In an effort to develop an effective institutional framework and mechanisms for the management of forest resources, several participatory forest management approaches (PFM), such as community forestry (CF), joint forest management (JFM), and social forestry (SF), have emerged in different countries in South Asia. These approaches vary considerably in many respects, including level and quality of institutionalisation, tenurial arrangement, degree of participation, decision-making authority, rights and obligations, and benefit sharing. Although there is an expressed desire to promote participatory forest management across the region, little effort has been made to understand the nature of the different approaches, their strengths and weaknesses, and their implications for resource governance and livelihoods. This paper makes an attempt to analyse the four institutional approaches of PFM adopted in Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, and Nepal on the basis of primary and secondary information. The analysis reveals that, although all four countries are gradually moving from centralised to participatory forest management, the magnitude and pace of the movement varies significantly. While in Nepal and India participatory forest management has become a major thrust in forest management, in Bangladesh and Bhutan it has been progressing cautiously. Except for JFM, all PFM mechanisms are supported by state legislation; the degree of institutionalisation varies considerably, however. While forest user groups (FUGs) in Nepal have full decision-making authority, CFMGs (community forest management groups) in Bhutan and joint forest management committees (JFMCs) in India have limited authority. Considerable variation also exists in the degree of participation of local people in PFM units. While in Nepal local participation is very high, in Bangladesh it is very low; and Bhutan and India fall in between. Despite the emphasis on participatory management, the inclination and practice is still towards regulated participation. However, it is fair to say that the outcomes of PFM activities depend on a number of factors including the size of the population, quality and quantity of resources, and the quality of leadership available in local organisations. The implications of different approaches have been analysed in terms of their policy and legal framework, institutional arrangements, level of decentralisation and devolution, and degree of participation. Policy recommendations for the promotion of participatory forest management have been put forward.