Perceptive insight into incentive design and sustainability of participatory mangrove management: a case study from the Indian Sundarbans

Abstract

Incentive design is among the decisive factors behind active community participation and long-term sustainability of participatory forest management. Especially in case of mangroves, where multiple interests apply, it requires a careful integration of several ecological, economic and institutional factors. The primary objective of this paper is to understand the basis of incentive design and make a comprehensive inquiry into the existing incentive mechanism of participatory mangrove management in Indian Sundarbans. The qualitative and in-depth assessment was derived against a conceptual framework that contains three main determinants: (1) resources availability, (2) control mechanism, and (3) perception of end-users. The study deploys the results of various participatory exercises such as structured interviews with forest officials, focus group discussions with 10 Joint Forest Management Committees and semi-structured interviews with 119 mangrove users. In general, we observed an over-cautious, hierarchical and safety-margin-based incentive design with distinct bifurcation of communities over the adequacy and effectiveness of derived benefits. Although, the incentives are diverse and align well with the overall conservation of mangroves, they are considered to be insufficient by nearly half of the mangrove users. The main issues that were observed to hinder effective community participation can be summarized as (1) serious restrictions on access to economically exploitable mangrove products, (2) passive involvement of vulnerable occupational groups, and (3) lack of trust and conflicting interests between the officials and the communities. Although the existing preventive management of mangroves can be justified considering the magnanimity of the Indian Sundarbans, it can severely impair community participation and emerge as a clear threat to future sustainability. To secure greater participation of the communities, we propose small scale, innovative developmental incentives to supplement traditional forest-resource-based incentives.

Keywords

Mangrove conservation / Community based mangrove management / Joint forest management / Community perception

References

[1] Adhikari S, Kingi T, Ganesh S. Incentives for community participation in the governance and management of common property resources: the case of community forest management in Nepal. For Policy Econ, 2014, 44: 1-9.

[2] Alongi DM. Present state and future of the world’s mangrove forests. Environ Conserv, 2002, 29(03): 331-349.

[3] Alongi DM. Mangrove forests: resilience, protection from tsunamis, and responses to global climate change. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci, 2008, 76(1): 1-13.

[4] Behera B, Engel S. Institutional analysis of evolution of joint forest management in India: a new institutional economics approach. For Policy Econ, 2006, 8(4): 350-362.

[5] Berg BL. Qualitative research methods for the social sciences, 2001 4 Boston: Allyn & Bacon 321

[6] Bhattacharya P, Pradhan L, Yadav G. Joint forest management in India: experiences of two decades. Resour Conserv Recycl, 2010, 54(8): 469-480.

[7] Das B, Ghosh T, Gangopadhyay S. Assessment of ergonomic and occupational health-related problems among female prawn seed collectors of Sunderbans, West Bengal, India. Int J Occup Saf Ergon, 2012, 18(4): 531-540.

[8] DasGupta R, Shaw R. Changing perspectives of mangrove management in India—an analytical overview. Ocean Coast Manag, 2013, 80: 107-118.

[9] DasGupta R, Shaw R. Shaw R, Izumi T. Role of NGOs and CBOs in a decentralized mangrove management regime and its implications in building coastal resilience in India. Civil society organization and disaster risk reduction, 2014, Japan: Springer 203 218

[10] DasGupta R, Shaw R. An indicator based approach to assess coastal communities’ resilience against climate related disasters in Indian Sundarbans. J Coast Conserv, 2015, 19(1): 85-101.

[11] Datta D, Chattopadhyay RN, Guha P. Community based mangrove management: a review on status and sustainability. J Environ Manag, 2012, 107: 84-95.

[12] Devkota RR. Interests and power as drivers of community forestry: a case study of Nepal, 2010, Göttingen: Göttingen University Press 323

[13] Dixon JA. The value of mangrove ecosystems. Trop Coast Area Manag Newsl, 1989, 4: 5-8.

[14] Duke NC, Meynecke JO, Dittmann S, Ellison AM, Anger K, Berger U, Cannicci S, Diele K, Ewel KC, Field CD, Koedam N, Lee SY, Marchand C, Nordhaus I, Dahdouh-Guebas F. A world without mangroves?. Science, 2007, 317(5834): 41-42.

[15] Ellison JC. Vulnerability assessment of mangroves to climate change and sea-level rise impacts. Wetl Ecol Manag, 2015, 23(2): 115-137.

[16] Forest Survey of India (2013) State of Forest Report, pp 252

[17] Garcia CA, Lescuyer G. Monitoring, indicators and community based forest management in the tropics: pretexts or red herrings?. Biodivers Conserv, 2008, 17(6): 1303-1317.

[18] Giri C, Pengra B, Zhu Z, Singh A, Tieszen LL. Monitoring mangrove forest dynamics of the Sundarbans in Bangladesh and India using multi-temporal satellite data from 1973 to 2000. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci, 2007, 73(1): 91-100.

[19] Gopal B, Chauhan M. Biodiversity and its conservation in the Sundarban mangrove ecosystem. Aquat Sci, 2006, 68(3): 338-354.

[20] Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res, 2005, 15(9): 1277-1288.

[21] Kumar S. Does “participation” in common pool resource management help the poor? A social cost–benefit analysis of joint forest management in Jharkhand, India. World Dev, 2002, 30(5): 763-782.

[22] Mandal RN, Das CS, Naskar KR. Dwindling Indian Sundarban mangrove: the way out. Sci Cult, 2010, 76(7–8): 275-282.

[23] Mitra A, Gangopadhyay A, Dube A, Schmidt AC, Banerjee K. Observed changes in water mass properties in the Indian Sundarbans (northwestern Bay of Bengal) during 1980–2007. Curr Sci, 2009, 97(10): 1445-1452.

[24] Pagdee A, Kim YS, Daugherty PJ. What makes community forest management successful: a meta-study from community forests throughout the world. Soc Nat Resour, 2006, 19(1): 33-52.

[25] Patel V, Rajagopalan R. Fishing community issues in the Sundarban Tiger Reserve: a case study, 2009, Chennai: International Collective in Support of Fishworker 25

[26] Paul S, Chakrabarti S. Socio-economic issues in forest management in India. For Policy Econ, 2011, 13(1): 55-60.

[27] Raha A, Das S, Banerjee K, Mitra A. Climate change impacts on Indian Sunderbans: a time series analysis (1924–2008). Biodivers Conserv, 2012, 21(5): 1289-1307.

[28] Richards M, Davies J, Yaron G. Economic stakeholder analysis for participatory forest management. Overseas Dev Inst, 2003, 4: 1-4.

[29] Rishi P. Joint forest management in India: an attitudinal analysis of stakeholders. Resour Conserv Recycl, 2007, 51(2): 345-354.

[30] Sandilyan S, Kathiresan K. Mangrove conservation: a global perspective. Biodivers Conserv, 2012, 21(14): 3523-3542.

[31] Saxena NC. The saga of participatory forest management in India, 1997, Jakarta: Center for International Forestry Research 214

[32] Singh A, Bhattacharya P, Vyas P, Roy S. Contribution of NTFPs in the livelihood of mangrove forest dwellers of Sundarban. J Hum Ecol, 2010 29 3 191

[33] Suich H. The effectiveness of economic incentives for sustaining community based natural resource management. Land Use Policy, 2013, 31: 441-449.

[34] Vyas P, Sengupta K (2012) Mangrove conservation and restoration in the Indian Sundarbans. In: Macintosh DJ, Mahindapala R, Markopoulos M (eds). Sharing lessons on mangrove restoration. Mangroves for the Future and Gland, Bangkok. IUCN, Switzerland, pp. 93–101