Forest Policy and Economics 95 (2018) 123–137

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Forest Policy and Economics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol

Evaluation of good governance in a participatory forestry program: A case T

study in Madhupur Sal forests of Bangladesh
⁎
Abdus Subhan Mollicka, Md. Khalilur Rahmana, Md. Nabiul Islam Khana, Md. Nazmus Sadatha,b,
a
Forestry and Wood Technology Discipline, Khulna University, Khulna 9208, Bangladesh
b
Forest and Nature Conservation Policy, Georg- August University, Goettingen, Germany

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Participatory forestry programs in Bangladesh have been implemented since 1980’s to ensure forest conservation
Participatory forestry along with empowerment of local people, who depend on forest resources. Despite the establishment of legal and
Good governance institutional frameworks for devolving a meaningful authority to local people, participatory forestry in
Sal forests Bangladesh has been facing many governance challenges. Therefore local people involvement in forest gov-
Tree farming fund (TFF)
ernance needs to be evaluated. A quantitative and qualitative research method has been applied to investigate a
Bangladesh
forest governance framework for evaluating the efficacy of participatory forestry in Bangladesh. Field data were
collected by semi-structured interview of 120 local forest participants using scoring of qualitative data on a point
scale (1–5).The study was based on the proposed modified framework for evaluation of good governance in
terms of participation, transparency and efficiency. Analysis of data revealed that participation in benefit sharing
received the highest score (3.90), while the lowest in the management committee meeting (2.12). Transparency
in decision-making process received the lowest score (2.42). Similarly efficiency in handling tree farming fund
(TFF) has the lowest score (2.35). In overall governance level, participation received the highest score (3.12),
while transparency received the lowest (2.72). Findings indicate that poor governance still exists in participatory
forestry program because of low level of participation and lack of transparency in handling tree farming fund
(TFF). Therefore pragmatic approaches like strengthening monitoring mechanism, providing incentives for rule
compliances need to be adopted to harness the benefit of good governance of a participatory forestry program.
The findings of this study would be useful to forest policy-makers, development official and local forest prac-
titioners in formulating effective policies for participatory forest management programs in Bangladesh and other
developing countries. Our finding has also an implication on forest governance discourse in participatory forest
management regimes.

1. Introduction
Hundreds of millions of people with a great variety of culture live in
and around the forests in the globe for their livelihood and ecosystem
services (Miah et al., 2012; Guariguata and Balvanera, 2009; Mery
et al., 2010; Davenport et al., 2010). Forests provide an important
safety net for rural poor to meet emergency needs due to crop failure
and economic hardship (Nath and Inoue, 2010; Mohammed et al.,
2017).It is assumed that people who live close to forests for a variety of
products and services have greater interest in the proper management
than distant people (Pulhin et al., 2007). On the other hand, it has now
been widely accepted that local people’s involvement in governing the
forest resources has led to more equitable benefit-sharing than those
taken by central authorities (RECOFTC, 2008; Sikor et al., 2013). White
and Martin (2002) reported that local people’s participation in forest
management and in forest ownership is increasing. Ten to twelve per-
cent of the world’s natural forests are officially managed with some
degree of popular participation through decentralization approaches
(Sunderlin et al., 2008, Ribot et al., 2010; Mutune and Lund, 2016).
Local participation in forest governance via decentralization is a key
mechanism to use forests sustainably through enhanced local knowl-
edge, stronger accountability and perceived legitimacy of forest rule
(Agrawal et al., 2008; Persha et al., 2011; Secco et al., 2014; Andersson,
2013). Participation and legitimacy are strongly linked to each other in
forestry as it improves the quality of planning and legitimacy of deci-
sions (Rantala, 2012; Weber, 2018). Legitimacy relates to governance
as it conforms to the prevailing values, norms and principles of a
community – such as transparency, rule of law, participation and

⁎
Corresponding author at: Forestry and Wood Technology Discipline, Khulna University, Khulna 9208, Bangladesh; Forst-und Naturschutzpolitik, Fakultät für
Forstwissenschaften und Waldökologie, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Büsgenweg 3, 37077 Göttingen, Germany.
E-mail addresses: nsadath@gwdg.de, mnsadath@yahoo.com (Md. Nazmus Sadath).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.07.014
Received 14 October 2017; Received in revised form 29 July 2018; Accepted 30 July 2018
1389-9341/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
A. Subhan Mollick et al.
fairness (Rantala and German, 2013). Its central notion is the condition
ofbeing in accord with established social values of ascertain commu-
nity. It can be earned through the acceptance by the community to
govern (Lockwood et al., 2010). Local participation in forest manage-
ment creates a sense of ownership and hence responsibility over the
resources that strongly influences sustainability of the program out-
comes (Brown et al., 2002; Nath and Inoue, 2009; Kangas et al., 2010;
Arts, 2014). From a sustainability perspective, local participation im-
proves the ability of stakeholders to contribute to both the substantive
and procedural quality of decisions affecting the environment (Beierle
and Konisky, 2000). A shift from government to governance in the
approaches to forest policy formulation and related decision-making
procedures is taking place even at global level (Secco et al., 2011).
Bangladesh has responded to that global zeal by involving local people
in the management of country’s declining forest resources (Rashid
et al., 2016).
Bangladesh is a small country (147570 km2) in South Asia that is
characterized with high population density (964 km-2) and low per
capita area of forest land (0.009 ha person−1) compared to average
value in Asia (0.145 ha)and the world (0.597 ha) (Nath et al., 2016;
Giessen et al., 2016). It owns diverse vegetation resources including
mangrove forests, hill forests, sal forests and trees outside the forests
that support the livelihood of local forest dependent people. Despite its
social, economic and environmental importance forest resources of the
country have been reducing day by day (Sadath and Krott, 2013; Sadath
and Rahman 2016; Sarker et al., 2017). The annual rate of gross de-
forestation is about 0.77 % during 2006–2014 (Reddy et al., 2016).
Regardless of high rate of deforestation, Bangladesh still possesses
14086 km2 of forests (Reddy et al., 2016). The scientific management of
forest in Bangladesh was initiated during colonial rule following com-
mand and control approach to earn revenue only (Jashimuddin and
Inoue, 2012; Rahman, et al., 2016, Sadath and Krott, 2012). After in-
dependence from British regime Bangladesh forest administrations’
activity has largely been highly influenced by its colonial heritage
(Sadath and Krott, 2012; Sadath et al., 2013). This approach did not
necessarily satisfy the needs and aspiration of those who are directly or
indirectly depend on forests. Most deforestation in government forests
has occurred due to the inadequacy of the bureaucratic custodian ap-
proach to forest management(Khan, 1998).Apart from custodian man-
agement direction, illegal felling contributed the most, towards to
natural forest coverage degradation (Biswas and Choudhury, 2007).
Such management largely ignores local knowledge and participation of
local people (Rana and Chhare, 2017). In order to address the forest
degradations issues, policy and management regimes have been revised
time to time to reflect the change from centralized state management
toward more participatory management approaches (Jashimuddin and
Inoue, 2012; Islam et al., 2013; Sarker et al., 2017). Recognizing the
importance of local people’s involvement in forest management and
conservation, Forest Department (FD) of Bangladesh has initiated par-
ticipatory forestry programs in 1980,s with the broad aim of giving
ownership to forest-dependent people and a stake in managing the
forest resources (Rana et al., 2007; Salam and Noguchi, 2006;
Jashimuddin and Inoue, 2012). Participatory forestry has become a
standard model for forest conservation and management in the Global
South by the 1990s. It is a mode of forest governance that involves
people living in and around forests in their management (Lund,
2015).Through these efforts, considerable progress have been made
over the last three decades (Mollick et al., 2006; Muhammed et al.,
2005; Salam et al., 2005;Islam et al., 2013; BFD, 2017). Now partici-
patory forestry program in Bangladesh has become the dominant
strategy in the country’s forestry sector (FMP, 1993; Salam and
Noguchi, 2006; Alam et al., 2010). The Forest Act 1927 was amended in
2000 in order to consolidate the legal foundation of social forestry
policy program. Subsequently Social Forestry Rule 2004 (amended
2011) was framed to operationalize the participatory forestry in Ban-
gladesh (Sadath and Krott, 2012; Nath et al., 2015). The Forstry Master
124
Forest Policy and Economics 95 (2018) 123–137
Plan 1993, Forest Policy 1994, the Forest (Amendment) Act of 2000 and
the Social Forestry (amended) Rules 2011, Participatory Benefit
Sharing Agreement (PBSA) were considered the landmark policy
documents in the forestry sector of Bangladesh that recognizes local
forest participants as independent and self-governing institutions
(Sadath and Krott, 2012; Jashimuddin and Inoue, 2012; Nath et al.,
2016; Sarker et al., 2017). By the mandate of those said regulations,
local forest participant tries to participate in forest management deci-
sion making and benefit sharing mechanism. As per the social forestry
rule 2004 (amended 2011) “Participatory Benefit Sharing Agreement
(PBSA)” between the participants and Forest Department is a key
component in social forestry policy programs which reduce the un-
certainty and assure some sort of ownership to the participants (Sadath
and Krott, 2012). The paradigm shift from patron-client relation to
participatory mechanism becomes trust worthy among the local people
(Weber, 2018). Ostensibly, participatory forestry reforms seek to pro-
mote participation by forest adjacent people in forest management
through devolved forest governance (Lund, 2015). Providing legal basis
is believed to be a positive move toward good governance (Rashid et al.,
2013a,b). It also ensures the rights of the beneficiaries to enjoy full
benefits from the plantations. There is a provision of Tree Farming Fund
(TFF) that was generated from 10% of the sale of the final harvest at the
end of each rotation to sustain participatory forestry programs (Salam
et al., 2005; Jashimuddin and Inoue, 2012; BFD, 2017). Cost of the
future plantation is incurred from TFF. Ensuring good governance in
participatory forestry program, three committees including manage-
ment committee, advisory committee and fund management sub-com-
mittee were formed among the participants in social forestry area (Ali,
2015). At least one third of the committee members are from the
women participants thus ensure gender equality. The management
committee is responsible for overall management of plantation, planted
trees and manage any conflicts arise during and after the im-
plementation of the program (Ali, 2015; BFD, 2017). The formation of
‘user committee’ is a critical component of a decentralization process,
which are believed to amplify the voice and influence of forest user at
local level (Rana and Chhatre, 2017; Manor, 2004).
Three decades have already been passed after the first im-
plementation of participatory forestry program in Bangladesh, how-
ever, it did not achieve its’ sustainability in terms of conservation and
livelihood improvement (Islam et al., 2013; Jashimuddin and Inoue,
2012; Nath et al., 2015). Sustainability means to increase the potential
of local people to influence and control their future on a long term
basis, a goal that can be achieved by strengthening capacity, supporting
equity and fostering empowerment (Gow, 1988). Sustainability could
be achieved through the practice of good governance in all aspects of
operations and procedures. It is now widely understood that good
governance in the forest sector is vital for achieving sustainable forest
management. (FAO, 2012). Perspective plan of Bangladesh
(2010–2021) and Bangladesh Vision 2021 have envisioned good gov-
ernance as one of the strategic pillars of economic development in
Bangladesh (GOB, 2012; CPD, 2007). Recently, draft forest policy 2016
of Bangladesh has set an agenda of good governance in policy statement
(BFD, 2017).So far, much of the literature evaluates the impacts of
participatory forestry program on species suitability (Kabir and Webb,
2005), stakeholders’ capacity development (Salam and Noguchi, 2006),
socio-economic development (Rana et al., 2007), forest conservation
and livelihood improvement (Safa, 2004; Nath and Inoue, 2009; Islam
et al., 2013). Despite many positive outcomes, however, participatory
forestry program of Bangladesh has been facing many governance
challenges like lack of participation in decision-making, raising and
maintenance of forests, lack of willingness to join management com-
mittee meetings, low level of transparency and efficiency in fund-
handling (Muhammed et al., 2008; Nath and Inoue, 2008; Nath and
Inoue, 2009; Islam et al., 2013; Nath et al., 2015; Nath et al., 2016).
Lack of transparency and access to information about training, deci-
sions and decision-making processes are key obstacles to participation
A. Subhan Mollick et al.
(Mustalahti and Tassa, 2014). Participatory forest management ap-
proaches were initiated in early eighties in Bangladesh, but the active
community participation in the governance process were found low
(Salam et al., 2005; Koli, 2010; Jashimuddin and Inoue, 2012; Rashid
et al., 2013a,b). Potential benefits of participatory forestry are yet to be
seen in Bangladesh because of bias in the selection of beneficiaries, lack
of social equality, and absence of alternative income generation activ-
ities (Jashimuddin and Inoue, 2012). Inequalities and poor institutional
capacity of participatory forestry programs in Bangladesh are still
challenging (Oliveira et al., 2013). Poor governance in the forest sector
leads to a negative image that demotivate willingness to invest in this
sector (Muller and Tuomasjukka, 2010). Since the 1980s, participatory
initiatives recognizes existing or create new local level institutions to
implement the social forestry policy program to improve governance
through more local level participation. However, it is also found that an
elite class within the local level participants did try to harness more
benefits from the program. This is generally portrayed as a pernicious
problem to participatory institutions (Lund and Saito-Jensen, 2013).
The performance of participatory forest management (PFM) institutions
in the global south have proved controversial among scholars, policy-
makers, practitioners and international development agencies (Lund,
2015; Ayana et al., 2015). Recent research on participatory forest
management has highlighted the existence of a widespread ‘im-
plementation gap’ between the ambitious intent enriched in new leg-
islative and policy frameworks, and actual rollout PFM/decentralized
forest governance in the ground (Kairu et al., 2018). This has led to a
new paradox in PFM program. These concerns create some questions
among the academicians as well as in practitioners. Are local people
given enough right and responsibility to govern the forest resources?
How are actually decision made?
Until recently, no systematic studies have been carried out so far to
explore the mechanism of how local people acquire and exercise their
rights and responsibility in participatory forestry in Bangladesh.
Furthermore, most of the studies on the impact of participatory forest
management (PFM) from South Asia have been carried out in India and
Nepal. No such initiatives have yet been taken in Bangladesh.
Bangladesh is now passing through the post- colonial era, where a
paradigm shift of authoritarian approach to decentralized approach is
imminent in the forestry sector. Therefore local people’s involvement in
participatory forest governance is yet to be evaluated. The objective of
this study was to evaluate forest governances in terms of participation,
transparency and efficiency in a participatory forestry program based
on a proposed modified governance framework (Fig. 1). Participation,
transparency and efficiency are the most common principles in the
arena of governance study (Secco et al., 2014). This approach could be
a guide on how to assess the program level policy decision making and
implementations in developing countries. The findings of this study
would provide an insight on the overall governance performance of a
participatory forestry program that would be useful to scholars, forest
policy-makers, development agency and local forest practitioners in
formulating effective polices for participatory forest management pro-
grams in Bangladesh as well as other developing countries.
2. Theoretical and conceptual approach
2.1. Concept of forest governance
‘Governance’ itself has no single, universally accepted definition.
Sometime people use ‘governance’ to mean simply ‘government’ or
things that government does (Howlett et al., 2009; Kishor and
Robenbaum, 2012). The concept of governance has become a popular
framework in contemporary political science literatures particularly in
the field of policy science during last decades (Bocher et al., 2008;
Arnouts et al., 2012). Political science is by the most advanced dis-
cipline in explaining forest-related problems, focusing on the complex
social relations concerning forest governance and interdependence
125
Forest Policy and Economics 95 (2018) 123–137
among different actors at different political spheres from local to in-
ternational (Maryudi et al., 2018). In connection with sustainability
principles, governance is applied in various fields, including forestry
and environment (Kozova et al., 2016). Governance is generally defined
as the process of decision making by which decisions are made and
implemented or not and is much broader than what governments do
(Pokharel and Tiwari, 2013; Kozova et al., 2016).Governance is still
considered as a loose set of theories ranging from global to local di-
mension and from analytical to normative perspectives (Schiller, 2008).
Scholars argued that ‘governance’ is all about establishing, promoting,
and supporting a specific type of relationship between governmental
and non-governmental actors in the governing process (Howlett et al.,
2009).Arts (2014) argued that governance may refer to governing by,
governing with and governing without state. The concept of ‘governance’
particularly ‘good governance’ has become an important agenda in in-
ternational development and conservation discourse since the late
1980s, including discourse regarding forests (Larson and Petkova,
2011; Kishor and Robenbaum, 2012). The term governance is relevant
to forest because of its economic, ecological and social value. The for-
estry sector is usually considered one of the most advanced arenas for
new form of governance, with several non-state, market-driven gov-
ernance systems already in place and consolidated, which was launched
by forest certificate initiatives or through schemes of Payments for
Environmental Services (PES) (Cashore et al., 2004; Secco et al., 2011;
Arts, 2014). The application of PES in forest governance is REDD+. The
main idea of REDD+ is that developing countries are paid for their
forest conservation and management practices by earning carbon
credits and trading these on international carbon markets (Arts, 2014).
Forest governance is a prerequisite for the development of a REDD+
project (Pettenella and Brotto, 2012). The presence of multiple and
diverse stakeholders in the forestry sector make it more complex as
every stakeholder have their own interest which may compete or cor-
roborate with each other in terms of obtaining benefit, right and access
to decision making (Scheyvens et al., 2007).
Forest governance as a term has evolved similarly to governance in
general. It has come to the fore particularly from the debates on de-
centralization in forestry sector, corruption and illegal logging
(Agrawal et al., 2008). It has different meanings to different people –
but is generally used as a means to tackle the qualities of decision-
making processes rather than the formal political structures of gov-
ernment (Mayers et al., 2006). World Bank (2009) stated forest sector
governance as the ways in which people, stakeholders groups and in-
stitutions (both formal and informal) acquire and exercise authority in
the management of forest resources of the sector to sustain and improve
the welfare and quality of life for those whose livelihoods depends on
the sector. Forest governance includes the norms, processes, instru-
ments, people and organizations that control how people interact with
forests (Kishor and Robenbaum, 2012). Arts (2014) explains the
emergence of the concept of forest governance from a so-called ‘Triple
G’ perspective i.e. government (state forestry), governance (participa-
tory forestry) and governmentality (state to the market and to society).
State forest management models that are regarded as orthodox regimes
have often failed to safeguard either forest resources or the livelihoods
of those who depend on them in the colonial and post-colonial states
(Martin and Lemon, 2001). This has led to reform public forest policy
and law, a process which is generally referred to as ‘forest governance’
(Arts, 2014, Agrawal et al., 2008; Broekhoeven et al., 2012; FAO,
2011). Giessen and Buttoud (2014) proposed a definition on forest
governance which comprises a) all formal informal, public and private
regulatory structures, i.e. institutions consisting of rules, norms, prin-
ciples, decision procedures, concerning forests, their utilization and
their conservation; b) the interactions between public and private ac-
tors therein and c) the effects of either on forests. These decisions are
shaped and influenced by a complicated web of actors, rules and
practices both within and beyond the forest sector (WRI, 2017). Gov-
ernance is also about the power of actors at different political
A. Subhan Mollick et al.
Fig. 1. A modified framework for assessing forest governance.
landscape. One of the novel advances of this discipline is the theoretical
framework of Actor-Centred Power (ACP) developed by the Krott
school of thought that is dedicated for power analyses. Using decen-
tralized community-based forest governance, the actor-oriented ap-
proach provides the pathway to reveal the empirical evidence why an
actor within a particular socio-political context has been able to de-
termine the outcomes of a policy program (Krott et al., 2014). Under-
standing the actor’s involvement in policy making and implementation,
and the power relation among them are necessary. A number of Krot-
tians have also examined multi-level power relations at the domestic
arena, i.e. interplays between local and national actors (Maryudi and
Sahide, 2017). Forest governance is related to rules and policies that
define forest use and management, decision making processes and the
process of selecting actors who make decisions (Shrestha and Shrestha,
2017). Krott et al. (2014) understand forest governance to comprise all
public and private regulatory structures concerning the utilization and
conservation of forests, as well as the interactions between public and
private actors therein. Governance is practiced not only within the
boundaries of the nation states but also in international arenas too,
often referred to as ‘global forest governance’ (Arts, 2014; Arts et al.,
2009, Giessen, 2013; Werland, 2009; Edwards and Giessen, 2014). In
this study, World Banks’ definition on forest governance has taken as a
guiding definition. Among many different actors (land owner, local
institutions, civil society, NGOs etc.), local people have already ac-
quired some sort of rights and responsibilities to won and govern the
forest resources in Bangladesh. It is now recognized that local people
are the center for all development. Their involvement in making and
implementing decision is prerequisite for sustainable forest develop-
ment (Andersson et al., 2014). Therefore; World Bank definition on
forest governance is very much relevant to this study than others. The
World Bank through its soft power within the donor community
sometimes influence donors’ conceptions of ‘good governance’ with
regard to their conditions for financial assistance to developing coun-
tries (Diarra and Plane, 2014). Given their financial, technical, and
expertise-related means, they may be expected to have a considerable
degree of informal influence over domestic policy change (Rahman
et al., 2016). The domestic politics is shaped or reshaped by the donor’s
126
Forest Policy and Economics 95 (2018) 123–137
policy instruments, resulting in effective and enduring impacts on do-
mestic governance (Giessen et al., 2016).World Bank’s engagement in
diverse sectors helps client countries in improving forest sector gov-
ernance. It argued that illegal logging, corruption and other forest
sector crimes create weaknesses in the forest sector governance that
need to be addressed (Agrawal et al., 2008; World Bank, 2009). Various
donor organizations including World Bank have been advocating Ban-
gladesh forest sector policy reforms particularly the reorganization of
the Bangladesh Forest Department (BFD) by creating five new wings,
including ‘extension’ wings for the development and implementation of
community-based forestry programmes (Rahman et al., 2016). The role
of World Bank on domestic policy change is critical to achieve sus-
tainable forest management (SFM). World Bank put emphasize on how
local people acquire and exercise power in the management of the
forest resources. Our study has attempted to explore how local people
acquire and exercise authority in management of forest resources.
Larson and Petkova (2011) used the definition of World Bank on good
governance in their article. Same authors stressed that the definition
can be used in a broader level from local to national scales by which
authority in a country is exercised. World Banks’ definition on gov-
ernance has been considered to operationalize the theorem of the forest
governance given by Giessen and Buttoud (2014) as it established by
the previous study like Sadath and Krott (2013), Rahman et al. (2016),
Sadath and Krott (2012) and (Rahman, Sarker, Sadath, and Giessen,
2018a) World Bank is an influential actor in Participatory/social for-
estry policy program in Bangladesh.
2.2. Analytical framework
Governance is the keystone of sound natural resource management
particularly forest resources. There have been substantial discussions in
the literature on how forest governance can be measured. Several dif-
ferent indicators of governance have been available to measure and
assess forest related issues. In 2002 the International Institute for
Environment and Development (IIED) introduced a ‘diagnostic and
planning tool for good forest governance’. The IIED tool defines nu-
merous ‘elements’ within six ‘tiers’ of good forest governance. Each tier
A. Subhan Mollick et al.
is made up of a number of elements of good governance that are
common to a wide range of different nations. It represents around fifty
elements of good forest governance. The elements derived from a
variety of sources and experiences. These elements should be regarded
as a checklist to stimulate thinking, not to confine or limit responses.
Nevertheless these elements could be recognized as relevant for many
contexts, and that could be interpreted and developed in more detail for
specific circumstances. World Resources Institute (WRI), Instituto
Centro de Vida (ICV) and Instituto do Homem e MeioAmbiente da
Amazonia (Imazon) (2009) also drafted a framework of indicators for
assessing governance of the forest sector that is regarded as Governance
of Forest Initiative (GFI) toolkit (version 1). The toolkit was designed as
piloting to assess forest governance in Brazil and Indonesia. Recently,
Version 2 of GFI Framework Indicator has been revised based on
partners (Indonesia, Brazil, Cameroon and USA) experience and feed-
back. GFI included additional indicator of REDD+. People on Forests
(PROFOR) and Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) (2011) pro-
posed a comprehensive analytical framework that facilitated descrip-
tion, diagnosis, assessment, monitoring and reporting the forest sector
governance. However, the framework was lack of how to collect and
analyze empirical data. Thus it has led to development of new practical
guideline for collecting, analyzing and using governance data (Cowling
et al., 2014). Previously used frameworks are generally used to assess
country’s forest sector governance. These frameworks provide general
guidelines that include developing common indicators and protocols for
scoring the indicators. However frameworks should be location specific
due to the large differences in society and ecology, as well as the models
of participatory forestry in Asia and Africa and constructed within the
context of designated study (Secco et al., 2014; Andersson et al., 2014;
Beland Lindahl et al., 2017; Mutune and Lund, 2016). Forest govern-
ance model can be seen as a context-specific combination of policy
goals, tools for implementations, policies and management solutions
applied in a given place and times through locally embedded practice
(Sandstrom et al., 2017). Scholars argued that the project or program
level good governance assessment provides creditable and useful in-
formation for better orienting decision-making, learning from the past
and thus improving the governance in the future. It also helps to in-
dentify the factors of success or failure, to assess the sustainability of
results and long term impacts and to draw conclusion that may inform
other interventions (Secco et al., 2014). Here, we use a modified fra-
mework (Fig. 2) to evaluate good forest governances in terms of par-
ticipation, transparency and efficiency in a participatory forestry pro-
gram of Bangladesh. Scholar argues that participatory forest
management (PFM) is one of the icons of forest governance, as it creates
new participatory institutions for the local management of forests often
with the help of donors (Arts, 2014). Participatory forest institutions,
involving a management partnership between the state and local
communities, are an increasingly popular alternative to government
and market control (Martin and Lemon, 2001).
Participation, transparency, efficiency, capability, accountability,
effectiveness and fairness/equity are the most common principles de-
veloped by international organizations including PROFOR and FAO
(2011), World Bank (2009), WRI (2009), IIED (2002), Mayers et al.
(2006), Kishor and Robenbaum (2012) and Cowling et al. (2014). All
these frameworks attempt to highlight the key principles and dimen-
sions e.g. stakeholders, rules, legislations and so on. These frameworks
provide descriptive and analytical approaches to governance, yielding
the snapshot of the governance context in a given sector and at a given
point in time (Mansourian, 2016). Equally same author generally con-
sider a number of basic good governance principles such as participa-
tion, transparency and accountability. Scholars opined that forest in-
stitutions and policy reforms could improve their performance through
being inspired by the most common governance principles like parti-
cipation, transparency and accountability (Secco et al., 2014; Park and
Lee, 2016). Six case studies have been analyzed by taking into con-
sideration of four basic principles of good governance like transparency
127
Forest Policy and Economics 95 (2018) 123–137
and access to information, public participation, accountability and ca-
pacity (Secco et al., 2011). Among these participation, transparency
and accountability are more often used criteria to assess the good
governance (UNDP, 1997, World Bank, 2000, Mas et al., 2013;
Stojanovska et al., 2014). In an earlier study of the process of forest
management plans preparation in the Republic of Macedonia con-
sidered three key governance principles like participation, transparency
and accountability (Stojanovska et al., 2014). These sets of good gov-
ernance principles could be used as yardsticks to evaluate the integrity
of governance process (Gorriz-Mifsud et al., 2016). Therefore, this
study concentrates on participation, transparency and efficiency cri-
teria to assess good governance in a participatory forestry program of
Bangladesh and develops a modified framework (Fig. 1). Despite the
theoretically anticipated promises, the outcomes of participatory for-
estry have been mixed implying that locally forest management is not
always a guarantee for positive social and environmental outcomes
(Lund, 2015; Mohammed et al., 2017). The basic notion of participatory
forest management is to enhance the efficiency of participatory in-
stitutions. Good governance is associated with the efficient manage-
ment of forest resources, an enhanced managerial capacity of commu-
nity group members, and adequate financial resources (Baral, 2014).
The FMP (1993) was formulated to provide a framework to enhance the
forestry sector’s ability to deal with the conservation and development
agenda concurrently by considering three important imperatives in-
cluding sustainability, efficiency and community participation. There-
fore it is necessary to assess the performance of managerial capacity of
local management institutions in the study area. IIED (2002) identified
five basic system of good governance which contributes to good forest
governance if they include certain good governance attributes like ef-
ficiency. Therefore this study concentrates on efficiency instead of ac-
countability. A total of 18 indicators were selected for this study (Fig. 1;
Table 1).The framework can help to diagnose problems and monitor the
impact of participatory forestry. It also provides a pathway for under-
standing of governance issues of the participatory forestry programs.
Such a framework of good governance model will act as a guide for
policy makers and other actors in the governance and management of
forests.
Participation has emerged as an important concept in policymaking
(policy formulation and implementation) in many countries since
the1960s (Holmes-Watts and Watts, 2008 cited in Beierle and Konisky,
2000). The concept of people’s participation has been a part of devel-
opment agenda since a long time (Agrawal, 2001). The idea of parti-
cipation in forestry was introduced in the late 1970’s (Skutsch, 2000).
Scholars opined that participation depicts the involvement of local
people in the decision making process in implementing programs,
sharing the benefits of development programs and the efforts to eval-
uate such programs (Cohen and Uphoff, 1980). Participation not only
enhances empowerment but also improves efficiency and brings equity
and environmental sustainability (Uphoff, 1991). Participation facil-
itates accurate understanding of problems and their nature, leading to
collective action. Increased public participation promotes consensus
building at all levels in priority setting and decision-making. It allows
social justice in managing natural resources (Holmes-Watts and Watts,
2008). Participation is also expected to contribute to an effective de-
cision making by creating legitimacy and hence building support for
decisions (Kangas et al., 2010). Legitimacy commonly describes the
state or quality of being legitimate, that is, of being in accord with
established legal norms and requirements, or conforming to recognized
principles or accepted rules and standards of behavior. Core elements of
the concept of legitimacy are the acceptance and justification of au-
thority (Biermann and Gupta, 2011). Legitimacy seems to imply that
individuals believe in the rightfulness of authority and that this belief
facilitates the exercise of power. Legitimacy is a specific quality as-
cribed to government, or systems of governance, which generates
compliance with norms, rules, and political decisions. Legitimacy of
governance and authority can only be established through a public
A. Subhan Mollick et al. Forest Policy and Economics 95 (2018) 123–137

Fig. 2. Location of the study area (black box).

128
A. Subhan Mollick et al.
Table 1
Criteria and indicators for assessing good governance in the study area.
Criteria Indicators
Participation (i) In decision making and implementation
(ii) In management committee meeting
(iii) In benefit sharing schemes
(iv) In raising and maintenance of forests
(v) In protection and conservation of forests
(vi) In monitoring and reporting
Transparency (i) In mobilization of fund (TFF)
(ii) In record keeping of fund
(iii) In disbursement of fund
(iv) In decision making and implementation
(v) In benefit sharing schemes
(vi) In monitoring and reporting
Efficiency (i) In raising and maintenance of forests
(ii) In protection and conservation of forests
(iii) In monitoring and reporting
(iv) In mobilization of TFF
(v) In record keeping of fund
(vi) In disbursement of fund
discourse that involves both the rulers and the ruled-over (Steffek,
2009). In the case of forest sector, political legitimacy means that the
forest regime is perceived as rightful and the political institutions, such
as regulations and incentives as well as decision-making and adminis-
trational processes are perceived as just among the people (Rantala,
2012). In assessing the normative legitimacy of community forestry
institutions, Rantala and German (2013) introduced the concept of the
input legitimacy (for example social forestry rule) as well as output
legitimacy (for example effectiveness or efficiency of participatory in-
stitutions). It is anticipated to produce better plan and policies for
fostering exchange of information and ideas, and by promoting colla-
borative learning about problems their potential solutions (Kozova
et al., 2016). If public involvement is taken seriously by planning au-
thorities, it can reduce conflicts, build trust and create credibility be-
tween managers and the public (Weber, 2018).
Transparency denotes the visibility of decision-making processes,
the clarity with which the rationale behind decisions is communicated
and the accessibility of relevant information (Lockwood et al.,
2010).Scholars argued that it is an openness of the governance system
through clear processes and procedures and easy access to public in-
formation for citizens (Suk Kim et al.,2005). Enabling access to in-
formation is crucial in order to ensure citizens are informed and en-
gaged.
Efficiency in forest management is often referred to as the use of
inputs such as time, money, labor, efforts, tools, technologies or infra-
structures to achieve intended outcomes to the optimum level in a given
context (Kao et al., 1993). Efficiency' in line with the 'good forest
governance' is more than simply the assessment of inputs and outputs in
terms of money metrics. In participatory forestry, more intangible in-
puts, processes and benefits, such as community participation, decision
making, cultural significance of forests and support to livelihoods of
forest dependent poor are also considered important in identifying 'ef-
ficiency' as one of the key aspects of good forest governance (Baral,
2014).
3. Methods
3.1. Selection of study area
In this study, we choose the Madhupur Sal (Shorea robusta) forest
area (Fig. 2) to investigate good governances in a participatory forestry
program because participatory approaches in the degraded Sal forests
area have given top most priority by the Forest Department (FD) of
Bangladesh since 1980’s with the goal of involving local communities in
the management of forest resources (Salam and Noguchi, 2006; Alam
129
Forest Policy and Economics 95 (2018) 123–137
et al., 2010; Islam and Sato, 2012). Madhupur Sal forests are situated in
the Madhupur Upazila of Tangail district (Fig. 2). The tract lies between
23°50'to 24°50' North latitude and 89°54' to 90°50' East longitude.
Madhupur Sal forests cover an area of17 932.15 ha, comprising four
ranges namely Madhupur, Aronkhola, Dokhola and Madhupur National
Park (Kibria and Saha, 2011). About 50,000 people had lived in and
around the Madhupur Sal forests (Islam et al., 2013). Sal forests are one
of the three major forest types (other types are tropical evergreen and
mangrove) covering about 32% of the total forestland and 10% forest
coverage (Rahman, 2009). Currently the Sal forests are located mainly
in the central region, comprising the forests division of Dhaka, My-
mensingh and Tangail, but also to lesser extent in the forests division of
Rajshai, Rangpur and Dinajpur in the northern region. These forests
have a high economical and ecological significance in the central part of
Bangladesh (Salam and Noguchi, 2006; Alam et al., 2010). Sal forests
have also ethnic and cultural values in Bangladesh a few ethnic com-
munities (Garos, Koches, Mandis, Bongshi) live in these forests, and
their livelihood and culture is directly related to these forests (Gain,
2002, Islam and Sato, 2013). In the Madhupur Sal forests area, a total of
20,000 ethnic minorities (the majority are Garos, but there are a few
Koches) had beenliving throughout the forest since time immemorial
(Gain, 2002; Islam et al., 2013). In the past, Sal forests were almost a
continuous tract of dense forest. Now it occurs in disjointed and isolated
patches of varying sizes and in many cases as islands among cultivated
fields and habitants (FD, 2003; Salam and Noguchi, 2006; Alam et al.,
2010).
During colonial rule, most of the Sal forests were transferred to
“Hindu Zamminder” (landlords) for revenue collection. This has re-
sulted in a serious depletion of the forests (Alam et al., 2008; Alam
et al., 2010; Miah and Islam, 2007).In 1951, the East Bengal State
Acquisition and Tenancy Act 1950 were passed by the government and
Sal forests became government property and were vested with the
Forest Department (FD, 2003).For scientific management, entire Sal
forests were divided into two working circles namely clear felling fol-
lowed by artificial regeneration and coppice working circle. Even
though the management practice was technically sound, it failed to
manage the forest on a sustainably because of encroachment, illegal
felling, grazing and occasional fire hazards (Alam et al., 2008; Alam
et al., 2010; Rahman et al., 2010, Islam and Sato, 2012).
In order to reduce encroachment and degradation of Sal forests,
Forest Department has taken several rehabilitation measures, which
includes the involvement of local poor people living in and around the
forest (Islam and Sato, 2012). In 1981 first Community Forestry Project
funded by ADB was taken up by Forest department. This project was
one of theearliest attempts towards a participatory approach to gen-
erate and manage forest resources. About 121 ha of agroforestry
plantation was established with the involvement of encroachers under
this project (Islam et al., 2011). After successful completion of the
Community Forestry Project, another ADB funded project titled Thana
Afforestation and Nursery Development Project was adopted. Under
this project several thousand hectares of woodlot and agro-forestry
plantations were raised with the involvement of local people (Salam
et al., 2005; Salam and Noguchi, 2006). To continue with participatory
forestry, another ADB funded project titled Forestry Sector Project was
taken up by the government in 1998 and ended in 2004 (Khan et al.,
2004; Muhammed et al., 2005; Islam et al., 2011; Jashimuddin and
Inoue, 2012; Nath et al., 2016). To conserve and manage still remaining
patches of Sal forests, a new component termed as participatory Sal
coppice management was introduced in the above-mentioned project.
Under this component, individual blocks of Sal forests were allocated to
local households through NGOs for participatory management and
protection. The coppice crop will be grown an indicative rotation of 20
years (FD, 2003). In order to rehabilitate forest-dependent peoples
Forest Department took a development project entitled “Re-vegetation
of Madhupur Forests through Rehabilitation of Forest Dependent Local
and Ethnic Communities (RMF)” from 2009–2012 (Islam et al., 2013).
A. Subhan Mollick et al.
Fig. 3. Governance status in the study area. (a) Good governance in terms of participation; (b) Good governance in terms of transparency; (c) Good governance in
terms of efficiency and (d) Overall governance status.
There were 700 local forest participants in terms of beneficiaries in this
project. In this study, these participants were considered as respondent
for questionnaire survey.
3.2. Data collection and analysis
Various key documents including policies (forest policy, 1994, draft
forest policy 2015), act (Forest Act 1927 amended in 2000), rules
(Social Forestry Rules 2004 amended in 2011), regulations, and im-
portant documents like forestry master plan 1993, participatory forest
management plan, plantation journals regarding forests were identified
and analyzed to see how local people acquire and exercise power to
govern the forest resources. A total of 23 documents were consulted for
content analysis. Relevant documents were collected from Bangladesh
Forest Department Library, official website of Bangladesh Forest
Department (www.bforest.gov.bd), division office, range office. The
legal documents provide the legal basis as well as an intuitional fra-
mework for local forest participants to own and govern the forest re-
courses. Key informants interview with management committee mem-
bers, local forest officials and local peoples’ was conducted to collect
information on forest governance via decentralization in the forestry
sector. Focus group discussions (FGDs) were also held in the study area.
In addition to that, a semi-structured questionnaire was prepared to
hold interview of 120 local forest participants i.e. beneficiaries using
scoring of qualitative data on a point scale (1 = Very poor, 2 = Poor,
3 = Moderate, 4 = Good and 5 = Very good). For example, attending
130
Forest Policy and Economics 95 (2018) 123–137
meeting by more than 80 percent of forest participants received score 5;
attending meeting by more than 60 percent of forest participants re-
ceived score 4; attending meeting by more than 40 percent of forest
participants received score 3; attending meeting by more than 20 per-
cent of forest participants received score 2; attending meeting by less
than 20 percent of forest participants received score 1. The ques-
tionnaires were administered to generate the responses of the re-
spondents on good governance issues relating to the participation,
transparency and efficiency of PFM in the sal forests of Bangladesh.
Prior to household interview, we conducted reconnaissance survey in
the study areas to gain an idea of good governance issues to inform the
contents of questionnaires, key informant interviews and focus group
discussions. We first collected a list of forest participants i.e. bene-
ficiaries (700) from range office after consulting with the management
committee. Thus, we used a stratified random sampling technique; the
samples were first stratified according to villages and then respondents
were selected randomly. Each respondent was interviewed opportu-
nistically by visiting each household without repetition. Our observa-
tions were also made how local people react in a group meeting. During
the first round of the field work, transect route in a village was iden-
tified and same route was used during final survey. This transect walk
help us to observe similar issues and facts that was encountered during
the first visit. The focus group discussions and the key informants’ in-
terviews were useful for triangulating the responses that ensures the
validity, reliability and the objectivity of data. Here local forest parti-
cipants were regarded as community forest workers (CFW.) The study
A. Subhan Mollick et al.
was based on the proposed modified framework (Fig. 1) for evaluation
of good governance in terms of participation, transparency and effi-
ciency. Table 1 summarizes three criteria and eighteen indicators for
assessing good forest governance, which are relevant to local condi-
tions. The indicators are in the form of multiple-choice questions about
aspects of forest governance (PROFOR and FAO, 2011). The Manage-
ment committee (MC) meeting was organized with the presence of local
participants to see the efficiency of MC and their decision making
system. The data were collected in January-June 2015. The data col-
lected from semi-structured questionnaires were entered into an Excel
spreadsheet andanalyzed using Microsoft Excel (2007). The status of
good governance for each indicator was calculated by simple mathe-
matical procedure. For example, average of participation in manage-
ment committee meeting participated by five forest participants was
(5 + 2 + 4 + 1 + 3)/5 = 3. Similarly the status of good governance for
each criterion was calculated. For example, average of good governance
in terms of participation in six different criteria was
(3.5 + 2.9 + 4.2 + 2.5 + 3.9 + 1.9)/6 = 3.15. A one-way analysis of
variance (ANOVA) was performed to test the significant difference
among the highest and lowest score of indicators for each criterion.
4. Results
4.1. Participation
Participation is a key for all development. Participation of local
people in forest management activities has been considered as a
pathway for improving good forest governance, promoting sustainable
use and management while securing forest benefits and opportunities
for local people (Baral, 2014). It ensures that all men and women forest
participants have a strong voice in decision-making process (Yunita
et al., 2018). A key goal of participatory approach is to empower and
benefit local people (Lund and Saito-Jensen, 2013). Fig. 3a showed the
status of good governance in terms of participation in six criteria.
Participation in benefit sharing schemes received the highest score
(3.90), while the lowest in the management committee meeting (2.12).
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed significant differences
(P < 0.01) among the highest and lowest scores of indicators for
participation criterion (Table 2). Local forest participants believe that
they would get the fair share of benefits from the final harvested pro-
ducts. They also received intermediate products like fuel woods from
first and second thinning. These can be used for subsistence ae well as
for cash income. Financial benefits from the PFM are important to
motivate the local people to have active participation in benefit sharing
schemes (Salam and Noguchi, 2006). Low score in the management
committee meeting indicates that local forest participants were re-
luctant to some extent to participate in group activities like general
meetings and decision-making process. Local people could not manage
enough time for group activities due to their daily subsistence activities.
Sometimes, local people were not well informed about the meetings.
They were not informed earlier. As per Social Forestry Rule, there was
an agreement between state forest department and local forest parti-
cipants that both parties would be responsible for governing the par-
ticipatory forest resources efficiently and sustainably. It is perceived
Table 2
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) among the highest and lowest score of
indicators for participation, transparency and efficiency criteria.
Source of variation SS df MS F P-value
Participation 92.3375 5 18.4675 15.02 8.68E-13⁎⁎
Transparency 16.7833 5 3.3566 2.43 0.035673⁎
Efficiency 51.8333 5 10.3666 7.18 2.83E-06⁎⁎
⁎ of efficiency in fund management and disbursement of cash. Fund
P < 0.05.
⁎⁎
P < 0.01.
131
Forest Policy and Economics 95 (2018) 123–137
from the focus group discussion that participatory forestry reduces
historical distrust and conflict between forest officials and local people
to some extent (Khan and Begum, 1997) but mistrust still exists among
the local forest participants whether they would get the fair share of
benefits from the final harvest in due time or not. This has misled to the
local forest participants. However, collective action is considered as an
important asset for sustainable management of natural resources (Islam
and Sato, 2012).
4.2. Transparency
Transparency is a prerequisite for participatory democracy. It is one
of the important pillars of good forest governance. It is among the basic
requirements for the participatory strategy (Stojanovska et al.,
2014).Transparency discloses forest related information to all the
general forest participants and creates opportunities for the local forest
participants to participate actively in decision making process
(Maguire, 2013). In this study (Fig. 3b), transparency in mobilization of
tree farming fund (TFF) received the highest score (3.12), while the
lowest in the monitoring and reporting (2.40). One-way analysis of
variance (ANOVA) revealed significant differences (P < 0.05) among
the highest and lowest scores of indicators for transparency criterion
(Table 2). It indicates that fund management sub-committee was not
fully transparent in monitoring and reporting. Under Social forestry
rule 2004, there is a provision to form fund management sub-committee
for efficiently handling the fund. The sub-committee keeps detail re-
cords open for beneficiaries as well as for advisory committee members.
Regular monitoring and reporting can help the local forest participants
to understand the latest status of tree farming fund. It acts a means of
communication with general forest participants as well as other stake-
holders. Reports are important documents of transparency in partici-
patory forestry. Lack of transparency in monitoring and reporting might
be associated with ill motivation of committee members. Transparency
in decision making and implementation was the second lowest (2.42) in
all the six criteria. Lack of transparency in decision making might create
conflicts among the resource users that undermine the overall govern-
ance system. Better transparency increases the understanding of the
needs and rights of local forest participants. Transparency in decision-
making process facilitates more meaningful participation by ensuring
that all motivations and objectives are apparent and that all informa-
tion vital to the decision are presented and are reliable (Stojanovska
et al., 2014). It also means improving recipient’s perception quality.
General forest participants need to be aware of all decision made by the
committee.
4.3. Efficiency
Efficiency denotes maximal use of human, financial and other re-
sources without unnecessary delay or waste (PROFOR and FAO 2011).
It ensures the sustainability of participatory forest management activ-
ities. Fig. 3c showed that good governance in terms of efficiency in
raising and maintenance of forest received the highest score (3.52),
while the lowest in mobilization of tree farming fund (2.35). One-way
analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed significant differences
(P < 0.01) among the highest and lowest scores of indicators for
participation criterion (Table 2). FD is the primary government agency
responsible for project implementations like raising plantation, appli-
cation of fertilizations, thinning, and pruning, where as local people’s
main task is to protect and maintain the forest resources. Monitoring
and evaluation were also the FD’s responsibilities, and participants have
participated in the projects’ performance appraisal (Islam et al., 2013).
Low score in mobilization of tree farming fund indicates that manage-
ment committees were not efficient in handling tree farming fund. Al-
though they can take care of their forest resources, they have low level
management requires financial knowledge and skills. Local people are
A. Subhan Mollick et al.
lack of such knowledge and skills. Good governance ensures effective
management of participatory forest resources. Local people’s capability
for efficient management of fund as well as resources need to be en-
hanced through motivation and training. The project provided two
months training to local forest participants for their capacity building.
Local forest participants were received several trainings on forest
management, community development, fund management, record
keeping, report writing and leadership development that enhance their
skill and knowledge. Acquired knowledge and skills could help to de-
velop capacity building of local forest participants. These transforma-
tions create social capitals including mutual trusts, norms and values of
community (Martin and Lemon, 2001; Weber, 2018). It requires long-
term support from the Forest Department to build capacity of local
forest participants to harness the benefit of good governance in a par-
ticipatory forestry program in Bangladesh.
4.4. Overall governance in the study area
The overall good governance in the study area is in moderate level
(Fig. 3d). Good governance in terms of participation has the highest
(3.12), while the lowest in transparency (2.72). It indicates that local
forest participants have moderate level of participation in participatory
forest management activities and have low level of transparency in
decision making, mobilization and record keeping of fund. This has lead
to a demand for improving forest governance in a participatory forestry
program of Bangladesh. In our early study reported that local people
have considerable involvement in activities like planting, tending, and
protection of plantations and in benefit sharing schemes, whereas
participation in planning and decision-makings of PFM activities were
insignificant (Mollick et al., 2006; Dhali et al., 2012). Participation
promotes consensus building at all levels in priority setting and deci-
sion-making. Involving people in the design and implementation of
policies and strategies for environmental management is crucial on
both ethical and sustainability grounds (Furtado et al., 2000). Scholars
argued that participants were motivated to participate because they
were looking to fulfill social responsibility, play a role in forest pro-
tection, and more frequently, gain benefits from the participatory group
(Nuggehalli and Prokopy, 2009). The management activities need to be
improved to sustain the benefit of participatory forestry governance in
Bangladesh. An effective participatory programme must ensure the
participation of all local people and the distribution of benefits to all
segments of the local community (Teye, 2013).
5. Discussion
Forest governance via decentralization is a key for natural resource
management (Agrawal et al., 2008). It is an effective alternative to
command and control approach toward forest management, which in
the past has led to decline and degradation of forest in developing
countries (Balooni et al., 2008). Decentralization in participatory forest
management started in Bangladesh in 1980’s. It has got momentum in
last decade when social forestry rule2004 (amended in 2011) was
promulgated. This policy document provided local forest participants
the legal basis for democratic participation in decision-making process
(Rahman et al., 2016; BFD, 2017). In this study good governance in
terms of participation received the highest score but not at satisfactory
level (Fig. 3a). It indicates moderate level of governance in participa-
tory forestry. In our early study on participatory forestry in Madhupur
sal forests reported that local forest participants were not fully vested
the responsibility of decision-making (Dhali et al., 2012). Local forest
department hold the majority of responsibility of planning and decision
making, whereas implementation activities were to some extent to local
forest participants (Dhali et al., 2012). The significant presence of state
institutions in implementing policy tasks implies a state-dominated
practice of governance and management of forest resources (Rahman
et al., 2018a,b). In a recent study on household’s participation in forest
132
Forest Policy and Economics 95 (2018) 123–137
governance conducted in Nepal’s community forestry reported low
level of participation in meetings and workshops (Shrestha and
Shrestha, 2017). Involvement of local forest participants in manage-
ment committee meeting as well in the decision making process is
crucial as it enhances the capability of management committee who
take key decisions. The management committee was usually re-
presented by elite and wealthier people. Persson and Prowse (2017)
conducted a study on collective action on forest governance in Cam-
bodian community forest system and found similar findings that
younger and poorer households were excluded from the formal meet-
ings. Probably local people’s voices were not well herd and not re-
cognized during the meeting. Hence more involved the local people in
the preparation of participatory forest management plan, raising and
maintenance of forests, protection and conservation of forests; the
greater the benefits would accrue in favor of local people. Khan and
Begum (1997) conducted a study on the nature of participation in social
forestry program in Bangladesh and concluded that people’s partici-
pation has been insignificant and marginal. Sarker et al. (2017) also
opined that no major involvement was found in project-related deci-
sions-making and evaluation. Participation in decision-making and
strategy formulation enables learning and helps to strengthen colla-
borative relationships and trust (Schusler et al., 2003; Weber, 2018;
Rahman et al., 2018a,b).
Another important aspect of participatory forestry was to provide
benefits in term of material (thinning and pruning products) and cash to
local forest participants in stipulated time (when final product har-
vested). In this study participation of local forest participants in benefit
sharing received the highest score (3.90). This could be due to the belief
of the local forest participants that they could get their right percentage
of share stipulated in the benefit sharing agreements. This belief serves
as a major incentive in boosting enthusiasm among the local people.
Some of the beneficiaries received a considerable amounts while others
not. This has caused widespread dissatisfaction among the forest user
groups. Local people opined that larger opportunities go to local elite,
who have good relationship with local forest officials. Islam et al.
(2013) reported the similar findings in a participatory forestry project
conducted in Madhupur Sal forests. This study also reported that
monetary benefit motivated local forest participants strongly. Partici-
pation of local forest participants in raising and protection of forests
also showed moderate level of governance (3.25). Local forest partici-
pants get some incentives in terms of intermediately products and cash
during the project period. These incentives could lead them to protect
the forests. Forest patrolling and other related protections had in-
creased significantly in the study area but illegal felling and un-
sustainable extractions of forest resources are still continuing. The
study on the co-management of the protected area in Bangladesh re-
veals that local forest communities make significant contributions to
the forest protection, however, their substantial benefits and partici-
pation in the forest decision-making remain low (Koli, 2010).The ulti-
mate target of participatory forest management is to engage local
people in planning, implementation and benefit sharing. Local people
have participated in the implementation of the project only in a nom-
inal way. National development cannot be achieved and sustained
without active participation of stakeholders at community level (Barasa
and Jelagat, 2013). The monitoring and reporting of the program are
the government’s sole responsibility. Local people have hardly any
voice in the program’s performance appraisal. Local forest officials
usually record and maintain appraisal reports (Khan and Begum, 1997).
One of the most significant changes in participatory forest management
is the development of participatory institutions; it transfers some sort of
power and responsibility from state forest management model to par-
ticipatory forest management model. However, involvement of local
people in forest management activities and their role in decision
making process was still in moderate level (Koli, 2013). This can be
referred to as ‘tokenism’; that is, they are allowed to hear and have a
voice, but they lack the power to ensure that their views are properly
A. Subhan Mollick et al.
addressed (Oliveira et al., 2013 cited in Arnstein, 1969). A recent study
(Nath et al., 2016) reported that local people receive benefit from the
program but are not competent enough to participate in planning
process. It was claimed that local forest officers had always played the
significant role and controlled the whole decision-making process in the
general meetings (Islam et al., 2013). However, government officials
have an important role in ensuring peoples’ participation as the arm of
government responsible for executing the projects in rural areas. It also
found that decision-making rights are the key to mobilizing peoples’
participation in natural resource conservation in Africa (Islam et al.,
2013 cited in Degeti, 2003). Public participation increases public
awareness of forests and forestry, enhances social acceptance of sus-
tainable forest management, and shares costs and benefits in a fair and
equitable way (Park and Lee, 2016).
Transparency is an important ingredient of forest sector governance
(Secco et al., 2014, Park and Lee, 2016). It can be a useful tool to assess
the performance of participatory forest governance. Developing country
like Bangladesh forest sector has been impeded by low level of trans-
parency in decision-making and access to information (Nath and Inoue,
2008). In this study, good governance in terms of transparency in
participatory forestry received the lowest score (Fig. 3b). Nath and
Inoue (2008) examined the governance issues of a participatory forestry
project in Bangladesh and reported that low level of participation and
lack of transparency in handling the project money affect the project
outcomes. Transparency in mobilization of fund (TFF) received the
highest score, while monitoring and reporting was the lowest. TFF is the
only fund generated from the final harvested products that are being
used for next generation plantation activities including site preparation
and raising and maintenance of participatory plantations. (Nath et al.,
2016). Each program has a 10-year duration, and participants can use
up to three rotations. Moreover, participants can cultivate agriculture
crops along with trees at any time of the program tenure and the entire
crop benefits would accrue to local participants (Islam et al., 2013).
This provision makes the bridge between two generations plantation
program. Transparency in fund mobilization could reduce the burden of
the next generation plantation costs and also creates self-confidence
among local people. This has led to successful of local level participa-
tory institutions (Baral, 2014 cited in Chhatre et al., 2012; Ojha et al.,
2013). As per the social forestry rule, the major responsibility of pro-
gram level decision making and implementation were vested with the
committee members in general. Although occasionally community
members are included in formal management committees; however, the
power resources come from thetop and the decision-making process is
heavily influenced by the local forest administrations and local elites.
(Khan and Begum, 1997; Lund, 2015; Rahman et al., 2018a,b). Lacuna-
Richman et al. (2016) conducted a study on users’ priorities for good
governance in community forestry in Nepal and reported that a central
committee makes most of the decision. Here local level institutions
would not be fully vested the responsibility to operate program level
tasks as per the rule. The institutions maintain transparency in handling
fund for next plantation program but there is still room for improve-
ment. Most of the program level information was maintained by local
forest officials and management committee members. Local people do
not have same level of accessing information due to their illiteracy and
the infrequency of meetings. The elite control decision-making process
might limit the information flow to the general members. Transparency
in monitoring and reporting received the lowest score. This could be
due to the lack of awareness as well as ill motive of the committee
members. Education level of the committee has weaknesses in re-
porting. Management committee prepares few pages report but even
not circulated among the general members. The right to know and
access to information reflect the principle of transparency (Cox, 2013).
Scholars argued that for enhancing the transparency of participatory
forest management, clear rules on accessing to and sharing information
on management of forests are needed at the national and local levels
(Park and Lee, 2016).Transparency is the bench mark of quality of
133
Forest Policy and Economics 95 (2018) 123–137
participatory forestry which can be guaranteed by allowing bene-
ficiaries and relevant stakeholder access to participatory decision
making processes and benefit sharing mechanisms (Baral, 2014). Many
recent studies (Nath and Inoue, 2008, Nath et al., 2015) express a
concern about transparency especially in terms of benefit sharing,
monitoring and reporting. Scholars argued that making information
available does not necessarily constitute a desirable level of transpar-
ency. However, clear transparency results when reliable information is
disclosed to the public i.e. they display relevant and accessible in-
formation in formats that are appropriate to general member (Perfect-
Mrema, 2017). Nath and Inoue (2009) stressed that provisions need to
be made for maintaining accountability, transparency, and equity in
order to avoid the misuse of project resources.
The success of participatory forestry program is largely depending
on the efficient management of forest resources. The failure of state
forest management models was due to the inefficiency of state forest
department, which has led to serious degradation and deforestation of
forests in developing countries like Bangladesh (Roy et al., 2012; Nath
et al., 2015; Nath et al., 2016). Effective forest governance is central to
improve forest cover and change out comes (Agrawal et al., 2008). In
this study, Fig. 3c showed the low level of efficiency in overall gov-
ernance performance of participatory forestry. Salam and Noguchi
(2006) conducted a study on evaluating capacity development for PAM
in Bangladesh’s Sal forests and suggested that the capacity of stake-
holders did not develop to the level anticipated. With regard to the
transfer of management authority to local level institutions appeared to
be premature in the study area (Ahammad et al., 2014). Participatory
forest institutions are often embedded within the legal and institutional
frameworks that make it difficult for local people the capacity for self-
management (Martin and Lemon, 2001). Adhikari et al. (2007) re-
ported that people’s effective involvement improves the chances of
long-term success for community forestry. Participation of local people
in forest management activities not only enhances local people’s cap-
ability but also improves the efficiency (Uphoff, 1991). It enhances
effectiveness of activities and secures their sustainability because these
activities are based on local knowledge and understanding of problems
(Borrini-Feyerabend and Buchan, 1997). Pokharel and Tiwari (2013)
conducted a study on good governance assessment in Nepal’s commu-
nity forestry and concluded that there is a need to build capacity of
marginalized groups to represent in the committee meetings. Forest
governance can improve the capacity of forest reliant people to
meaningfully participate and exercise their rights in forest related de-
cision-making (Zoysa and Inoue, 2008). Local level governance via
decentralization augments the use and management efficiency and
equity while reducing conflicts over forest resources (Ribot et al.,
2010). Pulhin et al. (2007) conducted a comprehensive review of the
policy and practices of community-based forest management (CBFM) in
the Philippines and reported that locally managed forest existed for
centuries.
In this study, the overall governance status (Fig. 3d) in participatory
forestry project of Bangladesh is in moderate level (2.93). It indicates
that management committee is not open to share information to the
general forest participants. It was observed from group discussion that
general members of the committee could actively participate in the
meeting but ultimately could not influence the decision-making pro-
cesses. Many respondents reported that even they did not have enough
idea about the possible issues to be discussed in the meeting. Local
people got the opportunity to attend the meeting but ultimately it did
not work. They did not feel that they have an equal partnership with
elite members or local forest officials. Local elite people who already
have position and control over the society took leading role in shaping
the meeting decision on behalf of forest user group (Rahman et al.,
2018a,b). A recent study reported that local people would feel re-
sponsible for their natural resources when they could gain control over
such resources (Islam et al., 2013). Gobeze et al. (2009) conducted a
study on PFM in Ethiopia and reported that the sustainability of PFM
A. Subhan Mollick et al.
depends largely on the transparent partnership between the members of
the forest users and their leaders on the one hand and between their
institutions notably forest user groups (FUGs) and the state on the
other. Same authors reported that the executive committees remain less
transparent in deciding benefit sharing, allocating training opportu-
nities, and in various decision making processes regarding responsi-
bility sharing in managing the forest. Transparency and participation
are complementary to each other. Promoting the participation of all
stakeholders leads to greater transparency in community forestry pro-
cesses. However, the overall participatory forest governance is just sa-
tisfactory. Lamichhane and Parajuli (2014) conducted a study on as-
sessment of good governance in Nepal’s community forestry and
reported that good governance status in Nepal’s community forestry is
in moderate level but still promising. The moderate level of governance
in participatory forestry might be associated with lack of skill of local
forest participants, unclear land tenure and negative attitude to state
forest department by local ethnic people. Participatory forest govern-
ance could be seen as a collective learning process that improves the
interactions between social actors and government (Secco et al., 2011).
Participatory forestry has got the solid foundation through legal and
institutional frameworks; however, the process has been fraught with
problems and has not been entirely successful. Scholar argued that
participatory forestry seeks to promote participation by local people in
forest management through devolution of rights and responsibility over
the resources, while these reforms appear to be dominated by state
forest department or local elites (Ribot et al., 2010;Mustalahti and
Lund, 2010;Lund, 2015). A recent study on impact of participatory
forestry in Kenya reported that current forest governance approaches
have failed to support participation in practice (Mutune and Lund,
2016). It is generally expected that good governance establishes less
corruption, takes into account the view of minorities, and is inclusive of
the most vulnerable peoples’ voices in the decision-making process
(Pokharel and Tiwari, 2013; Yunita et al., 2018). A recommendation is
made by Nath and Inoue (2009) that effective participation by forest
participants would heighten the sense of ownership, enhance collective
management, and ensure long-term project sustainability. Forest sus-
tainability, together with fair decision making and benefit distribution,
can be ensured through the practice of good forest governance (Larson
and Petkova, 2011).This might help to maintain good governance
throughout the project. Yet, good governance is an elusive concept,
which is difficult to achieve in its totality (Arnouts et al., 2012;
Lamichhane and Parajuli, 2014).
6. Conclusion
This exploratory research is a first attempt to assess the governance
performance in a participatory forestry program of Bangladesh. The
purpose of the study is to contribute to the understanding on status of
good governance features of participatory forest management (PFM).
This study employed a modified framework for assessing the perfor-
mance of good governance in terms of participation, transparency and
efficiency. The modified framework provides a structure for empirical
analysis of good governance for participatory forestry programs. This
study illustrates two fundamental issues: 1) the modified theory driven
methodological framework and 2) the ability of that method to produce
and analyze the empirical qualitative- quantitative data which provides
the study results. This study reveals that good governance in terms of
participation in benefit sharing schemes received the highest score,
while the lowest in the management committee meetings. Transparency
in mobilization of fund (TFF) received the highest score, while the
monitoring and reporting is the lowest. Good governance in terms of
efficiency in raising and maintenance of forest received the highest
score, while the lowest in the mobilization of fund. In overall govern-
ance status in PFM, participation received the highest score, while the
lowest in transparency. It indicated that local people have participated
at moderate level, have low level of transparency and efficiency in
134
Forest Policy and Economics 95 (2018) 123–137
decision-makings and fund handling. Moderate level of participation,
low level of transparency and efficiency remain significant challenges
for participatory forestry program of Bangladesh. The transfer of usu-
fruct rights and responsibility over the management of forests is a re-
latively new phenomenon in Bangladesh forest sector and so offer more
participation in planning, implementation and benefit sharing schemes.
The most significant achievement of this arrangement is that it brought
some changes in the forest governance by including local people in the
forest governance process. Despite some achievements in PAM in the
country since 1980s, Forest Department (FD) of Bangladesh proved it-
self as the most powerful and influential actor in every element of
power analysis in participatory forestry programs (Islam et al., 2014).
Government institutions sometimes do not fully trust local people as
capable partners for planning and managing the local forest resources.
These local people are therefore excluded from the management deci-
sions as well as other task. Along with government agencies, manage-
ment committee members as well as local elites capture the benefits.
The village elites, politically and civically active individuals, gain au-
thority and prestige from governing positions and by interacting with
external agents to bring personal benefits. The observe pattern of de-
liberative decision making has sought to maintain control over the
forest resources since colonial times. This action limits the legitimate
participation of local people in decision-making processes. Meaningful
transfer of power should be entrusted to local people particularly direct
forest users, not only to committee members of PAM (Rahman et al.,
2018a,b).
The implementation of participatory forest management approaches
in Bangladesh does not always follow the notions expressed in the
Social Forestry Rule 2004 (amended 2011) but largely depends on local
histories, cultures and settings. Kairu et al. (2018) argued that there
was a widespread ‘implementation gap’ between the lofty aspirations
enriched in legal and policy framework, and the actual rollout of par-
ticipatory forest governance on the ground in the global south. How-
ever, the findings of this study would provide an insight on the overall
governance performance of a participatory forestry program that would
be useful to scholars, forest policy-makers, international development
agencies and local forest practitioners in formulating effective polices
for participatory forest management programs in Bangladesh as well as
other developing countries. However, this research has some limita-
tions. We focused on only three key-dimensions of good governance
principles. There is a common weakness in understanding how the
rights and responsibility over forest resources should be distributed and
regulated among participatory institutions. In future study, local case
studies should be conducted to understand the phenomenon of public
participation in state forest management. In order to broaden the le-
gitimacy of participatory forest management (PFM) and to enhance its
long-term sustainability, there is a need to have a solid institutional and
legal foundation as they appear not to support participation in practice.
Funding
No funding was received from any funding agency for this research
work.
Acknowledgements
We thank to local forest officials and forest participants for their
help during field data collection. We are grateful to Professor Makoto
Inoue, Waseda University, Japan for his contribution in designing the
research framework of this article. Thanks to the excellent Editor and
anonymous Reviewers for their valuable comments to improve the
quality of this article.
References
Adhikari, B., Williams, F., Lovett, J.C., 2007. Local benefits from community forests in the
A. Subhan Mollick et al.
middle hills of Nepal. Forest Policy Econ. 9, 464–478.
Agrawal, A., Chhatre, A., Hardin, R., 2008. Changing governance of the world’s forests.
Science 320, 1460–1463.
Ahammad, R., Hossian, M.K., Husnain, P., 2014. Governance of forest conservation and
co-benefits for Bangladesh under changing climate. J. For. Res. 25, 29–36.
Alam, M., Furukawa, Y., Sarker, S.K., Ahmed, R., 2008. Sustainability of Sal
(Shorearobusta) forest in Bangladesh: past, present and future actions. Int. Forest Rev.
10, 29–37.
Alam, M., Furukawa, Y., Harada, K., 2010. Agroforestry as a sustainable landuse option in
degraded tropical forests: a study from Bangladesh. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 12,
147–258.
Ali, M.Y., 2015. Governance in community based forest management: Bangladesh con-
text. The Daily Prothom Alo, Dhaka, Bangladesh (special issue).
Andersson, K., 2013. Local governance of forests and the role of external organizations:
some ties matter more than others. World Dev. 43, 226–237.
Andersson, K., Benavides, J.P., Leon, R., 2014. Institutional diversity and local forest
governance. Environ. Sci. Policy 36, 61–71.
Arnouts, R., Van der Zouwen, M., Arts, B., 2012. Analysing governance modes and shifts –
Governance arrangements in Dutch nature policy. For. Policy Econ. 16, 43–50.
Arnstein, S.R., 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. JAIP 35, 216–224.
Arts, B., 2014. Assessing forest governance from a ‘Triple G’ perspective: government,
governance and governmentality. Forest Policy Econ. 49, 17–22.
Arts, B., Lagendijk, A., Van Houtum, H. (Eds.), 2009. The Disoriented State: Shift in
Governmentality, Territoriality and Governance. Springer, Dordrecht.
Ayana, A.N., Vandenabeele, A., Arts, B., 2015. Performance of participatory forest
management in Ethiopia: institutional arrangement versus local practice. Crit. Policy
Stud.
Balooni, K., Pulhin, J.M., Inoue, M., 2008. The effectiveness of decentralization reforms in
the Philippine’s forestry sector. Geoforum 39, 2122–2131.
Baral, B.S., 2014. Who benefits? Decentralized forest governance through community
forestry in Nepal. PhD Dissertation. University of Tasmania, Australia.
Barasa, F., Jelagat, T., 2013. Community participation in project planning, management
and implementation: Building the foundation for sustainable development. I. J. Curr.
Res. 5, 398–401.
Beierle, T.C., Konisky, D.M., 2000. Values, conflict, and trust in participatory environ-
ment planning. J. Policy Anal. Manag. 19, 587–602.
BelandLindahl, K., Sandstrom, C., Stens, A., 2017. Alternative pathways to sustainability?
Comparing forest governance models. Forest Policy Econ. 77, 69–78.
BFD, 2017. Homepage. Bangladesh Forest Department Retrieved from. http://www.
bforest.gov.bd.
Biermann, F., Gupta, A., 2011. Accountability and legitimacy in earth system governance:
a research framework. Forest Policy Econ. 70, 1856–1864.
Biswas, S.R., Choudhury, J.K., 2007. Forests and forest management practices in
Bangladesh: the question of sustainability. Int. Forest Rev. 9, 627–640.
Bocher, M., Giessen, L., Kleinschmit, D. (Eds.), 2008. Environmental and Forest
Governance: The Role of Discourses and Expertise. Proceeding of the International
Conference, Goettingen, vol. 7 Universitatsverlag, Goettingen.
Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Buchan, D., 1997. Beyond fences: Seeking social sustainability in
conservation. 2. International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Gland,
pp. 283.
Broekhoeven, G., Savenije, H., Scheliha, S. (Eds.), 2012. Moving for forward wt forest
governance. ETFRN News 53 Tropenbos International, Waginingen.
Brown, D.Y., Malla, K., Schreckenberg, Springate-Baginski, O., 2002. From supervising
subjects to supporting citizens: recent development in community forestry in Asia and
Africa. In: Natural Resource Perspectives No. 75. Overseas Development Institute,
London.
Cashore, B., Auld, G., Newsom, D., 2004. Governing through markets. Forest certification
and the emergence of non-state authority. Yale University Press, New Haven and
London.
Chhatre, A., Lakhanpal, S., Larson, A.M., Nelson, F., Ojha, H., Rao, J., 2012. Social
safeguards and co-benefits of REDD+: a review of adjacent possible. Curr. Opin.
Environ. Sust. 4, 654–660.
Cohen, J.M., Uphoff, N.T., 1980. Participation’s place in rural development: seeking
clarity through specificity. World Dev. 8, 213–235.
Cowling, P., DeValue, K., Rosenbaum, K., 2014. Assessing Forest Governance: A Practical
Guide to Data Collection, Analysis and Use. PROFOR and FAO, Washington DC.
Cox, R., 2013. Environmental Communication and the Public Sphere, 3rd ed. SAGE, Los
Angeles, CA, USA.
CPD (Centre for Policy Dialouge), 2007. Bangladesh Vision 2021: Prepared Under the
Initiative of Nagorik Committee. Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Davenport, D., Bulkan, J., Hajjar, R., Hardcastle, P., Assembe-Mvondo, S., Atyi, R.E.,
Humphreys, D., Maryudi, A., 2010. Forest and Sustainability. Embracing complexity
– Meeting the Challenges of International Forest Governance. IUFRO World Series,
vol. 28. pp. 75–91.
de Oliveira, J.P., Cadman, T., Ma, H.O., Masaseni, T., Koli, A., Jadhav, Y.D., Prabowo, D.,
2013. Governing the forests: An institutional analysis of REDD+ and community
forest management in Asia. ITTO and UNU-IAS Policy Report, Yokohama, Japan.
Degeti, T., 2003. Factors Affecting People’s Participation in Participatory Forest
Management: The Case of IFMP Adaba-Dodola in Bale Zone of Oromia Region (MSc
dissertation). Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa (Ethiopia).
Dhali, P.K., Pretzch, J., Romisch, K., Mollick, A.S., 2012. People’s participation in parti-
cipatory forest management in the Sal forests of Bangladesh: an explorative study.
Int. J. Soc. Forest 5, 38–56.
Diarra, G., Plane, P., 2014. Assessing the World Bank’s influence on the Good Governance
Paradigm. Oxford Dev. Stud. 42, 473–487.
Edwards, P., Giessen, L., 2014. Global forest governance – discussing legal scholarship
135
Forest Policy and Economics 95 (2018) 123–137
from political science perspectives. Forest Policy Econ. 38, 30–31.
FAO, 2011. Framework for Assessing and Monitoring Forest Governance. FAO, Rome.
FAO, 2012. Strengthening effective forest governance monitoring practice. In: Forest
Policy and Institutions Working Paper No. 29. FAO, Rome.
FD, 2003. Participatory Management Plans for Mymensingh Forest Division (Volume I:
Ten Years Plan). Forestry Sector Project. Dhaka, ADB Project BAN No. 1486.
FMP, 1993. Forestry Master Plan. Main Plan – 1993/2012. Vol 1, Asian Development
Bank (TA No. 1355-BAN). Ministry of Environment and Forests. Government of
Bangladesh, Dhaka.
Furtado, J.I., Belt, T., Jammi, T., 2000. Economic Development and Environmental
Sustainability: Policies and Principles for a Durable Equilibrium. World Bank,
Washington, D.C.
Gain, P., 2002. The Last Forest of Bangladesh. Society for Environmental and Human
Development, Dhaka.
Giessen, L., 2013. Reviewing the main characteristics of the international forest regime
complex and partial explanations for its fragmentation. Int. For. Rev. 15, 60–70.
Giessen, L., Buttoud, G., 2014. Defining and assessing forest governance. Forest Policy
Econ. 49, 1–3.
Giessen, L., Sarkar, P.K., Rahman, M.S., 2016. International and domestic sustainable
forest management policies: distributive effects on power among state agencies in
Bangladeh. Sustainability 8, 335. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8040335.
GOB, 2012. Perspective Plan of BANGLADESH 2010–2021: Making Vision 2021 a Reality.
Planning Commission, Government of Bangladesh.
Gorriz-Mifsud, E., Secco, L., Pisani, E., 2016. Exploring the interlinkages between gov-
ernance and social capital: a dynamic model for forestry. Forest Policy Econ. 65,
25–36.
Gow, D.D., 1988. Development anthropology: in request of practical vision. Dev.
Anthropol. Netw. 6, 13–17.
Guariguata, M.R., Balvanera, P., 2009. Tropical forest service flows: improving our un-
derstanding of the biophysical dimension of ecosystem services. For. Econ. Manag.
258, 1825–1829.
Holmes-Watts, T., Watts, S., 2008. Legal framework for and the practice of participatory
natural resources management in South Africa. Forest Policy Econ. 10, 435–443.
Howlett, M., Rayner, J., Tollefson, C., 2009. Form government to governance in forest
planning? Lessons from the case of the British Columbia Great Bear Rainforest in-
itiative. Forest Policy Econ. 11, 383–392.
IIED, 2002. The pyramid: a diagnostic and planning tool for good forest governance.
Retrieved from. http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/
diagnosticandplanningtoolforgoodforestgovernance2002.pdf Visited at 23/5/2017.
Islam, K.K., Sato, N., 2012. Participatory forestry in Bangladesh: has it helped to increase
the livelihoods of Sal forests-dependent people? South Forests 74 (2), 89–101.
Islam, K.K., Sato, N., 2013. Protected sal forest and livelihood of ethnic minorities: ex-
perience from Bangladesh. J. Sustain. For. 32, 412–436.
Islam, K.K., Kimihiko, H., Takahiro, F., Sato, N., 2011. Confronting prople-oriented forest
management realities in Bangladesh: an analysis of actors’ perspective. Int. J. Soc.
Forest. 4, 153–179.
Islam, K.K., Rahman, G.M.M., Fujiwara, T., Sato, N., 2013. People’s participation in forest
conservation and livelihoods improvement: experiences from a forestry project in
Bangladesh. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecol. Ser. Manage. 9 (1), 30–43.
Islam, K.K., Kimihico, H., Tani, M., Krott, M., Sato, N., 2014. Actors’ power, livelihood
assets and participatory forestry in Bangladesh: evidence from the Sal forests area.
Open J. For. 4, 1–9.
Jashimuddin, M., Inoue, M., 2012. Community forestry for sustainable forest manage-
ment: experience from Bangladesh and policy recommendation. Formath 11,
133–166.
Kabir, M.E., Webb, E.L., 2005. Productivity and suitability analysis of socil forestry
woodlot species in Dhaka Forest Division, Bangladesh. For. Ecol. Manag. 212,
243–252.
Kairu, A., Upton, C., Huxham, M., Kotut, K., Mbeche, R., Kairo, J., 2018. From shiny shoes
to muddy reality: Understanding how Meso-State actors negotiate the implementa-
tion gap in participatory forest management. Soc. Nat. Resour. 31, 74–88.
Kangas, A., Saarinen, N., Saarikoski, H., Leskinen, L.A., Hujala, T., Tikkanen, J., 2010.
Stakeholder perspectives about proper participation for Regional Forest Programmes
in Finland. Forest Policy Econ. 12, 213–222.
Kao, C., Chang, P., Hwang, A., 1993. Data envelopment analysis in measurement the
efficiency of forest management. J. Environ. Manage. 38, 73–83.
Khan, N.A., 1998. A political economy of forest resource use: case studies of social for-
estry in Bangladesh. Ashgate Publishing Company, England.
Khan, N.A., Begum, S.A., 1997. Participation in social forestry re-examined: a case study
in Bangladesh. Dev. Pract. 7, 260–266.
Khan, N.A., Choudhury, J.K., Huda, K.S., Mondal, M.I., 2004. An Overview of Social
Forestry in Bangladesh. Forestry Sector Project. Government of Bangladesh, Dhaka.
Kibria, M.G., Saha, N., 2011. Analysis of existing agroforestry practices in Madhupur Sal
forest: an assessment based on ecological and economic perspective. J. For. Res. 22,
533–542.
Kishor, N., Robenbaum, K., 2012. Assessing and Monitoring Forest Governance: A User’s
Guide to a Diagnostic Tool. Program on Forest (PROFOR), Washington DC.
Koli, A., 2010. Protected area co-management in Bangladesh- Can enhance the adaptation
of the forest communities? In: Proceeding of the International Conference on
Environmental Aspects of Bangladesh (ICEAB). University of Kitakyushu, Japan, pp.
79–82 September.
Koli, A., 2013. Community management addressing social vulnerability of forest com-
munities in Bangladesh. Int. Forest Rev. 15, 336–347.
Kozova, M., Dobsinska, Z., Pauditsova, E., Tomcikova, Rakytova, I., 2016. Network and
participatory governance in urban forestry: an assessment of examples from selectd
Slovakian cities. Forest Policy Econ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.09.016.
A. Subhan Mollick et al.
Lacuna-Richman, C., Devkota, B.P., Richman, M.A., 2016. Users’ priorities for good
governance in community forestry: two cases from Nepal’s Terai Region. Forest
Policy Econ. 65, 69–78.
Lamichhane, D., Parajuli, R., 2014. How good is the governance status in community
forestry? A case study from Midhills in Nepal. J. Ecosy. 541374 (1-7).
Larson, A.M., Petkova, E., 2011. An introduction to forest governance, people and REDD
+ in Latin America: obstacles and opportunities. Forests 2 (1), 86–111.
Lockwood, M., Davidson, J., Curtis, J., Stratford, E., Griffith, R., 2010. Governance
principles for natural resource management. Soc. Nat. Resour. 23, 986–1001.
Lund, J.F., 2015. Paradoxes of participation: The logic of professionalization in partici-
patory forestry. Forest Policy Econ. 60, 1–6.
Lund, J.F., Saito-Jensen, M., 2013. Revisiting the issue of elite capture of participatory
initiatives. World Dev. 46, 104–112.
Maguire, R., 2013. Global Forest Governance: Legal Concepts and Policy Trends. Edward
Elgar, UK.
Manor, J., 2004. Users committees: a potentially damaging second wave of decen-
tralization? Eur. J. Dev. Res. 16, 192–213.
Mansourian, S., 2016. Understanding the relationships between governance and forest
landscape restoration. Conserv. Soc. 14, 267–278.
Martin, A., Lemon, M., 2001. Challenges for participatory institutions: the case of village
forest committees in Karnataka, South India. Soc. Nat. Resour. 14, 585–597.
Maryudi, A., Sahide, M.A.K., 2017. Research trend: power analyses in polycentric and
multi-level forest governance. Forest Policy Econ. 81, 65–68.
Maryudi, A., Nurrochmat, D.R., Giessen, L., 2018. Research trend: forest policy and
governance – Future analyses in multiple social science disciplines. Forest Policy
Econ. 91, 1–4.
Mas, J.T., Diez, A.A., Martinez, M.M., Pagan, J.L., 2013. Transparency, Accountability
and Participation: A Common Agenda for Social Cohesion and Governance in Latin
America. URB-AL III Program Orientation and Coordination Office.
Mayers, J., Bila, A., Khaukha, S., Opoku, K., Simwela, W., 2006. Forest governance and
social justice: practical tactics from a learning group approach in Africa. Int. Forest
Rev. 8, 201–208.
Mery, G., Katila, P., Galloway, G., Alfaro, R. I., Kanninen, M., Lobovikov, M., Varjo, J.
(eds.). 2010. Forests and Society – Responding to Global Drivers of Change. IUFRO
World Series, vol. 25. Vienna. 509 p.
Miah, M.D., Chakma, S., Koike, M., Muhammed, N., 2012. Contribution of forests to the
livelihood of the Chakma community in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh. J.
For. Res. 17, 449–457.
Mohammed, A.J., Inoue, M., Shivakoti, G., 2017. Moving forward in collaborative forest
management: Role of external actors for sustainable Forests socio-ecological systems.
Forest Policy Econ. 74, 13–19.
Mollick, A.S., Azad, M.S., Kyser, M.A., 2006. Impacts of participatory forestry on com-
munity livelihood: a case study in the degraded Sal (Shorearobusta) forests areas of
Tangail and Mymensingh forest division. South Asian J. Agric. 2, 24–27.
Muhammed, N., Koike, M., Sajjaduzzaman, M., Sophanarith, K., 2005. Reckoning social
forestry in Bangladesh: policy and plan versus implementation. Forestry 78 (4),
373–383.
Muhammed, N., Koike, M., Haque, F., 2008. Forest policy and sustainable forest man-
agement in Bangladesh: an analysis from national and international perspectives.
New Forests 36, 201–216.
Muller, E., Tuomasjukka, T., 2010. Governance as an element of global political agendas.
In: Tuomasjukka, T. (Ed.), Forest Policy and Economics in Support of Good
Governance. EFI Proceedings No. 58.
Mustalahti, I., Lund, J.F., 2010. Where and how can participatory forest management
succeed? Learning from Tnazania, Mozambique and Laos. Soc. Nat. Resour. 23,
31–44.
Mustalahti, I., Tassa, D.T., 2014. Analysis of three crucial elements of REDD+ in parti-
cipatory forest management. Scand. J. For. Res. 27, 200–209.
Mutune, J.M., Lund, J.F., 2016. Unpacking the impacts of ‘participatory’ forestry policies:
evidence from Kenya. Forest Policy Econ. 69, 45–52.
Nath, T.K., Inoue, M., 2008. How does local governance affect project outcomes?
Experience from a Participatory Forestry (PF) project in Bangladesh. Int. J. Agric.
Resour. Gov. Ecol. 7 (6), 491–506.
Nath, T.K., Inoue, M., 2009. Forest-based settlement project and its impact on community
livelihood in Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh. Int. Forest Rev. 11, 394–407.
Nath, T.K., Inoue, M., 2010. Impacts of participatory forestry on livelihoods of ethnic
people: experience from Bangladesh. Soc. Nat. Resour. 23, 1093–1107.
Nath, T.K., Jashimuddin, M., Inoue, M., 2015. Bangladesh: do changes in policy ensures
good forest governance? In: Inoue, M., Shivakoti, G.P. (Eds.), Multilevel Forest
Governance in Asia: Concepts, Challenges and the Way Forward. SAGE Publications
India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, India.
Nath, T.K., Jashimuddin, M., Inoue, M., 2016. Community-based forest management in
Bangladesh. World Forest, vol. 22. Springer, Switzerland, pp. 176.
Nuggehalli, R.K., Procopy, L.A., 2009. Motivating factors and facilitating conditions ex-
plaining women's participation inco-management of Sri Lankan forests. Forest Policy
Econ. 11, 288–293.
Ojha, H.R., Khatri, D., Shrestha, K.K., Sharma, N., 2013. Carbon, community and gov-
ernance: is Nepal ready for REDD+? Forest, Trees Livelihoods 22, 216–229.
Park, M.S., Lee, H., 2016. Legal opportunities for public participation in forest manage-
ment in the Republic of Korea. Sustainability 8, 369.
Perfect-Mrema, J., 2017. A theoretical framework for transparency and accountability (T
&A): Empirical lessons from participatory forest management (PFM)in Tanzania. Int.
Forest Rev. 19, 449–466.
Persha, L., Agrawal, A., Chhatre, A., 2011. Social and ecological synergy: local rule-
making, forest livelihoods, and biodiversity conservation. Science 331, 1606–1608.
Persson, J., Prowse, M., 2017. Collective action on forest governance: an institutional
136
Forest Policy and Economics 95 (2018) 123–137
analysis of the Cambodian community forest system. Forest Policy Econ. 83, 70–79.
Pettenella, D., Brotto, L., 2012. Governance features for successful REDD+ projects or-
ganization. Forest Policy Econ. 18, 46–52.
Pokharel, R.K., Tiwari, K.R., 2013. Good governance assessment in Nepal’s community
forestry. J. Sustain. Forest. 32, 549–564.
PROFOR, FAO, 2011. Framework for Assessing and Monitoring Forest Governance. The
program on forests (PROFOR) and Food and Agricultural Organization of the United
Nations (FAO), Rome.
Pulhin, J.M., Inoue, M., Enters, T., 2007. Three decades of community-based forest
management in the Philippines: emerging lessons for sustainable and equitable forest
management. Int. Forest Rev. 9, 865–883.
Rahman, M.M., 2009. Plant Diversity and Anthropogenic Disturbances in the Sal
(Shorearobusta C.F. Gaertn) Forests of Bangladesh. Institute of Silviculture,
Department of Forest and Soil Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Applied
Life Sciences, Vienna (Ph.D. Dissertation).
Rahman, M.M., Rahman, M.M., Guogang, Z., Islam, K.S., 2010. A review of the present
threats to tropical moist deciduous Sal (Shorearobusta) forest ecosystem of central
Bangladesh. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 3, 90–102.
Rahman, M.S., Sadath, M.N., Giessen, L., 2016. Foreign donors driving policy changes in
recipient countries: Three decades of development aid towards community based
forest policy in Bangladesh. Forest Policy Econ. 68, 39–53.
Rahman, M.S., Sarker, P.K., Sadath, M.N., Giessen, L., 2018a. Policy changes resulting in
power changes? Quantitative evidence from 25 years of forest policy development in
Bangladesh. Land Use Policy 70, 419–431.
Rahman, M.S., Miah, S., Giessen, L., 2018b. A new model of development coalition
building: USAID achieving legitimate access and dominant information in
Bangladesh’s forest policy. World Dev. 105, 248–261.
Rana, P., Chhatre, A., 2017. Beyond committees: hybrid forest governance for equity and
sustainability. Forest Policy Econ. 78, 40–50.
Rana, M.A., Noguchi, T., Muhammed, N., 2007. Impact of participatory forest manage-
ment (PFM) on socio-economic development in Bangladesh. A case study in
Madhupur Sal forest. J. Forest Econ. 53, 46–56.
Rantala, T., 2012. Legitimacy of forest and nature conservation policy. A conceptual
framework with illustrations. Scand. J. For. Res. 27, 164–176.
Rantala, S., German, L.A., 2013. Exploring village governance processes behind com-
munity-based forest management: Legitimacy and coercion in the Usambara
Mountains of Tanzania. Int. Forest Rev. 15, 355–367.
Rashid, A.Z.M.M., Craig, D., Jeffery, M.I., Khan, N.A., 2013a. Forest protected area
governance in Bangladesh: a focus on the legal and policy framework. Chin. J. Popul.
Resour. Environ. 11, 345–351.
Rashid, A.Z.M.M., Craig, D., Mukul, S.A., Khan, N.A., 2013b. A journey towards shared
governance: status and prospects for collaborative management in the protected
areas of Bangladesh. J. Forestry Res. 24, 599–605.
Rashid, A.Z.M.M., Craig, D., Mukul, S.A., 2016. Setting paradigm of governance in the
natural resource management of Bangladesh: a centralistic to pluralistic approach in
the forest protected areas management. Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/
preprints201611.0123.v1. www.preprints.org.
RECOFTC, 2008. People and forests in a time rapid change: strengthening capacities for
community forestry to respond. Strategic Plan 2008–2013.
Reddy, C.S., Pasha, S.V., Jha, C.S., Diwakar, P.G., Dadhwal, V.K., 2016. Development of
national data base on long-term deforestation (2030–2014) in Bangladesh. Global
Planet Change 139, 173–182.
Ribot, J.C., Lund, J.F., Treue, T., 2010. Democratic decentralization in sub-Saharan
Africa: its contribution to forest management, livelihoods and enfranchisement.
Environ. Conserv. 37, 34–44.
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 Sundarbans Mangrove Forest in Bangladesh. Forest
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. Forest Policy Econ. 25,
93–99.
Sadath, M.N., Krott, M., 2013. Can print media discourse drive forest policy change in
Bangladesh? J. Sustain. Dev. 6, 1–11.
Sadath, M.N., Rahman, S., 2016. Forest in crisis: 2 decades of media discourse analysis of
Bangladesh. Forest Policy Econ. 68, 16–21.
Sadath, M.N., Krott, M., Schusser, C., 2013. Forest-climate politics in Bangladesh’s media
discourse in comparison to global media discourse. Open J. Forestry 3, 1–7.
Safa, M.S., 2004. The effect of participatory forest management on the livelihood and
poverty of settlers in a rehabilitation program of degraded forests in Bangladesh.
Small-scale Forest Econ. Manag. Policy 3, 223–238.
Salam, M.A., Noguchi, T., 2006. Evaluating capacity development for participatory forest
management in Bangladesh’s Sal forests based on ‘4Rs’ stakeholder analysis. Forest
Policy Econ. 8, 785–796.
Salam, M.A., Noguchi, T., Koike, M., 2005. Factors influencing the sustained participation
of farmers in participatory forestry: a case study in central Sal forest in Bangladesh. J.
Environ. Manage. 74, 43–51.
Sandstrom, C., BelandLindhal, K., Stens, A., 2017. Comparing forest governance models.
Forest Policy Econ. 77, 1–5.
Sarker, P.K., Rahman, M.S., Giessen, L., 2017. Empowering state agencies through na-
tional and international community forestry policy. Int. Forest Rev. 19, 70–101.
Scheyvens, H., Hyakumura, K., Seki, Y., 2007. Decentralization and State-Sponsored
Community Forestry in Asia. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES),
Nepal.
Schiller, F., 2008. Ideas for governance systems – methodological aspects and theoretical
perspectives. In: Bocher, M., Giessen, L., Kleinschmit, D. (Eds.), Environmental and
Forest Governance: The Role of Discourses and Expertise. Proceedings of the
A. Subhan Mollick et al.
International Conference, Goettingen 2007. Universitatsdrucke, Goettingen.
Schusler, T.M., Fraser, E.D.G., Pfeffer, M.J., 2003. Social learning for collaborative nat-
ural resource management. Soc. Nat. Resour. 15, 309–326.
Secco, L., Pettenella, D., Gatto, P., 2011. Forestry governance and collective learning
process in Italy: likelihood or utopia? Forest Policy Econ. 13, 104–112.
Secco, L., Da Re, R., Pettenella, D.M., Gatto, P., 2014. Why and how to measure forest
governance at local level: a set of indicators. Forest Policy Econ. 49, 57–71.
Shrestha, S., Shrestha, U.B., 2017. Beyond Money: does REDD+ payment enhance
household’s participation in forest governance and management in Nepal’s commu-
nity forests? Forest Policy Econ. 80, 63–70.
Sikor, T., Gritten, D., Atkinson, J., Huy, B., Dahal, G.R., Duangsathaporn, K., Hurahura,
F., Phanvilay, K., Maryudi, A., Pulhin, J., Ramirez, M.A., Win, S., Toh, S., Vaz, J.,
Sokchea, T., Marona, S., Yaqiao, Z., 2013. Community forestry in Asia and the Pacific:
Pathway to inclusive development. RECOFTC, Bangkok, Thailand.
Skutsch, M.M., 2000. Conflict management and participation in community forestry.
Agroforest Syst. 48, 189–206.
Steffek, J., 2009. Discursive legitimation in environmental governance. Forest Policy
Econ. 11, 313–318.
Stojanovska, M., Miovska, M., Jovanovaka, J., Stojanovski, V., 2014. The process of forest
management plans preparation in the Republic of Macedonia: Does it compromise
governance principles of participation, transparency and accountability. Forest Policy
Econ. 49, 51–56.
Suk Kim, P., Halligan, J., Cho, N., Oh, C.H., Eikenberry, A.M., 2005. Towards partici-
patory and transparency governance: Report on the Sixth Global Forum on re-
inventing government. Public Adm. Rev. 65, 646–654.
Sunderlin, W., Hatcher, J., Liddle, M., 2008. From exclusion to ownership? Challenges
and opportunities in advancing forest tenure reform. USA. Rights and Resources
Initiatives, Washington, DC.
137
Forest Policy and Economics 95 (2018) 123–137
Teye, J.K., 2013. Analysis forest governance in Africa: Proposition for an integrated policy
network model. Forest Policy Econ. 26, 63–70.
United Nations Development Program (UNDP), 1997. Governance for Sustainable Human
Development. UNDP Policy Document, New York.
Uphoff, N., 1991. Fitting projects to People. 1985. In: Cernea, M.M. (Ed.), Putting People
First: Sociological Variables in Rural Development. Oxford University Press, UK.
Weber, N., 2018. Participation or involvement? Development of forest strategies on na-
tional and sub-national level in Germany. Forest Policy Econ. 89, 98–106.
Werland, S., 2009. Global forest governance: bringing forest science (back) in. Forest
Policy Econ. 11, 446–451.
White, A., Martin, A., 2002. Who Owns the World’s Forests? Forest Tenure and Public
Forests in Transition. Forests Trends, Washington, D.C.
World Bank, 2000. Reforming Public Institutions and Strengthening Governance: A World
Bank Strategy. Public Sector Group PREM Project Network, Washington D.C.
World Bank, 2009. Roots for Good Forest Outcomes: An Analytical Framework for
Governance Reforms. Report no. 49572-GLB.
WRI, 2017. Why does forest governance matter? Retrieved from. http://www.wri.org/
project/governance-of-forests-initiative.
WRI (World Resources Institute), ICV (Instituto Centro de Vida), Imazon, 2009. The
governance of forests toolkit (version 1): a draft framework of indicators for assessing
governance of the forest sector. In: The Governance of Forest Initiative, Retrieved
from. http://www.wri.org/gfi.
Yunita, S.A.W., Soraya, E., Maryudi, A., 2018. “We are just cheerleaders”: youth’s views
on their participation in international forest-related decision-making fora. Forest
Policy Econ. 88, 52–58.
Zoysa, M.D., Inoue, M., 2008. Forest governance and community based forest manage-
ment in Sri Lanka: Past, present and future perspectives. Int. J. Soc. Forest. 1, 27–49.