This study elucidates the logic behind re-building governance for community farming (GCF) focusing on areas where land accumulation is highly prompted. Farmer organizations previously established in many communities are losing their former role and functions in community farming management in their respective areas. This institutional decline has sharpened a number of problems in the local farming sectors, prompting a call for GCF to be shored up and re-built. Reflecting on these challenges, this study arrives at four conclusions regarding this process. First, re-built GCF can, in various degrees, comprise entities related to community farming as principal managers, with leading farmers acting as agents. The desirable configuration depends on whether one defines GCF in a narrow or broad sense. In either case, the GCF configuration operates along its own principals and develop its own goals. Second, in a narrowly defined GCF, the principal management is taken up by ordinary farmers and land owners, who evaluate the activities of leading farmers (as agents) with a view to achieving balance among the participants. Thirdly, in a broadly defined GCF, the principal management is taken up by community residents, who evaluate the activities of leading farmers (as agents) with a view to containing the externalities of farming. In this respect, resolving the problems generated by externalities of farming should be based on a confidential and reciprocal relationship among the participants. Finally, re-building GCF also means a conversion from a relationship between individual managers and individual agents to relationship between an organization of managers and group of agents.