INTEGRATED PROTECTED AREA CO-MANAGEMENT (IPAC) - BIDS

More documents

Recommendations

Info

of co-management. That co-management relates to integrating the value of conservation with benefits reaching the poor appears to be generally not within the knowledge of the SRF actors, particularly the lower-level actors. Only a few who knew about it admits that the comanagement approach is likely to equip the poor to resist pressure from the powerful who destroy the natural resource base more often for personal benefit. Those of the SRF actors who knew the approach, by and large, appear to be a bit critical about co-management as, according to some of them, this would not give them direct benefits to people at large but this might ultimately benefit a group of political and powerful section in stead. The culture of politicization would be a great bottleneck in the formation of council and other forums. The stakeholders asserted that the refutation culture of a current government’s activities by the following new government, in turn, may not be helpful for co-management. Hence, as the SRF actors observed, the formation of forums, such as Co-management Council and Committee, People’s Forum (PF), Village Conservation Forum (VCF) needs to be made with utmost care. Nevertheless, the concept of co-management is appreciated by some of the SRF actors – the only major issue to those who knew about it was their skepticism about its appropriate implementation and sustainability 105 . That sustainable use of the mangrove forest would yield higher welfare benefits than any other activities towards its development is well documented. A decision to develop SRF would be ‘extremely damaging, not only to current population’s welfare but for the future generations as well’ 106 . This merely highlights the importance of protecting the SRF. While <strong>IPAC</strong> has enthusiastically initiated the process of protecting the environment through co-management, further mobilization of the grass-root level local people is necessary for the success of the approach. The effective integration of the interests and priorities of the local people into forest management and above all, coordinated efforts appear to be important. More importantly, the stakeholders, particularly the bottom layer actors, have to be offered adequate compensation and livelihoods. In order to help promote SRF co-management, the first basic needs (food and rehabilitation) of the community shall have to be served first, especially in the aftermath of the destruction through calamities. “What” and “How” are among the important questions which were raised by some of the respondent actors while conducting the FGDs, in the context of conservation and comanagement. The community needs to have their stake of the Sundarbans related benefits, along with the government or any other NGOs. As our survey reveals, contrary to the basic approach, co-management of the SRF appears to have gained significance to relatively higher level actors in the value chains as they were aware that SRF would act like a “wall against the natural calamities”. Hence, the purpose of the comanagement was mostly the conservation and protection of the forest. Obviously, the people are aware that the conservation would be effective only if more local participation is ensured in the process. People, by and large, are also aware that the gradual depletion over the years has resulted in degradation of the Sundarbans. The SRF actors observed that increased population, loss of aquatic and other species, increased pressure on the Sundarbans, demand for fuel woods, climate change and disasters and lack of coordination of the government bodies have made the 105 The SRF actors, by and large, appear to be not yet much aware of the co-management initiative nor do they have much interest in it. Given their poverty conditions, they have one and only one concern in front of them, that is, their concern of livelihood. 106 See, for example, Landell-Mills (1995). 166
conservation a very complex job. These need to be taken in perspectives while designing comanagement. While more than two-fifths of the population are in extreme poverty (Chapter 2), of all the issues, then the poverty situation needs to be tackled first for the success of comanagement. Role of local institutions The local government institutions (LGIs) such as Union Parishad and Upazila Parishad need to be strengthened as their role is very crucial in both protecting the forest and improving the situation of the collectors. The SRF actors are in the opinion that politicization and lack of integrity of these institutions are the major bottlenecks to managing and conserving the forest. Without strong participation of the LGIs the conservation of the SRF through co-management may not be successful and sustainable. Strong policies are also necessary for the UPs to function independently apart from enhancing their capacities. Ownership of the local people Sense of ownership has to be promoted so that people are engaged in conservation. It is important that the conservation project is a participatory one in its approach. It is important to make it clear to people that the project is meant for the community; and their stake into the project is ensured with the policy framework. Natural hazards The extreme poverty situation is further deteriorated by the incidence of natural calamities. The destruction by natural calamities inevitably makes the poor hungry, only to make them angry and get involved in indiscriminate extraction from the SRF, often illegally. So, addressing the issue of destruction due to natural calamities should also be integrated with forest co-management. Alternative livelihood means for fish fry collectors It is important to provide allowance or alternative livelihood means (e.g., interest-free microcredit provision, skill development training) for those engaged in collecting fish fries to reduce dependency on fishing. A provision of special allowance for education of children involved in shrimp fry collection would also be helpful. Issuing permits and licenses to fry catcher would allow only the seasonal capture of fry. Social Forestry Issues Social forestry is a good option in the context of forest conservation. The beneficiaries of the social forestry programs should include only those who took part in plantation and nurture from the time of commencement. But the reported politicization at times in changing the list of the beneficiaries at the time when income is generated is a concern posed by FGD participants. Such activities will simply dismantle the effort of conservation through social forestry programs. This gives a message that co-management of SRF would also be jeopardized if potential political interference is not taken care of. Insurance for the SRF resource collectors The collectors take high financial and life risks during collection of products from the forest as the act of pirates (demanding high ransom) and tigers has been cited by a large number (30%) of 167
Page 1 and 2:
INTEGRATED PROTECTED AREA CO-MANAGE
Page 3:
Washington, DC 20036 202-289-0100 F
Page 6 and 7:
money lenders) who were often suspi
Page 8 and 9:
2.1 Profile of SIZ Districts ......
Page 10 and 11:
5.3.6 Shrimp Small (galda and bagda
Page 12 and 13:
Table 3.13: Distance of harvest pla
Page 14 and 15:
Table 5.20: Distribution of SRF act
Page 16 and 17:
Figure 5.1: Basic structure of SRF
Page 18 and 19:
Figure 5.55: Distribution of income
Page 20 and 21:
Acronyms and Abbreviations ACF = As
Page 22 and 23:
Glossary Arat Aratdar Bahaddar Baza
Page 24 and 25:
In particular, the study is expecte
Page 26 and 27:
Characteristics of SRF Actors and P
Page 28 and 29:
The most difficult problem that had
Page 30 and 31:
GDP and Livelihoods Based on availa
Page 32 and 33:
Occupation Pattern of SRF Collector
Page 34 and 35:
Chapter 4: Mapping for Core Steps a
Page 36 and 37:
Nevertheless, the shrimp fry collec
Page 38 and 39:
Crab Chain: Collector ⇒ Mahajan
Page 40 and 41:
Value addition and return for gura
Page 42 and 43:
Value addition and return for hilsh
Page 44 and 45:
Wholesaler 3.1 26.1 19.3 Retailer 1
Page 46 and 47:
Crab Crab collectors provide the hi
Page 48 and 49:
Distribution of Actors Income - Inc
Page 50 and 51:
Shrimp Large (galda and bagda) The
Page 52 and 53:
Majhis/Beparis (9.5 %), Choto Mahaj
Page 54 and 55:
of value chains, in terms of return
Page 56 and 57:
Service Centers and Financial Suppo
Page 58 and 59:
those leased-out canals. There shou
Page 60 and 61:
Infrastructure of web-cam through o
Page 62 and 63:
Chapter 1: Introduction, Study Back
Page 64 and 65:
Although the resource users are bla
Page 66 and 67:
advocates of conservation in return
Page 68 and 69:
1.4.1 Principal Tools Briefly, the
Page 70 and 71:
Shrimps have been divided into four
Page 72 and 73:
In the process of our consultations
Page 74 and 75:
The value chain framework, which is
Page 76 and 77:
The study carries out micro level a
Page 78 and 79:
an idea about possible market power
Page 80 and 81:
Table 1.4: Usual harvest time of SR
Page 82 and 83:
others, occupational pattern, incom
Page 84 and 85:
Chapter 2: SIZ District and Upazila
Page 86:
Map 2.2: Map of SIZ Districts: Khul
Page 89 and 90:
Table 2.2: Proportion of SIZ area a
Page 91 and 92:
SIZ 58 55.7 93 44.5 5 25 Districts
Page 93 and 94:
Figure 2.5: Per capita district GDP
Page 95 and 96:
Figure 2.7: SIZ per capita lands by
Page 97 and 98:
CHAPTER 3 FINDINGS FROM THE SURVEY
Page 99 and 100:
Satkhira 60 25.3 Pirojpur 11 4.6 Ba
Page 101 and 102:
Retailer 107.2 30.2 All 87.5 48.7 F
Page 103 and 104:
Like in other harvests, some of the
Page 105 and 106:
Aratdars (11.6%) and Farias/Beparis
Page 107 and 108:
Table 3.13: Distance of harvest pla
Page 109 and 110:
Hantal 1.0 16.0 1.0 1.0 19.0 All 1.
Page 111 and 112:
8.Unemployed 7.Self-employed 6.Cons
Page 113 and 114:
Table 3.19: Repayment mode in SRF t
Page 115 and 116:
In spite of the above, dadon is pre
Page 117 and 118:
Incidence of pests 8.9 24.9 48.1 7.
Page 119 and 120:
• Set up hand-driven tube-well at
Page 121 and 122:
3.5 Historical Moratorium on SRF Pr
Page 123 and 124:
Chandpai .15* - 1.62** .16* .17* .1
Page 125 and 126:
CHAPTER 4 MAPPING FOR CORE STEPS AN
Page 127 and 128:
Table 4.1: Sectors and products und
Page 129 and 130:
We start with timber 4.3.1 Timber -
Page 131 and 132:
4.3.3 Fish The fish sector consists
Page 134 and 135:
Shrimp (Galda and Bagda) Chain 1: F
Page 136 and 137:
Flow chart 4.8: Value chain for Cra
Page 138 and 139:
Average number of boats involved in
Page 140 and 141:
ola Khulna 1019 200 58 31 10 2 12 1
Page 142 and 143:
year. On the assumption that one ac
Page 144 and 145:
600 569 000 no. 500 400 300 200 225
Page 146 and 147:
Table 4.11: Proportions of SRF prod
Page 148 and 149:
Figure 4.7: Volume of products (%)
Page 150 and 151:
Chapter 5: Value Chain Analysis for
Page 152 and 153:
Beparis sell, in addition to Choto
Page 154 and 155:
Volume of trade The price value add
Page 156 and 157:
5.2.2 Gura Fish As large network of
Page 158 and 159:
140 Gura fish selling price (Tk per
Page 160 and 161:
A specific group of people having g
Page 162 and 163:
Sada fish gross return (monthly) by
Page 164 and 165:
Net/boat owners are actually Mahaja
Page 166 and 167:
Figure 5.17: Hilsha gross return (T
Page 168 and 169:
Gross returns and net returns Aratd
Page 170 and 171:
Figure 5.23: Shrimp galda large net
Page 172 and 173:
Figure 5.25: Shrimp bagda large sel
Page 174 and 175:
Table 5.7: Value addition and retur
Page 176 and 177: Figure 5.31: Shrimp galda small net
Page 178 and 179: Figure 5.36: Shrimp bagda small val
Page 180 and 181: Average selling Price/piece Price V
Page 182 and 183: Figure 5.40: Shrimp fry galda value
Page 184 and 185: Shrimp fry bagda value addition (%)
Page 186 and 187: Crab gross return (monthly) by acto
Page 188 and 189: Note: See note under Table 5.1. (10
Page 190 and 191: Honey net return (monthly) by actor
Page 192 and 193: The degree of inequality is quite h
Page 194 and 195: Cumulative income share (%) 100 80
Page 196 and 197: Figure 5.59: Lorenz curve: Gura fis
Page 198 and 199: Decile 8 14.6 Decile 9 17.9 Decile
Page 200 and 201: Annual income level (%) of SRF Acto
Page 202 and 203: Actors Monthly income Duration (Mon
Page 204 and 205: Table 5.24: Annual income level of
Page 206 and 207: Annual income level (%) of SRF Acto
Page 208 and 209: anking actors, it can be seen that
Page 210 and 211: In terms of distribution by deciles
Page 212 and 213: Table 5.32: Annual income level of
Page 214 and 215: Decile 3 2.9 Decile 4 3.9 Decile 5
Page 216 and 217: CHAPTER 6 CONCLUDING REMARKS AND PO
Page 218 and 219: actors community). Our survey findi
Page 220 and 221: The foremost policy, therefore, wil
Page 222 and 223: nets” to the collectors, along wi
Page 224 and 225: empowerment, awareness and overall
Page 228 and 229: SRF collectors as a major problem o
Page 230 and 231: the problem as very high is more th
Page 232 and 233: Bernacsek, G. and E. Haque (2001).
Page 234 and 235: Kleih Ulrich (2003). “Fish Distri
show all

INTEGRATED PROTECTED AREA CO-MANAGEMENT (IPAC) - BIDS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?