Agricultural Research Management Information System

Home
Research Summary
Search
About Us
- ARMIS
- Brochure
Contact Us
Report
User Request
Data Input
Help
- Operation Manual
  - PDF
  - Video
- Program Area & Commodity
We have reached 37600 number of research entries at this moment.

- Logout

Research Detail

Home
Research
Detail

Improving Livelihood Status Through Collection and Management of Forest Resources: an Experience from Sylhet Forest Division, Bangladesh

Most. Jannatul Fardusi
Department of Forestry and Environmental Science, School of Agricultural and Mineral Sciences, Shahjalal University of Science and Technology, Sylhet-3114, Bangladesh

Md. Habibur Rahman
Department of Forestry and Environmental Science, School of Agricultural and Mineral Sciences, Shahjalal University of Science and Technology, Sylhet-3114, Bangladesh

Bishwajit Roy
Department of Forestry and Environmental Science, School of Agricultural and Mineral Sciences, Shahjalal University of Science and Technology, Sylhet-3114, Bangladesh

Abstract/ Executive Summary:

This paper explores the role of forest resources in improving the livelihood status of forest dependent people in and around two forest ranges of Sylhet Forest Division of Bangladesh. We conducted an intensive field survey from early-May to mid-August, 2010. We collected primary information through community profiles and household interviews using a semi-structured questionnaire focusing on socio-demographic, livelihood activities and overall impacts on forest resources. A total of 58 respondents from two forest range (36 from Kulaura and 22 from Habiganj-2 range) were interviewed. Data analyses show that overall, 26% and 33% of the people, are totally dependent on forest for their livelihoods in two range respectively. About 42 plant species belonging to 32 families were used by the people among trees were dominated (50%) followed by herbs 29%. People collecting forest resources especially NTFPs and building materials helps them meet important household needs and sources of income such as leaves and medicinal herbs, food for livestock, fruits, fuelwood and honey; while also supporting the production of secondary goods like processed or prepared food (animal and vegetable), baskets and other crafts. It concludes that both research on the use of forest resources and co-management practices should be implemented through forest dependent people to continue to live in and around the study areas in a sustainable manner.

Keywords: Protected areas, Co-management, NTFPs, Fuelwood, Forest resources

Location: Sylhet, Sunamgonj, Moulovibazar, and Habiganj

Start Date: 00-05-2010

End Date: 00-08-2010

Program Area: Socio-economic and Policy

Non-commodity: Livelihood

Objectives:

The objective of this study, as reported in this paper, were to explore the socio economic and livelihood status and dependency on forest by the local people of two forest ranges of Sylhet Forest Division namely Kulaura and Habiganj-2 range, and also evaluate the co-management impact on their livelihood.

Methodology:

The Sylhet Forest Division is extended over four districts, namely Sylhet, Sunamgonj, Moulovibazar, and Habiganj under the central circle of the Forest Department. The division is bounded by the Khasia and Jainta Hills of India on the North; Patharia Hills, Tripura and Assam in the East; the international boundary with Tripura State of India and Brahmanbaria District in the West. Out of the total area of about 13, 647 sq. km. in the greater Sylhet division, the Forest Department administers 784.2 sq. km. (about 5.5% of the total area) area (Chowdhury, 2006). There are 47 Beats dividing the reserved area for the purpose of forest management and administration. These Beats were previously administered under 9 Ranges. In recent years, the numbers of ranges have been increased to 13 (Chowdhury, 2006). The study was conducted in the Kulaura and Habiganj-2 range of Sylhet Forest Division under Kulaura and Habiganj Sadar Upazila (sub-district) respectively (Figure 1). Kulaura Upazila (Maulvi Bazar district) with an area of 679.25 sq km, is bounded by Fenchuganj and Barlekha Upazilas on the north, Tripura state of India on the south, Tripura and Assam state of India on the east, Kamalganj and Rajnagar Upazilas on the west (Ahmed, 2006). Habiganj Sadar Upazila (Habiganj district) with an area of 253.74 sq. km. is bounded by Baniachang and Nabiganj Upazilas on the north, Chunarughat and Madhabpur Upazilas on the south, Bahubal Upazila on the east, Lakhai Upazila on the west (Hossain, 2006). The area of Kulaura and Habiganj-2 forest range is 13,580.60 acre and 16,255.29 acre respectively. Kulaura range is divided into six beats namely Gazipur, Vatara, Baramchal, Monchara, Nalduri and Murichara. Among these, Gazipur, Vatara and Baramchal beats are reserve forest and the remaining beats are acquired forest. Habiganj-2 range is divided into four beats namely Kalenga, Rema, Cashidpur and Chanbari; the largest wildlife sanctuary in Bangladesh namely Rema-Kalenga Willdlife Sanctuary is under this range. Figure 1: Location map of the study area METHODS For the study conducted an exploratory survey during May 2010 to August 2010. Multistage random sampling was adopted for the study. In Kulaura forest range two forest beats were selected randomly such as Gazipur and Baramchal and in Habiganj-2 forest range two forest beats namely Kalenga and Chanbari were selected randomly. About 36 respondents were selected from Kulaura and 22 respondents from Habiganj-2 for interviews randomly. These samples may not be representative of the whole area, but do represent the selected villages. A semistructured questionnaire was used in household interviews. Then began study by preparing community profiles to learn details of the community. After that collected primary information from key informants, drew community maps, conducted transect walks, and engaged in focus group interviews. For properly gather information conducted four focus group discussions (two in each beat) to learn about the livelihoods and social conditions of the local people. For collection appropriate information also conducted a ‘footpath survey’ (Appasamy, 1993; Ganesan, 1993) as cross checking to test the reliability of the data over a period of two month. This provided data on the type of collection of forest resources (dry or green) and amounts collected along forest paths by head loads and shoulder loads. We collected information by observing the collectors coming out from the park at the time of 12.00 p.m. to 2 p.m. Field observations together with household’s interviews were important to study the extraction patterns of forest resources.

Source of Information: Int. J. for Usuf. Mngt. 12(2 ) 59-76 (2011) ISSN 0972-3927

Article Link (Online Journal):

Funding Source:

Budget:

Total Budget (Tk.) :

Achievement/Findings:

In general, the respondent surveyed believed that collection will increase with time in the study areas if they are managed sustainably. This requires monitoring operations and alternative income generating sources for villagers living in and around forest. Forest villagers believed that forest products especially NTFPs provide an important source of income for sustaining their daily needs. Respondents report that their agricultural yields are under continuous threat from wild boars, monkeys and illegal fellers. They felt that NTFPs collection has decreased in some areas of the study areas, due to dwindling resources in forests and the resulting increased protection, and reduction in demand from secondary traders. Livelihood costs of households could be significantly higher if the forests were guarded-either by the local community or by government foresters. Moreover, co-management approaches are particularly suitable for the study areas because local communities are dispersed throughout the forest. These people practice cultivation and depend on forests for their livelihood needs. On the other hand, proper understanding of the levels of social relations in community-based forest management has important welfare implications, especially for the livelihood security of poorer households, as they should not be made worse off from institutional changes in resource management. Therefore, local people, local forest officials, and Forest Department staff members should work together to achieve the goals of the co-management project for sustainable livelihoods of the local people.

Knowledge Management: Journal