INTEGRATED PROTECTED AREA CO-MANAGEMENT (IPAC) - BIDS

those leased-out canals. There should be strict regulations to check these types of activities so
that the reproduction of the fishes or other species is not hampered.
Co-management and Conservation of the SRF
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. Not many people 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.
Some of those who know about it admit that the co-management approach is likely to equip the
poor to resist pressure from the powerful who destroy the natural resource base more often for
personal benefit. On the other hand, some appear to be a bit critical about co-management as,
according to them, this would not give direct benefits to people at large but this might ultimately
benefit a group of political and powerful section instead. The stakeholders asserted that the
refutation culture of a present 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 comanagement
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.
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” 19 . This merely highlights the importance of protecting the SRF. While IPAC has
enthusiastically initiated the process of protecting the environment through co-management,
further mobilization of the grass-root level 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.
People, by and large, are also aware that the gradual depletion over the years has resulted in the
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
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, of all the
issues, then the poverty situation needs to be tackled first for the success of co-management.
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 both in 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.
19 See, for example, Landell-Mills (1995).
liv