On Sustainable Development of Social Forestry In

8/3/2019 On Sustainable Development of Social Forestry In

1/19

ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIAL FORESTRY IN

BANGLADESH: EXPERIENCES FROM SAL (SHOREA ROBUSTA)

FORESTS

MD. ABDUS SALAM1** and TOSHIKUNI NOGUCHI2*1Department of Statistics, Jahngirnagar University, Savar, Dhaka, Bangladesh;

2Laboratory of Forest Economics, Department of Forest Science, Faculty of Agriculture,

Shinshu University, Minimiminowa, Nagano-ken 399-4598, Japan

*author for correspondence, e-mail: [email protected]; fax: +81-0265-77-1525;

tel.: +81-0265-77-1525**present address: Department of Forest Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Shinshu University,

Minimiminowa, Nagano-ken 399-4598, Japan

(Received 29 July 2003; accepted 13 February 2004)

Abstract. Sustainability in forestry is a complex amalgam of trade-offs among its various dimensions

and there is no easy route to achieve sustainable development. It is important that policy process and

implementation strategy of these policies should be based on sound information about these trade-offs.

There is a growing consensus amongst key forest decision-makers in Bangladesh that traditional for-

estry is needed to make the transition to more sustainable forestry, which is likely to involve local peo-

ple in forest management. As a result, the government has initiated a social forestry program from

1981 with the assistance of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) loan and the United Nations Develop-

ment Program (UNDP) grant and operated mainly in Sal forest areas. The most important objective of

this program is to protect, manage, and develop forests in a sustainable way by involving local commu-

nities. Although several studies have focused on the management issues of social forestry, none of these

studies has evaluated the indicators of sustainable social forestry. The purpose of this study is to evalu-

ate the criteria of sustainable development of social forestry in Bangladesh. The study is based on pri-

mary cross-sectional data collected using the multistage stratified sampling technique. In total, 581

social forestry farmers were selected randomly and interviewed using a pre-tested questionnaire. The

study evaluated some important components of sustainable development and identified the following

conditions of social forestry in Bangladesh:

(i) almost all the components of sustainable development of social forestry, although not at the

aspiration level, were at good condition;

(ii) participants were interested and committed to work with Forest Department in developing social

forestry;(iii) they had been utilizing both hard and soft technology in practicing social forestry, although there

exists ample scope of development;

(iv) income of participants after involving in social forestry had increased, although not at satisfactory

level; and(v) process of producing social and material goods had been under progress.

However, there exist plenty of scopes for sustainable social forestry development through improving

the sustainable development components more carefully.

* Readers should send their comments on this paper to: [email protected] within 3 months of

publication of this issue.

Environment, Development and Sustainability (2005) 7: 209227 Springer 2005

DOI 10.1007/s10668-005-7313-3


2/19

Key words: economic and agricultural infrastructure, hard and soft technology, indicators, Salforests, social and material benefits, social forestry, sustainable development, zamidari system.

1. Introduction

1.1. THEH E CO N C E P T O FO N C E P T O F SU S T A I N A B L EU S T A I N A B L E DE V E L O P M E N TE V E L O P M E N T

Rapid depletion and degradation of natural resources, particularly in

developing countries, has given rise to the concept of sustainable develop-

ment. Sustainability was one of the key words used at the united nations

conference on environment and development (UNCED), or Earth Summit,held in Rio de Janiero in June 1992. But the term sustainability was not

defined either at Rio, or on any other occasion by any institution. Indeed

the term has been used at various time with varied associations and Ekins

(1993) comments, it has become a metafix that will unite every-

body Given birth through a political process by Braundland Commis-

sion in its report (Brundtland, 1987) Our Common Future sustainable

development still lacks commonly accepted framework or technical defini-

tion. Pezzy (1992) has cited over 50 definitions of sustainability ranging

from vague notions to concrete steps. Indeed all existing discussions on

sustainable development has basically only the well-being of human pop-

ulations in mind, the other species being protected not for their own sake,

but only insofar as they are important factors in supporting human life

and well-being (Casimir and Rao, 1998). The powerful concept of sustain-

ability is that it addresses the issues of our responsibility to future genera-

tions and the reconciliation between economic development and

environmental quality. Thus, sustainable development is primarily about

our responsibilities to future generations and taking into account how our

actions affect the livelihood of our future generations.

Sustainable forest management is generally viewed as a logical extension

of Brundtlands definition of sustainable development to apply to forest

management (Ferguson, 1996). Thus, the ultimate objective of sustainable

forest management is to meet the forest-related needs and aspirations of

the current generation without compromising the ability of the future gen-erations to meet their own. To achieve this objective, it is necessary to

maintain, or even enhance the forest values to the society or likely to be so

in future. According to Brundtland (1987) Humanity has the ability to

make development sustainable. In practice, sustainable development faces

some limitations including present state of technology and social organiza-

tion on environmental resources and the ability of the biosphere to absorb

the effects of human activities. But technology and social organization can

be both managed and improved to make way for a new era of economic

210 MD. ABDUS SALAM and T. NOGUCHI


3/19

growth and sustainable development. Both internal sustainability process

that builds local technical capacity and management skills and ensures

continuing socio-economic improvement and environmentally sustainable

program of land and natural resources use to ensure long-term viability

must be included in the design of any development effort.

1.2. DE V E L O P M E N T O FE V E L O P M E N T O F SO C I A LO C I A L FO R E S T R Y I NO R E S T R Y I N BA N G L A D E S HA N G L A D E S H

There is a growing consensus amongst key forest decision-makers in

Bangladesh that traditional forestry is needed to make the transition to a

more sustainable forestry, and this is likely to involve an iterative process of

continuous improvement. The government has attached the highest priority

to social forestry, and it has become the dominant strategy in the countrys

forestry sector (Task Force Report, 1987; FMP, 1992; GOB, 1992). Thus,

during the Rio Earth Summit (UNCED) in 1992, Bangladesh joined the rest

of the world in adopting Agenda 21, a program of action for sustainable

development, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and

the Statement of Principles for Sustainable Development of Forests, etc.

Social forestry activities began in Bangladesh in 1980 with the initiation

of a forestry extension program under a Forest Department project. The

first formal participatory forestry program was initiated in the north-wes-

tern districts of Bangladesh in 1981/1982 under the Community forestry

program with the assistance of the asian development bank (ADB) loanand the united nations Development Program (UNDP) grant. After the

completion of this project in 1987, the Forest Department initiated

another ADB assisted project as a part of the Thana Afforestaion and

Nursery Development Project in 19881994 as a follow up on the previ-

ous project and operated in all over the Sal forests1. Agroforestry2 and

woodlot3 models have been applied in this project where 11.2 ha of

encroached Sal forest land was allotted to each participant based on an

annual renewable basis. The project proposed to establish 16 188 ha of

woodlot and 3 238ha of agroforestry plantations and a total of 16 840 ha

of woodlot and 3 061 ha of agroforestry plantations were realized during

the period (Chowdhury, 1994).

The specific objectives of the social forestry program are:

(i) to protect, mange and develop forests in a sustainable way by invol-

ving local communities;

(ii) to increase forest resources in order to improve the local environment;

(iii) to contribute to alleviating rural poverty through involving local poor

and weaker sections of the society in forest management through

income generating activities; and

(iv) to strengthen the institutional capacity of the Forest Department.

211ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIAL FORESTRY


4/19

After completion of this project, a Forestry Sector Project for the year

19971998 to 20032004 has been initiated. This project proposed to

establish 20 786 ha of woodlot and 11 905 ha of agroforestry planta-

tions on degraded Sal forests and also on areas where trees of the pre-

vious project had already been harvested (second rotation). The

objectives of this project are:

(i) to increase overall tree resource bases of the country;

(ii) to arrest depletion of forest resources,

(iii) to enhance conservation of forests in selected protected areas; and

(iv) to attain sustainable management of forest resources through local

community participation.

All these objectives are binged on extending the capacity of both state and

civil society stakeholders to manage forests in a sustainable manner.

Through participating in this project, stakeholders will be able to enhance

capacity to conserve forest ecological functions, to increase value-genera-

tion in terms of goods and services and to attain sustainable (rural) devel-

opment.

1.3. THEH E RE S E A R C HE S E A R C H PR O B L E M A N DR O B L E M A N D OB J E C T I V E SB J E C T I V E S

Much of the literature on social forestry in Bangladesh evaluate the man-

agement criteria of social forest in the country (Bhuiyan, 1994; ADB, 2000,

2001; Islam, 2000). Although sustainable development is the prime goal ofsocial forestry in Bangladesh, no study has examined the sustainable devel-

opment criteria of the sector. Thus, this study aims at analyzing the indica-

tors of sustainable social forestry in Bangladesh. Five indicators are viewedas essential components of sustainable management of social forest in Ban-

gladesh and these are:

(i) farmers needs;

(ii) using soft and hard technology;

(iii) forest resources produced;

(iv) sectoral linkages and synergies; and

(v) societal and material benefits.

2. Study area

Sal forests in Bangladesh can be divided into two parts: Central and

Northern. Central Sal forests are located in Dhaka, Gazipur, Tangail, My-mensingh and Jamalpur districts and Northern Sal forests are distributed

in small patches in Dinajpur, Rangpur and Rajshahi districts. The study

was conducted in the central Sal forests (Map 1). Sal forests are tropical

moist deciduous type of forests. These forests are normally present in most



5/19

of the lowlands and floodplains. Sal forests have been dramatically reducedin area and now exist only in a number of widely scattered and degraded

patches. The forests consist of patches of Sal (Shorea robusta) coppice

occasionally with other tree species. Sal forests areas have experienced

maximum encroachment and most of the of the root stock of remnant Sal

forests have lost coppicing power suggesting use of plantation for re-affor-

esting such areas. The total area of central Sal forests is 90 996 ha (FMP,

1992) and 20 382 ha of these lands were distribute among 18 940 partici-

pants for social forestry program (Forest Department, 2001).

For many years up to 1950, Sal forests were under the control of Zamind-

ers (Land Lords) who were not interested in protecting forests (Salam and

Noguchi, 1998). They emphasized the forests economic benefits and tried tomaximize their revenue at the cost of over exploitation of the forests. In

1950 the government instituted the East Bengal State Acquisition and Ten-

ancy Act (EBSATA), which abolished the Zamindari system, and forests

came under the control of the Forest Department. After gaining control of

Sal forests, the Forest Department adopted many working plans. All the

plans failed to protect forests from the hostile actions of the local people.

Recognizing their weakness as a forest manager, the Forest Department

started social forestry program involving local people in these forests areas

from 1987.

Map1. Map of Bangladesh showing study area.



6/19

3. Methods and materials

3.1. DA T AA T A CO L L E C T I O NO L L E C T I O N

The study is based on primary cross-sectional data collected using the mul-

tistage stratified sampling method. There are three forest divisions in central

Sal forests: Dhaka, Tangail, and Mymensingh. Each forest division is

divided into a number of administrative blocks known as beat. There are 22

beats in Dhaka forest division, 31 beats in Tangail forest division, and 22beats in Mymensingh forest division. At first, four beats, one from each for-

est division were selected randomly. From each selected beat, 150 house-

holds of farmers were selected randomly, yielding 600 households in total.At the time of the survey, 19 of the selected farmers migrated temporarily

from the study areas and did not return during the survey period; they were

therefore discarded from the study. Thus, the sample consisted of 581 farm-

ers. The research used interview and field observation methods. The sample

unit was the household of the selected farmer who is the respondent.

Interviews were conducted during AugustNovember 2001 by a research

team using a pre-tested questionnaire. Questions were asked on the follow-

ing topics: household characteristics, participation in forestry program, sat-

isfaction in participating in the social forestry program, involvement in

decision-making process, knowledge about social forestry, satisfaction with

the strategy of social forestry and opinion on sustainable management of

social forests. The language used during the survey was Bengali.

3.2. SU S T A I N A B L EU S T A I N A B L E DE V E L O P M E N TE V E L O P M E N T MO D E LO D E L AD A P T E DD A P T E D F R O MF R O M FA U L K N E RA U L K N E R

A N DA N D AL B E R T S O NL B E R T S O N MO D E LO D E L

Figure 1 presents a model for sustainable social forestry. It is an adapta-

tion of Faulkner and Albertson (1986) model. The figure clearly indicates

that it is the participating farmers who are responsible for the most basic

ideas and initiatives for getting started social forestry. As participants gain

experience from active participation in all stages, they develop capacity to

incorporate and adapt relevant methods and technologies for sustainable

social forestry. With innovative expertise in hand, social forestry agents arethen in a better position to repeat the cycle of development process to

ensure a sustainable production and consumption of social forest goods

and services. The most important component for the sustainable develop-

ment of social forestry is how the participants show their interest and utter

commitment to work with the activating agents (Forest Department or

NGOs). This concurrence is the basis for establishing the ongoing and

continuing relationships between local participants and activating agents.

Beyond this basic accord, it is essential that the responsibilities of local



7/19

participants and activating agencies should be clearly specified in manage-

ment, economic and organizational arenas. Experience has shown that

where this principle is ignored, severe strains will eventually appear and

conflicts between local participants and activating agents can inhibit or

stop process (Burbidge, 1988; Singh and Singh, 1992; Skutsch, 2000). Suchagreements are best made at the very beginning of the project.

Data were collected on the five key components of the social forestry

cycle depicted in Figure 1.

3.3. DA T AA T A AN A L Y S I SN A L Y S I S

Data were analysed mainly to evaluate the status of the components of

sustainable social forestry development depicted in Figure 1. The statistical

package SPSS for Windows, Release 10 was used in analysing the collected

data.

4. Results and discussion

4.1. FA R M E R S A N D T H E I R N E E D SA R M E R S A N D T H E I R N E E D S

Analysing the data gathered from the field, it can be said that participants

showed their interest in participating in social forestry. The results indicate

that about 99% of the farmers were interested in participating in social for-

Forest Department or NGOs activators institutionalize or

transfer appropriate strategies

Participated

farmers

with their

needs

Soft and

hard

technology

Forestresources of

their

allotted

plots

Economic,agricultural,

and industrial

infrastructure

Social and

material

goods

To

Who use

To conserve & manage

To create and expand

To produce

For the benefit of

Figure1. Development cycle of social forestry adopted from Faulkner and Albertson (1986).



8/19

estry program in future (Table I). About 82% of the participants thought

that the adopted strategy of social forestry was effective for forest develop-

ment. Among the participants who disagreed with the strategy of social

forestry (about 18%), about half of them were not satisfied with the species

of trees4 planted in their plots, about 36% were against plantation by

recovering encroached land5, and about 32% believed that soil fertility of

their nearby crop lands degraded because of planting exotic species in the

social forestry plots. About 76% of the participants were satisfied with

working together with the activating agents and they committed to work

with them in future also. The reluctance of participants to commit to work

with the activating agents can be explained as due to participants had been

given no importance of the intervention, or by idea that they had not been

consulted sufficiently, or due to the existence of conflicts with the staff of

the activating agents. The reluctance of local people towards social forestry

may also be from the grievance of original inhabitants of forest areas who

claim that social forestry has been practised on their own lands. On the

basis of these results it can be safely said that the first and most important

component of sustainable development of social forestry in Bangladesh iswithin the tract of development cycle.

4.2. US I N GS I N G SO F TO F T A N DA N D HA R DA R D TE C H N O L O G YE C H N O L O G Y

Utilization of both hard and soft technology is a key element of sustain-

able development process (Faulkner and Albertson, 1986; Albertson and

Faulkner, 1990). Appropriate hard technology is the scientific techniques,

physical structures and tools that enable to meet the needs of the social

forestry requirements and utilize the materials at hand or those readily and

TABLE I. Concurrence of participants with the strategy of social forestry.

Percent

Whether participants are interested to participate in social forestry in future

Interested 98.7

Not interested 1.3

Whether participants are accorded with the strategy of social forestry

Accorded 81.6

Not accorded 18.4

Reasons for disagreement*

Selection of tree species 48.5

Plantation was done on recovered land 36.1

Degradation of soil fertility 31.9

Gap between formulated policy and practise 16.5

Whether participants are satisfied with working with Forest Department

Satisfied 76.4

Not satisfied 23.6

*Total percentage is greater than 100 because of multiple response.



9/19

inexpensively available. This technology can be built, operated and main-

tained by local people with very limited outside assistance. At the center of

any effective development effort is the technique to make the resources

available for programs that are custom-designed, built, operated, and

maintained by local people. There are two groups of viewers in this

respect. One, those who believe that all the necessary technologies should

be shared with and handed over to farmers and also should be taught them

how to use these technologies in the field. There are others who believe all

that is needed is for local people to mobilize themselves and they will be

able to access any needed technology. In todays world of rapidly expand-

ing technical information in all fields of knowledge, the following principles

are useful guides for technological use towards sustainable development ofsocial forestry.

(i) The technology must meet needs/problems identified by the concerned

community.

(ii) Introduction of any hard technology (forestry, agriculture, environ-

ment, etc.) must be preceded by the use of soft technology process to

mobilize, motivate and organize community awareness (Faulkner and

Albertson, 1986).

(iii) In introduction of technological innovations, local knowledge and

concerns must be considered and incorporated into their design and

use (Freeman and Lwdermilk, 1991).

(iv) The best technology must be put into simplified and customized com-municable packages (Roskelley, 1975).

From the results of the field investigation, it appears that hard technol-

ogy is available in the local areas and participants utilize this technology

for social forestry development. This technology is locally innovated with-

out getting any assistance from scientific experts. Activating agents did not

provide any hard technology to the local participants.

Appropriate soft technology includes skills, knowledge and procedures for

making, using and doing useful social forestry with optimums determined

on a community specific basis by the local people. The local people often

possess inadequate technical skills and capacities to implement social forest

management. In order to determine the level of utilization of soft technology

in social forestry in Bangladesh, information was gathered on the type of

knowledge, training and other institutional assistance provided to the partic-

ipants. The soft technology must meet needs/problems identified by the con-

cerned participants. The local peoples needs of soft technology identified

are presented in Table II. The information in the table indicates that the

most important need of participants is the knowledge on how to select tree

species (about 80%). In the social forestry, all the species planted were exotic

species4 and people have very limited knowledge on management techniques

of these species. About 73% of the participants believed that they needed to



10/19

acquire more knowledge on management techniques of social forestry. The

next important component on which participants needed to acquire skills

was seedling techniques of planted species (about 70%). Participants wereasked whether they received any knowledge from the activating agents on

any aspects of social forestry. The answers reveal that about 56% of partici-

pants received training on social forestry activities from the activating agents

(Table II). Among the participants who received training, about 68%

received knowledge on seedling techniques, about 56% received knowledge

on management techniques of social forestry and about 14% learned about

pruning techniques. But the impact of training seems insignificant as most of

the participants demanded training on the same issues on which they already

received training. It indicates that periodic back-up and monitoring by the

activating agents are absent in the study areas. It can be safely stated that

utilization of soft technology in social forestry in Bangladesh is below theexpected extent. This deficiency in transferring soft technology to partici-

pants seriously undermined the intended purpose of the program and jeopar-

dized the realization of sustained benefits. The intended partnership between

the Forest Department and the participants did not develop, which may hin-

der the development of sustainable social forestry.

In order to make social forestry sustainable, participants should have

access to needed soft and hard technology and they should utilize these

technologies by themselves. The participants were asked whether they

would be able to practise social forestry using their own skills, knowledge

TABLE II. Procurement of appropriate soft technology.

Soft technology Percent

Type of knowledge needed *

Selection of tree species 79.9

Identification of suitability of land 58.6

Seedling techniques 69.7

Management techniques 73.4

Marketing system 43.7

Others 12.7

Whether received training

Received 56.4

Did not receive 43.6

Area of training

How to plant seedlings 68.1

Take care of planted trees 55.5

Pruning technique 18.4

How to protect forest 13.5

How to make nursery 3.4

Ability to practise social forestry using acquired technology

Able to practise 71.8

Unable to practise 28.2

*Total percentage is more than 100 because of multiple response.



11/19

and funds if land would be allotted to them. About 28% of the participants

replied that they would not be able to practise social forestry by their

acquired hard and soft technology. This indicates that although a good

number of participants acquired skills and knowledge for practicing social

forestry, a sizeable number of them did not possess adequate technologies

for practicing social forestry using their own capabilities.

An important drawback of transferring and utilizing soft technology of

social forestry is the lack of involvement of participants in decision-making

process. Social forestry was conceptualized as the creation of sustained

forest resources for the people by the people with Government; Social For-

estry program implementation implies full involvement of the people

(SIDA, 1984). However, most social forestry projects failed to achieve thedesired level of local participation (NWDB, 19851989).

In order to ensure effective participation, the goals and objectives of

social forestry must be realistic, clearly stated, and jointly understood and

agreed upon by all involved and affected parties. Table III represents the

knowledge of the participants about the goals and objectives of social for-

estry. About 37% of the participants did not know about the objectives of

social forestry. Knowledge of farmers about the whole process of social

forestry can contribute to active participation of the participants. Among

the participants who did not know the objectives of social forestry, they

claimed they could contribute more to social forestry if they knew and

understood the objectives of social forestry.

Table III also shows that about 85% of the farmers did not participate

in any stage of the decision-making process on social forestry. The partici-

pants who mentioned that they participated in decision-making process

meant attendance of local meetings organized by the Forest Department

officials. There was no scope to incorporate their opinion in social forestry

policies. Thus, in real sense, there was no effective participation in

TABLE III. Farmers knowledge on social forestry and their participation in decision-making process.

Percent

Whether farmers know goals and objectives of social forestry

Know 62.8Do not know 37.2

Scope of contribution

Could contribute more 61.9

Could contribute same 38.1

Whether farmers participated in decision-making

Participated 15.5

Did not participate 84.5

Whether participation is important

Important 94.0

Unimportant 6.0



12/19

decision-making process. About 94% of the participants believed that their

participation in decision-making process was important for sustainable

development of social forestry. Thus, the non-participation of the local

people in the decision-making process has made it difficult to transfer

appropriate technologies to participants for facilitating the sustainable

development of social forestry.

In Bangladesh, decision-making process is Up-to-Down system where

decision is made by upper level decision-makers and is handed to local

stakeholders. Even the local Forest Department officials cannot participate

in the decision-making process. Local stakeholders and local Forest

Department officials have much more practical knowledge about the effec-

tive strategies of social forest management than those who think it theoret-ically. It is important that local knowledge about social forestry systems is

integrated with scientific theory in order to ensure the development of

improved practises (Balaikie and Brookfield, 1987; Brundtland, 1987;

McGoodwin, 1990; Meadows et al., 1992; Nair, 1998; Agrawal and Gib-

son, 2001; Davis and Wagner, 2003). There are a number of supportive

developments which suggest that exercises of systematic, periodic documen-

tation of local peoples knowledge and perceptions of forest management

and integration of these knowledge and perception in forest management

policy may contribute significantly to sustainable forest management (Gad-

gil, 2000).

4.3. FO R E S TO R E S T RE S O U R C E SE S O U R C E S PR O D U C E DR O D U C E D

It is recognized that participants are potential partners of the government

in social forest management. Thus, long-term sustainability and replication

of social forest depend on higher and assured returns from social forests.

The rotation period of social forestry is for 10 years. Thus, the Forest

Department prescribed only short-term plantations. Social forests produce

poles for building houses, small saw logs, and fuelwood. Table IV repre-

sents the amount of forest products produced at the time of final felling of

TABLE IV. Statistics on forest products at the time of final felling of social forestry plots during

20022003 (calculation was based on 63 woodlot and 66 agroforestry plots).

Item of production Type of forest Minimum Mean Maximum

Number of poles Woodlot 111 513 1554

Agroforestry 10 220 653

Small saw logs (in cft) Woodlot 44.12 766.97 2796.35

Agroforestry 1.41 174.80 605.62

Fuelwood (in cft) Woodlot 143.0 1249.46 1975.50

Agroforestry 58.60 353.83 1640.53

Source: Auction schedules of the Forest Department, the Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh.



13/19

social forest plots. It is seen from the table that number of poles harvested

ranged from a low of 111 to a high of 1554 per woodlot plot and from a

low of 10 to a high of 653 per agroforestry plot. The average number of

poles produced per woodlot plot was 513 and per agroforestry plot was

220. Regarding the production of small saw logs, it ranged from a mini-

mum of 44.12 cubic feet (cft) to a maximum of 2796.35 cft per woodlot plot

and from a minimum of 1.41 cft to a maximum of 605.62 cft per agrofor-

estry plot. The average amount of small saw logs produced per woodlot

plot was 766.97 cft and per agroforestry plot was 174.80 cft. Fuelwood pro-

duction per plot was from a low of 143 cft to a high of 1975.5cft per

woodlot plot and from a low of 58.60 cft to a high of 1640.53 cft per agro-

forestry plot. The average fuelwood production was 1249.46 cft per wood-lot forestry and 353.83 cft per agroforestry plot. The minimum forest

production is really a disappointing amount. The maximum amount of for-

est production indicates that efficiently managed social forestry can con-

tribute greatly to alleviate poverty of the targeted people; an important

component of sustainable rural development. Thus, effectively managed

social forestry has the capacity to contribute to sustainable social forest

development.

4.4. DE V E L O P M E N T O FE V E L O P M E N T O F EC O N O M I CC O N O M I C, AG R I C U L T U R A L A N DG R I C U L T U R A L A N D IN D U S T R I A LN D U S T R I A L

IN F R A S T R U C T U R EN F R A S T R U C T U R E

Economic incentives have to be perceived and anticipated by the partici-

pants if their long term commitment to social forestry is to be secured.

Participants expect to produce small timber for farm construction, fuel-

wood for home use, fodder for draft animals or for livestock that serve as

source of animal protein in the farmers diet; and agricultural crops from

the intercrops or from alley cropping. These various products are consid-

ered as direct economic benefits of farmers. Moreover, increased output

from forests requires increased labour inputs through expansion of gainful

employment and therefore leads to greater incomes. Surplus output that

requires marketing is viewed as an important breakthrough in movement

from subsistence economy to market-oriented economy. All these phenom-ena that could be activated by social forestry indicate a possibility of a sig-

nificant improvement of economic, agricultural and industrial

infrastructure. In the social forestry program in Bangladesh, participants

are encouraged to cultivate intermediate cash crops or alley crops in agro-

forestry plots and leguminous taungya crops for the first two years in woo-

dlot forestry plots provided that afforestation/tree plantation program in

woodlot is not adversely affected by intermediate crops. Participants are

given full rights over intermediate agricultural products both from agrofor-

estry and woodlot forestry. Moreover, participants are given full rights



14/19

over first tree harvest products from first thinning in the fifth year. How-

ever, as shown in Table V, the tree harvest products from the second thin-

ning in the seventh year and final harvest in the tenth year are shared

between the participants and the Forest Department.

Farmers have received direct and indirect benefits arising out of such

provisions in the form of wages for working in planting and weeding,

infrastructure and community services, pruning and thinning of trees and

some other means. As compared to the time before participation in social

forestry, farmers income has increased after joining the social forestry pro-

gram (Figure 2); total average income per month has increased from Tk.

1431 before participation in social forestry to Tk. 2540 at the time of the

survey; an increase of about 77.5%. Considering the sector wise incrementof monthly income, income from forest product has increased from about

Tk. 31 to Tk. 100 (an increase of 222.5%), income from forest labour has

increased from Tk. 201 to Tk. 335 (an increase of 66.7%), income from

agricultural labour has increased from Tk. 151 to Tk. 249 (an increase of

64.9%) and income from agriculture has increased from Tk. 759 to Tk. 935

TABLE V. Share of second and final harvesting products between the parties.

Type of forestry Party Percent of share

Agroforestry Beneficiary (participants) 45

Forest department 45

Tree farming fund 10

Woodlot Beneficiary (participants) 40

Forest department 50

Tree farming fund 10

Source: Forest Department (1997).

965

249

335

372

260

100

2540

759

151

201

182

37

31

1431

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Agriculture

Agriculture labor

Forest labor

Business

Service

Forest product

Total

Before participation

After Participation

Figure2. Distribution of average monthly income (in Taka, 1 US$ % 58 Taka) of participants bysectors before and after participation in social forestry.



15/19

(an increase of 23.2%). Results of sector wise increase in incomes indicate

that increase in incomes from forestry sectors were higher compared to

other sectors. Because of the development of economic and agricultural

infrastructure, industrial and commercial infrastructure also developed

simultaneously in the respective local areas. Consequently, social forestry

induced positive impacts on the livelihoods of the participants as well as

the local people. As can be seen from Figure 2, average monthly income

from business has increased from Tk. 182 to Tk. 372; an increase of

104.4% and income from service also has increased from Tk. 37 to Tk. 280

(an increase of 656.8%). These results clearly indicate that participants

have expanded economic and agricultural infrastructures.

In order to make the social forestry sustainable, a strategy to generateTree Farming Fund (TFF) at the local level was formulated (Forest

Department, 1997). Under this strategy, 10% of the total benefits from sec-

ond thinning and final felling of trees is collected by the concerned Divi-

sional Forest Officer (DFO). The fund is utilized for replanting, running

credit program for local level economic activities, including setting up nurs-

eries at the local level and to meet other related financial needs of the com-

munity and for developing social forestry in future without outside

assistance. At the time of the survey, about 6% of the participants pro-

vided 10% of total benefits from the final harvest of trees to TFF (Table

VI). Participants who were contributing to tree growing fund were asked

whether they were satisfied with proving money to the fund and about

88% of the contributors were satisfied with the tree growing fund. The will-

ingness of farmers to contribute to TFR is clearly a commitment of farm-

ers to participate in future forestry program.

4.4. DE V E L O P M E N T O FE V E L O P M E N T O F SO C I A L A N DO C I A L A N D MA T E R I A L SA T E R I A L S BE N E F I T SE N E F I T S

As a consequence of augmented economic benefits, participants status and

recognition has increased significantly. They have emerged as a power

group in most social activities like national and local elections because of

their experience in group work. Practical training and regular meeting with

the Forest Department officials has enhanced their capacity of work at the

TABLE VI. Generation of local tree farming fund.

Percent

Whether contributed to tree farming fund

Contributed 6.3

Did not contribute 93.7

Whether farmers are satisfied with contributing to TFF

Satisfied 87.9

Did not satisfy 12.1



16/19

organizational level. Relations between local people and Forest Depart-

ment officials have improved because they are no longer opponents but

partners of forest management.

Regarding the material benefits, farmers could gain from the social foreststhrough cultivation of agricultural products as intermediate products, fuel-

wood through pruning and thinning of trees both for household uses and

for marketing. As can be seen from Table VII, about 32% of farmers gained

agricultural products through cultivating forest lands at the initial periods

of planting, about 77% of the farmers collected fuelwood from their forest

plots through pruning and thinning. About 42% of the farmers consumed

all the material goods for household uses and about 58% of the farmers

could sell a portion of the material goods after household consumption.

Where material goods gained from social forests, the tendency for the fam-

ily to illegally collect fuelwood or other material goods from nearby reserve

forests declined. Availability of material goods from social forests helps tolower pressure on the nearby reserve forest resources (Godoy et al., 1998).

5. Conclusion

The term sustainable development is a useful concept in stimulating the

conservators, users and policy-makers of forests to improve the existing

forestry systems management. However, sustainability is a complex amal-

gam trade-offs among its various dimensions and there is no easy route to

achieve it. It is important that the policy process on sustainability be based

on sound information about these trade-offs and the selection of objectives

should reflect these trade-offs. Social forestry program in Bangladesh,albeit some drawbacks, has been based on the concept of sustainable devel-

opment. Almost all the conditions of sustainable social forestry in Bangla-

desh are satisfied to an acceptable extent. Participants are interested and

committed to work with the Forest Department in developing social

forestry with some exceptions in some areas of Mymensingh and Tangail

Forest Divisions. Although there exist ample scopes of development, bothhard and soft technologies have been used in social forestry. The income

of farmers has increased because they participated in social forestry. The

TABLE VII. Material benefits from social forestry.

Material benefits Percent

Sector of material benefits

Cultivation of agricultural products 31.5

Fuelwood from pruning and thinning 76.5

How farmers use material goods

Household use only 42.3

Sell a portion after household use 57.7



17/19

process of producing social and material benefits has improved. Utilization

of hard technology should be enhanced by providing technical support for

adopting and maintaining it. The utilization of soft technology should be

enhanced through increasing the skills and knowledge of participants

through intensive training, periodic back-up and continuous monitoring

after training. Indigenous knowledge and awareness should be incorpo-

rated in the policy of social forestry. The local stakeholders should be

actively involved in the decision-making process. The social forestry pro-

gram in Bangladesh has a big potentiality for catalyzing the sustainable

development of the rural economy and thereby helps to improve the

national economy in the long term. It is therefore important that the For-

est Department, other related government and non-government organiza-tions and the relevant stakeholders should take appropriate steps to make

the social forestry program sustainable.

Notes

1 Sal (Shorea robusta) forests are Tropical Moist Deciduous type of forest. This forest is located mostly

in the lowlands and floodplains in the greater districts of Dhaka, Tangail, Mymensingh, Comilla, Rang-

pur, Dianjpur and Rajshahi. The main species is Sal. Other species include Terminalia bellerica, Albizzia

procera, Lagerstroemia spp., Ficus species etc.2 Agroforestry is a garden of multispecies, where there is a tight integration between wood trees and

agricultural crops.3 Gardens of woodlot plantations are gardens of exclusively wood trees of multispecies.4

The prescribed tree species for agroforestry plantation are Acacia auriculiformis, Acacia Mangium, Al-bizia procera, Albizia falcataria, Albizia lebbek, Teriminalia aurjuna, etc. The prescribed tree species

composition for woodlot plantations are Acacia auriculiformis, Acacia Mangium, Eucalyptus camaldul-

ensis, Albizia procera, Albizia falcataria, Albizia lebbek, Swientonia teriminalia aurjuna, etc.5 Sal forests exist in the plain lands which are suitable for agriculture. People have been encroached

some degraded Sal forests lands for practicing agriculture and demand these land as their own. Forest

Department has been practicing social forestry by recovering these encroached lands.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Japan society for the promotion of sci-

ence (JSPS) Postdoctoral Fellowship for Foreign Researchers Program,

awarded to first author. The comments of two reviewers greatly improved

this paper.

References

ADB: 2000, Project performance audit report on the Upazila Afforesstation and Nursery Development

Project (Loan 956-BAN[SF]) in Bangladesh, Asian Development Bank, PPA: BAN, Dhaka, Bangla-

desh, pp. 147

ADB: 2001, Regional study on forest policy and institutional reforms: Final Report of the Bangladesh

case study, Asian Development Bank, Dhaka, Bangladesh, pp. 164.



18/19

Agarwal, A. and Gibson, C.C. (eds.): 2001, Communities and Environment: Ethnicity, Gender, and the

State in Community-based Conservation, New Brunswick, NJ, Rutgers University Press.

Albertson, M. and Faulkner, A.O.: 1990, International aid What is missing?, Paper presented at

International Conference on Water and Wastewater in Barcelona, Spain, April, 1990.

Bhuiyan, A.K.: 1994, Policy and strategy for the development of Sal forest area with peoples partici-

pationits constraints and remedial measures, in Proceedings of the National Workshop on Agrofores-

try Afor the Degraded Sal Forest, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council, Dhaka, Bangladesh,

pp. 2643.

Blaikie, P.M. and Brookfield, H.C.: 1987, Common property resources and degradadtion worldwide,

in P.M. Blaikie and H.C. Brookrfield, (eds.), Land Degradation and Society, London, Metheum, pp.

186196.

Brundtland, G.: 1987, Our Common Future: The World Commission on Environment and Development,

Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1398.

Burbidge, J. (ed.): 1988, Approaches that Work in Rural Development: Emerging Trends , Participatory

Methods and Local Initiatives, Institute of Cultural Affairs International, Brussels, K.G. Saur, Mun-

chen, New York, London, Paris.

Casimir, M.J. and Rao, A.: 1998, Sustainable herd management and the tragedy of no mans land: An

analysis of West Himalayan pastures using remote sensing techniques, Human Ecology 26(1), 113

134.

Chowdhury, R.A.: 1994, History and importance of Sal forests and current management status in Pro-

ceedings of the National Workshop on Agroforestry for the Degraded Sal Forests, organized by

NAWG and BARC, Dhaka, Bangladesh, pp. 925.

Davis, A. and Wagner, J.R.: 2003, Who knows? On the importance of identifying Experts when

researching local ecological knowledge, Human Ecology 31(3), 463489.

Ekins, P.: 1993, Limits to growth and sustainable development: grappling with ecological realities,

Ecological Economics 8, 269288.

Faulkner, A.O. and Albertson, M.: 1986, Tandem use of hard and soft technology: An evolving model

for third world village development, International Journal of Applied Engineering Education 2(2), 97

114.

Ferguson, I.S.: 1996, Sustainable Forest Management, Melbourne, Australia, Oxford University Press.

FMP: 1992, Bangladesh participatory forestry, Forestry Master Plan, Asian Development Bank, (TA

1355-BAN UNDP/FAO BGD/088/025), Dhaka, Bangladesh, pp. 180.

Forest Department: 1997, Project Proforma PP: Forestry Sector Project 199798 to 20032004, For-est Department, Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh, pp. 1147.

Forest Department: 2001, Manual of training course of forest guards, NGOs field workers, partici-

pants, and local elites, Local Training Program, Forestry Sector Project (1997/982003/04), Forest

Department, Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh, pp. 162.

Freeman, D. and Lowdermilk, M.K.: 1991, Middle level farmer organizations as links between farms

and central irrigation systems in putting people first: Sociological variables in rural development,

2 edn. M.C. Michel (ed.), Published for the World Bank, Oxford University Press, New York.

Gadgil, M.: 2000, Peoples biodiversity registers: Lessons learnt, Environment, Development and Sus-

tainability 2, 323332.

GOB: 1992, A new pledge for a greener Bangladesh, Ministry of Information, Government of the

Peoples Republic of Bangladesh, pp. 154.

Godoy, R., Franks, J.R., and Claudio, M.A.: 1998, Adoption of modern agricultural technologies bylowland indigenous groups in Bolivia: The role of households, villages, ethnicity, and markets,

Human Ecology 26(3), 351369.

Isalm, M.S.: 2000, Participatory Assessment of Agroforestry in the Sal Forests of Two Villages, Mymen-

singh Forest Division, Bangladesh, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Rural

Development Studies, MADRAT Program, Sweden.

McGoodwin, J.R.: 1990, Crisis in the Worlds Fisheries: People, Problems and Policies, Palo Alto, CA,

Stanford University Press.

Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L. and Randers, J.: 1992, Beyond the Limits: Confronting Global Col-

lapse, Envisioning a Sustainable Future, Chelsea Green, Mills, VT.

Nair, P.K.R.: 1998, Directions in tropical agroforestry research: past, present, and future, Agroforestry

Systems 38, 223245.



19/19

NWDB: 19851989, Developing Indias Wastelands, New Delhi, National Wastelands Development

Board, Government of India.

Pezzy, J.: 1992, Sustainable development concepts: An economic analysis, World Bank Environmental

Paper No. 2, World Bank, Washington, DC.

Roskelley, R.W.: 1975, The farmer scholar program: Documentation, Utah State University Printing

Services, Logan, Utah.

Salam, M.A. and Noguchi, T.: 1998, Depletion of Madhupur Sal Forests A case study in Bangla-

desh, Journal of Forest Economics 44(3), 16.

SIDA: 1984, The Bihar Social Forestry Project for Chotanagpur and Santhal Parganas: Appraised Pro-

ject Document, New Delhi, India, Swedish International Development Agency.

Singh, N.M. and Singh, K.K.: 1992, Forest protection by communities in Orissa A new green revolu-

tion, Forest, Trees, and People Newsletter 19, 1620.

Skutsch, M.M.: 2000, Conflict management and participation in community forestry, Agrofortesry

System 48, 189206.

Task Force Report: 1987, Participatory forestry in Bangladesh: Concepts, experiences and recommen-

dations, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh, pp. 175.


Documents

On Sustainable Development of Social Forestry In