Types of poachers: 

Unspecified

Details of 'other' poacher type: 

Project implementation

Is the project implemented by an external party? 

Yes

Implementing organisation: 

Local communities in cooperation with the Forest Department.

Name of funding organisation(s): 

The Committee was formed under the USAID Nishorgo Support Project (NSP), which works in Bangladesh to enhance protected area stewardship through comanagement arrangements. NSP provided technical support to the Committee from 2004 to 2008. From 2008 to 2013, the Chunoti Co-Management Committee has been run with reduced support under a complementary initiative – the USAID Integrated Protected Area Co-Management (IPAC) project – which has provided technical advisory services and other support over a five-year period to the government agencies responsible for the conservation of protected forests across Bangladesh. The German Society for International Cooperation (GIZ) has contributed funds to the initiative, specifically to support the creation of alternative income generation options for the community patrol group members.

Community organisation(s) involved: 

Approximately 9,400 households benefit from the co-management initiative.

Was the project established specifically to engage communities in combatting IWT? 

No

Year the IWT project or component started: 

Project status is currently: 

Ongoing

Case study information is up to date as of: 

2013
Community engagement

Approach taken to community engagement and its rationale: 

Community members are provided with livelihood alternatives in lieu of wildlife use

Details of 'other' community involvement approach type: 

Financial: 

Patrol teams are often comprised of women and poorer members of the community who receive a stipend of US$ 50 for joining the program. While the stipend provides an incentive for participation, the patrols are essentially volunteer-run. Many women community patrol group members have used their volunteer stipends to purchase cows which provide milk for consumption and sale.
 

Non-financial: 

Not specified.

The community engagement project is 

Stand alone initiative

Details of wider response: 

Do community guards carry firearms?: 

Do community guards conduct joint patrols with formal guards?: 

Are community guards unarmed, without armed backup?: 

Do community guards have rights of arrest?: 

Do community guards have specialist training: 

Are community guards covered by military law in the case of someone being killed or wounded?: 

The community has traditional authority to sanction poachers from within their community?: 

What “rules of engagement” for working with communities does the case study address? 

Include local people in wildlife monitoring and enforcement networks

Other key principles for engaging communities emerging from this case study: 

What has been the impact on poaching/IWT? 

Don’t know/Case study/project has not assessed impact on poaching

What has been the impact on wildlife populations? 

Not known/not documented

Further detail about the impact on poaching: 

Anecdotal observations report an increase in the number of elephants within the sanctuary.
What worked and why?; What didn’t work and why?

What worked about the community engagement approach and why? 

The lot of women in particular has been improved a great deal by the work of the initiative – a considerable achievement in a religiously conservative region, where women’s participation in decision making processes is not the norm. Women in the region are largely uneducated and homebound, with their roles limited by tradition. The empowerment of female community members through the creation of women-led community patrol groups, which patrol the forest alongside a forest guard a few times a week, has been recognized in international media and women are now taking an active role in protecting the wildlife sanctuary. In total, 424 patrol group members have received support to improve their incomes, and as a result many of them have moved out of poverty and begun sending their children to school.

What did not work and why? 

Not specified.

Further comments or additional information about community engagement: 

Co-management has required a great deal of investment in community capacity building, particularly on the management side. The history of tension between local practitioners and the government has also required an investment of time in conflict resolution, building trust and fostering cooperation.

 

Bibliographic information

Main source(s) of information: 

Published documentation

Title: 

Chunoti Co-Management Committee, Bangladesh.

Author(s): 

UNDP

Year of publication: 

2013

Journal/Book/Series details: 

Equator Initiative Case Study Series

Publisher: 

United Nations Development Programme

Place published: 

New York, US.

Title: 

Chunoti Co-Management Committee, Bangladesh. (Bengali Version)

Author(s): 

UNDP

Year of publication: 

2013

Journal/Book/Series details: 

Equator Initiative Case Study Series

Publisher: 

United Nations Development Programme

Place published: 

New York, US

Additional source(s) of information: 

Case study entry information

This case study entry compiled by: 

Francesca Booker

Date of case study entry: 

Tuesday, 20 September, 2016