber plantation in one project village comprised of more than 90 percent tree stock. In other villages, average number of rubber trees was 50-60 percent, but all trees were not growing satisfactorily. 8 From May–August 2005, rubber production was 4 t of RSS (ribbed smoked sheets) from 81 ha of rubber garden. The market value was about Tk. 360,000 (1 US$= 65 Tk. in 2005). The project manager claimed that this production was satisfactory, even though it was experimental using a hand-driven machine for preparing rubber sheets from latex. Future production is expected to be greater (Chakma, S. (2005). Manager in-charge (Bandarban). Personal comm).

78

Tapan Kumar Nath

Plate 5.3. Rubber plantation in unsuccessful USP village. The picture shows low density of rubber trees in the plantation.

Moreover, wild rats damaged roots, and ultimately young plants died. Due to lack of regular project money disbursements, the project authority could not re-plant the damaged plantation. Even though initially project staff members visited the village frequently, plantation conditions deteriorated to a large extent due to lack of regular monitoring and maintenance. Planters (32 percent of sampled planters of the unsuccessful village) practice jhum inside their rubber plantation (Plate 5.4).

Plate 5.4. Picture shows jhum plots (cleared left side and rice field in right side) inside the rubber plantation in unsuccessful USP village.

Participatory Forestry Program in the Chittagong Hill Tracts Region

79

Plate 5.5. A portion of 11-years old dense rubber plantation with small diameter trees at unsuccessful USP village.

The project manager reported that rubber tapping would start in 2006, but the present condition of the rubber trees (Plate 5.5) fuels doubts about latex production and hence about increased income and employment for planters through rubber production9. This suggests that the authority could not adequately achieve its second objective, through which it hoped to improve the long-term socioeconomic circumstances of the planters. I was able to explore different opinions about the contrasting rubber plantations’ conditions in two villages. Some project staff members said that thanks to interaction with plain people, the successful village’s planters become social, developed trust in the project staff, and cooperated effectively in project activities. However, another staff member said: “This successful village is like the drawing room of a rich family with very good decorations. All possible efforts such as regular monitoring and maintenance, budget allocation, and motivation were devoted to developing this village to demonstrate the success of the USP to higher officials. Being located near the main road, the authority always invites senior officials and visitors to visit this village.” He opined that the drawing room does not show the real situation of the family, meaning conditions in this village did not represent the overall situation of all USP villages. Similar situation has also been observed in Khagrachari district.

9

Official records of the USP first phase indicate that only 38 percent planters had been employed as tappers in rubber plantations. The reason was due to the lower number (34 percent) of latex producing rubber trees (Chakma, U. (2007). Assistant Manager (Khagrachari). Personal comm.)

80

Tapan Kumar Nath

With the staff’s inspiration and motivation, planters of the successful village pointed out that they knew the benefits of rubber from their relatives who joined the USP’s first phase. Moreover, there are a few private rubber plantations near their village where some men of this village have been employed on a permanent and daily basis. It indicates that planters of the successful village are well aware of the perceived economic benefits of the rubber and hence collaborate with the project authority for the development and protection of the rubber plantation, albeit they were paid for their labor. Conversely, planters of the unsuccessful village said that they are not interested in the rubber plantation because they realize no benefit from it despite wage labor in the past, and they feel that the project authority would take all the benefits when latex collection starts. This shows that the authority could not motivate planters about the importance of the rubber plantation and could not create a sense of ownership among them. Liu (2005) mentions that new resource management ideas will not succeed or sustain unless communities take ownership of the concepts and value the end results.

Objective 3: Local Participation in Project Implementation Activities Even though the USP intended to build the capacity of planters through participation in project activities, planter involvement was in the form of wage labor in plantation activities only. The manager makes all decisions related to project activities in the villages. There is a three-member executive committee and a field superintendent serving as coordinator, and a field assistant and project village leader who draw up work plans and implement all activities at the village level in accordance with the manager’s decisions. Other than the leader, no other planters are consulted in making work plans. The leader decides the number of workers to be engaged.

Selected Issues of Governance In Bangladesh, usually the FD is the prime organization that implements the majority of the forestry projects in the country. The project implementing agency, the CHTDB, has two branch offices in the Bandarban and Khagrachari hill districts, with the head office in Rangamati. Even though some authority for decision-making has been devolved, the regional manager of the USP must get approval for major decisions from the central project manager based in Khagrachari. Although the USP was able to achieve its stated objectives differentially in the two studied villages with its present decentralized style of management, I observed some local governance issues that demand consideration for a better program outcome. In analyzing governance issues, I first shed light on the planters’ organization and planter participation in project functions, and then discuss other project-related governance issues that I observed during this study.

Participatory Forestry Program in the Chittagong Hill Tracts Region

81

Planter’s Organizations and Participation in Project Functions In both villages, there are two social organizations10 in addition to the project village committee. These organizations maintain linkages with other agencies, mostly with NGOs (non-government organizations) and conduct social development projects such as Kheyang (Buddhist temple) development and road maintenance in the village. To facilitate social development projects, planters call meetings at their villages where I found some differences in meeting indices (Figure 5.1) within and between the villages. For example, indices for local meeting satisfaction (Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z: 1.076; Asymp. Sig. 0.002) and deliberative quality (Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z: 1.712; Asymp. Sig. 0.006) were significantly different among planters of the successful village. The differences were, as planters said, due to domination by vocal rich planters who made decisions that benefited themselves. In the unsuccessful village, absent planters, who are now organized, spoke much and made decisions in support of themselves, resulting in significant differences for meeting satisfaction (Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z: 1.503; Asymp. Sig. 0.022) and deliberative quality (KolmogorovSmirnov Z: 1.561; Asymp. Sig. 0.015). Even though local meetings are held at convenient times, I found significant differences (P