Performance evaluation of forest co-management: a case study of Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary, Bangladesh

Abstract

The objective was to evaluate the performance of the co-management of Nishorgo Support Project at Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary in Bangladesh. I adopted the Focus Groups Discussion method for opinion survey and applied the SWOT-AHP technique for data analysis. Local people did not participate in the decision-making process of forest management and they perceived co-management as a threat to their livelihoods. Moreover, mistrust and misunderstanding among different stakeholders, political and ethical conflicts, lack of property rights of tribal communities, and lack of accountability and transparency were identified as the drawbacks of co-management.

Keywords

Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary / Co-management / Forest Department / Nishorgo Support Program / SWOT-AHP technique

References

[1] Ahsan MM. Fox J, Bushley BR, Dutt S, Quazi SA. Perceptions of tourism by indigenous communities living in and adjoining Lawachara National Park. Making conservation work: linking rural livelihoods and protected areas management in Bangladesh. 2007, Dhaka: East-West Centre and Nishorgo Program of the Bangladesh Forest Department, 131 148

[2] Alemagi D. A comparative assessment of community forest models in Cameroon and British Columbia, Canada. Land Use Policy, 2010, 27: 928-936.

[3] Amin MSR, Tamima U. Strategies for sustainable forest conservation practice: a case study on Lawachara National Park. Protibesh, 2008, 12(1): 37-46.

[4] Ananda J, Herath G. The use of analytic hierarchy process to incorporate stakeholder preferences into regional forest planning. For Policy Econ, 2003, 5: 13-26.

[5] Behera B. Explaining the performance of state–community joint forest management in India. Ecol Econ, 2009, 69(1): 177-185.

[6] BFD (Bangladesh Forest Department) 2006 Management plans for Lawachara National Park, Nishorgo Support Project, Bangladesh Forest Department, Dhaka. Available at: http://www.nishorgo.org/tbltd/upload/pdf/0.67932800%201354826677_4.1_Management%20plans%20for%20Lawachara%20National%20Park.pdf. Accessed 22 Nov 2015

[7] Carlsson L, Berkes F. Co-management: concepts and methodological implications. J Environ Manage, 2005, 75(1): 65-76.

[8] Côté M, Bouthillier L. Assessing the effect of public involvement processes in forest management in Quebec. For Policy Econ, 2002, 4(3): 213-225.

[9] Ellis EA, Bolland LP. Is community-based forest management more effective than protected areas? Comparisons of land use/land cover change in two neighboring study areas of the Central Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. For Ecol Manage, 2008, 256: 1971-1983.

[10] Ericson JA. A participatory approach to conservation in the Calakmul Biosphere Reserve, Campeche, Mexico. Landsc Urban Plan, 2006, 74(3/4): 242-266.

[11] Hanna K. The paradox of participation and the hiding role of information. J Am Plan Assoc, 2000, 66(4): 398-410.

[12] Hoque ME (2008) Evaluating co-management as a tool for the reduction of poverty and inequality in Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary. In: Fox J, Bushley BR, Dutt S, Quazi SA (eds) Connecting communities and conservation: collaborative management of protected areas in Bangladesh. Honolulu: East-West Center; Dhaka: Nishorgo Support Project, Bangladesh Forest Department, pp 227–246

[13] Howlett M, Rayner J, Tollefson C. From government to governance in forest planning? Lessons from the case of the British Columbia Great Bear Rainforest initiative. For Policy Econ, 2009, 11(5–6): 383-391.

[14] Iftekhar MS, Hoque AKF. Causes of forest encroachment: an analysis of Bangladesh. GeoJournal, 2005, 62(1–2): 95-106.

[15] Kangas J, Kuusipalo J. A multi attribute preference model for evaluating the reforestation alternatives of a forest stand. For Ecol Manage, 1993, 59: 271-288.

[16] Kumar S, Kant S. Bureaucracy and new management paradigms: modeling foresters’ perceptions regarding community-based forest management in India. For Policy Econ, 2005, 7: 651-669.

[17] Kurttila M, Pesonen M, Kangas J, Kajanus M. Utilizing the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in SWOT analysis—a hybrid method and its application to a forest certification case. For Policy Econ, 2000, 1: 41-52.

[18] Kuusipalo J, Kangas J. Managing biodiversity in a forestry environment. Conserv Biol, 1994, 8: 450-460.

[19] Li W, Wang Z, Tang H. Designing the buffer zone of a nature reserve: a case study in Yancheng Biosphere Reserve, China. Biol Conserv, 1999, 90: 159-165.

[20] Lund FJ, Treue T. Are we getting there? Evidence of decentralized forest management from the tanzanian miombo woodlands?. World Dev, 2008, 36(12): 2780-2800.

[21] Matose F. Co-management options for reserved forests in Zimbabwe and beyond: policy implications of forest management strategies. For Policy Econ, 2006, 8(4): 363-374.

[22] Mendoza GA, Prabhu R. Multiple criteria decision making approaches to assessing forest sustainability using criteria and indicators: a case study. For Ecol Manage, 2000, 131(1): 107-126.

[23] Peterson DV, Silsbee D, Schmoldt DL. A case study of resource management with multiple objectives. Environ Manage, 1994, 18: 729-742.

[24] Plummer R, FitzGibbon J. Co-management of natural resources: a proposed framework. Environ Manage, 2004, 33(6): 876-885.

[25] Quazi SA, Bushley BR, Miles WB (2008) Introduction: participation and the collaborative management of protected areas in Bangladesh. In: Fox J, Bushley BR, Dutt S, Quazi SA (eds) Connecting communities and conservation: collaborative management of protected areas in Bangladesh. Honolulu: East-West Center; Dhaka: Nishorgo Support Project, Bangladesh Forest Department, pp 1–24

[26] Taylor PL. Conservation, community, and culture? New organizational challenges of community forest concessions in the Maya Biosphere Reserve of Guatemala. J Rural Stud, 2009, 30: 1-12.

[27] Wester L, Yongvanit S. Farmers, foresters and forest temples: conservation in the Dong Mun uplands, Northeast Thailand. Geoforum, 2005, 36(6): 735-749.

[28] Zahedi F. The analytic hierarchy process—a survey of the method and its applications. Interfaces, 1986, 16: 96-108.