Volume 1, Issue 3, September 2016, Page: 88-98
Analysis of Power Dynamics and Livelihood Assets in Participatory Forest Management: Experience from Bangladesh
K. K. Islam, Department of Agroforestry, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh City, Bangladesh;Forest Policy laboratory, Faculty of Agriculture, Kyushu University, Fukuoka City, Japan
Masakazu Tani, Department of Environmental Design, Faculty of Design, Kyushu University, Fukuoka City, Japan
Kazuo Asahiro, Department of Environmental Design, Faculty of Design, Kyushu University, Fukuoka City, Japan
M. Zulfikar Rahman, Department of Agricultural Extension Education, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh City, Bangladesh
Kimihiko Hyakumura, Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Kyushu University, Fukuoka City, Japan
Takahiro Fujiwara, Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Kyushu University, Fukuoka City, Japan
Noriko Sato, Forest Policy laboratory, Faculty of Agriculture, Kyushu University, Fukuoka City, Japan
Received: Jul. 13, 2016;       Accepted: Jul. 25, 2016;       Published: Aug. 10, 2016
DOI: 10.11648/j.ijnrem.20160103.14      View  4140      Downloads  103
Abstract
Participatory forestry (PF) plays a significant role to involve local communities and different actors in resources management and livelihood improvements. However, the power of important actors to misuse the PF for their self-interest has been stated as a key obstacle to success. Hence, this study seeks to identify the most powerful actors and the extent to which they affect PF decision- making and also to measure and evaluate the livelihood assets of participants. Empirical data were collected from Madhupur and Teknaf PF sites of Bangladesh during the different time intervals. The actors’ power analysis found out that the forest administration evidenced itself as the most powerful and influential actors in PF. In the case of livelihood analysis, the overall results indicated that the total value of PF members’ livelihood assets were 0.82 and 0.75 for Madhupur and Teknaf study sites. Livelihood asset conditions were significantly different between the PF members’ and non-members’ (0.65 and 0.62 for non-members’). However, the development of social and financial assets did not reveal a notable increase considering natural, physical and human assets. Therefore, it is very important to pay more attention to accelerate social and financial assets through intensive training, establishing conflicts resolution mechanism and adopting proper tree-crop technologies, and also provide alternative livelihood approaches to the forest dependent people. In addition, there is an immediate need to empower local PF members, by which the general members play the central role in decision making and governing all of their development activities.
Keywords
Actor, Power, Participatory Forestry, Livelihood Assets, Bangladesh
To cite this article
K. K. Islam, Masakazu Tani, Kazuo Asahiro, M. Zulfikar Rahman, Kimihiko Hyakumura, Takahiro Fujiwara, Noriko Sato, Analysis of Power Dynamics and Livelihood Assets in Participatory Forest Management: Experience from Bangladesh, International Journal of Natural Resource Ecology and Management. Vol. 1, No. 3, 2016, pp. 88-98. doi: 10.11648/j.ijnrem.20160103.14
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Reference
[1]
Brown, F. P. (2009). Participatory forest management discourse in South Africa: ecological moderation in the developing world. Ph. D. Thesis; University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.
[2]
Ribot, J. C. (2004). Waiting for democracy: the politics of choice in natural resource decentralization. World Resource Institute, Washington DC, USA, p. 140.
[3]
Islam, K. K. & Sato, N. (2012a). Participatory forestry in Bangladesh: has it helped to increase the livelihoods of Sal forests dependent people. Southern Forest: A Journal of Forest Science, 74 (2): 89-101.
[4]
Larson, A. M. & Ribot, J. C. (2007). The poverty of forest policy: double standards on an uneven playing field. Sustainability Science, 2 (2): 189-204.
[5]
Peluso, N. L., Tumer, M. & Fortman, L. (1994). Introducing community forestry: Aaaotated Listing of Tropics and Readings, Rome, FAO, UN.
[6]
Hobley, M. (2004). Players in the Sector- Civil Society, Private Sector and Donor Agencies. Available at: http://www.cambodia-forestsector.net/docs-part2.htm. Accessed 12. 06. 2014.
[7]
Sharma, N. N. & Acharya, B. (2004). Good governance in Nepal’s community forestry: translating concepts into action. In: Kanel, K. R., Mathema, P., Kandel, B. R., Niraula, D. R., Sharma, A. R. and Gautam, M. (Eds.). Proceeding of the 4th national workshop on community forestry, 2004, August 4-6, Kathmandu, Nepal.
[8]
Barrow, E., Clarke. J., Grundy, I., Jones, K. R. & Tessema, Y. (2002). Analysis of Stakeholder based natural resource management: creating space for local people to participate and benefit? Natural Resource Perspectives. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 320.
[9]
Devkota, M. (2010). Interests and power as drivers of community forestry: a case study of Nepal. Ph. D. Thesis; University of Gottingen, Germany.
[10]
Krott, M. (2005). Forest policy analysis. Dordrecht, the Netherlands, Springer.
[11]
Islam, K. K. & Sato, N. (2012b). Deforestation, land conversion and illegal logging in Bangladesh: the case of the Sal forests. iForest, 5: 171-178.
[12]
Islam, K. K., Ullah, M. O., Hoogstra, M. & Sato, N. (2012). Economic contribution of participatory Agroforestry program to poverty alleviation: a case from Sal forests, Bangladesh. Journal of Forestry Research, 23 (2): 323-332.
[13]
Muhammed, N., Koike, M., Haque, F. & Miah, M. D. (2008). Quantitative assessment of people oriented forestry in Bangladesh: A case study from Tangail Forest Division. Journal of Environmental Management, 88 (1): 83-92.
[14]
Sharma, B. P. (2006). Poverty alleviation through forest resource management: an analysis of leasehold forestry practice in Nepal. Available at: http://www.sandeeonline.com/uploads/general_docs/research_guidlines/bishnusharma.pdf. Accessed 22. 11. 2013.
[15]
Tyler, S. D. (2006). Community based natural resource management: a research approach to rural poverty and environmental degradation. International Development Research Centre. Available at: http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-103630-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html. Accessed 22. 12. 2013.
[16]
Bond, A., Davis, C. N., Nott, K. & Stuart, G. (2006). Community based natural resource manual. WWF- World Wide Fund. pp. 24-52.
[17]
Barrett, C. B. & Swallow, B. M. (2004). Dynamics poverty traps and rural livelihoods. In: Ellis, F and Freeman, A (Eds.). Rural livelihood and poverty reduction policies. Routledge, London, pp. 103-165.
[18]
Fometer, T. & Vermaak, J. (2001). Community forestry and poverty. Rural Development Forestry Network. Network Paper, Vol. 25h. Overseas Development Institute, UK. pp. 1-8.
[19]
Shahbaz, B. (2009). Dilemmas in participatory forest management in northwest Pakistan: a livelihoods perspective. Human Geography Series, 25: 15-16.
[20]
West, W. F. (2004). Formal procedures, informal processes, accountability, and responsiveness in bureaucratic policy making: an institutional policy analysis. Public Administration Review, 64 (1): 66-80.
[21]
Maryudi, A. (2011). The contesting aspiration in the forests: actors, interests and power in community forestry in Java, Indonesia. Ph. D. Thesis; University of Gottingen, Germany.
[22]
Webber, M. (1964). Basic concept of sociology. New York, USA.
[23]
Krott, M., Bader, A., Schusser, C., Devkota, R. & Maryudi, A. (2013). Actor-centered power: the driving force in decentralized community based forest governance. Forest Policy and Economics, In press.
[24]
Chambers, R. & Conway, G. (1992). Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts for the 21st Century. IDS Discussion Paper 296, Institute for Development Studies, Brighton, UK.
[25]
Stephen, M, Nora, M. & Moses, A. (2009). Livelihood approach: a critical analysis of theory and practice. Geographical Paper No 189. University of Reading, UK. pp. 4-23.
[26]
Carney, D. (1998). Sustainable rural livelihoods; what contribution can we make? Department for International Development, London.
[27]
Hussein, K. & Nelson, J. (1998). Sustainable Livelihood and Livelihood Diversification, IDS Working Paper, No. 69. Brighton, Institute of Development Studies.
[28]
Das, N. (2009). Can joint forest management programme sustain rural life: a livelihood analysis from community-based forest management groups? MPRA Paper No. 15305. Available at: http://www.mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/15305/. Accessed 20. 11. 2013.
[29]
Chen, H., Zhu, T., Krott, M., Calvo, J. F., Ganesh, S. P. & Makoto I. (2013). Measurement and evaluation of livelihood assets in sustainable forest commons governance. Land Use Policy, 30: 908-914.
[30]
FD (Forest Department). (2014). Land and forest area. Official website of Bangladesh Forest Department, Government of Forest. Available at: http://www.bforest.gov.bd/act.php. Last accessed 02. 10. 2014.
[31]
Islam, K. K. & Sato, N. (2013). Protected Sal forests and livelihoods of ethnic minority: Experience from Bangladesh. Sustainable Forestry, 32 (4): 412-436.
[32]
Schmidt, V. A. (2000). Democracy and discourse in an integrating Europe and a globalizing world. Security, 24 (4): 5-38.
[33]
Schusser, C. (2013). Comparative analysis of community forestry: theoretical and methodological requirements. Ph. D. Thesis; University of Gottingen, Germany.
[34]
Jonas, N. & Pfisterer, L. (2010). Measurement of concentration and market power. Available at: http://www.wiwi.unikl.de/dekanat/blank/Segelseminar2010/11/Marktmacht.pdf. Last accessed 20. 07. 2014.
[35]
Coleman, E. A. & Fleischman, F. D. (2012). Comparing forest decentralization and local institutional change in Bolivia, Kenya, Mexico, and Uganda. World Development, 40 (4): 836–849.
[36]
Shackleton, S., Campbell, B., Wollenberg, E. & Edmunds, D. (2002). Devolution and community based natural resource management: creating space for local people to participate and benefit? Natural Resource Perspective, 76: 1–6.
[37]
Sobel, J. (2002). Can We Trust Social Capital? Journal of Economic Literature, 40 (1): 139-154.
[38]
World Bank. (2002). Impact on migration on economic and social development: a review of evidence and emerging issue. Available at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/TOPICS/Resources/2149701288877981391/Migration&Development-Ratha-GFMD_2010a.pdf. Accessed 13. 05. 2014.
[39]
Gain, P. (2002). The last forest of Bangladesh. Society for Environmental and Human Development (SEHD), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
[40]
Safa, M. S. (2004). The effect of participatory forest management on the livelihood of the settlers in a rehabilitation program of degraded forest in Bangladesh. Small-scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy, 3 (2): 223-238.
Browse journals by subject