Co-management of Natural Resources: A Proposed Framework

Co-management acknowledges pragmatic developments and progression of institutional choice theories in natural resource management. This innovative concept embraces a pluralistic management approach based on the principle of subsidiarity and creates opportunities for the reconciliation of competitive property claims. This article reviews definitions of co-management, distinguishes it from other property rights regimes, and develops an organizational structure of the major elements involved. Synthesis of both experiences and literature leads to the development of a conceptual framework. Co-management is structured in terms of context, components, and linking mechanisms. In concert, these elements offer insight into the practice of co-management, address the shortcomings of institutional theories, and respond to critical issues raised in related literature. The framework contributes to natural resource management by acting as a means of identification and evaluation for such arrangements, as well as a systematic guide for future inquiries.     

Co-management: concepts and methodological implications

Co-management, or the joint management of the commons, is often formulated in terms of some arrangement of power sharing between the State and a community of resource users. In reality, there often are multiple local interests and multiple government agencies at play, and co-management can hardly be understood as the interaction of a unitary State and a homogeneous community. An approach focusing on the legal aspects of co-management, and emphasizing the formal structure of arrangements (how governance is configured) runs the risk of neglecting the functional side of co-management. An alternative approach is to start from the assumption that co-management is a continuous problem-solving process, rather than a fixed state, involving extensive deliberation, negotiation and joint learning within problem-solving networks. This presumption implies that co-management research should preferably focus on how different management tasks are organized and distributed concentrating on the function, rather than the structure, of the system. Such an approach has the effect of highlighting that power sharing is the result, and not the starting point, of the process. This kind of research approach might employ the steps of (1) defining the social-ecological system under focus; (2) mapping the essential management tasks and problems to be solved; (3) clarifying the participants in the problem-solving processes; (4) analyzing linkages in the system, in particular across levels of organization and across geographical space; (5) evaluating capacity-building needs for enhancing the skills and capabilities of people and institutions at various levels; and (6) prescribing ways to improve policy making and problem-solving.     

Generating Co-Management at Kasha Katuwe Tent Rocks National Monument,New Mexico

Collaborative planning theory and co-management paradigms promise conflict prevention and the incorporation of indigenous knowledge into plans. Critics argue that without devolved power to culturally legitimate institutions, indigenous perspectives are marginalized. Co-management practice in North America is largely limited to treaty-protected fish and wildlife because federal agencies cannot devolve land management authority. This paper explores why the Pueblo de Cochiti, a federally recognized American Indian Tribe, and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management sustained an rare joint management agreement for the Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks National Monument in New Mexico despite a history of conflict over federal control of customary tribal lands that discouraged the Pueblo from working with federal agencies. Based on the participant interviews and documents, the case suggests that clear agreements, management attitudes, and the direct representation of indigenous forms of government helped achieve presumed co-management benefits. However, parties enter these agreements strategically. We should study, not assume, participant goals in collaborative processes and co-management institutions and pay special attention to the opportunities and constraints of federal laws and institutional culture for collaborative resource management with tribal and local communities.     

Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation,bridging organizations and social learning

Over a period of some 20 years, different aspects of co-management (the sharing of power and responsibility between the government and local resource users) have come to the forefront. The paper focuses on a selection of these: knowledge generation, bridging organizations, social learning, and the emergence of adaptive co-management. Co-management can be considered a knowledge partnership. Different levels of organization, from local to international, have comparative advantages in the generation and mobilization of knowledge acquired at different scales. Bridging organizations provide a forum for the interaction of these different kinds of knowledge, and the coordination of other tasks that enable co-operation: accessing resources, bringing together different actors, building trust, resolving conflict, and networking. Social learning is one of these tasks, essential both for the co-operation of partners and an outcome of the co-operation of partners. It occurs most efficiently through joint problem solving and reflection within learning networks. Through successive rounds of learning and problem solving, learning networks can incorporate new knowledge to deal with problems at increasingly larger scales, with the result that maturing co-management arrangements become adaptive co-management in time.     

Assessing the impact of fisheries co-management interventions in developing countries: a meta-analysis

Co-management is now established as a mainstream approach to small-scale fisheries management across the developing world. A comprehensive review of 204 potential cases reveals a lack of impact assessments of fisheries co-management. This study reports on a meta-analysis of the impact of fisheries co-management in developing countries in 90 sites across 29 case-studies. The top five most frequently measured process indicators are participation, influence, rule compliance, control over resources, and conflict. The top five most frequently measured outcome indicators are access to resources, resource well-being, fishery yield, household well-being, and household income. To deal with the diversity of the 52 indicators measured and the different ways these data are collected and analysed, we apply a coding system to capture change over time. The results of the meta-analysis suggest that, overall fisheries co-management delivers benefits to end-users through improvements in key process and outcome indicators. However, the dataset as a whole is constituted primarily of data from the Philippines. When we exclude this body of work, few generalisations can be made about the impact of fisheries co-management. The lack of comparative data suitable for impact assessment and the difficulties in comparing data and generalising across countries and regions reiterates calls in other fields for more systematic approaches to understanding and evaluating governance frameworks.     

Who should manage protected areas in the Swedish mountain region? A survey approach to co-management

This article investigates attitudes towards co-management of protected areas in Sweden, at the national, county and local level. In Sweden, protected areas are still primarily designated and managed hierarchically-a practice increasingly contested by people living close to them, including indigenous Sámi reindeer herders whose economic activities are located within protected areas. The general view could, on the contrary, be anticipated to be pro-state since protected areas are considered to be of national interest. For democratic reasons, however, the opinions of the whole population should be considered. In order to measure both local and general views, this study is based on a two-sample survey of 8868 respondents. The objectives are to map and explain attitudes regarding who should manage protected areas in Sweden, and to test the usefulness of a multi-level quantitative method. Such an approach is unusual in co-management literature that is empirically mainly based on local case studies. The explanatory ambition sets out to test three hypotheses drawn from common-pool resource theory; resource dependency, common understanding, and trust. Perhaps surprisingly, the results show that a considerable majority of the respondents (at all levels) wish to see self- or co-management. All three hypotheses are important to understand attitudes toward the management of protected areas, but not always in the way that the theory anticipates.     

Managing water through change and uncertainty: comparing lessons from the adaptive co-management literature to recent policy developments in England

Water management is set to become increasingly variable and unpredictable, in particular because of climate change. This paper investigates the extent to which water policy in England provides an enabling environment for ‘adaptive co-management’, which its proponents claim can achieve the dual objective of ecosystem protection and livelihood sustainability under conditions of change and uncertainty. Five policy categories are derived from a literature review, and are used to conduct a directed content analysis of seven key water policy documents. The findings reveal that although, in part, English water policy serves as an enabling environment for adaptive co-management, there is a level of discrepancy between substantive aspects of the five policy categories and water policy in England. Addressing these discrepancies will be important if English water policy is to allow for the emergence of processes, like adaptive co-management, that are capable of coping with the challenges that lie ahead.     

Is adaptive co-management ethical?

‘Good’ governance and adaptive co-management hold broad appeal due to their positive connotations and ‘noble ethical claims’. This paper poses a fundamental question: is adaptive co-management ethical? In pursuing an answer to this question, the concept of adaptive co-management is succinctly summarized and three ethical perspectives (deontology, teleology and existentialism) are explored. The case of adaptive co-management in Cambodia is described and subsequently considered through the lens of ethical triangulation. The case illuminates important ethical considerations and directs attention towards the need for meditative thinking which increases the value of tradition, ecology, and culture. Giving ethics a central position makes clear the potential for adaptive co-management to be an agent for governance, which is good, right and authentic as well as an arena to embrace uncertainty.     

Finding Space for Participation: Fisherfolk Mobility and Co-Management of Lake Victoria Fisheries

The literature on fisheries co-management is almost silent on the issue of the movement of fisherfolk within fisheries, although such movement must have implications for the effectiveness of co-management. The introduction of co-management often involves the formation of new structures that should enable the participation of key stakeholder groups in decision-making and management, but such participation is challenging for migrating fishers. The article reports on a study on Lake Victoria, East Africa, which investigated the extent of movement around the lake and the implications of movement for how fishers participate and are represented in co-management, and the implications of the extent and nature of movement for co-management structures and processes. The analysis draws on the concept of space from the literature on participation in development and on a framework of representation in fisheries co-management in addressing these questions. The created space is on an 'invited' rather than open basis, reflecting the top-down nature of implementation and the desire to secure participation of different occupational groups, as well as women in a male-dominated sector. The more powerful boat owners dominate positions of power within the co-management system, particularly as the levels of co-management, from sub-district to national, are traversed. The limited power and resources of boat crew are exacerbated by the degree and nature of movement around the lake, making effective participation in co-management decision-making a challenge.     

Monitoring in adaptive co-management: Toward a learning based approach

The recognition of complexity and uncertainty in natural resource management has lead to the development of a wealth of conceptual frameworks aimed at integrated assessment and complex systems monitoring. Relatively less attention has however been given to methodological approaches that might facilitate learning as part of the monitoring process. This paper reviews the monitoring literature relevant to adaptive co-management, with a focus on the synergies between existing monitoring frameworks, collaborative monitoring approaches and social learning. The paper discusses the role of monitoring in environmental management in general, and the challenges posed by scale and complexity when monitoring in adaptive co-management. Existing conceptual frameworks for monitoring relevant to adaptive co-management are reviewed, as are lessons from experiences with collaborative monitoring. The paper concludes by offering a methodological approach to monitoring that actively seeks to engender reflexive learning as a means to deal with uncertainty in natural resource management.     

Administrative Co-management: The Case of Special-Use Forest Conservation in Vietnam

Special-use forests (SUFs) are nature protected areas in Vietnam used to conserve nature and its biodiversity. While the Vietnamese government has managed to increase the size and number of SUFs, biodiversity within these areas continues to decline. To improve protection of these SUFs, co-management has been advocated in Vietnam. Successfully implementing co-management requires decentralization of authority and a certain extent of public involvement in management activities. This paper assesses how and to what extent the governance of Vietnam’s SUFs have taken up the challenge of shifting from conventional government-based management to co-management. Current practices of (co-) management were investigated in 105 of the 143 SUFs. The results show that the type of co-management varies little between different categories of SUFs. Nevertheless, a national ‘style’ of Vietnamese co-management could be identified, labelled ‘administrative’ co-management; fostering interaction between a variety of actors, but final decision-making power on management remaining strongly in the hands of the provincial government.     

Adaptive co-management and network learning in the Room for the River programme

Adaptive co-management and learning are paramount for integrated flood risk management. Relevant literature focuses on adaptation at the level of physical and societal systems. The level of projects and programmes is largely overlooked, but they comprise interventions that adapt our physical systems and they provide opportunities for learning to contribute to transitions of societal systems. This paper aims to increase understanding on how learning takes place and can be stimulated within a programme. The mixed-method case study of Room for the River, a €2.3 billion programme for flood risk management, shows that a programme can be organised using various governance arrangements to stimulate learning and be a means for adaptive co-management to deliver upon environmental objectives.     

Local sustainability processes worldwide: a systematic review of the literature and research agenda

This article presents a systematic literature review of 109 articles (1992–2015) dealing with Local Agenda 21 processes worldwide. It analyzes two essential elements of Local Agenda 21: (1) the holistic approach of the sustainable development concept and (2) the main driving forces behind such processes. It shows that, although at the beginning, sustainability was seen as a natural extension of environmental policy work, it has been perceived over recent years as a guiding principle applied to issues of environment, economic development, and social welfare, and Local Agenda 21 is perceived as a coherent approach to sustainability planning. In addition, Local Government Strategy is the main typology followed, although it suffers from important limitations. Future studies could focus on local sustainability process outcomes. Further quantitative studies would be welcome, given the qualitative case study dominance in the field. We conclude with a research agenda to tackle theoretical, methodological, and empirical lacunae.     

Attitudes towards current and alternative management of the Sundarbans Mangrove Forest,Bangladesh to achieve sustainability

This paper examines the challenges of achieving sustainable management of the world's largest mangrove forest, the Sundarbans (SMF) in Bangladesh. During the past two decades, conflicts between mangrove maintenance and the pressure to provide economic livelihoods to forest-dependent communities (FDCs) have emerged and persisted. The SMF is currently managed by the Bangladesh Forest Department (BFD) under a state property rights regime. This study explores an alternative property rights regime which includes participatory approaches and co-management with FDCs to achieve sustainability, both economically and environmentally. Focus group discussions and a survey were the methods used to assess the prospects. The study finds that the absence of a management partnership between the BFD and FDCs is mainly responsible for the policy failures to achieve sustainable management of the SMF. However, evidence is presented that a ‘co-management’ property rights regime cannot be established until FDC capacity is enhanced through the formation of community level institutions.     

Diffusion of Policy Discourse into Rural Spheres Through Co-Management of State Forestlands: Two Cases from West Java,Indonesia

In the context of state forestland management in tropical regions, the implementation of a co-management approach has been widely advocated in order to include the voices of local people and accommodate their interests in management decision-making. Most co-management literatures, however, underestimate the significance of statutory authority held by state to control forestlands and resources. By clarifying the implications of state ownership of forestland, this article aims to critically examine co-management processes with reference to Foucault's notion of power and subject. Case studies were conducted at two co-management pilot sites in Gunung Halimun-Salak National Park, West Java, Indonesia. Findings demonstrate that co-management processes actually materialize shared decision-making arrangements between state forest bureaucracy and rural people through the application of equity approaches, such as deliberation, negotiation, and experimentation. At the same time, these processes can also function to diffuse state policy discourse in rural spheres, which makes rural subjects who accept and practice the policy discourse. The research also reveals that the diffusion process is complex and does not necessarily make a durable subject unless they are pertinently organized. The results of this research indicate that co-management of state forestlands is a double-edged process for local people who risk becoming a proxy of state bureaucracy in the implementation of state policy. Proponents of co-management should, therefore, critically examine whether new institutional arrangements, which are developed through co-management, truly reflect values and needs of local people and assist them to develop a pertinent subject to deal with it.     

Building partnership capacity for the collaborative management of marine protected areas in the UK: a preliminary analysis

This paper reports the findings of a preliminary analysis of 15 case studies of inshore marine protected areas in the UK. It draws on the common-pool resource (CPR) literature and is premised on the thesis that building partnership capacity amongst relevant authorities and resource users provides a critical basis for overcoming collective action problems (CAPs), through the development of incentive structures and social capital, in order to achieve strategic objectives. Particular attention is paid to the influence of statutory marine biodiversity conservation obligations to the European Commission for marine special areas of conservation (MSACs), as these are an important external contextual factor. The risks of imposition and parochialism are outlined and the challenges of taking a balanced approach are discussed. The challenges posed by the attributes of the marine environment are considered, as are those posed by the policy framework for MSACs. The findings are discussed in relation to three questions: (i) which partnership models appear to have the potential to overcome the CAPs posed by inshore MSACs? (ii) what CAPs had to be addressed during the early phase of development of the MSAC co-management regimes? (iii) what are the likely future CAPs for the collaborative management of MSACs that each partnership will need to address? These preliminary findings will form the basis for future studies to analyse the outcomes of these 15 initiatives, in order to assess the strengths, in various contexts, of different approaches for building resilient and balanced, thereby effective, institutions for the co-management of MSACs in the UK.     

Building Co-Management as a Process: Problem Solving Through Partnerships in Aboriginal Country, Australia

Collaborative problem solving has increasingly become important in the face of the complexities in the management of resources, including protected areas. The strategy undertaken by Girringun Aboriginal Corporation in north tropical Queensland, Australia, for developing co-management demonstrates the potential for a problem solving approach involving sequential initiatives, as an alternative to the more familiar negotiated agreements for co-management. Our longitudinal case study focuses on the development of indigenous ranger units as a strategic mechanism for the involvement of traditional owners in managing their country in collaboration with government and other interested parties. This was followed by Australia's first traditional use of marine resources agreement, and development of a multi-jurisdictional, land to sea, indigenous protected area. In using a relationship building approach to develop regional scale co-management, Girringun has been strengthening its capabilities as collaborator and regional service provider, thus, bringing customary decision-making structures into play to 'care for country'. From this evolving process we have identified the key components of a relationship building strategy, 'the pillars of co-management'. This approach includes learning-by-doing, the building of respect and rapport, sorting out responsibilities, practical engagement, and capacity-building.     

Benefits, efforts and risks of participants in landscape co-management: an analytical framework and results from two case studies in Austria

Participatory processes in general and also in relation to managing landscape issues are gathering importance mostly due to arguments surrounding legitimacy and effectiveness in decision-making. The main aim of this research, based on a transaction costs perspective, is to present an integrated analytical framework in order to determine individual efforts (time, money), benefits and risks of participants in landscape co-management processes. Furthermore a reflection on the analytical approach developed and arising lessons to be learned for landscape co-management are presented. In the analytical framework benefit-components comprise of factors such as 'contributing to landscape maintenance/development and nature protection', 'representing one's interest group', 'co-deciding on relevant topics', 'providing and broadening one's knowledge' and 'building networks'. The risks of participation are related to a lack of information and agreements, missing support and actual decision-making power. The analytical framework is applied to two case studies in Austria: an EU LIFE-Nature project and a Cultural Landscape Project of the Provincial Government of Lower Austria. Analysis of the effort-benefit-relations provides an indication for a more effective design of co-management. Although the processes are rated as quite adequate, there is a low willingness of participants to commit additional time to co-management processes. In contrast to the Cultural Landscape Project, in the LIFE-Nature project, professionally involved persons participate next to partly and full volunteers. These uneven conditions of participation and an unfair distribution of transaction costs, jeopardize the promising chances co-management bears for landscape governance.     

Some observations on the terminology in co-operative environmental management

The notion of managing resources in partnership flourishes in natural resources literature. The terms partnership, collaboration, and co-management are associated with co-operative environmental management. Examining issues of definition reveals similarities, differences and, at times, imprecise use of the three terms. The potential for clarity prompts the proposal of a multi-dimensional model of co-operative environmental management. The model consists of three key dimensions. The first dimension reflects the extent power is shared among the actors and agencies involved in the agreement. The second dimension delineates who is involved in the management regime. Process, the final dimension, reflects the variety of ways in which co-management may function or proceed. The presented model highlights dimensions requiring attention by those working within co-operative environmental management. The model is valuable as it reflects the complexity and range of such arrangements in practice.     

Challenges to the Future Development of Iran’s Protected Areas System

Since the 1950s, there has been a continuous increase in the number and coverage of protected areas (PAs) in Iran, and in total 253 PAs have been declared that cover 10.12?% of the country's area. This paper reviews literature addressing Iran's PAs, examines what is known about them, highlights the challenges and lessons learned, and identifies areas where more research is needed. The PA system in Iran is criticized because of (1) shortages of manpower, equipment, and financial resources; (2) de jure PAs that are often implemented as de facto reserves; (3) lack of national biodiversity indicators and objective monitoring processes; and (4) limited public participation and conflict between people over PAs. To improve, Iran's PAs system needs to be realistically supported by policies and planning instruments. In addition, the implementation of active management to restore habitat, increase education and awareness, shift practices towards the guidelines of international organizations, build capacity, and improve management and co-management by local communities needs to occur.