Non-state Actors in Forest Governance: Genesis, Status, Challenges and Way Forward

Nath, Tapan Kumar; Khan, Niaz Ahmed; Kibria, Abu S.M.G.; Goodale, Uromi Manage

doi:10.1080/10549811.2022.2128377

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Betagi-Pomra agroforestry project (1979) and the community forestry project (1981) in the country's south-eastern and northern regions, respectively, are the two most notable (Khan 2016;Nath et al 2016aNath et al , 2020. Based on promising results, the trend has since continued in the forms of social forestry (1980s to the end of the 1990s), comanagement of protected areas (since 2004), and contemporary collaborative forest management (Nath et al 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Principles of people‐centric forest restoration projects in south‐eastern Bangladesh: implications for sustainability

Jashimuddin,

Hasan,

Baul

et al. 2024

Restoration Ecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forest and landscape restoration is considered worldwide as a powerful approach to recovering ecological functionality and improving human well‐being in degraded and deforested landscapes. A comprehensive study including the social, ecological, management, and regulatory aspects of restoration projects can help to understand the sustainability of these interventions. The purpose of this study was to comprehend the principles of Bangladeshi community‐based forest restoration (CBFR) projects. Empirical data was collected from four CBFR projects, of which two were Bangladesh forest department (BFD)‐led and two were community‐led. We used a comprehensive list of principles covering management and governance issues and human and ecological aspects along with Ostrom's design principles. Data were collected through 223 semi‐structured interviews, four focus group discussions, and personal observation. A 5‐point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree) was used to assess participants' agreement on different statements of principles. In BFD‐led projects, participants had restricted harvesting rights, state control over management, land, planning, and the formation of rules, and they perceived lower scores for some important statements (e.g., project planning, selection of tree species, local knowledge, income generation activities, livelihood benefits, food security, and skill development). Therefore, participants presumed that these CBFR projects are moderately sustainable. On the other hand, participants in community‐led projects scored high (mean score above 4.0) for most of the principles across different aspects, and a bundle of Ostrom's design principles was also observed. Hence, the evidence of sustainability in community‐led CBFR projects is high. Project authorities in developing countries can take lessons from this study and undertake appropriate actions toward the sustainability of forest restoration programs.

show abstract