Pomeroy and R. Publisher s. Available formats. Ebook It provides ideas, methods, techniques, activities, checklists, examples, questions and indicators for the planning and implementation of a process of community-based co-management. It focuses on small-scale fisheries freshwater, floodplain, estuarine or marine in developing countries, but is also relevant to small-scale fisheries in developed countries and to the management of other coastal resources such as coral reefs, mangroves, sea grass and wetlands.
This handbook is intended for resource managers, practitioners, academics and students of small-scale fisheries. The book has 14 chapters and a subject index. Book Chapters Chapter: 1 Page no: 3 Why this handbook?
Author s : Pomeroy, R. Rivera-Guieb, R. Chapter: 2 Page no: 7 What is community-based co-management? Chapter: 3 Page no: 22 What is a process for community-based co-management? Chapter: 4 Page no: 33 Who are you and what is your role in community-based co-management? Chapter: 5 Page no: 45 'Beginnings' or pre-implementation.
Chapter: 6 Page no: 63 Community entry and integration. Chapter: 7 Page no: 92 Research and participatory research. Chapter: 8 Page no: Environmental education, capacity development and social communication. Chapter: 9 Page no: Community organizing. Chapter: 10 Page no: Co-management plan and agreement.
The baseline data also serve as a basis for the future monitoring of the programme and for the evaluation of success and impacts. Environmental education and training, integral and ongoing activities of the community-based co-management programme, are the main methods of capacity building for community members and government.
The external agent usually implements these activities, based on the assessments conducted earlier. The education and training should recognize and build upon the existing experience and knowledge of community members and government.
Information is exchanged and the CO can learn from and with community members and government. Education methods, formal and informal, include small-group work, seminars, cross visits, role-playing, radio, video and fisher-to-fisher sharing of local knowledge.
Environmental education is a priority goal of these activities, as is the building of community members' and government officials' and staffs' capabilities and confidence so they can make informed choices and decisions about problem articulation, management and development objectives, strategies and plans, and implementation. Because community organizing is the foundation for mobilizing local human resources, community organizations and leaders are needed to take on the responsibility and authority for management and development activities.
These organizations and leaders may already exist in the community, may emerge by themselves or may be newly established. Their focus is on participation, representation, and power sharing in the community. The members of any such group or organization must be willing to take on the responsibility. Existing organizations and leaders in the community are identified through the stakeholder analysis and LIA. Various types of organizational structures can become involved, including associations, cooperatives, unions, management councils and advisory committees, and may have differing levels of participation.
Education and training can empower the organization or leaders, developing their ability to take on management responsibility. Leadership development is an important part of this step, since strong and dedicated leadership is necessary if community-based co-management is to succeed. Existing community leaders, such as elected officials and senior fishers, play an important role but may be too closely tied to the existing community power structure to be advocates of improved equity.
New leaders, often individuals with the motivation but not the means to take on leadership, can invigorate the process and increase its legitimacy. Terms of office for leaders should be short enough to decrease the possibility of corruption and power grabbing.
Adequate time must be provided for the organizing and leadership development processes. Lack of social preparation is often the cause of programme failure. It is during this step that the roles and responsibilities of organizations, leaders and stakeholders are delineated and clarified. Formal and informal fora for discussion and debate should be established, with stated place, time and rules for their meetings. Bridges are built between groups and organizations to improve communication and collaboration.
The core groups and organizations advocate for support for policies, laws and local initiatives. The community-level organizations, working in partnership with other stakeholders and the government, develop a resource management and community development plan whose objectives and strategies include a co-management agreement.
Community members participate in the creation of the plan, validating its drafts along the way. The plan will include a common vision for the future, identification of a coordination mechanism and a financing strategy. Reaching the co-management agreement may involve a series of meetings to negotiate and reach a consensus on its structure and to support management of conflicts.
These meetings will involve identifying the key issues, as well as extensive bargaining and compromising in order to reach decisions. The co-management agreement may include, specifically stated, a definition of roles, responsibilities and authority; identification of fora for meetings; conflict management mechanisms; and rule-making procedures.
The agreement should be widely circulated to inform and obtain comments from relevant communities and stakeholders. A co-management body may be established at the end of the process of developing the agreement to represent all the partners. Participants would specify who is represented on the co-management body, what is its mandate and its level of authority and tasks.
Indicators of success or monitoring and evaluation of the plan are specified. This can be done through a logical framework analysis LFA where outputs, activities, verifiable indicators and means of verification are stated.
The financial resources to implement the co-management plan should be identified early in the programme and made available before implementation. If external funding is needed to implement all or part of the plan, this is the time to identify a source and apply for the funds. It should be noted again that the strengthening of linkages and partnerships and networking between resource users, stakeholders, government and the external agent is an ongoing and continuous process that extends beyond the implementation phase.
The roles and responsibilities of the partners will change and adjust as the community-based co-management programme matures. Institutional support will be sought, for example, to have formal recognition of the community organization or passage of a government ordinance legitimizing local institutional arrangements rights and rules. The process of rights- and rules-making can be as difficult, yet as critical, as any other activity in the co-management programme.
Since conflicts will inevitably arise, the agreement must contain forms and mechanisms to address and resolve conflict. Conflict management is a process of dialogue and negotiation. A facilitator a person who enables organizations to work more effectively , mediator serves as a neutral party to assist stakeholders in finding a resolution to the conflict or arbiter makes a decision for the stakeholders at the request of the stakeholders may be needed to guide the process towards constructive results.
Participants should designate a forum for negotiation and agree on some rules for the process. They may generate and discuss various options for action, formally agreeing on one of those options.
The conflict management mechanism should be multi-level to allow for an appeal process. The activities and interventions of the co-management plan are implemented through sub-projects. These may be resource management-related, such as marine reserve or sanctuary creation, mangrove reforestation, erosion management or fishing gear restriction.
On the other hand, they may be about community development: such as a water well, a road or livelihood development, such as agriculture, aquaculture or small business enterprise.
As needed, the responsibilities and rights of partners are clarified, conflicts are managed, and the agreement is enforced — possibly resulting in changes in the agreement or the development of a new agreement Maine et al. Monitoring and evaluation should be central elements of the overall implementation process, although evaluation may also be conducted during the turnover or post-implementation phase.
The indicators of success specified earlier are used in monitoring and evaluation, both done in a participatory mode. Participatory monitoring allows for adaptive management: interactive learning and a feedback system of success and failure while the programme is being implemented. It provides the community and external agents with information, during the life of the programme, so they can assess whether activities are progressing as planned, and whether modifications are needed. Participatory evaluation allows those internal and external to the community to evaluate programme objectives against results.
It allows for planning for the future based on experience. The baseline information collected earlier in the programme can be used in the evaluation. The co-management agreement is also monitored on an ongoing basis, with the partners reviewing the results.
Performance indicators may be used to measure progress of the co-management agreement, programme and implementation. At this point, the programme, with assistance from an external agent and external funding, is fully taken over by the community and becomes self-sustaining.
The post-implementation phase begins. The external agents work through a planned phase-out from the community and the other co-management partners. The phase-out should be planned and well understood by all to eliminate surprises and minimize problems. A self-sustaining funding strategy is put in place. New activities may be planned and implemented. Where feasible, people in other communities replicate and extend the results of the project.
Fisher-to-fisher training and cross visits can be an effective way to train people in other communities. Project replication and extension can also enhance the credibility of the community-based co-management system in the eyes of the community and the co-management partners, since success often breeds success White et al. Change and adaptation are central elements of post-implementation. In the next sections of this handbook, much more detail will be provided on the phases, components and activities described above.
Stakeholders in community-based co-management can be defined as individuals, groups or organizations of people who are interested, involved or affected positively or negatively by marine and coastal resources use and management. This may originate from geographical proximity, historical association, dependence for livelihood, institutional mandate, economic interest, or a variety of other concerns.
Stakeholders in coastal communities include fishers, their families and households, boat owners, fish traders, community-based groups, seasonal or part-time fishers, local business owners, local traditional authorities, elected government officials, representatives of government agencies, non-governmental organizations and others.
There may be different stakeholders depending on their interests, their ways of perceiving problems and opportunities concerning marine and coastal resources, and different perceptions about and needs for management. Not all stakeholders have the same stake or level of interest in marine and coastal resources and thus may be less or more active and have different entitlements to a role in the co-management programme see Chapter 6, Section 6.
Different types of stakeholders may be distinguished using some considerations and criteria, which include:. Those who score high on several of these considerations and criteria may be considered 'primary' stakeholders and would assume a more active role in co-management, such as being on the management body.
Secondary stakeholders may score on only one or two and be involved in a less important way, such as involvement on a consultative body Borrini-Feyerabend, Coastal communities are not all the same and are composed of people with different economic and social status, clans and family groups, language, ethnicity, customs and interests, which can create complexity for management.
Even fishers from the same community and using the same fishing gear may have different interests. Coastal communities generally include a variety of stakeholders with divergent interests and views about co-management depending upon their involvement with the resources. These differences need to be recognized, understood and respected if co-management is to be promoted and involve the whole community.
For the purposes of this handbook, four key stakeholders or partners in community-based co-management are identified:. Other stakeholders community members, boat owners, fish traders, boat builders, business people, community-based groups, etc. Change agents NGOs, academic and research institutions, development agencies, etc. This section of the handbook is written to discuss the role and responsibility of each of these four partners in the community-based co-management programme, and the relationship of the partners to each other.
The local community is made up of individuals with differing interests in marine and coastal resource co-management. At the community-level, co-management projects usually have as their primary target fishers, that is, individuals who make their livelihood harvesting and using marine and coastal resources.
The fishers are the individuals who, through their use of the resource, directly impact upon it and who are in turn directly impacted by management measures. Fishers are considered by many to be the real day-to-day managers of the resource, and as such, should be active participants in management.
Fishers are usually the target of organizing and capacity-building activities. Fishers' family and household are also stakeholders in co-management. Both the family and the household unit are identified, as, depending upon the culture, a household may include more than one family unit and several generations. In most fishing families, the fisher is usually a male. However, there are cases when decisions are made by both the husband and wife, and the spouse can be influential.
Fisheries management programmes often leave out women, as the focus of the programme is the male fisher. Since women are involved in decision-making, and since women and children may be involved in aspects of production and marketing of the resource, it is clear that they are stakeholders, and should be partners, in co-management. Participation efforts, capacity-building efforts, and livelihood activities of the co-management programme, among others, should target women and, where appropriate, children.
Community-based fisher groups are formal and informal groups of local fishers established to support the social, cultural, economic and environmental interests of its members or of the community as a whole.
These groups play an important role of bringing together fishers with similar interests concerning the resource and livelihood. In some cases, separate women's organizations are formed at the community level in the Philippines. In general, the role of the community-based fisher groups in community-based co-management includes:.
Both the national and local government units i. Each government level has different mandates, authority and responsibility. Increasingly, government policies and programmes stress the need for greater fisher participation and the development of local organizations to handle some aspect of resource management.
Government must, however, not just call for more fisher involvement and participation, but also establish commensurate legal rights and authorities and devolve some of their powers. The delegation of authority and power sharing to manage the resource may be one of the most difficult tasks in establishing co-management.
Government must not only foster conditions for resource user participation but sustain it. As a first step, the national government must establish conditions for or at least not impede the co-management programme to originate and prosper. At a minimum, government must not challenge fishers' rights to hold meetings to discuss problems and solutions and to develop organizations and institutional arrangements rights and rules for management.
Fishers must feel safe to openly hold meetings at their initiative and discuss problems and solutions in public fora. They must not feel threatened if they criticize existing government policies and management methods. As a second step, fishers must be given access to government and government officials to express their concerns and ideas. Fishers should feel that government officials will listen and take action as necessary.
As a third step, fishers should be given the right to develop their own organizations and to form networks and coalitions for cooperation and coordination. Too often there has been the formation of government-sponsored organizations which are officially recognized but ineffective since they do not represent the fishers.
However, these may be the only type of organization a government may allow. Fishers must be free to develop organizations on their own initiative that meet their needs and that are legitimate to them. The issue is government's willingness to share authority and responsibility with the fisher organization and what function and form this will take.
One fundamental debate in co-management is the perception that fishers cannot always be entrusted to manage resources on their own. Unless government and officials who implement government policies can be convinced of the desire and the ability of fishers to manage themselves, not much progress can be made in co-management.
The acknowledgement and acceptance of local-level management is partly the task of fishers to take on the new responsibilities, to organize themselves and, on the ability of the local community, to control the resources in question. On the other hand, communities and change agents often point out that government resource managers are reluctant to share authority. While there are cases that show how politicians could use co-management to pursue their own personal goals and hang on to political power, it would be a mistake to interpret this for all government resource managers and officials.
The success of co-management is fundamentally based on the trust extended among the partners and the commitment to collectively work towards a common vision. A question for government is what management functions are best handled by the community, as opposed to the national or local government. Seven management functions have been identified that may be enhanced by the joint action of users and government resource managers at the local level: i data gathering; ii logistical decisions such as who can harvest and when; iii allocation decisions; iv protection of resources from environmental damage; v enforcement of regulations; vi enhancement of long-term planning; and vii more inclusive decision-making.
No single formula exists to implement a co-management agreement to cover these functions. The answer depends on country-specific and site-specific conditions, and is ultimately a political decision. The roles of the national government and national agencies in community-based co-management include:. The main role of the local government unit is to support community-based co-management initiatives within its jurisdiction Box 4.
In many countries, local government units have a good deal of authority and responsibility to manage fisheries and coastal resources within their jurisdiction.
This authority and responsibility may be historical or it may have been recently decentralized from the central government. There must be political willingness among the local political 'power elite' to support co-management. In addition, local government staff and officials must also endorse and actively support the co-management programme.
In the Philippines, municipal and city government have an important role in coastal management because of the legal mandate to manage resources within municipal waters. In South Africa, the role of municipal government is very limited. Marine resources management is identified as a national competence. Aspects of fisheries management have been delegated to the provincial level, such as the provincial conservation authority in KwaZulu-Natal, but not to the municipal level, even though local authority could easily engage with provincial authorities.
In South Africa, as in Mozambique and Angola, the national government is ultimately responsible for fisheries resource management. A number of other members of the local community are directly and indirectly stakeholders in community-based co-management.
These stakeholders will have varying interests in engaging in co-management, depending in part on their economic interests in the fishers and the resource.
It will be important to engage the fish trader in the co-management process through, at a minimum, education and discussion to understand the process, if not as an active partner. The role of each of these stakeholders in community-based co-management will be different and site-specific. While they may not have to be direct participants, at a minimum they need to be consulted and educated so that they do not disrupt the co-management process.
Local business people can provide an incentive and funding to resource users to manage resources. There can be a variety of community-based groups such as a women's group, religious organization, civic organization and service organization. There can also be community-based groups, other than community-based fisher groups, with a direct interest in the fishery and coastal resources, such as women's fish marketing association or coastal aquaculture organization.
These community-based groups play an important role of bringing together individuals and groups with similar interests. These groups have local knowledge, skills and resources; strong ties to the community and the confidence and trust of the local people. These may be upland farmers who come to the coast to fish during the dry season or migratory fishers chasing small pelagics. While not a part of the resident community, they are a part of the community of resource users. Certain management measures can impact their livelihood, income and food security.
These boards and councils provide technical expertise and serve in an advisory capacity to the government. These organizations can be important partners in co-management. Change agents include non-governmental organizations, academic institutions, research institutions, development agencies and similar organizations who act in a catalytic and facilitation role for community-based co-management. The change agent is considered to be a catalyst of change and to act as an intermediary between communities and external institutions, such as government, the general public and businesses.
Change agents are meant to 'spark' endogenous change 'from within', not to carry out the change programme; this is the responsibility of the organized community Rivera, The facilitation role is to empower and enhance the capabilities of the community to manage their lives and resources.
Through the process of building community self-reliance, the change agent creates an impetus for community-based co-management. They may be registered with the government and be officially recognized as a legal entity. The change agent should maintain relative objectivity and provide technical and analytical skills. The change agent provides a variety of services such as information and independent advice, ideas and expertise, education and training, community organizing, social development, research, advocacy, and finance and resource mobilization.
Many change agents have staff, such as community organizers, who live and work in the community. A community presence can increase the level of trust between communities and the change agent and increase total participation. In the beginning, the change agent may play a more dominant role with the community, but this should gradually diminish as the co-management programme progresses.
It is important to note that change agents should realize that it is the people themselves who should be the driving force behind the co-management process; that genuine participation and change have to start with the people Rivera, Problems can arise when people become too dependent upon the change agent or when the change agent directly interferes in the process, rather than guiding it or serving as a catalyst.
Problems can also occur when the change agent's ideological views on development are not acceptable to the community or government. The role of the change agent in community-based co-management will differ by country, where, for example, an NGO is not allowed by the government to operate. Change agents may choose to establish alliance with other change agents who have complementary skills, allowing them to implement more complex projects than they could by working alone.
Alliances or networking increase the ability of change agents to learn from each other. It also allows the change agents to engage in advocacy to influence public policy. Development agencies, as change agents, can provide funding and technical guidance for community-based co-management.
Beginnings of the co-management programme can be external to the community or internal to the community. Beginnings can have several activities including problem recognition and consensus, taking collective action, seeking information, community meetings and discussion, assessing the need and feasibility of co-management, preliminary plan and strategy, seeking funding and developing linkages Table 5. Community-based co-management may have a number of different types of beginnings, that is, the way in which a community-based co-management programme is initiated.
The beginnings of co-management may be a response to conflict, an environmental crisis, new legislation, a conservation or development initiative, to take advantage of a funding opportunity, for political purposes, or to claim resource rights. The beginning of a co-management programme is often highly site- and context-specific and may involve a variety of different stakeholders. The actual beginning of a programme may originate from several different sources and combination of stakeholders and finally evolve into an action.
The beginning phase of co-management may be time-consuming, difficult and costly. It is not possible to present all the possible scenarios of the beginnings of a co-management programme. In real life, all of the activities described below may not be undertaken or they may not be undertaken in the order described. For the sake of simplicity, two types of beginnings will be discussed. The co-management programme may be: i initiated external to the community, or ii initiated internally in the community.
Several examples will be provided to help illustrate the range of possible beginning scenarios. A community-based co-management programme, initiated externally to the community, is one in which the idea for the programme originates outside of the community.
For example, the programme may begin where an external agent i. In another case, the programme may be initiated as part of a larger donor-assisted development programme in the country in which community-based co-management is the intervention approach. Or it may be that the government has declared a protected area and wants to develop a co-management partnership to manage the area Boxes 5.
Box 5. Laughing Bird Caye is a sand and shingle island surrounded by a broad lagoon filled with a variety of coral reef structures located approximately 19 km from the town of Placencia. The area has traditionally been a fishing ground for local fishers. In the late s, resorts in the area began to take tourists to the area. In the mids, local residents became concerned about declining resource conditions in the area, as well as talk about private development and an oil storage concession.
In , several community leaders organized the Friends of Laughing Bird Caye FOLBC to begin a consultation process in the community about the creation of a protected area and a national park. In , the caye was declared a national park and in a World Heritage Site. FOLBC continued its lobbying efforts for conservation of the area. Under its co-management agreement, the renamed Friends of Nature FON assumed control of the regulations on zoning and the behaviour of users.
FON is authorized to police within the management zones. FON appointed an advisory committee composed of people from the local villages in the area to assist in formulating policy on management. FON conducts environmental education programmes and maintains consultations with users of the national park and community members. CERD first asked the permission of barangay village officials to conduct a study in some portions of Pagapas Bay.
Their staff stayed in the community for almost 8 months. Subsequently the research results were presented to community members in a bay-wide consultation. Farmers, fishers, teachers, students and local politicians attended the consultation. The various stakeholders agreed that illegal fishing was the main cause of poverty in Pagaspas Bay and they agreed to work together to solve this problem.
CERD staff trained some young people in the community and formed a drama group. These young people led other community members in requesting the local government to declare Pagaspas Bay as a marine reserve.
Recognizing the strong commitment of the people to protect the bay, the local government eventually decided to declare Pagaspas Bay and the entire municipal waters of Calatagan as a 'marine reserve and in the state of rehabilitation'. The next steps led to the formation of several fisher organizations along the bay.
These steps were:. Selecting potential fisher leaders in the community that served as the core group;. The community organizers of CERD and the local leaders explained the benefits of organizing and invited interested people to attend a founding congress of a proposed fisherfolk organization;.
Education and environmental awareness activities were held, e. To expand organizing work and at the same time localize decision-making processes, barangay organizations of fishers were formed and became part of the municipal-wide SAMMACA.
In the case of a programme which begins externally to the community, there may or may not be early consultation and collaboration with the community in designing and preparing for the programme. In many externally initiated programmes, the details of the programme objectives, intervention approach co-management and the specific areas of the programme are decided in the design phase away from the community. For example, an NGO might specialize in co-management and have the resources to undertake a co-management programme in a community.
The NGO would then conduct a community scoping activity e. Once a programme community or area is identified, it is recommended that community members be consulted and allowed to participate as early in the programme life as possible in order to obtain their input, support and 'buy-in'. Although the project idea may not originate with the community,.
Prior to the promulgation of the Marine Living Resources Act in , mussel harvest was controlled by a licence and bag-limit system and by specification of implement type. Traditional methods and quantities of mussel harvesting by subsistence gatherers were illegal under the legislation and were prevented by active law enforcement by the provincial conservation authority, the Natal Parks Board NPB.
Large-scale illegal harvesting of mussels by subsistence gatherers occurred at night along the coast, and conflict existed between subsistence gatherers and licensed recreational gatherers, and with the authorities.
Violent clashes erupted between the Sokhulu community and gatherers and the NPB. The management staff felt that this situation could not persist and that the Sokhulu community should be approached in an attempt to try to find a solution. With outside funding, the NPD staff met with the local chief and an agreement was made to assemble all gatherers to discuss the matter. The meeting was well attended and an open and frank discussion was held on the problem. Despite some wariness on the part of the gatherers, they agreed to form a joint committee with the NPB staff to share information and generate an understanding between staff and the Sokhulu gatherers.
The first few meetings were facilitated by an independent person, but once the initial mistrust and conflict was overcome, external facilitation was not necessary. Agreements were made to develop a sustainable harvesting system and to increase the capability of members of the fishing community to participate in management decisions.
Decision-making within the subsistence zone is a joint endeavour, with the gatherers involved in decisions about the quota and in setting collecting rules. If the programme objectives and strategies are kept relatively general at this early stage, community members can be given an opportunity to provide input into further programme design and planning and gain a sense of ownership of the project.
Programme sustainability has been shown to improve when community members are given the opportunity to participate early in the programme design and planning stages and have an incentive to want to participate Pollnac et al.
Once a community is identified, an externally initiated programme may assist community members in problem identification, consensus building, accessing information and initial action planning. In some cases, an externally initiated programme, due to funding or donor demands, may immediately initiate implementation activities such as community organizer integration or education and capacity building Box 5.
Biological studies suggested that fish stocks, such as the commercially important cichlid Oreochromis spp.
0コメント