Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction, Aims, and Outline

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Community-Based Forest Management (CBFM) in Bangladesh

Part of the book series: World Forests ((WFSE,volume 22))

  • 510 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter presents the background of the inception of community-based forest management (CBFM) in tropical countries, and in particular Bangladesh. It also sets the aim(s) of this book. The CBFM programs have been promoted in many countries as an innovative and potential approach to improved forest management and conservation strategies with a comprehensive blend of ecological and socioeconomic objectives. Many countries have now developed, or are in the process of developing, changes to national policies and legislation that institutionalize the CBFM. The government of Bangladesh has also put emphasize on the CBFM since the early 1980s and a number of forestry projects have been implemented with the participation of local community having both success and failure in intended project outcomes. In this book, we aim to shed light on evolution of the CBFM in Bangladesh and critically evaluate the performance of various CBFM practices. Stress is given on how to sustain the CBFM and integrate these into (i) carbon forestry projects (e.g., REDD+) for meeting the triple benefits of forest management: poverty reduction, forest conservation, and climate change mitigation; (ii) mutual rotating fund for creating alternative income generation opportunities so that dependency on forests is reduced and (iii) corporate social responsibility activities of corporate agencies so that they provide funding for environmental conservation and social development. These strategies might facilitate sustainability of CBFM in Bangladesh. So far our knowledge goes, there is no such book publication available in Bangladesh. Therefore, we believe that this publication would fill this gap and be useful for scholars, policy makers, and students as a reference book.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Decentralization is the relocation of administrative functions from central location to local levels closer to those who are most affected by the exercise of power (Agrawal and Ribot 1999; Fisher 1999, 2000; Agrawal and Ostrom 2001; Larson 2004). It is considered as a tool that promotes development and increase efficiency, equity and democracy by bringing decision-making closer to local people (Ferguson and Chandrasekharan 2004; Larson 2004; Ribot 2004). Decentralization can take place in different forms: deconcentration, delegation, and devolution (Klugman 1994 cited by Ferguson and Chandrasekharan 2004). Deconcentration means the transfer of administrative responsibility for some specified functions to lower levels within the central government bureaucracy. Delegation involves the transfer of managerial responsibility for specified functions to other public organizations outside normal central government control. Devolution is the transfer of governance responsibility for specified functions to local levels that are largely outside the direct control of the central government.

References

  • Agrawal A (2007) Forests, governance, and sustainability: common property theory and its contributions. Int J Commons 1:89–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal A, Ostrom E (2001) Collective action, property rights, and decentralization in resource use in India and Nepal. Polit Soc 29:485–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal A, Ribot JC (1999) Accountability in decentralization: a framework with south Asian and west African cases. J Dev Areas 33(4):473–502

    Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal A, Chhatre A, Hardin R (2008) Changing governance of the World’s forests. Science 320:1460–1462

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Alam M (2009) Evolution of forest policies in Bangladesh: a critical analysis. Int J Soc For 2(2):149–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson J (2000) Four considerations for decentralized forest management: subsidiarity, empowerment, pluralism and social capital. In: Enters T, Drust PB, Victor M (eds) Decentralization and devolution of forest management in Asia and the Pacific. RECOFTC and FAO, Thailand, pp 11–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson KP (2004) Who talks with whom? The role of repeated interactions in decentralized forest governance. World Dev 32:233–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersson K (2006) Understanding decentralized forest governance: an application of the institutional analysis and development framework. Sustain Sci Pract Policy 2(1):25–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold JEM (2001) Forests and people: 25 years of community forestry. FAO, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Balooni K, Inoue M (2007) Decentralized forest management in south and southeast Asia. J For 105:414–420

    Google Scholar 

  • Balooni K, Inoue M (2009) Joint forest management in India: the management change process. IIMB Manage Rev 21(1):1–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Baynesa J, Herbohn J, Smith C, Fisher R, Bray D (2015) Key factors which influence the success of community forestry in developing countries. Glob Env Change 35:226–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp E, Ingram V (2011) Impacts of community forests on livelihoods in Cameroon: lessons from two case studies. Int For Rev 13(3):1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkes F (1995) Community-based management and co-management as a tool for empowerment. In: Singh N, Titi V (eds) Empowerment, Towards Sustainable Development. Zed Books, London, pp 138–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkes F (2004) Rethinking community-based conservation. Con Bio 18:621–630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biswas SR, Choudhury JK (2007) Forests and forest management practices in Bangladesh: the question of sustainability. Int For Rev 9(2):627–640

    Google Scholar 

  • Blaikie P (2006) Is small really beautiful? Community-based natural resource management in Malawi and Botswana. World Dev 34(11):1942–1957

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borrini-Feyerabend G (1996) Collaborative management of protected areas: tailoring the approach to the context. IUCN, Gland

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowler DE, Buyung-Ali LM, Healey JR, Jones JPG, Knight TM, Pullin AS (2012) Does community forest management provide global environmental benefits and improve local welfare? Front Ecol Environ 10(1):29–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruner AG, Gullison RE, Rice RE, de Fonseca GAB (2001) Effectiveness of parks in protecting biodiversity. Science 291:125–128

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bull G, White A (2002) Global forests in transition: challenges and opportunities. In: Proceedings of global perspective on indigenous forestry: linking communities, commerce and conservation, Vancouver, Canada, 4–6 June 2002

    Google Scholar 

  • Casse T, Milhøj A (2011) Community forestry and forest conservation: friends or strangers? Env Policy Gov 21:83–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatterji AP (2001) A critique of forest governance in eastern India. Int J Eco Dev 3(2). http://spaef.com/IJED_PUB/3_2/3_2_chatterji.pdf

  • Chomba S, Treue T, Sinclair F (2015) The political economy of forest entitlements: can community based forest management reduce vulnerability at the forest margin? For Policy Eco 58:37–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chowdhury MSH, Koike M (2010) An overview on the protected area system for forest conservation in Bangladesh. J For Res 21:111–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chowdhury MSH, Koike M, Muhammed N (2009) Embracing collaborative protected area management for conservation: an analysis of the development of the forest policy of Bangladesh. Int For Rev 11(3):359–374

    Google Scholar 

  • Chowdhury MSH, Koike M, Rana MP, Muhammed N (2013) Community development through collaborative management of protected areas: evidence from Bangladesh with a case of Rema-Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary. Int J Sus Dev World Ecol 20(1):63–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claude A, Garcia A, Lescuyer G (2008) Monitoring, indicators and community based forest management in the tropics: pretexts or red herrings? Biodi Con 17:1303–1317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colchester M (1994) Sustaining the forests: the community-based approach in south and south-east Asia. Dev Change 25:69–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coulibaly-Lingani P, Savadogo P, Tigabu M, Oden P-C (2011) Decentralization and community forest management in Burkina Faso: constraints and challenges. Int For Rev 13(4):476–486

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronkleton P, Larson AM, Feintrenie L, Garcia C, Levang P (2013) Reframing community forestry to manage the forest–farm interface. Small-scale For 12:5–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DANIDA (2007). Community-based natural resource management. Technical Note 2007. Ministry of foreign affairs of Denmark, DANIDA technical advisory service

    Google Scholar 

  • DFID (2001) Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets-comparing development approaches. DFID, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Dabire AB (2003) What governance should be adopted for forestry resources? Regularity and institutional framework. Paper submitted for presentation to the XII World Forestry Congress, 2003. Quebec City, Canada. www.fao.org. Accessed 20 Nov 2003

  • Danks CM (2009) Benefits of community-based forestry in the US: lessons from a demonstration programme. Int For Rev 11(2):171–185

    Google Scholar 

  • Dressler WH, McDermott MH, Schusser C (2015) The politics of community forestry in a Global Age—A critical analysis. For Policy Eco 58:1–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elbers J (2008) Synthesis of the case studies about participation, conservation and livelihoods for nine protected areas in eight Latin American countries. http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/jelbers_synthesis_eepa_2008.pdf

  • FMP (Forestry Master Plan) (1992) Forestry Master Plan: forest production. Asian Development Bank (TA No. 1355-BAN). Government of Bangladesh, Dhaka: Ministry of Environment and Forests

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson I, Chandrasekharan C (2004) Paths and pitfalls of decentralization for sustainable forest management: experiences of the Asia-Pacific regions. In: Paper presented at Interlaken workshop on decentralization in forestry, 27–30 April, 2004. Interlaken, Switzerland. www.cifor.org.cgiar.org/publications/pdf_files/interlaken/Ferguson_Chandrasekharan.pdf. Accessed 7 May 2004

  • Fisher RJ (1999) Devolution and decentralization of forest management in Asia and the Pacific. Unasylva 199(50):3–5

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher RJ (2000) Decentralization and devolution in forest management: a conceptual overview. In: Enters T, Drust P, Victor M (eds) Decentralization and devolution of forest management in Asia and the Pacific. RECOFTC and FAO, Thailand, pp 3–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher R, Hirsch P (2008) Poverty and agrarian-forest interactions in Thailand. Geo Res 46(1):74–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Frapolli E, Ramos-Fernandez G, Galicia E, Serrano A (2009) The complex reality of biodiversity conservation through natural protected area policy: three cases from the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Land Use Policy 26:715–722

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilmour D (2016) Forty years of community-based forestry: a review of its extent and effectiveness. FAO Forestry Paper 176. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), United Nations

    Google Scholar 

  • GoN (Government of Nepal) (2007) Community forestry national database. Department of Forests, Kathmandu

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham J, Amos B, Plumptre T (2003) Principles for good governance in the 21st century. Policy Brief No. 15. Institute on Governance, Ontario, Canada. http://www.iog.ca/publications/policybrief15.pdf. Accessed 14 Mar 2004

  • Gunawan B, Takeuchi K, Tsunekawa A, Abdoellah OS (2004) Community dependency of forest resources in West Java, Indonesia: the need to re-involve local people in forest management. J Sust For 18(4):29–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hajjar RF, Kozak RA, Innes JL (2012) Is decentralization leading to “real” decision-making power for forest-dependent communities? Case studies from Mexico and Brazil. Ecol Soc 17(1):12. doi:10.5751/ES-04570-170112

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes T, Persha L (2010) Nesting local forestry initiatives: revisiting community forest management in a REDD+ world. For Policy Eco 12:545–553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iftekhar MS (2006) Forestry in Bangladesh: an overview. J For 104:148–153

    Google Scholar 

  • Inoue M, Shivakoti GP (eds) (2015) Multi-level forest governance in Asia: concepts, challenges and the way forward. SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  • Islam KK, Sato N (2012) Participatory forestry in Bangladesh: has it helped to increase the livelihoods of Sal forests-dependent people? South For J For Sci 74(2):89–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Islam KK, Sato N (2013) Protected Sal forest and livelihoods of ethnic minorities: experience from Bangladesh. J Sust For 32(4):412–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Islam KK, Hoogstra M, Ullah MO, Sato N (2012) Economic contribution of participatory agroforestry program to poverty alleviation: a case from Sal forests, Bangladesh. J For Res 23(2):323–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jashimuddin M, Inoue M (2012) Community forestry for sustainable forest management: experiences from Bangladesh and policy recommendation. FORMATH 11:133–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jutting J, Kauffmann C, McDonnell I, Osterrieder H, Pinaud N, Wegner L (2004) Decentralisation and poverty in developing countries: exploring the impact. In: Working Paper No. 236. OECD Development Centre, France

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalonga SK, Kulindwa KA, Mshale BI (2015) Equity in distribution of proceeds from forest products from certified community-based forest management in Kilwa district, Tanzania. Small-scale For 14:73–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kearney J, Berkes F, Charles A, Pinkerton E, Wiber M (2007) The role of participatory governance and community-based management in integrated coastal and ocean management in Canada. Coast Manag 35:79–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellert SP, Mehta JN, Ebbin SA, Lichtenfeld LL (2000) Community natural resource management: promise, rhetoric, and reality. Soc Nat Res 13:705–715

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan NA, Begum SA (1997) Participation in social forestry re-examined: a case-study from Bangladesh. Dev Prac 7(3):260–266

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Klugman J (1994) Decentralisation: a survey of literature from a human development perspective. In: UNDP Occasional Paper No. 13, UNDP. http://hdr.undp.org/docs/publications/ocational_papers/oc13.htm. Accessed 12 Mar 2004

  • Kumar K, Singh NM, Kerr JM (2015) Decentralisation and democratic forest reforms in India: moving to a rights-based approach. For Policy Eco 51:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson AM (2004) Democratic decentralization in the forestry sector: lessons learned from Africa, Asia and Latin America. In: Paper presented at Interlaken workshop on decentralization in forestry, 27–30 April, 2004. Interlaken, Switzerland. www.cifor.org.cgiar.org/publications/pdf_files/interlaken/Anne_Larso-n.pdf. Accessed 7 May 2004

  • Larson AM, Soto F (2008) Decentralization of Natural Resource Governance Regimes. Ann Rev Env Res 33:213–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahanty S, Guernier J, Yasmi Y (2009) A fair share? Sharing the benefits and costs of collaborative forest management. Int For Rev 11(2):268–280

    Google Scholar 

  • Maharjan MR, Dakal TR, Thapa SK, Schreckenberg K, Luttrell C (2009) Improving the benefits to the poor from community forestry in the Churia region of Nepal. Int For Rev 11(2):254–267

    Google Scholar 

  • Mamo G, Sjaastad E, Vedeld P (2007) Economic dependence on forest resources: a case from Dendi district, Ethiopia. For Policy Eco 9:916–927

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maryudi A, Devkota RR, Schusser C, Yufanyi C, Salla M, Aurenhammer H, Rotchanaphatharawit R, Krott M (2012) Back to basics: considerations in evaluating the outcomes of community forestry. For Policy Eco 14:1–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDermott MH (2009) Equity first or later? How US community-based forestry distributes benefits. Int For Rev 11(2):207–220

    Google Scholar 

  • McDermott MH, Schreckenberg K (2009) Equity in community forestry: insights from North and South. Int For Rev 11(2):157–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Millat-e-Mustafa M, Siddiqui MA, Khan NA, Newaz MS (2002) An empirical study on the jhum farming system in the CHT. In: Khan NA, Alam MK, Khisa SK, Millat-e-Mustafa M (eds) Farming practices and sustainable development in the Chittagong Hill Tracts. CHTDB and VFFP-IC, Chittagong, pp 65–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Moktan MR, Norbu L, Choden K (2015) Can community forestry contribute to household income and sustainable forestry practices in rural area? A case study from Tshapey, For Policy Eco. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.08.011

  • Moorman MC, Peterson N, Moore SE, Donoso PJ (2013) Stakeholder perspectives on prospects for co-management of an old-growth forest watershed near Valdivia, Chile. Soc Nat Res 26(9):1022–1036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muhammed N, Koike M, Sajjaduzzaman M, Sophanarith K (2005) Reckoning social forestry in Bangladesh: policy and plan versus implementation. For 78(4):373–383

    Google Scholar 

  • Muhammed N, Koike M, Haque F (2008) Forest policy and sustainable forest management in Bangladesh: an analysis from national and international perspectives. New For 36:201–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mukul SA, Uddin MB, Rashid AZMM, Fox J (2010) Integrating livelihoods and conservation in protected areas: understanding the role and stakeholder views on prospects for non-timber forest products, a Bangladesh case study. Int J Sust Dev World Ecol 17(2):180–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nath TK, Inoue M (2008a) How does local governance affect projects’ outcomes? Experience from a participatory forestry project of Bangladesh. Int J Agri Res Gov Ecol 7(6):491–506

    Google Scholar 

  • Nath TK, Inoue M (2008b) The upland settlement project of Bangladesh as a means of reducing land degradation and improving rural livelihood. Small-Scale For 7(2):163–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nath TK (2009) Participatory forest management and livelihoods of ethnic people: empirical analysis from Bangladesh. Nova Science Publishers Inc, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Nath TK, Inoue M (2009) Forest based settlement project and its impact on community livelihood in Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh. Int For Rev 11(3):394–407

    Google Scholar 

  • Nath TK, Inoue M (2010) Impacts of participatory forestry on livelihoods of ethnic people: experience from Bangladesh. Soc Nat Res 23:1093–1107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oji BA, Lawrence A, Stewart A (2015) Community based forest enterprises in Britain: two organising typologies. For Policy Eco 58:65–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pagdee A, Kim Y-S, Daugherty PJ (2006) What makes community forest management successful: a meta-study from community forests throughout the world. Soc Nat Res 19:33–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinkerton E (ed) (1989) Cooperative management of local fisheries: new directions for improved management and community development. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver

    Google Scholar 

  • Plumptre T, Graham J (1999) Governance and good governance: international and aboriginal perspectives. Institute on Governance, Ontario

    Google Scholar 

  • Pretty J (2003) Social capital and the collective management of resources. Science 302:1912–1914

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Prasad MB (2013) Decentralised forest governance, institutions and livelihoods in Odisha - a study of evolution of policy process and politics. Working paper. Centre for Economic and Social Studies, Hyderabad, India

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahut DB, Ali A, Behera B (2015) Household participation and effects of community forest management on income and poverty levels: Empirical evidence from Bhutan. For Policy Eco. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2015.06.006

    Google Scholar 

  • Rana MA, Toshikuni T, Muhammed N (2007) Impact of participatory forest management (PFM) on socio-economic development in Bangladesh: a case study in the Madhupur Sal Forest. J For Eco 53(1):46–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Ribot JC (2004) Choosing representation: institutions and powers for decentralized natural resource management. In: Paper presented at Interlaken workshop on decentralization in forestry, 27–30 April, 2004, Interlaken, Switzerland. www.cifor.org.cgiar.org/publications/pdf_files/interlaken/Jesse_Ribot.pdf. Accessed 07 May 2004

  • Roy RD (2002) Sustainable and equitable resource management in the CHT. In: Khan NA, Alam MK, Khisa SK, Millat-e-Mustafa M (eds) Farming practices and sustainable development in the Chittagong Hill Tracts. CHTDB and VEFP-IC, pp 135–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutt RL, Chhetri BBK, Pokharel R, Rayamajhi S, Tiwari K, Treue T (2015) The scientific framing of forestry decentralization in Nepal. For Policy Eco 60:50–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Safa MS (2004) The effect of participatory forest management on the livelihood and poverty of settlers in a rehabilitation program of degraded forest in Bangladesh. Small-scale For Eco Manage Policy 3(2):223–238

    Google Scholar 

  • Salam MA, Noguchi T, Alim MA (2006) Factors affecting participating farmers’ willingness-to-pay for the tree farming fund: a study in a participatory forest in Bangladesh. Env Mon Assess 118:165–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schreckenberg K, Luttrell C (2009) Participatory forest management: a route to poverty reduction? Int For Rev 11(2):221–238

    Google Scholar 

  • Schusser C, Krott M, Logmani J (2013) The applicability of the German community forestry model to developing countries. Forstarchiv 84:24–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Schusser C, Krott M, Movuh MCY, Logmani J, Devkota RR, Maryudi A, Salla M, Bach ND (2015) Powerful stakeholders as drivers of community forestry—results of an international study. For Policy Eco 58:92–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen A (1984) The living standard. In: Oxford Economic Papers, new series, vol 36, supplement: economic theory and Hicksian themes (November 1984), pp 74–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen A (2013) The ends and means of sustainability. J Hum Dev Capab 14(1):6–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shackleton S, Campbell B, Wollenberg E, Edmunds D (2002) Devolution and community-based natural resource management: creating space for local people to participate and benefit? Natural Resource Perspectives No. 76. ODI, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Sikor T (2006) Analyzing community-based forestry: local, political and agrarian perspectives. For Policy Eco 8:339–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tacconi L (2007) Decentralization, forests and livelihoods: theory and narrative. Glob Env Change 17:338–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tachibana T, Adhikari S (2009) Does community-based management improve natural resource condition? Evidence from the forests in Nepal. Land Eco 85(1):107–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Gelder B, O’Keefe P (1995) The new forester. Intermediate Technology Publications, United Kingdom

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • White A, Martin A (2002) Who owns the world’s forests? Forest tenure and public forests in transition. In: Forest trends and center for international environmental law, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Biosciences, University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus, Semenyih, Selangor, Malaysia

    Tapan Kumar Nath

  2. Institute of Forestry and Environmental Sciences, University of Chittagong, Chittagong, Bangladesh

    Mohammed Jashimuddin

  3. Graduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan

    Makoto Inoue

Authors
  1. Tapan Kumar Nath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mohammed Jashimuddin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Makoto Inoue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tapan Kumar Nath .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Nath, T.K., Jashimuddin, M., Inoue, M. (2016). Introduction, Aims, and Outline. In: Community-Based Forest Management (CBFM) in Bangladesh. World Forests, vol 22. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42387-6_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation