Role of non-timber forest products in sustaining forest-based livelihoods and rural households' resilience capacity in and around protected area: a Bangladesh study†

Abstract

People in developing world derive a significant part of their livelihoods from various forest products, particularly non-timber forest products (NTFPs). This article attempts to explore the contribution of NTFPs in sustaining forest-based rural livelihood in and around a protected area (PA) of Bangladesh, and their potential role in enhancing households' resilience capacity. Based on empirical investigation our study revealed that, local communities gather a substantial amount of NTFPs from national park despite the official restrictions. 27% households (HHs) of the area received at least some cash benefit from the collection, processing and selling of NTFPs, and NTFPs contribute as HHs primary, supplementary and emergency sources of income. NTFPs also constituted an estimated 19% of HHs net annual income, and were the primary occupation for about 18% of the HHs. HHs dependency on nearby forests for various NTFPs varied vis-à-vis their socio-economic condition as well as with their location from the park. Based on our case study the article also offers some clues for improving the situation in PA.

Socio-economic factors influencing household forest dependency in Chobe enclave, Botswana

“…Therefore, the time for collecting forest products is shortened for Kachikau residents, hence promoting sustained harvesting. This finding is consistent with other studies from elsewhere which established that proximity to the forests increases the likelihood of households to exhibit greater reliance on forest products compared to the furthest ones (Baiyegunhi et al 2016;Dagm et al 2016;Mukul et al 2016). Secondly, the findings revealed an inverse relationship between age of household head and forest dependency.…”

“…In North and South America, the contribution of forest income ranged between 14 and 20% of the total household income (Uberhuaga et al 2012;Córdova et al 2013). In Asia, forest income varied from 10 to 20% of the total household income (Mukul et al 2016). While in sub-Saharan Africa, forest income ranged from 30 to 45% of the total household income (Mamo et al 2007;Appiah et al 2009;Kalaba et al 2013).…”

“…About 1.6 billion people globally are substantially reliant on forests for livelihood sustenance (World Bank 2002). Numerous studies on forest-livelihood nexus have demonstrated the critical role of forests in livelihood sustenance and diversification and as a pathway for poverty alleviation (Mamo et al 2007;Vedeld et al 2007;Uberhuaga et al 2012;Mukul et al 2016). Forests are essential in provision of basic needs, cash savings and safety nets (Shackleton et al 2007).…”

“…Since time immemorial, forests and their associated products have remained essential in sustaining livelihoods (Mamo et al 2007;Bwalya 2013;Mukul et al 2016), particularly for the people of forest-dependent communities, who live in abject poverty (Shackleton et al 2007;Kabubo-Mariara 2013). About 1.6 billion people globally are substantially reliant on forests for livelihood sustenance (World Bank 2002).…”

Adaptive co-management as an approach to tourism destination governance – a case of protected areas in Bangladesh

“…One participatory governance approach that has been proposed as an alternative to traditional, topdown approaches is 'co-management' Aziz, 2008;Carlsson & Berkes, 2005;Mukul, Herbohn, Rashid, & Uddin, 2014;Mukul, Rashid, Quazi, Uddin, & Fox, 2012;Mukul, Rashid, Uddin, & Khan, 2016;Plummer & Fitzgibbon, 2004a, 2004bRashid, Craig, Jeffery, et al, 2013;Rashid, Craig, & Kahn, 2015;Rashid & Khan, 2014). Co-management can be defined as "a situation in which two or more social actors negotiate, define and guarantee amongst themselves a fair sharing of the management functions, entitlements and responsibilities for a given territory, area or set of natural resources" (Borrini-Feyerabend, Farvar, Nguinguiri, & Ndangang, 2000, p. 1).…”