Inadequate policy, strategic framework
for forestry development
by Niaz Ahmed Khan
Of late, the predatory nature of deforestation and recurrent natural calamities in the country has markedly brought home, yet again, the crucial importance, role and utility of the forestry sector. Notwithstanding the renewed emphasis and recognition, our understanding of the relevant policies and strategies guiding this nationally salient sector has been marginal, and there has so far been very limited effort to pull together (and put to context) the relevant information in this regard. In what follows, I attempt to review the relevant key policies, national documents and strategies concerning the management and philosophical underpinning of Bangladesh’s forestry with a view to furthering our understanding and appreciation of the sector – that is so intimately connected to our life and survival.
An analysis of the relevant national documents reveals that forestry is viewed within the broader context of the ‘poverty reduction’ goal of the country. Poverty reduction is the stated ‘overarching thrust’ of the government’s development philosophy and practice. Developmental programmes in the public sector are committed to contributing to poverty reduction through the promotion of pro-poor economic growth, social development and good governance. The government’s stated vision and strategy of development are astutely summarised in the National Strategy for Economic Growth, Poverty Reduction and Social Development, which reads: ‘The development vision in the present strategy embraces a comprehensive approach on a rights-based framework that highlights the need of progressive realisation of rights in the shortest possible time. Accordingly, poverty reduction and accelerating the pace of social development with particular emphasis on empowering the poor and achieving gender equality have been made the overarching strategic goals.’
The development vision conforms to the constitution as well as the government’s international commitments. The government is obliged by constitutional directives to provide for the development and sustenance of a society in which the citizens’ basic needs are met and every person can prosper in freedom. Among the international development frameworks, the government’s commitment to the UN Millennium Development Goals and the social targets laid out in the Partnership Agreement on Poverty Reduction with the Asian Development Bank are most notable. Some of the key MDG, which have a direct relevance to the government’s development vision, include the following: ‘Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger’; ‘Promote gender equality and empower women’; ‘Ensure environmental sustainability’; and ‘Develop a global partnership for development’.
Forestry development is viewed within the broader context of the development vision in general and the rural development in particular. For example, the Forestry Sector Master Plan, approved by the government for the period between 1995 and 2015, emphasises the crucial importance of ‘people-oriented programmes’ for the development of Bangladesh forestry, and notes: ‘The strength of Bangladesh is her people … Recognising that tree growing and forestry can contribute to poverty alleviation, the Plan will create conditions where people will benefit directly by participating actively in tree growing and forest management … Community forestry and socially oriented allotment forestry will be promoted by giving priority to poorer communities and poorer members of the community in the allocation of such contracts for tree plantations. Women and poor people who do not have a land based source of livelihood will be employed on priority basis in nurseries, plantations, forest management, harvesting and industrial work.’
The National Forest Policy, which was formulated in response to the vision and recommendations of the forestry master plan, identifies five ‘preconditions’ for the development of the forestry sector, which are meeting basic human needs, continued socio-economic growth, participation in decision making and benefit sharing, sustained political commitment, and sustainable utilisation of forest resources.
The policy announces a goal of increasing forest cover to 20 per cent of Bangladesh by 2015, and delineates a number of objectives and vision for the forest sector including the following: ‘To meet the basic needs of the present and future generations… by taking up various afforestation programmes’; ‘by creating employment opportunities, strengthening the rural and national economy, the scope for poverty alleviation and trees and forest based rural development sectors will be extended and consolidated’; ‘through participation of the local people, illegal occupation of forest lands, illegal tree felling and hunting of wild animals will be prevented’ (National Forest Policy 1994 in Bangladesh Gazette, July 6, 1995).
The above vision is in conformity with the National Rural Development Policy 2001, which underscores the need for exploring all possible means of expanding employment and decent income earning opportunities in rural areas along with measures to enhance the capacity and power of the rural poor to develop and sustain their livelihoods.
The last perspective plan document of the country, the Fifth Five Year Plan, identifies social forestry as one of the major thrusts of the strategy and programme of the forestry sector. The plan has the following vision for social forestry development: ‘Social Forestry has now become a social movement in Bangladesh. The programme includes expansion and strengthening of 335 thana nurseries, establishment of 2000 union level nurseries, expansion and strengthening of 80 forest extension and nursery training centres, distribution of 40 million seedlings and raising 19,000km of strip plantations. The local government bodies will coordinate the afforestation programmes at the grassroots level under this programme. NGOs will be more directly involved in afforestation programmes.’
The key objectives of the plan include the following: continue and expand people-oriented afforestation programs; elevate socio-economic well-being of the people; achieve meaningful participation of local people, local government bodies, NGOs and government agencies in forestry programmes; and expand and rehabilitate the forest resources to increase productivity.
In summing up, based on the above stocktaking of the relevant policies and guiding frameworks, a number of observations may be made. First, the country has a comprehensive set of relevant policies and strategies. In terms of the extent and coverage of the issues, the documents appear to be substantial by any standard. However, much of these voluminous documents remain uncoordinated and disjointed. There has been very little effort to pull together the existing literature into a unified and synthesised national framework. Secondly, a good number of the above documents show major overlap and ambiguities. A thorough review of the documents is imperative to trace the common thread binding these policies towards common national goals. Thirdly, the relevant institutions concerned with (and mandated for) promoting these policies and strategies remain generally uncoordinated. Fourthly, notwithstanding their philosophic thrusts and ethos, much of these documents suffer from the chronic problem of non-implementation and/or unacceptability slow pace of execution.
It is high time for all concerned to address the above limitations – if these policies and strategies are to move beyond the rhetoric, and make some meaningful contribution to the sector, and thereby to the nation at large.
Dr Niaz Ahmed Khan is professor of development studies at the University of Dhaka and honorary research fellow, Centre for Development Studies, University of Wales, UK. niaz.khan@yahoo.com
The ‘downside’ to an
attack on Iran
Speculation about a possible attack on Iran's nuclear facilities has, in fact, subsided somewhat over the past three weeks, although the issue has flared again as a result of successive visits by Israel's chief of staff and defence minister, Ehud Barak, over the past week. Indeed, the Los Angeles Times reported on Wednesday that top US officials had reassured Barack that the military option was still 'on the table', Jim Lobe writes from Washington
Amid rising speculation about the possibility of an Israeli or United States bombing attack on Iranian nuclear facilities earlier this month, a major study produced for the US Air Force by a top defence think-tank concluded that US military action against Iran was ‘likely to have negative effects for the United States’.
The study, by the Rand Project Air Force, a division of the California-based Rand Corporation, was released on July 9, the same day that Tehran test-fired medium- and long-range missiles in an apparent response to reports the previous week that Israel had carried out secret exercises designed to simulate a raid on Iran’s nuclear facilities the previous month.
Amid all the fireworks, however, the report, which also called for a multi-faceted strategy designed to encourage democratic development in Iran, was ignored by the mainstream media.
Entitled ‘Iran’s Political, Demographic, and Economic Vulnerabilities’, the 156-page report also called for Washington to ‘tone down’ its policy statements supporting ‘regime change’ and to ‘discourage Iranian ethnic groups from revolting against the regime’. Both policies, it said, are likely to be counter-productive.
Instead, according to the three main authors of the study, Washington should adopt a more patient approach, ‘designed to create conditions for effective relations [with Tehran] over the long haul’.
As with the Soviet Union, ‘[W]ith Iran, the US government will again need to keep an eye on the long term, communicating with the current government but also encouraging more discussion among Iranians and more contacts and interactions between Iranians and Americans.’
‘Societies and governments change. The US government has some ability to foster favourable trends in Iran, but these policies will take time to come to fruition,’ said the report, which also noted that Iran ‘appears to be on its way to becoming a nuclear power’.
Speculation about a possible attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities has, in fact, subsided somewhat over the past three weeks, although the issue has flared again as a result of successive visits by Israel’s chief of staff and defence minister, Ehud Barack, over the past week. Indeed, the Los Angeles Times reported on Wednesday that top US officials had reassured Barak that the military option was still ‘on the table’.
Still, most analysts believe that while such an attack –– either by Israel or the US –– remains possible, it is not probable, if for no other reason than the military brass in the Pentagon, especially the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, has made its opposition to the idea increasingly clear over the past month.
In addition, the decision to send a high-ranking State Department official to participate for the first time in talks 10 days ago with Iran as part of the ‘Iran Six’ process that also involves France, Germany, Britain, Russia and China has been taken as a signal that Washington is increasingly committed to diplomacy as the means to address its concern over Tehran’s nuclear programme.
If, in addition, the State Department receives White House approval for opening an Interests Section in Tehran –– a move that is currently the subject of discussions at the highest level of the administration –– the likelihood of an attack before President George W Bush leaves office will recede even further.
In that respect, the Rand study bolsters those who favour engagement with Iran, even as it also supports the maintenance of certain kinds of sanctions, notably the embargo on certain high-tech gas liquefaction technologies, as a bargaining chip for future negotiations with Tehran. To increase pressure on the regime, the report also recommends expanding contingency plans to seize Iranian foreign bank and commercial accounts and encouraging US allies to bar certain Iranian officials associated with the nuclear programme from obtaining visas for foreign travel.
As for the possibility of an attack, however, the report is clear that such an option will almost certainly be counter-productive, particularly with respect to Washington’s hopes that it could result in diminished support for the regime or even its overthrow.
‘A large majority of Iranians strongly believe that Iran has the same right as other nations to develop nuclear energy, including the construction and operation of nuclear enrichment facilities,’ it said. ‘If Iran’s facilities were to be bombed, public support for any retaliation its government took would likely be widespread.’
The most likely response, indeed, would be a ‘strong push to retaliate [as] [c]ritics of such a policy would likely choose to keep silent’ in the nationalist backlash that would ensue.
Moreover, such an attack ‘would be unlikely to stop the Iranian nuclear programme,’ according to the authors. While it might set back the economy in certain ways, the resulting increase in oil prices would enable the government ‘to finance the reconstruction of the facility and continue the current programme without major budgetary consequences’.
Another option, a blockade of Kharg Island, Iran’s main loading terminal, or the Straits of Hormuz to prevent Iranian oil from being exported, would indeed have a ‘devastating effect’ on Iran’s economy, but it would also ‘probably do more to solidify public support for the regime than weaken it’, according to the report, which also noted the likelihood that such a step would ensure a sharp rise in global oil prices and probably result in Iranian attacks on tanker traffic in the Gulf.
The report also warned against covert action programmes designed to aid minority opposition groups, as ‘Iranian security forces have convincingly shown that they can handle restive ethnic groups, and violent opposition to Iranian rule is more likely to entrench the current security and political forces than to elicit a positive change in regime policies.’
Instead, Washington should concentrate its efforts on fostering conditions for a more pluralistic Iran in favour of a more patient approach toward a regime that the report said ‘most Iranians perceive ... as legitimate’. It called for greater funding for programme that facilitate contacts between Iranians and US citizens and to encourage US officials and citizens to provide interviews and commentary for Iranian media ...’ At the same time, it should ‘mute US policy statements advocating regime change’ as the government often uses these as ‘an excuse for detaining individuals seeking more freedom’.
The report also calls for support of International Monetary Fund and World Bank efforts to encourage better economic management and cease US opposition to Iran’s accession to the World Trade Organisation.
Inter Press Service, August 1, 2008
Workers, not slaves
The Kuwaiti and Saudi
officials should offer public apology and pay adequate compensation for the physical injuries and the mental trauma suffered by the workers, writes Fazle Rashid from New York
The Bangladeshi diaspora in New York is seething with anger over the brutal, inhuman and slavish treatment meted out to Bangladeshi workers by the Kuwaiti and Saudi police and other government officials in those two countries. The Bangladeshis expressed their anger and indignation over the Foreign Office’s silence and utter callousness in taking up the matter with the Kuwaiti and Saudi governments.
This was a gross violation of human rights. The Saudi and Kuwaiti police treated the
workers like slaves. The Bangladeshis demanded that the issue should immediately be referred to the ILO, UN human rights council and Saarc.
The Kuwaiti and Saudi officials should
offer public apology and pay adequate compensation for the physical injuries and the
mental trauma suffered by the workers. Kuwait and Saudi officials should be severely reprimanded.
Bangladesh government must make it clear to the two governments that the way they acted does not conform to civilised norms. The Kuwaiti and Saudi governments should also be indicted for the breach of contract.
Saarc should take up the issue with the governments of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Workers from Bangladesh, India and Pakistan make up the bulk of the work forces of the two Middle Eastern countries.
Saarc should put pressure on the Saudi and Kuwaiti governments asking them to immediately frame a code of conduct commensurate with international ethics and norms.
The OIC should be the other forum where
complaints should be lodged but it would be too much to expect OIC taking actions against the two petrodollar-rich Arab countries.
If Bangladesh, Pakistan and India jointly took up the issue with Kuwait and Saudi
Arabia things would have considerably improved. But this is asking too much,
because the three countries can never reach a consensus.
Extremist Serb nationalists also
share Karadzic’s crime
Like Hitler’s willing Nazi executioners, Serbian extremists also share Radovan Karadzic’s crime against humanity. Without their support, Karadzic would not have succeeded in committing mass murder in Bosnia. These extremists should also be brought to justice.
Mahmood Elahi
Ottawa, Ontario
* * *
Can some one explain the difference between Karadzic’s actions from Blair and Bush’s?
Abid Raihan
Dhanmondi, Via SMS
* * *
In stark contrast to Karadzic’s action, Bush, Clinton and Blair interfere in other countries’ affairs and backyards under any pretexts to fit into their corrupt, imperial agendas!
Syed
Via SMS
Why is it necessary?
Why is it necessary for the army chief to assure the nation time and again that the army won’t get involved in politics?
Abul Kalam Azad
Barisal, via SMS
Food price rise
The rise of price of essential food items, especially rice, will ultimately start killing people if there is no commensurate increase in the wages of the people. All the right thinking people and all the political parties should sit together and advise the government on how to come out of the impending disaster. What is the use of election if there is a raging famine in the coming months?
F Islam
Dhaka
* * *
Hunger knows no excuse, so the masses will come out on the streets unless price hike of commodities is controlled. The government must control price hike or quit.
N Alam
JU, via SMS
Learn to feed
From Haiti to Bangladesh, everybody is uttering one mantra ‘every nation should learn how to feed their population’. Since the multinationals failed to feed the planet, this is the only choice for nations. When bodies like the WTO, World Bank and IMF advocated for removal of trade barriers and domestic subsidies, even from agricultural and food products, some people could foresee the disastrous consequences and protested. They were treated with tear gas canisters and water from water cannons. Now we are learning the lesson in a hard way.
MH Khan
On e-mail
|
Next on Quick Comments
| |
a. 181 more Bangladeshis deported from Kuwait (New Age, August 3)
b. Fakhruddin urges roadmap to fight poverty, accelerate growth: Proposes armed forces cooperation (New Age, August 3)
c. Truth Commission starts work today (New Age, August 3)
d. Committee yet to finalise report on high rises threatening aviation (New Age, August 3)
|
‘Quick Comments’, (01713-065-354, letters@newagebd.com, quickcomments@gmail.com ) seeks the readers’ instant reaction ondifferent national and international issues. Comments should be brief, not exceeding 150 words. Submissions should mention ‘Quick Comments’ and will be subject to editing for quality and clarity..
MAIN PAGE | TOP
|
|
