THE PROJECT PLAN

Community Action on
Protection of Village Common Forests in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh

1.00 THE CHANGE AGENDA AND RATIONALE
1.01 The change agenda and the aim of the project

Since a long time, although formally it was recognised by a law in 1939, the indigenous communities in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) of Bangladesh have been managing the village forests – commonly known as ‘village common forests’ (VCFs) or ‘mouza reserves or circles’ by following the customs and traditional practices. However, in the recent times, the VCFs have come under severe threats due to many factors, one of which is lack of tenural security for village forests. In this backdrop, this project aims at strengthening indigenous collective ownership over the village common forests (VCF) through developing community protocols.

1.02 Why it is important

Village common forests (VCFs) play a very important role in the day-to-day life of indigenous communities economically and ecologically. These forests are outside the government administered forest categories. VCFs are small patches of forests covering on average 50 - 300 acres in and around the villages and traditionally are managed by indigenous communities under the traditional leadership of mouza Headmen and Karbaries (village heads) (1) . VCFs have come into being in response to the resource constraints caused by the increasing deforestation, and restrictions imposed by the state through declaring ‘reserved forests’ as well as ‘protected areas’ in the indigenous territories (Halim and Roy, n.d; and Baten, 2009).

Without any government supports, indigenous communities have been managing VCFs in CHT of Bangladesh. Some studies such as Halim and Roy (2006; n.d.) and Baten et al (2009) and Baten (2010) have shown that VCFs provide indigenous communities with significant social and economic benefits. These benefits include: i) VCFs are a source of non-timber forest products (NTFs) e.g. biomass, medicinal plants, roots and wild vegetables that are necessary for every-day life of the community people; ii) conservation of biodiversity - forest covers help retain water in the springs or aquifers in the village. In addition, VCFs also serve as sanctuaries for flora and fauna; and iii) income support for the poor families – they can collect NTFs to earn income during the hard time in a year. In addition to these benefits, VCFs are considered to be “one good solution and role model” to save forest and climate-induced impacts (Sleeping Beauty, a blogger comments on my blog, 21 April 2010). This view is also supported by Baten (2010).

Despite these benefits, in the recent times VCFs are rapidly diminishing due to some external factors, of them the major ones are: i) lack of express legal safeguard to VCFs, although some laws recognise them; ii) privatisation of forest lands; iii) encroachment upon VCFs due to increasing population; iv) conflict between the customary resource rights and national laws (ibid). All these factors are progressively contributing to the loss of indigenous rights over forests and natural resources.

Under these circumstances, it is essential to achieve the state’s recognition of indigenous collective ownership over VCFs towards ensuring environmental justice as well as livelihood security of indigenous families in CHT, Bangladesh. Therefore, this project aims at strengthening indigenous collective ownership over village common forests (VCF) through formulation of community protocols.

2.00 SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND CORE ISSUES

In order to understand the systems, it is important to do a stakeholders’ analysis and issue analysis with narratives or stories of the people concerned, and understand the policy or decision-making issues (Waltner-Toews et. al, 2004). In accordance with this premise, I shall discuss the historical background of VCFs; laws and policies; governance or institutional arrangements and the interests of stakeholders that shaped the systems of the management VCFs in CHT.

2.01 The background of CHT and VCFs

The Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) comprising three Hill Districts namely Rangamati, Khagrachari and Bandarban lies in the south-eastern part of Bangladesh (see the map in figure 1). It is a home to eleven indigenous communities(2), who are largely dependent on forests and forests resources for their livelihoods. Once swidden agriculture on the hill slopes - locally known as jhum cultivation (see the figure 2) - was and still is the dominant mode of production in CHT. However, since the British colonial period to the present Bangladesh regime, the successive governments adopted policies that progressively undermined the indigenous customary rights over lands and common resources. As a result, the state interferences made their lives and livelihoods more precarious than ever before. Under such situation the indigenous communities did not have alternatives but to devising new forest management approaches such as VCFs towards adapting with the changing environment (Halim and Roy, 2006). In a word, the continued resource constrained imposed by the state policy gave rise to VCFs in CHT, Bangladesh.

   

  Figure1: the location of CHT, Source: wikipedia    

 

 Figure 2: jhum cultivation, photo: Midori Matsuda

2.02 The state policy on forestry (from the British period to Bangladesh times)

The alienation process of indigenous communities from their traditional lands dates back to the colonial history. According to Halim et. al. (n.d.) and Mohsin (2003) indigenous peoples have lost their control over forests with the annexation of CHT to the British colony. In order to maximise revenues from forest resources the then British government in 1875 declared two types of forests: reserved forests (RFs) and district forests (DFs) through restricting jhum cultivation and use of forest resources by local indigenous communities (Halim et. al. n.d.; Mohsin, 2003 and Rashul, 2005). By introducing RFs and DFs, the then British government curbed the indigenous customary rights. For instance, one quarter of the total forest lands under the category of RFs went to the sole control of the Forest Department (FD), in which jhum cultivation or any other forms of resource use by local communities had been strictly prohibited. On other hand, local indigenous communities were allowed to have access to forest resources in DFs to some extent, but with certain restrictions imposed by the district administrator – the Deputy Commissioner from time to time (Mohsin, 2003: 25). Later the British authority consolidated its power over forests and forest resources through various legislations, for example, the Forest Act 1927 (which is still a valid law in Bangladesh for forest management).

After the British rule, the Pakistani regime(3) also adopted the same policy of state control over the use of forest resources for commercial and industrial purposes (Rasul, 2007: 158). In 1960s, the then Pakistan government undertook mega development projects such as the Kaptai hydroelectric dam and established a new forest resource-based agency the Forest Industries Development Corporation (FIDC) for extraction and manufacturing of forest resources. The dam brought about massive human and ecological disasters by submerging a vast land area including forest covers in CHT region. In addition to human and ecological disasters, the Pakistani policy of industrialisation or commercialisation of forests and expansion of the RFs led to further curtailment of the indigenous rights over common property resources (ibid).

In 1971, Bangladesh became independent from Pakistan. The newly independent state - Bangladesh - also continued appropriating forests resources in line with the colonial and Pakistani polices (Mohsin, 2003). Now, there exist three categories of forests: reserved forests (RFs), protected forests (PFs) (formerly ‘districts forests’) and unclassed state forests (USFs)(4) , which being the village common forests (VCFs) to local indigenous communities. The state has retained the absolute control over the former two categories of forests; while there is a conflicting view between the government and indigenous communities about the resource rights over the latter category (Roy, 2003: 23). According to the Forest Department (FD), these USFs are khas land (government owned lands outside the RFs and PFs), but local indigenous communities consider these forests as common property, over which they have the right to enjoy the collective ownership.

2.03 Forest Laws and VCFs

There are a few laws that govern the forest administration in CHT as well as Bangladesh. The main law applicable for forestry management in Bangladesh is the Forest Act 1927, which was enacted by the then British government. However, the then British government also enacted special laws that are exclusively applicable for CHT. One of such laws is the Chittagong Hill Tracts Regulation 1900(5) , which is considered to be the safeguard for protection of indigenous rights including common property resource rights.

The Forest Act 1927 is the basis for forest management in Bangladesh, but it is applicable in CHT only to that extent as much as it is consistent with the Chittagong Hill Tracts Regulation 1900. Under the Forest Act 1927, only three categories of forests have been recognised: reserved forests (RF), village forests (VFs) and protected forests (PFs), but the Forest Department has added another category of forest - unclassed state forests (USFs) for the management and control of forests. However, the concepts of the village forests as contained in this Forest Act, and the USFs are not the same with the VCFs in CHT.

In contrast to the Forest Act 1927, the CHT Regulation 1900 (Rule 41A) authorises the traditional administrative heads – mouza headmen for preserving village common forests, also known as mouza reserves. Subsequently, this law had been applied and clarified through passing ancillary standing orders (SO) by the district administrations during the British and Pakistan periods (Halim et al, n.d.: 7). By this law and the SO, the traditional administrative heads – mouza headmen and karbaries, the village heads – had been authorised to maintain VCFs for conservation of bamboos, trees and other forest resources that would meet the needs of constructing houses and domestic purposes of the villagers.

Apart from these formal laws, indigenous communities also follow the customary laws that are based on customs and beliefs for management of natural resources, for example, jhum cultivation. Moreover, collecting forest produces from VCFs is also governed by customs and practices.

2.04 Forest governance and the stakeholders

As discussed in the sections 2.02 and 2.03, the Forest Department uses three categories of forests namely: RFs, PFs and USFs. In practice, there is no big difference between RFs and PFs as both categories are administered by FD under the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF). In the former category of forests, community people do not have access to forest resources, although they might have some access to PFs.

In contrast to these two categories, the USFs are controlled by the district administration, in which the Deputy Commissioner is being the representative of the central government. In USFs, community people are allowed to practise jhum to some extent and have access to forest resources for domestic uses (Roy, 2003: 23). However, there is a conflict in the concept of resource ownership between the government and indigenous communities. USFs, which are considered as khas (government owned) land by FD, are nothing but VCFs. Indigenous communities believe that these VCFs are common property over which they have the collective ownership.

In 1998 under a new legislation the government had established a new administrative system – Hill District Council (HDC)(6) chaired by an indigenous person towards ensuring self-governance system for indigenous peoples in CHT. Following the new Act, the control and management of lands including village common forests [section 22 (5)(e)] is supposed to be delegated to HDC, although the government is yet to act on this provision of the law (Halim et al, n.d.). However, now HDC holds the authority of controlling and transferring the lands outside the RFs and PFs.

Fig 3: The Management of Forest of in CHT region

Source: Halim and Roy (2006: 8)

Along with the general administration and special self-governance system, the traditional administrators – the circle chief/raja, mouza Headmen and village heads karbaries –have the major roles to play in managing VCFs within their respective jurisdiction. At the grassroots level, the roles of Headmen and karbaries are the most predominant for protecting VCFs.

Thus from the aforementioned discussion, it is clear that the primary stakeholders are the indigenous communities and traditional administrators – circle chiefs/rajas, Headmen and karbaries; while the secondary stakeholders include the district administration (represented by the Deputy Commissioner), the Forest Department, and the Hill District Council (HDC). The roles of the stakeholders as expressed in terms state (the district administration, Forest Department), and indigenous peoples (represented by circle chiefs and mouza headmen) with regards to USFs/VCFs and RFs have been illustrated in the figure 3 (the management of forests in CHT). The figure clearly shows that RFs are solely controlled by FD; but in case of USFs or mouza circle areas (VCFs) there is an overlapping and conflicting control between traditional administration; and district administration and FD. On top of them, as per the new legislation, HDC is expected to be the supreme authority in management of VCFs including other forests resources at the district level in CHT. However, HDC has not been empowered by the government to exercise that right.

2.05 The missing gaps between policy and practices

From the aforementioned analysis, it is clear that there are general and local laws which gave the basis of governance systems for forest management and general administration alongside the traditional administrative systems. Due to pluralistic systems and actors, we can see some missing gaps between policy and practices. These gaps are:

i) The state imposed restrictions on the indigenous people’s common property resources through various mechanisms such as declaration of RFs and PFs, but the state did not ensure indigenous people’s access to natural resources and livelihoods. In response to resource constraints, indigenous communities gave rise to VCFs;

ii) Subsequently, for own interest the state provided legal recognition of VCFs by laws, for instance, the CHT Regulation 1900 and the executive orders. However, these laws did not give express clarifications as to indigenous collective ownership over VCFs;

iii) Conflicts in the concepts of ownership over USFs versus VFCs, i.e. customary collective ownership versus private ownership. This non-recognition of customary rights gives rise to conflicts between indigenous communities and the government (FD and district authority);

iv) The new system HDC is yet to be empowered by the government as per the law. On the other hand, there are conflicting roles or lack of coordination between the traditional administration (circle chiefs and mouza Headmen) and state (district administration and FD) about VCFs management.

3.00 THE STRATEGIES FOR COLLECTIVE ACTIONS

In order to achieve the objective of my change agenda, I shall adopt a set of strategies considering the political, legal, administrative, and cultural systems in CHT. Moreover, the internal (strengths and weaknesses) and the external (threats and opportunities) factors that might have impact on the change agenda, have been considered, while setting the strategies. However, the strategies for this project have been drawn on the results of the analysis of stakeholders and the core issues along with policy environment and governance on forest management as well as VCFs in CHT (discussed in the section 2). By taking the overall issues into account, I shall employ the following strategies to ensure collective action on protection of VCFs in CHT, Bangladesh.

3.01 Community participation in developing a common vision on VCFs

Community participation is essential to achieve the goal of any change agenda. Here community participation is not an end, but should be a process. As Sherry Arnstein (1969, cited in Green and Haines 2002:36-37) has argued that “power and control over decisions” are integral part of public participation. Therefore, in order to give the stake to community members in decision-making process at local level, in particular, this project focuses on community participation to develop a common vision on the management of VCFs in CHT. As per Sherry Arnstein’s participation ladder, this project will build on three rungs “partnership, consultation and informing” for ensuring community participation, although the latter two rungs are considered to be ‘tokenism’. However, “consultation” and “information” sharing processes are important for community people to take informed decisions about VCFs in their villages. At the same time, it is necessary for community people to work in partnership with other stakeholders such as opinion leaders, development workers and network organisations towards developing a common vision – the desired future and action plan on VCFs.

3.02 Networking and resource mobilisation

Community members alone cannot substantially influence the policy-making processes at the top level of the government. So, networking with individuals and other organisations is considered to be more effective in forming public opinions and raising voices on the importance of VCFs. Considine (2005: 6-7) suggests three types of networks for generating new forms of governance: inter-organisational networks (interface of public and private organisation); networks of individuals; and inter-agency networks (e.g. service networks).

Particularly for this project, a network of individuals comprising community leaders, community workers, professionals and youths is considered to be useful. Despite some weaknesses of this type of network, it has more potential than other two networks for community development, if the interaction process is facilitated properly. Among the strengths of this network are: first, it encourages individuals from different disciplines to participate in the goal setting, for example, community visioning; second, such network can identify and include individuals from ‘inside-out’ and ‘outside-in’. For example, a forest department official might have difficulty to speak against the government policy, but he/she can provide valuable advices to community people through network members. Third, the network members can bring about rippling effects on the community and policy-making processes through raising a collective voice. By taking these strengths into account, the project will make attempts in establishing a network of individuals from various disciplines.

Simultaneously, to strengthen the network, the project will mobilise the local resources – for example, valuing the local knowledge in VCFs management, and establishing supports and solidarity among local community leaders and organisations. The network will capitalise on the indigenous values such as ‘sharing and caring’ each other. Revival of cultural values will add a value to the network.

3.03 Awareness raising and dialogue on confronting opponents’ views

Awareness raising and dialogues on the issues of concerns are essential to bring about a social change. In case of VCFs, this strategy is considered to bring about a positive change. Already we have a legal framework, although there is a lack of express understanding on the mode of resource ownership. On the other hand, the dominant social forces – the mainstream policy makers are not aware of the indigenous customary rights and forest management practices. Because of these factors, there exists a conflict of paradigm between the so-called ‘scientific method’ and ‘backward method’ of resource management. In such circumstances, awareness raising and dialogues on the VCFs is urgent to overcome the opponent or negative views.

To deal with the opposition Shields (1994:53) suggests for building up relationships with them, however it might sense contradictory. It is argued by Shield that opposition does not come only from the “other side” (power holders and policy-makers) but also from “own-side”, where various factions and hardliners may get involved in fighting with each other. Considering this dichotomy, the two-pronged measures could be undertaken: first, awareness raising on VCFs through different media; and second, issue-based dialogues in a number of ways, e.g. community dialogue and e-discussion forum on blog that would stimulate thoughts and reduce the gaps of understandings, as people from both sides will have the equal opportunity to participate in the discussion board.

3.04 Strengthening the community organisationsOrganisations are the main vehicle for achieving social change goal. This project intends to achieve the first order change such as adoption of community protocols by drawing on customs and existing practices, which would be used later as collective bargaining tool with the duty-bearers. Keeping this objective in mind, an emphasis will be given on strengthening the CBOs as well as the traditional administrations. Given my limitation for being away from the direct contact with CBOs, I shall give attention to keeping contacts with the networks that have direct working relations with community people. To strengthen the CBOs, some issues could be considered such as leadership and bargaining skills, organisational management, and conflict resolution skills and so on.

4.00 COMMUNITY ACTIONS: As Pawar (2010:64) suggests that community action includes “a range of actions” which could be “locality based” or “issue-based”. The concept of VCFs is applicable only for CHT region, and its protection is exclusively associated with recognition of the collective ownership of indigenous communities. Hence, my collective actions shall be both locality based and issue-based. Keeping this reality into consideration, I shall be carrying out collective actions with participation of community leaders, development workers, civil society members, activists, media people and CBOs, who are interested in VCFs and natural resource management. By analysing the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) of my project, and the strategies set herein, I shall carry out the following actions:

4.01 To disseminate information on VCFs and best practicesThe purpose of this action is to make aware duty bearers both the traditional administrators and government officials; and community leaders and community people, in general, about the value VCFs for ecological conservation as well as livelihood security of local communities. The information may include on the historical background, economic and cultural values of VCFs, relevant laws, customary rules and the present status of VCFs. Moreover, the project participants will bring in case studies on the best practices of VCFs. Subsequently, this information will also serve the purpose of advocacy and lobby with the duty-bearers.

4.02 To conduct issue-specific dialogues (online forum e.g. blog)

The purpose of this action is to gain in-depth understanding of the critical issues on VCFs, for example, the conflicting resource rights between indigenous communities and Forest Department; and the implications of general legal and administrative systems and so on. To facilitate the dialogues, participants will be advised to set agenda on specific issues which are considered to be important for discussion. Considering the limitations of organising a ‘real’ dialogue, the virtual dialogue forums such as online discussion – preferably the blog which is exclusively dedicated for the course of Community Planning, Engagement and Governance, will be used.

4.03 To facilitate development of Community ProtocolsThis action intends to conceptualise a common vision on achieving collective ownership over VCFs and forest resources by the community people. Among other issues, the community protocols are expected to include rules, and strategies and activity plan for the future community action on VCFs. However, the protocols have to be developed and adopted by the community people through intensive consultations and dialogues with participation of cross-sections of people. This project may not be able to result in adoption of community protocols, but it can facilitate a process.

4.04 To monitor and evaluate the projectTo monitor and evaluate the project activities is an integral part of community action. Throughout the semester, along with the course coordinator, fellow classmates, and community representatives, I shall monitor my project. In the end of the course, we shall evaluate the whole process and that will help to reflect on the future course of actions.

5.00 RISKS AND ASSUMPTIONS

In undertaking this work I shall need to be mindful of a few things: valuing indigenous knowledge and practices, and support from the local development/community workers, community leaders, professionals and media people. However, in terms of implementation, I envisage some possible risks which might affect the success of the project.

First, it might be difficult to ensure active participation of all stakeholders, especially the primary stakeholders. There are a few practical problems, which include difficulty to communicate in local languages, inaccessibility to internet and even print media. To overcome these problems, I shall build up relationships with the networks of individuals and CBOs/NGOs which are working with communities.

Second, the duty bearers including the influential stakeholders might have different interests or lack of interests in the project issue. For which they might not actively engage in the dialogue processes to express their views on the ways of overcoming the constraints facing the community people. To address this problem, the project has included strategies of networking and awareness raising through various media e.g. writing case studies on print media, blog and so on.

Third, the implementation of the project might not be easy. As it is completely an academic exercise, the project participants might not take it seriously. Only those people, who have academic inquisitiveness, might participate in the process. However, effective participation from the participants might not be at optimum level. To address this problem, the project has included the strategy of building networks with individuals who might have interest in the project.

Endnotes

(1)In the Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh, along with the general government administration, a three tiered traditional administrative system is in place namely Circle headed by a chief/raja; mouza by Headman and village by karbari. Traditionally a Circle is consisted of mouzas, while a mouza is a lower unit comprising several villages.

(2) Eleven indigenous communities in CHT are: Bawm, Chak, Chakma, Khumi, Khyang, Lushai, Marma, Mro, Pangkhua, Tanchangya and Tripura.

(3) In 1971 Bangladesh became independent from Pakistan. During the Pakistan regime, Bangladesh was known as East-Pakistan.

(4) According to the Department of Forest (FD), there are three categories of forests: reserved forests (RFs), protected forests (PFs) and unclassed state forests (USF). The first two categories of forests are completely administered by FD; while the later category USFs are under the control of district administration; and Hill District Council.

(5) The British government made a special law for the administration of the Chittagong Hill Tracts in 1900. This law is known as the CHT Regulation 1900, which is still valid in the CHT. Among other rights, this law recognises the traditional administrative system and the collective rights over village forests.

(6) The Deputy Commissioner, a public servant appointed by the central government, acts as an administrator at the district level, while the Hill District Council (HDC) is an elected body chaired by an indigenous person. Unlike any other districts of Bangladesh, the HDC is formed in 1998 as part of self-governance system for indigenous peoples in three hill districts of the Chittagong Hill Tracts.  



References

Baten, M. A (2009) ‘Village Common Forest in Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh: Balance between Conservation and Exploitation’, a paper presented at the First International Community Forestry Conference held in Nepal on 15 – 18 September.

___________ (2010) ‘VCF in CHT: A Sustainable Model of Forest Management’, the Daily Star, 13 February 2010, p.13

Considine, M. (2005) ‘Partnerships and Collaborative Advantage: Some Reflections on New Forms of Network Governance’. Background Paper for the Centre for Public Policy’s Governments and Communities in Partnership Conference, Melbourne Park, Victoria.

Green, G.P. and Haines, A. (2002) ‘The Process of Community Development’ in Asset-building and Community Development, chapter 3: 34 - 61, Thousands Oaks: Sage.

Halim et. al (n. d.) Natural Resource Management Country Studies, Bangladesh, United Nations Development Programme, Regional Centre in Bangkok.

Halim, S. and Roy, R. D. (2006) Lessons Learned from the Human Rights-Based Approaches in the Indigenous Forestry Sector in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh: A Case Study of the Village Common Forest Project Implemented by Taungya, viewed 19 March 2010, available at http://hrbaportal.org/wp-content/files/1233223431_8_1_1_resfile.pdf

Mohsin, A. (2003) The Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh: On the Difficult Road to Peace, International Peace Academy, the USA.

Pawar, M. S. (2010) Community Development in Asia and Pacific, New York.

Rashul, G. (2007) ‘Political Ecology of Degradation of Forest Commons in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh’, Environmental Conservation, 34 (2): 153 – 163
___________(2005) State Policies and Land Use in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh, International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), Kathmandu, Nepal, Series No. 119.

Roy, R. D. (2003) ‘Land and Forest Rights in the Chittagong Hill Tracts’, Talking Point (Bangla version), International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), 4/02B.

Shields, K. (1994) In the Tiger’s Mouth: an Empowerment Guide for Social Action. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.

Waltner-Toews et. al (2004) ‘Adaptive Methodology for Ecosystem Sustainability and Health (AMESH): An Introduction’. In G. Midgley and A Ochoa Arias (eds.) Community Operational Research: Or and Systems Thinking for Community Development, New York: Kluwer Academic, pp. 317 – 349.