Research

INTRODUCTION

Protected area (PA) management has adopted co-management or collaborative management with a normative focus on finding “win-win” solutions that link conservation and development activities. This is because collaboration is celebrated as a way to produce better decisions and is seen as a strategy that can eliminate friction among stakeholders; generate social capital; and simultaneously solve environmental, social, and economic challenges (Bernard and Young 1997, Plummer and Armitage 2007, Akamani and Hall 2015). However, despite its promise, co-management outcomes at various levels of analysis have yielded a mixture of successes and failures (Gelcich et al. 2006, Fernandez-Gimenez et al. 2008, Evans et al. 2011, Mukul et al. 2012, Mutanga et al. 2015, KimDung et al. 2017, Thondhlana and Cundill 2017). Numerous co-management attempts have been observed to fail or function sub-optimally because of institutional inadequacies (Nunan 2006, Njaya et al. 2012, Kamoto et al. 2013, Persha and Andersson 2014, Selva et al. 2020) stemming from inequitable distribution of power and decision-making authority between the state and local communities (Béné et al. 2009, Mutanga et al. 2015, Thondhlana and Cundill 2017). A government’s unwillingness to transfer devolutionary power and recentralization instead of decentralization (Ribot et al. 2006, Selva et al. 2020) in co-management results in inadequate policy mechanisms (KimDung et al. 2017), weakly enforced legislation (Watson et al. 2014), limited participation (Ho et al. 2015, Chomba et al. 2016, Persson and Prowse 2017), exacerbated socioeconomic disparities (Ribot et al. 2006, Bastakoti and Davidsen 2017, Selva et al. 2020), poor accountability of representative authorities (Ribot et al. 2006) and implementation gaps (De Koning 2014, Kairu et al. 2018). Initial enthusiasm and rhetoric can give way to a phase of critical consolidation centered on addressing theoretical and practical limits (Carlsson and Berkes 2005, Blaikie 2006, Plummer and Fennell 2007). Nonetheless, these collaborative models continue to hold considerable conceptual appeal, including arguments about subsidiarity and efficiency, community empowerment, equity/inclusivity, and productivity (Brown 1999, Blaikie 2006, Marshall 2008).

Co-management is common in developing countries because of the need for social and economic empowerment and community development (Robert and Rebecca 2006). Consequently, many programs in developing countries’ coastal and/or inshore fisheries are funded by long-term or ongoing investments from donor agencies, such as DANIDA (Denmark), SIDA (Sweden), IDRC (Canada), NZAID (New Zealand), DFID (United Kingdom), and USAID (United States of America) (see Evans et al. 2011 for more information). Despite the increasing popularity and support for collaborative natural resource management, there have been few attempts to examine the process of co-management and the relationship between aims and outcomes (e.g., Plummer et al. 2012, 2014, Smedstad and Gosnell 2013, Trimble and Plummer 2019, Kovács et al. 2021) because of the difficulty of accomplishing numerous conservation and human well-being outcomes (Adams et al. 2004, Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2004a, Daw et al. 2016, Gill et al. 2019). In addition, the intricate nature of social, economic, and ecological systems and the basic requirements of institution construction make it challenging to analyze causal pathways that link cross-sector interventions to their outcomes (Adams et al. 2004, Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2004a, Ting et al. 2012). Hence, there are increasing calls for assessments of both individual efforts and the broader movement as a whole (Kellert et al. 2000, Conley and Moote 2003, Plummer and Armitage 2007, Schultz et al. 2011, Guerry et al. 2015, Plummer et al. 2017).

Co-management rhetoric needs to be reconciled with reality on the basis of objective data (Nadasdy 2003, Natcher et al. 2005). Consequently, this essay intends (1) to examine co-management in the Sundarbans of Bangladesh by drawing on relevant experiences in two neighboring locations; and (2) to highlight the primary issues and challenges affecting co-management initiatives by reviewing the entire management scheme, with a particular emphasis on co-management goals and outcomes related to locals’ livelihoods, as this was the key management measure receiving the community’s livelihood and management attention (Cohen and Alexander 2013). Because of limited research, this study is intended to generate lessons for policymakers and practitioners.

The investigation commences with a succinct depiction of co-management approaches employed in the Sundarbans. Subsequently, our attention is directed toward the rationale behind evaluation, specifically participatory evaluation. Based on available literature and expert knowledge, we describe the evaluation of a co-management program that incorporates setting, process, and outcome-based criteria (Fig. 1). We think that it can also be used as a basis for reflexivity, consistent cross-site comparisons, and theory development, in addition to being a framework for evaluating co-management. Next, we provide a brief description of the co-management initiative at the study sites. After giving a concise summary of the methodology employed, the following section presents a summary of our significant findings. The article concludes with a discussion of the progress toward co-management and a call to action to ensure the success of collaboration programs.

The setting of our case is the Sundarbans, the world’s single largest mangrove forest, which is one of the most resource-rich regions in Bangladesh, notable in terms of ecological and biological diversity, natural resource endowments, and the socioeconomic mix of the population (Mahmood et al. 2021). More than 12 million people live in and around the Sundarbans, of whom 2.5 million depend almost entirely upon the mangroves for their livelihoods (Gopal and Chauhan 2018). Around 75% of villagers residing near the Sundarbans rely on the forest and forest-related resources for a living, either for their consumption or by selling forested products in local markets (Abdullah et al. 2016; Polin and Alam, unpublished manuscript). As a result, the Sundarbans play an imperative role in the socioeconomic development of the people living in the surrounding areas (Abdullah et al. 2016). Vulnerable to the effects and repercussions of different climatic and natural catastrophes (according to Neumann 2017), the Sundarbans face 6% of the world’s deadly tropical cyclones that occur in the North Indian Ocean (including the Bay of Bengal), which significantly imperil the livelihood and survival capabilities of the vast majority of the poor local population (see, e.g., GoB 2009).

Co-management was introduced in the Sundarbans with USAID’s Nishorgo Support Project (2008–2012) under the IPAC in 2010 (Sarker et al. 2019) to ensure sustainable conservation of forest resources by supporting local livelihoods equitably, developing alternative income-generating opportunities, and reducing pressure on the Sundarbans (Subroto 2017). After its completion, IPAC was replaced by the Climate-Resilient Ecosystems and Livelihoods (CREL) project (2012–2017) funded by USAID (Rahman 2022a). Following that, the Sundarbans Management Project (SMP; 2017–2022) supported it, and it is now supported by the Sustainable Forest and Livelihoods Project (SUFAL; 2019–2024; Roy and Haque 2022, Begum et al. 2023). Although there have been some evaluations of the co-management of the Sundarbans, the majority of research has concentrated on assessing the effectiveness of the approach in relation to livelihood outcomes (Hoq 2014, Abdullah et al. 2016, Razzak et al. 2020, Yeasmin et al. 2022), conservation goals (Uddin and Parr 2018, Nishat and Chowdhury 2019, Pal et al. 2021, Rahman 2022a), community participation (Sadath et al. 2017, Ahmed and Bartlett 2018), equity (Mollick et al. 2023), and effective governance (Roy et al. 2015, Hawlader 2018, Islam et al. 2019, Begum et al. 2021, 2022, Mollick et al. 2022, Rahman 2022b). The preponderance of antecedent studies have accorded precedence to the criteria associated with either the process or the outcome. Infrequently, there have been endeavors to assess the entire process comprehensively. Therefore, the objective of this study is to develop a comprehensive evaluation framework for mangrove ecosystems, specifically the Sundarbans, with the purpose of monitoring and evaluating the efficacy of the current co-management system.

Evaluation: what is it and why is it important?

Evaluation is the methodical assessment of an act’s merit or value (Meyers 1981, Guba and Lincoln 1989, Chess 2000). It plays a critical role in improving future quality and effectiveness by drawing further attention to cross-scale effects, emergent outcomes, and self-organization (Campbell et al. 2002, Connick and Innes 2003, Plummer and Armitage 2007). Even micro-level studies are significant because they can provide a deep understanding of PA’s local and regional impacts, which could help reduce the gap between management plans and practical realities when administering PAs (Ullah et al. 2022). It is critical to learning and adaptation (Bellamy et al. 2001, Plummer and Armitage 2007, Guerry et al. 2015); learning, in turn, can be a crucial component of getting ready for transformational change (Butler et al. 2016). Program-based evaluation, like the co-management of Sundarbans, “systematically collects information about program activities, characteristics, and outcomes for use by people to reduce uncertainties, improve effectiveness, and make decisions” (Patton 2008:39). It can help identify whether an idealized narrative explaining co-management of the Sundarbans is accurate by addressing criticisms of these efforts and enhancing efforts to institutionalize a grassroots movement (Conley and Mooty 2003). Evaluation of the co-management of the Sundarbans should, in an ideal situation, help policymakers, facilitators, and resource managers understand opportunities and constraints, thus aiding them in making wise choices.

Gathering data from a variety of participating stakeholders to capture a diversity of views is frequently recommended in evaluation (e.g., Guba and Lincoln 1989, Bellamy et al. 2001, Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2004b, Rowe et al. 2004, Blackstock et al. 2007, Izurieta et al. 2011, Woodhouse et al. 2015) and is compatible with the pluralist principle of co-management (Trimble et al. 2015). It is well suited for co-management because it emphasizes social learning, reflexivity, and feedback throughout its application, partnership, and capability building (Pomeroy and Rivera-Guieb 2006, Ferreyra and Beard 2007, Cundill 2010, Cundill and Fabricius 2010, Izurieta et al. 2011, Stacey et al. 2013).

Co-management practice in the Sundarbans reserve forest has already been initiated for more than a decade. However, scholars and practitioners still find it unsatisfactory in various aspects, from participation to good governance (Islam et al. 2018, Nishat and Chowdhury 2019, Mollick et al. 2022, Begum et al. 2023). Thus, a participatory evaluation approach is necessary for co-management practices of Sundarbans because it can help to identify key stakeholders and their management views and perceptions, identify and resolve issues, and create cooperative initiatives (Reed 2008). Applying a collaboration spectrum framework developed by the Tamarack Institute (2017), we evaluate the current level of collaboration, which can provide appropriate strategies for attaining desired goals. This intervention will increase the commitment of stakeholders to monitoring and give them a sense of shared ownership in the process (Morris and Lawrence 2010, DeMeo et al. 2015, Viani et al. 2017). Furthermore, the enhancement of external validity, group cohesion, and confidence, as well as the empowerment of marginalized stakeholder groups, contribute to the improvement of institutional effectiveness and organizational learning capacity in the co-management of the Sundarbans (Estrella et al. 2000, McDuff 2001, Chouinard and Cousins 2015, Sinclair and Diduck 2017).

SOME REFLECTIONS FROM THE LITERATURE

Co-management, as a pluralistic approach to natural resource management, brings together relevant partners to achieve sustainable development objectives (Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2007, Berkes 2009) through power sharing and state-community joint decision making (Plummer and Armitage 2007, Berkes 2009, Swamy et al. 2018). Therefore, it can be said that unless communities are articulate enough to voice their interests and negotiate in the partnership’s arrangements with other key stakeholders, especially the government, co-management is unlikely to succeed (Thompson 2012:7-8). Empowerment through decentralization and the devolution of power is one of the key goals of co-management and is viewed as crucial for its existence (Pomeroy 2003:248, Charnley and Poe 2007). Empowerment is often equated with participation and the involvement of local forest users in forestry activities (Maryudi et al. 2012).

In most developing countries, co-management aspirations are coupled with the satisfaction of basic needs and the provision of subsistence for livelihood improvement (Pandit et al. 2008). Therefore, community benefits are realized through direct harvesting from the forest (Glasmeier and Farrigan 2005). Recent studies have also highlighted the need to examine natural resource governance reform processes based on participation, transparency, accountability, coordination, capacity (Davis et al. 2013), and power connections (Njaya et al. 2012, Ho et al. 2015). In addition to this, institutional analysis is crucial in assessing co-management success (Khan et al. 2008, 2012) because it plays a large role in consolidating and advancing co-management initiatives (see Kothari et al. 1998, Agrawal 2002, Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2004b) and developing trust between parties (Singleton 1998, Eamer 2006). A comprehensive evaluation of the extent to which collaborative approaches are implemented in our forest, particularly in protected areas, will allow us to determine when we are adhering to the principles of co-management or veering toward alternative models.

The most common evaluation strategy is to assess whether or not collaborative projects fulfill their stated goals (Conley and Moote 2003). Understanding the dynamics of interrelated social, economic, and environmental systems is essential to evaluating progress toward sustainability (Cumming et al. 2005, Patton 2008). For example, in mangrove ecosystems like the Sundarbans, social vulnerability must be taken into account because local people often experience cyclones that ruin their hopes of reviving their livelihoods. As Koli (2013:345) stated,

Addressing the social vulnerability of forest communities demands an inclusive and deeper approach that is able to ensure the long-term security of their livelihoods. In an area vulnerable to climate change such as the Sundarbans mangrove forest, the simple strategy of providing some alternative livelihood options alone cannot solve the livelihood security problems faced by the community or enhance the sustainability of biodiversity conservation.

Evaluations can take several forms, depending on the evaluator’s goals. Although it is difficult to evaluate every aspect of a co-management outcome separately, scholars recommend doing so because it allows comparisons of collaborative ventures with comparable components (Innes 1999, Patton 2008). Others stress the importance of concentrating on a single outcome at a time because it improves accuracy and consistency (d’Estree and Colby 2000). Although numerous frameworks have been proposed, the majority of which incorporate process and outcome variables as assessors (Innes and Booher 1999, Conley and Moote 2003, Heylings and Bravo 2007, Plummer and Armitage 2007, Davis 2008, Leverington et al. 2008, Ostrom 2009, Cundill and Fabricius 2009, 2010, Izurieta et al. 2011, Smedstad and Gosnell 2013, Plummer et al. 2014, Stöhr et al. 2014, Whaley and Weatherhead 2014, Trimble et al. 2015, Kovács et al. 2021), we use three criteria in this article to evaluate the effectiveness of co-management practice of the Sundarbans, namely setting, process, and outcome-based criteria. This framework advocates a sequence of procedures that encompass identifying the goals to be achieved, conceptualizing or envisioning possible contexts, implementing what is feasible, and subsequently evaluating and appraising that pragmatic encounter. Applying the Tamarack Institute’s collaboration spectrum framework (2017) enables us to ascertain whether we are following co-management tenets or drifting toward other phases of collaboration.

Evaluation is intrinsically normative and necessarily political because it is a venue for negotiating the public image of a collaborative effort. Different evaluators will rate the same process differently on the basis of their value judgments. Therefore, we do not support the establishment of an exhaustive set of criteria like those of Conley and Moote (2003) but rather emphasize that the criteria, weightings, and procedures employed must be disclosed.

METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Description of the study sites

The study was conducted in the Sundarbans-adjacent villages of the Banishanta union of Dacope Upazila, Khulna districts, and Munshigonj union of Shyamnagar Upazila, Bagerhat districts (Fig. 2). The bulk of respondents (75%) get their living directly from the Sundarbans, as agriculture and cattle rearing are not profitable because of salinity. Given the geographical isolation of the area, only a small percentage of the population were able to pursue alternative careers; consequently, the majority are fishermen, whereas the remainder are crab collectors, Mowalis (honey collectors), and day laborers. Besides this, rough seas and cyclones frequently force resource collectors to stay home or abandon their trips (Giri 2018).

Methods

The study applied qualitative research techniques to evaluate the success of the co-management of the Sundarbans, examining the objectives by gathering insights and perspectives of various stakeholder cohorts, including participants and non-participants as well as representatives from the Forest Department (FD), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and government delegates. Initially, we carried out a literature assessment of significant official documents (reports, journals, etc.) and policies employed by the Bangladesh Forest Department (government), to learn the basic legal structure and policies on co-management of Sundarbans. This enabled us to know about the setting criteria of the co-management initiatives.

Semi-structured interview schedules were used to collect primary data (demographic information with qualitative data on co-management) from key informant interviews (KIIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs). A deliberate expert sample technique was used to select people with knowledge of co-management projects, whether or not they were involved (Atmadja and Sills 2016). The development of the expert sample was initiated by consulting various stakeholders, including representatives from the FD, NGOs, and community leaders. Given that the majority of resource harvesters who venture into the Sundarbans are male, with females typically limiting their activities to nearby rivers and chores at home, we ensured that one-third of our interviewees were female. This complied with government regulations that mandate the involvement of a substantial number of women in co-management initiatives. From October 2021 to January 2022, KIIs (n = 16; 8 per site) and FGDs (n = 8–10; 3 per site) were carried out, with 42 participants in total. We chose KIIs on the basis of their knowledge and experience of forest co-management, primarily comprising members of co-management organizations, officials from the FD, civil society (primary school teachers, businessmen), and workers from NGOs to gain a comprehensive understanding of all aspects of our evaluation framework, encompassing setting, process, and outcome. KIIs were interviewed for 90 min about their sociodemographic characteristics, their membership in the co-management organization, the formation process of the co-management and the functions of its members, decision-making processes, and the support they received to maintain their livelihoods. In addition, we inquired about their relationships with members of co-management organizations, particularly CPG, transparency and accountability in decision making and financial operations, initial expectations and whether the new initiative has met them, as well as suggestions for making it more effective. Following the KIIs, focus groups were convened to better understand indigenous communities’ roles and responsibilities in forest co-management. The FGD participants were carefully selected for features that could impact co-management opinions, and were interviewed regarding their perceptions on co-management, the level of support they had received, perceived limitations, and recommendations for future improvement. These queries were posed to corroborate the data we had obtained, mainly on process and outcome criteria, while augmenting our understanding with novel information pertaining to co-management. At least one focus group at each location was made up exclusively of women so that participants could speak freely. The presence of multiple women in a group surely provided a sense of companionship, safety, inclusivity, and empowerment for women. We mixed internal (evaluation done by the locals) and external (researcher/FD/NGO workers) co-management evaluations to capture varied perspectives (e.g., Guba and Lincoln 1989, Bellamy et al. 2001, Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2004b, Blackstock et al. 2007) and increase credibility.

After collecting all of the information, we sorted our qualitative data into manageable categories by reducing the volume of raw data and manual coding. The data were subjected to an inductive content analysis approach by using NVivo 12 software (Elo and Kyngäs 2008) to identify overarching themes (namely, success or failure of co-management) that could be explained by several different factors. The interviewee’s original identity was left out of the story because it would put them at risk, and we used an anonymous name instead. The study also benefited from the authors’ observations and insights as practicing managers and academics. As researchers, we served as both external evaluators (in the traditional constructivist approach) and facilitators (in participatory evaluation).

The Khulna University Ethical Clearance Committee assessed and authorized this study (Protocol No. KUECC-2023/01/03). Every participant gave their verbal, prior informed consent. All of the authors of this study guaranteed that there would be no academic misconduct, including data manipulation and distortion.

RESULTS

An overview of the co-management in the studied areas

Site 1: Munshigonj Union, Shyamnagar, Satkhira

The lowest tier, Village Conservation Forum (VCF), failed to get off the ground because of a lack of financial support from the implementing agency or locals’ indifference to form a VCF. Despite their initial enthusiasm, the locals soon lost interest in co-management after learning that it was primarily intended to protect the Sundarbans while offering some alternate ways to generate income. The Sundarbans community had learned from their past encounters that alternative livelihood options are seldom feasible in coastal ecosystems, which has been supported by Wright et al. (2016) and Cinner (2014), and the initiatives failed to bring any novel sustainable alternatives that could be operated sustainably.

However, subsequent stages of VCF (CPG, PF, CMC),^[1] ostensibly said to be formed by local people, have been identified. These people were selected by NGOs, the FD, and local political elites who had no direct ties to the Sundarbans. Respondents in the FGDs alleged that some of the members of the CMC engage in illegal activities and demand additional funds from forest users. For example, CPGs introduced themselves as “gram foresters” and solicited bribes for every action, acting as intermediaries between the FD and the local populace, while simultaneously adopting a demeanor akin to that of “mastans.” Because these individuals were not elected, the local populace had no influence over them. As a result, no comprehensive rules have been created to support the livelihood activities of the local population, nor have the residents been given any discernible opportunities for alternative revenue generation to support their livelihoods.

Governments occasionally impose various restrictions on forest users without considering the livelihoods of community people or providing direct assistance to meet their daily basic needs. The government made the majority of conservation decisions without consulting locals, and the CMC was only used to notify members so they could act. Even amid trying circumstances, the locals’ hopes and needs were ignored. A high proportion of women in the CMC were not well accepted by the male-dominated society. Although it was said that a percentage of ecotourism earnings would accrue to the local population, this has yet to be realized. Even though a fund was established to assist indigenous forest users, no significant initiatives were taken to improve community livelihoods and lessen reliance on the Sundarbans. Rather, it is frequently asserted that influential members plunder endowment cash for personal advantage.

Site 2: Banishanta Union, Dacope, Khulna

In contrast to the Munshigonj union, respondents indicated that they were VCF members. They could not, however, explain their duty as a VCF member other than to defend the forest. Furthermore, the local community has no right to make decisions regarding the conservation of Sundarbans resources because most decisions were made by government institutions, with information being passed on to the CMC to communicate with the local people. Even when the government declares a ban on resource collection, particularly fishing and crab harvesting, they do not provide direct assistance for meeting the basic needs of their families. Moreover, they could not make any rules to make their daily activities more profitable and smoother. The FD, local political class, and NGOs selected CPGs with no direct ties to the Sundarbans while ignoring the VCF, who are alleged to have picked CPGs. Members of the PF, CMC, and CPG are inextricably linked through kinship. Too much female engagement is also criticized here. Locals immediately demand assistance from the Sundarbans to rebuild their homes following a natural disaster, but assistance is currently unavailable. Until now, no significant actions to enhance their livelihood situation have been implemented; rather, restrictions were applied to their access to the forest by declaring a wildlife sanctuary. Local forest users are pleading with the government to restore their former rights and privileges. Except for the endowment fund provided by the then-NGOs, the CMC has had no income-generating source to support its activities. The efficient use and management of this fund, which is currently idle, has become a pressing issue here.

SALIENT FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS

Here, we discuss the main issues regarding co-management of Sundarbans from the above sites, which may elicit some lessons for our country’s policymakers and forestry practitioners and may have significance for other parts of the world that practice co-management.

Setting criteria

Clear goals to conserve forest resources

Co-management aims to protect the Sundarbans’ natural resources while benefiting communities. In the past decade, most activities have focused on forest resource protection, such as designating additional areas as wildlife sanctuaries and restricting forest resource harvesting for several months, barely addressing the socioeconomic requirements of the local poor. Therefore, the rights and daily requirements of traditional forest users may appear nominal or secondary to forest resource conservation. A PF member described the outcomes of co-management:

No significant efforts have so far been taken to improve our lives. The government announced a three-month fish and two-month crab ban and designated additional areas as wildlife sanctuaries, disregarding our means of subsistence. Although some money was given to forest users to wean them off the Sundarbans, the amount of money and the number of recipients were strikingly limited compared to the number of dependents. Without meeting our basic necessities how can you expect to protect the Sundarbans and its diverse resources?

Even international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) are working to protect the Sundarbans’ biodiversity at the expense of community development. In the name of community development, the majority of NGOs deliver short-term benefits (training with short-term credit facilities) while ignoring the long-term components of livelihood initiatives. One member of the focus group discussion stated:

You will find that the majority of the projects in the Sundarbans are focused on the preservation of the tigers and dolphins that live there, while only a few of the programs aim to improve the quality of life for the local community. It would appear that the value of the forest is significantly higher than that of our lives.

Inappropriate institutional arrangement

At the beginning of co-management, a few meetings were held to organize the VCF and register members, but thereafter, meetings were few. As a direct result of this, they either failed to identify themselves as members of the VCF (Munshigonj Union, Shyamnagar, Satkhira) or failed to discuss the functions that they play in the VCF (Banishata Union, Dacope, Khulna). Until now, VCFs were not receiving financial assistance for their livelihoods or other activities (Kramer et al. 2019). However, the VCF’s apex body and subsequent levels (e.g., CPG, PF) were predominantly developed by local NGOs in partnership with FD. During a field visit, we identified CPGs who represent a region but live elsewhere. Even CPGs lack credentials, and as a result, they are concerned for the safety of their families as they risk their lives to render duties and responsibilities. One of the CPG members stated:

The FD is benefiting from the assistance of some individuals (less than $2 per day) in protecting the forest from illicit activities in exchange for minimal compensation. We had to abandon our income-generating business when they asked for support and cooperation, ignoring our family responsibilities. The Sundarbans pose inherent challenges and risks. Since we have no credentials, if any mishaps take place, neither I nor my family will get any compensation in exchange, while FD personnel are under the safety net of the government in a very structured way.

Both CMEC (co-management executive committee) and CMGC (co-management general committee) of CMC are dominated by government officials and local aristocrats (see Mollick et al. 2022). Because most CMC members are picked by the FD after consultation with local elites and higher-level Upazilas administration, they did not transmit community requests to high-ranking government officials out of either gratitude or fear of losing their membership. As a result, they were not an accurate representation of the neighborhood community. Despite PA criteria stating CMCs serve two-year terms, we found the same members after 10 years.

Absence of local decision-making rights

The FD frequently ceases issuing passes and permits. Expansion of wildlife sanctuary areas and imposing seasonal bans have had a significant impact on the livelihoods of local forest users and are generally done without having any consultation with the user groups. Therefore, community members hardly distinguish between co-management and conventional management systems. One of the CMC members exclaimed:

No consultation was held before reducing our extraction area and imposing a seasonal ban on fishing within the Sundarbans. What difference does it make if it is co-management versus the traditional system? We couldn’t say anything at the meeting. Even when we asked them to provide alternatives for local fishermen during the seasonal ban, they ignored us. Is it possible for a local poor fisherman to go three months without earning a living?

Transparency and accountability

CMC has an endowment fund given by its former NGO. However, some CMC and PF members question the current CMC chairman’s use of it. Moreover, local people have no say in using the fund for their benefit. Preparation of comprehensive financial rules that outline how money flows and should be used is necessary. One of the VCF members exclaimed in FGD:

We are aware that we have sufficient funds to enhance our social and economic well-being. But who will decide how to spend that sum, and who stands to gain from it? We heard that one of our former chairmen misappropriated a considerable sum from that. For us to have faith in the committee, everything must be transparent, and the fund must be utilized and monitored properly.

Even the FD, as a coordinating organization of co-management, demonstrated no downward accountability, claiming that it is difficult to convey everything to local people because they work under a variety of challenges in the field and it is not feasible to work in ideal conditions. If every aspect of the actual scenario is conveyed, it is claimed, locals would not comprehend it, which will lead to turmoil and the failure of the entire system.

Process criteria

Varying level of awareness and engagement

Despite the inclusion of a sizable population in the co-management program, significant portions of forest users continue to be excluded. The FD does not currently acknowledge a perception of the VCFs as primarily functioning as focal points for the invention of means of subsistence. In addition, the top-down decision-making approach ensures that members of the CMC are informed of decisions, whereas members of the VCF and the PF are kept in the dark about them. Having said that, members of the CPG were informed of decisions because they were the ones who would carry out the decisions. This demonstrates a lack or restriction of communication between the CMC, PF, and VCF. Occasionally, PF and VCF members were only notified of major decisions and given instructions on how to accomplish the desired objectives. The results of our expeditions showed that meetings of the CMGC take place infrequently, in contrast to the more frequent gatherings of the CMEC.

Lack of clear property rights reduces trust and demolishes relationship

Residents initially saw co-management as a way to access forest resources, establish customary rights, diversify income sources, and reduce climate-induced risk. No effort has been made to establish their legal rights to forest resources (such as year-round access to the Sundarbans or fuelwood collection) or to aid in their socioeconomic development. The CMC meeting did not consider local forest-related needs. For example, FD refuses to provide permission for ice to enter the Sundarbans and seeks bribes instead, despite ice being needed for fishing. This predicament has left CMC members and other forest users feeling discouraged and despairing. A CMC member exclaimed:

At the outset, we posited that we could sustain the Sundarbans management by addressing the fundamental requirements of the indigenous population and fostering a collective agreement on forest management by governmental directives through local decision-making. However, the FD continually prioritized conservation efforts over our advice on creating a sustainable livelihood for those who depend on it. Locals consequently believed that we were solely intermediaries for FD’s interests, which eroded their trust in both our organization and ourselves. We consider ourselves victims of the project.

Some young CPG members act like miscreants. They introduce themselves as village foresters, threatening the local community to pay for any illegal activity (e.g., collecting fuelwood, fishing for crabs during banned times, etc.). They sometimes sell information about patrol routes to poachers, illegal harvesters, and fishermen so they can operate freely. If a defendant does not pay a bribe, he suffers greatly. This animosity increases villagers’ grief and reduces trust in co-management.

Co-management success may be hindered by disregarding local conceptions and conventions

Co-management failed to include local conceptions of “community,” a class-based, hierarchical, and gendered rural entity called “Samaj” (Masud-All-Kamal and Nursey-Bray 2021). The co-management structure mandated a minimum of 50% female participation, which is frequently criticized by the local populace. As patriarchal societal standards confine women to the home in Bangladesh, women are regarded as the most vulnerable/weakest segment of society (Devine and White 2013). Although women cannot remain a collective or become “change agents” (Huang 2017), co-management adopts the same “counter-elite tactic” as other community-based projects (Wong 2010). In rural areas, affluent male elites and patron-client connections reduce the effectiveness of addressing disadvantaged women (Karim 2011, Dewan et al. 2014, Ruud 2020). As a result, no upper-class community member is ready to cooperate with “poor women” or participate in female-led projects (Sultana 2014, White 2017). It is easier to undertake programs if women are reflective of the community, but this diminishes their effectiveness, results, and durability.

Outcome criteria

Lack of alternative income and sustainable livelihood support

Ecotourism is said to be the primary source of revenue for communities. The PA rules say that CMCs will receive 50% of ecotourism fees and concessions and 100% of fees collected for non-timber forest products (NTFP) extraction. However, BFD has paused a crucial revenue-sharing provision and organized a review committee to analyze the financial responsibility of the PA Management Rules 2017 (Kramer et al. 2019) because, under the existing PA rules, divisional forest officers (DFOs) are subject to fines if government audits of CMC financial accounts are negative. The committee recommends that revenue shares be distributed not to the CMC but rather to the DFO. This method would increase BFD’s control over the CMC and progressively weaken the co-management relationship (Kramer et al. 2019).

Even the fundraising attempts of CMC, such as an ecotourism boat, failed because of a lack of FD support. Furthermore, very few respondents received CMC aid to divert their livelihoods away from the Sundarbans. Although some NGOs provide short-term training and micro-credit to divert Sundarbans resource users into other livelihoods, some of these (e.g., cattle rearing, domestic beekeeping) are not viable in this zone and may pose a threat to the sustainability of the Sundarbans. Despite this, alternative income generation activities (AIGAs) have not been able to demonstrate a wide-ranging impact on conservation, nor to fully compensate for lost income caused by restrictions on resource extraction. Every respondent said the frequency of natural disasters destroys hope. As stated in a report for USAID by Kramer et al. (2019:ii), “savings groups had disbanded, and alternative income generation activities (AIGAs) had failed.”

Local forest users’ capacity to find acceptable employment is limited because of the lack of education and the remote location, which increases their dependency on the Sundarbans. Because working women in the Sundarbans also have other responsibilities for their families, it can be difficult for them to locate alternative employment opportunities. When seasonal bans are enforced, it makes things far more difficult.

Disregarding socio-vulnerability issues

People who depend on the Sundarbans for a living endured severe hardship in the aftermath of the cyclone that ravaged the country’s coastal regions. Many of them lost their fishing nets in the river, others lost their boats, and the mowalis (honey collectors) lost their tools. Without capital or a place to live, most forest dwellers have lost everything. Following the devastation, the FD ceased granting licenses in order to assist forest rejuvenation, which is seen as an affront to the local community, as they depended on the Sundarbans for building a good home with wood and Golpata (Nypa fruticans). A forest user, in FGD, stated:

Shortly after a catastrophe, when we are at our most vulnerable, the FD restricts access to the forest to restore it. Have they ever thought about our source of revenue? We were starving the majority of the time back then. If permission were granted to collect fallen trees to rebuild our home and to catch fish to feed our family, would it be more expensive than our suffering?

Following a disaster, mohajons (merchants and money lenders who offer money at a high interest rate with no mortgage) become their primary, and often sole, source of regeneration support. In addition, forest users had to rely on the mohajon for aid in the event of an emergency, such as a family medical problem or an accidental injury. Other credit systems (e.g., land and home mortgages) add to the complexity and do not take field conditions (poor collection or inclement weather) into account when calculating loan repayment. Those without a boat or other equipment had to borrow from the mohajons, pledging to pay an equivalent portion, working during resource collection season, or paying a hefty interest rate. During the peak resource-collection time, numerous individuals engaged in resource collection, particularly mowalis and bawali (Goran/goalpata collectors), found it necessary to borrow funds from mohajons in order to support their families and fulfill their forest-related needs.

Politics and politicization

As field findings indicate, co-management institutions are rapidly gaining popularity and visibility in local contexts. These institutions have subsequently attracted the attention of local power holders, particularly sociopolitical elites, as potential support bases and “vote banks.” Several CMCs appeared to be becoming more involved in local politics and associating themselves with major political parties. In a few instances, it was discovered that politically powerful CMC leaders attempted to sway government authorities, particularly FD officials, in favor of forest offenders and illegal loggers.

DISCUSSION

This study evaluates the practice of co-management in the Sundarbans reserve forest. Our findings indicate that the NSP project (2004–2009), supported by USAID, produced a co-management model for protected areas, which was then adopted with minor modifications for additional protected areas, including the Sundarbans, without prior consultation with relevant stakeholders. For instance, when the government restricted access to the Sundarbans by expanding wildlife sanctuary areas or imposing a seasonal ban on resource gathering that significantly impacted the local community’s ability to make a living, no previous consultation took place (Siddique et al. 2022). It implies that, although there is a nominal presentation of community in the co-management program, which Hobley’s framework (1996:8) refers to as “manipulative participation” (see also Buchy and Race 2001, Jones 2006), it is on the lower end of Arnstein’s scale of participation (1969:217). According to an NGO professional,

We can hardly design [a project] anything having a true consultation with the community. Experts devise the project plan using a top-down approach. Most donors and institutions made crucial decisions based on their preferences, which are often implied at the community level, and attempted to label it as a community-centered approach just by informing communities about what will happen in a project and how they should act.

Initially, local communities expressed their enthusiasm for co-management by attending internal meetings in large numbers. However, attendance diminished over time as local communities lacked the devolutionary power to make and implement regulatory decisions on their own, which Jentoft (1989:144) considers to be a must, resulting in deconcentration as proposed by Smith (2001:17). Devolution involves delegating some power to local actors, and the state has long dreaded losing control over planning and practice. As noted by Pulhin and Dressler (2009) in certain other parts of the world, on the other hand, governments attempt to restore administrative dominance by supervising local governance. The BFD abolished the most fundamental benefit-sharing property rights less than two years after the revenue-sharing clause was finally adopted (Kramer et al. 2019). So, under the guise of collaborative management, the Sundarbans community has been subjected to a strict conservation regime as well as mainstream rhetoric and practices that Singleton (2000) calls “capture” rather than co-management. Despite suffering the consequences of conservation initiatives in the Sundarbans, local people have been made into conservation subjects. In this way, conservation governmentality is enacted not only through coercive measures and policies but also by constructing the local community as conservation subjects under the FD administration’s surveillance and intensifying and adopting the hegemonic conservation discourse in their daily lives (Agrawal 2005, Caruso 2014, Stevens 2014), which can be referred to as “administrative co-management,” as proposed by KimDung et al. (2013). Similar findings were made by Fox et al. (2013), who contend that the co-management committee operated per the framework and standards established by FD.

Although the role of institutions and institution-building processes in consolidating and developing co-management projects is now recognized (see Kothari et al. 1998, Agrawal and Gibson 1999, Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2004b), it is in its weakest form in the Sundarbans. The abolition or severe restriction of the lowest tier and the selection of the next highest layer, in conjunction with project planners and engaged NGOs, are signs of dysfunctional co-management organizations. To show their gratitude, the chosen members of the CMC often refrain from voicing their opinions in front of high-ranking government officials, as they are concerned about potentially upsetting them and thereby running the risk of losing their membership. As sociologist Roseanne Rutten (2006:353) explains, the emotional and behavioral tendencies of workers can prevent face-to-face confrontations with authoritative people. As well, despite assurances that their traditional property rights would be established and that alternative sources of income would be made available, more restrictions were applied, destroying their traditional property rights without providing alternative sources of income, which altered sociocultural practices and affected subsistence living (Siddique et al. 2022). Although mohajons were siphoning off a significant portion of borrowers’ earnings by applying exorbitant interest rates, no safety net was established to safeguard the interest of the borrowers. Consequently, even though local actors are represented on co-management committees, they have been obliged to comply with state-developed bureaucratic requirements. Furthermore, no provisions were put in place to support local peoples’ livelihood following a severe weather event, although cyclones are common in this region (Koli 2013). As a direct consequence of this, many in the surrounding areas regarded it as a “fad” as noted by Devine (2006).

In addition, the participation of a significant number of women in the CMC is disrespectful to the traditional “Samaj” system, which is characterized by a patriarchal structure that makes it difficult for women’s opinions to be taken into consideration (Devine and White 2013, Masud-All-Kamal and Nursey-Bray 2021). It is extremely difficult for (poor) women to be sustained as a collective or to become “change agents” (Huang 2017) because of social inequality and power structures in rural communities dominated by wealthy male elites and patron-client relationships (Karim 2011, Dewan et al. 2014, Ruud 2020). Without taking any measures to improve women’s ability to contribute to CMCs, their engagement will merely lead to “participatory exclusion” (Agarwal 2001:1623). As Morales and Harris (2014:8-9) observed:

It is insufficient to merely have more members of varied groups (be they gender, ethnicity, class, or other sorts of diversity) attend meetings and speak up. Unless and until broader social, cultural, and institutional institutions evolve in support of that involvement, participation will be superficial, fleeting, or limited to individuals capable of challenging established mores, even when they are uncomfortable or challenged.

The 2010 Government Gazette notification specifies that a co-management committee is required to provide periodic reports to the people’s forum and co-management council. In practice, only the forest department’s control and accountability functions have been centralized upward. Even if an era has gone, locals have been kept in the dark about their rights and prospects, making accountability in co-management programs ludicrous (Ribot et al. 2006). The corruption-based entry of CPG or corruption committed by the FD contributes to corruption’s “embedding in the wider matrix of power relations in society” (Nuijten and Anders 2007:2). Even the CMC’s endowment fund support for income diversification is limited to a small number of patronage-based recipients (see Mollick et al. 2022 for more). Some attempts to make money in the community failed because of a lack of support from the FD, and some of the support requires additional consideration to be sustainable (for instance, the viability of raising cattle in this area is questionable because of a significant lack of forage caused by salt). In addition, it is evident that the endowment fund of the CMC has been mismanaged. The local community lost trust in the newly implemented co-management program.

Taking into account all aspects of evaluation (setting, process, and outcome), the co-management initiative is indicative of poor or ineffective governance (Owoye and Bissessar 2014) and falls within the Tamarack Institute’s (2017) co-existing level of collaboration approach. Dressler et al. (2010) argue, from a global perspective, that co-management evolved from “hope to crisis again.” According to Rashid et al. (2016), the implementation of top-down management approaches in Bangladesh hindered potential advancements that co-management could have facilitated. This assertion is supported by the presence of weak governance as demonstrated by Mollick et al. (2022), a lack of transparency and accountability in the decision-making process as highlighted by Islam et al. (2017), an unequal distribution of benefits, and a deficiency in organizational capacity as identified by Nishat and Chowdhury (2019). The recommended measures of improvement, including decentralization with power delegation to the local community, acknowledgment of local people’s property rights, offering incentives or alternatives to support livelihoods, and reinforcing local institutional structures, will necessitate our unflinching commitment.

The framework was synthesized and tailored to reflect three broad areas (setting, process, and outcome), whereas most others included only the last two variables as assessors. Setting criteria is crucial because it signifies the preliminary efforts to enable locals to self-motivate without ambiguity regarding the program’s objectives, the support required for locals in the form of a robust institution that ensures accountability and transparency, and guarantees that power devolution provides decision-making support. Furthermore, this framework also integrates socio-vulnerability concerns of the local population into the assessment process, a factor that is essential for evaluating the potential of locals to adapt to climate change. By implementing this evaluation framework in the field, general lessons have been learned and ideas for future assessment methods, as well as specific insights on how to manage coastal ecosystems similar to those of the Sundarbans, have been generated. Consequently, this framework is applicable to climate-vulnerable local populations. Therefore, we think that our suggested model, which assesses activities at the planning level (setting), activities during the implementation phase (process), and their results (outcome), can be used to carry out a thorough assessment of cooperative projects. We recommend applying this model in situations that have comparable characteristics.

CONCLUSION

Co-management is a long-standing practice in South Asia; however, systematic management is relatively new. Despite the lack of empirical evidence and limited evaluation experience, a romanticized narrative has emerged surrounding this phenomenon. This situation is very similar to what Conley and Moote (2003) describe as collaborative natural resource management; however, we argue that evaluation of co-management must occur. We intend to contribute to co-management and related fields by proposing a formative evaluation framework that can be used for in-depth analysis of ongoing initiatives in areas like the Sundarbans, thereby promoting collaboration, learning, and practice-improving actions (their processes and outcomes).

Numerous obstacles to the successful implementation of the Sundarbans co-management program were uncovered by our research. First, decentralization was carried out without a transfer of decision-making authority, resulting in minimal local participation in co-management initiatives. Second, states placed a greater emphasis on conservation without recognizing traditional property rights or providing adequate incentives or alternative sources of income. To reinforce centralization, co-management institutions were kept weak by including a high proportion of government officials and their clients. This situation demonstrates the validity of Cooke and Kothari’s (2001) argument; despite the rhetoric of local actor empowerment and the democratic language underlying participatory programs, participation is more likely to foster tyranny than democratic ideals. Third, co-management institutions still lack both downward accountability and transparency. Therefore, we propose focusing more on improving the socioeconomic conditions of indigenous peoples by diversifying income options to reduce forest dependency, giving some property rights with strong monitoring provisions, engaging women by creating groups composed solely of women, and decentralizing power to indigenous peoples so that they can create their own regulations without violating key government decisions, thus resolving all obstacles to achieving widespread public support for co-management.

__________

^[1] The acronyms CPG, PF, and CMC stand for Community Patrol Group, People’s Form, and Co-Management Committee, the top tier of the co-management team made up of both executive and general members.

LITERATURE CITED

Abdullah, A. N. M., N. Stacey, S. T. Garnett, and B. Myers. 2016. Economic dependence on mangrove forest resources for livelihoods in the Sundarbans, Bangladesh. Forest Policy and Economics 64:15-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.12.009

Adams, W. M., R. Aveling, D. Brockington, B. Dickson, J. Elliott, J. Hutton, D. Roe, B. Vira, and W. Wolmer. 2004. Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of poverty. Science 306(5699):1146-1149. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1097920

Agarwal, B. 2001. Participatory exclusions, community forestry, and gender: an analysis for South Asia and a conceptual framework. World Development 29(10):1623-1648. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00066-3

Agrawal, A. 2002. Common resources and institutional sustainability. Pages 41-85 in E. Ostrom, T. Diez, N. Dolšak, P. C. Stern, S. Stonich, and E. U. Weber, editors. The drama of the commons. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Agrawal, A. 2005. Environmentality: technologies of government and the making of subjects. Duke University, London, UK.

Agrawal, A., and C. C. Gibson. 1999. Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of community in natural resource conservation. World Development 27(4):629-649. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(98)00161-2

Ahmed, S., and D. Bartlett. 2018. An evaluation of the effectiveness of the co-management approach in selected protected areas of Bangladesh. International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation 10(12):510-516. https://doi.org/10.5897/IJBC2017.1107

Akamani, K., and T. E. Hall. 2015. Determinants of the process and outcomes of household participation in collaborative forest management in Ghana: a quantitative test of a community resilience model. Journal of Environmental Management 147:1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.09.007

Arnstein, S. R. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35(4):216-224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225

Atmadja, S. S., and E. O. Sills. 2016. What is a “community perception” of REDD+? A systematic review of how perceptions of REDD+ have been elicited and reported in the literature. PLoS ONE 11(11):e0155636. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155636

Bastakoti, R. R., and C. Davidsen. 2017. Optimism, hopes and fears: local perceptions of REDD+ in Nepalese community forests. International Forestry Review 19(1):1-16. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554817820888627

Begum, F., L. L. de Bruyn, P. Kristiansen, and M. A. Islam. 2021. Institutionalising co-management activities for conservation of forest resources: evidence from the Sundarban mangrove forest management of Bangladesh. Journal of Environmental Management 298:113504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113504

Begum, F., L. L. de Bruyn, P. Kristiansen, and M. A. Islam. 2022. Forest co-management in the Sundarban mangrove forest: impacts of women’s participation on their livelihoods and sustainable forest resource conservation. Environmental Development 43:100731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2022.100731

Begum, F., L. L. de Bruyn, P. Kristiansen, and M. A. Islam. 2023. Development pathways for co-management in the Sundarban mangrove forest: a multiple stakeholder perspective. Forest Policy and Economics 148:102918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2023.102918

Bellamy, J. A., D. H. Walker, G. T. McDonald, and G. J. Syme. 2001. A systems approach to the evaluation of natural resource management initiatives. Journal of Environmental Management 63(4):407-423. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.2001.0493

Béné, C., E. Belal, M. O. Baba, S. Ovie, A. Raji, I. Malasha, F. Njaya, M. N. Andi, A. Russell, and A. Neiland. 2009. Power struggle, dispute and alliance over local resources: analyzing ‛democratic’ decentralization of natural resources through the lenses of Africa inland fisheries. World Development 37(12):1935-1950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2009.05.003

Berkes, F. 2009. Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management 90(5):1692-1702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.12.001

Bernard, T., and J. M. Young. 1997. The ecology of hope: communities collaborate for sustainability. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, British Columbia, Canada.

Blackstock, K. L., G. J. Kelly, and B. L. Horsey. 2007. Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability. Ecological Economics 60(4):726-742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.05.014

Blaikie, P. 2006. Is small really beautiful? Community-based natural resource management in Malawi and Botswana. World Development 34(11):1942-1957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.11.023

Borrini-Feyerabend, G., A. Kothari, and G. Oviedo. 2004a. Indigenous and local communities and protected areas: towards equity and enhanced conservation: guidance on policy and practice for co-managed protected areas and community conserved areas. IUCN, The World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland.

Borrini-Feyerabend, G., M. T. Farvar, J. C. Nguinguiri, and V. A. Ndangang. 2007. Co-management of natural resources. Organising, negotiating and learning-by-doing. Kasparek Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany.

Borrini-Feyerabend, G., M. T. Farvar, Y. Renard, M. P. Pimbert, and A. Kothari. 2004b. Sharing power: a global guide to collaborative management of natural resources. Routledge, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849772525

Brown, D. 1999. Principles and practice of forest co-management: evidence from west-central Africa. European Union Tropical Forestry Paper, London, UK.

Buchy, M., and D. Race. 2001. The twists and turns of community participation in natural resource management in Australia: what is missing? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 44(3):293-308. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560120046070

Butler, J. R. A., W. Suadnya, Y. Yanuartati, S. Meharg, R. M. Wise, Y. Sutaryono, and K. Duggan. 2016. Priming adaptation pathways through adaptive co-management: design and evaluation for developing countries. Climate Risk Management 12:1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2016.01.001

Campbell, B., J. A. Sayer, P. Frost, S. Vermeulen, M. R. Pérez, A. Cunningham, and R. Prabhu. 2002. Assessing the performance of natural resource systems. Conservation Ecology 5(2):22. http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art22/

Carlsson, L., and F. Berkes. 2005. Co-management: concepts and methodological implications. Journal of Environmental Management 75(1):65-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.11.008

Caruso, E. 2014. State governmentality or Indigenous sovereignty? Protected area comanagement in the Ashaninka Communal Reserve in Peru. Pages 150-171 in S. Stevens, editor. Indigenous peoples, national parks and protected areas: a new paradigm linking conservation, culture, and rights. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona, USA. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt183pbn5.11

Charnley, S., and M. R. Poe. 2007. Community forestry in theory and practice: where are we now? Annual Review of Anthropology 36:301-336. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123143

Chess, C. 2000. Evaluating environmental public participation: methodological questions. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 43(6):769-784. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560020001674

Chomba, S., J. Kariuki, J. F. Lund, and F. Sinclair. 2016. Roots of inequity: how the implementation of REDD+ reinforces past injustices. Land Use Policy 50:202-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.09.021

Chouinard, J. A., and J. B. Cousins. 2015. The journey from rhetoric to reality: participatory evaluation in a development context. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 27(1):5-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-013-9184-8

Cinner, J. E., T. Daw, C. Huchery, P. Thoya, A. Wamukota, M. Cedras, and C. Abunge. 2014. Winners and losers in marine conservation: fishers’ displacement and livelihood benefits from marine reserves. Society & Natural Resources 27(9):994-1005. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2014.918229

Cohen, P. J., and T. J. Alexander. 2013. Catch rates, composition and fish size from reefs managed with periodically-harvested closures. PLoS ONE 8(9):e73383. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0073383

Conley, A., and M. A. Moote. 2003. Evaluating collaborative natural resource management. Society & Natural Resources 16(5):371-386. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920309181

Connick, S., and J. E. Innes 2003. Outcomes of collaborative water policy making: applying complexity thinking to evaluation. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 46(2):177-197. https://doi.org/10.1080/0964056032000070987

Cooke, B., and U. Kothari, editors. 2001. Participation: the new tyranny? Zed Books, London, UK.

Cumming, G. S., G. Barnes, S. Perz, M. Schmink, K. E. Sieving, J. Southworth, M. Binford, R. D. Holt, C. Stickler, and T. Van Holt. 2005. An exploratory framework for the empirical measurement of resilience. Ecosystems 8(8):975-987. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-005-0129-z

Cundill, G. 2010. Monitoring social learning processes in adaptive comanagement: three case studies from South Africa. Ecology and Society 15(3):28. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03467-150328

Cundill, G., and C. Fabricius. 2009. Monitoring in adaptive co-management: toward a learning based approach. Journal of Environmental Management 90(11): 3205-3211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.05.012

Cundill, G., and C. Fabricius. 2010. Monitoring the governance dimension of natural resource co-management. Ecology and Society 15(1):15. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03346-150115

Davis, C., L. Williams, S. Lupberger, and F. Daviet. 2013. Assessing forest governance: the governance of forests initiative indicator framework. World Resource Institute, Washington, D.C., USA. https://files.wri.org/d8/s3fs-public/assessing_forest_governance.pdf

Davis, N. A. 2008. Evaluating collaborative fisheries management planning: a Canadian case study. Marine Policy 32(6):867-876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2008.01.001

Daw, T. M., C. C. Hicks, K. Brown, T. Chaigneau, F. A. Januchowski-Hartley, W. W. L. Cheung, S. Rosendo, B. Crona, S. Coulthard, C. Sandbrook, et al. 2016. Elasticity in ecosystem services: exploring the variable relationship between ecosystems and human well-being. Ecology and Society 21(2):11. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08173-210211

De Koning, J. 2014. Unpredictable outcomes in forestry—governance institutions in practice. Society & Natural Resources 27(4):358-371. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2013.861557

DeMeo, T., A. Markus, B. T. Bormann, and J. Leingang. 2015. Tracking progress: the monitoring process used in collaborative forest landscape restoration projects in the Pacific Northwest. Northwest Fire Science Consortium, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.

d’Estree, T. P., and B. G. Colby. 2000. Guidebook for analyzing success in environmental conflict resolution cases. Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA.

Devine, J. 2006. Community-based organizations – new fad or old hat? Community Development Journal 41(4):521-527. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsl032

Devine, J., and S. C. White. 2013. Religion, politics and the everyday moral order in Bangladesh. Journal of Contemporary Asia 43(1):127-147. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472336.2012.735544

Dewan, C., M. C. Buisson, and A. Mukherji. 2014. The imposition of participation? The case of participatory water management in coastal Bangladesh. Water Alternatives 7(2):342-366.

Dressler, W., B. Büscher, M. Schoon, D. Brockington, T. Hayes, C. A. Kull, J. McCarthy, and K. Shrestha. 2010. From hope to crisis and back again? A critical history of the global CBNRM narrative. Environmental Conservation 37(1):5-15. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892910000044

Eamer, J. 2006. Keep it simple and be relevant: the first 10 years of the Arctic Borderlands Ecological Knowledge Coop. Pages 185-206 in W. Reid, F. Berkes, T. Wilbanks, and D. Capistrano, editors. Bridging scales and knowledge systems. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Elo, S., and H. Kyngäs. 2008. The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing 62(1):107-115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x

Estrella, M., J. Blauert, J. Gonsalves, D. Campilan, J. Gaventa, I. Guijt, D. A. Johnson, and R. Ricafort, editors. 2000. Learning from change: issues and experiences in participatory monitoring and evaluation. IDRC, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. https://doi.org/10.3362/9781780441214

Evans, L., N. Cherrett, and D. Pemsl. 2011. Assessing the impact of fisheries co-management interventions in developing countries: a meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Management 92(8):1938-1949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.03.010

Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E., H. L. Ballard, and V. E. Sturtevant. 2008. Adaptive management and social learning in collaborative and community-based monitoring: a study of five community-based forestry organizations in the western USA. Ecology and Society 13(2):4. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02400-130204

Ferreyra, C., and P. Beard. 2007. Participatory evaluation of collaborative and integrated water management: insights from the field. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 50(2):271-296. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560601156532

Fox, J., M. G. Mustafa, B. R. Bushley, S. M. Brennan, and L. Durand. 2013. Connecting communities and conservation: co-management initiatives implemented by IPAC in wetlands and forests of Bangladesh. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Gelcich, S., G. Edwards-Jones, M. J. Kaiser, and J .C. Castilla. 2006. Co-management policy can reduce resilience in traditionally managed marine ecosystems. Ecosystems 9:951-966. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-005-0007-8

Gill, D. A., S. H. Cheng, L. Glew, E. Aigner, N. J. Bennett, and M. B. Mascia. 2019. Social synergies, tradeoffs, and equity in marine conservation impacts. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 44:347-372. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110718-032344

Giri, S. S., editor. 2018. Small-scale fisheries in South Asia. SAARC Agriculture Centre, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Glasmeier, A. K., and T. Farrigan. 2005. Understanding community forestry: a qualitative meta‐study of the concept, the process, and its potential for poverty alleviation in the United States case. Geographical Journal 171(1):56-69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2005.00149.x

Gopal, B., and M. Chauhan. 2018. The transboundary Sundarbans mangroves (India and Bangladesh). Pages 1733-1742 in C. Finlayson, G. Milton, R. Prentice, and N. Davidson, editors. The wetland book. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4001-3_26

Government of Bangladesh (GoB). 2009. Biodiversity National Assessment and Programme of Action 2010. Department of Environment, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Guba, E. G., and Y. S. Lincoln. 1989. Fourth generation evaluation. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, California, USA.

Guerry, A. D., S. Polasky, J. Lubchenco, R. Chaplin-Kramer, G. C. Daily, R. Griffin, M. Ruckelshaus, I. J. Bateman, A. Duraiappah, T. Elmqvist, et al. 2015. Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: from promise to practice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(24):7348-7355. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1503751112

Hawlader, A. 2018. Mangrove governance and resource conflicts: a case study of the Sundarbans Mangrove forest in Bangladesh. Thesis. Central European University, Budapest, Hungary.

Heylings, P., and M. Bravo. 2007. Evaluating governance: a process for understanding how co-management is functioning, and why, in the Galapagos Marine Reserve. Ocean & Coastal Management 50(3-4):174-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2006.09.003

Ho, N. T. T., H. Ross, and J. Coutts. 2015. Power sharing in fisheries co-management in Tam Giang Lagoon, Vietnam. Marine Policy 53:171-179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.12.006

Hobley, M., 1996. Participatory forestry: the process of change in India and Nepal. Overseas Development Institute (ODI). Rural Development Forestry Study Guide 3. Overseas Development Institute, London, UK.

Hoq, M. E. 2014. Management strategies for sustainable exploitation of aquatic resources of the Sundarbans Mangrove, Bangladesh. Pages 319-341 in I. Faridah-Hanum, A. Latiff, K. Hakeem, and M. Ozturk, editors. Mangrove ecosystems of Asia: status, challenges and management strategies. Springer, New York, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8582-7_15

Huang, J. Q. 2017. The ambiguous figures of social enterprise: gendered flexibility and relational work among the iAgents of Bangladesh. American Ethnologist 44(4):603-616. https://doi.org/10.1111/amet.12560

Innes, J. E., and D. E. Booher. 1999. Consensus building and complex adaptive systems: a framework for evaluating collaborative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 65(4):412-423. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369908976071

Innes, J. E. 1999. Evaluating consensus building. Pages 631-676 in L. Susskind, S. McKearnan, and J. Thomas-Larmer, editors. The consensus building handbook: a comprehensive guide to reaching agreement. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, California, USA. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452231389.n18

Islam, K., T. K. Nath, M. Jashimuddin, and M. F. Rahman. 2019. Forest dependency, co-management and improvement of peoples’ livelihood capital: evidence from Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary, Bangladesh. Environmental Development 32:100456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2019.100456

Islam, M. W., L. Ruhanen, and B. W. Ritchie. 2018. Tourism governance in protected areas: investigating the application of the adaptive co-management approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 26(11):1890-1908. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2018.1526291

Islam, G. M. N., S. Y. Tai, M. N. Kusairi, S. Ahmad, F. M. N. Aswani, M. K. A. M. Senan, and A. Ahmad. 2017. Community perspectives of governance for effective management of marine protected areas in Malaysia. Ocean & Coastal Management 135:34-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.11.001

Izurieta, A., B. Sithole, N. Stacey, H. Hunter-Xenie, B. Campbell, P. Donohoe, J. Brown, and L. Wilson. 2011. Developing indicators for monitoring and evaluating joint management effectiveness in protected areas in the Northern Territory, Australia. Ecology and Society 16(3):9. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04274-160309

Jentoft, S. 1989. Fisheries co-management: delegating government responsibility to fishermen’s organizations. Marine Policy 13(2):137-154. https://doi.org/10.1016/0308-597X(89)90004-3

Jones, S. 2006. A political ecology of wildlife conservation in Africa. Review of African Political Economy 33(109):483-495. https://doi.org/10.1080/03056240601000911

Kairu, A., C. Upton, M. Huxham, K. Kotut, R. Mbeche, and J. Kairo. 2018. From shiny shoes to muddy reality: understanding how meso-state actors negotiate the implementation gap in participatory forest management. Society & Natural Resources 31(1):74-88. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2017.1382628

Kamoto, J., G. Clarkson, P. Dorward, and D. Shepherd. 2013. Doing more harm than good? Community based natural resource management and the neglect of local institutions in policy development. Land Use Policy 35:293-301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.06.002

Karim, L. 2011. Microfinance and its discontents: women in debt in Bangladesh. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. https://doi.org/10.5749/minnesota/9780816670949.001.0001

Kellert, S. R., J. N. Mehta, S. A. Ebbin, and L. L. Lichtenfeld. 2000. Community natural resource management: promise, rhetoric, and reality. Society & Natural Resources 13(8):705-715. https://doi.org/10.1080/089419200750035575

Khan, N. A. 2008. Towards a conceptual framework for performance and capacity assessment of CMCs as local institutions. Nishorgo Support Project of Forest Department, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Khan, N. A., U. Dutta, M. Ahsan, M. Mrong, R. Sultana, and A. Rahman. 2012. Assessing the capacity and progress of forest co-management organizations. Pages 85-96 in P. J. DeCosse, editor. Protected area co-management where people and poverty intersect: lessons from Nishorgo in Bangladesh. USAID, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

KimDung, N., S. Bush, and A. P. J. Mol. 2013. Administrative co-management: the case of special-use forest conservation in Vietnam. Environmental Management 51:616-630. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-012-0012-6

KimDung, N., S. R. Bush, and A. P. J. Mol. 2017. The Vietnamese legal and policy framework for co-management in special-use forests. Forests 8(7):262. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8070262

Koli, A. 2013. Community forest management addressing social vulnerability of forest communities in Bangladesh. International Forestry Review 15(3):336-347. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554813807700100

Kothari A., R. V. Anuradha, N. Pathak. 1998. Community-based conservation: issues and prospects. In A. Kothari, N. Pathak, R. V. Anuradha, and B. Taneja, editors. Communities and conservation: natural resource management in South and Central Asia. Sage, London, UK.

Kovács, E., O. Mile, V. Fabók, K. Margóczi, Á. Kalóczkai, V. Kasza, A. N. Grecs, A. Bankovics, and B. Mihók. 2021. Fostering adaptive co-management with stakeholder participation in the surroundings of soda pans in Kiskunság, Hungary – an assessment. Land Use Policy 100:104894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104894

Kramer, M. J., M. S. Uddin, and H. Kabir. 2019. USAID/Bangladesh natural Resources management (NRM) sector assessment report. https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00WFCQ

Leverington, F., M. Hockings, and K. L. Costa. 2008. Management effectiveness evaluation in protected areas: a global study. World Commission on Protected Areas, University of Brisbane, Australia.

Mahmood, H., M. Ahmed, T. Islam, M. Z. Uddin, Z. U. Ahmed, and C. Saha. 2021. Paradigm shift in the management of the Sundarbans mangrove forest of Bangladesh: issues and challenges. Trees, Forests and People 5:100094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2021.100094

Marshall, G. 2008. Nesting, subsidiarity, and community-based environmental governance beyond the local scale. International Journal of the Commons 2(1):75-97. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.50

Maryudi, A., R. R. Devkota, C. Schusser, C. Yufanyi, M. Salla, H. Aurenhammer, R. Rotchanaphatharawit, and M. Krott. 2012. Back to basics: considerations in evaluating the outcomes of community forestry. Forest Policy and Economics 14(1):1-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2011.07.017

Masud-All-Kamal, M., and M. Nursey-Bray. 2021. Socially just community-based climate change adaptation? Insights from Bangladesh. Local Environment 26(9):1092-1108. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2021.1962829

McDuff, M. D. 2001. Building the capacity of grassroots conservation organizations to conduct participatory evaluation. Environmental Management 27:715-727. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002670010182

Meyers, W. R. 1981. The evaluation enterprise: a realistic appraisal of evaluation careers, methods, and applications. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, California, USA.

Mollick, A. S., M. Roy, N. I. Khan, W. Islam, N. Sadath, and T. K. Nath. 2022. Assessing good governance in protected areas (PA) co-management: a case study of the Sundarbans Mangrove Forests of Bangladesh. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 41(3-5):277-301. https://doi.org/10.1080/10549811.2021.1923531

Mollick, A. S., R. J. K. Ranon, M. N. I. Khan, and T. K. Nath. 2023. Evaluating social equity in protected areas co-management: evidence from the Sundarbans Mangrove Forests, Bangladesh. Society & Natural Resources 36:970-990. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2023.2199715

Morris, J., and A. Lawrence. 2010. Learning from monitoring & evaluation–a blueprint for an adaptive organisation. Social and Economic Research Group.

Morales, M. C., and L. M. Harris. 2014. Using subjectivity and emotion to reconsider participatory natural resource management. World Development 64:703-712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.06.032

Mukul, S. A., A. Z. M. M. Rashid, S. A. Quazi, M. B. Uddin, and J. Fox. 2012. Local peoples’ responses to co-management regime in protected areas: a case study from Satchari National Park, Bangladesh. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods 21(1):16-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/14728028.2012.669132

Mutanga, C. N., S. Vengesayi, N. Muboko, and E. Gandiwa. 2015. Towards harmonious conservation relationships: a framework for understanding protected area staff-local community relationships in developing countries. Journal for Nature Conservation 25:8-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2015.02.006

Nadasdy, P. 2003. Hunters and bureaucrats: power, knowledge, and aboriginal-state relations in the southwest Yukon. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. https://doi.org/10.59962/9780774851886

Natcher, D. C., S. Davis, and C. G. Hickey. 2005. Co-management: managing relationships, not resources. Human Organization 64(3):240-250. https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.64.3.23yfnkrl2ylapjxw

Neumann, C. J. 2017. A global tropical cyclone climatology. Pages 28-62 in: Global guide to tropical cyclone forecasting. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

Nishat, A., and J. K. Chowdhury. 2019. Influence of climate change on biodiversity and ecosystems in the Bangladesh Sundarbans. Pages 439-468 in H. Sen, editor. The Sundarbans: a disaster-prone eco-region. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00680-8_15

Njaya, F., S. Donda, and C. Béné. 2012. Analysis of power in fisheries co-management: experiences from Malawi. Society & Natural Resources 25(7):652-666. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2011.627912

Nuijten, M., and G. Anders, editors. 2007. Corruption and the secret of law: a legal anthropological perspective. Ashgate, Aldershot, UK.

Nunan, F. 2006. Empowerment and institutions: managing fisheries in Uganda. World Development 34(7):1316-1332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.11.016

Ostrom, E. 2009. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325:419-422. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133

Owoye, O., and N. Bissessar. 2014. Corruption in African countries: a symptom of leadership and institutional failure. Pages 227-245 in G. Mudacumura and G. Morçöl, editors. Challenges to democratic governance in developing countries. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03143-9_15

Pal, I., A. Parven, M. Ashik-Ur-Rahman, M. S. Ullah, and K. F. Rahman. 2021. An analysis of small-scale fisheries management status by focusing on degrading fisheries resources in the Sundarbans. Pages 189-213 in A. Mukhopadhyay, D. Mitra, and S. Hazra, editors. Sundarbans Mangrove systems. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003083573-10

Pandit, B. H., A. Albano, and C. Kumar. 2008. Improving forest benefits for the poor: learning from community-based forest enterprises in Nepal. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/002419

Patton, M. Q. 2008. Utilization-focused evaluation. Fourth edition. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.

Persha, L., and K. Andersson. 2014. Elite capture risk and mitigation in decentralized forest governance regimes. Global Environmental Change 24:265-276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.005

Persson, J., and M. Prowse. 2017. Collective action on forest governance: an institutional analysis of the Cambodian community forest system. Forest Policy and Economics 83:70-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.06.008

Plummer, R., and D. Armitage. 2007. A resilience-based framework for evaluating adaptive co-management: linking ecology, economics and society in a complex world. Ecological Economics 61(1):62-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.09.025

Plummer, R., J. Baird, A. Dzyundzyak, D. Armitage, Ö. Bodin, and L. Schultz. 2017. Is adaptive co-management delivering? Examining relationships between collaboration, learning and outcomes in UNESCO biosphere reserves. Ecological Economics 140:79-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.04.028

Plummer, R., B. Crona, D. R. Armitage, P. Olsson, M. Tengö, and O. Yudina. 2012. Adaptive comanagement: a systematic review and analysis. Ecology and Society 17(3):11. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04952-170311

Plummer, R., and D. Fennell. 2007. Exploring co-management theory: prospects for sociobiology and reciprocal altruism. Journal of Environmental Management 85(4):944-955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.11.003

Plummer, R., L. Shultz, D. Armitage, Ö. Bodin, B. Crona, and J. Baird. 2014. Developing a diagnostic approach for adaptive co-management and considering its implementation in biosphere reserves. The Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics. Beijer Discussion Paper 245:19.

Pomeroy, R. S. 2003. The government as a partner in co-management. Pages 247-261 in D. C. Wilson, J. R. Nielsen, and P. Degnbol, editors. The fisheries co-management experience. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3323-6_15

Pomeroy, R. S., and R. Rivera-Guieb. 2006. Fishery co-management: a practical handbook. International Development Research Centre. CABI Publishing, Oxfordshire, UK. https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851990880.0000

Pulhin, J. M., and W. H. Dressler. 2009. People, power and timber: the politics of community-based forest management. Journal of Environmental Management 91(1):206-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.08.007

Rahman, M. M. 2022a. Is co-management a double-edged sword in the protected areas of Sundarbans mangrove? Biology & Philosophy 37:4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-022-09836-3

Rahman, M. M. 2022b. Effectiveness of the coastal and marine conservation initiatives in Bangladesh: analyzing the drawbacks of the legal, policy, and institutional framework. Journal of the Indian Ocean Region 18(2):149-172. https://doi.org/10.1080/19480881.2022.2111050

Rashid, A. Z. M. M, D. Craig, and S. A. Mukul. 2016. Shifting paradigm of governance in the natural resources management of Bangladesh: a centralist to pluralistic approach in the forest protected areas management. In S. A. Mukul, and A. Z. M. M. Rashid, editors. Protected areas: policies, management and future directions, Nova Science Publishers, USA.

Razzak, M. A., M. E. Ahsan, and N. Nahar. 2020. The impact of co-management on the Sundarbans fisheries: evidence from Sharankhola, Bagerhat, Bangladesh. Resource 10(2):41-50.

Reed, M. S. 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biological Conservation 141(10):2417-2431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014

Ribot, J. C., A. Agrawal, and A. M. Larson. 2006. Recentralizing while decentralizing: how national governments reappropriate forest resources. World Development 34(11):1864-1886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.11.020

Robert, S. P., and R. G. Rebecca. 2006. Fishery co-management: a practical handbook. International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada.

Rowe, G., R. Marsh, and L. J. Frewer. 2004. Evaluation of a deliberative conference. Science, Technology, & Human Values 29(1):88-121. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243903259194

Roy, A. K. D., K. Alam, and J. Gow. 2015. An empirical analysis of conservation practices, management and sustainability in the Sundarbans Mangrove Forest, Bangladesh. International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development 14(4):332-350. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJESD.2015.072081

Roy, G., and M. Z. Haque. 2022. Collaborative forest management- Sufal Project anticipates success stories for Bangladesh. Pages 19-31 in Souvenir on the occasion of ‛National Tree Plantation Campaign and Tree Fair 2022.’ Forest Department, Bangladesh.

Rutten, R. 2006. Shame and worker activism: emotional dynamics in face-to-face encounters. Qualitative Sociology 29(3):353-372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-006-9029-6

Ruud, A. E. 2020. The mohol: the hidden power structure of Bangladesh local politics. Contributions to Indian Sociology 54(2):173-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0069966720914055

Sadath, M. N., C. Schusser, and M.E. Kabir. 2017. Actor-centered interest power analysis of participatory biodiversity conservation policy program in and around the Bangladeshi Sundarbans. Pages 85-97 in R. DasGupta and R. Shaw, editors. Participatory mangrove management in a changing climate. Springer, Tokyo, Japan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-56481-2_6

Sarker, S. K., J. Matthiopoulos, S. N. Mitchell, Z. U. Ahmed, M. B. Al Mamun, and R. Reeve. 2019. 1980s–2010s: The world’s largest mangrove ecosystem is becoming homogenous. Biological Conservation 236:79-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.05.011

Schultz, L., A. Duit, and C. Folke. 2011. Participation, adaptive co-management, and management performance in the world network of biosphere reserves. World Development 39(4):662-671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2010.09.014

Selva, G. V., N. Pauli, M. K. Kim, and J. Clifton. 2020. Opportunity for change or reinforcing inequality? Power, governance and equity implications of government payments for conservation in Brazil. Environmental Science & Policy 105:102-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.01.001

Siddique, M. R. H., M. Hossain, and A. Z. M. M. Rashid. 2022. The dilemma of prioritizing conservation over livelihoods: assessing the impact of fishing restriction to the fishermen of the Sundarbans. Trees, Forests and People 11:100366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2022.100366

Sinclair, A. J., and A. P. Diduck. 2017. Reconceptualizing public participation in environmental assessment as EA civics. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 62:174-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.03.009

Singleton, S. 2000. Co‐operation or capture? The paradox of co‐management and community participation in natural resource management and environmental policy‐making. Environmental Politics 9(2):1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010008414522

Singleton, S. G. 1998. Constructing cooperation: the evolution of institutions of comanagement. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.14466

Smedstad, J. A., and H. Gosnell. 2013. Do adaptive comanagement processes lead to adaptive comanagement outcomes? A multicase study of long-term outcomes associated with the National Riparian Service Team’s place-based riparian assistance. Ecology and Society 18(4):8. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05793-180408

Smith, L. D. 2001. Reform and decentralization of agricultural services: a policy framework. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

Stacey, N., A. Izurieta, and S. T. Garnett. 2013. Collaborative measurement of performance of jointly managed protected areas in northern Australia. Ecology and Society 18(1):19. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05273-180119

Stevens, S., editor. 2014. Indigenous peoples, national parks, and protected areas: a new paradigm linking conservation, culture, and rights. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona, USA. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt183pbn5

Stöhr, C., C. Lundholm, B. Crona, and I. Chabay. 2014. Stakeholder participation and sustainable fisheries: an integrative framework for assessing adaptive comanagement processes. Ecology and Society 19(3):14. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06638-190314

Subroto, S. 2017. Forest resource governance and the devolution of power through co-management approach: policy vs practice- - A case study in Rema-Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary, Bangladesh. Thesis. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.

Sultana, F. 2014. Gendering climate change: geographical insights. Professional Geographer 66(3):372-381. https://doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2013.821730

Swamy, L., E. Drazen, W. R. Johnson, and J. J. Bukoski. 2018. The future of tropical forests under the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 37(2):221-256. https://doi.org/10.1080/10549811.2017.1416477

Tamarack Institute. 2017. TOOL: the collaboration spectrum. https://www.tamarackcommunity.ca/hubfs/Resources/Tools/Collaboration%20Spectrum%20Tool%20July%202017.pdf?hsCtaTracking=3d55b1d4-3f96-49f8-9709-417ef39b002c%7Caebc4461-6671-4a55-9904-d6af0ebca656

Ting, Z., G.P. Shivakoti, C. Haiyun, and D. Maddox. 2012. A survey-based evaluation of community-based co-management of forest resources: a case study of Baishuijiang National Natural Reserve in China. Environment, Development and Sustainability 14:197-220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-011-9316-6

Thompson, P. 2012. Impact assessment of co-management on protected area conservation in Bangladesh. Integrated Protected Area Co-management Project, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Thondhlana, G., and G. Cundill. 2017. Local people and conservation officials’ perceptions on relationships and conflicts in South African protected areas. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 13(1):204-215. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2017.1315742

Trimble, M., and R. Plummer. 2019. Participatory evaluation for adaptive co-management of social-ecological systems: a transdisciplinary research approach. Sustainability Science 14:1091-1103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0602-1

Trimble, M., F. Berkes, D. Johnson, M. Lázaro, R. Medeiros, and R. Plummer. An evaluation framework for adaptive co-management: towards commons governance in an uncertain world. Pages 25-29 in Commons Amidst Complexity and Change, the Fifteenth Biennial Conference of the International Association for the Study of the Commons (Alberta, Canada, 2015).

Uddin, M. S., and J. W. K. Parr. 2018. Evaluating collaborative management within the national parks and wildlife sanctuaries of Bangladesh. Parks 24:51-65. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2018.PARKS-24-1MSU.en

Ullah, S. M. A., M. Tani, J. Tsuchiya, M. A. Rahman, and M. Moriyama. 2022. Impact of protected areas and co-management on forest cover: a case study from Teknaf Wildlife Sanctuary, Bangladesh. Land Use Policy 113:105932. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105932

Viani, R. A. G., K. D. Holl, A. Padovezi, B. B. N. Strassburg, F. T. Farah, L. C. Garcia, R. B. Chaves, R. R. Rodrigues, and P. H. Brancalion. 2017. Protocol for monitoring tropical forest restoration: perspectives from the Atlantic Forest Restoration Pact in Brazil. Tropical Conservation Science 2017:10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940082917697265

Watson, J. E. M., N. Dudley, D. B. Segan, and M. Hockings. 2014. The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature 515:67-73. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13947

Whaley, L., and E. K. Weatherhead. 2014. An integrated approach to analyzing (adaptive) co-management using the “politicized” IAD framework. Ecology and Society 19(1):10. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06177-190110

White, S. C. 2017. Patriarchal investments: marriage, dowry and the political economy of development in Bangladesh. Journal of Contemporary Asia 47(2):247-272. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472336.2016.1239271

Wong, S. 2010. Elite capture or capture elites? Lessons from the ‛counter-elite’ and ‛co-opt-elite’ approaches in Bangladesh and Ghana, WIDER Working Paper, No. 2010/82. United Nations University World Institute for Development Economics Research (UNU-WIDER), Helsinki, Finland.

Woodhouse, E., K. M. Homewood, E. Beauchamp, T. Clements, J. T. McCabe, D. Wilkie, and E. J. Milner-Gulland. 2015. Guiding principles for evaluating the impacts of conservation interventions on human well-being. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 370(1681):20150103. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0103

Wright, J. H., N. A. O. Hill, D. Roe, J. M. Rowcliffe, N. F. Kümpel, M. Day, F. Booker, and E. J. Milner‐Gulland. 2016. Reframing the concept of alternative livelihoods. Conservation Biology 30(1):7-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12607

Yeasmin, S., K. N. Islam, M. Jashimuddin, M. M. Rahman, and A. C. Jiku. 2022. Effectiveness of co-management in reducing forest dependency and improving socioeconomics of forest dependent people in Bangladesh. Asian Journal of Forestry 6(2):56-64. https://doi.org/10.13057/asianjfor/r060201