Bangladesh:
The role of the ADB and World Bank in the destruction of the “forest
of the fallen leaves”
The last remnants of forests
in Bangladesh are disappearing and much of the blame goes to
local peoples’ “slash and burn” agriculture.
The government –supported with loans and funds from multilateral
and bilateral financial institutions- is actively promoting the
plantation of trees and would thus appear to be trying to revert
the situation.
However, the opposite is true.
While indigenous peoples’ traditional shifting cultivation
(jum) has historically proven to ensure the survival
of the forest, government/IFI-sponsored
“reforestation” is destroying the last remnants of
true forests.
The “sal forest” is
but one of several examples of the above, as the following excerpts
from Philip Gain’s “Stolen Forests” clearly
show:
“The traditional sal
[Shorea robusta tree] forest used to extend over the Modhupur
Tract as well as over the districts of Dhaka, Rangpur, Dinajpur
and Rajshahi. However, today the remnants of the sal forest
do not represent its tradition. Most of the sal forestland
has been denuded and encroached upon or taken over for commercial
or industrial plantation of exotic species and agricultural
use. A small part of the sal forest has also been
converted to rubber plantation.”
“There are unique characteristics
of the sal forest that is also known as the forest of
the fallen leaves. Its one unique feature is that it regenerates
with little care. The patches of the sal forest that
still survive are the ideal habitat for hundreds of native species.
Although sal is the dominant species (up to 70 per cent
of the stands) in this forest, there are countless other species
of plants including medicinal plants, fruit trees, uncultivated
vegetables, herbs, creepers, and thousands of other life forms.
Not long ago, the sal forest used to be the safe sanctuary
for wildlife such as the tiger, bear, monkey, langur, and birds.
The sal forest of unique genetic and wildlife resources
has now become history. It is now bereft of its traditions.”
“At one time jum agriculture
used to be practiced in the sal forest areas… The zamindars [big
landlords] permitted the Garos of the Modhupur forest to carry
out jum cultivation on the condition that they maintained
the forest. The maximum period for such cultivation in a plot
in the Modhupur forest was three years. After that sal and
other local species had to be planted to regenerate the forests.
The Garos would take the responsibility to create and tend such
forests. Jum cultivation was allowed in the Modhupur
forest throughout the British period. But the natural sal forest
remained intact and the forest people lived in peace. After the
forest was transferred to the Forest Department, jum cultivation
was banned in Modhupur.”
That measure not only deprived
local peoples of their means of livelihoods but led directly
to the destruction of the sal forest. Philip Gain summarises
the situation as follows:
“What is uniquely common
in the sal forest patches in recent times is monoculture
plantation of exotic species, acacia and eucalyptus being the
dominant ones. One traveling from Dhaka to North Bengal along
the sal forest belt will come across these plantations
almost everywhere. These two exotic species growing in rows and
devoid of understory vegetation is a common picture in the sal forest.
In most cases the monoculture plantation replaces the degraded sal forest
that could have been regenerated into the sal forest
again. In disagreement with the Forest Department, environmentalists
and professional foresters believe that monoculture plantation
in the sal forest is a disaster that could have been
avoided. What is ‘planted forest’ to the government
agencies and the IFIs, is actually monoculture plantations that
has no traditional and educational value.”
In his introduction, Gain explains
that “over the past one and a half decades I have learned
how wrongfully the ill-fated forest-dwelling communities and
their practices are frequently blamed for the ruin of the forests.”
However, that is far from being
the case and the blame lies squarely on ADB and World Bank-sponsored
plantation projects:
“I have witnessed how
the Modhupur sal forest has been stripped of its traditions.
Decay of forests is not unique in Bangladesh. But the introduction
of plantations –monoculture of teak, rubber, eucalyptus
and acacia- has horrendous consequences on these native forests.
In Modhupur, invasive species have made their way into the forestland
under the guise so-called ‘social forestry’ that
is plantation in essence. Here ‘social forestry’
that was initiated in 1989-90 was preceded by rubber monoculture
that destroyed a significant part of the sal forest. The
so-called ‘social forestry’ funded by the Asian Development
Bank (ADB) has caused immense ruin to the sal forest,
not only in Modhupur, but also in other sal forest patches
up to the northern tip of Bangladesh as well.” “In
Bangladesh while the plantation projects are implemented by the
government, they are financed mostly by the international financial
institutions (IFIs)-Asian Development Bank and the World Bank.”
Gain stresses that not only “plantations
are not forests at all”, but that they are one “of
the major factors that underlie the destruction of the forests
and the misery of the forest-dwelling ethnic communities.”
Four years after the publication
of his book, Philip has informed us that he met a top official
of ADB in January 2010, who “confirmed that the Bank has
completely withdrawn from the forestry sector in Bangladesh and
elsewhere in Asia since 2007. She also conveyed that ADB confesses
it did not perform satisfactorily with forestry projects. The
World Bank has also stopped funding forestry projects in Bangladesh.
This is a victory for us who have been telling the two IFIs that
they were ruining the forests by funding forestry projects.”
Article based on excerpts from
Gain, Philip (2006).- Stolen Forests, Bangladesh, SEHD and on
a message sent by the author to WRM on 16 February 2010. E-mail: sehd@citech.net
