Shifting Paradigm of Governance in Natural Resource Management in Bangladesh: From Centralist to Pluralistic Approach in

1. A.Z.M. Manzoor Rashid Donna Craig Sharif Ahmed Mukul Shifting Paradigm of Governance in the Natural Resource Management Sector of Bangladesh: Centralist to pluralistic approach in forest protected areas management

2. Preambles Sustainable development (SD), biodiversity conservation and livelihood are key to all development initiatives in NRM sector. Good governance is crucial to achieve all these agendas; ... however, it is poorly reflected in national policies and political agendas in most developing countries !

3. Governance for SD: Conceptual framework • Governance takes central role in all SD paradigms; • SD requires sustainable livelihood , improved environmental protection through the integration of modern science and widespread public participation and local governance; • Brundtland Report, Rio Declaration (Agenda 21), CBD principles extended the importance of governance for conservation and sustainable use of biological resources; • The context of governance varies significantly ranging from global, national and local setting to social and institutional setting;

4. Contd … “Governance is the interactions among institutions, processes and traditions that determine how power is exercised, how decisions are taken on issues of public and often private concern, and how citizens or other stakeholders have their say” • Generally it’s about power, relationships and accountability; “ “Governance addresses decisions, who makes these decisions and how while Management is about what is done about a particular site or situation ” • The concept of governance provides directives that need to look beyond the government towards a public-private-civilsocietypartnershipin order to overcome the shortcomings of the long practiced traditional top-down approaches.

5. Governance Principles: Cross cutting Global Context Legitimacy and voice • Participation and consensus Accountability • Accountability • Transparency Performance • Responsiveness • Effectiveness and efficiency Fairness -- Equity and Rule of law Leadership/Direction • Strategic vision

6. 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); • Fragile institutional 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; • Increasing depletion of the forest and its resources fuelled by social, economic and political drivers; • Poor governance further worsened the forest and forestry sector.

8. Evolving Trend of Community Participation in Forestry • Growing concern on biodiversity conservation; • Bangladesh responded through participating in many ICTPs; • 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; • Upazilla and District coordination committees consulted to maintain decorum.

9. 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.

10. 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 n Nishorgo , Co-mgt concept replicated in 18 PAs including wetlands in the name of IPAC; • Resulted in the formation of CMC and CM Committee; • Institutional legitimacy given to CMCs through gazette notification; • Nucleus body for overall decision-making process.

11. Insights from the field Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary and Lawachara National Park

12. Some earlier initiatives …

13. Institutional Governance 1. Forest Department • Accountability enhanced to some extent; • Trustand performance is still a concern; • Top-down approach persisting; • Still highlights the physical achievement (plantation); • Do not own the concept; • Political management is influencing the process of environmental governance; • Excessive donor dependency; • Absence of internal funding mechanism to sustain the concept/programme like other projects;

14. Contd… • Discontinuation of the process and concept; • Lacking in institutional and personnel capacity; • Financial abuse and management lackings resulted in image crisis; • International development partners inclined to NGOs; • Stereotype replication ignoring location and social context of the respective PAs; • Conflict and contradiction with other state agencies (poor coordination).

15. Contd… 2. Co-management Council and Committee • Represented and dominated by local elites; • Tangible benefits still the mainstay of the involvement; • Too many tiers (PF, VCF, CPG, YC) make the system complex- needs revisit; • Encroachment reduced significantly but the former incidents of encroachment is a big concern; • Financial and technical sustainability of CMC is a concern; • Poor monitoring and awareness by FD and other stakeholders; • Insufficient funding for AIG. Overhead is the major costing head. Livelihood issues are poorly addressed; • Failed to integrate livelihood with conservation interventions effectively.

16. Images from the field …

17. The Challenges… • Political willingness and commitments for conservation; • Sustainable sources of funding, inadequate manpower • Forest tenure reform/Ownership; • Transparency in fund and resource management; • Poor socio-economic contexts in the forest and PA areas; • Lack of public awareness regarding conservation for livelihood; • Poor collaboration and lack of trust between community and state agencies; • Lack of coordination among agencies(overlapping); • Ensuring active participation of the marginalized people.

18. Road ahead: Future directives • Needs mainstreaming of the concept; • Institutional and personnel capacity building of FD and other stakeholders; • 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; • More room for active woman participation through right based approaches; • NGOs should be the partner in the process not the substitute of state agency/ mechanism;

19. Contd… • Political commitment should be reflected through action; • Media intervention to create awareness and enhance transparency. • Environmental governance should be the integral part of national development programme; • Forest tenure reform is the need of time; • Sense of ownership to the community; • Strengthening of local institutions with all inputs.

20. Thanks forlistening!