Co-management is:

• ‘co-management’ — Also called: participatory, collaborative, joint, mixed, multi-party or roundtable management - a situation in which two or more social actors negotiate, define and guarantee amongst themselves a fair sharing of the management functions, entitlements and responsibilities for a given territory, area or set of natural resources.

  a pluralist approach to managing natural resources (NRs), ncorporating a variety of partners in a variety of roles, generally to the end goals of environmental conservation, sustainable use of NRs and the equitable sharing of resource-related benefits and responsibilities
• a political and cultural process par excellence: seeking social justice and “democracy” in the management of natural resource
• a process that needs some basic conditions to develop, among which are:
  • full access to information on relevant issues and options,
  • freedom and capacity to organise,
  • freedom to express needs and concerns, a non-discriminatory social environment,
  • the will of partners to negotiate,
  • confidence in the respect of agreements, etc.
• a complex, often lengthy and sometimes confused process, involving frequent changes, surprises, sometimes contradictory information, and the need to retrace one’s own steps
• the expression of a mature society, which understands that there is no “unique and objective” solution for managing natural resources but, rather, a multiplicity of different options which are compatible with both indigenous knowledge and scientific evidence and capable of meeting the needs of conservation and development

Origin, problem: The historical emergence of colonial powers and nation states, and their violent assumption of authority over most common lands and natural resources led to the demise of traditional NRM systems virtually everywhere. The monetisation of economic exchange weakened local systems of reciprocity and solidarity, as did the incorporation of local economies into increasingly
global systems of reference.

Reason for luck of open dialogue: In such situations, as in all societies structured around large power differentials, such as feudal hamlets in Europe or colonial possessions in Africa and Latin America, the “weapons of the weak” have rarely included frank, open and above-board discussions.

From the point of view of development and conservation professionals – to whom this document is primarily addressed – the history of co-management is rooted in decades of fieldbased and theoretical efforts by individuals and groups concerned with:
- social justice and equity;
- sustainable use of natural resource;
- community-based and community-run initiatives.

Four inter-related CM components
􀃆 CM context
􀃆 CM process
􀃆 CM plan(s) and agreement(s)
􀃆 CM organisation(s)

Three main phases in a CM process
1. Preparing for the partnership (organising)
2. Negotiating co-management plans and agreements
3. Implementing and revising the plans and agreements (learning by doing)

Concepts and approaches contributing to understanding and practicing co-management
• adaptive management
• pluralism
• governance
• patrimony
• management of conflicts
• social communication

Social background:
Communities are social actors in themselves and provide the most natural and effectiveunit of identity, integration and defence for many under-privileged groups and individuals (see Farvar, 1999). Yet, communities are not homogenous entities, and their internal subdivisions should be recognised. In other words, while keeping their basic cohesion and identity, a plurality of values, interests and concerns should be recognised within any local community (see Agrawal, 1997).
A multiplicity of views and voices in the negotiation process is a fundamental pre-condition for equity and justice. Yet, it does not follow from this that all views and voices are equal, that they all carry the same weight or are all equally entitled to participate in the negotiation of the co-management plans and agreements. Equity (s. conditions) is profoundly different from equality!

‘governance’ —
the complex of ways by which individuals
and institutions, public and private, manage
their common concerns

German translation: Governance (von frz. "gouverner" verwalten, leiten, erziehen aus lat. "gubernare"; gleichbed. griech. "kybernan": das Steuerruder führen; vgl. Kybernetik) bezeichnet allgemein das Steuerungs- und Regelungssystem im Sinn von Strukturen (Aufbau- und Ablauforganisation) einer politisch-gesellschaftlichen Einheit wie Staat, Verwaltung, Gemeinde, privater oder öffentlicher Organisation. Häufig wird es auch im Sinne von Steuerung oder Regelung einer jeglichen Organisation (etwa einer Gesellschaft oder eines Betriebes) verwendet. Der Begriff governance wird häufig unscharf verwendet.

‘conflict management’ — guiding conflicts towards constructive rather than destructive results with::

facilitators, mediators, arbitrators, instructors

Shift the attention from positions to underlying interests. “Interests” are people’s fundamental needs and concerns.

Social communication:
For co-management initiatives is about providing the conditions for informed decisionmaking in society, i.e. fostering the sharing of information and the discussion of problems, opportunities and alternative options for action. It is a generally a complex phenomenon,
including a variety of avenues, from one-to-one dialogue and group meetings (i.e. personal and interpersonal aspects) to the use of mass media such as the radio, TV or Internet.

These may include: informing, raising awareness and training

CONDITIONS CONCERNING COMMUNICATION:

• “Communication occurs when people have something in common.”
• Effective communication processes and tools do not discriminate against the weaker and less powerful in society
• Any information conveyed should be truthful, fair and reasonably complete.
• Any awareness-raising initiative (e.g. a travelling theatre piece) should be respectful of local cultural traits and norms.
• Any training initiative should be offered with an eye to its social implications.
• Most importantly, social communication initiatives should include plenty of occasions for dialogue and discussion,
  

Interest, Fairness, Equity:

Launching and maintaining social communication initiatives. No one in the world would be interested in co-management if it could not bring solutions to the environment and development problems besetting many people and groups in society.

Inputs typically include any of the following:

The goal of such meetings is usually to achieve a broad accord on: • a long-term vision (ecological and social) for the NRM unit(s) at stake

• a short- and medium-term strategy to achieve such a vision, including co-management plans for the natural resources at stake and complementary agreements to address socioeconomic issues related to such resources
• an evolving social institution (organisations)

An example of a set of rules for the negotiation process

• all main institutional actors should be present in the meetings and participate via their formal representatives
• participation is voluntary, but whoever does not come is taken as not being interested in taking part in decision-making; however, if more than X% of the institutional actors are not present for a meeting, the meeting will be adjourned
• language should always be respectful (people should refrain from insults and verbal abuse)
• everyone agrees not to interrupt people who are speaking (the facilitator will remind people of the need to be concise)
• everyone agrees to talk only on the basis of personal experience and/or concrete, verifiable facts
• everyone agrees not to put forth the opinions of people who are not attending the meetings (unless they are officially represented)
• consensus is to be reached on all decisions (voting will be avoided as much as possible, as it always assures an unhappy minority…)
• “observers” are welcome to attend all negotiation meetings.

Main target: Developing a common vision of the desired future

Social consensus on the vision of the future desired is extremely important for the negotiation of effective co-management plans and agreements. If conflicts and disagreements surface during the negotiation process, the facilitator will be able to bring everyone back to the vision they all wish to achieve.

Methods and tools for situation analysis

• Brainstorming
• Problem analysis
• conceptual frameworks
• Breaking down large problems/issues into smaller or sectoral components.
• Analysing strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats/limitations (SWOT). SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) is a powerful tool a group can use to assess an issue of concern, in particular a project, an organisation or a public service, and to identify opportunities for action and change.

Methods and tools to agree on a course of action:

• Listing alternative options and facilitating their direct comparison.
• Stimulating explicit discussion of the hypotheses and basic assumptions underlying alternative options.
• Facilitating the achievement of satisfactory compromises through the use of flexible instruments, such as the zoning of the territory or area to be managed and/or the specification of detailed conditions of resource use (such as by type, time, season, users, techniques, tools, etc.).
• Calling for an expert opinion on controversial issues.
• Providing effective conflict mediation.
• Asking the institutional actors to devise incentives
• Facilitating the setting up of Community Investment Funds for sustainable development,
  

> Kernfrage aller Entwicklung: Woher kommen die Investitionen? Wer entscheidet darüber?

• Developing a simple logical framework for the course of action agreed upon.

Elements of a co-management plan

• the geographical limits of the territory, area, or set of natural resources at stake;
• the complex of functions and sustainable uses it can offer;
• a co-coordinated series of objectives, priorities and activities for the management of natural resources;
• the recognised institutional actors;
• the functions and responsibilities assigned to each institutional actor;
• the entitlements and benefits granted to each institutional actor;
• procedures for negotiating on-going decisions and managing eventual conflicts;
• procedures for implementing and enforcing decisions;
• expected results at given times;
• rules for monitoring, evaluating and eventually revising the co-management plans and agreements (follow-up protocol).

Examples of agreements associated with a co-management plan

• A training initiative for one or more local community groups (elders, youth, women, farmers, pastoralists, forest dwellers, etc.)
• The building of local infrastructures (e.g. a road, a health centre, a school, a communication network, water supplies, power supplies)
• The setting-up of a Community Investment Fund
• A by-law to assign some exclusive rights to one or more local stakeholders (e.g. the right to set-up a tourist businesses, the right to collect defined quantities of specific products from a protected area)
• A public health initiative (e.g. training and supporting community health workers, providing safe water supply systems, public and private baths and toilets, etc.)
• A project to intensify/ improve local agricultural production
• Economic and technical support for the creation of local small industries
• Assistance to the commercialisation of local products

Economic resources

How is the organisation sustained?

Does it have any economic assets of its own?

Are there membership fees?

Are there income-generating activities?

Legitimising and publicising the co-management plans, agreements and organisations

• A vision of the desired future produced jointly by all the actors concerned. The vision is legitimated by an appropriate socio-cultural ritual that renders it sacrosanct.
• An analysis of the situation/ issues/ problems at stake and a strategy to achieve the common vision, sub-divided into components with clear objectives.
• Negotiated co-management plans and agreements among the institutional actors on specific courses of action (objectives and activities) for each component of the strategy.

One or more CM organisations, with corresponding functions and rules, expressing the plurality of entitlements recognised in society and in charge of the activities and followup of the co-management plans and agreements.

• The co-management plans, agreements and organisations are publicised and made socially legitimate by some public event, but are not ritualised and, in fact, are expected to change with time in response to lessons “learned by doing”.
• Follow-up protocols to monitor and learn from the co-management plans and agreements (including indicators, methods, organisations responsible, a time schedule, etc.).
• A shared experience in participatory analysis, planning and decision-making for a variety of institutional actors concerned with natural resource management.

Important elements:

• accountability
• monitoring
• evaluation

Lessons and tips for all phases and seasons

‘syncretic approach’— the development and use of a more or less consolidated synthesis of knowledge and practices of different
historical and cultural origin

Lessons and tips for all phases and seasons

• Remember that social dynamics have their own rhythm and cannot be forced. Developing an effective and equitable co-management regime in most contexts involves profound political and cultural change, which, most of all, needs time.
• Understand the cultural and traditional roots of the activities to be implemented and rely on them, possibly by developing a syncretic approach (e.g. ad-hoc fusion of traditional and modern NRM practices).
• Stress the complementarity of the capacities of different institutional actors, and of the roles they can play for the sound management of natural resources and socio-economic development.

Lessons and tips for the preparatory phase

• Ensure clarity of purpose in the preparatory phase and methodological confidence and skills in the Start-up Team: people practice well only what they understand and feel comfortable with.
• Pay great attention to issues of language, in terms of both idioms used and coherence and cultural significance of messages conveyed.
• Invest in social communication even before launching the process. Use a variety of local media (traditional and modern) to promote discussion of the NRM situation and
  • Always maintain a clear distinction between the Start-up Team and political parties (political parties usually thrive on conflict rather than on collaboration).
• Reassure everyone that no “solution” will be imposed on any of the institutional actors and that the process will take place at a comfortable pace.
• Give all the institutional actors enough time to think and to voice their ideas; problems need to come out and people need to be listened to! Stimulate people to think and express themselves by asking specific questions, to which all should reply.

Lessons and tips for learning by doing

• Find someone to be the “champion” of every major task or area of responsibility
• Promote voluntary contributions and offer plenty of social gratification in return.
• Make sure that all those working for the CM initiative are recognised and appreciated.
• Learn from mistakes, transform them into sources of knowledge, and tell “stories” of what has been learned along the way.