The pros and cons of co-management: a case study from the Sundarban Delta

The Sundarban is the largest tidal halophytic mangrove forest of the world. Due to the geo-physical position and socio-economic context, the mangrove delta is highly prone to regular natural hazards like frequent cyclone and increased salinity. To shift the management from centralized to participatory to address anthropogenic climate change impacts and biodiversity conservation, Bangladesh introduced co-management in the Sundarban Delta in 2008. The objective of this co-management was to manage natural resource sustainably through adapting climate change impacts, enhancing biodiversity conservation, preserving the natural capital, promoting equitable economic growth and strengthening environmental governance. There is compelling evidence that co-management played a crucial role for achieving the objective. Objectives: This study aimed to measure the pros and cons of co-management. The main objectives of this study are as follows: 1. to explore the existing management problem, advantages and opportunities; 2. to examine the impact of co-management on climate adaptation, livelihoods, social disparity and biodiversity conservation; 3. to find out the appropriate solutions Methods: The Chandpai Range of Sundarbans was chosen as a case study because of its documented history and richness in floral and faunal diversity. A quantitative research method using closed-ended questionnaires was used. A comparative study was done categorizing the respondents as ‘people involved in co-management’ (PICM) and ‘people not involved in co-management’ (PNCM). The survey was designed to measure seven elements of capacity including aspirations; awareness; annual income; livelihoods; role in nature conservation and climate adaptation; and motivational skills. The interviews were structured consisting of 30 closed-ended questions. Most of the questions had a rating scale of 1 to 5. Respondents were asked to indicate the extent they agreed. Few suspicious respondents were closely monitored for tracing their real occupations and income. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics. Mann-Whitney U Test was used to test whether there were significant differences in perceptions between two independent groups. Lorenz Curve was prepared and Gini Coefficient was calculated to determine income inequality. Findings: The results showed that ‘people involved in co-management’ (PICM) significantly got better awareness than that of ‘people not involved in co-management’ (PNCM). People involved in co-management had more positive attitude and knowledge towards conservation and climate adaptation. Lorenz Curve and Gini-coefficient showed that co-management increased income inequality in PICM. About 1.3% of PICM were involved in poaching, where 4.7% in illegal logging. The most horrible thing was involvement of 1.7% of PICM in spraying poison over water of the canals including few Ramsar sites for sweeping fishes in easy way. So, the co-management was proved as a double-edged sword. Significance of the work for policy and practice: The co-management has resulted in some steps toward public awareness and participatory governance but has not adequately provided the mechanisms for playing a significant role for communities in integrated coastal management. In order to make co-management effective few recommendations are given: (1) excluding politically influenced muscle man; 2) enforcing existing laws against the culprits; 3) bringing the poachers, loggers and poison sprayers in a verdict; 4) shifting paradigms; 5) stopping over-extractions; 6) building green belt; 7) stopping brackish aquaculture; 8) restoring the canals from the grabbers; 9) aforestation in the degraded land with native species; 10) riparian plantation; 11) re- excavation of the silted canals and rivers; and 12) digging ponds and lakes for water security. Key words: Mangrove, Community, Income Equality, Double-Edged Sword, Challenges, Biodiversity.