Protected Area Management in Bangladesh describes the country's approach to protected area (PA) management. It discusses Bangladesh establishing its first PAs in the 1980s, with current PAs covering 1.8% of land. Around 72% of PAs are now co-managed through participatory systems involving local communities. The document outlines challenges with previous top-down management and how co-management aims to empower local stakeholders and ensure participation in PA conservation and management.

1. Protected Area
Management in Bangladesh
A centralist to Pluralistic Approach
PRESENTED BY
GROUP-03

2. According to IUCN-
A clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed,
through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation
of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values.
What is Protected Area?
Establishment of PAs has emerged as a key conservation strategy in the backdrop of
rapid deforestation and biodiversity losses worldwide.

3. Protected Areas (PAs) in
Bangladesh
• Declaration of PAs started at 1980s
• Number of PA – 34 nos excluding 4
marine PAs.
• Area – 265,402.66 ha which is 1.8% of
Country land and 17.5 % of forest.
• Proposed 14 PAs with 13,642 ha.
About 72% area of PAs
are managed under
Participatory system
(co-management)

4. DETAILS OF FPAs IN BANGLADESH

6. NRM in Bangladesh
 A land hungry populous country;
 Once rich floral and faunal diversity under severe stress affecting both
livelihood and biodiversity;
 Colonial and post colonial NRM policy motivated towards revenue generation;
 Command ‘N’ Control approach in NRM ( i.e. forest management);
 Fragileinstitutional capacity and coordination;
 Adhoc nature of management further worsen the situation;
 Community participation ignored in decision-making process.

7. Forestry Sector of Bangladesh:Policy, programme
and governance features
 Rooted through colonial legal and policy frameworks;
 Forest perceived only as commodity;
 Classical approach of management;
 Plantation was the mainstay of FD;
 Social, cultural and ecological dimension overlooked;
 Community participation in the management process
neither recognized nor present;
 Poor governance further worsened the forest and forestry sector.

8. Evolving Trend of Community
Participation in Forestry
 Growing concern on biodiversity conservation;
 International agencies, development partners continuously developing legal and
policy frameworks;
 Forest Act (1927), Forest Policy 1979, 1994, FMP are the basis for all
planning and management interventions in BGD;
 Community participation officially coined in 1980’s in the name of CF, SF;
 Physical coverage increased significantly;
 Brought degraded and denuded lands under plantation but failed to
ensure active participation;

9. DEVELOPMENT OF PARTICIPATORY FOREST MANAGEMENT REGIME
IN BANGLADESH
 Community Forestry Project (1981-1987)
 Thana Afforestation and Nursery Development Project (1989-1996)
 Forestry Sector Project (1998-2004)
 Sundarbans Biodiversity Project (1999-2006)
 Coastal Greenbelt Project (1995-2002)

10. Community Participation and Governance in
Forestry Sector: The dilemma
 Passive community participation- participants were not actively involved in the
planning, monitoring and related management activities;
 Benefit sharing mechanism influenced the governance and management attributes;
 Top-down management approach was still dominating in the process in the name of
participatory forestry;
 Women participation in planning and decision-making process was absent although
their involvement in protection and maintenance of plantation was remarkable;
 No voice on species selection;
 Marginalised and grassroot people still devoid of their voice dominance of rural elites in
many instances.

11. Co-management in the PAs of Bangladesh:
A journey towards shared governance
 PAs were rich in biodiversity and resources hence exploited ruthlessly;
 Felt the need of collaborative approach in the backdrop of institutional and
management failure of FD to protect and sustain PAs (Centralistic management);
 Pilot project in the name of Nishorgo; initiated in 5 PAs on 2003;
 Based on the initial success and experiences of MACH & Nishorgo , Co-mgt concept
replicated in 18 PAs including wetlands in the name of IPAC ,currently functioning under
the project call CREL.

12. People’s Participation through co-management
 In Bangladesh Sharing of responsibilities established through formation of Co-
management Councils and committee (CMC). It provides legal basis of the co-
management and framed by Govt. on 15 May 2006.
 Co-management committee responsible for management of PAs on local
stakeholders participation. They perform management activities of PA under the
guidance of council and approval of the forest department. Also initiate patrols for
maintenance PAresources.
 People (30-100) of the adjacent villages organized to form Village Conservation
Forum (VCF) with 1/3 female members, Peoples Forum (PF) with One pair of
VCF member elected. Community Patrol groups (CPG) , Youth Clubs (YC) and
Nishorgo sahayak (NS), Eco-Tour guides are selected from villages and represented
in CMCs.

13. Structure of CMOs
Elites
8%
Govt. Agen
11%
Foresters
12%
Local reprs
9%
Local People
54%
Wood Entr
6%
Co-M Council
Elites
7%
Govt.Agen
10%
Foresters
28%
Local repr
7%
LocalPeople
45%
Wood Entr
3%
Co-M Committee
CM Council (65 ) CM Committee (29)
Elites 8% 7%
Govt.Agencies 11% 10%
Foresters 12% 28%
Local representatives 9% 7%
Local People 54% 45%
Wood Entrepreneur 6% 3%
Local people represented by PF, CPG, Minority andNC

14. Current co-management activities under Nishorgo
reduce illegal extraction &
unsustainable practices
empower local stakeholders
ensure local participation

15. Co-management
activities under Nishorgo
develop market
opportunities,
information,
technology and
credit
training to build local capacity

16. Programs to reduce dependency of local community on PAs
 Nursery development ; People to grow indigenous
seedlings and sale to meet local demand.
 Participatory plantations; Benefit sharing
agreements with local people.
 Community patrolling and protection.
 Household income generation activities ;
Beef/Milk cowfattening, Poultry rearing,
weaving.
 Nature Tourism; eco-cottages, eco-guiding.
 Branding of local products; Local handloom
cloths, Bamboo or Date palm baskets.
 Carbon Sequestration financing plan.
 Landscape development; Facilitate living
condition of local communities and
 Improved Cook Stoves; Biogas plants , Solar
energy
NatureTourism
Community Patrolling

17. Challenges for Co-Management Practice
 Accountability and transparency of Co-management committees.
 Trust and cooperation between agencies and actors of the CMCs.
 Political manipulation
 Command and controlling mentality of local elites in committees.
 Legal atributes like acts, rules, policies etc. are not clearly and widely
shared to the community.
 As access to PA decreases, hidden linkages to forests
may be emerging: new sets of loggers
 Focus only on highly- dependent villages
 Uneven/ inappropriate distribution of support
 Exploitation of PA resources through empowerment of
local community.
PF member asking forbenefit

18. Road networks within PAs illegal logging
invasive alien species NTFPs collection from inside the PAs.
MAJOR THREATS OF PAs IN BANGLADESH

19. Fire wood extraction Human settlement
Hunting Agriculture
MAJOR THREATS OF PAs IN BANGLADESH

20. Unplanned Eco-tourism Encroachment
Climate change Fragmentation
MAJOR THREATS OF PAs IN BANGLADESH

21. RECOMMENDATIONS
 Bringing all remaining natural forest patches under a well defined PA management
system
 Institutional and personnel capacity building of FD and other stakeholders
 Recruiting only and only forestry personnel as conservator
 More focus on creating alternative income generation options in areas near to
forests and protected areas
 Forest and biological resources should not be treated as commercial product for
revenue generation
 Creating opportunities to develop eco-tourist industries based on PAs, and
using these to generate local income sources
 Restoring and managing buffer zones as an alternative resource exploitation

22.  Media intervention to create awareness and enhance transparency.
 NGOs should be the partner in the process not the substitute of
state agency/ mechanism
 Establishing a separate institution specifically for the
management and monitoring of PAs
 Environmental governance should be the integral part of national development
programme
 Political commitment should be reflected through action;
 Forest tenure should be reformed
RECOMMENDATIONS
Contd.

23. Thanks for your worthy patience