Toward Sustainability of Community-Based Forest Management

  • Tapan Kumar NathEmail author
  • Mohammed Jashimuddin
  • Makoto Inoue
Part of the World Forests book series (WFSE, volume 22)


This chapter illustrates a comparative scenario of four CBFM interventions in terms of socioeconomy, forest attributes , and legal, social, management, and resource system-related characteristics. Socioeconomic attributes reveal that villagers in respective area depend on forest resources (fuelwood, bamboo, timber, leaves, sungrass, vegetable) for cooking energy, house construction materials, food, and household income. Both VCF and Chunati PA are rich in plant species composition (consisting of more than 90 species), but tree density is highest in Betagi–Pomra CF (1164 trees/ha). Individual land ownership in Betagi–Pomra CF encouraged villagers to plant fast-growing and high-yielding tree species. Individual ownership , users’ management rights, well-defined boundary , small resource system , and social equality ensure relatively more sustainable management of forests in Betagi–Pomra CF, VCF, and AF projects than that of Chunati PA. Some policy implications are suggested for sustainability of various CBFM approaches, and recommendations are made to incorporate REDD+ schemes , introducing mutual rotating fund and collaboration of corporate agencies in CBFM.


Forest Resource Forest Department Forest Governance Cooking Stove Corporate Agency 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Agrawal A, Angelsen A (2009) Using community forest management to achieve REDD+ goals. In: Angelsen A, Brockhaus M, Kanninen M, Sills E, Sunderlin WD, Wertz-Kanounnikoff S (eds) Realising REDD+: National strategy and policy options. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia, pp 201–212Google Scholar
  2. Arannayk Foundation (2016). Alternative livelihoods well conserved forests—snapshots of CRPARP interventions and results. Arannayk Foundation, Dhaka, BangladeshGoogle Scholar
  3. Bluffstone R, Robinson E, Guthiga P (2013) REDD+ and community controlled forests in low-income countries: any hope for a linkage? Ecol Econ 87:43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. CFI (Community Forestry International) (2006) Video: Khasi hills community carbon project (cited in Vijge 2015)Google Scholar
  5. Chhatre A, Agrawal A (2009) Trade-offs and synergies between carbon storage and livelihood benefits from forest commons. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:17667–17670CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Hajjar R (2015) Advancing small-scale forestry under FLEGT and REDD in Ghana. For Policy Econ 58:12–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kibria ASMG, Inoue M, Nath TK (2015) Analysing the land uses of forest-dwelling indigenous peoplein the Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh. AgrofSyst 89:663–676Google Scholar
  8. Lambrick FH, Brown ND, Lawrence A, Bebber DP (2014) Effectiveness of community forestry in prey long forest, Cambodia. Conserv Biol 28(2):372–381CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Mohammed AJ, Inoue M, Peras RJ, Nath TK, Jashimuddin M, Pulhin JM (2016) Transformation strategy for managing coupled socio-ecological systems: case studies from Bangladesh and the Philippines. Small Scale For. doi: 10.1007/s11842-015-9318-6 Google Scholar
  10. 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 Econ.
  11. Phelps J, Webb E, Agrawal A (2010) Does REDD+ threaten to recentralize forest governance? Science 328:312–313CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Plan Vivo (2012) Video: plan vivo—The carbon, ecosystems & community standard & network (cited in Vijge 2015)Google Scholar
  13. 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 Econ. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2015.06.006 Google Scholar
  14. Sandbrook C, Nelson F, Adams WM, Agrawal A (2010) Carbon, forests and the REDD paradox. Oryx 44:330–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sen A (1984) The living standard. Oxford Economic Papers, New Series, vol 36, Supplement: Economic Theory and Hicksian Themes (Nov, 1984), pp 74–90Google Scholar
  16. Sen A (2013) The ends and means of sustainability. J Hum Dev Capab 14(1):6–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Skutsch MM, Mccall MK, Karky BS, Zahabu E, Guarin GP (2009). Case studies on measuring and assessing forest degradation, community measurement of carbon stock change for REDD forest resources assessment. Working Paper 156Google Scholar
  18. Vijge MJ (2015) Competing discourses on REDD+: Global debates versus the first Indian REDD+ project. For Policy Econ 56:38–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tapan Kumar Nath
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mohammed Jashimuddin
    • 2
  • Makoto Inoue
    • 3
  1. 1.School of BiosciencesUniversity of Nottingham Malaysia CampusSemenyihMalaysia
  2. 2.Institute of Forestry and Environmental SciencesUniversity of ChittagongChittagongBangladesh
  3. 3.Graduate School of Agricultural and Life SciencesThe University of TokyoBunkyo-kuJapan

Personalised recommendations