See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/304454679

Competing policies to protect mangrove forest: A case from Bangladesh

Article  in  Environmental Development · June 2016

DOI: 10.1016/j.envdev.2016.06.006

CITATIONS READS

5 904

2 authors:

Asif Ishtiaque Netra B. Chhetri

University of Michigan Arizona State University
20 PUBLICATIONS   204 CITATIONS    42 PUBLICATIONS   2,941 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Multilevel Adaptation Governance in Bangladesh View project

Begnas Tal Rupa Tal View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Asif Ishtiaque on 20 July 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Environmental Development 19 (2016) 75–83

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Development
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envdev

Competing policies to protect mangrove forest: A case from

Bangladesh
Asif Ishtiaque a,n, Netra Chhetri b
a
School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning, Arizona State University, COOR Hall 5643-D, 975 S Myrtle Ave., Tempe, AZ 85287,
USA
b
School for the Future of Innovation in Society, Arizona State University, Interdisciplinary B 366, 1120 S. Cady Mall, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o abstract

Article history: Commercial shrimp aquaculture began in coastal Bangladesh in the late 1970s and now
Received 4 February 2016 represents the second-largest export sector after garments in the nation. Hailed as har-
Received in revised form binger of a blue revolution that could lift the people out of poverty and food insecurity,
15 June 2016
shrimp aquaculture has exploded across the Sundarban of southwest Bangladesh. This
Accepted 15 June 2016
rapid expansion threatens the natural mangrove ecosystem, particularly across the vul-
nerable coastal region. To ensure protection of the Sundarban, the government of Ban-
Keywords: gladesh devised two landmark policies: the Forest Act (1927) and the Forest Policy (1994).
Forest Policy Envisioning shrimp as an important foundation of the country's economic growth, the
Forest Act
government of Bangladesh also formulated the National Shrimp Policy in 2014. While, in
Shrimp Policy
the strictest sense, these policy instruments are designed to protect the Sundarban,
Sundarban
Chakaria multiple loopholes and sweeping approaches make it virtually impossible to attain the
Bangladesh intended outcomes. This is further compounded by the country's focus on commercial
shrimp farming. Our paper reveals the disconnect between the Forest Policy and Forest
Act by showcasing the Chakaria case, where thousands of hectares of mangrove forests
have been destroyed due to commercial shrimp farming despite the policy tools in place.
We further discuss the existing sweeping approaches and loopholes in the Forest Policy
(1994) and Shrimp Policy (2014).
& 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Mangrove forests represent one of the most diverse and dynamic ecosystems of the world (Hogarth 2007). Approxi-
mately 15.2 million hectares mangrove forest, found in the tropics and subtropics (FAO 2007), provide important ecosystem
services including the protection of coastal land from tidal waves, coastal erosion, and storms. Unfortunately mangrove
forests around the world are under severe stress - at least 23% of mangrove forests were lost in the past two decades (Giri
et al., 2011). The remaining forests are under constant threat from various human activities at or near the forest, such as
agriculture, aquaculture, and logging (Mayaux et al., 2005, Blasco et al., 2001). The world's largest contiguous mangrove
forest, the Sundarban, is no exception.
The Sundarban forest - in the delta of the rivers Ganga, Brahmaputra, and Meghna - is shared between Bangladesh
(
60%) and India (
40%) (Iftekhar and Islam, 2004) (Fig. 1). This tidal forest plays an exceptional role in the economy and

n
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Asif.Ishtiaque@asu.edu (A. Ishtiaque), Netra.Chhetri@asu.edu (N. Chhetri).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2016.06.006
2211-4645/& 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
76 A. Ishtiaque, N. Chhetri / Environmental Development 19 (2016) 75–83

Fig. 1. Sundarban mangrove forest is located at the southwest corner of Bangladesh. Three districts- Satkhira, Khulna, Bagerhat encompass this 6000
square kilometer mangrove forest.

ecology of the southwest region of Bangladesh (Fig. 2). Home to the rare Royal Bengal Tiger, it is rich in floral and faunal
biodiversity. Approximately 300þ species of flora (IUCN-BANGLADESH, 2001; Hussain and Acharya, 1994); 165 types of
algae (Gopal and Chauhan, 2006); 13 types of orchids (Dey, 2001); 964 species of invertebrates, 400 fish species, 58 reptile
species, and 8 amphibian species (Akonda, 2002; Naskar and Mandal 1999); 290 species of birds and 40 species of mammals
(Choudhury and Choudhury, 1994) and 15–20 species of migratory birds are found here.
Beyond extraordinary biodiversity, the Sundarban provides vital ecosystem services to the region. Acting as a buffer
against powerful cyclones and tsunamis, the forest protects the shoreline and inland settlements. With an annual average
sequestration of 4.8 Mt CO2, Bangladesh part of Sundarban alone impounds about 10% of Bangladesh's carbon emissions
(MEF-FD, 2011). It is also a direct source of livelihoods for approximately 300,000 people (Deb, 2001). For example, spe-
cialized groups such as bawali (wood collectors), mawali (honey collectors), chunari (snail, crab collectors), kathkurani (dry-
wood collectors), jele (fishermen), and sutar (boat makers) have developed survival skills that are reliant on the forest.
 A. Ishtiaque, N. Chhetri / Environmental Development 19 (2016) 75–83 77

Fig. 2. The economic roles of the Sundarban mangrove forest.

Additionally, three mills and factories, as well as boat industries, rely on the Sundarban for their raw materials (Dey, 2001;
Vannucci 2002). As mandated by the Bangladeshi government, these factories are required to follow extraction-regeneration
techniques, i.e. planting of new trees after the removal of old trees. Recognizing the importance of the biological richness
and ecosystem services to society, UNESCO declared 1397 square km (13%) of the Sundarban a World Heritage Site in
(WCMC, 2001) in 1997.
At the onset of British colonization in 1757 about 20 thousands sq. km. of the Sundarban mangrove forest was reported.
The urgency of expanding arable land to produce food for a growing population prompted widespread clearance that re-
duced the mangrove forest by half within a century (Blasco 1977). To stop further deforestation, the Sundarban was declared
as a reserve forest by the colonial government under the ‘Forest Policy 1894’ and ‘Forest Act 1927’. Since the introduction of
these two landmark policies, the Sundarban has been hypothetically protected (Giri et al., 2007, Datta & Deb 2012).
While the Forest Act has not been amended since its introduction in 1927, the Forest Policy has undergone several
changes resulting in a widening gap between policy and act. The apparent disconnect between the Forest Policy and Act has
allowed the government to clear forests for agriculture or aquaculture. The Chakaria mangrove forest, the second largest
patch of mangroves located in the southeast corner of Bangladesh, illustrates the worst of it. This 8510 ha of manmade forest
was declared as a reserve forest in 1903. However, in 1977 the government of Bangladesh opened the forest for commercial
shrimp farming. With a guaranteed loan from Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the World Bank (WB), the government of
Bangladesh had converted the entire forestland into shrimp ponds by 1995 (Hossain et al., 2001; Gain, 2002).
With the worthwhile goal of eradicating widespread hunger and generating export revenue, the Sundarban mangrove
forest of southwest Bangladesh became a haven for commercial shrimp farms (Alam et al., 2005; Pokrant 2006; Paul and
Vogl, 2011). The consequences of extended shrimp farms on the forest include: (a) loss of forest biodiversity due to excessive
capture of wild shrimp fry (BOBP 1990, Hoq, 1999); (b) poor growth of mangrove forests due to the discharge of polluted
water from commercial shrimp farms (Alam et al., 2007; Paul and Vogl, 2011; Chakraborty and Mukherjee 2013); (c) overall
deterioration of the mangrove ecosystems due to the construction of upstream barrages and the resultant reduced flow of
freshwater; and (d) increased salinity and water pollution due to the use of chemicals for intensive shrimp culture.
The destruction of Chakaria mangrove forest took place despite the fact that both the Forest Policy (1979) and Forest Act
(1927) were in place along with the new Forest Policy (1994). Yet, in 2014 the government of Bangladesh devised another
policy the ‘National Shrimp Policy’ with the stated goal of maintaining balance between shrimp production and environ-
mental consequences. Given that none of the policy tools designed to protect the mangrove forests have had any meaningful
result, skepticism abounds with regard to the actual value of policy and governance in Bangladesh.
An analysis of the literature on Bangladesh's forest policy leads to a number of insights. For example, Roy et al. (2012)
argue that the depletion of the Sundarban mangrove forest is driven by lack of clarity of property rights in the 1994 Forest
Policy. In their policy paper, Sadath and Krott (2012), distinguish between substantive and symbolic forest policies and
highlight that most of the recent polices are symbolic. Chowdhury et al. (2009a, (2009b) also reveal weak links between
conservation and commercial exploitation whereby the emphasis was tilted on the later. They accentuate the importance of
collaborative management with inputs from local people. Muhammed et al. (2008) suggest that another reason for the
destruction of mangrove forest in Bangladesh is the extremely long time lag between the formulation of policy and its
implementation and argue that the government has inadequate institutional support to adopt internationally derived forest
policies.
Regarding forest management policies in Bangladesh, why do well-designed policies fail to realize their intended goals?
What weaknesses are inherent in those policies? In this paper we explore and discuss some of the loopholes and sweeping
approaches of existing policy tools. Most importantly we discuss how the commercial shrimp farming took precedence over
the conservation of mangrove forests despite the rhetoric on sustainability and environmental conservation embedded in
78 A. Ishtiaque, N. Chhetri / Environmental Development 19 (2016) 75–83

the policies. Loopholes in policies are often ambiguous and may carry multiple meanings that stakeholders can manipulate
for their own benefit. For example, “sustainable use” and “commercial exploitation” of forests are rarely compatible. Sta-
keholders interested in commercial shrimp farming can have less interest in the sustainability of the forest. The sweeping
approaches are those that only provide broad guidelines and lack specificity. Existence of a sweeping approach makes the
policy difficult to execute while the existence of a loophole grants the misuse of policy. While reviewing the underlying
discrepancies between the Forest Policy (1979) and Forest Act (1927), the following sections identify some of the loopholes
and sweeping approaches in these policy tools.

2. Chakaria mangroves: an illustration of discrepancies between policy and action

Historically, far-reaching political changes have always been at the heart of forest policy in Bangladesh. With the sole
objective of managing the public forests as sources of revenues for the state, British India issued two landmark forest
policies: The ‘Forest Policy 1894′ and the ‘Forest Act 1927′.1 Both documents emphasized agriculture over forestry and
allowed forest clearance for agricultural purposes (Mustafa, 2002). After the partition in 1947, Bangladesh was recognized as
East Pakistan; the Pakistan government negated the 1894 act and formulated new forest policy twice- in 1955 and 1962.
With its emphasis on habitat protection and wildlife conservation, the Forest Policy (1955) was considered to be con-
servation friendly, although the responsibility for forest management was placed solely with the government. This changed
with the revised Forest Policy (1962), which stressed intensive management of forest for commercial purposes.
The first National Forest Policy of independent Bangladesh was devised in 1979 (Gazette Notification No. 1/For-1/77/345,
8 July 1979). Aimed at preserving forests, this policy restructured the forest department, designated national forests, op-
timized resource extraction, and established new, forest-based industries. The positive aspects of this policy were inclusion
of forest research and training, large-scale plantation (with the participation of local communities), and conservation
education. Despite these positive aspects, the policy was largely contradictory. On the one hand, it promoted new forest-
based industries, but on the other, it aimed to optimize resource extraction and use without consideration of social and
ecological outcomes. It is our contention that the directives designed to protect the forest may have provided the impetus
for the loss of mangrove forest in Bangladesh, including the destruction of Chakaria mangrove forest.
Not only is there a difference between the Forest Policy (1979) and the Forest Act (1927), they are in contention with each
other. The Forest Act gives the government the utmost control over the forest, allowing it to maintain a strong and cen-
tralized system. According to the Forest Policy, forests are not to be commercially exploited for industries, but they are to
conserve soil and the environment, and meet the subsistence requirements of the local people. The Forest Policy gives
higher priority to environmental stability than to earning revenue. The Forest Act contained several loopholes such that
government could claim forestland for economic development; those loopholes allowed indiscriminate destruction of the
Chakaria forest (Table 1). Permission for commercial shrimp development to proceed in critical mangrove habitats has
undermined the safeguarding of mangrove forests.
Chakaria forest destruction began when the multilateral development banks (MDBs) started to push governments to
promote commercial shrimp farming for the global market due to a crisis in the country's balance of payment following the
oil price hike in the 1980s. The WB and ADB focused on black tiger shrimp, as it had high demand in US and European
markets. In 1977, 2251 ha of Chakaria mangrove forest were converted into a shrimp pond; another 694 ha were converted
in 1982 with a loan from the ADB (Hossain et al., 2001). During this period, ADB helped establish 100 shrimp farms, each
11 acres in size, and built a 16-km embankment (Gain, 2002). Further destruction of the Chakaria forest began when the WB
initiated a brackish water shrimp culture project in 1985 (Project ID: P009446). The WB and UNDP provided $26.5 million to
Bangladesh for this project. About 3600 ha of Chakaria forest was leased primarily to outside investors based on the highest
bidding price. The remaining portion of the forest was leased out in 1995–1996 for areal extension of shrimp farming (see
Figs. 3 and 4).

3. Loopholes and lack of specificity in policies

The Forest Policy of 19942 is different from the 1979 policy because it facilitated a proposed Master Plan for Forestry
Development, formulated in 1993, with the assistance from ADB and UNDP. With emphasis on social forestry, reforestation,
women and tribal participation, and agro-forestry, this revised policy advocated for public and private participation in 20%
of country's land. This was in a sharp contrast to earlier forest policy (1979), which simply mimicked colonial administration
and excluded people from forest governance. While the 1955 and 1979 forest policies are credited with a few good outcomes
(e.g. forest co-management, wildlife conservation, habitat protection, training of officials), both policies disregarded the
value of engaging with local communities for forest conservation. By decoupling the forest from surrounding communities
these policies perpetuated the command and control approach. For this reason the 1994 Forest Policy is seen as a welcome

1
Forest Act 1927 is available here: http://www.bforest.gov.bd/site/page/34672edf-43c6-41d1-9451-bc904408b118/Forest-Act-1927.
2
The Forest Policy 1994 is available here: http://www.bforest.gov.bd/.
 A. Ishtiaque, N. Chhetri / Environmental Development 19 (2016) 75–83 79

Table 1
Loopholes in Forest Act 1927.

The Forest Act 1927

Section 5 No right shall be acquired in or over reserve forest except by succession or under a grant or contract…. …and no fresh clearings for
cultivation or for any other purpose shall be made in reserve forest except in accordance with government rules.
Section 23 No right of any description shall be acquired in or over a reserved forest except by succession or under a grant or contract.
Section 32(a) Government may make rules to regulate the cutting, sawing, conversion and removal of trees and timber, and the collection, man-
ufacture and removal, of forest-produce, from protected forests.
Section 32(g) Government may make rules to regulate the clearing and breaking up of land for cultivation or other purposes in such forests.

Fig. 3. Land Use Change in Chakaria in hectares (1974–2012). More than 6000 ha of mangrove forests are cleared; agricultural lands were diminished to
place the shrimp farms and later the salt pans (Adapted from: Rahman and Hossain 2015).

Fig. 4. Evolution of the Forest Policy of Bangladesh.

addition to the management and conservation of forests. Some of the ambitious aspects of this revised policy include the
reforestation of denuded hills and open spaces in urban areas, eco-tourism, optimum forest resource extraction, and other
positive changes.
While the newer forest policies of Bangladesh (e.g. 1979 and 1994) featured strong language, the resulting actions and
outcomes on the ground were not as expected. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO, 1998) analyzed the im-
plementation of the 1979 and 1994 forest policies and found that: a) natural forests were not managed in an en-
vironmentally sound manner; b) little improvement was seen in harvesting and processing technology; c) forest-based
industrial development stagnated; and d) wildlife conservation and forest recreation potential were neglected, and there
was no active participation of people in the governance of the forest as planned. The ‘Forest Act 1927′ and ‘The Forest Policy
1979′ did not protect the mangrove forests from annihilation. Along with the ‘Forest Act 1927′ and the ‘Forest Policy 1994′,
Bangladesh now has the ‘National Shrimp Policy 2014′.3 If divergences in the forest policy and act remain, it is likely that
Sundarban would experience the same fate as the Chakaria forest. Fearing the unrestrained development of the shrimp
industry, we have identified the sweeping approaches and potential loopholes of the ‘Forest Policy 1994′ (Table 2) and the
‘National Shrimp Policy 2014′ (Table 3).
Despite having some novel effective guidelines, the 1994 Forest Policy consists of several sweeping approaches. As shown
in Table 2, it includes a wide scale urban afforestation program generalizing the specific target areas, pollution level, or
population density. The policy also contains ambiguous guidelines which need strong institutional capacity to implement.
Something that is not present at the moment. We also have identified some potential loopholes in the policy, which

3
National Shrimp Policy 2014 (in Bangla): http://www.mofl.gov.bd/site/view/policies/Policies.
80 A. Ishtiaque, N. Chhetri / Environmental Development 19 (2016) 75–83

Table 2
Sweeping approaches and potential loopholes of the ‘Forest Policy 1994′.

The Forest Policy 1994

Sweeping approaches
I. Special afforestation programs will be taken in every city of the country under the auspices of the government in order to prevent pollution of
environment in the densely populated area.
II. State owned forests of natural origin and the Hill and Sal forest plantations will be used for producing forest resources setting aside the areas
earmarked for conserving soil and water resources, and maintaining the bio-diversity.
III. Agricultural sector will be strengthened by extending assistance to forest development related sectors.
Potential loopholes
I. Basic needs fulfillment will be ensured by providing timber for the construction of houses and boats, firewood for cooking, fodder for animal,
medicinal herbs for healthcare and services for conservation of the environment and biodiversity.
II. Multiple uses of forest, water and fish of the Sundarban through sustained management to keep the bio-environment intact.
III. Considering ecological consequences the management of forest lands will be brought under profit-oriented business.
IV. Emphasize modernizing forest-based industries to ensure effective use of forest raw materials.

Table 3
Sweeping approaches and potential loopholes in the ‘National Shrimp Policy 2014′.

National Shrimp Policy 2014

Sweeping approaches
Section 2 (A.1). Increase shrimp production through planned shrimp culture, considering economic, social, and environmental development, geo-
graphical location, climate-change feasibility along with inventing environment and eco-friendly technology.
Section 2 (D.1). Maintain environmental balance, biodiversity conservation, & public health in shrimp-culture areas.
Section 4.1. Shrimp production and sustainable management.
Section 5.3.3. Establish shrimp-culture infrastructures ensuring environmental balance.
Potential loopholes
Section 2 (A.2). Apply necessary vertical/horizontal or both methods for expanding and managing shrimp culture.
Section 5.1.1. Increase shrimp production by gradually developing extensive and improved extensive system of shrimp culture and management to
semi-intensive system.
Section 5.3.1. Gradually intensify the black tiger shrimp culture system in accordance with environment & ecology and introducing region- based
culture system.
Section 5.7.1. Marine biodiversity and natural wetland of mangrove forest area conservation introducing eco-friendly shrimp culture management.
Section 5.8.2. Bring government/private lands suitable for shrimp cultivation and socioeconomically acceptable, under shrimp-culture activities.
Section 5.9.1. Increase awareness on sustainable shrimp culture, production management, extraction, conservation, & marketing.

stakeholders can take advantage of. For example, if the term ‘conservation’ is not properly defined, it can open an avenue for
indiscriminate forest resource extraction. Likewise a broad term such as ‘ecological consequence’ can easily be manipulated
by profit seeking individuals.
Section 5.3.5 of the 2014 National Shrimp Policy prohibits the expansion of the shrimp industry by clearing mangrove
forests and prevents any shrimp-related activities that make the forest vulnerable. Although this policy is aimed at pro-
moting sustainability, it takes a number of sweeping approaches and has several loopholes. For example, Section 2 (A.1)
gives a sense of a utopian situation without providing any further guidelines. Section 2 (D.1), section 4.1 and Section 5.3.3
coin some eye-catching terms (i.e. ‘environmental balance’, ‘biodiversity conservation’, ‘sustainable management’) but
disregard the institutional limitations and social-environmental complexities. The loopholes mentioned in Table 3 can be
conveniently manipulated by wealthy farmers or ill-minded politically powerful people. Some of the loopholes even con-
tradict with sweeping approaches. Section 2 (A.2) and 5.8.2, for instance, aim to bring government/private lands under
shrimp culture and apply ‘necessary’ vertical/horizontal methods of expansion, whereas, section 5.3.3 clearly instructs to
establish shrimp-culture infrastructures ensuring environmental balance. Considering the evident impact of shrimp farming
in the southwest region, expanding CSF without rigorous impact assessment is a sure way to disrupt the social-environ-
mental balance of the region.
This policy (2014) further emphasizes the building of a sustainable and eco-friendly shrimp culture but encourages a
large number of people to engage in a semi-intensive shrimp culture, emboldening private investment. Currently, in the
Sundarban region, 70% of shrimp-pond areas are under semi-intensive farming. Semi-intensive farming does not require
extensive ponds, but needs a reliable supply of shrimp fry from hatcheries or from wild sources. Yearly yields range from
500 to 5000 kg per hectare under this technique and production cost is $2–$6 per kg. Unlike traditional or extensive
techniques, semi-intensive or intensive farming have higher environmental impacts (Fig. 5). It is unclear that how the
government can address the challenge of eco-friendly shrimp culture.
 A. Ishtiaque, N. Chhetri / Environmental Development 19 (2016) 75–83 81

Fig. 5. Comparison among shrimp-farming systems. Traditional farming system comes with least environmental impact but low profitability whereas,
intensive method is highly profitable but has greater environmental footprint.

4. Discussion

Social traps arise when short-term, local reinforcements guiding human behavior conflict with the long-term best in-
terests of the individual (Costanza, 1987). Relying upon natural resources to improve the national economy without ac-
counting for the dynamics of ecosystems and the services they generate is a common social trap (Huitric et al., 2002).
Successful sectors will attract investors who increase capitalization and efforts to increase yields (Holling and Meffe, 1996).
This increase in capitalization can mask local environmental feedbacks, which can lead to an unexpected crash in the
resource due to overexploitation or misuse (Ludwig et al., 1993). Without recognizing these impacts, the sector becomes
internally more connected and more vulnerable to disturbance in the natural system (Gunderson et al., 1995).
The government of Bangladesh started commercial shrimp farming with an aim to develop the local and national
economy, and certainly this goal was accomplished. In 1988, Bangladesh exported 33 million lbs. of frozen fish and shrimp,
which nearly quadrupled to
130 million lbs. by the year 2010 (BFFEA, 2010; DoF 2009). The contribution of frozen fish and
shrimp to GDP amounted to 3.3% in 2013–14 (BBS, 2014. In Bangladesh, the average annual growth rate of shrimp pro-
duction from 2005 to 2013 was 2.2% (FAO, 2011; GOAL 2011). The country's revenue from shrimp export grew from $4
million in 1975–2000, to $437 million in 2009/10 (BBS, 1975; BBS 2002; BFFEA 2008).
However, the intensification of shrimp farming poses deleterious threats to the environment (for details, see Wahab
et al., 2003; Ali, 2006; Alam et al., 2007; Paul and Vogl 2011); the case of the Chakaria mangrove forest is an example. While,
in its strict sense, all policy instruments are designed to protect the Sundarban, multiple loopholes make it virtually im-
possible to attain the intended outcomes. This is further compounded by government's focus on high output shrimp
farming. While the government was explicit about protection of the Sundarban in the recent ‘Forest Policy 1994′ and their
vision about eco-friendliness in shrimp farming (National Shrimp Policy 2014), it lags behind the ‘Forest Act 1927′ when it
comes to making use of the Sundarban forest. The ‘Forest Policy 1994′ takes the participatory, regenerative, inclusive ap-
proach, whereas, the ‘Forest Act 1927′ strictly follows a top-down, social exclusion approach ensuring total control of
government on forests. The conflicting issues between the Forest Act and Forest Policy and the loopholes we identified in
the Shrimp Policy are major reasons for over-exploitation of natural resources. The short-term high output from shrimp
farming might have benefitted the national economy, but the long-term local environmental consequences are making the
overall social-ecological system vulnerable.
Shrimp is the second-largest export from Bangladesh, and global demand is escalating. Yet, responding to that global call
for more shrimp should not come at the cost of society and environment. Like many other shrimp-producing countries,
Bangladesh has experienced a significant amount of mangrove loss due to this industry and cannot withstand additional
loss. To prevent this damage and maintain the sustainable growth of the shrimp industry, effective policies and acts are
obligatory. In this paper, we analyzed the forest act and policy, as well as the national shrimp policy. We find that the Forest
Act is inconsistent with the Forest Policy and requires either substantial revision or complete abolition followed by new
forest act formulation. The National Shrimp Policy also requires considerable revision to get rid of the sweeping approaches
and loopholes.

5. Conclusion

Since the late 1970s Bangladesh has experienced unplanned growth of the shrimp industry with resulting severe impacts
on the environment. One example was the loss of the entire Chakaria mangrove forest. The government remains focused on
increasing capitalization and economic proliferation while deemphasizing harmony between the economy and the en-
vironment. The outcomes of the National Shrimp Policy illustrate such a claim. With shrimp farming concentrated near the
Sundarban, no coordination has been found between policies created to protect forests and simultaneously develop eco-
friendly shrimp farms. The loopholes and sweeping approaches of both the Forest Policy and Act will not save the
82 A. Ishtiaque, N. Chhetri / Environmental Development 19 (2016) 75–83

Sundarban. Furthermore, the Forest Act contradicts the Forest Policy by prioritizing economic development over ecosystem
health. This paper reveals that when the Chakaria mangrove forest was destroyed, Bangladesh had both the Forest Policy
and Forest Act in place. Neither were able to protect this forest. In fact, the Forest Act in its current form gives enormous
powers to the government, allowing the country to use forests as it sees fit. Indeed, multinational financial institutions such
as the ADB and WB have in the past appeared to take advantage of the forest act while ignoring the thrust of the forest
policy.
The discrepancies in policies and/or acts are not unique to Bangladesh. In many shrimp farming countries these con-
flicting issues have allowed the rapid development of the commercial shrimp industry and the quick loss of mangroves and
other natural resources. In Thailand, for instance, weak legislation and contradictory policies have permitted the indis-
criminate exploitation of mangroves by the shrimp farmers (Huitric et al., 2002). Poor policies and lack of implementation of
policies have induced environmental degradation in Honduras (Dewalt et al., 1996) and in Mexico (Hernández-Cornejo and
Ruiz-Luna, 2000). Sometimes legislation development and implementation couldn’t maintain pace with the growth of the
shrimp industry, which lead to widespread mangrove clearance, such as in southern Vietnam (De Graaf and Xuan, 1998) and
Sri Lanka (Dahdouh-Guebas et al., 2002). These examples suggest that the identification of conflicting issues in policies and
acts are needed to assist policy makers in formulating more robust policies and acts to create better concordance between
the economy and the environment.
Shrimp farming has gained momentum in Bangladesh as a viable economic activity, so calling for an end to shrimp
farming is not an option. However, unsustainable and environmentally insensitive economic development plans associated
with the current management of shrimp farms in the Sundarban may not be able to continue indefinitely. While no policies
are perfect, current forest and shrimp policies in Bangladesh contain many weaknesses and loopholes. Formulating more
issue-oriented policy and, most importantly, assuring that implementation will bring economic development and en-
vironmental protection into greater alignment. For this reason, it is prudent to revise the ‘Forest Policy 1994′ and the
‘National Shrimp Policy 2014′ to rid them of the loopholes that tend to legalize ill activities. We also strongly suggest
bringing the ‘Forest Act 1927′ into alignment with existing forest policy. Both Forest Policy and National Shrimp Policy
should be amended as they contain sweeping approaches and loopholes that must be rectified to create a sustainable
economy, society and environment in Bangladesh.

References

Akonda, A.W., 2002. Red book of threatened mammals of Bangladesh. IUCN, Dhaka.
Alam, S.N., Lin, C.K., Yakupitiyage, A., Demaine, H., Phillips, M.J., 2005. Compliance of Bangladesh shrimp culture with FAO code of conduct for responsible
fisheries: a development challenge. Ocean Coastal Manage 48 (2), 177–188.
Alam, S., Pokrant, B., Yakupitiyage, A., Phillips, M., 2007. Economic returns of disease-affected extensive shrimp farming in southwest Bangladesh. Aquac.
Int. 15, 363–370.
Ali, A.M.S., 2006. Rice to shrimp: land use/land cover changes and soil degradation in Southwestern Bangladesh. Land Use Policy 23, 421–435.
Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS), 1975. Statistical Yearbook of Bangladesh. BBS, Dhaka205.
Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS), 2002. Statistical Yearbook of Bangladesh. BBS, Dhaka163.
Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS), 2014. GDP 2013–2014. BBS, Dhaka.
BFFEA, 2008. Shrimp and Fish News: News Letter of Bangladesh Frozen Foods Exporters Association (BFFEA), April-June 2008. BFFEA, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
BFFEA, 2010. Frozen Fish and Shrimp Export from Bangladesh (1995–96 to 2009–10). Retrieved from 〈http://www.bffea.net/export.php〉 (accessed on
3.28.2015).
Blasco, F., 1977. Outlines of ecology, botany and forestry of the mangals of the Indian subcontinent. In: Chapman, V.J. (Ed.), Ecosystems of the world-1,
Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 241–260.
Blasco, F., Aizpuru, M., Gers, C., 2001. Depletion of the mangroves of Continental Asia. Wetlands Ecol. Manage 9 (3), 255–266.
BOBP (Bay of Bengal Program), 1990. Shrimp seed collectors of Bangladesh. FAO, Manila, p. 37.
Chakraborty, D., Mukherjee, S., 2013. How do trade and investment flows affect environmental sustainability? Evidence from panel data. Environ. Dev. 6,
34–47.
Choudhury, A.B., Choudhury, A., 1994. Mangroves of the Sundarban. 1. World Conservation Union, India, 247.
Chowdhury, M.S.H., Koike, M., Muhammed, N., 2009a. Embracing collaborative protected area management for conservation: an analysis of the devel-
opment of the forest policy of Bangladesh. Int. Rev. 11 (3), 359–374.
Chowdhury, M.S.H., Koike, M., Muhammed, N., 2009b. Embracing collaborative protected area management for conservation: an analysis of the devel-
opment of the forest policy of Bangladesh. Int. Rev. 11 (3), 359–374.
Costanza, R., 1987. Social traps and environmental policy. BioScience 37 (6), 407–412.
Dahdouh-Guebas, F., Zetterström, T., Rönnbäck, P., Troell, M., Wickramasinghe, A., Koedam, N., 2002. Recent changes in land-use in the Pambala–Chilaw
lagoon complex (Sri Lanka) investigated using remote sensing and GIS: conservation of mangroves vs. development of shrimp farming. Environment,
development and sustainability. Vol. 4(2), pp. 185–200.
Datta, D., Deb, S., 2012. Analysis of coastal land use/land cover changes in the Indian Sunderbans using remotely sensed data. Geo-spatial Inf. Sci. 15 (4),
241–250.
De Graaf, G.J., Xuan, T.T., 1998. Extensive shrimp farming, mangrove clearance and marine fisheries in the southern provinces of Vietnam. Mangroves Salt
Marshes 2 (3), 159–166.
Dewalt, B.R., Vergne, P., Hardin, M., 1996. Shrimp aquaculture development and the environment: people, mangroves and fisheries on the Gulf of Fonseca,
Honduras. World Dev. 24 (7), 1193–1208.
Dey, T.K., 2001. Sundarban at a Glance. Sundarban West Forest Division, Khulna, Bangladesh.
DoF (Department of Forestry), 2009. Fishery statistical yearbook of Bangladesh 2007-08. Department of Fishery, Dhaka, p. 42.
FAO (Food & Agriculture Organization), 2011. FishStat (FAO Yearbook of Fishery Statistics). FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Rome, Italy.
FAO (Food & Agriculture Organization), 1998. Asia-pacific forestry sector outlook study, country report – Bangladesh. Working Paper No: APFSOS/WP/48.
Forest Department Headquarters: Bangladesh. Retrieved from 〈ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/003/Y0165E/Y0165E00.pdf〉.
Gain, P., 2002. The Last Forests of Bangladesh, 2nd edn. Society For Environment And Human Development, Dhaka.
Giri, C., Ochieng, E., Tieszen, L.L., Zhu, Z., Singh, A., Loveland, T., Duke, N., 2011. Status and distribution of mangrove forests of the world using earth
 A. Ishtiaque, N. Chhetri / Environmental Development 19 (2016) 75–83 83

observation satellite data. Global Ecol. Biogeogr 20 (1), 154–159.

Giri, C., Pengra, B., Zhu, Z., Singh, A., Tieszen, L.L., 2007. Monitoring mangrove forest dynamics of the Sundarbans in Bangladesh and India using multi-
temporal satellite data from 1973 to 2000. Estuarine Coastal Shelf Sci. 73 (1), 91–100.
GOAL, 2011. Shrimp Production Survey: Issues and Challenges. Global Outlook For Aquaculture Leadership, Santiago.
Gopal, B., Chauhan, M., 2006. Biodiversity and it's conservation in the Sundarban Mangrove Ecosystem. Aquat. Sci. 68, 338–354.
Gunderson, L.H., Light, S.S., Holling, C.S., 1995. Lessons from the Everglades. Learning in a turbulent system. BioScience 45, 66–73.
Hernández-Cornejo, R., Ruiz-Luna, A., 2000. Development of shrimp farming in the coastal zone of southern Sinaloa (Mexico): operating characteristics,
environmental issues, and perspectives. Ocean Coast. Manag. 43 (7), 597–607.
Holling, C.S., Meffe, G.K., 1996. Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conserv. Biol. 10, 328–337.
Hoq, M.E., 1999. Environmental and socio-economic impacts of shrimp culture in south western Bangladesh. Trop. Agric. Res. Ext. 2 (2), 111–117.
Hossain, M., Lin, C.K., Hussain, M.Z., 2001. Goodbye Chakaria Sunderban: the oldest mangrove forest. Soc. Wetl. Sci. Bull. 18 (3), 19–22.
Huitric, M., Folke, C., Kautsky, N., 2002. Development and government policies of the shrimp farming industry in Thailand in relation to mangrove eco-
systems. Ecol. Econ. 40 (3), 441–455.
Hussain, Z., Acharya, G., 1994. Mangroves of the Sundarban. 2. IUCN, Bangladesh.
Iftekhar, M.S., Islam, M.R., 2004. Degeneration of Bangladesh's sundarban mangroves: a management issue. Int. Rev. 6 (2), 123–135.
IUCN-BANGLADESH, 2001. The Bangladesh Sundarban: A Photoreal Sojourn. IUCN Bangladesh Country Office, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Ludwig, D., Hilborn, R., Walters, C., 1993. Uncertainty, resource exploitation, and conservation: lessons from history. Science 260, 17–36.
Mayaux, P., Holmgren, P., Achard, F., Eva, H., Stibig, H.J., Branthomme, A., 2005. Tropical forest cover change in the 1990s and options for future monitoring.
Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. B 360 (1454), 373–384.
MEF-FD (Ministry of Environment and Forest- Forest Department), 2011. Collaborative REDDþ IFM Sundarban project (CRISP), Project Concept Note,
Nishorgo Network, Dhaka. Available: 〈http://www.nishorgo.org/tbltd/upload/pdf/0.84199100%201357815512_CRISP.pdf〉.
Muhammed, N., Koike, M., Haque, F., 2008. Forest policy and sustainable forest management in Bangladesh: an analysis from national and international
perspectives. New For. 36 (2), 201–216.
Mustafa, M.M., 2002. A review of forest policy trends in Bangladesh: Bangladesh forest policy trends. Policy Trend Report. 2002, pp. 114–121.
Naskar, K.R., Mandal, R.N., 1999. Ecology and biodiversity of Indian mangrove. 1 and 2. Daya Publishing House, New Delhi.
Paul, B.G., Vogl, C.R., 2011. Impacts of shrimp farming in Bangladesh: challenges and alternatives. Ocean Coast. Manag. 54, 201–211.
Pokrant, B., 2006. The organisation and development of coastal brackish water export oriented shrimp production in Bangladesh: A critical review of the
literature. In: Rahman, A.A., et al. (Eds.), Shrimp Farming and Industry: Sustainability, Trade and Livelihoods, UPL, Dhaka, pp. 299–320.
Rahman, M.R., Hossain, M.B., 2015. Changes in land use pattern at Chakaria Sundarbans mangrove forest in Bangladesh. Bangladesh Res. Publ. J. 11 (1),
13–20.
Roy, A.K.D., Alam, K., Gow, J., 2012. A review of the role of property rights and forest policies in the management of the Sundarban Mangrove Forest in
Bangladesh. Policy Econ. 15, 46–53.
Sadath, M.N., Krott, M., 2012. Identifying policy change—Analytical program analysis: An example of two decades of forest policy in Bangladesh. Policy
Econ. 25, 93–99.
Vannucci, M., 2002. Indo-west pacific mangroves. In: Lacerda, L.D. (Ed.), Mangrove Ecosystems: Function and Management, Springer, Germany.
Wahab, M.A., Bergheim, A., Braaten, B., 2003. Water quality and partial mass budget in extensive shrimp ponds in Bangladesh. Aquaculture 218, 413–423.
WCMC, 2001. Protected Areas Program: World Heritage Sites. UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

View publication stats